Sitting of 13 February 1967

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ELECTION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC PLANNING COUNCILS
10.4 a.m.
Mr. John Pardoe: I beg to move:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the election of all members of Regional Economic Planning Councils; and for connected purposes.
This Bill is about democracy—a cause which we all support with our words but constantly mock by our actions. I am a democrat because I believe democracy is the best way of organising and governing society; and because it is the only system of government which truly encourages the development of human personality. As a Liberal, I believe that choice is an instrument of personality and therefore I wish people to have the widest possible choice, and to use it as fully as possible.
In political terms, this means involving all the people as closely as possible in the decision-making process of government. The further we remove these decisions from the people, the more we inhibit the development of human per
2
sonality. Democracy is not a static thing. It must continually develop and we must be always on our guard against encroachment on it.
Nowhere is democracy more threatened in Britain today than in local government, which is fighting for its life. Local initiative is stifled; the trend to national uniformity is gaining ground; central government's desire to control everything is rapacious. As more and more power passes from local government to Whitehall, local apathy sets in. More than half of all county council seats and nearly three-quarters of all rural district seats remain uncontested, and fewer than half the electors even bother to vote in local elections.
As local government appears to be debating more and more about less and less, men and women who could provide first-class local leadership cease to bother. As local government loses more and more of its functions, it is replaced by ad hoc boards appointed by Whitehall. We have the Regional Economic Planning Councils, the Regional Road Construction Units, the Regional Transport Authorities and many others. These bodies do not derive their authority from the people whom their decisions will affect. Grass roots democracy has become a "demockery" and in its place we have "ad hocracy".
This Bill is an attempt to stop the process before it is too late. The Government have introduced machinery for regional economic planning, but this has nothing whatever to do with democracy.

3
It merely extends the frontiers of central government to the regions. How are the members of these councils chosen? What criteria is used? We have been told that "they will be appointed as individuals and not as delegates or representatives of particular interests". We have been told too that "special attention will be given to those areas in each region which have particular economic problems". But the membership of the South-West Regional Economic Planning Council makes nonsense of all this.
Bristol, with a population of 430,000 people, has nine members; Cornwall, with a population of 350,000, has only two. It takes 175,000 Cornishmen to secure a seat on this council but only 48,000 Bristolians. Although I am aware that one Cornishman is equal to three-and-a-half Bristolians any day of the week, nevertheless this makes a mockery of any pretensions the Council has to represent the people of the South-West Region as a whole.
So why not elect them? It is extraordinary that, in a country which calls itself a democracy, this question should have to be answered. Surely it is for those who believe that they should not be elected to say why. Why should a process which is right for the selection of Members of Parliament and, indeed, leaders of political parties, be wrong for the selection of members of these councils?
I believe passionately that democracy is still the best and most efficient sway of organising any branch of government. It is true that in a democracy the votes of the dunderheads and the scoundrels count: but then, in any other system,
4
they generally run the show. The trouble with government by appointment is that those appointed soon forget they are appointed and think themselves anointed. I believe that my Bill will help to strengthen democracy and local government in Britain.
I want people in the regions to be able to make their own decisions and choose their own leaders. I want local government to have far more powers than it now has. Local government should not just be an agency for the central Government. It should take back much of what now festers and stagnates in the pigeon-holes of Whitehall. My aim is to replace centralised bureaucracy by democratic federalism. The Liberal aim is to add one phrase to Lincoln's classic definition of democratic government—
"… government of the people, by the people, for the people …"
Yes, and "government near the people".
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pardoe, Mr. Thorpe, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Lubbock, Mr. Bessell, Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Hooson, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Richard Wainwright, and Dr. Winstanley.

ELECTION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC PLANNING COUNCILS
Bill to provide for the election of all members of Regional Economic Planning Councils; and for connected purposes, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th May and to be printed. [Bill 183.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PLANT HEALTH BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  10.12 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I shall put the Solicitor-General's mind at rest at once. I have no opposition at this stage to this short Consolidation Measure but I wish to give warning that, at the next stage of the Bill, I shall take the opportunity to propose such Amendments as the rules of order allow perhaps to make the Bill a little clearer in its definition of the existing law. It is a Bill merely to consolidate and as such does not amend the existing law in any way or make even the minor corrections that might be allowed, but I am not sure that it expresses the existing law in the very best way. But that is a different point and I will not press it now.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Whitlock.]
  Committee tomorrow.

FORESTRY BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.14 a.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I rise briefly to call the attention of the House to three matters. First, it will be observed that we are in the somewhat unusual position of having two Reports from the Joint Committee. We had the Third Report and then we had the Special Report. This Bill is, of course, a consolidation Measure which embodies certain Amendments which were proposed in a memorandum from the Lord Chancellor.
After it had considered the Bill and the Amendments, the Joint Committee reported that this was pure consolidation and represented the existing law and it considered that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should
6
be drawn. It took the view that, as it had already amended the earlier Acts by the procedure under the 1949 Act, this was pure consolidation.
That view was challenged in the Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who thought that there should be a reference to the corrections and minor Amendments which had been embodied in this Measure. His view was not shared by the rest of the Committee, who decided against it. Later on, the matter was reconsidered and it was concluded that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right and so we had the Special Report, which reads:
"Your Committee are of the opinion that the Bill as amended consolidates the existing law with such corrections and minor improvements as can properly be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act. 1949. They consider that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn."
This is the first time that this point has arisen and therefore I thought that I should bring it to the attention of the House. We should also express our indebtedness to the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South for the vigilance he has shown in this matter.
The second matter to which I should refer is the question of byelaws. The position is that, under the Statutory Instruments Act, two procedures are laid down for dealing with Statutory Instruments. There is the negative procedure under Section 5, whereby when an Instrument is laid it comes immediately into effect. Of course, it can be annulled by a vote of either House within a certain period of time. Then there is the other procedure under Section 6, whereby an Instrument is laid in draft and lies on the Table for a certain period during which the matter can be debated and the Instrument can he disapproved by either House. But, of course, the Instrument does not come into force until after the time has elapsed.
But under the existing law we have a somewhat anomalous provision. Section 2 (2) of the Forestry Act, 1927, which provides for the laying of byelaw's, states that before it comes into operation
"…a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament … and if either House, before the expiration of that period, presents an Address … praying that it shall be

7
annulled, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon …"
One has this unique provision that, although the draft is laid and lies before Parliament in the ordinary way, it will already have come into effect. The Committee dealt specifically with this point and now we are to have the normal procedures under which a byelaw will be laid in draft and will not come into force until the normal number of days has elapsed.
The only other point to which I should draw the attention of the House at this stage is that, in Committee, I shall have to invite the House to accept one or two Amendments as a result of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order, which was passed with enthusiasm from both sides of the House last week. It will be necessary to move certain Amendments to show which Ministers are responsible for which particular functions. I do not think I need trouble the House at this stage with details of the Amendments.
10.19 a.m.
Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I gather that it is not in order to say very much on this occasion, but it is not often that we have before the House legislation governing forestry. I believe that it would be in order to query whether it is wise to perpetuate in a Consolidation Measure certain things which are clearly out of date in the old Forestry Acts.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We can debate whether the items the hon. Gentleman refers to should be consolidated in this Measure, but we cannot debate whether they should be perpetuated.
Mr. Digby: I was going on to argue that it was premature to consolidate certain of the items governing the Forestry Commission which were already out of date and that it would have been preferable to amend them first and get the up-to-date concept of the Forestry Commission before we went on to consolidation, useful though consolidation is. As an example I cite Clause 1(3) which refers to the general duty of the Forestry Commission as being to promote "adequate reserves of growing trees". That relates to the old defence concept that
8
wars would last a long time and that one would require a lot of trees in reserve for war-time needs, as we did in the last two wars.
A further example is given in Clause 2 in which is set out a list of the various persons who are eligible to serve on the Commission. As the House well knows, that is a little out of date now owing to the recent Measures of the Government. I do not wish to labour this point too much, but it is a pity that the opportunity was not taken to restate the law regarding the Commission. This has never been completely done. The Commission has now been in operation for 40 years or more, and the general nature of its work is changing from that of being a planting body to that of a body that has timber coming forward much more rapidly to sell.
I do not have much to say about the other three points raised by the Solicitor-General. Although this is a Consolidation Bill, I hope that at a later stage the various improvements in the Bill, to which the Solicitor-General has referred, will be set out. It is not easy for the House to go through a Bill like this and to itemise the improvements one by one, because it can be done only by reference to the various Statutes which are consolidated.
Regarding the special procedure which is being abolished, there is an advantage in bringing it into line with our normal negative procedure. On the other hand, there must have been special reasons why a procedure of this kind was incorporated in the 1927 Act. I should have thought that in a subject like forestry, which does not promote tremendous public interest, there might still have been some advantage in that. Perhaps we can be told why it was decided to jettison that provision.
I do not think the House will quarrel about the Amendment needed because of the dissolution of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. I might say, in passing, without getting out of order, that it is a little disappointing for those who are interested in a minor industry such as this to find it being shot backwards and forwards between one Ministry and another. I hope it will stay with the Ministry of Agriculture now that it has got back there.
10.22 a.m.
Mr. John Brewis: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General will recall that about two years ago there was a very interesting Report of the Estimates Committee on the Forestry Commission. Two things were talked about, one relevant to Clause 2 of the Bill, the composition of the Forestry Commission, and the other to the method of accounting by the Commission, which was found to be somwhat lacking in various respects and did not give enough information.
We are now consolidating the previous laws about forestry into this Consolidation Measure. Am I right in thinking, therefore, that the Bill takes no account whatever of what was suggested in the Estimates Committee's Report? Is it felt that the Report on the composition of the Commission and its methods of accounting will need any future legislation? If it does not lead to future legislation, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) said, it would be very much better if we did not consolidate the forestry laws at the moment, but waited until we could have a new Bill on the subject and then subsequently brought in a Consolidation Measure. I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could answer that point.
10.25 a.m.
Earl of Dalkeith: We are grateful for the brief explanation which the Solicitor-General gave, but I should like to ask why the Government have chosen this point in time to produce this Consolidation Bill. Is there any connection between this timing and possible negotiations for entering into the European Economic Community, because, clearly, a Consolidation Measure like this would be of great help to us in assessing what, in fact, we are allowed to do in the of Government support for this industry in relation to the E.E.C? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can throw a little light on this, and say whether this is perhaps a prelude to the Government's investigation of a levy system to take the place of what we have been used to in the past.
I should also like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he can confirm that this is, in fact, a purely Consoli-
10
dation Measure, because, when I look at Clause 2, which concerns the constitution, administration, etc., of the Commission, I wonder how it is that something which was apparently put into force about a year ago, in the way of changes to the constitution of the Commission, does not appear in the Bill in the way that it was put forward at that time. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can also throw a little light on that point.
Regarding the winding up of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, which move, as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, has received more or less unanimous support, the opportunity should perhaps be taken to study very seriously the possibility of substituting a Ministry of Rural Affairs, which would enable all these matters to be covered.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This does not arise on whether we shall consolidate these Measures or not.
Earl of Dalkeith: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. That brings me to my conclusion.
10.27 a.m.
Mr. Graham Page: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General raised three very important points in connection with this Consolidation Bill. I refer, first, to the Long Title of the Bill, in that it is a Bill to
"… consolidate the Forestry Acts 1919 to 1963 with corrections and improvements. …"
As I understand the procedure, we are obliged to accept the corrections and improvements to the existing law as proposed in the Lord Chancellor's Memorandum to the Joint Committee, and as accepted by the Joint Committee.
It was most important that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) raised a question at the end of die first Report—it appeared at the end of the first Report of the Joint Committee—about the wording of the Committee's Report to the House.
We are precluded from debating a Bill of this sort on its merits. We are precluded from debating the question or the merits of the provisions in the Bill. We are precluded from discussing the Amendments which the Committee is allowed to make according to the procedure under the Act empowering them

11
to do so. Therefore, it is right that the attention of the House should be drawn very definitely, in a Report from the Joint Committee, to the instances where they have authorised and approved Amendments to the existing law; and, indeed, there are one or two important corrections and improvements which they made to the law. I should like to mention them, but I should soon be out of order in doing so.
The procedural point which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South before the Committee, and eventually accepted by the Committee, gives the House the opportunity of appreciating that Amendments have been made to the existing law by the Committee, and that they ought to be studied by hon. Members even if they cannot be debated in the House. It was a most valuable point to make and the House must be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South for raising it.
The second point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put before the House was in connection with the power of the Forestry Commission to make byelaws. The Commission has some extraordinarily strong powers to create law. As can be seen from this Bill and from that to which the House has just given a Second Reading and which refers to Forestry Commission powers, the Commission has power to create law by Orders many of which do not come before the House. Those to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred are byelaws which come before the House and which previously came before the House in a form which was not recognised by the 1946 Act, and it was therefore right in consolidating the law on this subject that it should be brought into line with the 1946 legislation laying down the proper procedure for Statutory Instruments which are subject to Parliamentary approval or disapproval.
My only criticism of this is the way in which this point has been covered by the Bill. I think that I shall be in order in questioning the actual wording of Section 46 (4) which merely states:
"Byelaws under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and a draft of a statutory instrument containing any such byelaws shall he laid before Parliament."
12
It may be that the 1946 legislation dealing with Statutory Instruments implies into a provision so worded that there may be a Prayer for the annulment of such a Statutory Instrument within 40 days of its being laid before the House, but it would have been a better consolidation of the law to have stated the full law in the subsection and to have said that the draft on a Statutory Instrument shall be laid before Parliament and shall not be made into an Order if, within 40 days of its being laid, either House passes a Motion disapproving of the draft. Anyone reading the Bill as it stands with only those three lines in subsection (4) would say that the procedure was not clear, and it ought to be made fully clear.
I am encouraged to make that suggestion for an Amendment at a later stage because the third comment of the hon. and learned Gentleman was to say that he intended to bring forward Amendments to the Bill at a later stage. I have endeavoured on several occasions to amend consolidation Bills, always with utter failure. I have been able to find only one Amendment which was in order and that was to postpone the date of the operation of the Bill. I shall be delighted to find the procedure by which the hon. and learned Gentleman manages to bring before the Committee and to bring in order any Amendments to the Bill.
These Amendments arise, of course, out of the dissolution of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. We have become only too accustomed to the excessive trouble which that Ministry has given to the House, excessive trouble when it was created, all through its career and when it was dissolved.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I need say no more. The hon. Gentleman must return to the Bill.
Mr. Page: It was the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the subject as the reason for the Amendments which he proposes to bring forward. That only shows that it is possible to amend a Consolidation Bill and, secondly, that it is the dissolution of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources which has produced this extraordinary phenomenon of an Amendment to a Consolidation Bill.
The only sort of Amendment which I have succeeded in even tabling to a

13
Consolidation Bill has been one to postpone the operation of the consolidation. This will be an important matter to consider in connection with this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) called attention to the need for reforming the Commission and questioned whether the law should be consolidated at this time before the House had had an opportunity to consider the reconstitution of the Commission and its powers.
There is a powerful argument for this. Before consolidation of the law relating to the Commission, the House ought to have had the opportunity of considering the law and the powers and the administration of the Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) mentioned suggestions by the Estimates Committee strengthening the argument that the composition of the Commission and its form of accounting ought to have been considered before we embarked on a consolidation of the law. I cannot say whether, as my hon. and noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) suggested, there is any ulterior motive behind this, any international reason for introducing consolidation at this time, but perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can set our minds at rest by giving us an assurance that, having got the law into this neat consolidated form, the Government will not pause, but will use that as a springboard for proposing reforms in the composition and constitution of the Forestry Commission.
10.38 a.m.
The Solicitor-General: By leave of the House; we are all inhibited in a debate of this kind and we cannot go into the merits or into the substance of the law. We are all rather struggling against that disadvantage and I have every sympathy with all those hon. Members who have spoken.
I can tell the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) that although this is a Consolidation Measure, that does not mean that it is the last word. Obviously, I am not in a position this morning to hold out hopes of future legislation in the near future. However—the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will recall that we have had this issue raised before—the fact that
14
we are consolidating the law as it exists does not mean there is to be no more reform of the law for a long time. Indeed, if we are to deal with reform of the law affecting this subject, it may be convenient if we put the existing law in this consolidated form.
Because this is a Consolidation Bill, some of the changes which hon. Members have mentioned cannot be made in this Bill. For example, the hon. Member for Dorset, West referred to Clause 1(3) which provides:
"The Commissioners' general duty includes that of promoting the establishment and maintenance in Great Britain of adequate reserves of growing trees."
He pointed out, quite correctly, that that has an historical reason going back a very long way.
It may or may not be outdated, but there is a substantive provision of the law. To have excluded it would have made a very considerable change of the law, and would have been outside the functions of the Joint Committee, which is concerned simply with consolidation and minor corrections and Amendments. I have to give the same reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who raised certain considerations, which had been brought to the attention of the House, I think that he said two years ago, by the Estimates Committee. Those considerations must await future legislation, as they are not matters which could have been dealt with by this Committee within its somewhat limited functions. I must give the same reply to the hon. Member—
Mr. Brewis: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is missing the point that these reforms have been put into practice, but the law has not yet been changed.
The Solicitor-General: It may be. I do not know precisely what measures the hon. Gentleman has in mind and I have not got the Report of the Estimates Committee before me, but if they involved any considerable change from existing statute law, they would have been outside the purview of the Joint Committee, which is limited to the functions I have mentioned.
The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh. North (Earl of Dalkeith) went on to ask whether this Measure represented pure consolidation, or consolidation with

15
minor corrections and Amendments. We must take that from the Committee. It has examined these matters with great particularity and has reported that the Bill consolidates the existing law with corrections and minor improvements. We cannot go behind the Committee's findings on that matter.
I return to the observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby. We always look forward to his interventions on these occasions. He referred particularly to Section 46 and to byelaws, pointing out that it is not specifically provided that these byelaws can be annulled by Parliament. I would advise him that that is covered by Section 6 of the 1946 Act, which contemplates legislation of this kind. The point is therefore met, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to put down an Amendment I will certainly consider it.
Mr. Graham Page: I quite appreciate that if one reads the 1946 Act with this Section it has that effect, but it has been the practice in recent legislation to spell it out in full in the empowering Clause.
The Solicitor-General: I quite see the hon. Gentleman's point, and I should like to have the opportunity of considering it. Although I am making no promises, I am not ruling out an Amendment at a later stage. The hon. Gentleman should never be discouraged in these matters. I am sure that he never will be and I am sure that, for many years ahead, at any rate during the lifetime of the present Parliament, we shall have a series of Amendments or attempted Amendments to Consolidation Measures coming from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby, and we look forward to those occasions.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Whitlock.]
Committee Tomorrow.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(RAISING OF LIMITS ON GUARANTEES, ETC.)
10.45 a.m.
Mr. John Nott: I beg to move in page 1, line 12, at the end to insert:
Provided that, for the purpose of encouraging trade with places outside the United Kingdom, nothing in this section shall prevent part thereof being applied to the provision of guarantees up to two years before the shipment of goods overseas.
In moving the Amendment I am conscious of the fact that pre-shipment cover for goods in the process of manufacture is available in a wide majority of cases—it may well be in all cases. In going through the different types of policy involved, I should like the Minister to clarify my own mind, and that of the Committee on a particular grey area which I believe exists.
In the case of a comprehensive guarantee based upon the turnover of an exporting company, E.C.G.D. certainly makes available a policy either from the date of contract or from the time of shipment of the goods. Likewise in the case of two types of specific guarantee, namely, the ordinary policy and the financial guarantee, E.C.G.D., either directly or indirectly, makes cover available. In the first case, that of the ordinary policy, the policy may be made available, on signature of contract and then can be assigned or hypothecated to the bank so that the bank can provide financial cover for work in progress. Similarly, in the case of the financial guarantee granted to the overseas buyer and not to the exporter in this country—the overseas buyer may decide to make payments for work in progress, and again the E.C.G.D. financial guarantee will be indirectly available as cover.
In clarifying this position, I am indebted to the members of E.C.G.D. and to the Minister, who gave me permission to speak to them. It was a matter of some amusement to me that as a member of a business firm I am able to ring up the E.C.G.D. and seek information

17
on any matter that I desire in my own business, and I do so often. But I found to my horror that as a Member of Parliament—and I can understand this—I have to go through the Minister in order to speak to E.C.G.D. I can understand the reasons for this, but it is rather surprising that a Member of Parliament finds it more difficult to elicit facts than the ordinary businessman. The purpose of my Amendment—
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting him, but may I point out that there are no Labour back-benchers in the House to hear this important speech by my hon. Friend?
The Chairman: This is not a point of order.
Mr. Lewis: I am sorry Sir, but if I were able to call a Count, this would have some effect. This is Government business, and there is no one here.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is not raising a valid point of order.
Mr. Lewis: What do we do? This is Government business.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member cannot interrupt the speech being made by an hon. Member in order to raise a bogus point of order.
Mr. Lewis: May I raise later this point of order about there being no Labour Members present?
The Chairman: It is not a point of order.
Mr. Nott: Although it may be out of order, I will try to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) by working it in during the course of my speech, also deploring the fact that there are no hon. Members on the Government back benches to listen to this most important matter.
The purpose of my Amendment is to draw out the Minister in the case of the banker's policy, which is the third type of specific cover with which we are involved. Here the E.C.G.D. policy is made available directly to the banks putting up the money. It involves no hypo-
18
thecation of the policy as in the case of the ordinary policy, nor is it granted to the overseas buyer, as in the case of the financial guarantee. The banker's policy becomes available only at the point of acceptance of the goods and it cannot be made available at the time of signature of the contract.
May I give an example of what I have in mind? Take a small or medium-sized company, manufacturing a new type of equipment. It is a leader in export markets, as many such small companies are. Its very success has led to a rapid development of sales in export markets. Indeed, to a conservative banker—with a small "c"—or to the Treasury, this company may be guilty of the deadly sin of over-trading. Nevertheless, there are many small or medium-sized companies which invent new processes, go out abroad to sell them and require all the backing that they can be given. Many of the new processes which have been invented have been introduced by small or medium-sized companies without a great deal of financial strength behind them.
Let us say that this small company obtains a £3 million export order in Brazil and that it requires credit for a term of five years. In such a case, the banker's policy would be the type of specific policy which would normally be issued and I have no doubt that this policy would be made available at the time of shipment of the goods. There is no doubt about that. Although the policy comes into effect at the point of shipment, however, it does not come into effect at the time of acceptance of the goods. In this respect it is different from the comprehensive guarantees.
Therefore, if this small or medium-sized company applies to its hank to increase its overdraft limits to finance work in progress, the bank may say, "We are not prepared to increase your overdraft. You do not have the financial strength to bear it". For this reason, this small or medium-sized company, which has a new process and which has already obtained a contract in export markets, cannot get its finance. The bank may well say to the company, "We would be prepared to grant you increased overdraft facilities on the security of your overseas contract, but we wish to be covered against exchange and political risks during the time that

19
the equipment is undergoing the process of manufacture".
We therefore have the situation that in the case of the banker's policy, cover comes into effect only on acceptance of the goods. Acceptance of the goods may be obtained half-way through the process of manufacture. From experience, I know that a small company may start manufacturing a piece of equipment and find that the goods are not accepted by the overseas buyer until a few weeks or months, or even a year, has passed after the process of manufacturing has begun.
The argument against granting a banker's policy in this case is principally that it is not the job of the Export Credits Guarantee Department to cover work in progress, that a company may be over-trading and that if it is not over-trading it can get the finance from its bank. Many small companies may be technically over-trading. Where they actually have an export contract, however, it is necessary for the Government to do all in their power to help the company to finance a contract which it has already obtained.
I will summarise, for the Minister's benefit, the narrow point which I am making, so that there is no mistake. I am referring to the case of a banker's policy only. A banker's policy comes into effect, I understand, only when the goods are actually accepted and not when the contract is signed, as in the case of comprehensive guarantees, as in the case of a financial guarantee, as in the case of an ordinary specific policy. It may be that under Clause 1 the E.C.G.D. now has power to give a banker's policy at the time when the contract is signed. In practice, however, the Department gives a banker's policy not at the time of signature of the contract, but only on acceptance of the goods. It may be that the E.C.G.D. gives an ordinary policy until the banker's policy comes into effect. It may be that an ordinary policy is available during the early processes of manufacture and that the banker's policy comes in later.
However, if this is the case, surely that is a rather confused way of carrying out the business. Would it not be better if the banker's policy came into effect at the time of signature of the contract in the
20
same way that other policies do? I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Sir Eric? Can you tell me whether, under the Sessional Order under which these morning sittings are held, it is possible to adjourn the House for a while to allow the Government Whip to go round to get in sufficient hon. Members to make their support of these Government Measures, against which it would normally be possible to call a Count, look respectable?
The Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member is really raising any point of order.
Mr. John Biffen: Further to that point of order. I suggest with respect, Sir Eric, that my hon. Friend has raised a perfectly valid point in asking whether the Sessional Order governing morning sittings provides for a limited suspension of business. Cart you kindly give us guidance about this?
The Chairman: On that point, it is open to any hon. Member to move that any particular debate be adjourned.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I would so move, Sir Eric. There is inadequate support on the Government side and I move that the Chairman do report Progress, so that we may get some, even limited, enthusiastic support from the back benches opposite to support the Government, since this is Government business. I so move.
The Chairman: I am not prepared to accept such a Motion.
Mr. Lewis: May I ask your reasons, Sir Eric, why you would not accept this Motion and on what grounds you would accept such a Motion?
The Chairman: It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair to decide whether any dilatory Motion should be accepted at any time.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): This is a very technical discussion in which very few hon. Members have expressed an interest. These Amendments were put down on Friday afternoon and I gave undertakings that I would deal with them in the way they had been put down.

21
The Amendment is unnecessary for the reason, given by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), that the principal Act gives authority to the Export Credits Guarantee Department to provide for credit cover from the time of the signing of the contract, in cases where this is appropriate, as well as cover from the shipment of the goods. In most cases an exporter can choose whichever form of cover he wants, whether from the time of signing of the contract, which in many cases, as the hon. Member has said, would he long before shipment of the goods, or from the time of shipment of the goods.
There are exceptions to the choice. Obviously, cover would not he given for perishable goods to be shipped some time in the future or for mass-produced goods the model of which will not change and where, obviously, it would be to the disadvantage of the exporter to have that kind of expensive cover extending over a period of time. Generally speaking, however, with minor exceptions of that kind, the exporter can choose which cover he wants. The Amendment suggests that the period should be a guarantee of up to two years before shipment of goods. In the principal Act, there is no time limit. It depends upon the nature of the contract.
The hon. Member for St. Ives, having carefully explained to me and to the House how the present system works and having commended it, then asked me a very technical question—I am not in the business, as the hon. Member is—concerning the special position of a banker's policy and whether this, too, could cover the contract period instead of being, as the hon. Member thinks, confined at present to the shipment of the goods.
11.0 a.m.
The note which I have says that, in practice, the Department's policies help exporters to raise some pre-shipment finance in the two ways that he has mentioned: by hypothecation, as collateral security for overdrafts, or under financial guarantees of credit, to the extent that the exporter can persuade the buyer to draw on the credit for the progress payments.
The extent to which cover should he provided for progress payments is a rather difficult issue, particularly for small
22
firms which may be in danger of over-trading. Such a firm may have signed a nice contract, and it looks as if it will be a prosperous thing for a relatively small firm. If it is trying to get a banker's order operating, there may be a danger of over-trading. Naturally, the Department has to look carefully at that kind of arrangement.
The only thing which I can do, on the special question which the hon. Gentleman has raised, is to go into it with the Department. If there is any evidence of weakness in the Department's operations on this point, with the help of evidence which may be provided to us, we will see what we can do to get rid of it.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the policy of the Department to provide, on good commercial grounds, the best cover which can be made available, particularly matching the credit arrangements which may be made by competitive countries. We will do everything possible, still within the terms of good but flexible commercial policy, to make sure that no weaknesses remain in our operations. I will see whether that one point which the hon. Genleman has raised can be covered in that way.
I repeat that the Amendment is unnecessary, because these powers for the Department are already in the main Act.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I wish to make one brief point which may be regarded as a point of order, and then reinforce what my hon. Friend has said.
The Minister of State said that the Amendment which we are discussing was not put down until Friday. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) pointed out, we are still considerably in the dark as to how morning sittings work. Am I wrong in supposing that if the Amendment was put down on Friday it would be "starred"?
Mr. Darling: I am sorry; it was starred on Friday.
The Chairman: As I recall, these Amendments were put down on Thursday and appeared on Friday's Order Paper. Therefore, they were not starred.
Mr. Higgins: In that event, they were put down a considerable time ago, and

23
we are prepared to accept that the Minister of State made a slip of the tongue. They were starred on Friday but put down before, and therefore they are not starred now. In that case, it is not unreasonable to discuss them on this occasion.
The point which I wish to make, in reinforcing what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) said is that, while this is a technical matter, none the less he makes a point of principle which is that it may be that a firm which has obtained an export order is having difficulty in financing it. It may be that it is a new firm and that it is a very important order to it. It may find that it undertakes to fulfil the order, puts work in progress, and then the country from which the order has come imposes restrictions on balance of payments grounds on remittances from that country to this. It may be that a firm, showing enormous initiative, going for export markets and doing everything it can to help the export drive, will find itself in a position where its financial structure is jeopardised and it might even go bankrupt because of government action taken by another country to which it is selling goods.
Therefore, while we accept that the Minister may not want to go into the technicalities, may I ask him if that, in principle, is something which ought to be covered?
Mr. Darling: If I may reply to that question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not part of E.C.G.D.'s responsibility to provide finance for the production of goods in the general run of commercial and industrial activities. There are other sources of finance and help for that purpose.
There can be the case which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, where a firm may have got the ordinary financial support which it needs for the production of goods in this country to meet an export order, and then, through no commercial fault of anyone, because there is a lack of foreign exchange or whatever it may be, the order collapses, and the effect goes right back down the line. The firm has to pay for the finance that was raised for the purpose of the production goods. It cannot sell goods, and the
24
order has collapsed. In that very exceptional circumstance, I can see the hon. Gentleman's point very clearly, and I give him the assurance that he asks for.
Mr. Nott: Having heard that reply and the Minister's assurance that he will look into this technical point, I would be happy to withdraw the Amendment. However, when he mentions the point about over-trading, I emphasise to him that no one suggests that E.C.G.D. should actually finance work in progress. Where work in progress is going on, purely insurance cover should be provided in case political or exchange reasons in the overseas country make the contract null and void. That is the specific point with which we are dealing.
As for the point about over-trading, the Minister must be aware that a vast number of commercial activities are carried on here on the basis of the covenant which a firm contract provides. Very little property development would ever take place if the property companies themselves had to finance on their own credit the erection of a property. Most financing of business takes place on the security of a contract. That is the point with which we are dealing here. If a contract cannot always be lodged as security for an overdraft to finance work in progress because of political or exchange risks from other countries, the E.C.G.D.—and I can understand that this is of total disinterest to any hon. Members opposite—
Mr. David Webster: How can my hon. Friend know that if none of them is here?
Mr. Nott: As my hon. Friend says, it is impossible to tell. Although exports are always talked about by hon. Members opposite, when it comes to considering the technicalities of exporting, they prefer not to come into the Chamber. However, on the Minister's assurance that he will look at this point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Nott: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the end to insert:
Provided that, for the purpose of encouraging trade with places outside the United Kingdom, part thereof may be applied in guaranteeing moneys invested in industrial and commercial undertakings overseas.

25
This Amendment is very much less technical than the previous one, and I should have thought that there would have been a great number of hon. Gentlement opposite wishing to take part in this important debate. It concerns the whole question of overseas aid and whether some means can be found of providing cover for the investment of monies from the private sector into commercial and industrial companies overseas. This is a matter upon which there have been many debates in the past, and I have put down this Amendment purely as a probing Amendment so that we may have an opportunity of discussing it in Committee.
I am aware that it conflicts directly with current Government policy, which is designed to restrict the investment of private capital overseas. However, the so-called voluntary programme on overseas investment in the sterling area has been described by the Government as a temporary one. I am not seeking here to increase the total volume of overseas investment in aid. Rather, I am trying to make it slightly more flexible.
May I say at the outset that I do not want to encourage a large expansion of tied aid, because the United Kingdom's long-term interests call for the encouragement of multilateral trade. Nevertheless, when one looks at our export performance over the last decade and compares its growth with that of America, it is, I think, instructive to examine where our system of export credit differs from that of the Americans, because American exports amount to about 4 per cent. of their output, whereas in our case the figure is over 20 per cent. In one case the percentage is purely marginal. Although the Americans are running a large deficit on their balance of payments, it is purely on capital account, whereas in our case 20 per cent. or more of our output goes in exports, and this is crucial to the future of this country.
I believe that our system of export insurance is as good as any in the world. It has its critics, and its detractors, and no doubt when we discuss the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and also my hon. Friend's Amendment, we shall hear certain criticisms of the way in which the Act is being administered, but, taken all in all, I believe that our system is one of the best in
26
the world, and I would not seek to criticise the basic principles on which it operates.
The members of the Export Credits Guarantee Department are always helpful and flexible. I wish that I could say the same for the Board of Trade, because if all the Departments of the Board of Trade operated on as reasonable a basis as the E.C.G.D., a whole host of matters which they administer could be much improved.
There are two basic differences between the American system and ours. In the first place, the American Export Import Bank actually finances exports as well as insures them. More than 10 per cent. of U.S. exports are financed by Government money, whereas in our case only about 2 per cent. are financed by Government money. But I do not think that this is an important point, because I do not know of any exports where, following the issue of an export credit guarantee, money has not been found to finance that export. That is one difference—the export import bank actually puts up the money.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) sitting on the bench opposite. It shows that at least our side of the House is interested in this very important issue.
Mr. Webster: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is now the hon. Gentleman, but I now have a splendid view of him, and I wish that hon. Members from this side of the House were here to hear his wonderful speech.
Mr. Nott: I make no pretentions about my speech being a wonderful one, nor would I necessarily encourage my hon. Friend to sit on the benches opposite with the object of looking at me. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for the encouragement he is giving me in putting this important point to the Committee.
Secondly, and this is where I come to the real reason behind the Amendment—I want to draw the Minister's attention to the Agency for International Development,—A.I.D. as it is known—because it provides a comprehensive system of investment guarantees in the United States. First, it provides a specific political risk guarantee which may be granted to United States companies

27
operating overseas. It enables the investor in the United States to invest money in these United States companies, and at the same time to be covered against inconvertibility or expropriation of his investments. This means that the United States citizen can receive an insurance guarantee to cover the investment of cash, materials, equipment, patents, and all services, in companies overseas. Secondly, there is an extended risk general guarantee, whereby it is possible for a guarantee to be given by A.I.D. to help the development of small independent business enterprises overseas.
At the moment there are many question marks overhanging our aid programme. First, there is the whole question of whether the increase in Government expenditure has grown far too rapidly, in which case I suggest there are some arguments for enabling the private sector to invest money overseas by encouraging them to do so through the receipt of a guarantee against exchange or political risks. If this were done, it would be possible to reduce somewhat Government overseas aid and replace it by aid flowing out of the private sector of the economy under the guarantee of the E.C.G.D., or the Ministry of Overseas Development. This has some bearing on the whole question of Government expenditure and the need for this country to draw savings out of the private sector to replace expenditure which is now coming from the public sector.
11. 15 a.m.
The other point which I should like to make about our overseas aid is that, because this is Government to Government aid, a great deal of it never finds it way through into the pockets of the people of the country concerned. It is salted away in Swiss bank accounts in the case of certain countries overseas, and in many cases it does not benefit the private sector of the countries which we are trying to help.
In conclusion, I suggest first that if the E.C.G.D. or the Ministry of Overseas Development could, in practice, give some kind of investment guarantee, in the way that A.I.D. does in the United States, it would help in reducing the burden of Government aid. I am not referring to the immediate present. I know that our
28
balance of payments problem precludes this at the moment, but it is something to look at in the future.
Secondly, it would draw money out of the private sector into overseas aid, which will now not flow out because of the political and exchange risks concerned. Thirdly, it could bring back to this country a high return in dividends and interest. Many companies overseas are providing a high return and this could bring back much in terms of interest and dividends.
Fourthly, and perhaps most important of all, these companies would, to a large extent, provide a captive market for the export of British goods. This is where the A.I.D. has played such an important part in the United States. It has guaranteed about £500 million worth of overseas investment, and these companies, supported by A.I.D., provide a captive market for American exports. This is something at which we should aim.
If some form of investment guarantee could be incorporated in either Section 1 or Section 2 of the Act, or, alternatively, if the Ministry of Overseas Development could consider some development in this way, I think that it would be constructive. I would, however, prefer such a system to be administered by the E.C.G.D., rather than by the Ministry of Overseas Development, because it has a mass of commercial detail already at its disposal, and it is able to assess commercial risks in oversea countries. It is for this reason that I have tabled the Amendment.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) on joining us in this discussion. We have been debating these Amendments for some time, and it is most encouraging to see that a Government back bencher has taken the trouble to join us.
Mr. Biffen: I am moved to make a brief intervention by the eloquence and force of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I suppose we are all labouring under the disability of imagining that most of the legislation which would be discussed during morning sittings would be non-controversial and largely technical, yet the Amendment is designed to draw out one of the major divisions in this House between the parties concerning the

29
relationship between this country and developing countries. Whereas hon. Members opposite lay great stress upon Government-to-Government overseas aid—the transfer of resources from one set of politicians to another—my hon. Friends and I have always argued the virtues of a free flow of capital resources between this country and developing countries, based primarily upon economic criteria. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide for Government encouragement for the flow of private capital. The Amendment is therefore of major significance, and I hope that the Minister of State, notwithstanding his Socialist principles, will be able to accept it.
Apparently it is still Government policy to discourage the outflow of investment, to the extent that the Prime Minister, in his speech in Swansea a few days ago, again said, almost as a matter of pride, that the Government had succeeded in restraining the outflow of private capital from this country. Yet all commercial history speaks to us of our success as an exporting nation based primarily upon the establishment of United Kingdom overseas companies. I have to make this argument in anticipation of the findings of the inquiry set up by the C.B.I., now being conducted by Professor Reddaway, but I have been in correspondence with Professor Charles Wilson, Regius Professor of History at Cambridge University and a distinguished economic historian, and he has argued that we would never have had success, especially with companies like Unilever's, as major international trading companies which lend great character to the export performance of this country, had they not been able to set up overseas industrial bases.
We have only to look at the dangers that exist in respect of British capital overseas today—during the last few days Tanzania has expropriated private capital—to realise that there are enough hazards for British capital overseas without the prejudice of the British Government. It is the prejudice of the British Government, so clearly underlined in the provisions of the 1965 Finance Act, which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives seeks to neutralise to some degree in the Amendment. It would be at least a sort of Monday morning present, to compensate for the almost total indifference and absence of Labour back benchers, if the
30
Minister of State were to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Darling: It has been a quite interesting though short debate. I will not say that I am out of sympathy with many of the arguments put forward, but the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) is asking for a fundamental change in Government policy which has continued over the years. No post-war Government has adopted a policy of providing guarantees for overseas investments.
Whether the policy should be changed is a matter for debate. I would not question the need for such a debate. This is a very important issue, and I agree with the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that it is especially important when political disturbances throughout the world may affect overseas investments—whether from private or Government sources—which have been made not only to help developing countries but to assist our economy. There is always a great deal of self-interest in this kind of activity. I do not question the need for a debate, but it is hardly appropriate to attempt to make this major change in Government policy by way of an Amendment to an amending Bill.
Mr. Nott: Is it not true that Section 3 of the 1949 Act, which is now administered by the Ministry of Overseas Development, is very much concerned with overseas aid, and that if the Minister is implying that this point is outside the scope of the 1949 Act he is being a little harsh?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Member has not understood what I have been saying. I said that we cannot make this change in policy by amending an amending Bill. I was going to come on to the amending Bill, which says nothing about Section 3 of the 1949 Act. That Section deals with Government aid and investment overseas—usually Government-to-Government by way of loans, and so on—but because its activities have now been transferred to the Ministry of Overseas Development there is no reference to Section 3 in the Bill.
We have had some discussion about the United States practice. We know that the United States provides investment guarantees for United States investment overseas. This has long been established United States policy. Whether there is

31
anything on those lines which could be useful to us is a matter that we can examine. But even if it were decided that Government guarantees for overseas investment should be introduced it would still be entirely separate from E.C.G.D.'s commercial responsibilities.
Something more is involved than providing commercial insurance for export finance. The Government must be very much involved even if they are covering what the hon. Member for Oswestry wants—a great deal more private investment overseas—because much of this is not commercial cover; it has to be special cover. Sometimes we do not know whether investment from this country will ever be paid back, let alone whether a period of repayment can reasonably be laid down. There are all kinds of qualifications, and risk-taking activities would have to come in. If we had discussions about the need to insure British investment overseas, in my view we would have to arrange it quite distinct from E.C.G.D.'s ordinary commercial activities.
Mr. Nott: The Minister talks about the difficulty of knowing whether or not investment will ever be paid for. Does he nevertheless agree that the Treasury has recently tried to lay down rules by by saying that any future investment is supposed to pay for itself in the most extraordinary time scale of three years?
Mr. Darling: I shall not argue about the Treasury's time scale. The hon. Member's intervention gives me my point—that this matter must be arranged outside the ordinary commercial activities of E.C.G.D.
During the course of his most interesting observations the hon. Member for St. Ives went further than the question of ordinary investment overseas; he talked about services provided overseas, such as consultancy services. These can be covered by E.C.G.D. as it is.
Mr. Nott: The Minister has misunderstood what I was saying. I was only saying that A.I.D. in the United States, when providing investment guarantees, does not insist that it should cover only the investment of cash. It says that it can also cover the investment of services in respect of a United States company operating overseas.
Mr. Darling: There seems to be some confusion about this. I did not misunderstand what the hon. Gentleman said. I was pointing out that if one is to have the two separated, services from investment, those services can in many cases be covered by the ordinary E.C.G.D. arrangements.
As I pointed out, since this is not the Measure in which to make a change of this kind—an Amendment of Section 2 or 3 of the parent Act would probably be more appropriate for a change of this kind—and since acceptance of the Amendment would mean a complete and fundamental change in Government policy, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment, but not to give up probing and questioning Government policy on this issue.
11.30 a.m.
Mr. Higgins: Before commenting on the Amendment, I must draw the attention of the Government to the fact that we are considering an important Bill in a Committee of the whole House. It would seem that if this occurs during morning sittings it will not be possible for the Opposition to obtain a Count or Government quorum. In Standing Committee it would have been possible for my hon. Friends to have ensured that an adequate number of Labour hon. Members were present to hear this important discussion. We therefore appear to be varying our normal procedure, and I hope that that is being noted.
The Minister said that if the Government accepted the Amendment it would involve a complete reversal of Government policy. But that would be the case only if the Government were totally against any form of private investment. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) is suggesting a change of emphasis and is anxious to encourage private investment. For the cogent reasons put forward by my hon. Friends in favour of the Amendment, it will be obvious to the Minister that we believe that private investment based on commercial principles may be one of, if not the, most important ways in which aid can be given to developing countries.
In view of the emphasis the Government have placed on the question of aid generally, it is surprising that more hon. Gentlemen opposite have not taken part

33
in this debate. The Bill makes certain changes in aid policy. On Second Reading the Minister stressed that in future responsibility for making Government loans would be transferred from E.C.G.D., the mechanism previously employed, to the Ministry of Overseas Development, although I understand from subsequent correspondence that Section 3 of the parent Act is to be retained. For reasons which I gave on Second Reading, the Government are adopting u debatable policy in this matter, and I will return to this subject on Third Reading.
The principal Act is concerned with aid and provides possible machinery for assisting aid. It is, therefore, reasonable that my hon. Friends should suggest that E.C.G.D. should again be employed to assist our aid programme in the way suggested in the Amendment. For this reason the Government can have no quarrel with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, and I trust that the Minister will take a more enlightened view about this whole matter.
The whole operation of the parent Act and the Measure which is now raising the limits draws a fine line between the question of exports and the question of investment. Once one gives export credit, the impact of that on the balance of payments for exports and investment is very much the same. In both cases one ships goods from this country. That has an adverse effect on our balance of payments until payment for those goods is received. There is really no difference in principle between the export of goods which are purchased by a foreign person on credit and investment in goods shipped to a foreign country. In both cases the initial effect on our balance of payments is adverse. When the remittance is received, either for the export of the goods or the return on the investment, our balance of payments benefits.
On what criteria do, the Government draw the line between exports and investment in overseas countries? We are entitled to a further explanation and I advise my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives to await that explanation before considering whether or not to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Webster: I understood that morning sittings were designed to enable the whole House to debate, in Committee or otherwise, non-controversial
34
business. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has moved a most important Amendment which the Government have resisted. That action was taken by a Minister who completely lacked support from his back-benchers for at least one-and-a-half hours—that is, until at least, perhaps as a result of my taking the unusual step of sitting on the Government side of the Committee, another Labour hon. Member appeared on the scene. This follows the incident last Friday, when another valuable section of industry and the economy, the small businessman, was being debated and when, apart from one P.P.S. and the Minister, the Opposition had to discuss the issue before otherwise empty Labour benches. Since we were supposed to discuss non-controversial matters during morning sittings, perhaps the House of Commons should now take the view—
The Chairman: Order. It is appropriate for the hon. Member to make incidental references to the value or otherwise of mornings sittings, but he cannot debate the whole question of morning sittings on this Amendment.
Mr. Webster: I shall try to keep in order, Sir Eric, although, sitting on this side of the Committee, I may find that somewhat difficult to do. It is a matter of grievous wrong that the Minister should have resisted the admirable Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I came into the Chamber to receive the acclamation of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I have heard nothing from him or his hon. Friends which will long delay my departure.
Mr. Webster: Not having been present for one and a half hours, the hon. Gentleman obviously has no interest in morning sittings and simply wants everything to be pushed through as though Parliament were a rubber stamp. There was a complete apathy of Government supporters last Friday—
The Chairman: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member addresses himself to the Amendment.
Mr. Webster: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives is proposing something which is valuable to our export

35
effort, yet it has been resisted by the Government. This would appear to be making morning sittings a controversial matter and I would like to know what we can do about it.
Mr. Biffen: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is even more the case since the T.U.C. has this morning indicated in its pre-Budget advice to the Government its wish to see measures taken to make exporting more profitable?
Mr. Webster: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although I am sitting on this side of the Committee, I hope that he will continue to call me his hon. Friend.
Since the Government are resisting an Amendment which is designed to aid our export effort, I should like to know what procedure my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, or any hon. Member who finds himself in this position, can adopt when faced with Government resistance of this kind. I hope that you, Sir Eric, or the Minister will explain how one may obtain redress in these circumstances or press a matter to a Division during morning sittings.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: May I have an assurance from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) that when a Division takes place he will come over to this side and vote with us?
Mr. Webster: As usual, I shall of course judge the matter on its merits. If we can get a more satisfactory answer from the Government we can allow the matter to proceed, but I protest at the lack of support of hon. Members on the Government side in morning sittings.
Mr. Nott: On a point of order, Sir Eric. Could you give some guidance on this? If the Amendment had been considered in Committee upstairs I would have had no doubt about our definitely dividing on it. As we are in Committee of the whole House, and in a new morning sitting, should not precisely the same guideline apply? Perhaps you can assure me that that is the case?
The Chairman: We are not in Committee upstairs but in Committee of the whole House. Therefore, a morning sitting is governed by the Sessional Order of 14th December, by which if a Motion
36
is challenged it is necessary to defer the Division until the afternoon sitting.
Mr. Darling: I think I had better intervene here. I discussed the proceedings for this morning's sitting with the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) when I did not know what Amendments would be on the Notice Paper. He assured me that there would be some Amendments and he gave me an idea of their nature. He told me that in the main—I think entirely—they would be probing Amendments. On that assurance, having been given the idea that they were to be probing Amendments, when my hon. Friends asked if there was any controversial business on the Export Guarantees Bill this morning, I said "No". I did not anticipate that on the Amendments to be put down there would be any controversial business whatever. I was given an assurance that there would be no filibustering whatever, in so far as the Opposition Front Bench could give that assurance.
Mr. Higgins: It is perfectly true that I pointed out that an hon. Friend and I were putting down an Amendment which certainly is a probing Amendment. I think it has been selected, or perhaps we could discuss it on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". But I am not in a position, of course, to give a clear undertaking about Amendments put down by my hon. Friends. Still less could I indicate their feeling about morning sittings.
Mr. Darling: It would be very difficult indeed to find anything politically controversial in this Bill. What I found surprising was the constant change of heart by the Opposition. This was quite unanticipated because never in the past when they were in Government have they been in favour of investment guarantees. This is a new point.
I anticipated a probing Amendment, but if it is suggested that the E.C.G.D. should be used to provide guarantees for investment overseas, that is something we shall have to look at very carefully indeed. I certainly cannot answer the question offhand at such short notice and discuss the whole range of the Government's investment policy, which is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should be glad to take the hon. Member on if I thought that there

37
was to be an Amendment of such a wide-ranging character, but in the circumstances of today I certainly cannot respond to his invitation.
Mr. Higgins: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I was raising the points I raised in the sense of probing for answers to see if we could find the criteria which the Government employ in drawing the line between credits given for exports and credits given for investments. I am sure that he will appreciate that the line is rather fine, and it may be that successive Governments have adopted precisely the same criteria. It would be helpful if what these are could be stated. We would then be in a better position to understand the problem.
11.45 a.m.
Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Sir Eric. If a Division is challenged on a subject in Committee on the Floor of the House, a decision has to be postponed until the end of the sitting. I presume that the House can then not proceed to Report stage because then we would not know what is in and what is out of the Bill. It seems a most confusing position if a Division is challenged now on this Amendment and we are left in doubt as to whether the Amendment has been made or has not been made. It would therefore be impossible to go on to the remaining stages.
The Chairman: I think that the hon. Member has misunderstood the position. If a Division is challenged on this Amendment I shall vacate the Chair and in the House I shall have to be informed of a Motion to report Progress and to ask leave to sit again. The result would be that the Division would be deferred to this afternoon's sitting and the proceedings on the Bill would be adjourned to another day, and at this morning's sitting we would proceed to the Adjourned debate on the Salop (No. 2) Order.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Eric. We are in difficulty. If we were in Committee upstairs some of us would feel it right to vote for the Amendment, but we do not want to create a wrecking procedure. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If you called for a vote, as you would, the Question would not go to a Division, you would collect the voices. It
38
seems reasonable that when Amendments which are important are put down, Ministers should not assume that they are important only to the Front Bench on the Opposition side. They can be equally important to the back benches. The Government should have a sufficient number of hon. Members present on their side so that when you collect the voices those on the Government side would be greater than those on this side and there would not have to be a Division. The Government should look after their own business in this connection.
The Chairman: In so far as the hon. Member has raised a valid point of order, the position is that it is my duty to give effect to the Sessional Order passed by the House on 14th December which provides the procedure to be followed in the event of the House or a Committee of the whole House wishing to divide on an Amendment.
Mr. Nott: It certainly is not my wish to be obstructive in any way. The Amendment was put down when I first thought of it last Thursday as a probing Amendment. Arising from this debate I deprecate, first, the suggestion by the Minister that because my Front Bench did or did not agree with an Amendment I was under some obligation to let it go forward or to withdraw it. I reject that entirely. Because certain of my hon. Friends had a policy in 1952, that does not necessarily mean that we should follow it in 1967. Therefore, I wholly deprecate the suggestion that a backbench Member cannot press an Amendment.
I also deprecate the fact that for three-quarters of an hour or more when we were debating this Amendment there were no back-bench hon. Members of the Government party present. That I find very strange in view of the fact that understood there was an arrangement whereby the Whips put certain pressure on hon. Members to go through the Division Lobbies to vote for morning sittings.
The Bill sets out an increase on the level of guarantees which the E.C.G.D. makes available, and that is something with which we on this side of the Committee are in full accord. For this reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the

39
Amendment, on the basis that the Minister will bear the Amendment in mind because it could have a most interesting and perhaps beneficial effect on exports.
Mr. Biffen: May I raise a point of order before my hon. Friend gets the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment? My difficulty is, I think, shared by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing. If a Division is called on this Amendment, then, as I understand your Ruling, Sir Eric, we proceed to discuss the Salop (No. 2) Order. If, on the other hand, leave is given and my hon. Friend charitably withdraws the Amendment, I take it that we shall continue with a further Amendment and consideration of the Export Guarantees Bill. This could conceivably take a considerable time, and there will be no more time to discuss the Salop (No. 2) Order. The Order will be out of time.
Therefore, my dilemma is that, unless I can get from the Patronage Secretary or one of his aides some guidance and assurance that the Order will be debated either later this morning or on Wednesday, I will be in the embarrassing position of having to challenge the Question that leave of the Committee be given to the withdrawal of the Amendment, as the only way in which I can get the Order debated this morning.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is quite right that, as I have said already, if a Division is challenged on this Amendment, we then proceed immediately to the adjourned debate on the Salop (No. 2) Order. If the Amendment is, with the leave of the Committee, withdrawn, we will then proceed with the rest of the debate on this Bill. It is purely hypothetical whether we shall then reach the adjourned debate on the Salop Order and I cannot help the hon. Member to resolve his dilemma about what to do. In the general interests of the House, perhaps we ought to proceed.
Sir John Langford-Holt: Further to that point of order. I should like this cleared up. I understand that, if a Division is called on this debate, as we are in Committee, the House can resume its sitting. Had we, on the other hand, been sitting as the House of Commons, the adjournment of the whole
40
House would then take place. Am I right in so thinking?
The Chairman: That is a hypothetical question about what we should have done if certain things had arisen. I can only take the situation as it is, on today's Order Paper. Bearing this in mind, I think that we ought to proceed.
Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Further to that point of order. I cannot follow why it is necessary to adjourn the Committee if a Division is called. Why should we not agree that a Division has been called and then proceed with the next part of the debate in Committee?
The Chairman: Because I am governed by the provisions of the Sessional Order passed on 14th December. If a Division is called in Committee, I then have to adjourn the proceeding in the Committee and the House then proceeds to the next item of business.
Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of Order. I hope, Sir Eric, that you appreciate that I am in a genuine difficulty. I am tempted to challenge the Question that leave should be given for the withdrawal of the Amendment, unless I may have some indication from the Front Bench, through a point of order, that debate on the Salop (No. 2) Order will be preserved, either for later today or on Wednesday. Might I appeal, through you, Sir Eric, for some indication from the Government Front Bench?
Mr. Jasper More: Is this not a matter which the Leader of the House should be brought here to deal with? This matter affects all the Shropshire Members, myself included. We understand that the praying time cannot be continued beyond next Wednesday. If we cannot have some guarantee about time, my hon. Friend would have to take a course of action which he would not otherwise wish to take, to protect his own interests.
The Chairman: The hon. Member will appreciate that it is not a matter for me to give any such assurance. All hon. Members must be free to exercise their own judgment of what they should do.
Mr. Kershaw: Further to that point of order. Everything said by my hon.

41
Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) applies with even greater force to me. I hope to catch the eye of the Chair on the Order which follows the Salop Order—the Gloucester Order, on which also time is running out. As it seems unlikely that the Gloucester Order will be reached, even if the Salop Order starts in the next two or three minutes, how am I placed?
Is it not possible—I know that this is not a point of order—for somebody from the Front Bench to give some indication and for someone to find out where the Leader of the House is? Does the Leader of the House know about these morning sittings? Would he be able to come along occasionally?
Mr. Darling: Further to that point of order. I would point out that no hon. Member on this side has held up the proceedings to prevent these two important Orders being discussed.
Mr. A. P. Costain: Further to that point of order. You will recall, Sir Eric, that, at business time last Thursday, I was particularly concerned about this Order and raised the matter with the Leader of the House. He then gave the assurance that he wished the Order to be debated. Would not the representative on the Front Bench now confirm that what the right hon. Gentleman said is true, because it has a great bearing on this?
Mr. Webster: Is it not a fact that this Salop Order is a matter of great principle which could affect many other local authorities in due course and that the great increase in delegated legislation
42
makes this very important? Cannot the Leader of the House be sent for to assist the House? Is he even in London? Can his P.P.S. come here to assist us? We must have some protection for the rights of our constituents.
The Chairman: These are matters of great importance and I should have thought that we would have made more progress if we got on with one or other of the items of business.
Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
Hon. Members: No.
Question put, That those words be there inserted.
The CHAIRMAN'S opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, he left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)).
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER resumed the Chair and The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That the Committee had made Progress and asked leave to sit again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Pursuant to the Sessional Order of 14th December, the Division on the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) is deferred until this afternoon's sitting and will take place, pursuant to the Sessional Order, at the time when a member of the Government shall have signified to the Chair his intention to move, "That this House do now adjourn".
The Proceedings stood deferred.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SALOP)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8th February]:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Salop (No. 2) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1529), dated 6th December 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December, be annulled.—[Mr. Biffen.]
Question again proposed.
11.58 a.m.
Mr. Jasper More: As has already been mentioned this morning, this Order is a Measure of great importance not only to Shropshire Members but also to all those interested in their local government affairs. It makes decisions which could create large precedents. It is deplorable that, on a matter of this importance, only one Labour back bencher should have come to listen to the debate. There are, after all, apart from all the Ministers which the Prime Minister has created, about 250 back benchers who are supposed to support Government policy, yet only one has turned up this morning. Although he doubtless represents a very respectable constituency, I do not believe that it is anywhere near Shropshire.
It is even more deplorable that we should not have with us a single member of the Liberal Party. It is even more so, considering that at 10 a.m. the Liberals were here in force to give rather synthetic applause to a Bill directly concerned with local government. So we on the Conservative benches are left to bring to the notice of the House and of the Parliamentary Secretary the important matters with which the Order deals.
Before the debate was adjourned on Wednesday, I raised a number of points of detail before going on to the main question of principle. I referred to a specific matter which has become of great importance in my constituency. This relates to the provisions of paragraphs 57 and 59, which have to do with local government officers. The Order is to reorganise local government boundaries and authorities, and it is surely no part of the intention of those who frame Orders such as this, nor of the sponsoring council—Shropshire County Council in this case—nor of Parliament that we should, as a result of anything we are
44
doing under a local government Order, do personal injury to any local government official. But I bring to the notice of the House what has actually happened under the Order which preceded this one—the Salop (No. 1) Order.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows the details. It concerns a local government official with many years service and an unblemished record. I have a letter from the gentleman explaining his present position as a result of the first Order. He says:
"I am now out of work without any source of income and it appears my pension has also gone."
This situation has arisen in spite of the efforts of many people. The Minister himself has, I know, done his best to protect the interests of this individual, as have the county council and his Member of Parliament.
It has been said by some people that the official in question may, in certain circumstances, have been unwise. It has been alleged that a certain council may in certain respects have been unreasonable. But what is quite clear is that throughout no one has acted in any way illegally. Nevertheless, this is the result, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary two questions which should be faced before the House agrees to pass the Salop (No. 2) Order.
First, seeing that this situation is ultimately the responsibility of Parliament, can some special measure be introduced to give this individual officer his rights? Secondly, before we pass this Order, can we have an assurance that paragraphs 57 and 59 are drafted in such a way that this sort of thing cannot happen again? I do not pretend to be expert on the details but I suspect that the root of the difficulty is in paragraph 57(5) where occurs the phrase,
"… duties reasonably comparable to those in which he was engaged …"
It seems that that is the phrase which has given rise to the case I have referred to. I would like the hon. Gentleman's assurance that, under this Order, we shall not have a repetition of what I can only call this disgraceful case.
Sir Gerald Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend also add to that the important principle, in seeking an assurance from the Parliamentary

45
Secretary, that if this Order is passed the principle enshrined therein will not then be translated to the adjoining county of Worcestershire and that the same depredations will not occur in the ancient borough of Evesham, where all this Parliamentary nonsense began?
Mr. More: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has said, because, much as we regret what has happened in Shropshire, we would hate to think that the same thing could happen to local government officers in Worcestershire or any other counties which may be involved.
The Parliamentary Secretary will know that the main objections to the Order have come from the smaller boroughs, of which I have three in my constituency—Bishop's Castle, Ludlow and Bridgnorth. Before saying anything else, I pay tribute to the record of achievements of these boroughs and the councillors and local government officers who have administered their affairs in the past. Even in very recent times, they have all proved that they are entirely capable of administering their boroughs in the spirit of the times.
A civic society has recently been formed in Bishop's Castle and it has gone to immense trouble to preserve the character of this very beautiful borough by street improvements and the prevention of eyesores and the general objective is to keep what might be called Bishop's Castle's "Character".
In the borough of Ludlow, I was invited a few months ago to the opening of a group of houses at the bottom of Corve Street, dating from the 15th or 16th century, which had been in a very derelict condition. Thanks to the initiative of the borough, the houses were purchased by the borough and repaired, beautified and made habitable for four families. That is an excellent example of what a small borough can do.
This is no less the case in Bridgnorth, which is nearer the industrial areas of the West Midlands. It has shown a most worthy initiative in adapting itself to the needs of the modern age. We have had complete clearance schemes of some of the poorer houses in the town, space made for car parks and so on. In fact,
46
we have in these three boroughs administrations of the highest quality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), moving this Motion last Wednesday, referred to the prospects of the borough of Oswestry, pointing out that it already had a population in excess of 10,000 and was likely to grow further. It is precisely the same with Bridgnorth, which is situated within easy access of the great industrial areas of the West Midlands and is growing at a high rate. Unless artificially checked, this growth will inevitably continue, which is one reason why this is a very poor occasion to decide to abolish its borough status.
The three boroughs I have mentioned have formally asked that this Order be opposed. The same request has not come to me from the three rural districts that I represent. But it is remarkable that the same request has come to me from the urban district council, part of which lies within my constituency. That should be put on record.
What is it really that Parliament is facing in connection with this review? My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry has already stated the problem. This county review was undertaken under the Local Government Act, 1958, and under terms of reference which were certainly relevant to the problems and conditions of that time. The review was carried out with great conscientiousness by the Salop County Council and by the review panel which we appointed—I say "we" because I myself happen to be a member of the Council.
The review was, naturally, a painful process. I do not think that the visits of the reviewing panel were relished by the small boroughs who knew the fate that was likely to be in store for them. Although I was not present myself, I can picture some of those embarrassing mornings on which by question, answer and discussion is was made fairly clear what might be in the minds of the reviewing panel, and then they were taken out to lunch by their prospective victims. We know that sort of thing has to happen. At any rate, it all came back to us in the county council, where it met with a lot of opposition. Nevertheless, it was passed by the Salop County Council, and it came to the Minister. We assumed that it would go through. I will not say that

47
the small boroughs had been converted to this, but to some degree they had been resigned to it.
The whole thing has been changed by the statement of the Minister of Housing and Local Government that we are to have a Royal Commission. The more one looks at the situation as it is today, the sillier it seems to go through with the Salop (No. 2) Order.
The Salop (No. 1) Order, apart from the specific case to which I have referred, did not do any actual damage. It drew into one area what was then designated the Dawley new town area. It is true that the Government, by giving consideration to enlarging that new town, has again thrown doubt on the wisdom of putting through that Order, but the Order has not done any actual harm.
When we look at this new Order, the situation surely is very different, because Shropshire is facing the prospect, when the Royal Commission reports, of having not one major reorganisation but two major reorganisations—and this may also be the fate of Worcestershire, the county of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, and, I understand, Cornwall and possibly one or two other counties.
Assuming that the Minister accepts any of the evidence given by the local government authorities, can the Government really say how the proposed Shropshire reorganisation will "tier in". In local government we talk about the first tier, the second tier, and so on. How do the Government visualise these rural district councils, which are being created under the Salop (No. 2) Order, entering into any acceptable scheme of local government reorganisation?
Are areas, varying from the borough of Shrewsbury, with 50,000 inhabitants, to the rural district of Clun and Bishop's Castle, with 10,000 inhabitants, to be under the same tier authority? Will there be a tier below them? What tier is it visualised will be above them? If the tier above them is to be not larger than the present county of Salop, is it visualised that these are the right sizes for the lower tiers? Has the Minister taken into account the fact that some parishes have parish councils and others have not? These questions are all important, and we
48
should have answers to them before the Order is passed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry asked two very pertinent questions. The first concerned economics. It has been argued all through that by reorganising local government in this way we can get a more economical form of local government. Does the Minister really accept this? Is he really prepared to say that by merging these councils, as is proposed, local government will become any cheaper?
The second argument that is put forward in favour of re-organisation of this kind is that the councils will get better officials because they will have larger areas and will therefore be able to pay bigger salaries. Is this argument sustainable? Let us consider again the case of Clun and Bishop's Castle. We already had a rural district of Clun, with a population of 8,000 or 9,000 inhabitants. Under this Order we have added to it the borough of Bishop's Castle with some 1,200 inhabitants, so the total population comes to just over 10,000. Is it really suggested by the Minister that the addition of 1,200 ratepayers will make all the difference between getting better officials to look after this new area? Is it really suggested that the administration will be more economical?
The argument against the proposal, which has not been sufficiently stressed, is, of course, that of local interest. I was appalled this morning to see the Members of the Liberal Party turning up solemnly to bring in a Bill in favour of democratic elections for regional areas. I observe that they have already lost all interest in local government, because none of them is here. I am glad that we have one Labour back bencher with us this morning. No doubt he is waiting for the Adjournment. It might put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery if I assure him that we will keep this debate going until 12.30.
The point about democratic interest is that to keep the interest of people we need to keep local government small. I read in the rural district's monthly journal a rather interesting analysis of recent local government elections. A correspondent had worked out that the average vote figure in the boroughs and urban districts in recent years was 41·6 per cent.,

49
of the electors. I should like to cite once again the case of Bishop's Castle, which is, after all, England's smallest borough. In the last borough election over 80 per cent. of the voters turned out. That reflects considerable credit on the borough and proves what I have said, that it is by keeping local governments small that we keep democratic interest. Has sufficient regard been paid to that, and is it proposed to bring that into consideration with the second reorganisation which, apparently, we have to face?
If the Government have second thoughts—and there appears to have been a certain amount of second thoughts about another local government Order, and it is not clear what the Government want to do about all this—we have to face the factual question of what alternative there is, because, obviously, these arrangements have already advanced a considerable distance. A possible alternative to putting through this Order now is to try to organise what might be called a local government holding operation by which there would be, when necessary, a joint administration of rural district councils and boroughs.
If the Minister pooh-poohs that and says that it is not possible, my answer is that it is possible and has been happening in the small borough of Bishop's Castle and the rural district of Clun for two or three years. The same clerk has been looking after the borough and the rural district. Thanks to the excellent abilities of the official in question, this arrangement has worked very well and very happily and there seems to be no reason why it should not be continued. If it can be done in the one case, why can it not be arranged, with the aid of the Ministry, in the two other cases, which are the outstanding cases in my constituency, and possibly also in Oswestry? I put that forward as a practical suggestion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South will tell us about one of the proposed local government areas in his constituency.
Sir G. Nabarro: As I understand the position, it would be strictly out of order for me to talk about the ancient borough of Evesham under the Salop (No. 2) Order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that is my interpretation. Although I have a very powerful case for Evesham, I shall have to
50
repose in patience for a long while until a Parliamentary opportunity occurs for me to talk about it in order. If I followed the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), I might be tempted to stray from the path of good order and incur the wrath of the Chair for talking about Evesham, Worcestershire, whereas the Order relates only to Shropshire. Having made my point, I resume my seat.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct.
Sir G. Nabarro: Thank you, Sir.
Mr. More: I know my hon. Friend sufficiently well to know that he would never stray outside the paths of strict order in this or any other discussion. However, I think that it is a fact that in his county there is a proposed rural district which would have a population of much less than that of Clun and Bishop's Castle. Faced with this prospect, the Minister might sharpen his attitude towards this proposal and consider whether it is sensible to allow the Salop Order to go through and to set a precedent. If the Government agree to this Order, they will have to agree to everything which comes from every county. Unless a line is drawn somewhere, it will be impossible to guarantee that we do not have extraordinary absurdities in our local government.
An elaborate and detailed answer is required to this Prayer. The case of the official which has arisen under the Salop (No. 1) Order is a matter which touches almost the honour of Parliament and we should not let this Order go through until that has been satisfactorily cleared up.
12.25 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I owe it to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) to take this opportunity to answer some of the points which have been made, especially as the opportunity for praying against this Order will cease on Wednesday. We have had a fairly long discussion of it and I shall reply as succinctly as I can.
I can tell the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) that paragraph 57, which deals with staff, is the normal form. That

51
to which he referred was a special case and does not arise on this Order. The gentleman concerned was able to go to arbitration and he lost on arbitration.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) asked about elections. I am advised that the procedure for elections under this Order was approved and agreed by everyone concerned. It is for a county to make any alterations in arrangements for areas and representation.
We left the market under the control of the borough because we thought that the borough would prefer that. If, with his great influence in the area, the hon. Member for Oswestry thinks that it is wise to advise the borough to surrender the market to the rural district, we would not interfere. We left the market with the borough because we were trying to be helpful and not to interfere with something in which the borough had a long and ancient interest. Certainly we would want to meet whatever was required.
Mr. Biffen: The issue arises because the market is administered under Corporation Acts and not under the Food and Drugs Act. That is the heart of the difficulty. I cannot understand the Parliamentary Secretary's gratuitous reference to my influence in the district. This is a matter of the law.
Mr. MacColl: We have not had any representations from the district or the borough to alter the arrangement. We included this provision out of an anxiety to be helpful.
When he moved the Prayer, the hon. Member for Oswestry spoke of Ministerial intransigence. Again I underline that it is not Ministerial intransigence. This is not the Minister's invention, but is a proposal put forward by an elected local council, the county council, which is not only responsible for it, but which acts on the advice of a circular sent round by the Conservative Government in 1962. That circular said:
"The Minister thinks it right to indicate at this stage that he will not be prepared to endorse recommendations which in his opinion have given too little weight to the importance of securing districts of sufficient size in population and resources to be fully effective".
Those were the instructions given to the county council by the last Govern-
52
ment and the county council prepared the scheme under that guidance.
Not only was the scheme subsequently examined by my right hon. Friend, but an inquiry looked carefully into the problems of Oswestry and reached the same conclusions which the county council had reached—that the distinction between the borough and the rural district was expensive and did not reflect a great separation of interests and that the two would be better coming together. In the words of the county council:
"All things considered, we have come to the conclusion that this is a case when it would not only be uneconomic to maintain two separate administrations serving concentric areas but against best interests of the whole area."
That was the view taken by the people on the spot. It was the view taken by the impartial inspector and it is the view taken by two of my right hon. Friends who have looked at the matter. For those reasons, I hope that the House will not accept the Prayer.
Mr. Biffen Mr. Biffen rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am unable to accept the Closure.
Sir John Langford-Holt: I wish to address the House for a very few moments only. I was going to speak a little earlier, but I will try to say now what I intended to say then, although clearly I am out of time. I would like to thank the Minister for having placed the maps about which we had some discussion last week at our disposal. He will be happy to know that I have used them and found them of considerable interest.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Salop (No. 2.) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1529), dated 6th December 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December, be annulled.
Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. May we be quite clear about this? Is it essential for you to put the Question as we reach half-past Twelve? Under our new procedure, are you not at liberty to adjourn the debate on a Prayer of this sort, as it has already been adjourned once before? We are all a little doubtful about morning procedure and this does seem a little peculiar.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The position is that unless there has not been adequate time for debate the Chair must put the Question. The House has discussed this for an hour and a quarter; it is a Prayer and, therefore, I am proposing to put the Question.
Mr. More: On a point of order, this is an Order affecting not only Shropshire Members, but other Members. With respect, I would point out that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has not been called to speak in this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not necessary to the ending of the debate. The Question is—
Sir J. Langford-Holt: I apologise for interrupting again, but this Order affects my constituency. It affects four constituencies, the Members for three of which have been called. I am now on my feet and you have said that adequate time has been given to the discussion of the Order. May I put it to you, with all humility, that adequate time under those circumstances cannot have been given?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The normal maximum time for praying is an hour and a half. The Chair on this occasion is deciding that, as an hour and a quarter has been given, the Question must be put.
It being half-past twelve o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (procedure)).
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER'SMr. DEPUTY SPEAKER'SOpinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Proceedings stood deferred pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)).

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (LANCASTER)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bishop.]
12.34 p.m.
Mr. Stanley Henig: Lancaster is regarded as a natural growth point in the north of the County of Lancastershire but it is not about this excellent long-term prospect that I wish to speak this morning. Instead I want to draw attention to a rather serious, immediate problem which is now facing Lancaster as a result of the decision made 10 days ago by the firm of Nairn-Williamson to lay off 1,550 men.
Williamson's were always the Lancaster half of this firm but some years ago it amalgamated with Nairn a traditionally Scottish-based firm. For Lancaster this is not just another company. For many years Lancaster revolved around Williamson's. At the moment, 8 per cent. of all people employed in Lancaster work at Williamson's. Of those in manufacturing industries in the area, the figure is higher than 20 per cent. If we exclude textiles the figure is as high as 35 per cent.
It may be asked why I bring this matter up in the House, since firms are always doing this kind of thing. On this occasion it must be brought up in the House because a Government Department is involved and that is the Board of Trade. The firm of Nairn-Williamson has decided to rationalise its production and to concentrate the bulk of it at Kirkcaldy, a development area. It is enabled and helped to do this by the wise policy pursued by the Government of giving development grants.
Let me say straight away that no one in Lancaster would want anything other than full employment for the people of Kirkcaldy. The only major worry for us is if that full employment comes about at our expense. There is a grievance in Lancaster and it is one of lack of consultation. Nairn-Williamson and the Board of Trade knew about this decision some months ago. No one in Lancaster was told, although I believe that people in Kirkcaldy were informed. The first I knew was when the local Press—and

55
all praise to them, they get a lot of criticism—told me about this on the telephone. They told me that they had been informed that they ought to keep it a secret for over 12 hours.
Nairn-Williamson has landed itself in its present mess through bad management, out-dated methods and failure to diversify. I would ask my right hon. Friend, since public money is involved in the future of Nairn-Williamson, because it has development grants, what safeguards he has sought to see that, not only in Lancaster but also in Kirkcaldy, the firm does not repeat its present disastrous record, and to ensure that in a few years' time there will not be the same difficulties for employment in both areas.
If 1,500 people became unemployed in Lancaster our rate of unemployment would go up to 7 per cent. It has been said that unemployment in Lancaster could not be 7 per cent. and this is probably right; no doubt things will happen. But, because we think that things will happen, it is no good saying that there will not be 7 per cent. unemployed, and sitting back and forgetting about it. The only reason why there will not be 7 per cent. unemployment will be if someone does something to stop it happening.
I have also heard it suggested that something like 700 new jobs will appear in the city in the next year or two. One rather exaggerated estimate put the figure at 1,000 jobs—I do not know where this came from. The estimates seem to be based on a somewhat hypothetical expansion of existing firms. I want to draw attention to five points which must be considered against this projected expansion. First, the existing unemployment of 1,500 men must have a multiplier effect in causing secondary unemployment in the area. The concept of the multiplier is pretty sophisticated, but I was interested, talking to local tradespeople in Lancaster, to find that, whether or not they had an economics degree, they all knew of the danger to their businesses which this unemployment might cause.
Secondly, there is certain, in the next year or two, to be expansion of the population in Lancaster—that is to say, there will be more school leavers looking for
56
jobs than people retiring. In other words, there will be extra people and not fewer on the labour market.
Thirdly, in a town such as Lancaster, with old, traditional industries, many having been taken over by bigger concerns, there is always the danger, some would say the promise, of further rationalisation. There are rumours about some of the firms remaining in the city. I hope that if any of these come to anything, at least this time there will be consultations in advance.
Fourthly, while the management of the next biggest firm in Lancaster, Storey Bros., is quite excellent—it is diversified and is a superb firm—the prosperity of the area cannot be safely linked to the sale of one product—Contact.
Fifthly, many of the people who will be unemployed as a result of this decision will be clerical workers. We have recently had the problem in the area of the close-down of the Morecambe branch of the Post Office Savings Department, which also affects the unemployment position in Lancaster. This has to be taken into account. There is very little opportunity in the area for this kind of work. It is believed by people in the area that if no positive action is taken, unemployment will certainly rise over the next two or three years to 5 per cent.
Lancaster could be called a grey area. It is not an area which has enough natural features of its own to attract industry without specific help from the Government. On the other hand, it is not, fortunately, an area which has suffered much from unemployment in the past. Consequently, the Board of Trade did not designate it a development area. We have a brand new industrial estate at Whiteland, yet this estate is virtually empty. One of the reasons why it seems to be empty is that Lancaster is in competition with developing areas to gain industry; and that industry, reasonably enough, if it must go to the further points of the country, would rather go to a development area where it can get a 40 per cent. grant than come to Lancaster and get only a 20 per cent. grant.
I am asking this morning for a number of assurances from the Board of Trade. First, I should like the Department seriously to look at the problem of

57
the grey areas. I recognise that the development area policy is new; I also accept that it is essentially a good policy. I further recognise that practically every non-development area would like to be a development area.
Essentially, however, in talking about development areas, what we have to do is to move industry from the West Midlands, from the South, from the over-employed and developed areas to the under-developed areas. There is, however, a suspicion that the policy which is pursued may have the untoward effect of shifting industry, not from Birmingham, Coventry or London, but rather from the Lancasters in the country. I should like the Board of Trade at least to say that it will look at this problem.
Secondly, despite the fact that the Board of Trade must have been inundated with requests for areas to be made development areas, I hope nevertheless that it will bear in mind the possibility of revising speedily the existing frontiers. In Lancaster we have the absurdity that 30 or 40 miles to the north little villages like Arnside, for example, have been made development areas. Lancaster has not.
Moreover, bearing in mind what has just happened, a special factor is that Lancaster and Morecambe together—I think that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), whom I see in his place on the benches opposite, will associate himself with me in these remarks—are quite certain, unless action is taken, to have an unemployment level sufficient to justify making the whole area a development area. When the times comes for revising existing frontiers, I hope that the Board of Trade will consider this.
Thirdly, I should like the Department to be quite certain that adequate retraining centre accommodation is available for the workers who are being laid off by Nairn-Williamson who may wish to be retrained for other jobs. Virtually every proposal for bringing industry to the area and every suggestion of natural expansion means that some workers must change their jobs. Unless this is made easy for them, there will still be great social problems.
Fourthly, in Lancaster we should very much like regional officials to help push Lancaster's case for new industry with
58
potentially interested entrepreneurs. I know that there are difficulties and that the Board of Trade does not have power to tell a firm to go to Lancaster or even to guarantee that it will be in its best interests to do so. There are, however, such things as winks and nods. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot talk about them this morning, but I hope that when firms plan with the Board of Trade where they shall expand their activities and the areas to which they should move, the Department will be aware that a community which previously had a high level of employment is about to get relatively high unemployment, that we have an industrial estate available and that we have a reasonably trained and good labour force. I hope that the Board of Trade will be able to help in this direction.
Finally, I hope above all that the Board of Trade will feel free to follow a liberal and speedy policy with the granting of industrial development certificates—not only liberal to the extent of being fairly free in granting them for such firms as are attracted to the area, but speedy so that there will not be difficulties and the possibility that en route Lancaster will lose firms that were scheduled to it.
I have put forward a strong case because Lancaster must have a strong case put for it. The firm in question is not simply any firm. It has been a firm which, not always for the good, has dominated the past history of Lancaster. The threat of 1,500 men losing their jobs has caused widespread dismay and concern in the city. We are not out to win debating points; the debate we willingly concede. What Lancaster wants is the promise that its problems will be looked at and that it will be helped. Nobody in Lancaster is attacking or blaming in any way the Board of Trade because of its development policy, nor are we jealous of Kirkcaldy's good fortune. The only thing I say is that now that these things have happened and Lancaster's future prosperity is endangered, now that this has become a life-and-death issue for the city, I hope that the Board of Trade will do everything in its power to help redeem the situation.
12.46 p.m.
Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I shall be brief in adding my support to the comments of the hon.

59
Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) because I do not wish to limit the time available for the Minister of State, Board of Trade to make his reply. The hon. Member for Lancaster has referred to the effect on the unemployment level in his constituency of the withdrawal of 1,500 jobs. Many of these people employed by that firm live in my constituency, and in the Morecambe area the unemployment figure is already 5-3 per cent. It will, therefore, certainly go to 7 per cent. or more, as mentioned by the hon. Member, if alternative work is not drawn into the area.
What worries me and the point which 1 wish particularly to put to the Minister of State is that we may well have a situation in which, because of the lengthy notice which is quite rightly and reasonably given of redundancy, we must see the beginning of a drift away from the Lancaster area such as has happened in many other areas of Lancashire. That is particularly undesirable in this area because the Lancashire County Council and the North-West Regional Planning Board are looking to the Lancaster-Morecambe area as one of considerable and early expansion.
I draw the Minister's attention to Section 15(3) of the Industrial Development Act, 1966, which I debated with him in Committee for some time. Referring to development area designation, it states:
"and in exercising their powers under that subsection the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances actual and expected, including the state of employment and unemployment, population changes, migration and the objectives of regional policies."
In adding my support to what the hon. Member for Lancaster has said, I would say only that any drift away from this area and any falling off of employment opportunities would generally be accepted by all concerned as being directly opposed to regional policy for the North-West.
12.48 p.m.
Mr. Alan Williams: I will be extremely brief so that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, may give an adequate reply to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig). Another point of view should be expressed
60
at this stage, and that is the viewpoint of the development areas. I know that the development area discussion in this case concerns Scotland, but the same principle applies in Wales.
The outlook for many of these parts of the country should be borne in mind. It was prophesied last week, for example, that in the Rhondda unemployment could conceivably rise to as much as 10 per cent. Therefore, when my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster speaks of killing a town or city with an unemployment figure of 5 per cent., he should bear in mind that many areas have for a long time, not just for months, struggled with figures far higher. The outlook for these areas is not only of fewer jobs for adults, but of fewer apprenticeships for the young.
My hon. Friend made the point that the population might be encouraged to move. I know that some economists would argue that way, but it must be borne in mind that people who happen to be in one of those development areas, and in one of the most hard-hit parts of areas such as the Rhondda—I do not know about Kirkcaldy—are not able to sell their homes. A man is faced with the problem of having to move from an area in which he cannot get rid of his home, into another area where, because it is an alleged growth point, house prices will be high.
However, I would support my hon. Friend's idea of "grey" areas. I have argued on many occasions in the House that there should be a two-tier system, thereby singling out bad areas like the Rhondda and ensuring that they get extra aid.
12.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): To begin with, I wish to say how much I sympathise with the very natural concern which has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) about the closure of what is admitted to be the biggest single firm in his constituency. However, it is not a complete closure. What Nairn-Williamson has decided to do is to rationalise its business. As my hon. Friend has said, the firm has other sections, and the decision which it has taken, after a great deal of consideration, is that all smooth floor covering and building

61
products will be centred on Kirkcaldy, the tufted carpet production will go to Batley, and all pile fabric production will remain at Lancaster. It is not therefore a complete rundown.
The first thing that will happen is of advantage to us, in that the building of a new factory in Kirkcaldy will give employment there to an extra 700 people, where it is very greatly needed because of the circumstances in that part of Fife. I will not disguise the fact that we welcome that additional employment in the area.
My hon. Friend said that the firm should have given more information to its employees, and he also suggested that the Board of Trade should have done so. That raises a very difficult problem for the Board of Trade, because we are involved in discussions with firms all over the country about their development plans and projects. I can assure my hon. Friend that a large proportion of the discussions are with firms which want to expand in the Birmingham conurbation and in the South-East. They know very well that they will be refused out of hand or will have very great difficulty in getting industrial development certificates in those parts of the country. As a result, we go into further discussions about where the developments which they want should take place. All those discussions must be confidential. Quite objviously, the Board of Trade cannot have discussions with firms if the information given to the Board of Trade is then made public.
What we do is to urge them to have the fullest consultation possible with their employees in order to give them, either directly or through trade union representatives, as much notice as possible to make sure that workpeople are not taken by surprise and that arrangements can be worked out to look after the interests of those who will be affected. The vast majority of firms in the country accept that and carry it out.
The scheme of Nairn-Williamson is part of a process of rationalisation to increase efficiency, and therefore it is to be welcomed. But I recognise that, in its bringing about some reduction of employment in Lancaster, my hon. Friend's constituents cannot look at that kind of rationalisation with anything like enthusiasm. I can well understand their concern.
62
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) made the very pertinent point about giving long-term notice. However, that cuts both ways. We do not want long-term notice, which is in the interests of employees, to encourage emigration from Lancaster itself.
In the few minutes available to me, I want to deal first of all with the local situation and what we intend to do to try to help. Board of Trade experience has shown that, where an area is faced with this kind of problem, which is by no means unique, the area itself has quite a capacity for absorbing the people who are thrown out of work. Industrial development will be going on, because it is an area where people are available for work. We shall do our best to encourage that.
I hesitate to say very much about jobs in prospect. As hon. Members know, I am always chary about making promises for the future, because so many things can happen which upset them. However, there is some new industrial building going on, and there are jobs in prospect in a number of existing buildings which have been taken over by manufacturing firms in both Lancaster and Morecambe. In addition, the expansion of Lancaster University will lead to further employment opportunities for some skilled and semi-skilled men. If the proposed nuclear power station at Heysham goes ahead, that will require construction workers. When it starts production, it will provide employment for about 500 people, three-quarters of whom are to be recruited locally, I understand.
My hon. Friend raised the question of industrial development certificates. I think that he and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale should know that the Board of Trade has never refused a certificate for Lancaster or Morecambe When I looked up the figures, I found that in the three years 1964, 1965 and 1966, 24 industrial development certificates were issued in those areas to employ approximately 800 people, over 500 of whom were men.
As to the future, I can assure my hon. Friend that any applications for industrial certificates in the area will be carefully considered, whether they be from existing industry or from a newcomer to the area. Subject always to

63
the overriding needs of the development areas, our attitude will be very sympathetic to any application that is suited to the resources of the area. We try to operate a flexible policy, and we can help.
My hon. Friend said that he would like the area to be scheduled as a development area. This completes the circuit. We started off at Bridlington. We have gone all the way down the east coast. We have gone along the whole of the south coast considering which places must be left out. We have gone up the Bristol Channel. We have had Barry, Rhyl and Prestatyn, and then Blackpool and Fleetwood all making applications to be scheduled as development areas. That situation arises because seaside resorts and adjacent towns have a peculiar problem.
My hon. Friend will not expect me to say that we intend to schedule any of the places round the coast which have asked for development area status. The point which he has raised, which was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), was that areas like seaside towns that have peculiar difficulties about employment and industrial development should
64
be put in between the help given to a development area and the 25 per cent. help by way of investment grants which is given in other areas. The suggestion, in other words, is that we schedule "grey" areas and give them help which comes between those two provisions.
We are prepared to consider that, but we cannot do it until we have brought down the rate of unemployment in the development areas. That is our basic task. The resources available for industrial development must be provided until we have conquered the unemployment in places like the Rhondda and elsewhere. After that, we must look at these "grey" areas.
In the meantime, 1 assure both my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale that we will do all that we possibly can to see that industrial development in their part of Lancaster continues and we will undertake to help people thrown out of work to find jobs quickly by means of training and retraining.
The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock pursuant to Order.
Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOSPITALS

    Pharmacies (Drug Checks)
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Health in view of the shortage of pharmacists and the consequent strain on available staff, what steps he is taking to ensure that routine checks of drug cupboards in hospitals are carried out.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): It is the responsibility of hospital authorities to make suitable arrangements.
    Mr. Wallace: That is all very well, but unfortunately hospitals are facing a great strain in ensuring adequate checks of drugs, which checks are vitally important to the question of staleness, which may mean that the drugs are dangerous to use. Furthermore, the shortage of staff imposes a strain on pharmacists trying to cope with the situation.
    Mr. Snow: We recognise this difficulty. With regard to poisons, there is a statutory requirement to have these inspected at quarterly intervals by pharmacists or other persons appointed by the governing body.
    With regard to non-poisons, the Aitkin Committee recommended in 1958 that hospitals should arrange for quarterly inspections also to be carried out by pharmacists.
    There is another Question on the Order Paper with regard to the shortage of pharmacists.

    Pharmacists
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to remedy the general shortage of pharmacists throughout the country, particularly within the National Health Service.
    Mr. Gurdenasked the Minister of Health what is the percentage and numbers of short supply of pharmacists in the hospitals of Birmingham.
    Mr. Snow: We have no evidence that there is any overall shortage of registered
    66
    pharmacists though there are local shortages in particular areas. In the Birmingham hospitals there are 18½ whole-time equivalent vacancies, or 34 per cent. My right hon. Friend is studying a report he has received recently from the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain on a survey analysing the numbers and occupational distribution of registered pharmaceutical chemists.
    As to salaries of hospital pharmacists and other remedies, I would refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's replies of 30th January, 1967, to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), and 8th August, 1966, to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine).—[Vol. 740, c. 5; Vol. 733, c. 232.]
    Mr. Wallace: But would not my hon. Friend agree that if there were an extreme shortage in some areas, and there were enough, or perhaps even a surplus, in other areas, some measures should be taken to transfer pharmacists to the hospital to meet emergencies?
    Mr. Snow: I think we should have to consider what powers are available on the direction of pharmacists, which I do not think exist, but in any event there has been some improvement in recruitment since the salaries were raised last year by quite a substantial amount. There has been some improvement in recruitment.
    Mr. Gurden: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what he said conflicts with what the pharmacists say, that 170 vacancies were advertised in the January pharmaceutical journals, and that Cuxson Gerrard, a company near Birmingham, has closed one of its plants which manufactures these vital and essential fluids?
    Mr. Snow: I did not quite catch the last few words of the lion. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Gurden: Cuxson Gerrard, a company near Birmingham, has closed down one of its factories which makes these essential fluids.
    Mr. Snow: I would like to read that question and consider it.
    Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman spoke about some improvement in the position. Can he say what improvement, and can

    67
    he give the House any indication why there is this shortage in an essential grade?
    Mr. Snow: I think that that will come out in the report which my right hon. Friend is awaiting about the distribution of pharmacists. The improvement has been relatively small, something over 40 during the last year.

    Emergency Maternity Cases (Redruth)
    Mr. Nottasked the Minister of Health what is the average distance that an emergency maternity case has to travel to a fully equipped maternity unit in the United Kingdom and the longest distance that such an emergency would have to travel in the maternity wing of the Miners and General Hospital, Redruth.
    Mr. Snow: The information required for the United Kingdom is not available. The longest distance that such an emergency would have to travel to Camborne-Redruth Hospital, excluding infrequent cases from the Scilly Isles, is 37 miles.
    Mr. Nott: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that this distance of 37 miles, which will be increased when the Redruth Hospital closes and Treliske Hospital opens, is extremely long for an emergency case to have to travel? Will he look into this? Secondly, does he feel that the ambulance services are adequate to cope with this sort of distance?
    Mr. Snow: On the last point, if the hon. Gentleman has some case in mind, I should be very happy to look into it. With regard to emergency cases, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the provision of a flying squad at Redruth, about which there is another Question on the Order Paper.

    Obstetric Flying Squads
    Mr. Nottasked the Minister of Health what is his policy regarding the creation of additional obstetric flying squads; how many of these squads exist in the United Kingdom as a whole; and how many exist in the local authority areas covered by the West Cornwall Clinical Area.
    Mr. Snow: Regional hospital boards will continue to keep the needs of their Regions under review, and will establish
    68
    further obstetric flying squads or re-locate existing ones as new consultant maternity units are provided. There are 200 of these flying squads in England and Wales, one of which is in the West Cornwall Clinical Area.
    Mr. Nott: In view of the distance which has to be travelled by emergency cases, and in view of the Minister's last remark about the existence of an obstetric flying squad in the area, will he consider whether a further obstetric flying squad can be provided for the widely scattered rural area to meet two emergencies which might occur at the same time?
    Mr. Snow: We shall have to keep the position under review, but a new maternity unit of 80 beds is now under construction at Truro and when it is completed the location at the Miners and General Hospital at Redruth will be reconsidered.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it would be illogical to introduce another obstetric flying squad in West Cornwall either at the new hospital at Truro or at Redruth which is not based on a consultant maternity unit? Does he not agree that in an area like West Cornwall, served by a single consultant unit, it is right that there should be one obstetric flying squad based on that unit?
    Mr. Snow: The provision of flying squads must depend on availability, but we will have another look at this when the Truro Hospital gets into operation.

    Kidney Machine Units
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of renal units in operation, the total number he intends to promote and where they are to be allocated.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I assume the hon. Member is referring to units for intermittent dialysis of patients with chronic renal failure. Fourteen National Health Service hospitals are already providing this treatment in 10 regions. Of the initial 20 main centres, at least one will be established in each region.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. With regard to Plymouth, about which I have

    69
    written to him, can he say whether, if the regional hospital board agrees, and we can provide the accommodation and equipment for four patients a year, and also provide all the necessary money, he will be in a position to agree to setting up a unit in the near future?
    Mr. Robinson: This really is a matter for the regional board, but I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that there is a pilot scheme at Exeter and one about to start at Bristol, so the South-West Region is not being neglected in this matter.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Health what plans he has to give patients in West and North Devon the facilities of a kidney machine.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Two 10-bed units are planned in the South Western Region for the treatment of patients suffering from chronic renal failure by intermittent haemo-dialysis, one at Southmead, Bristol and the other at Whipton, Exeter. These will be capable of treating between 25 and 30 patients each, and will be available to patients from West and North Devon.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind in future planning that we desire these facilities in the north and west of Devon in view of the very long distances which have to be travelled from the north to the south of Devon to obtain these services?
    Mr. Robinson: As the hon. Member knows, the present plan for the first stage of these developments consists of 20 units. I think two for one region shows that that region is getting at least its share of the resources available.

    Chronic Sick
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Health how many chronic sick patients under 60 years of age have been taken out of geriatric wards in hospitals and placed in more suitable accommodation in the last 18 months.
    Mr. Snow: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of public concern about this whole matter? Has he been in touch with the Chelsea Labour Party which is organising a first-class
    70
    campaign on this issue? Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a recent article in The Guardian written by a former patient, which again has caused a great deal of comment?
    Mr. Snow: I am in touch with the Chelsea Labour Party on this matter. In my view, the Chelsea Labour Party has carried out a very good service indeed in drawing public attention to this matter. A pilot survey by my right hon. Friend on the question of younger chronic sick in hospital is in the process of being organised.
    Dr. David Owenasked the Minister of Health if he will instruct regional hospital boards to provide a service for relatives and friends of the bedridden chronic sick so that for a period of weeks once or twice a year they can be admitted to hospital to allow a rest and holiday for the people who undertake their care at home.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Hospital authorities already provide this service wherever possible.
    Dr. Owen: Is the Minister aware that this service is provided at only a few centres, that where it is provided it is possibly the greatest single factor in keeping patients at home and that an extension of this service would be greatly appreciated?
    Mr. Robinson: I agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, but not with the first because my information is that hospital authorities in general are fully aware of the value of the short-term admission of patients who are normally cared for at home. My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that there are arrangements for such short-term admissions in the Plymouth area.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly oblige those of us who are interested in this matter by letting us have a list of those who provide this service so that we in the House may know who to smack on the head for not providing it? Is it not apparent that when a good example is set, it would be a good thing to let the country know who is setting it, which will in turn enable the country to know who is lagging behind?
    Mr. Robinson: I am very willing to oblige the hon. Lady by giving her any

    71
    information for which she asks in a Question placed on the Order Paper, but not necessarily for the purpose of smacking people on the head.

    Building Programme (Dorset)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Health whether, as a result of his recent tour of Dorset, he will accelerate the programme of hospital replacement there.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. The regional hospital board decides priorities within the Wessex Region. Its intention is to provide new district general hospitals in the areas with large increases in population and to improve existing services in other areas.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's interest in hospitals in Dorset, but during his visit was he satisfied that they are sufficiently up to date to be efficient?
    Mr. Robinson: I am never satisfied with the hospital service as a whole, and I hope that we shall effect improvements here as elsewhere.

    Kidney Machines
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Health if he will give estimates of the number of kidney machines required and the number available; and what steps he is taking to increase the supply.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The number required will depend on the rate of progress in establishing treatment centres; treatment in hospital is not at present held up by shortage of machines, the number of which currently in operation is not centrally known. With regard to the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) on 26th January, 1967.—[Vol. 739, c. 349–50.]
    Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend the Minister agree, however, that the shortage of machines and trained personnel is a direct result of the wrongful deployment of national resources by the party opposite for 13 years? Would he further agree that our great national problem is not a shortage of resources but
    72
    their redeployment from purposes of mass armaments to scientific medical advancement?
    Mr. Robinson: Tempted as I am to agree with my hon. Friend on the first part of his supplementary question, I think that in fairness I should point out that it is less than two years since the use of kidney machines for the treatment of chronic renal failure has emerged from the research stage.
    Miss Pike: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is the result of our having the right priorities and doing things in the right way?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not think that, in this particular connection, follows from the last remark I made.

    Bedford General Hospital (Maternity Ward)
    Mr. Brian Parkynasked the Minister of Health what was the reason for closing a 13-bed maternity ward recently at Bedford General Hospital; and how many expectant mothers have been denied the facilities of a hospital confinement because of this closure.
    Mr. Snow: Staff were under heavy pressure through sickness and leave, and work was concentrated in the remainder of the department where extra beds were put up as necessary. Bookings were not reduced, but some early discharges were necessary.
    Mr. Parkyn: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that there has been considerable unrest in the Bedford area concerning the supply of maternity wards? Will he see that everything is done to ensure that any deficiences are made good?
    Mr. Snow: I will examine that and write to my hon. Friend.

    Frimley (New General Hospital)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Health why he announced his proposals for the construction of a new District General Hospital at Frimley Park, Camberley, by means of a Press statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: As part of a wide-ranging experiment in more economical

    73
    hospital design, I proposed that my Department should design and build new district general hospitals at both Frimley and Bury St. Edmunds. The two regional hospital boards welcomed my proposals and considered that a public announcement would be helpful. I accordingly issued my Press statement of 19th January.
    Mr. Onslow: Is the Minister aware that his Press statement made very little impact in getting the news to the public, since no copy was sent to the local authority, local papers or the four hon. Members who went to see him on this subject? If he wants them to accept this kind of thing, why does he not let them know?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not know whether the hon. Member is suggesting that I might have announced it in the House, but it is not customary to announce in the House of Commons decisions to start building particular hospitals. The Press statement was distributed, so far as I am aware, in the normal way. It may be that the local paper did not pick it up; it may have been at fault.

    Patients, South-West Region (Cost of Feeding)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Health what is the average cost of feeding a patient per day in the South-West Region.
    Mr. Snow: The information asked for is not available in this form.
    Mr. Mills: Is it not very sad that these figures are not available, bearing in mind that representations have been made to the hon. Gentleman that there has been a cut in the allocation of food for patients? Will he see that these cuts do nut take place, as it is obviously important to feed patients well?
    Mr. Snow: I should like to see more detailed information on that point. I would point out that it is difficult to provide an average figure because of the varying requirements of patients in different types of hospital.

    Child Patients (Adult Mental Hospitals)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Health how many children below the age of 16 years are at present
    74
    placed as patients in adult mental hospitals in England and Wales.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I regret the information requested is not available centrally.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that there are children in mental hospitals with adults? Does he not consider this a most undesirable practice and that mentally handicapped children should at least be in a separate department and not mixed with adults?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that is generally desirable, and hospital authorities were advised in 1964 that special units should be provided as soon as possible for both mentally ill and seriously maladjusted children and adolescents. Although progress has been made, there is still a shortage of recommended accommodation.

    Nursing Tutors (Career Structure)
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied with the career structure of nursing tutors; and what steps he is taking to improve it in view of the high proportion of nurses that fail the General Nursing Council examinations.
    Mr. K. Robinson: This is one of the matters considered in the Salmon Report on Senior Nursing Staff Structure, on which I hope to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Dobson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is more and more concern about an announcement on the Salmon Committee Report? Does he agree that the only possible way to get good training and tutoring in nursing is to get a good structure and employment and that we should improve on that part of the Report which is sound so that we shall not have so many failures?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not know to what extent rate of failure is relevant to the other part of my hon. Friend's question. The General Nursing Council, which, of course, has statutory control of the examinations, looked at the results last October but has so far been unable to isolate any particular cause for the sudden rise in failures. The Council will closely watch the February results to see if the higher failure rate is maintained.
    Dr. Winstanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the high failure rate is due not so much to deficiencies in methods of teaching as to the pressures under which many of these nurses in training are working and that we could get happier results by looking at this aspect of the problem than by looking at some of the others?
    Mr. Robinson: Since the General Nursing Council cannot lay its finger on the reason, I should not like to speculate.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the other part of the Question and say when his Department will produce comments on the Salmon Committee's Report?
    Mr. Robinson: Shortly, Sir.
    Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal College of Nursing has stated that it is dissatisfied with what the Salmon Committee's Report says on the subject of nursing teachers? Has he firm proposals of his own?
    Mr. Robinson: I think the hon. Gentleman would do well to await the announcement which I am to make shortly.

    Consultants (Fees)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health why he has abolished the schedule of maximum fees permitted to be paid to consultants who treat their patients in National Health Service hospitals; and what steps he is taking to ensure that those of moderate means are made fully aware that all necessary treatment is available free of charge.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I announced this step in the House in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 31st January, 1966, as part of my review of pay bed policy, because I considered these fees to be a matter between the practitioner and his private patients.—[Vol. 723, c. 679–81.] Hospital authorities are well aware of the need to ensure that everyone knows that all necessary services are available free.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister take some record of the amount of these fees taken over a set period? Consultants have been urged that they should charge moderate fees to people of moderate
    76
    means, but there is no means of checking this.
    Mr. Robinson: The medical profession are aware of the need for voluntary restraint in this matter and they have certainly given assurances that they will exercise it.
    Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he has selected this time in particular, during the period of severe restraint, to abolish the schedule of maximum fees?
    Mr. Robinson: There will be opportunities to debate this matter on the Prayer to annul the relevant Regulations, but the short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that we were ready to do so during the standstill and we thought that it was better to defer this to 1st January.

    Medical Laboratory Technicians (Redundancy)
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Minister of Health how many qualified State-registered medical laboratory technicians have been declared redundant by their hospital management committees over the last three years.
    Mr. K. Robinson: My Department is normally notified only when redundancy payments are made; there is no record of payments in respect of medical laboratory technicians.
    Mr. Tuck: Does my hon. Friend accept the fact that there have been redundancies, and how can he reconcile this with the fact that whenever there is curtailment of service to the public, the excuse always is that there is a shortage of skilled medical laboratory staff?
    Mr. Robinson: I can assure my hon. Friend that I understand that there have not been redundancies in this grade. I understand that there is a laboratory in his constituency which is shortly to be closed and that the future of one registered technician is under consideration by the hospital authority.

    Medical Staff (Lodging and Meals Charges)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement about the arrangements to exempt resident junior hospital doctors from payment for

    77
    lodgings; and what consequential adjustment is being made in the cost of meals to them.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Health whether he will reduce the charges for meals imposed on medical staff in hospitals.
    Mr. K. Robinson: By agreement with the profession new arrangements for lodging and meal charges for resident hospital doctors were introduced on 1st February. Formerly, all such doctors paid an inclusive board and lodging charge. Now doctors who are required to live in hospital pay nothing for lodging and a moderate charge for the meals they have.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister aware that there is resentment on the part of junior hospital doctors on the ground that the new arrangements, while purporting to improve their conditions, in fact, because of the increased cost of meals, leave them very little better off than they were? Can he give the House any facts and figures about that?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, these arrangements were all agreed with the profession, and I think it is true that the junior doctor who is required to live in would gain less than he would have done if the old residence charges had not been so substantially subsidised. Nevertheless. a doctor who is compulsorily resident who takes all his meals in hospital is not likely to pay more than about £160 a year. This compares favourably with the former charge for board and lodging which ranged, according to grade, from £175 for house officers to £225 for registrars.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at King's College Hospital, for example, medical staff were charged less than £4 a week for board and lodging, on which they usually claimed tax allowance, but now if they have all their meals in, they will be charged £4?
    Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman will put down that question about a specific hospital I shall be very glad to answer it.

    Drugs and Sterile Solutions (Birmingham)
    Mr. Gurdenasked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that there are adequate stocks of essential drugs and sterile solutions for operations to be undertaken without inconvenience or delay in Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Snow: There is no shortage except of certain intravenous injection solutions. Steps have been taken to ensure that urgent operations will not be delayed.
    Mr. Gurden: May I help the hon. Gentleman, in view of the lack of knowledge he displayed in answering Question No. 47 earlier? This firm, Cuxson Gerrard and Co., Ltd.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—I said, may I help the hon. Gentleman? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This firm Cuxson Gerrard and Co., Ltd. are manufacturers of these fluids, and the hon. Gentleman admitted to the shortage of one-third of pharmacists in Birmingham, and therefore the position is getting worse. Can he now tell us what is to be done to meet this situation?
    Mr. Snow: That clears up one mystery. I tried tactfully to deal with the point on the earlier Question, perhaps a little anticipatorily. The fact is that production difficulties have reduced supplies of saline, dextrose 5 per cent. and dextrosesaline solutions from commercial sources. They were at one point caused by a slight sterilisation problem. The hospital authorities in Birmingham are taking energetic steps to economise on existing sources, and rationalisation arrangements have been made by hospital management committees.

    Tattoo Marks (Removal)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Health under what circumstances National Health Service patients may have tattoos removed.
    Mr. Maddanasked the Minister of Health why the National Health Service spends public money on removing tattoo marks from those who have voluntarily had them done and later decide that they do not want to retain them; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: An operation to remove tattoo marks can be carried out under the National Health Service only when it is considered necessary on medical grounds.
    Mr. Price: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that this nonsense was stopped? Would he not further agree that at a time of acute shortage of hospital beds, we should get our priorities right? Will he investigate the situation in prisons where, I understand, a number of inmates are having this operation performed for therapeutic reasons?
    Mr. Robinson: Surgery for purely cosmetic reasons is not provided under the National Health Service, but disfigurement caused by tattooing may have psychological ill effects which can result in a medical need for removal.
    Mr. Maddan: As it is the right hon. Gentleman's policy to make patients in the National Health Service pay for contraceptive pills if they require them for social purposes, will he not adopt the same policy for people who wish to he "untattooed"?
    Mr. Robinson: I can only say that I do not see the analogy which apparently the hon. Gentleman sees.
    Mr. Braine: If one of my hon. Friends has the words, "I love Harold Wilson" tattooed on him and is worried about it, does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that he can have the tattoo taken off under the National Health Service? Surely the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) is quite right and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A question; not a speech.
    Mr. Braine: May I put my question another way? In view of the heavy pressures upon the Health Service, should not the right hon. Gentleman now consider making charges for this operation as he has for certain other courses of treatment?
    Mr. Robinson: So far as I know, the number of operations is certainly not large and does not represent very heavy pressure on Health Service resources.

    Cervical Cancer
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the Minister of Health if he will make a
    80
    statement concerning the progress made in the screening of women for cervical cancer.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The figures for June, 1966, showed that tests were then being carried out at a rate of nearly 1¼ million a year. Figures for December, 1966, will be available shortly.
    Dame Joan Vickers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are grateful for the progress which has been made? Will he pay a tribute to the voluntary organisations which have done so much? What percentage of women in the United Kingdom over the age of 30 are able to have this service?
    Mr. Robinson: I hope that the hon. Lady will put that Question down, when I will give an accurate Answer. In the Plymouth clinical area very good progress has been made within the last four months. On 31st January tests were being performed at a rate of nearly 700 a month, and the service is now keeping pace with the demand.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Birmingham area the figures came out as almost the worst in the whole country? What steps is the Minister taking to put the problem right in these selected areas which still manage to screen only a small proportion of the women?
    Mr. Robinson: I would rather await the figures for December, 1966, and then decide whether any special measures are needed in particular areas.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Poultry Processing Plants
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied with the comprehensiveness of the investigations made by his inspectors into poultry processing plants in the United Kingdom; whether he is satisfied with the protection available to public health from sub-standard broiler chickens; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the existing powers of local authorities under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955 and the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, 1960, are sufficiently comprehensive to enable them to

    81
    control the processing of poultry and that the system of inspection as advised by my Department in 1961 provides adequate protection to public health in respect of all grades of poultry.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that certain of these broiler chickens are not accepted as edible by United States forces in this country, and what investigation has he made into the reason for this?
    Mr. Snow: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman may be confusing the reasons for rejection by the United States forces. I am advised that it may not be a question of any possible infection or disease, but that they are not of the size or quality required by them.

    Dentists (Putney)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Health (1) if he is aware that most dentists in Putney refuse to supply dentures under the National Health Service; and if he will publish the names of those who do so provide them;
    (2) if he will take steps to ensure that constituents of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Putney, are enabled to obtain dentures where necessary under the National Health Service without having to travel outside the constituency to do so.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I regret that some dentists in Putney are unwilling to provide full dentures under the National Health Service and that patients may have to go to adjoining areas. I am sending my hon. Friend a list of dentists in Putney and neighbourhood who are willing to provide full dentures under the National Health Service.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is this not a generally unsatisfactory situation? Is not the problem of Putney characteristic of various other parts of the country? Is not the general position that people are now unable to obtain full dentures under the National Health Service over wide areas of the country, and in my constituency in particular?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not think that it is typical of the country as a whole. Experience shows that complaints of this
    82
    kind come mainly from London and the Home Counties. The only real solution to the problem is to increase the supply of dentists, and the current expansion of dental schools should help to achieve this over the next few years.
    Mr. Iremonger: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind his Answer to this Question in connection with the representation of his hon. Friend when he answers Question No. 15?
    Mr. Robinson: We had better await Question No. 15.
    Mr. Shinwell: If dentists in this part of the country or elsewhere refuse to supply full dentures, ought not they to be excluded from the National Health Service?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. Dentists are not obliged to accept patients for treatment under the Service, and I have no power to compel them to do so.

    Notifiable Diseases
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Health if he will seek to amend the list of diseases notifiable to medical officers of health under the Public Health Act.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I propose to do so when the next opportunity occurs for the necessary legislation.
    Dr. Dunwoody: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the notification of some diseases—for example, measles and pneumonia—is so inaccurate that the information provided is quite meaningless and pointless, and that even if it were accurate the information that it provided would not be of clinical value? Is it not illogical that local authorities should have to spend so much time and money in collecting this information when diseases like infectious hepatitis and brucellosis are not notifiable?
    Mr. Robinson: Without necessarily accepting all that my hon. Friend says, 1 can tell him that after consultation with the interested bodies I have provisionally concluded that a change should be made in the list of notifiable diseases. This will have the effect of subtracting eight and adding four.

    Cigarette Advertising
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the control of cigarette advertising and coupon schemes.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Health (1) what further steps he will now take to control cigarette advertising and coupons;
    (2) if he will introduce legislation to eliminate cigarette advertising in the Press in view of the health hazards of cigarette smoking.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Health what is his policy on the control of cigarette advertising and other measures to promote the consumption of cigarettes.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer my hon. Friends to my reply on 6th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd).—[Vol. 740, c. 1102.]
    Dr. Dunwoody: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable anxiety about the mushroom growth particularly of coupon schemes in the last three years? Is it not a shocking commentary on our society that tobacco companies should spend on these schemes more than twice what the community spends on medical research, through the Medical Research Council?
    Mr. Robinson: I know that there is a great deal of anxiety about coupon schemes. This is one of the matters to which the Government are giving current attention.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether he has at least had some informal consultations with Press proprietors about the exclusion of cigarette advertising from the Press? Many of them are very sensitive to this point, and talks would be very useful.
    Mr. Robinson: I would not like to go further than I have at the moment. I do not think that the Press proprietors are all of one mind in this matter.
    Mr. Cronin: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has done the best he can in negotiating with the cigarette com-
    84
    panies concerned, but could not he take more effective and vigorous action in influencing public opinion, especially among the younger members of the population?
    Mr. Robinson: That is exactly what our campaign to call the public's attention to the dangers of cigarette smoking is designed to do—and also to change the social climate in respect of the acceptability of cigarette smoking generally.
    Mr. Dean: Will the Minister bear in mind that the inclusion of coupons in cigarettes shows that they are popular with the public? Will he further bear in mind that but for the efforts of those who are unrepentant smokers he would be very short of money for the National Health Service?
    Mr. Robinson: I very much doubt whether, on reflection, the hon. Member would confirm his support for hypothecated taxation.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I am a nonsmoker, and I do not want to go into the question whether the right hon. Gentleman is also a non-smoker, but does not he agree that the statistics that he has recently published show that his Department's propaganda—despite the wide advertising of cigarettes—has been successful in reducing the amount of smoking?
    Mr. Robinson: Certainly the last published figures suggest that there has been a welcome increase in the number of non-smokers, particularly in the younger age groups.
    Dr. Winstanley: In addition to the very welcome steps that the Minister is taking to dissuade people from smoking at all, will he consider publishing propaganda or advertisements to encourage people to take up pipe smoking or cigar smoking rather than cigarette smoking, in order to get at those who are not amenable to his first lot of propaganda?
    Mr. Robinson: I shall certainly give consideration to that suggestion.

    General Practitioners (Merit Awards)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health if he will designate clearly and announce publicly any merit award which may be given to a general practitioner

    85
    as being within either the category of merit for services to patients or as merit for services to the medical profession.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The profession has yet to decide on acceptance of payments, which they would prefer to call advancement allowances, for special experience and service to general practice. Until I know their decision, I cannot usefully consider the matter raised by hon. Friend.
    Mr. Pavitt: Prior to the decision of the profession, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if criteria are to be established and a points system inaugurated, the whole of the points system should be published for general practioners? Secondly, will he confirm that although this will cost another £2¾ million a year, it will not be to the detriment of those doctors not receiving advancement awards?
    Mr. Robinson: On the first part of the supplementary question, I would prefer not to answer hypothetical questions pending the decision of the profession. On the second part, this is a sum of money which the review body recommended, in its Seventh Report, specifically for the purposes of these allowances. It would not be to the detriment of the profession if the recommendation were accepted by the profession as it has been by the Government.
    Mr. Braine: Can the Minister confirm that whatever the basis on which merit awards are finally made, no practitioner is eligible for them unless he is in receipt of a seniority award? Is he aware that owing to a mistake in his new Regulations any practitioner whose service as a principal is broken by a period of three months is automatically disqualified from receiving such an award? Is not this an absurd and unjust anomaly? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to rectify it?
    Mr. Robinson: Most of what the hon. Gentleman has said does not arise, because no conditions have yet been laid down. At the moment the whole matter is fluid, while it is being considered by the profession. I do not accept that any mistake was made in the arrangements for seniority awards, but the effects of the rules for seniority awards, which were agreed by the profession, are to be studied
    86
    in the near future by the profession and myself.

    Immigrants (Health Checks)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Health what representations he has had from the London Borough of Redbridge about compulsory X-ray and medical examination of immigrants in their country of origin or at the port of entry; and what steps he is taking to check the spread of tuberculosis and other infectious diseases carried by intending immigrants into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Snow: I have seen correspondence expressing some dissatisfaction with the present arrangements for Commonwealth immigrants. Within the limits of existing powers, there are health checks at the ports of entry, and follow up arrangements in the areas where the immigrants settle. Medical examinations in the countries of origin are in process of being arranged.
    Mr. Iremonger: Will the Minister beware of being too complacent about this question because arrangements at ports other than seaports and London Airports, are very unsatisfactory? The follow-up of cases to their destination is entirely haphazard. Is he also aware that arrangements made in the countries of origin are not very promising?
    Mr. Snow: On the latter part of the hon. Member's question, we are still in process of negotiation, although I agree that consultation has been rather slow. As to the existing arrangements being unsatisfactory, all holders of labour vouchers are examined at ports of entry. If the hon. Member has particulars of a case where the follow-up or the examination at the port of entry has obviously been unsatisfactory, I shall be glad to look into it.

    Dental Laboratories Association Limited (Prices)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Health if he will receive a deputation from the Dental Laboratories Association Limited to discuss the desirability of Ministerial control of the price paid by dentists for the products of members of the Association.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. I do not think this would be useful.
    Mr. Iremonger: Why will not the Minister see these people, since it is apparent, from the Answers to earlier Questions, that a real problem exists here and that the right hon. Gentleman should see them? Will the right hon. Gentleman meet this deputation and perhaps tell them to submit the case to the Restrictive Practices Court if they are to get the sort of protection which will keep up the quality of work?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension about my position in this matter. I have already told him, in answer to earlier Questions, that the question of the fees paid by a dentist for dental protheses are a matter for the dentist and his supplier. I agree that increases in the price of dental protheses are subject to the Government's general policy on prices and incomes, but I have no evidence that additional measures to control these prices would be in the interests of the patient or the taxpayer.
    Mr. Atkinson: I hope that my right hon. Friend will change his mind about receiving this deputation. Is he aware that as a result of the fees paid to dentists for dentures, particularly partdentures, standards are falling disastrously and that many National Health Service patients are receiving ill-fitting teeth made of inferior quality material? Is he aware that these patients are receiving teeth made from second-class materials and that even the modem techniques of fitting teeth are not being used because of the low fees?
    Mr. Robinson: I would not accept what my hon. Friend says, although I know that the Dental Laboratories Association has made a general assertion about the decline of standards. If my hon. Friend has any factual evidence to provide, I assure him that I will be glad to receive it.
    Miss Pike: Is not it churlish of the Minister not to agree to see this deputation, in view of the disquiet that exists over this matter? Will he agree to see these people, since no harm could be done and a lot of good might result?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to do so, since these fees are a matter between the Association and the dental profession.

    Brain Report
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Health which of the recommendations of the Brain Report he intends to implement during this Session.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the OFFICIAL REPORT for 30th January, when the Government's plans were announced in the course of the debate on drugs. [Vol. 740, c. 167]
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend properly seized of the basic fact that he cannot make any inroad into this terrible problem unless we are prepared to spend more money on it, that if doctors are not to be allowed to prescribe, and rightly so, then there must be 24-hour psychiatric cover at the centres and that to complete after-care, proper after-treatment hostels may have to be set up?
    Mr. Robinson: As my hon. Friend probably knows, I propose shortly to issue general guidance to hospital authorities about these treatment centres, but her Question refers to the recommendations of the Brain Report and, apart from the one relating to a limited power to detain addicts, it is the Government's intention to act on all the recommendations in that Report.
    Mr. Deedes: When shall we see the Bill?
    Mr. Robinson: That is a matter for the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Braine: That is very unsatisfactory. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least give the House the date when these treatment centres will be set up?
    Mr. Robinson: That was not the question asked by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes).
    Mr. Braine: But it is the question I am asking, and the House is entitled to an answer in the light of the Question asked by the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short).
    Hon. Members: Answer.

    Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to replace invalid tricycles with specially

    89
    adapted motor cars; and if he will seek to enable disabled people who want to purchase their adapted cars to do so.
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Health whether he will now make a statement regarding the the provision of suitably converted cars to disabled drivers instead of the single-seater vehicles at present provided.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Health whether he will now make a statement on his decision regarding the possibility of disabled people being issued with specially adapted cars rather than invalid tricycles, on payment of the difference in cost by the disabled person in each case.
    Mr. Snow: I must ask hon. Members to await the Statement my right hon. Friend hopes to make later this week.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have been approached by several disabled citizens in my constituency who wish to congratulate the Government on the speed-up in the supply of these cars and the replacement of tricycles by cars? As the car is much superior to the tricycle in the sense that it is a family unit, will he give an indication of when it is likely that the tricycle will be completely replaced?
    Mr. Snow: My hon. Friend had better await my right hon. Friend's statement later this week. I think that he will find many interesting things in that statement.
    Mr. Brooks: I thank my hon. Friend for the assurance that at long last this Report is to be presented to the House. Is he aware, however, that any congratulations which may now be proffered to him will be speedily withdrawn if the Report does not provide invalid people with the opportunity of having the cars which they have for so long deserved?
    Mr. Snow: I note what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Fortescue: When making his statement, will the Minister bear in mind that paraplegics are becoming more reluctant, particularly in large cities, to sally forth in their one-seater cars because of their nervousness about the speed and amount of traffic on the roads, and will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to this aspect of the problem?
    Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend's statement will be comprehensive.

    Young Chronic Sick (Home Helps)
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to ensure the recruitment and training of home helps and the extension of local authority responsibility for the care of the young chronic sick at home.
    Mr. SnowI would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 6th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).—[Vol. 740, c. 1106–8.]
    Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that the breadwinner in a family with a chronic sick person often faces the agonising choice of either giving up work altogether and becoming financially dependent on the State or of consigning a close relative permanently to hospital? Since this is bad not only for the individuals concerned but for the community as a whole, should not something more comprehensive be done about this problem?
    Mr. Snow: The question of allowances is not really one for my right hon. Friend. However, as I said last week in answer to a somewhat similar Question, there is a survey of the hospitalised young chronic sick now being prepared; and I assure my hon. Friend that the long-term issues are receiving my Department's urgent consideration.
    Miss Pike: Is it not a fact that, far from there being an extension of this service, there is grave danger of cuts being made in it because of grants to local authorities being cut?
    Mr. Snow: I should not have thought that there was justification for that observation.

    Children (Congenital Abnormalities)
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the provision of facilities and the keeping of records to ensure that children with a history of abnormalities at birth or shortly afterwards are kept under supervision with a view to the earliest possible detection and treatment of any handicaps which may arise.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Health what is his policy with regard to Keeping records and ensuring continuing surveillance and follow-up treatment for children born with serious congenital?
    Mr. K. Robinson: The importance of early detection and continuing care and support, including the maintenance of full records, for all handicapped children was drawn to the attention of all local education and health and welfare authorities in a circular sent to them in March last. Their reports on their arrangements are now being studied.
    Mr. Newens: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that much of this information is still not being made available where it is most required, particularly to teachers when children begin school? Will he continue his efforts to try to get the practice of making the information available more widely known?
    Mr. Robinson: The extent to which my hon. Friend's allegations are correct will emerge when the study has been completed. One or two authorities have asked for a little more time in which to report. When the study is complete, we shall consider what further action may be called for.
    Mr. Cronin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been very great advances recently in the search for treatment for these unfortunate children and that the problem now is not so much how to treat them as to ensure that all these unfortunate children receive the treatment they require?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. I would not dissent from what my hon. Friend says.

    Drug Addicts (After-care)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce aftercare facilities for drug addicts when they have left hospital after taking a course of treatment.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I accept the need to improve facilities for the rehabilitation of drug addicts, including their aftercare, and propose to issue guidance as soon as possible.
    Mr. Fisher: Do not people tend rather to drift back into the same environment which first introduced them to drugs after they have had their treatment? If so, would not after-care hospitals be a real help during the few months following treatment?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, I would generally agree with the hon. Member. It seems necessary to provide in a form acceptable to the addict a fairly long period of psychiatric supervision, social support and suitable employment. Although this is easier said than done, there is need for experiment by hospital authorities and local authorities, including hostels for addicts.
    Mr. Braine: In this connection does the right hon. Gentleman accept the working party recommendation that there should be panels of specially licensed doctors to whom addicts could go after being at treatment centres?
    Mr. Robinson: I should be grateful if the hon. Member would put that question on the Order Paper because I am considering, before issuing guidance, a number of representations from various quarters.

    Dentists (Rother Valley)
    Mr. David Griffithsasked the Minister of Health if he will give the number of dentists in the Rother Valley constituency in 1961 and in each year, to the most recent date.
    Mr. Snow: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Griffiths: Although I do not know the figures, is my hon. Friend aware that we are very alarmed, particularly in the West Riding and the Rother Valley, at the lack of dentists, especially school dentists? What incentive will the Minister give to get them to industrial areas rather than having an abundance of them in wealthy areas?
    Mr. Snow: As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend has no power to direct dentists to any particular areas, but executive councils have been asked to try to encourage dentists to practise in those areas of shortage.
    Following is the information:
    The number of dentists providing general dental services in the constituency on 30th September each year was:

    1961

    …

    …

    …

    5

    1962

    …

    …

    …

    6

    1963

    …

    …

    …

    5

    1964

    …

    …

    …

    5

    1965

    …

    …

    …

    4

    1966

    …

    …

    …

    4

    1967 (January)

    …

    …

    …

    5

    Pharmacy Technicians (Pay Award)
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister of Health when he intends to implement the pay award to National Health Service pharmacy technicians, grade one, agreed on 14th April, 1966; and whether the award will retrospective.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The award was implemented with effect from 1st July, 1966, and hospital authorities were asked to pay the arrears of salary increase at the end of December.
    Mrs. Knight: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that these people are not in fact pharmacists but dispensing assistants under a different grade, and that they themselves say they have had no increase as promised two months before the freeze commenced?
    Mr. Robinson: I can only assure the hon. Lady that the factual position is as my main Answer indicates.

    Mental Health Service
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister of Health if he will institute an inquiry into the best means of obtaining information on the mental health service.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. A great deal of information is collected and published about the mental health service by means which I consider to be satisfactory.
    Mr. Moonman: Is the Minister aware that there is deeply felt concern in my constituency and throughout the country at the lack of quantitative and qualitative information? How can the Minister possibly hope to explain how the service can be improved if he does not have what I regard as basic information?
    Mr. Robinson: My Ministry has just installed a computer at Fleetwood which,
    94
    among other things, will be used for processing mental health statistics. We hope that eventually this will speed up the preparation of statistics and also make possible other detailed tabulations, for example, by local authority areas, which we are unable to do at present.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Members' Speeches
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Lord President of the Council if he will move a sessional order to provide for the experimental limitation of the length of speeches on the lines of the recommendation in paragraph 8 of the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I ask my hon. Friend to await a further debate on procedure when I may have proposals to put forward on this point.
    Mr. Atkinson: Has my right hon. Friend made an analysis of the length of time taken by hon. Members during the first six months of this Parliament? If he has, he will discover that the chance of every hon. Member taking part in a main debate is one in 5½ years. If every hon. Member wished to exercise his right to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, it works out that each Member would have that chance every 5½ years. Does not my right hon. Friend think that the time has come to change this practice?
    Mr. Crossman: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a statistical argument in favour of our once again discussing the matter, but, as I made plain in the debate on procedure, I think that it is best tackled in conjunction with the debate on Standing Order No. 9.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Would the right hon. Gentleman make available in the Library an edition of Sessional Orders and an edition of Standing Orders as amended by Sessional Orders? That is not available to hon. Members at present.
    Mr. Crossman: That is a different question and an interesting idea. I will certainly consider it if the hon. Member puts down a Question about it.
    Mr. Chapman: Since this was a unanimous recommendation of the

    95
    Committee on Procedure, would it not be a good idea to try it out first of all at morning sittings? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am only asking for experiments, and it is time we had a few in this place. Secondly, as well as limiting speeches in morning sittings, would it not be a good idea to give Mr. Speaker the chance to limit them on days when he is very heavily pressed by the number of hon. Members who want to speak?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions are already limited in length.
    Mr. Crossman: I think that our single experiment is working quite satisfactorily.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As for my hon. Friend's other suggestions, I ask him to await the debate on procedure.
    I do not think that it would be in order for me to put forward proposals without having heard the views of the House on the recommendations of the Select Committee.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In considering this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that rigid limitations on the time of speeches will kill the Parliamentary practice of giving way to interventions and also expose exponents of unpopular points of view to the dangers of sustained interventions?
    Mr. Crossman: I am aware that there are many points of view in the House. I have my own ideas. I think that we should await a debate on the Report of the Committee, and then after the debate I shall make up my mind what we shall do.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Would my right hon. Friend consider the recommendation for a limitation of speeches and would he further agree that voluntary restraint on the part of back-bench Privy Councillors would greatly assist other back-bench Members in obtaining a fair share of the available time?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Crossman: From the response of hon. Members it will be realised that there are strong feelings on the subject, which have been ventilated more than once. Seriously, I think that there are proposals in the last remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), about the possibility that Mr. Speaker could use his discretion, which
    96
    we have to consider, but I think that this is a subject that we need to discuss.
    Mr. Shinwell rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have spoken only once during this Session?
    Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman makes his speeches upstairs.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have the utmost difficulty in catching Mr. Speaker's eye. Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that everything depends upon the nature of the debate? Some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do not want to speak at all in some debates, and very often the Whips have to go out into the Tea Room, the Corridors and Smoke Room to persuade hon. Members to come into the Chamber. It is quite impossible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I have to make a speech some time. Perhaps that is enough for today.
    Mr. Crossman: I regard any comment by myself on my right hon. Friend's intervention as superfluous.

    Bills (Standing Order No. 43(b))
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to obtain voluntary agreements for timetabling of Bills under Standing Order No. 43(b) on the experimental basis recommended in paragraph 5 of the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure.
    Mr. Crossman: I have nothing to report at present, but I may have proposals on this topic to put before the House when we have our next debate on procedure.
    Mr. Dalyell: Since this Standing Order has not been used, I think, for 20 years, is this not a case for some early experiment?
    Mr. Crossman: I think that there is a case for it—a case which I gather is now being considered by the Committee. We must await its Report.

    Refreshment Department (Finances)
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to

    97
    arrange that the House of Commons (Services) Committee publishes monthly a statement of the profits earned, expressed as a percentage of turnover, in the Members' Dining Room, Strangers' Dining Room, Members' Cafeteria, Strangers' Cafeteria, Members' Tea Room, Members' Smoke Room and Strangers' Bar.
    Mr. Crossman: This matter could be considered, but I think we should first await the statement I hope to make with regard to the finances of the Refreshment Department.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members are disturbed by the report of the trading situation in these various catering establishments? Since it is hon. Members who are contributing either to the profit or to the loss, as the case may be, surely they are entitled to this very minimal information?
    Mr. Crossman: I assure the hon. Member that the anxiety of hon. Members is no greater than that of the members of the Services Committee. It is because of this anxiety that I want to make sure that the Report which we present has looked at all the problems and not merely certain aspects of them.

    Question Time
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the order in which Questions to any Minister appear on the Order Paper, so that this order may bear some relation to the time at which hon. Members hand such Questions to the Table Office and is not, as at present, decided by the unfettered choice of the printer.
    Mr. Crossman: The Select Committee on Procedure reported on Question Time in April, 1965. It may consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman if it wishes, but I am hoping that it will take an overall look at our whole procedure.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Surely some scheme of "First come, first served" could be arranged? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at present one may endlessly try to get a Question answered
    98
    by the Prime Minister orally and endlessly the printer says, "No"?
    Mr. Crossman: I can see the hon. Member's point. He will also be aware that "First come, first served" in this case might be "First at hand, first served". I was thinking of the advantages of those who were on the spot at the time. I would rather not put it to the Committee all over again now. It considered this matter a relatively short time ago. I want it to concentrate on its main job of dealing with all our procedure.
    Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this? The present method of the printer selecting Questions haphazardly is really unbelievable, and could it not be referred to the Committee?
    Mr. Crossman: It certainly could be referred to the Committee but the Committee has a number of points referred to it and has been delayed in the job of giving an overall report. Although this matter could be referred to it, I would be reluctant to refer it. However, any hon. Member can, of course, put the point to the Committee.
    Mr. Marten: May I suggest to the Leader of the House that one of the problems is that Questions go to the printer at 4 o'clock in the afternoon in a great block, and that if they went, say, three times, at 10.30, 2.30 and 4.30, then there would be an element of first come, first served?
    Mr. Crossman: I accept that point, but again I say that hon. Members who wish to are perfectly entitled to put these points to the Select Committee.

    Members (Facilities)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange to circulate to hon. Members an up-to-date list, and a guide to the location, of facilities available for their use in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Crossman: The Serjeant at Arms issues to each Member on election a folder containing a number of leaflets setting out the facilities provided for Members of Parliament. During the course of a Parliament, when the leaflets require amendment he inserts a notice

    99
    in the All-Party Whip. The Library also issues a pamphlet to every new Member about the facilities they provide. There is also a pamphlet prepared by the Clerk of the House, setting out the services which his Department provides for Members.
    Mrs. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend look at this question again to make quite sure that these guides are comprehensive, since many hon. Members are unaware of all the facilities available to them, and at least one such facility, a gymnasium, has apparently disappeared completely without many people being aware of it?
    Mr. Crossman: Certainly I will look at it again, but I would say that a comprehensive booklet would be out of date in a relatively short time. I am told that hon. Members are advised of the facilities available, but if they are not I will certainly look into the matter.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most puzzling things for a new Member coming to the House is that one is not given any sort of plan or map of the facilities in this area? It is simply no good producing a booklet listing facilities unless we know exactly where those facilities are, and many of us are still very often lost in this building—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Crossman: Those of us who have been here 20 years may still find ourselves lost from time to time.
    Mr. Longden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some who have been here 20 years still have to discover whether there are any facilities at all?

  ADEN
  Lord Balniel(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Aden.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): The situation in Aden, despite all the calls to violence which had been made from various sources, remains nevertheless quieter than may have been expected. There have been, I regret to say, a number of incidents in which local police
  100
  and citizens have been killed and wounded and British troops have been wounded. This I deplore. I feel bound to say to those who are either instigating or encouraging these activities that it is both ridiculous and wicked. The world knows that we shall be leaving Aden by 1968, and it should be the duty of everybody concerned to help us to leave it in good order and with a stable Government able to carry on from there.
  Lord Balniel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Will he confirm Press reports that during the weekend nine people were killed and 30 Arabs wounded and that 16 British soldiers were wounded? Is it not clear that the purpose of the National Liberation Front is to create a state of chaos in Aden, so that when the British withdrawal takes place next year the Federation will be vulnerable to attack from outside? Does not this situation arise at least partially from the basic policy error of the British Government in announcing the decision to withdraw next year without making proper provision for the defence of the Federation? As this is now becoming one of the danger points in the world, will the Government very carefully reexamine their whole policy towards the Federation and Aden?
  Mr. Brown: The Opposition are consistently and constantly pressurising us to cut down our expenditure. It cannot be cut down without problems having to be faced. One of the problems follows from this. We believe that it is right that we should leave Aden. We believe, as, I think, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) believes, that we should say so and that we should orientate our policies that way. Having come to that conclusion, we then have to face the consequences. I said in my statement that those who are engaged in either instigating or supporting or encouraging these outbreaks of violence should themselves face the fact that it is both ridiculous and wicked to do so.
  I regret to say that over the weekend nine local nationals were killed and about 30 injured. I am told that one civilian policeman was killed and about 13 injured and that 13 British Service men were injured, mostly by grenade fragments. I regret this very deeply, but I do not believe that it makes our policy

  101
  wrong. I believe that we should say to those abroad, "Stop it and do not be so wicked".
  Mr. Heath: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that he is giving the impression, which, in all fairness to him, he does not usually give, of very great complacency about the issue of Aden? Nobody has ever pressurised the Government to withdraw and leave a vacuum and chaos, the situation which is rapidly developing in Aden. Does he think that to appeal to those who are causing these troubles not to do so will be effective, when they want to see chaos in the short term in Aden in order to interfere in its internal policies? Is he aware that the scale of casualties since the end of 1966 is now well over 50 killed and 600 injured? Does he not agree that the only way to deal with this situation is to make it plain that the British Government will carry out their obligations there until the Federation and Aden can defend themselves?
  Mr. Brown: I repeat that the scale of violence over the weekend was much less than we might have expected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, indeed. Therefore, to that extent those who were appealing for, calling for, greater violence have failed, and there is no reason why we should not say that and note it.
  We are not coming out of Aden and leaving a vacuum. On the contrary, we are providing the South Arabian Government with a considerable amount of aid and defence aid so that it can enable itself to be stable. The best role which we can play in this situation is to encourage the local people to stand on their own feet rather than to rely upon us to carry out their defence for them.
  Mr. Mayhew: If, as my right hon. Friend suggested, a major motive in our leaving Aden is to cut expenditure, why, are we increasing expenditure in the Persian Gulf after leaving Aden? How, if we leave Aden so abruptly next year, can we expect to maintain ourselves in the Persian Gulf thereafter?
  Mr. Brown: It seemed to us, during the days when my hon. Friend was a member of the Government, a very sensible thing to do that in moving from one place we should make provision somewhere else so that we could carry
  102
  out our continuing obligations in that area of the world. I make it plain that in doing it where we are doing it, it will cost us a good deal less than it was costing us in Aden.
  Mr. Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a state of affairs in which the curfew was taken off to restore the situation, but because of these casualties had immediately to be re-imposed, does not justify the optimistic view which he is taking? Does he not realise that this situation causes anxiety not only to the Opposition but also to our friends in the Persian Gulf and our allies in the United States? Will he therefore seriously reconsider this policy?
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has to face one problem: do we try to stay in every place for ever? These problems arise when we decide to come out, and it is literally no use going round saying that we should cut our overseas commitments and be unwilling to face the consequences of cutting them. This is such a consequence. We are handling it as well as we may. I repeat that the consequences are a good deal less than what was forecast at the beginning.
  Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend inform the House of the progress of the United Nations Mission to Aden? Would he also consider negotiating some kind of interim United Nations supervision or administration during the transition period?
  Mr. Brown: We are trying very hard to get agreement on a United Nations Commission to go there. I am doing everything I personally can to ensure that the Commission will be acceptable and should get out there as quickly as it can.
  Mr. Sandys: However much more violence the Foreign Secretary may have expected, is it not a fact that terrorism and intimidation have increased on a massive scale since the Government announced their premature withdrawal and that this is being organised from Cairo? Do the Government really propose to give absolutely no assurance to South Arabia of any protection against a Nasserite take-over after independence?
  Mr. Brown: We have on this a clear position and a much clearer conscience that the right hon. Gentleman must have had—
  Mr. Sandys: Broken pledge.
  Mr. Brown: We have no Suez on our conscience. To a very large extent, I would tell the right hon. Gentleman, we are still paying for the follies of Suez. I have no intention of staying in Aden when we have no need to stay in Aden, when it prevents a country coming to self-dependence. What I intend to do, quite contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's action when he was a Minister, is to enable them to come to independence, to give them the support I can—
  Mr. Sandys: I promised them independence.
  Mr. Brown: —to give them the help I can give them and then to get out and let them run their own affairs.
  Mr. Luard: Is it not a fact that the scale of violence would have been much greater, the number of casualities many times larger and the violence continued over many more years if the Government had refused to evacuate Aden as the Opposition have suggested?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many examples of this being true. Cyprus, of course, is one of them.
  Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that from the beginning, from the first announcement by the Government, the Opposition have consistently warned that this would be the deplorable and tragic outcome of the Government's premature announcement of their intention to leave Aden?
  Mr. Brown: I am most surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should so prostitute himself as to make that remark.
  Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this firm reaffirmation of Government policy to leave Aden by 1968 will be warmly welcomed by those of us on this side of the House and by the immense majority of sensible people in the country? Would he tell the House how the economic aid programme for Aden between now and next year—and
  104
  subsequently—will dovetail with the defence run-down?
  Mr. Brown: We are carrying on aid—we told them that we would—for several years after 1968 so that they can arrange their affairs accordingly. This is being done.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: We all want to see reductions made, but does it make sense, when there are 55,000 troops in the Far East and a similar number in Germany, to leave an area which may be chaotic, when these vast numbers of troops elsewhere are not really needed?
  Mr. Brown: It makes absolute sense, in our national policy, in our policy towards other areas of the world, to leave the Aden base. There are other ways of taking care of our interests in that part of the world and we can relieve the taxpayers of a good deal of the burden which they are now carrying. I therefore think that this decision is absolutely right.
  Mr. Winnick: While we all deplore the violence over the weekend, would my right hon Friend not agree that a political solution must be found by which the local nationalists are brought into the Government? Would he not agree that the proposed federation for this part of the world is totally disliked by the local population in Aden and is a non-starter?
  Mr. Brown: Of course, I agree that the local nationalists—whatever one means by that term—should be part of the Government which takes over after we leave. We are doing our best to encourage the establishment of a stable representative Government before we go, and I am all in favour of those nationalists who have left the country and gone elsewhere coming back to play their full part in local political events.
  Sir F. Bennett: As the right hon. Gentleman seems so satisfied with the present position, can he give any indication of how many more innocent lives have to be lost between now and 1968 before he will agree to review his policy?
  Mr. Brown: I am not satisfied, and I did not say that I was: I said that I deplored what was happening. I pay my tribute to the courage of the High

  105
  Commissioner, who must by now have survived about five overt attempts on his life, and to that of our local troops. I am not complacent about this at all. I deplore the attacks which are being made, but I believe that the policy which we are carrying out is the right one, and I applaud our Forces for helping us to carry it out.

  LESLIE PARKES (ARREST)
  Mr. Jack Ashley (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the arrest of Leslie Parkes by the Military Police and the future procedure to be followed.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): Leslie Parkes was arrested by the civil police on 23rd June, 1966, under Section 186 of the Army Act, 1955, on a reasonable suspicion of being a deserter and was brought before the magistrates under Section 187. The magistrates discharged him. These proceedings did not constitute a trial and were not a bar to further proceedings.
  He was arrested by the military police during the night 9–10th February, 1967, brought before his commanding officer, and charged under the Army Act with desertion. The commanding officer, in accordance with the Army Act and Rules of Procedure made thereunder, remanded him and ordered a summary of evidence to be taken. When this has been taken, he will again be brought before his commanding officer, who may, if the evidence justifies it, remand him for trial by court-martial. It would be wrong for me at this stage to say anything which might prejudice the future proceedings before the officer taking the summary of evidence, the commanding officer or the possible court-martial.
  Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the high reputation of his Department has suffered grievously by this clumsy, arrogant and totally unnecessary action in arresting Leslie Parkes? Is he further aware that, by asking a court of law to make a judgment and then rejecting that judgment and arresting my constituent seven months after the court's decision that there was no prima facie case made out against him, the Army
  106
  has shown a deplorable disregard of basic human rights?
  If he has any further evidence against Mr. Parkes, would he please work through the civil court? Will he release Parkes immediately while this is going on and accepted my assurance that the Army will get no rest until justice has not only been done but has seen to be done?
  Mr. Boyden: Whilst it is certainly a principle of British law that a man shall not be tried twice for the same offence, the magistrates' court proceedings did not amount to a trial and, in footnote No. 7 to Section 187 of the Army Act, there is specific reference to the fact that a man who has been discharged in this way may subsequently be re-arrested under Section 74 and tried if there is evidence to justify it—and in this case there is evidence to justify it.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that this man genuinely believes, and all the records show, that he had completed his service with the Colours and that he was not a deserter, and that last Thursday evening, 9th February, the civil police enticed him to the police station where the military police were waiting to arrest him? Is that not a disgraceful state of affairs?
  Mr. Boyden: As to the latter part of what the hon. Gentleman has said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making an investigation into these circumstances. As to the first part—if the hon. Gentleman really wants me to answer him, I should be prejudging the trial.
  Mr. Shinwell: If there are some doubts about the matter—whether the case was properly tried or whether or not it was an effective trial—until the commanding officer has presented his case, is there any reason why this man should be kept in custody? In an ordinary civil case he would be entitled to ask for bail. Why should he not be released until the evidence is adduced?
  Mr. Boyden: The charge is one of desertion, which in the Army's eyes is a serious offence. In normal circumstances, when a man is charged with desertion he is kept under close arrest.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it takes seven months to decide whether a man is in a state of desertion or not? Will he make some observations on the reports, that I have only had from newspapers, about the treatment of this man during his recent imprisonment?
  Mr. Boyden: I regret the long delay. Part of it was due to having to call witnesses from Germany. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question—I am having the matter investigated and I will certainly see that some of the things reported in the Press do not happen again.
  Mr. Thorpe: If the Army Act provides that a man who has been acquitted in a civil court may subsequently be tried for the same offence in a military court, is this not contrary to the whole principles of British justice? If the hearing before the magistrates' court was not a preliminary examination or trial, what was it?
  Mr. Boyden: It is obvious that exceptions in relation to preliminary proceedings were considered at the time of the passing of the 1955 Act, otherwise this would not have been put in as a footnote.
  Mr. Bellenger: While not condoning any act of desertion, if such be the case, may I nevertheless ask my hon. Friend to speed up the court-martial proceedings? The Army is notorious for its delay in bringing a man to court-martial proceedings, which will presumably settle the matter once and for all in this case.
  Mr. Boyden: I have given express instructions to that effect today.
  Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman plainly and unequivocally undertake to investigate both the circumstances of this man's immediate arrest and the reasons that no preceedings were taken in his case over so long a period? Will the hon. Gentleman bring the answer to the House as soon as possible?
  Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Wainwright: Is it not true that this gentleman was at home and took it for granted that he was no longer a deserter? Did he not lead the life of an ordinary citizen? Is it not disgraceful that he should remain in prison while a trial is
  108
  taking place in so far as he considers that he is innocent?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot comment on the guilt or innocence of the person concerned. But there is a question for the Under-Secretary of State to answer.
  Mr. Boyden: You took the words from me, Mr. Speaker. I was going to say that if my hon. Friend expects me to comment on the man's intention, which is the essence of desertion, I should be pre-trying the man.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the word "footnote" which he has used twice?
  Mr. Boyden: It is a footnote to Section 187 of the Army Act. It is part of the Act.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: Unless there are very serious circumstances, a criminal is allowed out on bail. Is there any discretion to allow this man out on bail? If there is, why has he not been let out?
  Mr. Boyden: As I said, desertion is a very serious offence, and the normal custom with a deserter is to keep him under close arrest.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Can the hon. Gentleman say with any certainty whether anyone in authority at any time after the hearing in the magistrates' court ever told Mr. Parkes that he was a civilian? If not, was it then made clear to the military authorities that they were entirely free to arrest this man at any time?
  Mr. Boyden: Not to my knowledge did any military authority say to him that he was a civilian.
  Mr. Lipton: My hon. Friend has said that the circumstances in which this man was lured to the local police station and then arrested are being investigated by the Home Secretary. Will he give an assurance that the result of this investigation will be disclosed to the House?
  Mr. Boyden: I did not say that he had been lured.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I said it.
  Mr. Lipton: I also said it.
  Mr. Boyden: I said that I had consulted my right hon. Friend the Home

  109
  Secretary and that he was investigating. That is so.
  Mr. Lipton: Will we get the report?
  Mr. Kershaw: While I agree that magistrates' court proceedings are not the same as a court-martial, will the hon. Gentleman look at the way the Army Act is likely to work? Clearly the person in peril will think that he has been tried twice even if, according to the Army, he has not been?
  Mr. Boyden: Certainly I will look at it from that point of view.
  Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend has said on two occasions that desertion is a most serious charge. Could this man be released on bail while the trial is pending? He has been far too long in custody.
  Mr. Boyden: There is no way of releasing a soldier on bail, but there are various forms of arrest and these I will have investigated.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

MR. KOSYGIN (VISIT)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement.
I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join in feeling that Mr. Kosygin's visit to this country has been a great success. And that this success is due both to his spontaneous and friendly warmth of manner everywhere he went and equally to the evident desire of the Soviet Government for the best possible relations between our two countries, a desire we have made clear we share.
Hon. Members will have seen the joint statement issued this morning and will have noted the impressive list of subjects on which we have reached agreement in the field of Anglo-Soviet affairs. It is this clearly demonstrated evidence of our will to agree and this strengthening of the practical day-to-day links between the two countries which provided a firm and, I am sure, continuing foundation for our joint consideration of the greater problems of world affairs.
110
On trade, we are driving for substantially increased shipments between us and a better balance. The Trade Ministers will meet shortly to review the working of the existing agreement and to see what can be done to put more life into it. In this connection I was very glad when Mr. Kosygin told me that the Soviet Union intended to purchase a substantial amount of additional consumer goods in Britain this year.
But we are both agreed that the industries of both countries need to be able to plan on a longer-term basis, and we are therefore going to work for the conclusion as soon as possible of a long-term agreement enabling the two countries to develop their productive capacities for the purposes of expanding trade. As soon as the long-term agreement can be worked out it will supplement and, we hope, supersede the existing agreement.
Hon. Members will have seen the importance attached in our statement to the further development of the technological and scientific ties between the two countries. We have made provision for stepping up the level and number of contacts in this field and the Ministers concerned are to meet in the near future to work out any improvement in formal machinery that may be needed for this purpose.
The House will also welcome the other practical measures which have been taken to remove obstacles in the way of free exchanges between our two countries—including, among other matters, the arrangements for an early review of the possibility of expanding the air services of the two countries; the intention to conclude a Navigation Agreement in the near future; and the proposal to establish an Anglo-Soviet Consultative Committee to enlarge existing contacts in culture, science, sport and other fields. And I am sure that hon. Members will give a particular welcome to the final settlement of mutual financial and property claims and counter-claims which was agreed during the week. This settlement brings to an end an issue which has been a matter of contention between this country and the Soviet Union for over twenty years; and perhaps more than any other single product of the week's work it symbolises the wish of both Governments to turn their backs on these past differences and to look forward to a future of greater cooperation and friendliness.

111
Last week hon. Members heard Mr. Kosygin propose that we should now proceed towards a Treaty of friendship and peaceful co-operation between our two countries We have accepted this proposal and we look forward to negotiations leading to the conclusion of a Treaty which can provide the framework within which all the kinds of bilateral contact I have mentioned can be developed.
It has always been our position, and the Soviet Government fully understand this, that we remain loyal to all our alliances and obligations as they do to theirs But at the same time our past historical ties with the Soviet Union and the mutual interests of the two countries make it possible for us to hold out a hand of friendship to them in this way without any derogation from our existing international commitments and loyalties.
It is on the success of our discussions of our bilateral interests that we were able to build in approaching the wider international problems. For many hours, during formal working sessions and indeed long into the night, we discussed with the utmost frankness some of the outstanding problems—and dangers—the world is facing.
The House will have seen that we recorded our satisfaction with recent progress towards the conclusion of a non-proliferation agreement, and we emphasised the paramount urgency of bringing this to a speedy completion.
Hon. Members will have noted also what we have said about our desire to reach an understanding in the wider field of disarmament—nuclear and conventional—leading to a world agreement on general and complete disarmament.
We spent a great deal of time on the question of peace and security in Europe. We made wholly clear to Mr. Kosygin the policy on which we are working with our allies as regards nuclear consultation within N.A.T.O. At the same time, we emphasised the intention of our N.A.T.O. partners and ourselves to develop positive contacts for easing tensions within Europe as a whole. And in this context the British and Soviet Governments agreed on the need for closer bilateral relationships
112
between individual Western and Eastern European countries. Our joint statement helps to point the way.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I explained to Mr. Kosygin the purpose of the visits which we are paying to the capitals of the six member countries of the European Economic Community. We emphasised the economic importance of the discussions we are holding there, and particularly the contribution that Britain could make to the greater technological effectiveness of Europe. We also stressed to him that we have in mind political as well as economic objectives. And we explained that one of the main purposes of our approach was not only to strengthen European unity and thereby to help to reduce European tension and work towards a wider, fuller unity in Europe as a whole, but also to enable Europe to exert a more powerful influence in world affairs.
We discussed with Mr. Kosygin the proposal to call a conference on European security. We agreed that this could be valuable. But we told him that it was essential that it should be adequately prepared and nothing should be done to detract from the importance of the bilateral method of solving problems and easing tension. Mr. Kosygin also is fully aware of our concern to see that all countries which have a stake in European security must be enabled to play their full part in such a conference.
Finally, Sir, I must tell the House that we devoted the major part of our discussion to the problem of Vietnam, and we did so with a great sense of urgency and of the dangers the world faces if there is not a speedy and honourable solution.
The House will understand I must not go into details at this moment of time. But I would like to make clear the view which I have reached after these very detailed and searching discussions—and to make it clear as well that here I am recording my own view and that of the British Government. I believe that despite the deeply held differences in the attitudes of the major participants, the gap is not unbridgeable, given a realistic appreciation of the political and military factors involved and, above all,

113
given a belief on each side that the other desires a negotiated settlement.
I believe that a solution could now be reached. But if the present opportunity is missed, we must not give up hope. The road to a solution remains open. And one reason for hope is that the Soviet Government and ourselves, as the House will have seen, "will continue to make a close study of the situation and will make every possible effort with a view to achieving a settlement of the Vietnam problem, and will maintain contact to this end."
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that when hon. Members have read and studied the statement issued today by the two Governments, they will agree with me that in terms of our bilateral relations this is a landmark in Anglo-Soviet history, and that in terms of our wider discussion of world affairs and the continued contact that we have agreed to maintain, we have made a constructive contribution to international understanding.
Mr. Heath: We on this side of the House, of course, welcome the better understanding which has been brought about during the past week by Mr. Kosygin's visit to this country, a better understanding not only of the matters in which we are in agreement, but also of the differences which exist between us; an understanding which was begun by Mr. Macmillan and continued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Quintin Hogg) and others up to 1964.
We also welcome the further contacts which have been arranged in so many different spheres, but, of course, particularly in that of trade and of technology, although I know that the practical arrangements still have to be made to carry out these contacts.
Regarding the Treaty of peaceful cooperation and friendship, we welcome the fact that the Government will take this up in place of the Treaty that was abrogated by the Soviet Union itself in 1955. May I ask the Prime Minister to clarify one point in the communiqué? Is it his intention that negotiations should begin straight away on this, or do they
114
depend, first, on the further bilateral negotiations such as trade, culture, education and the other contacts?
Finally, a Treaty of this kind does not in itself solve any of the actual problems of external affairs, welcome though it is. Regarding the one to which most time, thought and energy was given, that of Vietnam, does the Prime Minister now see any possibility, as a result of his late night and early morning talks with Mr. Kosygin, of reactivating the Joint Chairmanship? If not, how otherwise does he think that he can bring about, what he has pointed out to be necessary, a better realisation on each side of the other side wanting a genuinely negotiated settlement?
The Prime Minister: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said at the beginning, and for his general comments, not only on trade but also on the wider aspects. On the two specific questions which he has put about the Treaty of friendship, it is intended that we should start to negotiate on this right away without waiting for the other contacts that have been developed in the cultural, scientific and other fields.
With regard to Vietnam, I said that it is difficult to say very much at this stage. We naturally considered very fully the position of the Joint Chairmen, and I am now satisfied, for various reasons which I would not want to enter into, that this is not the right immediate way to try to bring the parties together and to get immediate agreement to start negotiations. If it were, we would press it. There are other ways.
Regarding the Joint Chairmanship, we are both conscious of our responsibility here and we believe that this is a card which could be played, which should be played, and which will have a vital role to play at the right moment.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be overwhelming welcome for the improvement in Anglo-Soviet relations and particularly for the facilities for increased exchanges in the future? Was he able to deduce from Mr. Kosygin what would be the likely reaction of the North Vietnamese Government to the cessation of American bombing? Secondly, was the question of the Jewish community in Soviet Russia discussed and, if so, with what results? Thirdly,

115
can he say what was Mr. Kosygin's reaction to our exploratory talks with a view to joining the Common Market?
The Prime Minister: Answering the question about the reaction of Hanoi, the phrase has been used, and it is even truer now, that this is a very delicate moment, and I prefer not to answer that question. I have been put very much in the picture on this matter. I do not think that we ought to say more. What was the second question?
Mr. Thorpe: The Jewish community.
The Prime Minister: This was not part of our discussions. On previous occasions I have raised this matter, indeed after very substantial discussions with those who are most concerned in this country and elsewhere. I have raised these matters with the Soviet Premier and with his predecessor. But on this occasion we did not press the matter further. What was the third question?
Mr. Thorpe: The Common Market.
The Prime Minister: I apologise for having to ask. That is the trouble about being up until 4 a.m. on three mornings running. We made it clear what the position was about going into the Common Market, and I stressed, as on our visits to the European capitals, our political desire to help create a wider European unity. As for Mr. Kosygin's views on this, I think that I had better rely on what he said on television the other evening, when he said that he thought this was a matter for Britain and the Six to decide.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on having brought Mr. Kosygin to this country and on his conduct of the discussions, and on the wise and far-sighted language of his statement this afternoon?
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Kosygin's visit to Scotland was very successful and that we are very grateful to the Prime Minister and to the Foreign Office for the arrangements which were made? Is he aware that this is not only appreciation of a very notable international statesman, but a real wish that this should be the beginning of the end of the arms race and the cold war?
The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will be glad to know that Mr. Kosygin expressed himself on the subject of the Scottish visit in even more glowing terms than did my hon. Friend.
Mr. Blaker: How far did the Prime Minister discuss with Mr. Kosygin the question of Mr. Gerald Brooke? Does he not agree that the release of Mr. Brooke would be one of the best possible steps which could be taken in the interests of Anglo-Soviet relations? If that is not now possible, did he press on Mr. Kosygin to improve the conditions under which Mr. Brooke is being held and, in particular, the arrangements for access to him by the British Consul?
The Prime Minister: Of course, we pressed this matter extremely hard, as did my right hon. Friend in November, and as I did earlier last year. The second part of the question was a suggestion that action of this kind could make a notable contribution. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member said in his question. The matter has been pressed. I prefer to leave it where it is for the moment to see what happens.
Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole nation is delighted at the success of Mr. Kosygin's visit and that we appreciated very much the time which he gave to our distinguished visitor and the cordiality of the farewell speech this morning? Is my right hon. Friend aware that all of us want to see progress with a non-proliferation treaty, with an assurance that the West German Government will not have access to nuclear weapons, and with a recognition of the post-war frontiers and a recognition of the G.D.R.? On all these aspects of policy, the Labour Party have made their position quite clear.
The Prime Minister: All this might have taken a little longer. The two questions of non-proliferation and of nuclear arrangements within Europe have always been closely linked in the minds of the Soviet Government. They have felt strongly about these matters. My right hon. Friend will have noted from the terms of the communiqué that we have welcomed the progress made on a nonproliferation agreement and that we feel that it is now within reach of negotiation and signature. This, I think, speaks

117
for itself on both those questions which my hon. Friend raised.
Earl of Dalkeith: Would the Prime Minister be a little more explicit about what he means by "co-operation" in the Treaty of friendship and co-operation? Will he assure the House that he will resist any pressure from his hon. Friends to encourage him to sign some form of Treaty of Moscow as an alternative to the Treaty of Rome?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that we look at this in terms of capitals. A Treaty of friendship, think, would be very valuable, and I indicated what purposes, among others, it might have. I hope that this will be a continuing and developing relationship under this Treaty. Certainly there is nothing incompatible between such a Treaty of friendship and membership of the European Economic Community, about which I have already answered a question.
Mr. Atkinson: With regard to European security and a lessening of tension in Europe, could the Prime Minister say whether the East German Government will be included in any negotiations which take place? If not, will the East German Government be asked to be co-signatories to any non-proliferation agreement?
The Prime Minister: That raises a very much wider question which we have not discussed. As for the proposed conference on security, we have emphasised the importance of proper preparation for this in a preparatory commission or something of that kind. All those problems must be sorted out by a preparatory commission before the security conference is held.
Lord Balniel: Did the Prime Minister make the point in the discussions that the new Coalition Government in Germany have made new and friendly approaches towards Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? Did he emphasise to Mr. Kosygin the importance of a conciliatory response to these approaches, because only in this way can one break up the patterns of the cold war and give a sense of security both to the East and to the West?
The Prime Minister: When the noble Lord refers to the new Coalition Government in Germany, he will understand that
118
we did not discuss the internal political affairs of individual countries. With regard to the recent statements and actions of the German Government, I think that the noble Lord could assume—while I am not giving anything away—that this has been discussed and that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who dealt extensively with these matters, naturally made all the points which it was necessary to make on the recent statements made by the German Government.
Mr. Judd: In view of the Government's primary commitment to the United Nations, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he had with the Russian leaders about the role of the United Nations in Vietnam and its role of peace-keeping in the international community? What talks did he have on the financial problems facing the United Nations?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would help to say very much about the Vietnamese situation at the moment. I think that everyone taking a realistic approach to the problem would agree with what has been said on a number of occasions, long before last week—that for reasons which we all understand, and regrettably, it is not possible for the United Nations to play the part in these matters which we would normally have wished—for reasons that we all understand.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: In the present atmosphere of good will, will the Prime Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to follow up the question of the 3 million Jewish people in the U.S.S.R. and the hardship which they are suffering? Many hon. Members of all parties—no fewer than 300 hon. Members have signed a Motion—feel very strongly on this issue.
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This is a matter which has been taken up many times. While it was necessary that some individual questions had to be taken up separately during the talks and not during the main plenary part of the discussions, the hon. Member can be assured that this question was raised in that way, as it has been raised, I think, every time that my right hon. Friend and his predecessor have met the Soviet Government. We do feel very strongly about this. But the

119
hon. Member knows that the Soviet Government do not admit some of the statements which we have made on this issue and regard it as an internal matter.
Mr. Dalyell: We welcome the regular basis on which the Anglo-Soviet technology talks are to take place. Will the Prime Minister advance to the Soviets the idea that if the trade fair, coming to London in 1968, is to take place, it could also, on the basis of the success of Mr. Kosygin's Scottish visit, go to Glasgow, and for that matter to Manchester or Liverpool?
The Prime Minister: I would certainly consider that question. Mr. Kosygin was certainly impressed with his Scottish visit and would like to develop other relations, not only nationally, with Britain as a whole, but between particular areas of Britain, for example, between Scotland and Wales, and particular areas of the Soviet Union. We should like to see that develop. Manchester is twinned with Leningrad, his own city. I will consider whether we should press this proposal.

LESLIE PARKES (ARREST)
Sir G. Nabarro: I beg to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Parkes on a charge of alleged desertion.
You have guided the House on earlier occasions during the present Parliamentary Session on this procedure, Mr. Speaker, in saying that the matter concerned first, must be definite, second, must be urgent, and thirdly, must be a matter of public importance.
I claim that under all of these three heads I am very much in order. It is a definite matter in that a private citizen has, as I judge, been summarily arrested by the military police, taken back to a regimental unit and put under close arrest. Second, it is clearly a matter of urgency because this man is under close arrest, awaiting a court-martial and should never have been placed under close arrest when, at the discretion of the commanding officer, having regard to the circumstances—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into the merits.
Sir G. Nabarro: This man is presently in close arrest though he need not be. Thirdly, it is clearly a matter of public importance because here the liberty of the individual citizen and subject of the Crown is concerned, a topic which is of special interest to Members of this House. I claim that this Motion meets all the requirements of the Standing Order No. 9 and I trust that you will accept it.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I am being addressed on a point of order. The hon. Gentleman seeks to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Parkes on a charge of alleged desertion.
May I say that I had anticipated that this matter might have arisen this afternoon, and I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing me earlier, during the Questions on this issue, that he might seek to raise the matter.
From what we have learned today from the Minister's statement, I think that if we were to debate the matter tonight there would be a real and substantial danger of prejudicing the trial by judicial process of this case and, for that reason, I cannot submit the application to the House under Standing Order No. 9.

BILL PRESENTED
  ROAD TRAFFIC (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  Bill to amend the law relating to road traffic, presented by Mr. Ronald Bell; supported by Mr. Corfield, Mr. Victor Goodhew, Mr. John Hall, Mr. Anthony Kershaw, and Mr. Ian Lloyd; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th May and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before half-past Nine o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

  UNIFORM LAWS ON INTERNATIONAL SALES BILL
  Bill referred to a Second Reading Cornmittee.—[Mr. Crossman.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series],—considered.

BRAIN DRAIN
4.24 p.m.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: I beg to move,
That this House regrets that, far from fulfilling their promises, Her Majesty's Government have pursued policies which have aggravated the loss to the United Kingdom of qualified and skilled manpower; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to encourage men and women of ability to remain at home by pursuing policies in the field of health, education and science better designed to that end.
This debate will, of course, end in a Division on party lines. Nevertheless I trust that I will be forgiven for expressing the hope that we may get more out of the debate than what I may describe as an ordinary party wrangle. There are legitimate party points to be made on both sides of this discussion, and I hope that they will be made. Part of the criticism that I level against the Government in this matter is that in opposition they chose to misrepresent the nature of the problem and now that they are the Government they have become the victims of their own propaganda.
But I trust that what I have to say may provide some common measure of agreement on some topics and I can assure hon. Members opposite that although part of what I have to say will inevitably be controversial it is said in a desire to make some impression upon their minds, because I believe that a fundamental change of approach, not merely lit the party opposite, but in the country, towards this matter is one of the conditions of success.
We have therefore chosen this subject of the so-called brain drain as the topic of this Supply Day debate because of its intrinsic and, as we think, urgent importance. It was not that we grudged to hon. Members opposite their debate on Vietnam; it is that this subject, whether more or less important than the great international subjects which hon. Members wish to discuss, is the sole responsibility of this country, Government and House. If we do not care about it no
122
one else will. if we do not do anything about it, it is certain that nothing will be done.
If I may quote from the Prime Minister on 11th February, 1964:
"Britain has got the brains, it is the job of the Government to see that we keep them here."
Although I did not at that time wholly agree with everything he said, and I do not wholly agree with it now, what is quite certain is that if we do not take the matter seriously no one else will. Nor can I altogether accept the criticism which came from the Liberal benches, from the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) who is not now in his place, to the effect that such a debate was premature, on the grounds that a committee is considering the subject.
With respect, that is an unnecessarily feckless approach to the problem. I make no complaint that at the time of the debate in another place last December the Government saw fit to set up another Committee. I have no doubt that there were good reasons for doing so. But we have had committees on the brain drain before—a good number of them. The Royal Society carried out an inquiry and made a report in 1961. Following that, the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy conducted another inquiry, which I commissioned, and reported at the beginning of 1963.
Sir Willis Jackson made another report last October and so did Mr. Swann in his paper "Parameters of Scientific Growth", published also by the Government. The Library of this House has prepared for the purpose of today's debate a lengthy bibliography consisting of numerous well-informed papers on various aspects of the subject, not all in the English language.
The broad facts of the situation arc well known. It may be that figures are difficult to come by and, when they come, are sometimes stale and incomplete. They will be incomplete as long as, quite deliberately, Governments refuse to subject travellers at the ports to the kind of interrogation which would be necessary to elicit the requisite material. I do not know whether the Government adhere to this policy, for which there is much to be said. I ask simply to inquire whether that situation still remains.

123
The facts, however, are well known. If remedies are hard to find, it is not because the facts are not known. It is because the causes are deep-seated and intractable and because the decisions which will have to be made, and about which I wish to make some suggestions this afternoon, are at least likely to upset a great number of our ingrained prejudices. It is a mark of intellectual and moral decline if a nation or a party seeks to use pendency of an inquiry to delay discussion upon a subject when the policy decisions can be based upon material that is already well known.
I begin by this brief reflection on the nature of the political and moral crisis facing the country. For a country in the position of our own there is only one recipe for salvation, and that is the pursuit of excellence in every department. There are political and moral reasons for this. The world is littered with the disjecta membra of forgotten empires and each nation that experiences a decline from imperial status is inevitably caught up in the moral and spiritual vacuum which demands on the part of its national leaders the exposure of the people of their country to a more than usually severe challenge in the way of excellence. There are, however, in addition economic and technical reasons why this should be so.
Our own nation was the first in the field in the Industrial Revolution. Our traditional industries are amongst the oldest known to the Industrial Revolution—coal, rail, steel and textiles, for example. Some of them, like many other ancient institutions, tend to become a little fossilised in their habits. Others may be in the end on the way out; we do not know. But all the time, new centres of industrial production, largely in the same basic fields, challenge competition with ourselves, both in the industrialised countries and in those hitherto not industrialised.
Japan, for instance, which before the war largely produced shoddy and substandard goods, is today producing articles of the highest quality. The same can be said of India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. It is a mistake to think either that their plant is not up-to-date or in some cases that the wages paid are much
124
below our own. They are all producing competitive goods in the same sectors as ourselves. Therefore, for such a country as ours there is only one precept, which is excellence: excellence in every field, politically, socially, economically and technologically.
For that, three broad conditions are necessary. The first is a first-class system of formal education, from the infant classes of the junior school right up to the post-graduate studies in the university, and research and development, from the most generalised type of culture to the most specialised kind of vocational training. It needs advanced industries. We cannot do without them, even if they are expensive, even if they have to be supported, as the aerospace industry or the atomic energy industry requires to be supported, partly by Government funds. We need to permeate the whole of our technology and the whole of our administration with the scientific approach. Lastly, we must see that out scale of social values matches the needs of real justice and not what we imagine that justice ought to be like.
Therefore, when we see a group of our fellow countrymen opting out of our society, opting out of the supposed benefits which we are showering upon them and going across the Atlantic to a society so conservative in its outlook from some points of view that it would make my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) appear like a pale reflection of his red-headed counterpart on the opposite benches, we must reflect that some of our judgments about what social justice may be are being condemned by part of our population. We have to build a society in which no group of people, no class in society, feel that they are unwanted, undervalued or superfluous. That applies not less to our gifted children than to our normal or handicapped children.
However far we may have fallen short of this ideal in other respects, I believe that we are much nearer an educational Utopia than we imagine. To some, that will seem strange or even complacent. There are some people who see nothing but the overcrowded classrooms, the slum schools, the shortage of teachers, rioting students and delinquent school-leavers and who think either that the whole

125
thing is no good or that great condemnation has to be passed upon all those who have played their part in it.
I do not take that view. To speak in such language is to miss the wood for the trees. The broad fact is that by any human standard or criterion one chooses, ours is one of the best educated societies in the world. There are very few countries which enjoy an educational system as good as hours.
If, looking across the Floor of the House from one side to the other, we see points of criticism, let us remember to begin with that our criticisms are directed to the educational system of the 1930s under which we were brought up and not to the educational system of the present day which we have never experienced ourselves but to which our children are being exposed.
It is precisely the excellence of our education that, in one way, makes us more vulnerable to the brain drain. Mr. William Douglas, a gentleman of whom I had not heard before I prepared this speech, is the President of Careers Incorporated, in New York City, and head of the mission which recruits talent from this country to go to the United States. As he observed in a Press conference,
"There is something different about British education. It produces quality and not quantity."
There is the rub. The brain drain is not entirely spontaneous.
I am not saying that, if there were no recruiting campaign, there would be no brain drain. Such is not true. However, let this be said rather bluntly to begin with. I have said it before, and in such a way as to cause the maximum of offence. I say it again, and I hope that it will continue to cause offence until it ceases to be true. The American high school system is not sufficiently good to produce high-class graduates on the scale required by American industry, American universities and the American Government. That is the fact, even if Cambridge graduates try to stop a man getting an honorary degree when he says so.
It is said that the United States are 30,000 physicists short. It is said that at the moment there are five or ten vacant places for physicists in America for every single indigenous applicant. Of course, it is not only in physics
126
and medicine, or of scientists, engineers and technicians that that is true. America is littered with European expatriates. Skilled workers, teachers, technicians, artists, entertainers and writers have flocked to the United States, and they bring up their children as United States citizens.
What has happened is that, in order to supply its needs, the society of the richest country in the world has been plundering the educational systems of Western Europe. We must not think that the brain drain is limited to the United Kingdom. Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Germany and, to a lesser extent, France, Italy and Greece are all laid under tribute for the purpose. Even after four years I still think that there is something disreputable about the richest nation in the world laying under tribute those whose educational systems are at least as good as and better than its own and who can less well afford to lose the products of those educational systems.
Let us remember that it creates a vacuum further afield than that. Sucked into the void created by the fact that 4,000 British scientists and 350 doctors leave these shores and cross the Atlantic every year, come the graduates from less well developed countries such as India, Pakistan and Africa to fill our needs when their own countries can afford to lose them so little.
This is not purely a national problem. Nothing better could exemplify the biblical maxim,
"… from him that bath not shall be taken away even that which he hath,"
than the brain drain viewed as an international phenomenon.
What can we do? Can we afford to let it go on for ever? Is it, like the brain drain that has been going on for the past 350 years, something about which we need not worry too much? I do not think that it is. Even from the point of view of money, it costs about £20,000 to produce a Ph.D., about £10,000 to produce a first-degree graduate, and probably about half that to produce an C.S.E. school-leaver. We cannot afford to lose such investments, even if we could afford to lose the increase in national wealth which, working here, such high quality products of our educational system would produce.

127
I do not believe that it is simply a question of £ s. d. At a time when our national pride has received blow after blow, it is an affront to our national dignity that so large a group of our most distinguished young people should be opting out of the society which we have provided for them.
If we are not to tolerate it, what are we to do about it? Here, I would start listing things which I would hope there was general agreement that we should not do. Of course, in pursuit of the excellence which I have described, we must set about creating a higher structure of research institutes of higher educational teaching, both inside and outside the university grants system, which satisfy our own requirements and so provide employment for our graduates.
But let us face the fact that we could not enter into an auction with the United States, even if we tried. It was here that I felt critical of some of the speeches by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. We cannot enter into such an auction. It is not simply that the United States have a population which is three times ours and, therefore, a national income which is three times ours. On the contrary, they have a national income which is approximately eight times ours. That creates a scale effect, in addition to the effect of degree, which renders it quite impossible to enter into competition with them on our present scientific and economic base. We cannot do it. Because a national income of £243,000 million is more than eight times the equivalent figure which we have, a society which possesses a national income on that scale is able to afford a whole range of facilities which no society of our size is likely to be able to afford, however much it spends upon its scientific education and research.
Secondly, we must not entertain for a moment the idea of restricting the movements of our scientists and technologists, or restricting the movements of those scientists and technologists from undeveloped countries who wish to come here. It would be foolish if we did, because, in one sense, the brain drain is not an evil but a good. If international trade in goods is a desirable objective, so is international trade in talent. It is only the permanent adverse balance in both cases that we need deprecate. Granted that
128
facilities will be available in North America which we cannot match, at any rate, over a great range of years to come, we must encourage our young men and women to take advantage of them, far from restricting them. We hope only that they will come back, that they will stay British, and that they will bring up their children as British citizens.
Thirdly, it would be wrong, would it not, to mutilate or distort our educational system? I have heard it suggested in quite responsible quarters that we should be justified in restricting the amount of physics done in this country because our physicists are so vulnerable to the brain drain. Surely that would be to go about it the wrong way? Let us not forget that when we are talking about high-grade science, we are talking about culture. There is not a curious division between the humaner studies and science. Science is one of the most characteristic features—perhaps the characteristic feature—of our modern civilisation. Research carried on at the top for its own sake is one of the fundamental dynamics which push us forward. It so happens, through no selection of our own, that it is the higher range of physics which attracts the most vigorous and penetrating minds, and if we were to limit our education in this way we should be committing a grievous crime against our society.
Let us look, instead, at the things which we can and ought to do. In the first place, we must broaden our scientific base. This means, in practice, that we must largely Europeanise our scientific base, because in Europe we have a population and a gross international product which can produce a society on the scale and wealth of the United States.
This was the fundamental thinking in the institution of C.E.R.N., the organisation for nuclear research, in E.L.D.O., the launcher development organisation, and E.S.R.O., the space research organisation. We cannot contract out of these advanced industries and these advanced sciences simply because they are expensive. But let us not deceive ourselves. At one time I believed that the creation of these large-scale international centres would save us money. This is not true. They will generate expenditure nationally, and not save us expenditure

129
nationally. The only thing that they will do, which is desirable, is to make available on this side of the Atlantic, in cooperation with European partners, a range of facilities which would not otherwise be available to us.
How are these various concerns getting on? E.L.D.O. was very nearly slaughtered by the Government this summer.
The Minister of Aviation (Mr. John Stonehouse): Rubbish.
Mr. Hogg: I am very happy to hear my remark described as nonsense, but I remember all too well the public announcement in this House. We have heard little of C.E.R.N. I have heard little of the space research organisation. I have heard relatively little of Dragon at Winnfrith Heath. They were all inspired by the same ideology of broadening the scientific base, and I must say to the hon. Gentleman that in some respects the Europeans need encouragement in this because, as a result of the war, we are still greatly ahead of many of our European partners in our advanced scientific thinking. We may be behind the Americans, but we are very largely in advance of many of the Europeans in many of the technologies which I have been describing, and surely we should seek to Europeanise our aerospace technology and projects?
I was glad that the Government failed to slaughter Concord in their early weeks of inexperience. How is this getting on?
Mr. John Rankin: Splendidly.
Mr. Hogg: I hope so. What about the variable geometry aircraft? The Government have dealt such a savage blow at the aerospace industry of this country that they have caused to be sent across the Atlantic now fewer than 1,300 top-level experts as a result of decisions taken in the early weeks of inexperience by the present Home Secretary and the present Prime Minister. What are they doing to repair that, and are they doing enough?
When this has been done, let us not forget that we have to encourage American investment here if we are to broaden our scientific base. It is a good thing, and not a bad thing, when American
130
money is put in here, when American brains are put in here, and when American investment is made in British scientists working here. Obviously one has to watch the policy of American companies, but we do not take their money away by stopping American investment here. We only ensure that it is invested in our rivals instead. We can look after ourselves at least to the extent of seeing that when the installations are here they are properly used, but this will require a good many innate prejudices to be reversed.
Then, what about a counter-recruitment drive? I believe that we have in existence an organisation for the purpose of recapturing talent which has gone across to the United States. This again should be a matter of continuous policy from the last Administration. How is this going on? We would like some information about it.
We cannot avoid backing our advanced industries, our atomic industry, our chemical industry, and our aerospace industry. These are to some extent the pacemakers for the whole of industrial technology in the world. I think that the Government have failed, or did at any rate at first fail, to realise the value and importance of this.
Consider, for instance, the communications satellite. I think that before we are very much older the communications satellite will be the basis both of telephonic and television communication between the continents. My judgment is that no one nation can afford to set up a system on its own. My judgment, for what it is worth, is that even if we could do it the European nations would not be strong enough together.
I believe that the Americans realise that, but if we buy in without having a satellite capability on this side of the Atlantic, we shall buy in at the point at which we shall only be able to construct the reception apparatus ourselves. This is not good enough. Even if it costs money the Government must continue to support an advanced aerospace industry, both in conventional aircraft and in satellite capability.
Our established industries need to he permeated with the spirit of technology. We are apt to think of technology as something which is inserted from outside,

131
perhaps by the Minister, but this is not so. Science in conventional industries is nothing more than systematic thinking applied to systematic measurement and observation. It means laying out a factory on more rational lines. It means the proper selection of material. It means scientific purchasing. It means the redesign of products and processes. It means scientific marketing and other management techniques, not less than the more consciously technological developments in hardware, and it means doing this on the level of every Government Department. As he knows, my fundamental criticism of the set-up which he and his right hen. Friend exemplify is that it diffuses where it ought to concentrate, and concentrates where it ought to diffuse.
Every Ministry ought to be a Ministry of Technology in its own field. However, we have the present set-up and it is no good my flogging a horse which is there and willing. We must get the best we can out of this unequal partnership, even if we have divided science down the chine and separated one part off from industry and another part off from education. We must make the best with what we have, and we must make the best of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I want to encourage them in well-doing.
I now come to the more general criticism. Have we got our social priorities right? We hear a lot about social justice from hon. Members opposite, but are they so very just? Have they sufficiently valued the talented, the gifted, the able, the enterprising, the skilled, the qualified—and even those who try? There would not be a brain drain if those groups thought that the Government had sufficiently valued them. We are constantly being told that it is the lower-paid worker who must get priority in any form of relaxation of the squeeze, or freeze, or whatever kind of "eeze" we are subjected to. Is that just? Is it to the interest of the lower-paid worker to starve the skilled—as has been happening fairly consistently in wage negotiations since 1945?
I do not want to reopen the vast question of comprehensive education. But there are some points about education which I hope right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not forget. When a child leaves
132
school at the age of 15 he normally goes into a good job nowadays, and earns infinitely more than his predecessors did. He takes out his girl on the back of his motorbike and gives her costume jewellery. He has a remarkably good time, even when he behaves himself.
But what about the boy or girl who stays on at grammar school and is still subject to school discipline at an age when it is particularly irksome, with no wages but with the feeling of being a continued drag on the parents? Such children have a long vista of examinations ahead of them—the differential calculus, A-levels, and often a long period of three years to get their first degree and another four to get their doctorates. They have to reach the age of 27 before they earn a penny of honest money. In the meantime they are paid a pittance of £7 by the right hon. Gentleman.
I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman; I have had too much of it myself. I know that the right hon. Gentleman must get as many students into the universities as can get education, and that it is better to keep them a little short than it is to deprive anybody of the education he wants. But can we wonder that students feel aggrieved when the most gifted of their generation are the depressed class—the ones who will not get any reward until they are aged 27?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has the right to pose the problem—but what is the solution? In his presidential address to the Educational Institute of Scotland the President said that he wanted to impose some kind of tax on teenagers. Is that the sort of thing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting?
Mr. Hogg: No, it is not. I shall have a word or two to say about our fiscal system in a moment. I am now proposing a revolutionary change in our approach to ability. This country has come to worship mediocrity for its own sake. This country has come to welcome egalitarianism, in the sense of equality of reward instead of equality of opportunity and adequate insurance. We are in danger of adopting the view that there is something undemocratic about brains, and something anti-social about skill, qualifications and achievement. I want

133
hon. Members opposite to pass this message on to their supporters. When the supporters of hon. Members opposite talk about the lowest-paid always needing to get the first increase, and when they open their eyes and say "Tut, tut" and whistle when the top executive gets an income of five figures, I want hon. Members opposite to tell them that skill is a thing that we cannot be without, and that there is no more certain way of keeping wages down than by buying second-rate talent for a third-rate reward.
They can do it if they will only help me in that task. That is part of my answer. We cannot afford an auction with the United States, but in a recent interview with the Daily Mirror, Lord Snow, who had only just left the Government and therefore must still have had a little of the clouds of glory trailing behind him, said:
"Talent will always go where the money is."
Let hon. Members opposite get rid of their economic puritanism and recognise that the skilled man, whether he is a fitter or a top executive, deserves a higher differential than he has been given for about 25 years. Let them get clearly into their heads that the professional, the skilled worker and the top executive in business management will continue to go abroad until they feel themselves properly valued not merely by my party, which has always valued them properly, but by every party.
That brings me to the question of taxation. I shall quote from the Daily Mirror so as to be thoroughly non-controversial. In a well-publicised article, in December of last year, under the headline
"£71,000 a year to keep one vital man for Britain"
there was reference to a more sophisticated and important point than that which I had intended to make to begin with. Two interviews were published. The first was with the head of a chemical engineering firm, who said about the brain drain:
"The real crux is that direct and indirect taxes on American earnings are far lower than here … I'd take the edge off surtax. It's a killer."
The other person interviewed was Professor Wheatcroft, of the London School of Economics—an institution for which
134
hon. Members opposite have an understandable weakness. He said:
Most other countries have set their surtax rates at 70 per cent. Ours is 96+ per cent., which is higher than anywhere in the world, except Burma."
That is what the Government have achieved. Then they ask why people in those income brackets go abroad.
But the case is a more sophisticated and important one even than that, because what the Daily Mirror was saying in its headline was that an industrial firm that wanted to buy the talent and give an executive a proper take-home wage, comparable to receipts eleswhere, had to pay such a vast sum by way of gross salary before taxation that it was quite unable to afford the cost. In the same article Lord Snow said:
"It is a serious problem and we have to tackle it on fiscal lines. But tax-free concessions are just not on, not in our climate, anyway."
What about changing the climate and not accepting it as a permanent fact of life, as Lord Snow does? If the Government do not change the climate, they may soon reach the point of no return.
The Prime Minister, in opposition, said at Swansea on one occasion—and this is why there is a Motion of censure today—that a Conservative-organised society cannot provide the rewards necessary to our people of talent. He referred to a Conservative-organised society". That is why the skilled people are leaving this paradise of Socialism and going to the United States of America. What they have opted out of is the moronic face of the Labour Party, which has always believe that one could benefit the lowest-paid workers by starving the rich and the skilled. That is why a whole generation of our most gifted children is leaving this country. The truth is the opposite of that proclaimed by the Prime Minister when in opposition. ii is that the people are opting out of democratic Socialism because it is unjust and because they believe that there is no place for them and their children in Britain; and so we are losing them to the United States.
There can be no doubt, despite the promises of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the contrary, that under the Labour Party, and for the reasons I have given, the brain drain, which was, in all conscience, serious enough, when

135
it was handled by my right hon. Friends and myself, is in danger of becoming a flood—and hon. Gentlemen opposite know it and know that it will continue to be a flood so long as they harbour their ideals. Every principle for which they have stood has been disproved by experience and, to do them credit, in almost every sphere of policy they have abandoned their policy and their principles. But instead of adopting the only set of principles which will work, they choose to stagger along from one improvisation to the next. They are, therefore, to be condemned, as they have been by those who have left this country for the United States. My advice to these young people is to stay here and fight—fight through the party of which I am proud to be a member.
5.13 p.m.
The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): The whole House enjoys listening to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I noted, as his speech went on, my gratitude to him for the spirit in which he moved the Motion and the way in which, as with so many of his speeches, his own rhetoric excited him so much that by the end of it he found himself at a Conservative conference with his traditional bell.
His view of the educational reforms being carried through in this country shows what a total misunderstanding he has of what is happening. He spoke, for example, of comprehensive schools as places which children left at the age of 15, whereas at grammar schools they stayed on for higher education.
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Benn: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment. To the best of my knowledge, that is what he said, but if I have misrepresented him and he corrects me, I will withdraw my remarks. I understood his criticism of the development of our educational policy to be that the changes which my right hon. Friend is bringing about—changes which will extend opportunity for children for whom it would otherwise be denied—are in some way responsible for the sense of neglect which those of special
136
ability and skill feel today and that is leading them to leave this country.
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the point I was making. Of course, comprehension has nothing whatever to do with the age at which children leave school. When he reads my remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will see that I never committed myself to any such view. I expressly disclaimed any intention of raising that issue in this debate. I was merely saying that the whole structure of education, under whatever Government, is such that the school-leaver gets paid while the young man who stays on, under the discipline of schooling, must go for a longer time without receiving any pay. That is a fact and not an opinion.
Mr. Benn: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was confining his remarks to the point that those who continue their education delay the point at which they are earning, then that is such a non-controversial point that it can be allowed to pass without comment.
Implied in the philosophy of the Conservative Party is the idea that special education ought to be available for those who can afford to pay for it and that other privileges should be accorded to people on the basis of an early decision as to their likely ability. [Interruption.] At any rate, I found that the majority of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was spoken in a spirit of moderation, and I shall follow him in that.
This is a very important debate. The rising number of qualified people leaving this country in recent years has caused a lot of public discussion and anxiety. It is a good thing that we should be debating this matter today, at a time when the Jones Working Group is sitting. It is a mistake to think that Parliament cannot be expected to give an opinion when a committee is investigating a matter. The House of Commons is nothing if it cannot contribute to the formation of policy, and I am sure that the Jones Group will welcome this debate.
I hope that, in discussing this matter, we will avoid, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman avoided, some of the more sensational aspects. For example, I hope that nobody is going to suggest that those who leave Britain to work

137
abroad are somethow lost to science altogether. I took part in a television programme the other day. Its title was "Science down the drain"—as if every scientist who left this country not only left the country of his birth but also left the specialisation in which he was skilled. Britain has always sent its people abroad and the City of Bristol, whose representation I am proud to share in this House, financed the "Mayflower", which must have been the first example of the brain drain in history. Our contribution to the world has been the export of people with skills in literature, language and political institutions and, like Alexander Graham Bell, they have made their inventions abroad and we have used and enjoyed them back in this country.
My concern today is not so much with those who positively want to go abroad and work in a particular place and, perhaps, come back later. This is an understandable ambition in a scientific and industrial world that is becoming increasingly international. This sort of thing is inevitable and probably desirable. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone himself gave encouragement to those who might feel this way.
What concerns me is the man or woman who is so discouraged by his or her experience of Britain or is so pessimistic about its future that he or she leaves because of the feeling that there are no opportunities here. If this debate is to be a useful one, as it can be, we should concentrate on thinking of ways of making this country a place where qualified people can find satisfaction in their work. And I do not mean only British people. If we could get a few Italian designers, German engineers and Russian scientists to work in Britain, I would be indeed satisfied. It is absurd to think, as the Motion encourages us to think, that this is just a question of finding ways of "bringing the boys home"—as if we were engaged in some vast exercise in engineering and scientific demobilisation at the end of a major war.
One of the difficulties about discussing this subject is that the facts and statistics that are necessary are not fully available. I do not criticise the party opposite for the decision it took in the past, but this difficulty continues. There were understandable reasons, but, having discon-
138
tinued the statistics, it is difficult to get accurate figures. We know that from 1958 to 1963, excluding students returning home, 19,000 British and Commonwealth scientists and engineers of graduate level left this country, and during the same period 15,000 came in. We thus lost 4,000 net over six years. About 40 per cent. of those who left went to America or Canada and about 35 per cent. came from there. On balance we lost about 1,900 qualified scientists and engineers to America in six years.
Without in any way minimising the importance of this loss, it must be set against the stock of scientists and engineers in Britain, which is now over 343,000 as compared with only 207,000 ten years ago. The output of qualified scientists and engineers from the universities more than doubled in the same period and is currently running at about 23,000 a year. Although no accurate figures are available, such surveys as have been taken recently suggest that emigration since then has increased and there is little doubt that among those who go are some of our ablest graduates, a disproportionate number being in certain fields.
As for doctors, the House has the facts, as we have. The best estimates available suggest that emigration—and this is not migration, for many of them come back—has averaged between 300 and 350 a year. It could be rather higher at present—perhaps 400. The background here is of about 60,000 civilian doctors at work in Britain and with an annual output of British-based doctors from our medical schools rising to about 2,000 within the next few years the intake of British-based students into our medical schools has already been increased by about 30 per cent. since 1960–61 and last year was 2,363.
The right hon and learned Gentleman made much play of the payment we award to skill and expertise in this country. I am sure that in this connection I shall not need to remind him that the new salary scales for hospital doctors, which will operate from 1st October, include increases ranging from 13 per cent. to 35 per cent. This and the 30 per cent. for general practitioners has been accepted in full, subject only to temporary deferment and phasing. In addition, the new contract for family doctors in the Health

139
Service, which comes into effect in a few weeks' time, will do a great deal to create the conditions favourable to the progressive improvement of general practice. Also for doctors in the hospital service the rebuilding programme includes an expenditure of £1,000 million over the next 10 years, which bears on the facilities which will be available, and within the next four years 80 new or virtually new hospitals as well as more than 100 other major re-development schemes will be started.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: Despite all these improvements, which were well known, over the last three years the number of doctors taking examinations to emigrate to America has increased by 226 per cent.
Mr. Benn: There are a number of factors to be taken into account. First, not all those who take the examination act upon it. It is only a qualifying examination and those figures take no account of those who return to this country. Also, a substantial number born overseas come to work in this country. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone paid little tribute to those who come to work here, except that he said that the brain drain had a secondary effect in that it sucked people out and brought them back to Britain.
Having said all that, the problem remains a serious one. In the public discussion of this issue a number of remedies have been proposed and I should like to deal with some of them briefly. First, it would be quite wrong to advocate any sort of restriction upon emigration. It is very natural for people to feel disappointed, and even angry, when a student who has completed his education at a university immediately departs for a well-paid job in America and stays there for the rest of his life. The competition for university places is still so intense and the cost to the taxpayer so great that there is an understandable reaction against those who take all that they can get and then sell their expensive training to the highest bidder without any sense of obligation for those who made it possible for them to acquire that training.
Recently the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) tabled a Question to ask me:
140
"What plans he has to take powers, by legislation or otherwise, to control the emigration of British scientists and technicians."
The Question has been withdrawn. I do not know whether the hon. Member himself supported it or simply tabled the Question in order to probe my intentions, but I am sure that the whole House would absolutely reject, as I do, the use of the law as a way of preventing emigration. It would not only be wholly impracticable in enforcement, unjust in application and an unacceptable infringement of personal freedom, but it would destroy British science in the process and stir the desire to escape among those who might never otherwise have thought of leaving.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman shares my view. My purpose in tabling the Question was to see what plans he had to deal with the matter. Now he says that he does not contemplate this particular course, we shall look forward with great interest to hearing his plans.
Mr. Benn: The hon. Member withdrew the Question before it got an Answer. I have taken the opportunity of giving him the answer now. I am coming to the action we propose in this field.
The second proposal was that on some occasions we should restrict advertising by those firms from America which specialise in recruiting British scientists and engineers from this country. I understand that this has been done abroad. in Germany for example, but I do not think that it would be a sensible course to pursue. International advertising for personnel can hardly be regarded as illegal, and to stop newspaper or periodical advertising would not prevent direct mail advertising or advertising in foreign scientific journals which reach this country and are read by British scientists and engineers.
What is objectionable about this advertising is the fact that it is calculated and intended to spread gloom about the future of this country and its science and technology in order to encourage people working here to leave. This propaganda—there is no other word for it—is often inaccurate and misleading. It is devised to provide an income for those who work in the brain drain business. But it is to

141
be counteracted by argument and fact, not by legislation.
I do not share the view of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone about American education. What is true about American education is that it is not providing the people whom the Americans want for the purposes they want. American education is very good, but American expenditure on science is such that they are unable from their own educational resources to meet the need which they themselves are stimulating.
I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not himself incline in that way a little to the idea that we should spend more on research. Another panacea for the brain drain is the call for higher expenditure on research. "If only Britain spent more on research", we are told, "all scientists and engineers would want to stay here". There is a certain superficial attraction about this argument, but unfortunately it ignores certain relevant facts.
First, expenditure on research in the United Kingdom has more than doubled—from £300 million to £770 million—between 1956 and 1965. But these were also years when the brain drain increased. Secondly, the proportion of the gross national product spent on research and development in Britain is far higher than in any other Western European country and is much nearer the figure for the United States itself. If we take medical research financed by grant in aid, we find it increased from £8·7 million in 1964–65 to £11·8 million in 1966–67 which represents a substantial increase in the amount spent.
Mr. Charles Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that what he has just said is a refutation of what the Prime Minister said? In a party political broadcast on 11th February 1964 he said:
"It has been estimated that it costs this country £20.000 to train a Ph.D., and then we lose him and principally the reason is the miserably inadequate provision spent by the Government on research".
Mr. Benn: If the hon. Member is able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, he will be able to develop that point more fully. I am arguing that increased expenditure on research by itself is not a sufficient answer to the problem of the brain drain.
142
There is no necessary correlation between the amount spent on research and development expenditure and the average annual growth of the national income.
If we take the figures for the years 1958–65, we find that the gross national product, or the national income, rose far more rapidly in Germany and France than in America, which was spending nine or ten times as much as those countries were on research and development.
Of our scientists and engineers working we had in 1965 about one-third of our qualified scientists and engineers in research and development. Comparatively, expenditure on higher education in the United Kingdom has also risen sharply from £253 million in 1963–64 to £432 million in 1966–67. As far as we can make out, we also have a surplus in what is called our technological balance of payments. That is to say, we buy less in terms of know-how from abroad than we sell abroad.
Even so, this expenditure on research is no guarantee of industrial success, and it does not necessarily contribute to raising living standards, which are one of the major factors deciding where a scientist or engineer wishes to live. I am sure that what is needed in Britain today, even more than a greater amount of pure research, is the application of research in industry; needed even more than new science-based industry is more rapid use of science in all industries; and needed even more than big new projects is the process of evaluating projects more critically before they are started and concentrating them in such a way as to make them fully effective rather than scattering them about as if we could afford to do everything.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the distribution of largesse for the projects that he wanted to see stimulated, without regard to the fact that to pay for them is one of the reasons why the level of taxation has to be as high as it is. The fact is that expenditure on research in Britain is rising, but by itself this is not enough to deal with the problem.
I answer the perfectly proper question of the hon. Member for Woking about what the Government are intending to do about the problem. First, I will deal with the practical matter of the provision of better statistics. Since it was decided

143
to drop the statistical information in 1963 we have been left without adequate knowledge, and the Government have, therefore, decided to set up an inter-departmental committee on migration statistics under the auspices of the General Register Office to examine statistics on migration and to recommend desirable changes. I am sure that it will provide us with important new information on a continuing basis and help as we review the problem in the future.
The second thing is the appointment of the Jones Group under the chairmanship of Dr. F. E. Jones, the managing director of Mullards. With him he has academic and industrial members who are studying the whole problem in depth, including statistics and the economics of migration. The group's first report is due in May. I have no doubt that it will deal with not only the factors which pull from America but also the factors which push from Britain, about which I want to say a word or two in a moment. The Society of British Aerospace Constructors has recently produced some figures on the brain drain and will no doubt be giving evidence to Dr. Jones.
The third thing we are considering is the possibility of a register, on the ground that it would be desirable to look more carefully at the location of British scientists and engineers, particularly those working abroad. Some informal registers exist, and it may well be that there would be some advantage in having a central one. I hope that the Jones Group will be looking at this.
Next, there is the question of recruitment in the United States. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this. I am sure that he is right to do so. In a world where there is an international free market in skill, we have to be more positive in recruiting scientists and technologists and those with management skills from the United States.
Some firms like I.C.I. and Unilever have run recruiting missions for some time in America. The North American Joint Recruiting Mission, under Mr. Hoff, operates on behalf of the Civil Service Commission, the Atomic Energy Authority, and the Central Electricity Generating Board. It may well be that we should be thinking now about a wider
144
mission designed to recruit for industry generally. In such a mission the Government would no doubt play a part. In my view, active recruitment is essential.
In addition, the House will have seen that recently my Department financed a special mission directed at British graduates from American business schools. Mr. Catherwood, the Director-General of the N.E.D.C., who has recently been over there, reported that about 90 per cent. of British students at the American business schools wanted to return to this country.
Miss J. M. Quennell: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the possibility of a register which the Government are considering. What sort of register would it be? Would it be a professional register? Would registration be compulsory? What is the scheme?
Mr. Benn: I was referring to the possible advantages that would come through knowing where British scientists and engineers are now actually working. There are some informal registers in existence. The question is whether there would be some advantage in having a more widespread one on a voluntary basis. There is no question of people being compelled to fill in the forms. It is a question of whether we should try to keep an eye on those who have gone abroad and make it easier to encourage some of them to return.
Sir George Sinclair: On the question of discussions in the United States with British-based people coming out of the American business schools, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was assured that they wished to come home to Britain. Did they wish to come home to Britain just like that, or did they wish to be assured that they were wanted in Britain? Is not the evidence quite in the contrary direction—that the majority of them stay in America or generally in American-based firms in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Benn: That is the nature of the problem. The hon. Gentleman must allow me to make my speech. I am dealing with the problem as it appears to me. I am coming to the question of why people prefer, or so it appears, to work in American rather than British industries.

145
There is a point to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, and that is the desirability of making better use of immigrants. Occasionally one reads of Ph.D.s and graduates from Asian countries employed on relative unskilled work in this country. I sometimes wonder whether industry pays as much regard as it should to the skills available in immigrants.
The central problem is that of strengthening British industry and helping it to make proper use of graduates itself. It is not really the Government who are in the dock alone today. The problem is that British industry is not making as good a use of graduates as it might. The best British firms make good use of graduates, but there is much to be done still before the graduates from British universities find it easy to go into British industry in this country. There is no doubt that a great deal of improvement can be made by industry itself.
Secondly, we want the universities themselves, as far as this is possible, to change their outlook in relation to a career in business. One of the great problems—it stems from the great Imperial period to which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone referred—is that there are still far too many people in universities who regard industry as of second-rate importance and the professions as being more important. This is astonishing when one considers the high degree of skill required, for example, in engineering, which taxes the intellect quite as much as a barrister's intellect, or that of a professional man, or that of a civil servant, or that of a politician is ever taxed.
One of the things that we have done under Dr. Curran, the Principal of the University of Strathclyde, probably of all the universities in this country the one most closely aligned to industrial things, is to try to examine the relations between my own Department, industry and the universities to see what can be done.
I was very surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said practically nothing about engineers in his speech. He spoke merely of the scientists. He talked about science as part of our culture. It suggested that he thought that the scientist is all right because he is
146
cultured, which is the very prejudice against engineers in industry which lies behind some of the attitudes of the universities towards work in business and industry.
Mr. Hogg: I certainly did not intend to omit engineers. But I do not think that the engineers will be particularly flattered by the right hon. Gentleman's implication that they are not scientists. I used the term to include both.
Mr. Benn: It may be right to call an engineer a scientist, but I try to use the terms "engineers" and "scientists" in that order because it is the engineer who may have and does have a great contribution to make to industry and who is really creating a new society. I do not think he is in any sense a second-rate scientist and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean to refer to him in that way.
But looking further ahead, of course, the answer to these problems cannot be found only in Britain by itself. The problem of the brain drain is a problem which Europe faces, and it has a considerable relationship with the problem of the so-called technological gap which is much discussed in Europe today. When one looks ahead at the development of Europe, particularly in the context of our present discussions about Britain's relationship with Europe, it is important to see in this context of the brain drain what is happening in Europe. It is that the giant American industrial corporations, often stronger in size and research and development expenditure, are attracting people, not only from this country, but from Europe; and if Europe is really going to be the magnet to hold these young people in Europe then it has to provide the industrial strength on a comparable scale.
What are we trying to do? This bears on the Prime Minister's reference to a European technological community, and, indeed, to today's communiqué about continuing contact on technological matters between the Soviet Union and ourselves. What we must try to do is to develop our own resources in Europe to the full. I believe that this will not only be done or even mainly be done by big science projects such as E.L.D.O., Concord, E.S.R.O., or whatever it happens to be, but that it will depend to a decisive

147
degree on the industrial strength which Europe can develop in future.
I now turn, if the House will forgive me for being controversial for a moment, to the Opposition Motion, to which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone made very little reference, no doubt because it is a very curious Motion. It is cautiously worded and says that the Government
… have aggravated the loss to the United Kingdom of qualified and skilled manpower …"
It could not have been put more strongly than that because the loss has been going on for some time, but the charge of aggravation has to be substantiated.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I expected, made some reference to cancellations of aircraft projects. I have a list of aircraft projects which were cancelled by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and I shall be glad to read it out if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like to hear it. These starts of aircraft projects and cancellations have to be looked at very carefully, but it would be wrong to suggest that the effect they have on the scientists and engineers going overseas could be a decisive factor when operational requirements and economic considerations point in the other direction.
In any case, the aircraft industry in itself is in a very much better condition than it was in 1964. Its production in 1966 was £511 million as against £407 million two years earlier, and its exports were nearly double what they were in 1964, all this with a slightly smaller labour force. Looking ahead, the prospects for the industry are not bad at all, and, indeed, in the aero-engine field the new Rolls-Royce/Bristol Siddeley link-up which has now been achieved has made an aero-engine company of world class with enough research and development and production and market prospects to attract any scientist or engineer.
Mr. Robert Carr: It would be interesting to the House if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us and the country which of the projects that the aircraft industry has for export orders were launched by the present Government.
Mr. Benn: Since it takes aircraft firms several years to develop projects of this kind it is almost bound to be the case, since the Labour Government have been in power for only two years, two months, that things which happened in 1966 would have been started before 1964. Therefore, I do not think that that intervention proves anything at all. Any suggestion that the aircraft industry has been damaged by the decisions which were taken in 1965 cannot really by itself explain the brain drain. It is not so simply done; and an examination of the future projects on which the industry is working justifies the confidence of those who are in it.
Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the figure given by The Times, on 1st February, that at least 1,300 key specialists in the aerospace industry were leaving last year alone? If not, he confirms that that is a very high proportion of the whole of the brain drain.
Mr. Benn: I answered that one very well—[Laughter.]—yes, I answered the question very well. I answered it by saying that all these decisions about aircraft projects have to take into account the possible consequences on design staff, but that these could not be decisive, because of the operational requirements and economic considerations of the aircraft in question. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that in order to keep the people who were referred to in that quotation working in the industry we should have to maintain all those projects which were, in some cases, not operationally required, and in other cases were ruled out on the grounds of economics, then he is carrying his own Motion to an absurd extent. As to the figures referred to here, the figures by the S.B.A.C. are before the Jones Group. I am not in a position either to confirm or to deny them at this stage. We are looking into them independently.
What I find a most extraordinary part of the Motion is that which says that the Government should
"… encourage men and women of ability to remain at home …"
Remain at home? What an extraordinary outlook this reveals. In the age of aerospace, supersonic airliners,

149
communications satellites, all that the Opposition say is, "Please encourage men and women of ability to remain at home." In fairness to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—
Mr. Michael Heseltine rose—
Mr. Benn: I cannot give way any more. I have been speaking for some time and I should like to conclude my speech.
If this is its clarion call, in this age of international science, then the party opposite had better think again—though, in fairness to him, I should say that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone did not speak to the Motion. He spoke much more interestingly, and I wish that he had drafted a Motion which reflected a little bit more of what he was thinking.
If I may summarise the Government's attitude to this question, I would say that it is a problem which ought to concern us and which does concern us; that it cannot be solved in a petty or nationalistic way as the Motion suggests; that it would be quite wrong to impose controls which would restrict the free movement of people; that we need more statistics and that we have begun the process of getting them; that we shall have the Report of the Jones Group on other measures which should be taken, that we intend to pursue them, and that meanwhile we shall pursue a more vigorous policy of recruitment ourselves. Our aim must be to see that this country remains a place where doctors want to work and where scientists and engineers can find satisfaction and scope and opportunity for their work in industry. The university and research stations will need to improve their contacts with industry and the status of engineers must be raised substantially.
But we must also think very much bigger than this, because the scope for technological collaboration with Europe is immense, and I have no doubt that if Europe as a whole could develop its potential to the full then its pull would be at least as strong as the pull from the United States. Does this mean that men and women of ability will be encouraged to stay at home? Not at all. It means that the movement of engineers and scientists from one country to another is
150
likely to grow rather than to diminish and that the areas within which they will move are likely to be wider rather than narrower, and the importance of frontiers in this matter will be less rather than greater, and the benefits which will accrue to this country, if we take positive approach, could be larger rather than smaller.
I ask the House for this reason to reject this narrow and ill-conceived Motion, from which, I think, no good can come.
5.50 p.m.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: We have heard the Minister of Technology in what for him was a rather muted tone, perhaps because he feels some sense of guilt in that after two-and-a-quarter years of Labour Government—a Government said to be poised for instant action, particularly in technology and science—so little has been accomplished. The case which he made was devastatingly weak. I made some notes of the points which he made—statistics on migration; the appointment of Dr. Jones's Committee, which will not report until after the Budget and therefore will be too late for changes to be made in our taxation system; the consideration of a register for the location of scientists at home and abroad; the better use of graduates by industry; and the use of his influence to make the universities cooperate more closely with industry. I thoroughly endorse the last point, but none of those points contains any concrete suggestions.
What do the Government intend to do? Have they no ideas at all? They come forward with unusual methods of taxation, of which S.E T. is the most deplorable, and yet they seem unable to put forward any fiscal policy which might encourage people, with the education which has been given to them this country, to stay "at home". We on these benches are proud of the thought that the great majority should want to stay in Britain—in a Britain in which it is worth while to live and to which it is worth while to contribute.
The manner in which the right hon. Gentleman used the export figures of the aerospace industry was deplorable, for a man who is heading the technology Ministry and therefore should be expected

151
to use figures with a sense of their accuracy. He suggested that it was as a result of the prowess of the Labour Party that exports last year reached an all-time record of £200 million. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) asked which projects had resulted from ideas of the Labour Government, and which exports had resulted from Labour Government-supported projects. The Minister was unable to produce one. Of course, as he readily admitted immediately afterwards, every project had been researched, developed and put into production during the 13 years of Conservative rule. This figure of £200 million of exports is one of the most admirable results of those 13 years.
My right hon. and learned Friend made, if I may say so with respect, one of the best speeches that I have ever heard him make in the House. I support my right hon. and learned Friend when he says that high school education in the United States is less than good. "High school education" were the words used. My right hon. and learned Friend has a very keen supporter in Admiral Rickover, who made his name in building a nuclear fleet for the United States Navy of both conventional and Polaris submarines. Admiral Rickover studied the educational systems of the two countries very closely. He published a book on the subject and the came to the conclusion that in the United States they were not streaming their talented children in the way in which we do it in our schools at present. He felt that this was producing a poorer result.
Mr. Benn: The comparisons made by Admiral Rickover and others are between our best and their average. That is why this sort of comment is often made. I advise the hon. Member not to be too complacent in this matter.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I stand by the views of Admiral Rickover. He is a man of aptitude and perspicacity, and he made a valid criticism of education in the United States and praised our educational system in this country.
We are debating a subject which became a very hot political potato during the last five years of the Conservative Government. The Labour Party cashed in to a tremendous extent on that situa-
152
tion. On 25th January, 1964 the Prime Minister made a speech on the subject at Swansea. I well understand that he has to be elsewhere today, but it is a pity that he is not able to attend these debates and that the Leader of the House is not able to attend them, either. On 25th January, 1964, the Prime Minister said,
"The export of British scientists is one export which will fall sharply under a Labour Government."
That is one more forecast to add to all the other forecasts by the Prime Minister which were entirely and absolutely wrong. The statement was made to try to get some votes, and when the votes were in the bag he was no longer interested in the scientists or their welfare.
In February, 1964, we had a debate in the House during which the present Leader of the House said that my right hon. and learned Friend had
"… demoralised thousands of scientists and technologists …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 54.]
This was obviously far from true, and I am sorry that the Leader of the House was not here today to listen to my right hon. and learned Friend. If my right hon. and learned Friend had demoralised them in any way, they have since been much more demoralised as they are leaving in droves. My right hon. and learned Friend, on the other hand, has revitalised them to hope for a future in a technological Britain.
We have been told that the Jones Committee is due to report in May, and already we have begun to see the first of the leaks in the newspapers. In the Sunday Express yesterday it was stated that they had found that of the graduates leaving our universities, 80 per cent. went back to the university, 12 per cent. were a brain drain and only 8 per cent. went into industry. Those are extremely alarming figures which fully justify this debate.
Mr. John Pardoe: The hon. Member may not realise that as a result of a telephone call today I was informed by the staff of that Committee that the figures given in the Sunday Express yesterday bear absolutely no relation to the report at all.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Every newspaper gets leaks, and the Sunday Express and and the Express generally are extremely

153
accurate in their leaks, particularly about defence. Mr. Chapman Pincher has a fairly renowned reputation in this field, as I know as a Minister in the Defence Department for some seven years.
No one will disagree greatly—I have heard a figure of 70 per cent. mentioned, I think in another place—that large numbers of our graduates go back to the universities. Perhaps at a time when we were expanding our universities as a result of policy decisions taken by the Conservative Government, it was necessary to feed back the graduates and Ph.Ds. into the universities but the time has come when we cannot continue taking the great bulk of them into the universities for research and teaching purposes. We must do everything we can to encourage a close liaison between the universities and industrial life, particularly with the industries around the universities, linked closely to them geographically. We must try to encourage that liaison.
A revealing fact from the House of Lords debate, which the Minister did not mention today, was that for every one of our scientists leaving these shores—probably for the United States—two engineers are leaving. I agree that this is the most alarming aspect of the brain drain. We are not short of research scientists. In some ways we are almost over-provided with them. But we are desperately short of people who can turn that research into applied science and then into products which we can sell in the markets of the world. The drain of engineers is very serious.
Why do they go? I will not dwell on these points at great length, but I want to mention seven reasons which have been given: status; opportunity; frustration here; the lower salaries here; the higher taxation here; the inability to build their capital here or to make any worthwhile savings; and a feeling that this country has not a great technical future and that the United States has a great zest for innovation and a great zest in its general outlook and therefore will make better use of their services.
May I deal with those points? It is only too true, even today, that for some reason, in society generally and in industry, the engineer does not have the
154
status to which he is entitled. We pay engineers too lowly. In my opinion far too few are put on subsidiary boards, where they could learn management and broaden their knowledge of industry in general, or on the boards of companies generally. In Switzerland, West Germany and the United States, on almost every public company one finds a generous representation of scientific and engineering talent. Of too few companies in this country is this true.
The next reason given was lack of opportunity. Promotion even today in industry is too much dependent on seniority. The most thrustful, ambitious scientists and engineers are probably giving of their best in their late twenties and up to their late thirties. Too seldom is a scientist in this country given an opportunity in that age range.
The third reason given was frustration—and that does not mean only just frustration job-wise; it means frustration in one's life. This is what the Motion means by talking of encouraging them to stay at home. Home does not mean just a job but a home for their families, life for their children and opportunities for education and all the aspects of a full and rounded life.
Salaries in British industry are too low and, if the scarcity increases as demands on British industry increase, I hope that salaries will be raised.
The next factor, higher taxation, is very important. In the United Kingdom if a scientist or engineer in a senior position was earning £4,000 a year, he would be allowed to keep £3,000 if he had two children. If the same person were working in the United States, his salary would, in real terms, be 50 per cent. higher—the equivalent of £6,000 a year—and he would be allowed to keep £5,000. These figures are in real terms. It is not surprising that present taxation discourages people from staying here.
The same is true at the top level. It is significant that, in the United Kingdom, up to 96¼ per cent. is taken in taxation when the salary reaches £18,900 a year. That may seem a princely salary to many hon. Members, but in the world markets senior executives in great industrial or engineering companies would be likely to receive that sort of figure. To take away 96¼ per cent. is a strong discouragement.

155
The figures of maximum taxation in any other country are markedly lower, and most of these countries are our competitors. In Canada, never more than 80 per cent. is taken in tax and not until the salary reaches £134,000 a year. In the U.S.A., the maximum is 70 per cent., when the salary reaches £72,600 a year. In West Germany, it is 57 per cent., reached at just over £20,000 a year, and, in Sweden, 70 per cent., at £12,000 a year.
During two election campaigns, Sweden was thrust down our throats in almost every party political broadcast. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a leaf out of Sweden's book and reintroduce some incentive for higher executives.
I turn now to capital building. With these taxation rates, how can any ambitious man, who has probably not inherited any wealth, make and keep any capital for the betterment of his family, his widow and his children? Until recently it was possible to practise what is widely practised in the United States and other industrial nations—giving stock options to senior and even junior executives so that, as their country's prosperity increased as a result of their efforts, they could make some capital profits. This has since been ruled out by legislation by the Chancellor.
Lord Kilmuir, whose recent death was so sad—we remember his contributions to this place—urged in the other place that some revision should be made—there will be an opportunity in the Budget in two months—to reintroduce some element to allow capital profits by executives and scientists.
As to the future, I agree that we do not want to run down this country. We have tremendous technical ability, but it is not helped when projects are cancelled. This Government have failed to appreciate that many scientists and engineers do not want to work in a vacuum. They want to work and see the product—whether a component or a finished product—developed and put into production and finally sold.
I thought that it was typical that, in their early weeks in office, right hon. Gentlemen should say in the document "The Economic Situation. A Statement by Her Majesty's Government" on 26th October:
156
"The Government will carry out a strict review of all Government expenditure. Their object will be to relieve the strain on the balance of payments and release resources for more productive purposes by cutting out expenditure on items of low economic priority, such as "prestige projects". The Government have already communicated to the French Government their wish to re-examine urgently the Concord project."
This is typical. We must have some prestige projects. Thank goodness the previous Conservative Government had tied up the contract on this operation so tightly that the Government could not cancel it. It is now, by all accounts, one of the most promising projects. This is the kind of prestige project which will keep our scientists working fruitfully.
One poor result of the pay and incomes freeze has been the accelleration of the brain drain. We supported the freeze as a holding operation while the Government thought out the next phase. Lamentably, they do not appear to have done this or to have discussed with the trade unions how to alter our industrial negotiating machinery.
It now appears that we are in danger of suffering a sort of industrial "arthritis", because those scientists and engineers who were being paid some modest sum on 20th July have to remain at that level. Are we to assume that the differential between the low-paid workers and the scientists was dead right on that date and will never be renegotiated? Every announcement says that the rates of lower paid workers are going up, and then the differential will be further narrowed, but the scientists are suffering from the present freeze and there will be another period of restraint after that. This is bound to accelerate the brain drain into a brain flood.
If the right hon. Gentleman believes that there is some future for technology and science in this country, I hope that the present Ministers, who will be there for two or three years but not longer, will provide the best possible outlook for our scientists and technologists and will persuade the Government that they cannot go on for ever freezing their pay, or they will go on leaving us.
What can be done? First, I hope that we can persuade our universities, dons, professors and those holding chairs that there is no future unless much of

157
their talent is fed into industry and industry is allowed to pay Britain's way. In our universities, I still feel that too many are living in an ivory tower. This is not so in our newer universities but it is true of some of the traditional ones. They sit quietly discussing abstruse problems—no doubt important ones—in senior common rooms, but the vital problem is whether they are producing the scientists, technologists, and engineers and feeding them into industry to enable it to pay for our expensive educational processes.
Second, I wonder whether our university staffs, particularly in science and engineering, are doing all they can to work part time in industry. In many of our universities, apart from other functions, term time is 24 weeks in every 52.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Thirty."] Anyhow, at Oxford and Cambridge there are three eight-week terms, which is 24 weeks. Whether it is 24 or 30, that still leaves a great slice of the year for production or consultancy work in industry.
Here I wonder whether perhaps we should do what I mentioned earlier as taking place in competitor countries—encourage, perhaps with some tax relief, our professors and other university staff to help in industry outside the normal term's work. I am sure that they have a lot to contribute and the flow could be two-way. Industry could show the type of people and education needed. But this is not happening.
Lastly, people have said that university staff leave because they cannot get either the money or the equipment to allow them to carry on with their researches. This may be true of certain research work, but I wonder whether, again, we should not look to the United States and see what it done there. To a tremendous extent in the United States, industry is encouraged to sponsor and donate to universities. I asked a taxation expert this morning about the situation here and I have not been able to check the figures in the Library, but I understand that industry here gets no tax relief for contributions to universities unless on a 7-year covenant. Surely the Government could give some relief in order to encourage industry to help the universities and perhaps, as a quid pro quo, the professors concerned and their staff could do some work in industry. This would be
158
positive help to both industry and the universities.
What about private donations? There are still people who have made quite a lot of money since the war. One sees reports of generous gifts to various charitable institutions. Why not the same to universities? In the United States Income Tax relief is given for such donations. if we really believe in this, why do we not give more encouragement to private persons to give of their wealth to our universities?
This is not a subject which can be pushed off, as the Minister tried to push it off. It is getting more and more urgent every day as more and more people—the talented and thrustful people—leave our shores. I ask him to storm into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's room tomorrow, slap today's HANSARD on his desk, and point out that, in two months' time, he will be introducing his Budget and that he should look at the incidence of taxation. If taxation could be revised, incentives redistributed and the sort of motives which we suggest put into being, we could give more encouragement so that many of our best people would stay here and work in this country, which would be to the betterment of themselves, of the country and of all the others who live in it.
6.12 p.m.
Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) did not mention doctors and there has been too little reference to the "doctor drain". I propose to deal with doctors entirely, for I feel that they deserve a separate place in the debate. Perhaps more publicity has been given to the doctor drain than to that of the scientists, because every member of the public feels a personal connection with his doctor and, whereas he may not know an engineer or a space scientist, he knows his own general practitioner well. He feels that if his doctor is to leave the country, then he will be affected personally.
It is essential that we get this subject into perspective, because it has been grossly dramatised and exaggerated by the Press and is now being exploited by the Opposition for political purposes. There is not a drain of doctors from the country—that is too drastic a description.

159
I prefer to call it an ooze. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology gave some figures which put this into perspective. The average net loss of doctors by emigration is 300 to 350 a year. But this is out of a total of 60,000 in the whole of Britain, and that latter figure is rarely mentioned. The emphasis is given to the 300 to 350.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about the collection of statistics, because this is vitally important if we are to get the matter into proper perspective. I hope that he will obtain in future figures of the number of doctors who come into the country every year from abroad to run our hospitals. Let us hear more about them and less about the 300 to 350 who are going out. We do not really know the figures in a vitally important debate like this.
Mr. Heseltine: It is worth pointing out that the 300 to 350 is the last estimate that has been made and that it is a net estimate. In other words, it represents 25 per cent. of the new doctors coming on to the British market every year. Thus, 25 per cent. of them are emigrating. That is not an ooze but a national tragedy.
Dr. Summerskill: I shall deal with the significance of the figures as I go on. We cannot estimate the seriousness of the loss unless we know the numbers that are coming in. Up to 1962, it was known that, whereas 400 a year emigrated, 600 to 700 immigrants were coming in to run our hospitals. Over 50 per cent. of the junior staff in our hospitals come from abroad. We know that if all the overseas doctors were to return home tonight our National Health Service would collapse.
In Halifax, the majority of the doctors resident there are from overseas. Very largely, Indians and Pakistanis are running our hospitals in this country. When I worked as a resident 60 per cent. of the doctors in the hospital were Australians. Who is to say that these doctors are not as good as or are better than our own? Let us for a change read some headlines about doctors arriving here to take up jobs and fewer about those who leave.
Another figure I hope the Government will discover is how many of the doctors going abroad return to this country. This
160
is obviously a difficult figure to discover, but it is vitally important. Recently we read in the headlines how Dr. O'Kelly, Chairman of the Junior Hospital Doctor's Association, is going to America. We were told that he was to get a salary there four times what he was getting here. But in much smaller print it said that he intended to return to Britain—obviously a better doctor. In even smaller print it was said that he intended to do cancer research, and so he will bring back the expertise and experience he gains. But all that was in small print in the Press reports.
I do not believe that doctors are leaving purely for money. Most realise that there are more important things to a doctor than the glamour of American dollars. I would like the Government to find out in more detail why the doctors are going. It is obvious that they are attracted by career prospects, by opportunities for research in the specialty in which they may be interested, and that there may not be a comparable job here at the time they want it.
There is very often extra responsibility in many American hospitals, where a registrar may do a job in five different specialties in rotation—surgery, medicine, obstetrics, gynaecology and so on—instead of concentrating on one. Of course, for the potential G.P., there are very often preferable conditions of work overseas. But I do not believe, as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) claims, that the reason doctors leave is that they are running away from a Labour Government or a collapsing Health Service. This sort of thing is inaccurate and unfounded and does no credit to the Opposition or to the Health Service which they purport to support.
It would also be interesting if the Government could find out to which countries these 350 to 400 doctors are going each year, how many are going to the under-developed countries, how many are going to Canada and Australia, and how many are going to America. Let us not assume that there is a mass exodus to America in order to get some dollars. This is all highly relevant to the debate. Unless we have detailed statistics from the Government about the so-called brain drain of doctors, it is impossible to discuss this subject rationally and unemotionally and to put it in its proper perspective.

161
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has realised that these statistics are vitally important. As I see it, the real problem to be tackled is not the loss of 350 doctors overseas each year. The real problem which we are facing is a chronic shortage of doctors in Britain. Ideally, a National Health Service of which we can be proud should be able to afford to export a sample of its talent for the benefit of others, and it should be able to do this without collapsing overnight. Once this National Health Service was the envy of the world. We should be proud that our doctors are still in demand by other countries. It will be a sad day for Britain when we have to discourage them from going overseas. I would strongly oppose any regulation compelling them to practise in this country.
One of the most dangerous of all tyrannies is to prevent a person from leaving a country to work and live abroad. In this respect, the Government are not being entirely consistent, and perhaps at the end of the debate some light can be cast on this matter. I regret that the Minister of Health is not here, but, nevertheless, I will mention him in this context, because he has publicly condemned doctors for wanting to work in America. But, at the same time, we have in the British Medical Journal Government advertisements rightly enticing our doctors to go and work in countries like Uganda, Malawi, Fiji and Kenya, where they are desperately needed. Do the Government want to keep our doctors here or not? Will they say to them, "You can go to Malawi but you cannot go to New York"?
Doctors should be allowed to go where they like and to wherever they see prospects available for them. Meanwhile the Government are quite prepared to allow our hospitals to be run by doctors from overseas countries who can ill-afford to let one doctor go, let alone 300 to 350, and they are content to see our hospitals staffed by doctors from under-developed countries. So I would like clarification of the Government's view on whether, like the Opposition, they want to keep our men and women at home, as the Opposition say in their Motion, or whether they are content to see our doctors go where they want to, or whether they have specific places where they will encourage our doctors to go and other
162
places where they must not go. I support complete freedom in this respect.
What would be the Government's attitude if Britain entered the Common Market? How would it prevent our doctors from working and living in European countries? The Government must prepare themselves for the fact that after 1st January, 1968, the barriers for doctors among the six European countries will be down, and there will be free exchange of doctors between them. I hope that soon our doctors will be among those in Europe.
We cannot stop British doctors going abroad. For hundreds of years, from the time of the first medical missionaries, they have gone abroad, and I hope they always will. The world's greatest medical men, from Hippocrates to Schweitzer, have travelled the world, and seclusion and isolation are the worst possible fates for a doctor. Unlike the scientist, who is often a pawn in the cold war, the doctor is not political or even economically valuable.
It is impossible to estimate the benefit to the individual doctor of a period of work abroad. It is impossible to estimate the benefit there would be to Britain if he returned here. There is no visible end product and its value is indefinable. The fact remains that these doctors are gaining experience if they go abroad, or they are giving the less privileged developing countries the benefit of their knowledge. How can we object to either of these? I deplore the wording of the Opposition's Motion that we should encourage these people to stay at home.
Do we know which doctors are emigrating? This is something else which I should like the Government to find out. Contrary to what has been said by various speakers, I do not agree that it is always the most able people who choose to emigrate. This applies not only to doctors but to skilled and unskilled people. One cannot say that because they are leaving they are able and because they stay they are not. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that our most distinguished people were leaving, that our most gifted children were leaving. But is this so? Has anyone really analysed what doctors are leaving? Is this not a sad reflection on the majority of doctors who do not want to go abroad, who are

163
perfectly happy, contented and satisfied to work in Britain under a National Health Service?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady has misconstrued what I said. What I meant was that Ph.Ds and doctors are all among our distinguished children, and it is precisely these groups who have the highest numbers of emigrants. I was not seeking to differentiate between various doctors, between those who go and those who stay, as one being more distinguished than the other. It is the doctors and Ph.Ds who by definition are our most distinguished children.
Dr. Summerskill: I cannot agree that a doctor or Ph.D. is more distinguished than a skilled mechanic or machine tool operator, or anybody who does his job well, but that is getting on to another subject. The fact is that the people who are staying at home are getting no publicity, and this sort of insinuation that the skilled are leaving and the unskilled are staying behind, that the talented and the able are leaving and the rest are left, is not doing any good to the National Health Service or to the medical profession.
I notice that the Opposition, probably deliberately, have not said a great deal about the doctor shortage, because they would find it embarrassing if they did. Have they forgotten the Willink Committee set up in 1955 by the Conservative Government for the very purpose of estimating the number of medical practitioners that would be needed in the future and therefore the number of medical students to be trained? The conclusions of this Committee, and its unequivocal recommendation—which, I am sure, the Opposition have not forgotten—to reduce the student intake by 10 per cent., was so completely wrong and inaccurate that we have been suffering from this mistake ever since. Little account was taken of many important factors—of the way in which the scope of medical care was being extended by the dramatic development of new surgical techniques, of the new diagnostic methods and new drugs. The Committee was completely wrong in forecasting the population increase expected by 1971 and the possible increase in demand for medical care which will carry on as long as the nation's prosperity increases. Much
164
too late in the day, at the end of 1961, the Conservative Government reversed he Willink Committee's recommendation, and the rate of intake of medical students was restored. Throughout all these years the National Health Service had been inadequately financed by Conservative Governments when it was under the control of a series of Conservative Ministers of Health.
During this time, dissatisfaction among doctors about conditions of work and rates of pay was gradually developing and growing. This is not something which has just happened in the last few years under a Labour Government. It grew under the Conservatives and it came to a head when the Labour Party came to power, and it ill becomes the Opposition to lay the blame for the present doctor shortage on the Government. The memory of right hon. Gentlemen opposite is very short.
In conclusion, I offer a solution to the problem. The emphasis of the debate where it has concerned doctors has been in the wrong place. Instead of deploring the loss of 350 doctors a year, we should be putting our own Health Service in order. The solution to the doctor shortage is not hastily to pull back the 350 who are leaving. It is far more complex than that. If a bucket is leaking and one cannot mend the hole, the answer is to turn the tap on more fully.
We must increase the output of the medical schools and the number of medical schools must also be increased. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is listening very carefully. The Government are to set up a new school in Nottingham, no doubt with a great flourish of trumpets, but I urge them not then to sit back and rest on their laurels, because we need at least five or six new medical schools to stop this crisis. One would be totally inadequate and anyone who knows about the education of medical students and this crisis would tell the Minister that one would be totally inadequate. Such a school takes at least three years to design and build and for the staff to be appointed and for students to start coming out.
I would like these new medical schools to be particularly in the industrial north

165
of England where doctors are urgently needed, preferably with one near Halifax which I know to be a town which is extremely under-doctored and which cannot even get a general practitioner to apply for a job there which is advertised in the British Medical Journal. We want new medical schools in each of our new universities. I would like every boy or girl who wants to become a doctor to be given the opportunity to do so, provided that he has the qualifications. There is no lack of recruits wanting to become doctors. What ever the crisis may be, plenty of young people are queueing up to become doctors.
For years, particularly under the Conservative Government, medical students were regarded as an élite, a rather privileged community. Often they were just men from public schools. Things have now changed and the whole spectrum among medical students has altered and it is realised that they are not an elite but a necessity. Perhaps it is the brain drain among doctors, or the doctor ooze, which has made people realise that we have to have them. In 1958, there were only 7 per cent. more medical students than there were in 1939, but between 1961 and 1965 there were 21 per cent. more. In the next few years we need an even greater increase than that 21 per cent.
Better use must be made of those who qualify. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, during the last two years and two months the Government have done a great deal to improve the status and conditions of work of doctors. They have done more than the Opposition ever managed to do under the numerous Conservative Ministers of Health. I hope that this process will be continued in the coming years. Women doctors must not be allowed to be wasted. They must be given part-time jobs so that their talents are not allowed to go idle. This is the way to solve the doctor shortage, not to tear our hair out because 350 a year are going abroad. We hear that research facilities are being increased, but career prospects must also be improved.
All over the world the richer nations are taking doctors from the poorer. America takes them from Europe and we take them from India and Pakistan. Countries like that have one doctor for every 150,000 inhabitants whereas in
166
Britain we have one doctor for every 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants. The only solution to this problem is to raise the world standard of living and prosperity so that salaries and conditions of work everywhere become comparable. Only when that situation exists will there be no such thing as an under-doctored area. There will be a free exchange of doctors all over the world and the phrase "brain drain" will have no meaning.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is a shortened debate. If hon. Members whom I call will speak reasonably briefly, I can get more in.
6.36 p.m.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: Some of us were slightly surprised to hear the Minister of Technology and the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) asking us to raise our sights and broaden our objectives to allow the skilled and technically qualified people of this country to seek opportunities overseas. We remember the election broadcast shortly before this Government were elected which culminated in the words of the Prime Minister himself:
"Britain has got the brains. It is the job of the Government to see that we keep them here by making better use of them".
Perhaps I would not now take the Prime Minister's words as seriously as I would then and perhaps the nation has learned that what the Prime Minister said in 1964 is not the same as the Government's policy today. We shall be forgiven if we take those words seriously in reminding the party opposite that it was elected to try to keep these people here. This was the "white hot revolution" about which we heard so much in 1964 and so little in 1966 and 1967.
It has already been well-established that in this country we have the problem of brain drain and I do not seek to describe it or analyse its magnitude. The problem exists. Every one of us is concerned with how we can play our part in making this country more attractive so that people stay here and make their careers here.
I may be in the position of having the most up-to-date information about the sort of changes of atmosphere and attitudes taking place among our young people, because I am the chairman of a

167
company which receives about 300 applications a week from technically and professionally qualified people looking for jobs. One of the questions which we always ask these people is whether they would be prepared to work abroad. I took the trouble to find out what proportion were saying "Yes" to that question and to compare it with the number of a year ago. It may interest the House to know that in the quarter January to March, 1966, 37 per cent. of these people, who basically represent the field from which the brain drain is drawn said that they would be prepared to work abroad. I have just checked the figures of those who applied to us in December, January and the first week of this February and the figure equivalent to that 37 per cent. is now 46 per cent.
I will break down that figure into its two components, on the one hand those who are basically engineers and scientists and on the other those who are arts graduates. Of those who are engineers and scientists 46 per cent. are now prepared to work abroad, whereas 47.5 per cent. of the arts graduates are prepared to work abroad. I am quite ready to believe that this statistical fluctuation is not of great significance. What is of significance is this change among technically professionally qualified people compared with the number of a year ago, showing that nearly 10 per cent. more of our young people are prepared to emigrate if the opportunity arises.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Did the hon. Gentleman ask whether they were prepared to work abroad permanently, or just work abroad?
Mr. Heseltine: This is a very good question. I was about to come on to it. There are all sorts of questions that could be asked but it is not part of our concern to ask whether it is a permanent job a person is seeking. It is simply a general question: "Are you prepared to go abroad?" The general atmosphere which I am indicating is such that a considerable proportion are prepared to say: "Yes, I will go abroad." Perhaps they will go to an English company overseas, maybe to the Commonwealth, or the under-developed areas, but assuming that the proportions stand as they do elsewhere, the highest proportion of
168
these people will go to the United States of America.
What I want to ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate is why was the Jones Group not asked to consider the position of arts graduates? I quite understand the need for the Jones Group to consider the position of engineers and scientists. We also need this information about the group of our university graduates from which will come managers, salesmen, marketing and advertising men. One cannot, if one is talking about the future developments, divide the two. Both have a vital part to play and it would be wrong to become mesmerised with one part of the brain drain, and not, at the same time, try to find out what may be happening to people who have less precise skills but nevertheless skills of inestimable value.
The one point that I wish to leave in hon. Members' minds is that over the course of the last 12 months there has been a significant increase in the number of people prepared, for one reason or another, to leave this country to seek their livelihood elsewhere. Ever since the words "purposive redeployment" first crossed the Prime Minister's lips I have always been concerned with the possibility that the moment one began redeployment on any scale a fair proportion of the people redeployed would redeploy themselves overseas.
I want to deal with three areas in which I believe positive steps could be taken in order to improve our ability to train and keep people in this country. I appreciate that I can only touch upon three fairly specific cases, and that there are a large number of other cases of equal value which hon. Members will raise. First of all, I shall deal with careers advice available to people coming from our schools and universities. It is very important that we should consider facilities available for finding people the right jobs, because the more trouble that we take in finding people the right jobs, the better the chance of keeping them in that job, and therefore in this country.
Secondly, I want to say something about a proposal for a quite new approach to post-graduate research in our universities. Thirdly, and this may be

169
more controversial, I want to say something about the attitude of this Government towards the creation of an entrepreneurial society, without which, in the last resort, one would never keep a fair proportion of one's most talented people.
To anybody at school, careers advice is basically carried out by a teacher allocated to the job. He is not specialised in that job, and it is not in any way his specific and only function. He is merely told to assume responsibilities for giving career advice. He has very few facilities; he has probably a filing cabinet in which there is a lot of out-of-date information. He is not fed with general information from any source of which I am aware, and he regards the job, as he must do, as very much a second-class occupation.
This is coupled with the Youth Employment Service operating throughout the country. Anyone who has been to see youth employment officers will be aware that many of them are the most dedicated men, but they operate from dingy offices, often in the back streets. Anyone walking through their doors and thinking, "This is where the man who is to advise me on my career works", must receive a psychological shock. He will be tempted to feel that if that is where he can get the best available careers advice, he ought to say to himself, "Perhaps I could do better by asking by father".
To summarise, it is my view that we are trying to get careers advice on the cheap. I ask the Government whether they will consider the establishment of an inquiry? It will not be very expensive or take very long but I believe it would be scathing in its condemnation of the way that we are trying to carry out this job. While this sounds as if it is only one specific example, what I am talking about is the most important decision of investment that this country makes—where we invest our most valuable raw material, our skills and talents. It is a vital part of our investment programme.
A fair number of people in our society move on to the university. There was an investigation carried out by the Heyworth Committee some years ago into the conditions prevailing in University Appointments Boards. Many of the boards are absolutely first-class, and people will single out the Oxford University Appointments Board. Its service is extremely
170
good. The point made by the Heyworth Committee is that there is no central form of information which would keep all the boards up to the same standard, and the same level of information. With someone such as the gentleman in charge of the Oxford Board who has thought about this and created something efficient through his own ability, one gets the best there and others like him, but this does not apply everywhere, and the result is that one gets a very wide difference in the standards between the best and the worst. Here again we are entrusting the guidance of many of our young people to inefficient methods. This is a very unwise thing. Are the Government prepared to take steps to look into this?
I want to say a word about postgraduate research. Many points have been made about the atmosphere in our universities and the relationship between the academic and the industrial world. There is an apartness, a feeling of distinction between the academic and intellectual world on the one hand and the industrial world on the other. Regrettably, this undoubtedly exists. There is also our inability, as a nation, to apply the results of pure research going on in many of our universities. There is an ignorance, almost a hostility, in many forms of industry to the places of research, and an insularity on the part of some industrialists which is all too apparent and much to be regretted.
There is a lack of knowledge on the part of technologists as to the openings in industry which they might pursue. There is no way in which they can be sure that they have found the best openings. We are aware of a lack of money for research and equipment. There is a feeling that universities are unaware of commercial considerations. Finally, there is the point about bad pay in British industry, and its unattractiveness com- pared with American industry.
University post-graduate research must be the single most vital area from which recruits most prized in industrial development are to come. I want to propose that the Government set up a university industrial liaison office in each university. The purpose of the office, which would employ an officer or officers, depending upon the size and the number of the research departments within the university, would be to bring together the

171
industrial concerns operating within the sphere of research of the particular faculties.
The officer would try to persuade industry to commission specific research projects from that particular research department, and in this way he would try to persuade individual companies to make solid cash benefits available to the research department. This would not only help to carry out the particular project of research, but would augment the pay of people concerned, and make available larger sums of money for new equipment and facilities. He would go out into industry with the intention of selling to industry items of research and the benefits of research carried out by that research department. This would produce further revenue.
He would have a knowledge of where the brightest people in any field of research in industry were, and he would see it as his job to try to persuade those companies employing these people to let them come for a sabbatical year to the research department, in order to carry out general or specific research. He might try to second people from the research departments into the best companies, so that they could find out what was going on. He would have an intimate knowledge of the progress being made in industry, so that he would be able to advice key research people when they finished their research period, as to where they would be most likely to find openings in industry for their talent and experience. I appreciate that this is a general idea. It would be wrong to try to itemise it in the greatest detail on the Floor of the House. But it provides, I suggest, a proposal that might begin to break down in university circles the feeling that, on the one hand, a person is an intellectual working in an academic environment or, on the other hand, an industrialist who never needs to go near the university research departments. This will be bound to be met by a certain amount of hostility from those who want to keep the situation as it is.
The pattern for what I am saying exists very much in America. Around Boston and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there exists a strip of small companies set up by the large American
172
giants to conduct research experiments and use the nearby talent from the M.I.T. By using these small pioneering units the industrial concerns draw the cream of M.I.T. talent close to them. There is much greater awareness of the ability of and need for people to move from one place to another and of the benefits to be derived in this way. It is not enough for the Government to say that they welcome in principle close liaison between the two worlds. It is imperative for something to be done. It would be quite possible to encourage a scheme of this sort in one university and try it out. What must not be done is simply to pat everyone on the back and to say how good we have been to discuss the matter at all. Something must be done to break down the distinction between the two forms of society of which we have been speaking.
Anyone who has read the excellent debate on the subject in the House of Lords will have been particularly impressed by the speech of Lord Snow, in which he referred to the centres of—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the noble Lord was not a Minister speaking on behalf of the Government, he cannot be quoted or referred to.
Mr. Heseltine: I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker; he was not a Minister. Anyone who has read the speech to which I have referred will have been aware of the suggestion that there should be centres of excellence in this country.
We cannot—I disagree with the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax—expect to spread the jam very thick in a nation of this sort. The essential aim should be to try to set up specialised organisations or centres for post-graduate research in specific disciplines which are known to be of a standard and to command resources far in excess of anything which could be achieved by research departments if they were spread throughout the length of and breadth of our 44 universities. We simply cannot achieve the standards which are necessary in international competition by trying to do it on this basis.
My final point, which might be more controversial, concerns the atmosphere which the Government are building up in the economy as it affects the sort of

173
people who are likely to leave this country. Over the last two years, the Government have done a great number of things which, to a Labour Government backed by Socialist principles, must be perfectly justifiable. If, however, the Government do those things, it is very difficult for them not then to expect a fair number of people simply to shrug their shoulders and say, "That is not the sort of society within which I can operate." Entrepreneurial activity is a very personalised matter.
The Government must understand where decisions about emigration are made. They are made not in public meetings or on the Floor of the House of Commons, but in discussions between father and son, between teacher and student. The question, "How many units of national interest can I earn in any one year?", is not asked. In the last resort, the question that is asked is, "What can I expect to gain from working in this environment and to what career and rewards can I look forward?"
Hon. Members opposite must realise that every time they introduce into this House legislation that deals with the kind of excesses that they regard as shameful in an entrepreneurial society, it must lead to a certain proportion of people who like that sort of society opting for the transatlantic passage.
I ask hon. Members opposite, for example, whether they are surprised that people who may have technical and scientific backgrounds should want to build up small organisations and industrial concerns. Are they surprised that that sort of person opts for the United States of America. where capital gains are an accepted form of existence, not completely tax-free, but taxed at a much lower rate than in this country? Would they expect somebody faced with that choice to stay in this country?
If hon. Members opposite had sons who said, "Where can I expect to accumulate a larger amount of industrial equity for myself", would they advise them to stay here or to go overseas? Or if their son was not an entrepreneur but simply a highly talented and determined young man who wanted to play a part in a large and growing industrial concern, would they advise him to stay here if he were to ask them about stock options? That is the question which hon. Members
174
opposite must ask themselves. That is the sort of situation which occurs in family drawing rooms and in the senior common rooms of universities, where career decisions are taken.
Hon. Members opposite have to ask themselves what they would say to a son who said, "How can I accumulate the sort of capital which I want to do, of which I am capable, if I stay in this country?" If they cannot answer that question, they might as well be honest with the House and tell us that they are prepared to discard people of this sort in our community and see them go, because go they will unless that sort of atmosphere is changed.
If a specialist salesman working in the sort of way in which technically-qualified salesmen have to work, trying to sell British goods to foreigners in this country, sees the Government, prone to highly oratorical and emotional utterances, doing away with the ability to charge entertainment allowances against tax, he is likely to find his personal interest in his job that much diminished. There are large number of hon. Members opposite who regard that as splendid. They do not approve of expense account living. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I know the views of hon. Members opposite. I am not criticising the principles on which they operate. I merely say that, if they have those attitudes to life, they must expect a fair number of people who fundamentally disagree with their views, and who know that simply by going across the Atlantic they can find a society more in keeping with their own attitudes, to get up and go.
Mr. Pardoe: Does the hon. Member accept expense account living?
Mr. Heseltine: I am talking about the sort of society which I would describe in the phrase "an entrepreneurial society". The reason why people like myself would stay in the country and try to bring back the sort of entrepreneurial society which is being destroyed by hon. Members opposite is that we believe that it is better to say here and fight it out than to opt to go to America and give in.
To attract the best ability in industrial terms we are not talking about the most moral people, or those obsessed with the national interest; we mean those

175
who will work hardest to create the biggest profits. If we are to persuade these people to stay in this land of ours, we have to get away from an altitude of mind such as that which underlies the thinking of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), which says that there is something immoral in people using the techniques of industrial expansion to run their business, because they will simply cross the Atlantic, where this sort of thing is praised, admired and not frowned upon.
There is a growing list of matters of this sort which have been dealt with by the Government—for example, the nationalisation of steel, the increasing level of taxation, the Land Commission Act and the imposition of comprehensive schools on communities which do not want them. Every time that one of these things happens, one or two more people say, "This is the sort of society in which I want to play no part" and they decide to go. 1 am not trying to condemn hon. Members opposite for that sort of view. I merely say that if they hold that view, the price will be measured in terms of people who disagree fundamentally with them and who leave the country, many of them for good.
If hon. Members opposite as part of their political propaganda are to spend a large proportion of their time denigrating the profit motive, talking about industrialists as though they are always trying to do something on the cheap, and if the Prime Minister is to have a perpetual sneer on his lips whenever he talks about people trying to make bigger profits, they will find that this society of ours will never again flourish in the way in which it could. If it is given the opportunity to expand, if we are to provide the opportunities that will attract the people about whom we are talking it will require a fundamental difference in approach on the part of the Government. Without it more and more people we cannot afford to lose will opt out.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: wish to begin with a quotation from an article which apeared in The Guardian. It says:
"There are many reasons why young men leave home, and indeed there are many reasons why they should. Blanket criticism is both un-
176
fair and unprofitable. The most valid conclusion one can draw from the debate on the emigration of scientists is that scientists are not very well understood by politicians, and perhaps this should come as no great surprise."
In speaking in terms of scientists going overseas, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) referred to business and used the expression "expense account". In my opinion, that was a damning indictment of British industry which I will not accept. I do not believe that major decisions in industry are dictated by whether or not a prospective client is entertained. If major decisions for or against depend on that sort of thing, there is something radically wrong with our industry. However, I do not accept that that is the situation.
I found myself in agreement with a good deal of what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said when he talked about the problems of the brain drain as they exist. It is right that the Motion should have been tabled, but should we not think of something else? We are concerned about the brain drain. However, if there were no brain drain, we should have more reason to be worried. The fact that there is a brain drain indicates that we are producing people whose skills are required overseas. That is a tribute to our educational system, and it should be reported here and now. Do not let us run away from that all the time.
Nevertheless, it is perfectly true that we have to face a problem. There are difficulties. Somehow or other, the Government have a responsibility. I should like to think that the Opposition feel the same, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman identified himself with that sentiment. His words were that we all have a responsibility, and I am glad to see that there are hon. Gentlemen opposite who agree with me on that point. There is a problem.
At the same time, we must not allow ourselves to become a nation of technological pimps. We cannot afford all the time to live off the skills, developments and productive capacities of other countries. There are certain things that we have to do for ourselves. We have a responsibility to ourselves, and here probably the Ministry of Technology has the greatest responsibility.
We have to attempt to choose those aspects of industrial activity which are

177
likely to give us the highest returns. We cannot range far and wide on a broad front. We have to be highly selective and, in the act of being highly selective, decision-making will become more and more important.
One thing that is certain is that, in any new major development today, we are involved almost immediately in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of £s., and that involves very careful selection of projects which we ought to push through to their logical conclusion. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) made the valid point that, from time to time, certain ventures and developments have to be taken to their logical conclusion so that those who took part in the initial decision, in the research and development, and in the drafting arrangements can see the final end product. To me, that is one of the most important things that we have to do in British industry today.
I wish to deal with three particular problems. The first is the application of the desalination process, which may have a long-term reward for us and to which The Guardian referred on Saturday. After that, I wish to turn to the Concord project and, finally, the research into microcircuitry as examples of decision making.
It was Cervantes who said:
"Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn."
We have to decide the fields of activity in which we have the power to earn. We shall have to be selective, and that will require the joint effort of both sides of the House in assisting decision-making so that our balance of payments eventually comes right.
Perhaps I may be allowed to deal with these three projects, and I start with the research being done on desalination, or the production of flesh water from salt water. At present we have a technical lead, as the result of skilled co-operation between a publicly-owned organisation and a private company. It is rather an expensive project. At present, it is easy to use existing methods of obtaining fresh water, but, as The Guardian pointed out last Monday, as time goes on the availability of water supplies will he reduced and it could easily be, then, that the project in which we now have a lead
178
could pay overwhelming dividends in the form of earned foreign currency.
If we are to keep our lead at a time when we are not getting immediate returns, someone has to make a decision to continue the research. We have to decide to keep ahead of the world, even though the skill and technology may not be used. That means that organisations like the Ministry of Technology must decide to put money into that sort of venture in the hope of long-term rewards. We hope that the day will never arrive when the world becomes partly dependent upon this form of fresh water production. If it does, not only will we have undertaken a task on a very sound economic basis; it may also turn out to be something of extreme importance in terms of social welfare. It may be that we do not value water enough and see too much of it, but there are parts of the world where there is not enough—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will keep his argument to the Motion.
Mr. Carter-Jones: I will, Mr. Speaker. I am suggesting that, if the people involved in this research work feel that it will be pursued to its logical conclusion, they are likely to remain in this country to see it through.
The second project with which I should like to deal, because of its psychological impact, is the Concord. It is a project which has become somewhat controversial. It is true that, in the long run, Concord may easily earn us money, which is important. It may be that there will be a tremendous amount of technical fallout coming from the project. However, it is also true that it is a first-class example of co-operation between nations, and we ought to be seeing more of it.
If there is one reason above all others why I should like to see the Concord project pushed to its logical conclusion it is that the technology of this country needs a shot in the arm. We need to see a flamboyant demonstration of the ultimate in a technical skill. We have gone through the research and development project. It is now being tested, and it should be in the air very shortly. We have a technical lead over one of the major nations of the world, and we

179
ought to keep it because of its psychological impact, apart from everything else, on the people of our society.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has returned to the Chamber, because I want to refer in a moment—
Mr. David Webster: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that we have no lack of inventive skills in this country? We are always inventing things. What we need today is to develop them commercially, and this is where we often fail.
Mr. Carter-Jones: I take that a stage further. Inventiveness may be a feature of the British character, but today, in terms of the amount of money that we require, I believe in the Drucker theory. What we have to do is innovate, and once we decide to innovate and proceed with a set line of technology it involves the expenditure of vast sums of money. Normally this money has to come either directly or indirectly from the Exchequer, and this is why I am glad that my right hon. Friend has returned to the Chamber. More and more his Ministry will have to be choosey and select the projects and the innovations which are likely in the long run to give us a return. This is why, as time goes on, my right hon. Friend's Ministry will become more and more important.
The third element in my argument is one in respect of which we have "taken on" the Americans. It would be wrong to decry the ability of American technology. Theirs is a technical society par excellence, and it has to be accepted as such. Nevertheless, we ought not to be completely mesmerised by their skills. I recently visited Marconi, and was delighted to see that one organisation at least as prepared to tackle the Americans in one of their own specialties and to succeed.
Perhaps I might now marry the various elements together. First, we have to decide quite clearly where our long-term interests lie, and what type of scheme we are going to back. Secondly, because of the psychological impact on our scientists and technologists of constant failure and and constant second-rate we have to make sure that from time to time we back a flamboyant and easily demonstrable
180
successful piece of technology. Thirdly,—and I hope that people will not think I am being too nationalistic about this—we have to compete directly with the Americans in one of their skills. This is vital to overcome any sense of inferiority which we might develop. We must display our ability.
Fourthly, because of the large sums of money involved—and I am sure that the Minister would agree with me on this—we must look around the world at the various countries to find out what type of co-operation we can have with them in joint ventures. I have heard my right hon. Friend argue this point before. It would be particularly appropriate if, arising from Mr. Kosygin's visit, we could co-operate with the Russians in a major project. It would be helpful if we could co-operate with the Germans, and continue our co-operation with the French.
We can talk about money for scientists, because this is important. We can talk about laboratory equipment, and we can talk about all sorts of inducements to go overseas, because these matters are important, but in the end the brain drain will continue because some people want to move in any event. We will, however, be able to hold back a much larger proportion of the people if from time to time we say that certain developments will be taken through to their logical conclusion.
I end with a jingle—
"He who has a thing to sell,
And goes and whispers in a well,
Is not so apt to get the dollars,
As he who climbs a tree and hollers."
I should like to see us start hollering about the ability and skill of our people, and hear a little less of the denigration that I have heard today.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. John Pardoe: When I saw the Motion I wondered why the Opposition had chosen this subject for debate today. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was wrong to cast aspersions on this choice of subject and to say that the debate should not have been held until after the Jones Group had reported. I think that what we have heard so far

181
proves the point made by my hon. Friend, namely, that anybody who ventures into statistics about the brain drain should be very careful about the interpretation which he places on any of the available figures.
A report in the Sunday Express yesterday began with a splendid first paragraph which said:
"The brain drain is claiming more of our brightest young scientists and engineers than the whole of British industry."
That is an alarming thought, but when one reads on and looks further at the figures one sees that it means very little indeed.
I think that the choice of this subject for debate today is perhaps not entirely unconnected with the recent brain drain from the Central Office. Addressing myself to the Motion, I am bound to say that it is a supremely insular one. I also ringed round the words "remain at home", because this conjures up cosy chats by the fireside in old English front parlours, the good old British people staying at home, and all the rest of it, and I wonder whether the Opposition showed this Motion to Sir Francis Chichester.
The extraordinary idea put forward by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) that young people should not wish to go abroad is really quite new.
Mr. Heseltine: It is not that I object to people going abroad. It is that I am dismayed that more want to go abroad for good than want to come to this country for good.
Mr. Pardoe: According to the hon. Gentleman, from the sample of 300 a week who come to him, a few months ago 37 per cent. said that they would be willing to work abroad, and more recently 46 per cent. I should have thought that that showed the young people might be gaining a sense of adventure, because the idea that people should not wish to go abroad is new to a country which knows anything about the Elizabethan era.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned arts graduates in advertising. I am an arts graduate, and I have been in advertising. Indeed, I took part in the expense account racket to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and that is why I know something about it. An arts graduate who
182
manages to do a year or two in an American advertising agency substantially increases his value in the home market when he returns, and a large number of leading advertising executives in agencies throughout London have done a stint in America because of this.
How much of a drain do we have? There are extraordinarily inconclusive figures about the net loss, and indeed about the reasons for it, and I hope that the Jones Group will produce figures for the net loss and also, of course, the reasons for it. But whatever figures we work on, there is undoubtedly a problem. It does exist, but it is a European problem as much as a British one. If it is slightly more exaggerated here than in other countries, it is because it is primarily a drain to America, and people in this country have a language advantage over those on the Continent. Scientific and medical knowledge today is international currency, just as the skill of Leonardo da Vinci and similar artists was in Renaissance Italy, and the skill and the art of musicians in 18th and 19th century Europe. People with those international skills, which are valued in international currency, will be drawn across the length and breadth of the world. It is right they should.
Why do they go—apart from a sense of adventure which seems to be absolutely natural and wholly desirable? First, salaries in American industry are substantially higher than they are in this country or in Europe. Remuneration in American universities is very much higher than at equivalent levels here. It may well be that many more people with a whole range of skills and trades would go from this country if the American immigration laws did not stop them. We already have a considerable brain drain in secretaries going from this country, and I am sure that all kinds of people would go to America in order to enjoy the higher standards of living if they were allowed in. Doctors, scientists and engineers are allowed in because the American economy needs them.
What about the disincentive of our tax structure? The trouble is that no one has any idea how much of a disincentive our taxation system is. We have done no research into the question how people like paying their taxes—or, putting it in a more delicate way, how they do not like

183
paying their taxes. Do they prefer to pay their taxes directly from their pay packet, or as a toll on the roads, or a payment across a doctor's surgery? I hope that the Government will carry out some research in order to see how far our present taxation methods are a disincentive to people earning higher Incomes.
The Liberal Party has for long regarded the disincentive as real, and has pressed for a redistribution of the tax burden from direct to indirect taxation. In order to make up for the social hardship which this will cause we have also devised a total reform of the social security system.
What about opportunities? There is no doubt that scientists go to American universities because there is much greater scope to work with industry, which means that they have bigger projects to work on. It is not merely a question of keeping these people at home or encouraging them to stay at home; I wish the Motion had been phrased in a way critical of the Government's failure to encourage people to come here. It would have been easier to support such a Motion wholeheartedly, because we must encourage people to come. I welcome the Government's initiative in setting up a register. The Royal Institute of Chemistry has set up a specialist register of this sort for chemists working in America, so that they can return to British industry easily. I hope that we shall shortly have a centralised version of this register.
We must also consider the size and excitement of projects on which British scientists are being asked to work. There is no alternative to a united Europe if we want to solve this problem. In the new technological industries, the aircraft industry, and computer industry, the British home market is not large enough to sustain the size of operation to create the excitement the scientists require. I remind the House that the Liberal Party has seen this problem coming for a long time.
Another factor which may be of interest and which has not yet been mentioned is the reluctance of scientists to manage. Some scientists say, "The moment we get into the management level all research is left behind". Scientists are reluctant to go into manage-
184
ment, where the higher levels of salary are paid. It may be true—there are no reliable figures to go on—that a scientist doing research in America has a higher status than a scientist doing similar research here inside his company. In order to achieve comparable status in Britain it is necessary for the scientist to go into management. Some scientists do not wish to do so.
Doctors create a separate problem. Hospital experience abroad is of immense value to them and to us, their patients. It seems that most general practitioners go either because of a feeling that they are not being paid satisfactorily here or because they are ideologically opposed to the National Health Service. I do not see how we can change either of these factors without paying substantially more money for medicine—but I do not believe that this can be injected into the National Health Service from the general taxation fund.
Mr. Bernard Braine: The hon. Member is doing a grave disservice to doctors. A minority may go overseas with these motives, but as far as I know the majority go because they find that they cannot practise good medicine here.
Mr. Pardoe: That is partly true. Some doctors to whom I have spoken have mentioned this. But it all comes back to the fact that there is not enough money in our National Health Service.
Mr. Will Griffiths: The hon. Member has been speaking about the Liberal Party and its keenness that we should enter Europe. Has any European country anything so comprehensive as the British National Health Service? Is the hon. Member satisfied that the standards of medical practice in Continental countries are as high as they are in Britain?
Mr. Pardoe: Yes, in nearly all the six Common Market countries the level of benefit throughout the whole social security field is substantially higher than it is in this country. I agree that we are alone in having a National Health Service, but Germany makes very good provision in this respect, and I would say that through private insurance in partnership with State schemes the

185
German people are in many cases getting a better deal out of their health service than we are out of ours.
We cannot hope to improve our health service sufficiently to encourage these people to stay or to encourage more doctors to come here unless we can inject some more money from private insurance sources. The National Health Service is in need of a radical overhaul in the method of its financing.
Many suggestions have been made for increasing the flow of graduates and expanding medical schools and universities. We have had the Robbins Report. After that, for a few weeks everybody was up in arms about expanding British universities. Then we had the Newsom Report, and everybody was up in arms about our secondary schools. Now we have had the Plowden Report, and everybody is up in arms about the plight of the primary schools. But these priorities disappear as quickly as they come. At this stage we cannot commit the Government to increase the proportion of our educational expenditure devoted to higher education when primary education desperately needs more money.
My hon. Friends and I will be voting against the Government tonight, not because we agree with the terms or wording of the Motion but because the Government have failed to create a mood of excitement, of national purpose, which will give people the feeling that there is adventure to be gained from working in this country. A doctor who recently returned from the United States told me, "Britain is quite an exciting place. There is a lot going on here. You have lost an empire and it is hoped to build a new nation." That was the only time that sentiments of that sort have been expressed to me in the last two or three years.
It a spirit of adventure could pervade the whole of our scientific and academic endeavour, the situation would be very different. Unfortunately, hon. Gentlemen opposite have a puritanical attitude towards high earnings and in the implementation of the incomes policy they have created the impression that that policy is aimed at keeping wages down. We, on the other hand, believe that Government policy should be designed to push wages up. There is nothing wrong with high
186
earnings, as long as they are really earnings.
We will be voting against the Government because they have failed to create this mood of national adventure and excitement. Indeed, when one looks at the white heat of the technological revolution one fears dejectedly that the flames have been somewhat doused by the Prime Minister's well known brand of H.P. sauce.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Two observations which fell from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) astounded me. He said that the brain drain operated because of people's wish to opt out of democratic Socialism. He had previously said, however, that there was a brain drain from other countries as well. I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in his place because he might have been able to explain those two observations, since although those other countries do not have democratic Socialism, they also have a brain drain. The answer must, therefore, lie somewhere else. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said that people who paid Surtax were being driven abroad. However, we are not talking about a gain drain but a brain drain—a drain of brains to other countries and not of people who pay Surtax.
I am adept for sticking my neck out, and I will do so today. I am certain from what I have already heard that what I intend to say will not be popular on either side of the House for it should be noted that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that we must not restrict the movement of people, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology said that there should not be controls and that the law should not be used to stop emigration and that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said that there must not be any regulations compelling people to remain in this country.
I am not suggesting that there should be compulsion. However, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone went on to say that we could not compete with the Americans. I agree with him entirely in this observation. How nice it must be for the Americans to watch our young men and women scientists and

187
technologists being trained, often at public expense, so that they can, when the time arrives, cream off the top layer to their own advantage.
If our community is paying—as it often is; and many hope that it will pay fully—for the education of its young people, the community has the right to expect that the results of that education will finally be directed to and used in the community's service. Years ago, when I joined an Inn of Court, I studied the conditions of scholarships of competitive examination and noted that if a person was successful in winning one of those scholarships he had to sign a declaration that he expected and intended to practise as a barrister in England. It was expected that if he did not do so, the money spent on that scholarship would be refundable by him.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that we hoped that people who went abroad would come back again. I have nothing against people going abroad to further and improve their education, but pious hopes that they will come back are not enough. I therefore suggest that my right hon. Friend might consider my suggestion that the person concerned should be required to refund the money spent on his or her education if he or she subsequently decides to remain permanently out of this country. If the community helps the individual, it has a right to expect that individual to help the community in return.
7.36 p.m.
Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) considers that a refund should be paid to the community by individuals who remain abroad. He did not suggest any possible answer to the obvious question; and I am, therefore, forced to wonder how on earth any Government could regain that money from people who have gone abroad.
Until two and a half years ago we heard continually from Labour politicians of the need to block the brain drain and of how a Labour Government would undertake that task. Yet now, with even greater intensity, one might say that Britain is not so rich in facilities for training scientists and technologists that one
188
can let the brain drain continue. One could add, "We are not even selling the seed corn—we are giving it away", to echo the words of the present Prime Minister at Scarborough in 1963.
Nowadays it is not so customary to hear the views of the Prime Minister on the brain drain, but some of his hon. and right hon. Friends have put forward a different attitude, inside and outside the House. I regret that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not in his place, because I recall that on 25th May last he said that he had never taken the alarmist view of the brain drain that some people seemed to take—an odd attitude compared with some of the statements made only a few years previously. Since the Labour Government came to power, far from stemming the flow, the evidence is that the brain drain has got worse. Cmnd. 3101 stated in paragraph 90:
"However, our impression is that there may have been a greater flow of scientists and engineers to the U.S.A. since then,"—
since 1963—
"unbalanced by a return flow, and that this has been particularly marked in the last year or two".
My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) emphasised this aspect of the problem and pointed out in his excellent speech the snowball effects that the brain drain is having.
Those leaving this country have been put into four categories, first, mature scientists and research workers in universities or research institutes; secondly, young men and women who have just obtained higher university degrees in pure and applied science; thirdly, scientists and technologists, including engineers in industry; and, fourthly, doctors. It is of little use members of the Goverment attempting to play down the importance of the loss of these people, because clearly their departure is extremely serious.
The Government attitude and performance are only of passing interest. They demonstrate a record of inability to tackle and to cope with a problem which has beset this country with growing menace and meaning during recent years. It is far more relevant to consider what should be done and what part the Government have to play. It is to this that the second part of the Motion refers. In the

189
debate on 20th December in another place, a noble Lord said:
"The Government role is a subtle one and consists of supporting in a sustained way the most exciting work."
Perhaps excitement is just one of the keys to this problem. Young men want excitement in whatever they are doing and this is no new phenomenon. Through history they have been able to gain excitement in one way or another, perhaps in wars, perhaps in exploration and perhaps in colonisation, but in times past it has probably been more usual for those young men to return home in due course with their fortunes.
Now it is possible to go abroad, at least to countries which in the context of this debate are most significant, to make a fortune and to enjoy greater benefits and a higher standard of living than that which exists at home. This is the basic cause of the trouble. If there are two countries and the economy of one is stronger than that of the other and it offers a higher standard of living, there is bound to an emigration from the less well-off country to the better-off country.
In this respect the attraction of the United States of America compared with that of this country is a key ingredient of the brain brain. This is one of the main reasons why British people leave this country in the same way as Great Britain benefits from immigration from the under-developed countries.
There are other reasons and I shall mention one or two. In this country we produce highly-qualified young men. They expect to receive promotion on the basis of their ability. Far too often the promotion is made according to age and seniority. When young people hear of others of their age in the United States or other countries who have been swiftly promoted and as a result are earning higher salaries and, what is more, taking home more money after taxation—it is hardly surprising that people in this country think of migrating as well. In this respect, Government and industry have an important part to play.
Similarly, in the sphere of taxation mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), I remind the House that the point at which the British tax system becomes signifi-
190
cantly more punitive than those of its main trading rivals is at the £1,500 income level. After that only the Swedes pay more tax than ourselves, and after the £2,000 income level even they have tailed off in the heavy taxation stakes.
What is important about this is that the level of income at which taxation hits hardest is very much the same as the level at which many of the younger scientists are earning. It is all very well for the Government to expect people to pay a growing proportion of increased earnings in taxation, but there is not much point in this philosophy if it operates on the law of decreasing returns. If Britain, as a result of high taxation, loses just the people she should keep if her economy is to be adequately expanded, the rate of increase in the tax base will be eroded, and eroded to the relative advantage of our competitors. Surely the question of taxation is one which the Government must be tackling with great seriousness. I hope the Minister of Technology is pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show more imagination about the taxation of people we are discussing today.
Young scientists wish to be closely connected with and to see the results of their research. Here is another field in which the Government can help. In 1964–65 the United Kingdom spent about 3 per cent. of the gross national product on research and development. That is almost exactly the same proportion as the United States spends of its gross national product, but the location of the work in the two countries was very different. Here we spend approximately 7 per cent. in the universities, 3 per cent. in public corporations, 30 per cent. in Government establishments and 60 per cent. in industry, whereas in the United States about 20 per cent. of the work is done in the universities and most of the remainder in industry, although 66 per cent. of the cost is paid by the Government.
By doing 80 per cent. of research and development in industry, it is directly aimed towards increased productivity and the 20 per cent. in American universities produces an output of more trained scientists and engineers. Here with 30 per cent. in the Government establishments there is a far greater proportion of research and development which is coupled neither to education nor to production. Could it be, therefore, that too great a proportion

191
of this type of research and development has no end product, with the consequence that the scientists engaged become frustrated and wish to move elsewhere, where they can see more of the fruits of their labours? Perhaps the Minister of Technology will ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is to reply to the debate, to say what consideration is being given by both Departments to the placing and apportionment of research expenditure.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said, the product of British education is of a very high quality. It must, therefore, be adequately rewarded and given adequate opportunity to excel. Even if we had those two things we should not stop the brain drain, because of course we cannot hope to compete absolutely with the draw of better-off countries, but, by careful choice of projects and the careful choice of subjects for research and development, at least the brain drain can be partially checked—if it is seen that in the United Kingdom excellence and success are held in high regard. At present I am certain they are not.
Dr. Lynn, lecturer in psychology at Exeter University, in a recent excellent article in The Times wrote:
"The value of achievement is no compatible with that of equality. The value of achievement is inseparable from excellence, quality and success in competition. The more highly equality comes to be regarded, the less room there is for achievement. Britain surely needs a change of attitude here."
Let us, therefore, for heaven's sake, hear from everyone, and particularly from hon. Gentlemen opposite, not so much about equality but more about excellence and achievement. There will then be a greater chance of retaining those who will secure the country's future, and then, also, Britain will become a more exciting place in which to live.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Eric Moonman: Many of my former colleagues in research departments of universities will be somewhat amused tomorrow when they read in the newspapers, and possibly in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Opposition Motion and some of the generalisations made in the debate, particularly by the
192
right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). This is not to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was not amusing. Indeed, I enjoyed it very much. But it seems to me that he is engaged in conversation research. This is a handicap suffered by many people outside the House. I would have hoped that this would not have been brought into the Chamber.
The Motion contains the implication that there is dissatisfaction with the Government and that this is why we have the brain drain. This is nonsense. The problem has been with us for a number of years, and will no doubt continue for some time—if it is quite as large a problem as has been suggested.
Another piece of conversation research is that there are no jobs at the top and that is why people leave this country. I am not sure that this is so. The great range of people who are inclined to move out of the country for other experiences in the United States and other countries are not usually those who are at the top of a particular research project. There are exceptions, but in the main such research as we have done on this suggests that people have gone because they want other experiences and want to add a new piece of material to the job that they are working at. This is quite different from suggesting that people leave this country because they cannot get to the top.
The last piece of conversation research by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite—I hope that it was not meant to be a serious piece of research—was that a whole generation is leaving Britain. It is most unfortunate that this should be said because it is misleading and wrong. It also suggests a misjudging of the reason why many research workers feel that they ought to leave the country for a short or long period. I would emphasise that the Minister of Technology said that we are spending more on scientific research and development in this country than any other country of comparable size. That is a fact, one of which we should make more use. We should give expression to it on every possible occasion. Certainly, research expenditure has more than doubled in the last decade.

193
In order to be helpful, I will give figures associated not with the last two years but with a period covering the Conservative Administration as well as the recent Labour Administration. In 1955 £300 million was spent, and by 1965 that had increased to £756 million. Research in universities has also increased in this period, the figures being—14½ million in 1955 and £55 million in 1965. The proportion of the total spent by the research councils which the Council for Scientific Policy has a direct responsibility to advise amounted to£43 million in 1964–65. This has been increasing at 13 per cent. per year. What a pity that we have made political points about it! I think that the Government can afford to be generous in this respect. I hope that the Opposition will take the cue when the debate is wound up from the other side of the House.
I come back to the reasons for people leaving this country. The brain drain is a nice, useful popular image to describe something which has many serious implications. It concerns the movement of people. It concerns the search for ideas and new experiences. This is legitimate. A speaker in another place was much more realistic when he said that people had been doing this in other forms from this country and that that accounted for the Patagonia sheep farms.
The problem is exaggerated. It may be that Ministers in the past few years can be blamed for this, too, because we have not enough information. If we have not the information, it seems to me that the Ministers concerned should have established a mechanism within their Departments to provide it for us. That is why we have had the generalisations which have been made in this Chamber on many occasions. It is not good enough to say "We will try to produce a register which will give us an indication of what people are doing." I question the idea of a register. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more than he has said already. If a proposal is being put forward which is meant to resolve part of the difficulty, we ought to be told much more about it, or it could not have been mentioned in the debate at all.
Our statistics suggest one or two things. The Report of the 1965 Triennial Manpower Survey of Engineers, Technolo-
194
gists, Scientists and Technical Supporting Staff said on page 36:
"The Ministry of Technology has carried out an analysis from available statistics and other sources of the migration of British and Commonwealth scientists and professional engineers to and from the United Kingdom for the years 1956–63. This indicated an annual outward flow of 3,000–4,000 people and an annual inward flow of 2,000–3,000. There was a net balance over the six years of about 4,000 in favour of emigration, with Canada and the United States accounting for most of this total … What is not known is the balance in terms of the quality of scientists and engineers gained or lost."
So we come to the crucial question in terms not only of numbers but of quality—the actual quality of the people who are leaving. Another generalisation made earlier was that America is plundering all the available talents. Steven Dedijer's Study some years ago suggested that only a minority of scientists, engineers and doctors from this country emigrate to the United States. Whether we are dealing with Norwegian engineers, Indian scientists or Pakistani scientists and engineers, they are not just flooding into the United States. It is true that British Ph.D.s go to the United States, but it is one in two; it is not all. This destroys half the case made by the Opposition.
There are three areas at which we should look. The first reason why we must accept this movement is communications. The better links between nations today encourage scientists to move around. This is a realistic factor. This is why the Hatch/Rudd survey of two years ago discovered on interviewing a number of Ph.Ds—these are facts; the right hon. and learned Gentleman may not like them, but they are things that he should have brought out instead of engaging in conversational research—that 15 out of 30 Ph.Ds did not say that it was because of the Labour Government or because they wanted more money that they were going to the United States. They mentioned a desire to travel and gain experience of a different country. One man said that he wanted the opportunity to live and work in another country and to see something of the world. Another referred to his desire to broaden his education in all senses, to learn from the Americans and to visit many parts of the United States.
I hope that I have put back at the Opposition what any research worker

195
would do, which is the available information. It is because the Opposition are not able to understand the problems of research workers that they put down extraordinary Motions like the one before us and use dubious phrases like "brain drain".
Mr. Hogg: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that the expression "brain drain", although not invented by the Prime Minister, was one that the Prime Minister used habitually when in Opposition? Does he condemn his leader for using it? If not, why does he condemn me?
Mr. Moonman: It seems to me that we are all wiser. Whatever happened in the past certainly happened before I was a Member of the House of Commons.
One other factor which seems to me to be worthy of attention is the use of the term in the heading to this Motion. Certainly it is a phrase which has meaning outside, and the newspapers, when they are selecting their headlines, will use this. I cannot condemn them, but I think it is important to note that this was the heading selected for this Motion.
As for the other important charge which was made by the Opposition, the one about salaries, it seems to me that what is being said here is that because scientists and engineers can earn more in the United States they will leave; but to return to the study I mentioned before, the Steven Dedijer Survey, which is one of the few surveys on this subject, it said that the return flow from the United States began within a year, and it suggested the point about getting a piece of experience, getting some additional research material, and then coming back. It continued:
"This reached a peak before rather after the Ph.D. was gained and thereafter it declined slowly."
I would offer this view, that certainly in some cases there will be men who will want to earn a greater amount of money and greater rewards for their training and experience, but I think that some of the facts suggest that many others of them are looking for things other than salaries, because they do return. We must bear this in mind, that many do return.
196
As for the things we ought to be looking at, I suggest that a great deal more servicing needs to be done for those who work in universities and colleges in this country. We have had an amusing debate before on the extent to which lack of proper expense accounts causes British men to leave this country to work abroad because they are more intelligent and vigorous, but there are many university research workers who do not think in terms of such expense accounts but simply in terms of basic expense accounts, and I can recall one occasion spending something like two days arguing with the university authorities about a member of my staff to be paid a proper mileage allowance for perfectly legitimate business on behalf of research. We were arguing whether it should be 4½d. or 4d. a mile. In the end, one research worker, a rather dour north countryman, decided to take the local bus. He thought that much more effective and thought that decision-making of the best and highest level. That, however, is the sort of servicing which many research workers need and have not got, and I think that whatever can be done to provide for that with closer links with industry should be done.
I think the most important reason why people decide to move from the United Kingdom for short or long periods is that the very nature of research has become more complex, and on an increasingly bigger scale, than it used to be. It has become an international job, so that if one wants to get extra experience of one's work, as it is in other parts of the world, it is necessary to go elsewhere to get it. Therefore, we should not criticise, but rather recognise that this has become quite necessary in the development of skill.
I suggest that the scope has become enormous. We should concentrate, firstly, our resources on a few things. Secondly, we should involve other nations in joint efforts. Thirdly, we should involve commercial firms. I think this is something which can be done by universities, involving a small unit of a department entirely within an industrial organisation. Fourthly, we ought to involve management in a proper organisation of company research, because many research workers in industry are frustrated because management itself does not properly understand their problems and does not

197
make full use of their various stages of development in research. That is a management training job. We want to establish also a proper use of those students who have now qualified. For instance, many Ph.D.s are not being properly used. I could not agree more with the Minister of Technology than when he said that we have got a number of well-qualified engineers and scientists who are working in this country and are not doing the job for which they are trained. This is something very difficult to get over, because sometimes their use of the English language is not all that it should be, but they are scientists, and we ought to provide them with the facilities, and here, perhaps, is something which the Department of Education and Science could look at to see how we can get hold of these people. I have been appalled in the course of the last five years to meet some 25 overseas scientists doing other than scientific work, ranging from servicing to helping with the Post Office mail. This is a great waste of talent, and something we ought to look at, and perhaps the Ministry of Technology could communicate with the other Departments to see that these people may go into industry.
I come back again to the suggestion of the register. I would hope that we would get something rather more than the sort of register which was suggested earlier.
In all these suggestions that I have made, the importance of working together with countries in Europe is quite obvious. We have not heard any detailed suggestion about the possibility of a European technological community, but surely at the heart of working with other nations in Europe is the recognition that the Prime Minister has made a proposal to this end and that we ought to look in a more detailed way into how far we can co-ordinate with other nations of Europe so as to overcome the problem of the technological gap between Britain and the United States. Perhaps even more important, we should consider how we can give the right stimulus and guidance in Europe. In that case we should not worry so much about the fact that we are losing people, because I hope that we shall gain French scientists, while we may lose English scientists to Italy. We may have to develop our whole attitude in this way in the future.
198
Britain's economic future rests on advanced technology, which depends on science. We cannot afford to neglect these areas, and we should aim at achieving a solution to the problems of research activities, of co-ordination, of industrial liaison and of co-operation between nations. I urge the Government to concentrate their energies and resources in these directions. I believe that the brain drain will then look after itself.
8.7 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: My speech will be mercifully short. I have taken part in many debates on this subject in the past few years, and it seems to me that each time I take part in a debate on this subject I find that the situation has become progressively worse. We are now facing a situation which no one can laugh off, and we must have a proper explanation about the aircraft industry.
Mr. Benn: The hon. Member says that the situation gets worse, but there are no firm figures on this matter. Our own figures were discontinued, but the American figures indicate that the number of professional people entering the country in 1965 was reduced compared with 1964. The general assumption that the position is getting worse is not confirmed.
Mr. Neave: I have reports which indicate that the proportion of persons with first-class degrees who are going abroad is getting larger, and it is of quality rather than of quantity that I want to speak. I was not satisfied by what the Minister said about the aircraft industry. He cannot laugh off what was said by The Times air correspondent. If it is true that 1,300 key men left the industry last year, that is a serious matter, and it is a worse picture than when I last spoke in the House about it. The S.B.A.C. report quoted by the air correspondent showed that nearly 90 companies were involved in this loss. In another place, on 20th December, it was stated that after the TSR 2 cancellation English Electric lost 760 technical staff, of whom 30 per cent. had gone to the United States. They were said to be the best qualified. There is evidence that it is the best-qualified people who are going abroad.
I do not agree with what the Minister said in his intervention. I think that there is evidence to show what I have

199
outlined. For example, the Willis Jackson Report indicated the type of people going to the United States at present. It said that nine Fellows of the Royal Society had left between 1957 and 1962. The Report came to the conclusion that for some years we have been exporting 15 per cent. of our most highly-trained categories. I accept that it would be a good idea to have a register, but these are reports of some authority, and it is clear that the position has got worse over the years in terms of the categories of people we are losing, particularly those with Ph.Ds and first-class degrees. The same is shown by Table 2 of the Swann Report. Sir Gordon Sutherland estimates the net loss to be 1,500 well-trained men in science, of whom possibly 300 have first-class degrees. That is a very serious matter.
What is the right answer? Many hon. members have referred to the link between the universities and industry. I believe that a much higher starting salary is required in industry, and industry must look at this problem in terms of offering a much better beginning to the career. The prospects of advancement to directorial level must be greatly improved for scientists and they should be given an effective part in management.
The Royal Society Report said that about 20 per cent. of all Ph.D. graduates as long ago as 1961 were going for one or two years but only half would return. If a man wishes to return, he finds it very difficult to discover what posts are available. I suggest that some capital should be found to set up an employment company in private industry to advise people along these lines.
Something is being done by individual firms, but people are seldom interviewed by the man under whom they will work. Industry could form an employment company for that purpose. We should take a thorough new look at the problem.
An hon. Member said that the so-called "leak" relating to first-class honours degrees in the Daily Express was wrong, but it was not wrong in form. It said that industry got only 8 per cent. of first-class honours graduates. That has got worse. It was 10 per cent. the year before and 12 per cent. two or three years before that. There are too
200
many pure scientists and too few applied scientists.
I am in industry, and 1 agree that one of the real causes is that we often have not the right balance between expenditure on research, so that the proportion of a firm's money spent on research and development brings a high and profitable rate of production. Scientists feel that their services are not being used fruitfully. A much larger proportion of research is done in American universities.
We must work for these things, but the Government must help by creating a better climate. The main problem is for industry to set up an organisation to get the men back and to do the job of selection for new jobs. This is a delicate and difficult role, because people must be interviewed who may have been offered jobs already in the United States after two or three years there. I hope that that is a constructive suggestion.
8.14 p.m.
Dr. David Owen: We are discussing the migration of scientific manpower, yet we have a total paucity of facts and cannot draw real general conclusions. As a scientist, I find the situation eminently depressing. It is an example of the decrepit machinery on which Government decision-making has consistently been based in the past. One of the greatest attributes of the present Government is their readiness to initiate research programmes to try to decide on valid evidence.
A great deal needs to be done, but this is a significant advance. It would be foolish to pretend that this problem can be solved speedily. It has been and will stay with us for years. It has no single cause and there is no single solution. It has been called a circular problem. We have tended in the debate to talk too much about the drain and not lay enough emphasis on the gain.
In any analysis of this situation we must remember that, although we export scientific manpower, we import it, and most important, re-import it. We send our best graduates away and they come back with new ideas and initiatives, capable of injecting disciplines and ideas into industry and pure science that are of the utmost benefit to the country.
Although my right hon. Friend said that he did not wish to interfere with the

201
free movement of scientific manpower and knowledge—he is right to say that this course is fraught with danger—perhaps we should seriously analyse the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck).
Any proposal to indenture graduates to serve for fixed periods is loaded with problems. It would be extremely easy to avoid it. But, more important, the period following graduation is often the best time in which to go abroad. It is the time when one is more susceptible to new ideas and new techniques, when one needs to have the discipline of a totally different environment and when there is an immense amount to be gained, quite apart from the fact that one has not yet settled down and has no family. This is the time when one is prepared to go abroad. We should look at this extremely carefully. Forcibly to limit our traditional academic freedom to seek knowledge wherever it is is something that we should only do as the last desperate step. It would be a dangerous and possibly a damaging intervention.
I want to talk a little about Europe. We know from American statistics for 1962–64 that Europe was the birthplace of 50 per cent. of all emigrating scientists to the United States and that 20 per cent. came from the United Kingdom and 8 per cent. from Germany. This points to a real need to widen the European base of science and technology. In the words of Nature, we want a situation where young United Kingdom students are
"… able to satisfy their postgraduate wanderlust in Europe."
This is the first positive suggestion I have to put. I hope that not only will the Government pursue entry into the E.E.C. with vigour but that they will also start now discussions for fostering European scientific and technological co-operation prior to any decision to make formal negotiations for entry. This would show Europe that we were determined to forge much more than the present rather limited bilateral agreements between countries.
I believe that this would show that we really meant it when we said that we wished either to set up a European technological community or, more likely, to fuse science and technology with the existing Communities. This would be a
202
positive step forward, and I recommend it most strongly to the Government.
It has long been felt, as many hon. Members have pointed out, that we need a more intimate relationship between industry and the universities. In the United States, it is often thought that this is one of the factors which make America a stimulating place to work in. There is a mobility of appointments in the United States as compared with the United Kingdom. I can vouch for that myself in medicine and academic medicine. We have not yet developed the situation where it is considered normal for scientists or civil servants in scientific departments also to work in industry or to spend some time in academic departments. We have not yet developed a structure in which scientists in industry can expect to press up through the higher tiers without having to go into administration. Often a scientist has to change to administration just at the stage when he should go on with his scientific work. We should look into this.
I bow to no one in my desire to pursue excellence and reward talent and initiative, but there is a balance to be struck and the debate has been notable for the total lack of balance in the Opposition approach to this subject. The debate has just begun to show the true line of attack, which was carefully concealed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). He started reasonably and peacefully and I began to think that we were to have a most interesting debate. Eventually, however, in a flood of rhetoric, we heard what he really feels—that talent will always go where the money is. That was one of his statements.
Mr. Hogg: That was not my statement. I took the quotation from Lord Snow. I forget whether he was actually a member of the Government at the time.
Dr. Owen: I am well aware of that. I said that it was one of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen's statements with full approval. It may have been said by Lord Snow, but it is a belief that I do not altogether hold.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked whether it was in the interests of the lowest-paid workers to starve the skilled. He notably failed to show any

203
evidence that we had starved the skilled. He did not pay any attention to the real starvation which exists in this country. It is this lack of balance on which I attack the Opposition.
The theme was developed and came out in all its nakedness in the speech of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine)—I am sorry that he is not in his place. I live in part of his constituency. He had the courage, if one might call it that, to defend expense account living. He talked about the entrepreneur society and one in which the only motivation in choosing a job was gain. He did not qualify this, but I presume that he meant purely financial gain. All through the Opposition speeches we have had an attack to alter the tax system to widen the differentials, to pay the pace-setter more, to help the Surtax payer. At last the Opposition have shown their true colours.
I should like to say to the hon. Member for Tavistock that there is more to life than just pure financial gain, and if he does not understand this I would like him to think of the many talented people in the country who do not measure gain purely in terms of increasing their standard of living, who do not qualify and judge their lives in purely materialistic terms, to whom personal profit is not the prime motive for living.
I believe that we should look at these people—teachers, nurses, probation officers, social workers and, what is relevant to this debate, scientists. Sometimes I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not know how scientists feel. The majority of scientists are among the least interested in pure profit motive and pure gain. They do, of course, take it into account, and I am not saying that they should not, but this is not a major factor. One of the major factors in their lives, I believe, is the facilities and the opportunities to practise their particular art and work in decent conditions.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite keep talking about salary levels. There is very little evidence of this. Certainly there is no more evidence to support their claim than, I admit, I have evidence to support mine, because I believe that salaries are not the major issue.
204
Dr. Richard Rushton, writing in the New Scientist, himself a recent emigrant to California, wrote:
"No one to whom I have talked has given higher salaries as the prime reason for their move, however difficult this might seem."
Salaries might keep a person in the United States, but Dr. Richard Rushton quotes the major reason for their going as being the massive inertia in British industry. No one is more responsible than hon. Gentlemen opposite for this massive inertia.
What we need now is a real research into why scientists are leaving. Although I listened with interest to some of the proposals which my right hon. Friend produced, I do not think they were wholly adequate.
Nature said that what was wanted was
"A rounded sociology of the migration, not just an anthology of what people say in the cocktail lounges of Transatlantic liners."
It is about what is said in those cocktail lounges in Transatlantic liners that we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have refused to look at what studies there are, and what studies we have do not confirm many of their premises. I would like the Government to make a study in depth, with experienced interviewers talking to scientists in this country, to detect their frustrations and their criticisms. Those frustrations exist. I suggest that analysing people who have already gone, who have already migrated, is not very productive because they tend to rationalise their decision. We should talk to scientists who are in the field now. I believe that we will find a whole host of minor petty irritants which would not cost a tremendous amount of money to remove. In that way, by detecting which countries they are going to and why they choose those countries, we will find out whether the points raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite are true, whether salaries are the critical factor, whether the differential is something to which we have to pay attention. I believe that we have to pay talent. We have to keep talent, but before we do it on some political dogma, let us have the honest facts about this situation. We have suspiciously failed to have them so far in the debate.
Mr. Neave: Would the hon. Gentleman call the Swann Report and the Willis Jackson Report political dogma?
Dr. Owen: Of course I would not. They have mainly analysed the number of people leaving. We have very little idea of the primary motivation behind emigration, which is what I am discussing. I urge the Government to find out. Numbers and statistics are not enough. Many statistics are falacious because people are on the circle and moving back.
Another consideration which I would like a survey to study is that of status, which is of far more importance than that of salaries which is so often mentioned by hon. Members opposite. For instance, there is evidence to show that one of the reasons why doctors go to America is that in America a doctor has a very high status in society. It changes in different countries. In Russia an engineer has a much higher status than a doctor or a pure scientist.
In this country we undervalue scientists, inventors and innovators. One has only to consider the amount of publicity which we give to pop stars and the gimmicks of life and how little publicity and how little status we give to solid scientific inventors. This is something which can be put right. These are the sort of frustrations which people in this country feel.
I urge the Government to undertake more research in depth and to have less talk about the brain drain. I was very critical about the way in which the salary scales of university clinical teachers were being handled, and in an Adjournment debate I said that the Government had to justify their claim to have reversed the brain drain, as I have said they would, with justification, when speaking on election platforms. Their actions towards university clinical teachers have justified those claims and, within the limits of the prices and incomes policy by which they have been constricted, the Government have given the right priority to a small section of the community which we can ill afford to lose to America or any other country.
The Government should ignore this rather raucous censure Motion from the Opposition and concentrate on getting more facts so that we can take our decisions based on factual evidence.
8.27 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Braine: If, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) believes,
206
it is not primarily the attraction of higher remuneration and lower taxation which leads so many of our scientists and doctors to emigrate, it was exceedingly unfortunate that last year the Ministry of Health chose to describe doctors who emigated as being guilty of a cynical and selfish act. Throughout the debate I have been anxious to see that justice is done to the medical profession in this regard.
Of course, financial considerations loom large in the decision of anyone, a young technician, a doctor, or a scientific worker, to uproot himself and to go to live in another country. It has been my experience in such contacts as I have had with the medical profession that while financial considerations may be an important factor, they are not the only factor and by no means the most important to the majority of emigrating doctors.
Hon. Members may have seen an interesting article which appeared in The Guardian on 4th October, 1966. It referred to a report of interviews with doctors who had emigrated to a number of different countries. Of those who were interviewed, only one said he would return to Britain, and that was because the price of housing in New Zealand was too high for his salary. The others, in America, New Zealand and Australia, were emphatic that they would not return to this country however fond of it they were. The major incentive to emigration was not money. Some of those interviewed were earning less than they would have been at a similar stage at home. The most general incentives were the opportunity to practise good medicine, chances of promotion which in this country were often restricted, and conditions which in Britain were still being haggled over by the Ministry of Health and representatives of the profession.
I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) who I thought, made a most interesting speech. I agree with her that there can be no question of our stopping the emigration of doctors. Our object, bearing in mind the considerable pressures on the National Health Service, should be to consider how far we can afford to allow our doctors to go overseas by refusing to provide the conditions which will encourage them to remain. I would go further and say that we ought to encourage those who have already gone to return.

207
The emigration of doctors is no new phenomenon. It is quite true that the Willink Committee, back in the 'fifties, seriously under-estimated the number of doctors we would require in the years ahead. That was not the only example of bad forecasting. This constantly happens, and there is a strong case for Government sharpening of the tools of research and information in order to ensure that the forecasting is much more accurate.
This is no excuse, however, now that we are in the third year of the Labour Administration, for failure to tackle the problem. Where are the new medical schools for which the party opposite agitated in 1964 and earlier? As far as I am aware, the only new medical school established is the one that I announced on behalf of Her Majesty's Government just before the 1964 General Election. I am aware, of course, that there is some expansion of medical schools under way. I am not being too critical. All that I am saying is that the promises made by the party opposite when in Opposition have not been fulfilled to anything like the degree that we were led to expect.
What is new—and here I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton, who told us that we had not got the information about this—is that the rate of increase in migration among doctors is now sharply on the increase. In 1964 the loss by emigration was equivalent to nearly one-quarter of the output of our medical schools. That was serious enough to cause alarm. But by 1965, according to Dr. John Seale, and I am quoting from the British Medical Journal of 3rd September, 1966, the rate appeared to have risen to one-third of the output. This is a very serious figure indeed. In addition, it seems that the figures rose even more sharply in 1966.
In 1958 only three doctors practising in this country sat for the examination which enables them to practise in the United States should they ever go there. A year ago more than 400 doctors sat for that examination, and last September more than 600 sat for it. We know that not all of them will go, but they are taking out an insurance policy. A lot will go, and a number have already gone. The trend is serious and cannot be ignored.
208
According to the best authority that I can find it seems that we have been losing British-born doctors at the rate of about 500 a year for the last three years, and the numbers are now increasing. The House has to see this trend against a background of growing dependence in the National Health Service upon doctors from overseas. In 1960 about 36 per cent. of hospital doctors below the rank of consultant were born outside the British Isles—the bulk of them coming from Asian countries. Last year the proportion had risen to 46 per cent.
Over the last 18 months, in my own constituency alone, I have lost five general practitioners who have emigrated to Canada, Australia or New Zealand. This is in a constituency which is having one of the most rapid increases in population in the country. Serious problems have been created. When I raised the matter with the Executive Council for Essex, I was told that it was indeed serious, but that we were by no means as badly off as some other parts of the country.
Just before Christmas, it was arranged for me to meet a number of hospital doctors to discuss their problems. The meeting did not take place. The man who arranged it had accepted an appointment in the United States of America. Not a week now goes by without the newspapers reporting some physician or hospital specialist, sometimes a man with a considerable name and reputation, leaving to go abroad.
To see the situation in perspective, we have to grasp two facts. The first is that the rate of emigration, taken in conjunction with the output of the medical schools and the growth of population, means that the ratio of doctors to patients must worsen. It is bound to get worse before it can get better as a result of any expansion envisaged by the Government in the medical schools.
Mr. Rankin: When the hon. Member talks about the rate of emigration, will he also tell us of the rate of immigration of doctors into Britain?
Mr. Braine: I am talking about the net loss. Time does not permit me to go into as much detail as I would wish. I refer the hon. Member to the article in the British Medical Journal to which I have referred. He can get it in the

209
Library. I do not think that anybody would quarrel with the figures I have given.
The present rate of emigration, taken in conjunction with the output of the medical schools in the next few years, means that the ratio of general practitioners to patients must worsen. The burden on those doctors who remain will grow. I suppose that the Minister of Health would answer that the new contract for general practitioners, which to some extent, he hopes, will relieve them of some of their workload, will help. We must, however, face the fact that there is little hope of any qualitative improvement in medical services for the people of this country for many years to come. As it is—there can be no argument about this—we are at present treating only the tip of the clinical iceberg. There is a great deal of untreated illness simply because we are short of adequate facilities.
This second fact is that we have become dangerously dependent on doctors from overseas who might be withdrawn from this country in certain circumstances which we can envisage. At the moment, the situation is, perhaps, roughly in balance. It is probably true that about as many doctors are coming in as are leaving the country. In set terms we may be losing a few hundred. We must all be profoundly grateful—I do not want any remarks of mine to be misconstrued—to doctors from Commonwealth countries, who are making an invaluable contribution to the running of the hospital service.
It should not, however, be forgotten that we are losing our graduates—in many cases experienced graduates—to advanced countries overseas and in their place we are gaining doctors from less developed countries who, having improved their skills here, are under a moral obligation to return some time to their own people. It is true that by this means we are making a useful contribution to the health needs of the less developed countries, and I am proud of that, but in the process we are drifting into a dangerous dependence upon doctors who are unlikely to spend the rest of their working lives with us.
The causes of this are not hard to locate. Inadequate financial rewards are part of the story. When most general
210
practitioners, certainly in the area in which I live, are overworked, when hospital doctors are working at between 100 and 110 hours a week, when in the hospital service we have a situation where status, conditions of work and remuneration are simply not related to the work done and the responsibilities carried, we are getting somewhere near the heart of the matter. The Minister of Health knows that perfectly well. In his heart, he knows that he is only tinkering with the problem. He hopes that the new contract for general practitioners will reduce the volume of work, as we all do. He is negotiating about some of the difficulties and discontent in the hospital service. He hints that he will tackle the thorny problem of the career structure, which is one of the main reasons why ambitious doctors leave the country. We wish him well in that.
However, as long as the National Health Service is financed solely out of Exchequer money, all that the Minister is able to do is limited by budgetary considerations. It is not the wishes of the patient that determine the National Health Service which we get, but what the Government are prepared to spend. Until the Government are prepared to grasp the nettle of finance, there is no way of creating conditions which will hold our doctors here, no way of persuading those who have gone abroad to come back home, and no hope of providing the people of this country with the National Health Service which they want and which they could have. In short, it is a matter of the Government willing the means. If they are not prepared to face that, the emigration of doctors will go on and the best interests of the people of this country will suffer.
8.41 p.m.
Mr. David Price: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will join me ill regretting that such a number of hon. Members on both sides have been excluded from the debate. He and I agreed earlier to try to cut down our winding up speeches and to give an opportunity for at least one extra hon. Member to be called. We all regret that the debate cannot go on longer so that we might hear more contributions from both sides.
Before I come to some of the more controversial matters, I want to try to pull

211
the debate together. First of all, I am sure that we all agree that there is a brain drain, that it has been taking place over many years, that its incidence has been increasing in recent years, and that the rate of increase is itself increasing.
It must not be forgotten that we are not only talking about scientists. I am myself extremely concerned about engineers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) has just drawn attention to the number of doctors going overseas. We are talking about a whole range of highly-qualified people, and I think that we can also agree that they represent the most potentially mobile of all labour. Their market is not Britain, but the whole world. The commodity which they have to sell is in great demand because there is a world shortage of it.
With the ease of personal movement, in which term I include the movement of families, the migration of talent is now a worldwide phenomenon. Inevitably, much of the migratory talent is directed to the United States of America, and that is because United States of America is top of the international "pecking" order.
The British brain drain has reached proportions which now make it a serious problem for the future and, therefore, a proper subject for national debate. In a number of spheres of activity, it has exceeded the acceptable level, though I do not suppose that any hon. Member would like to be put in a corner and forced to say what precisely is the acceptable level in any talent. There is a certain intuitive "feel" that in some parameters we have exceeded that level.
Whatever remedies we advocate, none of us would advocate keeping our talent here by restraint. A brain war is an anathema to all that this House stands for, and we must attract our talent to remain with us and never compel it. When I use the phrase "remain with us", we in no way object—indeed, like many hon. Members, we want to encourage them—to people going abroad to get experience. What we mean are people whose intention in emigrating is not to return, and who in fact do not return. The Minister of Technology, like myself, could at one point have been put down as brain drain, but we are both back in this House. That was part of our education, and I think the right hon. Gentle-
212
man will agree that it was a most useful part. We are not making any narrow point on this. It is permanent emigration about which we are concerned.
Obviously there are differences of opinion about the scale of this emigration. What I do not think we have discussed sufficiently is the qualitative element in it, and I think that I agree with the Minister in his emphasis on engineers. Lord Bowden has on a number of occasions given it as his opinion that
"the number of engineers emigrating is three times as great as the number of scientists."
Certainly I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about engineers.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me that the engineer, professionally defined, represents the mode of a Gaussian distribution curve of Lord Snow's "Two Cultures" if one likes, with the pure classicist at one end, the pure physicist at the other, and the engineer in the middle. The pure classicist is far closer to the pure physicist than either the practical engineer or the manager.
I think, too, that we are particularly concerned about the loss of our young Ph.Ds. I think that the figures—and there is fairly good agreement on them—are troubling because these young Ph.Ds. are entering the most potentially productive period of their scientific lives. If all the scientists who emigrate were over 50, I do not believe that they would be a serious loss to this country, except in so far as they may be good administrators, because their productive years as scientists would be behind them.
There is another personal factor about people going to America just after they get their doctorates. They are usually men who have only recently married, or who get married when they get to America, and there is a feeling that it is the American wives who make their husbands stay there. I know that there are exceptions and the right hon. Gentleman has proved the exception to the rule, but that is a little later in life, if I may say so.
A good deal of the discussion during this debate has centred around the aerospace industry, and I shall not add anything to what my hon. Friends said about that, or about the emigration of doctors.

213
Some hon. Members have spoken about the lack of research into the problems of emigration. I should have thought that the work of Doctor Seale of the Middlesex Hospital was a good start, certainly in the medical field.
I want to devote the limited time available to me to discussing the causes of the brain drain. I think that the House has agreed that the causes are numerous, and in the final analysis causes are individual and personal to each emigrant. Nevertheless, I think that it is reasonable to look for some of the major causes which run as a common theme through the highly personalised reasons of the individual emigrant.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) said that there had been no academic research on this. With respect to him, he is wrong. A lot of work has been done on this, particularly by the Canadians who have had this problem with them for a very long time.
I want to refer the House to the work of the distinguished Swedish sociologist—Steven Dedijer, who said:
"The migration of scientists is determined in the first instance by the general social, political, economic and scientific conditions of their own country pushing them out and similar forces from other countries pulling them in."
Hon. Members will probably equally agree that these are matters over which the Government have control—especially a Government who pride themselves on being an interventionist Government. Furthermore, all the independent research work that I have studied and all the sources that I have consulted show that there is general agreement not only on the definition of specific motives for emigration but also on their relative order of importance. It is interesting that they are close to those outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing).
Outstandingly the prime reason is personal reward. This means not only salary and levels of taxation, but also the relative position of salaries—the real earnings after taxation—in relation to other members of the community. Personal reward is the first motive for emigration. That is fairly obvious. It has been the prime motive for the emigration of scientists through recorded history. I could quote from a contem-
214
porary commentator in 776, when they were complaining that the princely stipends offered in the newly erected city of Baghdad were attracting Jewish, Syrian and Persian scholars, scientists and artists to the new city. The comparison between princely salaries and miserly ones is still a very important factor in the brain drain.
The second reason for emigration is a lack of resources for professional work. The emigration of brains from the aerospace industry after the present Government's butchery of our advanced aircraft projects is a good example.
The third reason pertains to poor socio-physiological conditions for professional people in general—the general atmosphere in which they work. This factor is subjective as well as objective. Scientists, engineers and managers must feel that they are wanted, and that their services are appreciated. Suggestions were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House how the Government on the one hand and industrial employers and universities on the other can produce an atmosphere in which these people feel that they are more wanted. Hon. Members will agree that we must give our professional men the sort of conditions in which they will give of their best. Since so many are employed in the public sector—or are in a position in which their fates depend upon Government decision or indecision—Government responsibility for this set of factors is inescapable.
The fourth reason—and the survey clearly shows that it ranks only fourth—is the lack of professional employment. One reason is that many scientists, especially when young, are a good deal more versatile than we give them credit for. We saw this in the war. When Malvern started radar research it built up a great team from people who formerly knew nothing about it. A similar organisation grew up when Harwell was started. We tend to underestimate the extent to which people from many different scientific fields can come together to make a success of a project.
This view is supported by a copy of the Washington Newsletter on this subject. This is not a handout from the Conservative Central Office. It says:
"Well-known considerations which influence the younger British scientist, in particular, to

215
work in the U.S.A. are higher starting pay, earlier responsibility and the freedom which is assumed to go with it, better equipment and facilities … He is also frustrated by a feeling that there is less material reward for ability at home and that constant economic crises inevitably cut heavily into long-term research plans; he compares this rather gloomy picture with one of energy and enthusiasm for new projects in the United States, such as those concerned with space research."
Whereas I agree with a lot of what has been said about the need to be selective in the projects which we as a nation support, I believe that, above any analysis or estimate of sure return from the engendering of national wealth, we need at least one or two projects that stand as a symbol of our determination to go ahead in science and technology. We have obviously thought of the technology of space for a long time. Maybe we have left it too late. Perhaps we should go in for a major project on the sea—dare I say, "in depth"? Certainly we would be the first nation to be really studying the sea. This is a fascinating subject, but I do not have time to adumbrate that thought.
Those who say that the scientist, because of the objective type of work he does, is not an emotional creature do not understand him. Our scientists need prestige. They need to feel that the nation is backing them. One might say that the Francis Chichester's of science need our support.
When in opposition the Prime Minister harshly attacked the Government of the day about these matters, as my hon. Friends have pointed out. Since the right hon. Gentleman has come to power we have seen no progress. In February, 1964, he made an interesting speech. This extract is particularly relevant and is the reason why we have tabled the Motion:
"Britain has got the brains, it is the job of the Government to see that we keep them here by making better use of them".
The plain fact is that the numbers going abroad are increasing. They are voting against the Prime Minister not with a ballot paper but with an air ticket to the United States—and it is not a return ticket, either. The truth is that the Prime Minister, from his Scarborough speech onwards, has taken the scientists, engineers and managers of this country for the greatest ride in the history of political
216
gullibility. The right hon. Gentleman presented himself to the scientific and managerial world as The Man From U.N.C.L.E. He has proved himself to be The Man From Thrush.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) referred to the work of the well-known Exeter psychologist, Dr. Lynn, who has stated:
"No matter how favourable the economic conditions, the nation can only achieve growth if it has within it a number of individuals who wish to take advantage of these conditions".
Dr. Lynn has draw up a table of international ratings in what he calls the "achievement drive". The Prime Minister, who used to be so keen on international league tables, might like to reflect on the fact that Dr. Lynn places contemporary Britain in the bottom third of nations. In his article in The Times, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes referred, Dr. Lynn stated:
"The low level of achievement drive in Britain goes hand in hand with the low regard for profits, which have become almost something to be ashamed of and objects of derision and abuse. At the same time the business man is exhorted to work harder. It is as if a football team were being encouraged to play well, win the game, but at the same time warned that there is something disreputable about scoring goals".
If the Government want to make a real impact on this problem of the permanent immigration of the very skilled, they will have to face up to making an agonising reappraisal of the balance and direction of their policies and priorities. They cannot at one and the same time claim to promote talent and efficiency and foster economic growth and also reduce personal incentive, confine even further freedom of decision—sneer at success, lampoon excellence and ascribe anti-patriotic motives to those with whom they disagree.
Levelling down—the pursuit of crude egalitarianism—is not conducive to the promotion of talent. The sooner the Government recognise this, the sooner will they adopt policies which will attract our nation's talents to stay in Britain, with the result that the general prosperity of all will grow and the quality of life will be enriched.
My final comment is a quotation, again from the Prime Minister in part of his

217
famous Scarborough speech in October, 1963. He said:
"Britain is not so rich in facilities for training scientists and technologists that we can let this brain drain continue. We are not selling the seed corn, we are giving it away."
That was a severe judgment then, but it is an even more severe judgment today.
During the present Prime Minister's tenure of office we have been giving away even more seed corn, and at an accelerating rate. Our Motion shows that the loss has been aggravated. We may argue on the finer details of statistics but the broad trend is clear and the responsibility of the Government is clear. We have established that in this debate beyond argument, assisted where necessary by ample quotations from the Prime Minister when he was in Opposition. We thank him for that.
It would seem that our Motion should be accepted by the whole House without a Division. It is not in the least controversial; it is a simple statement of fact. I realise that hon. Members opposite may find the phrase:
"far from fulfilling their promises"
mildly wounding, but it is still a statement of fact. We can prove it time and time again from the mouth of the Prime Minister. If the Government vote against us tonight, they will be voting against their Prime Minister, unless they do not expect him to fulfil his promises. As for the Prime Minister himself, if he has any memory-and he prides himself on memory—and if he has any conscience—and he prides himself on conscience—he at least will be in the Lobby with us because that is where his promises lie.
9.2 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): We have had an extremely interesting debate. I share the regret expressed by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) that far more of those trying to take part have not been able to take part in it. The debate was opened by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in his most All-Souls, philosophic manner, as opposed to his bell-ringing mood, and for three-quarters of his speech he set an elevating tone, but it
218
rather deteriorated in his concluding sentences.
Almost all the speeches—I have heard a great many and have been told about the rest—have been of a constructive nature. One wonders whether there is anything new which could conceivably be said on the subject of the brain drain, but many interesting suggestions have been made and the Government will study them all. So I have no doubt will all the other various bodies which also are concerned with the question, the working group under Dr. F. E. Jones, which has been much referred to, the Central Advisory Council under Sir Solly Zuckerman, and the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology. Whatever we lack in the next few months, it will not be advice on this subject.
It is difficult in any debate on the brain drain to keep the matter in reasonable perspective, but this debate has been very successful in doing that. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh pointed out with a scholarly knowledge of eighth century Arabia, throughout recorded history there has been a fairly sustained international migration of scientists, scholars and artists, and particularly, I suppose, of soldiers and sailors. This has gone on throughout history, and until very recently it has been assumed to be a thoroughly healthy and desirable thing.
Certainly in this country it has been the general view until very recently that to go abroad rather than to remain at home was not only a properly adventurous thing to do but a thoroughly desirable thing from the point of view of international trade and understanding, the spread of civilisation, and so on. Only comparatively recently has this attitude towards international migration changed and instead of thinking that it was an obviously good thing we find all over the world a nervous, anxious debate on the brain drain. I suppose that the reason for the change in attitude is partly that, like other countries, in the last few years or decades we have become obsessed by the question of economic growth and partly that science and technology are thought to be central to the problem of economic growth. So we now have a completely different attitude to the question of people leaving and going to other countries. The result is that we have this world-wide debate.

219
It is very important to remember, as has been pointed out, that this is not simply a British problem. Indeed, compared with the problem in other countries, for Britain it is comparatively minor. It is a world-wide problem from which we certainly do not suffer the worst. If one takes the comparatively well-off countries, I suppose that the worst sufferers are Australia and, certainly, New Zealand over the last few decades, but the real sufferers and losers are the underdeveloped countries. Compared with their problem, our problem is comparatively minor.
Mr. Keith Stainton: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this phenomenon does not arise in France? Can he explain this situation?
Mr. Crosland: The phenomenon arises in France, but it seems to be to a lesser extent than in this country. None of us knows the reasons for any of these things, but one might imagine that the French appear to be more attached than the people of any other nation in the world to their own national life and are more reluctant to emigrate to countries with a different background and culture.
As I have said, it is not Britain but the poorer countries which suffer the worst. If one takes the brain drain flow from Asia to the United States, it is of a very dramatic character. I have recently seen figures suggesting that 90 per cent. of Asian students who go to study in the United States stay there and do not return to their own countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) quoted figures for doctors from a number of African countries. The worry of those countries is infinitely worse than ours. Therefore, when discussing the brain drain in relation to the British problem, it is worth remembering just how much more serious it is for the developing countries. It is they who suffer the real tragedy. We in Britain stand somewhere in the middle. We have a brain drain. We lose on balance, though not on the disastrous scale of many of the developing countries.
How big a loser we are is extremely hard to say, for reasons given in the debate. The statistics are neither complete nor reliable, and many of them
220
came to a stop in 1963 when, for understandable reasons, the previous Government decided not to continue a series of them. So we have extraordinarily little detailed information about who are going, where they are going and for what reasons they are going. The information that we have is rather confused and somewhat contradictory. Some of it has been referred to in the debate. We have the Willis Jackson Report covering the different sciences and technologies and suggesting that in recent years only five per 1,000 per annum at most of the stock of qualified scientists and engineers has been leaving, but it also thought that there were some signs of a greater outflow since 1963.
We have had the Swann Report covering the first employment of post-graduate scientists and technologists, saying that a rising proportion went overseas between 1960 and 1964, and giving alarming figures for physicists, but saying on the other hand that there seems to have been a slight decline in the outflow in 1964–65.
We have a considerable number of figures, which have been referred to, on the outflow of doctors. They suggest that proportionately the outflow has been rather stable over a very considerable number of years. But we also have some figures from American immigration statistics suggesting that the total number of scientists and engineers entering America from Britain rose sharply between 1962 and 1964 but fell in 1964–65. So the picture is not altogether clear.
We have to remember, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, that there is not only an outflow. There are two in-flows. One is the brain drain from other countries to Great Britain, and the other is people who have gone abroad and have been employed temporarily and come back, usually much better qualified, to work permanently in this country. Considering these two kinds of reverse movement one gets a rather less pessimistic picture than if one simply considers the outward movement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone in previous speeches has drawn attention to some examples of this inward brain drain. He has drawn attention to the fact that 10 per cent. of the members of the Royal Society were born overseas, to the fact that the immediate Past President of the

221
Royal Society, the present Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government and the Chairman of the Council for Scientific Policy were all born overseas, and hon. Members will have seen the remarks of Lord Fulton, the Vice-Chancellor of Sussex University, when he said that no fewer than 60 per cent. of the people holding appointments in Sussex University had worked overseas. It is impossible to go round the British universities today without finding a considerable number of people in every university who were born overseas or who have held overseas jobs. So that one has to remember, when discussing the outward flow, that there is also a very considerable return movement, an inward flow.
However, as I said, taking the general picture, I think the evidence at the moment is rather conflicting, and we shall not have a really clear picture till the Jones Working Group has reported; but we can probably be fairly certain of a number of things. We can be fairly certain that we shall not and should not stop the outward drain altogether. There always has been a movement from the relatively less well-off countries to the relatively more well-off countries, and I am sure that we cannot and should not attempt to stop the outflow altogether. There are in addition one or two reasons for thinking that the outflow may become more serious.
One reason was referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that was the almost insatiable and constantly growing demand of the United States for trained scientists and engineers. Some of the figures here are distinctly alarming. Figures have been quoted recently, one estimate showing a possible shortage in America of 20,000 physicists by 1970, about one-third of their total requirement, another estimate showing that in the decade 1960–70 as a whole the United States will produce 500,000 fewer graduate engineers than that country thinks that it needs. These are very alarming figures, alarming not simply to ourselves but also to the rest of the world. I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman or with the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) that this is a reflection of the poor quality of the American high school system.
I read Admiral Rickover's book with great interest, for I have a great respect
222
for him both as scientist and scientific administrator, but I think it is fair to say that he represents something of a minority view in the United States, and I do not think that any educational system of any imaginable character in the whole world can possibly meet the demands which the United States economy, particularly with the size of its defence effort and its space effort, is imposing on the system, whether it be a high school system or any other. However, the fact remains that the rest of the world has got to live with this gigantic American demand for scientists, a demand which its own educational system is not going to meet. This once again shows, I think, how really the brain drain is not a specifically British problem. The fact is that it is a world wide problem, and concentrated in the last analysis, on the policies, attitude and demands of the United States.
That is one reason for thinking the problem can become more serious. The other reason for thinking that it could be aggravated is the conclusions of the Swann Report, which showed a very marked unbalance, in the employment of scientists and engineers, between universities on the one hand and industry on the other. A number of hon. Members have drawn attention to this this afternoon. To the extent that universities will expand more slowly, their manpower requirements will decline, compared with what they have been in recent years, and this means that unless industry can make itself relatively more attractive to scientists coming out of the universities then—and I quote the Report further
"pressure to emigrate must inevitably be generated among our best graduates".
For these two reasons, it is possible that, whatever the present position, the future position might be slightly worse. As to how far we should worry about this, how tragically we should consider it, how anxious we should be about it, opinions differ, as they have differed in the debate. There has been a tendency, which I share, to think that in the case of scientists, as opposed to engineers, there is no cause for acute alarm, partly because our scientific standards in this country are still quite exceptionally high by any international standards and partly because the rate of increase of Government spending on scientific research is very rapid and has been very rapid for some years past.

223
If we take the findings of the Swann Report, the universities, if anything, are not insufficiently attractive but too attractive compared with other possible forms of employment. There is also the more fundamental reason that science always has been and still is an international community. All nations have benefited from the fact that it is an international community, and the international movement of scientists is essential to this community.
Moreover, the results of scientific research are published and are quickly known all over the world. Given a reasonable investment in scientific documentation, countries can borrow the results of scientific research done overseas. Some economists have argued that from a strictly selfish economic point of view it pays a country not to do very expensive research but to borrow the results of the research done in other countries. They point, for example, to Japan and Germany, which have far fewer Nobel prizewinners than we have but which have had a much more rapid rate of economic growth than we have had. I do not imagine that many hon. Members would go as far as that. In any case, as has been said many times this afternoon, the more serious problem exists of the engineers and the doctors, who make a direct contribution in one case to industrial output and in the other case to the welfare of the community.
There has been a great deal of agreement on a number of constructive ideas which have been put forward in the debate about what should be done to meet the problem. To begin with, there has been agreement on one or two negative points. There has been almost unanimous agreement that we should not deal with the problem by trying to restrict movement out of Britain. I do not think that any hon. Member has advocated that in the course of the debate. There has also been a large measure of agreement that at the end of the day we cannot wholly compete with the United States in terms of financial incentive. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the gap between the American national income and our national income is such that we can never hope to compete 100 per cent. in terms of financial incentive.
224
There has also been agreement on a number of more positive points to deal with the problem which faces us. My right hon. Friend mentioned that we were trying to discover a method of finding better and more accurate statistics. This has been generally welcomed. The establishment and the strong membership of the working group of Dr. F. E. Jones have also been generally welcomed. Although one hon. Member questioned some details of it, the voluntary register which my right hon. Friend mentioned has similarly been thought a helpful idea.
There has been agreement that we need more European technical, technological and scientific co-operation to provide some degree of counterweight to the American attraction, and a good deal has been said about that today. Both the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Italy have put forward ideas for a European technological community. As the House well knows, there are a number of scientific and technological co-operative enterprises already in being.
One point I should like to add—as I share the views about how important this is—is that in conjunction with the Royal Society and the Research Councils we are trying to establish an international fellowship scheme for scientists which will encourage the movement of scientists between different European countries and, I hope, encourage the building up of increasingly strong centres of scientific research in European countries.
There has also been almost unanimous agreement on the need for industry to provide better prospects and opportunities for scientists. A number of hon. Members have said that a considerable change of attitude in industry is needed if they are to offer prospects at all equivalent to those of American firms. As the hon. Member for Hendon, North, rightly said, there must also be a change of attitude by the universities. They have shown a certain indifference in the past to the needs of industry and engineering, as opposed to those of pure research.
The hon. Member will know that there are a number of ways in which we are trying to get better mutual understanding and closer co-operation between industry and universities—the sort of ways suggested in the Arthur Report and the Bosworth Report and there is now a

225
working group of the Science Research Council under Lord Halsbury examining S.R.C. scholarships and how they can be given to encourage closer co-operation between industries and universities than in the past.
There has also been general agreement on the need for more effective action on counter-recruitment, or re-recruitment. The Government already have the American Mission made up of representatives from the Ministry of Technology, the Civil Service Commission and the Atomic Energy Authority. Reference has been made to the efforts of the Royal Institute of Chemistry to maintain a register of chemists who have emigrated, so that they should be made aware of possible employment opportunities when they return. A number of private firms like I.C.I. and Unilever have also made successful efforts to attract back to industry those who have emigrated to the United States.
But industry must make far more efforts than it is making at the moment. This was clear from the Report of the Director-General of N.E.D.C. after a tour of American business management schools. This is an area where a good deal remains to be done.
There have been some suggestions which have not met with such unanimous agreement, to put it mildly. One is that a large part of the trouble is due to the weight of taxation in this country. I find this extremely hard to accept. Even supposing that the weight of taxation is higher under this Government than under the previous Government, I make no apology for that. If we want what hon. Members opposite as well as on this side are constantly asking for—more schools, better hospitals, more roads and higher pensions—we must pay for these things and find the necessary taxation.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone—
Sir Douglas Glover: But surely right hon. Gentlemen said in their election manifesto that all these things could be done without any increased taxation?
Mr. Crosland: We said in our manifesto—it will certainly be true—that once we have the economy out of the
226
considerable mess in which it was left, these things will certainly be done.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we must constantly pursue excellence, not only in science and technology but in the Health Service, in education, in roads and all objects of social expenditure. There is no clear evidence that taxation is a crucial factor exaggerating the brain drain. One or two hon. Members mentioned that, at £18,500 a year, a person would be in a bracket which pays a marginal rate of tax of 96¼ per cent. or thereabouts, but the brain drain is not to be found at this salary level.
Even when we come down to the £4,000 a year level, the evidence is very inconclusive. This is not a factor mentioned by the bulk of those who emigrate when asked why they do. Considering the extent of the brain drain of other countries to the United States, there seems no clear relationship between that and their level of taxation.
The brain drain in this country first became serious when the Government of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)—were busily engaged in reducing Surtax. This was the period when the brain drain began to be a serious factor.
Therefore, although nobody can be dogmatic about taxation, there is no evidence that it is crucial in this situation.
Mr. Onslow rose—
Mr. Crosland: I am sorry. I have not much time.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his less serious closing passages, said that the brain drain was fundamentally due to the climate of opinion, to the fact that people were opting out of democratic Socialism, that they had no faith in Britain under a Labour Government. I am sure that a number of my hon. Friends will be pleased to hear how rapidly Socialism is being established in this country, for they do not always seem to take this view themselves.
I certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the climate of opinion is an extremely important factor. I agree that people will get depressed when phrases are bandied about

227
of the sort that have been bandied about today, such as,
"… the increasingly neurotic and humourless Britain of which we are all unaccountably a part …".
I agree that that has as depressing an effect on the national mood as,
"…a national neurosis of pessimism and self-denigration".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th February, 1963; vol. 247, c. 87–89.]
The only curious thing is that these phrases came from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the House of Lords, when he was Lord Hailsham in 1963. So, if a depressed and miserable national mood has been created, it was created long before the present Government took office.
Just what the Opposition are doing to help us prevent or minimise the brain drain at the moment it is extremely hard to see. In any case, the greater part of the figures used by them in the debate show a more serious situation relating to the years when they were in power. As to their current attitude, the right hon. and learned Gentleman used the phrase disjecta membra, although I am not sure what they are. The only disjectum membrum I can think of at the moment is the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). He certainly believes in technology and in modernisation and does not believe in staying at home. But look what a reward he has had from the Conservative Party.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke rose—
Mr. Crosland: I am sorry. I only have two and a half minutes left. The last thing that the Opposition have done to help our discussions tonight is to put down this extraordinary Motion. I hope it was not the right hon. and learned Gentleman who drafted it, considering his usual literary style, for it calls on the Government
"… to encourage men and women of ability to remain at home …"
The only men and women of ability who have been encouraged to stay at home so far have been hon. Members opposite during this debate on a Motion which was supposed to be a Motion of censure on the Government. I have never seen more empty benches than there have been throughout the whole of this debate.
But if one takes seriously this phrase,
"… to encourage men and women of ability to remain at home …"
does it really represent the philosophy of the great imperial party opposite? Do right hon. and hon. Members opposite really want to put a ring fence around us and keep our people at home and prevent the kind of emigration of which they have been so proud in the past, emigration which built up first the Empire and then the Commonwealth? In the light of all this history, is that the new philosophy of the Conservative Party—to keep men and women of ability at home?
Mr. Hogg: Does this mean that the right hon. Gentleman is finally repudiating the Prime Minister's election pledge which said
"Britain has got the brains. It is the job of the Government to see that we keep them here"?
Mr. Crosland: Does this mean that the Opposition are really commited to a philosophy of creating a ring fence around us; that they wish to stop the younger generation going to America, to Canada, to Europe? Is that really now the philosophy of the Conservative Party?
The brain drain is undoubtedly a problem and the Government take it most seriously. That is why, unlike our predecessors, we shall make a serious effort to find an answer. When we do so, it will not be in the negative, defeatist or house-bound spirit of the Motion but in a positive spirit of confidence in the future of Britain.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 314.

Division No. 268.]

AYES

[9.30 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm.)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Astor, John

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

Biffen, John

Braine, Bernard

Awdry, Daniel

Biggs-Davison, John

Brewis, John

Balniel, Lord

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Black, Sir Cyril

Bromley-Davenport, Lt. col. Sir Walter

Batsford, Brian

Blaker, Peter

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Bell, Ronald

Body, Richard

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Bryan, Paul

Hay, John

Onslow, Cranley

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Bullus, Sir Eric

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Burden, F. A.

Heseltine, Michael

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Campbell, Gordon

Higgins, Terence L.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Carlisle, Mark

Hiley, Joseph

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pardoe, John

Cary, Sir Robert

Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Channon, H. P. G.

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Peel, John

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hooson, Emlyn

Percival, Ian

Clark, Henry

Hordern, Peter

Peyton, John

Clegg, Walter

Hornby, Richard

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Cooke, Robert

Howell, David (Guildford)

Pink, R. Bonner

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Hunt, John

Pounder, Rafton

Cordle, John

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Corfield, F. V.

Iremonger, T. L.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Costain, A. P.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Prior, J. M. L.

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Crawley, Aidan

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Crouch, David

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Crowder, F. P.

Jopling, Michael

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Currie, G. B. H.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ridsdale, Julian

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kershaw, Anthony

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Dance, James

Kimball, Marcus

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Roots, William

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kirk, Peter

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Kitson, Timothy

Russell, Sir Ronald

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lambton, Viscount

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Scott, Nicholas

Doughty, Charles

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Sharples, Richard

Drayson, G. B.

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sinclair, Sir George

Eden, Sir John

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Smith, John

Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)

Lloyd, lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Stainton, Keith

Errington, Sir Eric

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Eyre, Reginald

Longden, Gilbert

Stodart, Anthony

Farr, John

Loveys, W. H.

Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M. (Ripon)

Fisher, Nigel

Lubbock, Eric

Summers, Sir Spencer

Forrest, George

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Tapsell, Peter

Fortescue, Tim

MacArthur, Ian

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Foster, Sir John

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

McMaster, Stanley

Teeling, Sir William

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Temple, John M.

Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

Maddan, Martin

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maginnis, John E.

Thorpe, Jeremy

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Tilney, John

Glover, Sir Douglas

Marten, Neil

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Glyn, Sir Richard

Maude, Angus

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Goodhart, Philip

Mawby, Ray

Vickers, Dame Joan

Goodhew, Victor

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Gower, Raymond

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

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Grant, Anthony

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Grant-Ferris, R.

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Wall, Patrick

Gresham Cooke, R.

Miscampbell, Norman

Walters, Dennis

Grieve, Percy

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Ward, Dame Irene

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St, Edmunds)

Monro, Hector

Weatherill, Bernard

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

More, Jasper

Webster, David

Gurden, Harold

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Wilts, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Murton, Oscar

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Woodnutt, Mark

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Neave, Airey

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hastings, Stephen

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Mr. Francis Pym and

Hawkins, Paul

Nott, John

Mr. R. W. Elliott.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Booth, Albert

Albu, Austen

Barnett, Joel

Boston, Terence

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Baxter, William

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Alldritt, Walter

Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

Boyden, James

Allen, Scholefield

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Anderson, Donald

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Bradley, Tom

Archer, Peter

Bidwell, Sydney

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Armstrong, Ernest

Binns, John

Brooks, Edwin

Ashley, Jack

Bishop, E. S.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Blackburn, F.

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Boardman, H.

Buchan, Norman

230

231

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Hooley, Frank

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Horner, John

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Cant, R. B.

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Murray, Albert

Carmichael, Neil

Howarth, Harry, (Wellingborough)

Neal, Harold

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Newens, Stan

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Chapman, Donald

Howie, W.

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

Coe, Denis

Hoy, James

Oakes, Gordon

Coleman, Donald

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

O'Malley, Brian

Concannon, J. D.

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Oram, Albert E.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Orbach, Maurice

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Orme, Stanley

Crawshaw, Richard

Hunter, Adam

Oswald, Thomas

Cronin, John

Hynd, John

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Padley, Walter

Dalyell, Tam

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Paget, R. T.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Park, Trevor

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

parker, John (Dagenham)

Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Pavitt, Laurence

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

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

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Delargy, Hugh

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Dempsey, James

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

Pentland, Norman

Dewar, Donald

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Judd, Frank

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Dickens, James

Kelley, Richard

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Dobson, Ray

Kenyon, Clifford

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Doig, Peter

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

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Donnelly, Desmond

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

Price, William (Rugby)

Driberg, Tom

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Probert, Arthur

Dunn, James A.

Leadbitter, Ted

Randall, Harry

Dunnett, Jack

Ledger, Ron

Rankin, John

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Redhead, Edward

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Rees, Merlyn

Eadie, Alex

Lee, John (Reading)

Reynolds, G. W.

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Ellis, John

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Richard, Ivor

English, Michael

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Ennals, David

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Ensor, David

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lipton, Marcus

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Lomas, Kenneth

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

Faulds, Andrew

Loughlin, Charles

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Fernyhough, E.

Luard, Evan

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Roebuck, Roy

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Rose, Paul

Floud, Bernard

McBride, Neil

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Foley, Maurice

McCann, John

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

MacColl, James

Ryan, John

Ford, Ben

MacDermot, Niall

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Forrester, John

Macdonald, A. H.

Sheldon, Robert

Fowler, Gerry

McGuire, Michael

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Fraser, John (Norwood)

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

Freeson, Reginald

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mackie, John

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Gardner, Tony

Mackintosh, John P.

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Garrett, W. E.

Maclennan, Robert

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Ginsburg, David

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Gourley, Harry

MacPherson, Malcolm

Skeffington, Arthur

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Slater, Joseph

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Small, William

Gregory, Arnold

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Snow, Julian

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

Spriggs, Leslie

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Manuel, Archie

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Mapp, Charles

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Marquand, David

Stonehouse, John

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mason, Roy

Swain, Thomas

Hamling, William

Mayhew, Christopher

Swingler, Stephen

Harper, Joseph

Mellish, Robert

Taverne, Dick

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mendelson, J. J.

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Mikardo, Ian

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Haseldine, Norman

Millan, Bruce

Thornton, Ernest

Hattersley, Roy

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Tinn, James

Hazell, Bert

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Tomney, Frank

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Molloy, William

Tuck, Raphael

Heffer, Eric S.

Moonman, Eric

Urwin, T. W.

Henig, Stanley

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Varley, Eric G.

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Hilton, W. S.

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

232

233

Wallace, George

Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

Winterbottom, R. E.

Watkins, David (Consett)

Wilkins, W. A.

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Woof, Robert

Weitzman, David

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Wyatt, Woodrow

Wellbeloved, James

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Yates, Victor

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Whitaker, Ben

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

White, Mrs. Eirene

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Mr. Charles Grey and

Whitlock, William

Winnick, David

Mr. George Lawson.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the London Government Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Clause 1.—(LONDON BOROUGH ELECTIONS.)
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 7, leave out "1967 and".
9.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Department (Miss Alice Bacon): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House if we discussed all the Amendments to Clause 1:
In line 8, leave out "1968" and insert "1971".
In line 9, leave out "1968" and insert "1971".
In line 11, leave out from "1963" to end of line 12 and insert "after the words 'three years' there shall be inserted the words 'except as hereafter provided in this subsection', and after '1967' there shall be inserted the words 'in the year 1971'".
In line 13, leave out subsection (2).
In line 20, leave out "1967".
In line 22, leave out "1968".
In line 24, leave out subsection (4).
Miss Bacon: The effect of these Amendments is that the next London borough elections would take place in May of this year—[Interruption.]—one month after the G.L.C. elections. The borough elections after this will be in 1971 and each third year afterwards. The Act of 1963 provided that two sets of elections, the Greater London Council and borough elections, would eventually take place in the same year and on the same day, but that this year the elections would take place in the same year but at different dates.
As the Bill left this House, this year's London borough elections would have been postponed until 1968, thus providing that the two sets of elections took place in different years—in 1967 and 1968. The Lords Amendments would introduce the change after this year's elections. If they were accepted, there would be two sets of elections this spring a month apart. We believe that the change should be made this year, and in making
236
provision for this we are carrying out the wishes of the majority of the London boroughs.
We have already spent a great deal of time on the matter in this House. The Second Reading of the Bill was passed by 330 to 219, representing the biggest majority of the present Parliament. In Committee, the same Amendment which we are now discussing was moved and discussed for over 7 hours, which was much longer than the Second Reading of the Bill. It is not necessary, therefore, to deal again in detail with all the arguments because the Amendment has been adequately discussed.
I am sorry that their Lordships have made this Amendment, but I feel confidently that the House will express its disagreement in as decisive a manner as in rejecting the Amendment in this House in the first place.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: The Minister of State has dealt with the Amendments made in another place in a sigularly perfunctory manner. Whether she likes them or not, they raise serious constitutional issues. The right hon. Lady correctly stated their effect. They would preserve the borough elections in London which, under the existing law, are to take place on 11th May this year, when the councillors elected in 1964 to come out of office on that date would have come out of office.
For the right hon. Lady merely to grumble at the length of time taken at earlier stages of this Measure and then, in only a few moments, to commend the rejection of the Amendments which were made after long and careful debate in another place is to show a complete failure to understand the importance of the issue.
I must protest, too, at the extraordinary attitude of the Home Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He knows perfectly well the constitutional issues which arise. [Interruption.] I am glad to see the Home Secretary arrive and to be able to tell him that such is the perfunctory manner in which his Minister of State has moved the rejection of the Lords Amendments that he has not even had the privilege of hearing her.
I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not himself thought fit to move the rejection of the Lords Amendments and

237
to show that he at least understands that to deprive 5½ million electors of a vote to which they are entitled under the present law is a serious matter. To put up a junior Minister to move the Motion in half-a-dozen sentences is completely to disregard the seriousness of the matter.
The right hon. Lady is the proper object of sympathy in being asked to do the Home Secretary's dirty work for him.
I recall the words of Lord Birkenhead that,
"To a man of spirit, the receiver of stolen goods is a more contemptible figure than the original thief."
Mr. Marcus Lipton: That is irrelevant.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: To have a suggestion of irrelevancy from the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) is a tribute, because he is a master of that art.
This is the moment of truth for the Government. The Lords Amendments do not—and the right hon. Lady did not dare suggest that they did—affect the purported object of the Bill. That object, as we were told by the Home Secretary in a very long speech on Second Reading, was to separate the elections from 1970 onwards when, under the present law, they would have fallen on the same day. That, which the Government spokesman in another place also said was the main object of the Bill, is not affected at all by the Amendments made in another place. All that is done is to effect that change by another method which has the manifest advantage of not extending the mandate of elected persons, due to expire on 11th May, for a further year.
The action of the Government in moving to reject those Amendments shows that they are prepared deliberately to use Parliamentary time, as the right hon. Lady herself complained, in order to achieve their claimed purpose by the one method which denies to local government electors the right to vote this May which otherwise inures to them under the present law.
The Government are selecting deliberately the one method of separating the dates which has that result. That makes it clear that all the argument which we heard about the Committee of Town Clerks and the inconvenience of elections on the same day is a smoke-
238
screen and that the real undisclosed object of the Bill is to do what the Lords Amendments would have prevented them from doing; that is to say, to postpone the elections due in less than three months' time. The persistence of the Government makes that absolutely clear.
The objects are obvious. The House will recall that, when the present councils were elected in the spring of 1964, support for hon. Gentlemen opposite was at its peak. The decline which led to the virtual stalemate of the General Election in 1964 had not begun.
As hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well, it is equally clear that, if there were elections this May, the results would be very different. Hon. Gentlemen will have studied the recent survey undertaken by the Evening News showing a swing of some 5 per cent. in London from the position when the borough council elections took place in the spring of 1964. That is a swing which would be enough to deprive the party opposite of control of at least half a dozen boroughs.
That that is the object of rejecting the Lords Amendments is now plain. It can be the only object of supporting a method of separating the election dates which involves that postponement, and of rejecting methods which avoid it. That seems to us to be wholly wrong, and precisely the kind of thing which another place exists to rectify.
All constitutional students will say that one of the major purposes of having a second Chamber is that attempts to "fiddle" elections by a temporary party majority in the lower House can be checked and restrained. In my opinion, the other place was right to take the action which it did in making Amendments which, I stress, do not frustrate the declared objects of the Bill but, at the same time, protect the rights of electors.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it extraordinary that he should be eulogising the merits of the other place with regard to elections when they have none themselves?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman has studied seriously the constitutional textbooks, if he likes to study the one which the Leader of the House is rewriting, he will know that one of the main purposes of having a second

239
Chamber, non-elected itself, is to prevent abuse of power by a temporary majority in the elected Chamber rigging elections in order to continue its power unconstitutionally. This is one of the major purposes—perhaps the major purpose—of a non-elected revising Chamber, and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to bring that out perhaps a little more fully than I should otherwise have done
Dr. David Kerr: Would the right hon. Gentleman please explain to the House why the other place failed to fulfil that job when the London Government Act was still a Bill before it?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Certainly. To which London Government Act is the hon. Gentleman referring? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate must proceed properly.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the 1963 Act?
Dr. David Kerr: Yes.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman applies his undoubted talents to that matter, he will see that there are two fundamental differences in the situation. One is that there were structural and administrative changes—indeed, hon. Gentlemen opposite complained of the extent of them—which created a strong physical necessity for postponement. Secondly, and more important, there was all-party agreement on it.
What is objectionable about this proposal is that there is no administrative reorganisation necessitating it in any shape at all. There is no reconstruction, and no reorganisation, and there is no party agreement about it either. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that those are two profound distinctions, and if he wants to study precedent I ask him to study the precedent of Mr. Chuter Ede, as he then was, in 1948. At the time of the Representation of the People Bill he did not show an unusually meticulous disregard for the interests of the Labour Party. No one would accuse him of that, but he did provide in that Measure precisely what another place has provided in this Measure, that the de-synchronisa-
240
tion of elections should be achieved by providing that the borough councillors to be elected in future should be elected for four years.
Miss Bacon rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Minister of State did not give way to me on the previous occasion, but I shall show her greater courtesy.
Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the London Government Act of 1963 was an agreed Measure?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I suggested nothing of the sort, nor did the right hon. Lady understand me to do so. I made it clear that the postponement of elections in so far as it was effected in the outer areas was not a disputed Measure in this House, and the right hon. Lady knows that perfectly well.—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am interested in this argument, and I want to hear it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friends are wronging the right hon. Lady. She is quite capable of understanding it, and I must stand up for her in this respect.
There are one or two further points about this and the action of the other place. No one will contend that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have a mandate for this. Did they put it in their election addresses at the General Election that one of the first things a Labour Government would do would be to deprive the borough council electors of London of voting for a year? They have not a scrap of mandate for it, and they know it.
Secondly, I would commend in particular to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) the fact that the Amendments now in the Bill were supported in another place by those who speak for his party there. I cannot quote what Lord Ogmore said, since he is not a Minister, but his reasons were sincerely and clearly stated in another place on behalf of the Liberal Party. So both Opposition parties in another place objected to this method of postponing the borough council elections, which the Bill as it came to them embodied and of which, as it left them, it was clear.

241
10.0 p.m.
I ask the House and the right hon. Lady to consider the position of councillors of all parties in London borough councils if the Amendments are rejected and the elections are postponed. Councillors know, as their electors know, that at the time of their election they were elected to serve until 11th May, 1967, and that if they continue in office after that date they will be continuing beyond the term for which their electors elected them. Many of them, for reasons that I have given, will know that had there been an election their services would have been dispensed with. They will know that they have been kept in office against the wishes of the majority of the electors in their constituencies because the Labour Government decided to use the overriding power of Parliament to impose them on their constituencies.
They will have no popular mandate and no popular authority; they will be there to administer local government functions, imposing rates on their fellow citizens not because those fellow citizens have elected them but often against the wishes of those fellow citizens; they will know that they are there because they are the kept creatures of the Labour Home Secretary and the political manipulators of the London Labour Party.
I beg hon. Members opposite to reflect for a moment: if these proposals go through in the shape which the Government wish will they not be setting a very dangerous precedent for the future? It is a classical technique of a dictator—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite doubt that, are they forgetting that Hitler was elected in Germany at an election at which he obtained a majority and which he took good care should be the last election. It is very dangerous to begin postponing elections because they are inconvenient. If the Government get away with this they may proceed similarly to postpone the implementation of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission, because they know, too, that the implementation of its recommendations would be harmful to the interests of the Labour Party.
If the Government, already showing authoritarian tendencies and a disregard for the liberty of the citizen and the electorate, are permitted to get away with
242
this and to hold certain London boroughs not by popular election but by Parliamentary vote, we shall have established a sad and unhappy precedent.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, when a question has been fully and adequately discussed is it not the case that a Member is not allowed to indulge in tedious repetition? In the Second Reading debate and on all the stages of this Bill the argument now being adduced has been put forward ad nauseam. That being so, is it in order now to put forward the same argument and debate the same subject? Will you consider a Motion, "That the Question be now put", in view of the fact that this subject has been dealt with repeatedly?
Mr. Speaker: If the end purpose of the hon. Member's point of order is that the Question be now put, then my answer is that I am not prepared to accept that Motion. If the hon. Member is calling my attention to the fact that at various stages of a Bill, including this one, arguments are repeated, then that is not unknown in the history of Parliament. I have to judge when repetition becomes tedious or when a speech becomes tedious repetition. It must be tedious and repetitive before I can interfere.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I take seriously any implied rebuke by the hon. Gentleman, whose diligence in his Parliamentary duties has been so admired, sometimes from a distance.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order. Since my right hon. Friend seems to be so well informed, who is the hon. Gentleman who just raised that point of order? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will tell my hon. Friend afterwards. I certainly plead guilty to consistency in arguments on this matter, because the House knows, and I make no apology for it, that my hon. and right hon. Friends and I have at every stage fought a proposal which we believe to be anti-democratic, to be a denial of the rights of the electors and to be a dangerous precedent for the future. I am glad to have the endorsement of the hon. Member for West Ham,

243
North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on this matter, for the Conservative Party will fight the authoritarianism embodied in this Measure as my hon. Friends and I will fight every similar action on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. Lipton: If there was ever a demonstration of artificial thunder and fury signifying nothing, we have just had one in that display by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] There is no need for me to go on for very long to dispose of the right hon. Gentleman's case.
The Opposition is in desperate need of an issue with which to set on fire the electors of the London boroughs. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have tried desperately to build up this campaign, but even the Conserative newspapers have taken no notice of their efforts. It must be a terrible experience for them. Their histrionics and polysyllabic polemics are having no impact whatever on the great mass of London electors. I have not had one letter from my Conservative constituents—of whom there are still a few thousand—protesting against the postponement of the borough council elections.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite must accept that the people of London are, by and large, well satisfied in their respective boroughs with their present administrations. The only people with whom I have some sympathy are those who reside in Conservative-controlled boroughs and who will be denied the opportunity of creating Labour majorities in those boroughs for another 12 months. But we are patient people. We are willing to wait for another 12 months before capturing all the other Conservative-controlled boroughs in the Greater London area. Although we are patient—[Interruption.]—I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite not to press us too far; and despite their obvious dislike of these remarks—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate in noise.
Mr. Lipton: I am used to this kind of unintelligent noise from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It does not worry me and I am sorry that you are having to worry on my behalf, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not worried on behalf of the hon. Member. I am worried on behalf of Parliament.
Mr. Lipton: The right hon. Gentleman complained that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was perfunctory. That is all that this debate merits. The Opposition have chewed this thing until it is a disconnected piece of rag in which no one is any longer interested. I shall therefore try to be as perfunctory as my right hon. Friend and say that the argument adduced by hon. Members opposite is a lot of nonsense, not worth a pinch of snuff.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: It is rather interesting to note that as we have gone through the various stages on this Bill, Second Reading, Third Reading and now when the Bill comes back from another place with certain Amendments, the temperature has gradually risen. I think this must be due to the closer proximity of polling day and elections. The fury worked up on the Conservative benches about this Bill is in direct proportion to the closeness with which we come to that date.
I think your tolerance, Mr. Speaker, is massive, because I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) tedious and repetitive in the extreme. I have sat through every debate on this Measure and I do not think there is any shred of merit in the case made by the official Opposition. I was not going to intervene and to make the same speech as I made on various stages on the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman provoked me by mentioning the speech of my noble Friend Lord Ogmore in another place. If my noble Friend had done me the honour of reading the speeches I made in this House, he would have come to another conclusion.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I sympathise with the hon. Member, but it is not in order to refer to speeches in another place unless they are speeches by Ministers making Ministerial pronouncements.
Mr. Lubbock: In that case, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was out of order. I shall not pursue this and incur your displeasure, except to say that my noble Friend made up his mind on the merits of the Second Reading speeches in another place and not on the

245
merits of speeches in debates in our House. I think he would have come to a different conclusion if he had studied the arguments put forward at great length here, not only over seven hours as the Minister of State said—I was under the impression that we spent a great deal longer on the Bill, but perhaps the right hon. Lady was referring to only one Amendment—
Miss Bacon: I said we spent seven-and-a-quarter hours on this Amendment.
Mr. Lubbock: That illustrates my point. I am certain that we spent a great deal longer than seven-and-a-quarter hours on various stages on the Bill. If there has not been filibustering from the Conservative side of the Chamber, those hon. Members have come pretty close to it at various stages of this discussion.
The only criticism I make of the right hon. Lady's speech is that it was much too long. I think she could have put everything that has to be said in very much fewer words. I would remind her of the advice which I gave to the Government at a quarter to midnight on 29th November, 1966, when I suggested that we should carry on throughout the night on various Amendments under discussion and by that means—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing only one issue now, not the history of the Bill.
Mr. Lubbock: Parliamentary time could have been saved and perhaps we could have reached this stage of the Bill without considering Amendments—
Mr. Speaker: We are not even discussing this stage of the Bill. We are discussing whether the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Lubbock: I shall just say one or two words, if I am allowed to by the noisy hon. Members who have come into the Chamber from somewhere else and have not been paying attention throughout the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Has the hon. Member?"] Hon. Gentlemen have been off somewhere in the country—
Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to cast
246
aspersions on hon. Members for having been absent when the debate has been going on for only half an hour?
Mr. Speaker: I have never thought before that such aspersions in the House were out of order.
Mr. David Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Liberal Chief Whip to cast aspersions on some of the members of the Conservative Party in their temporary absence from this Chamber when there is not another Liberal Member in the House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.
Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) knew perfectly well that that was not a point of order, and I was surprised that he should try to intervene when he is a citizen of a city which is very far distant from London.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: That has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a ratepayer of the City of London.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it would help the House if we came to the Question which is before us.
Mr. Lubbock rose—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Lubbock: It is plain from the conduct of the Tories who are in the Chamber at the moment that their whole purpose is to delay the Bill and prevent it from getting on the Statute Book. They will not listen to any serious arguments about the merits or otherwise of the Amendment made by another place.
I would remind the House of what I said in previous debates about the views of electors in Greater London concerning the delays which the Conservative Opposition in this House and also another place think are desirable. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that, in spite of the fact that at various stages the Bill has been drawn to the attention of electors in Greater London and questions have been raised concerning the constitutional implications of it in the most violent

247
terms—as they were by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who talked about the "beginnings of dictatorship", that kind of violent and extreme language—no one has written to us. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote a single letter—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in a previous debate I quoted a letter not from an individual but from the elected town council of my constituency, protesting against the Bill and asking to be excluded from it?
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman would not allow me to finish my sentence. I was going to make that exception, to which he drew my attention in the Committee stage. I said at that time, if he remembers—I dare say that he has forgotten those discussions because they were several months ago—that the views of one London borough were not necessarily indicative of those of the electors who put them there. The right hon. Gentleman may not receive many letters from his constituents for all I know. Perhaps he gets letters only from his borough council.
The one example that was given from the Conservative Front Bench of a letter that came from an individual elector was one quoted in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who said that he had heard from one of my constituents. I think that this letter was a figment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's imagination, because when I asked him about it afterwards he said that he could not recall the individual from whom the letter came. I was always under the impression that when we got letters from each other's constituents we forwarded them so that the Member of Parliament concerned could make a reply. The right hon. and learned Gentleman never sent me the letter that he got from my constituent. I can only suppose that his recollection was at fault since I have mentioned the matter on numerous occasions in the House and it has been reported in the Press.
I should like to tell the House that I have had only one letter from any person in the whole of Greater London, and that
248
was from a constituent of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), whose views on this subject are well known. He has stirred his constituents up. So, in all parts of Greater London, no one is more likely to write to a Member of Parliament than somebody who lives in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Roy Roebuck: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative Council of Harrow supported postponement of these elections and that the leader of the Harrow Council has dissociated himself from the extravagant remarks which the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) made in this House about this proposal?
Mr. Lubbock: I am only too delighted to hear that sense prevails in some centres of the Conservative Party.
Mr. Anthony Grant rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow an intervention upon an intervention.
Mr. Lubbock: Quite frankly, all this is a storm in a thimble, as I think the Home Sceretary said on one occasion; it is not even a storm in a teacup. The most interesting thing of all is that the Conservatives did not make a protest when it became clear in April, 1966, that the Government had given serious consideration to the postponement of the borough elections, on the representations which had been made to them by the London Boroughs Committee.
I had a Question down about this in the House in April, 1966, and there was not a peep out of the Conservatives until the beginning of August, when suddenly, for a reason which I cannot fathom at the moment, they woke up and said, "This is a political issue; we must get stuck into it and try to make some capital out of it." I think a clue was given by something which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said this evening, when he said that at elections this May the results will be very different indeed in comparison with 1964 when the first set of elections for the Greater London Council were held. The Conservatives are under the impression now that they would take control of the G.L.C. at the elections—

249
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and, if they were given a chance in the boroughs as well, many of the marginals would swing their way. I think that this is the reason for the change in their attitude as between April, when the first indication of postponement of the borough elections was given to them in the House, and August, when indications were given of the probable result.
One other thing which the right hon. Gentleman said, and which worries me more than somewhat, was that, in relation to these Lords Amendments, we are dealing with precisely the kind of thing which the other place exists to rectify. I think that this is very dangerous doctrine indeed, if I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman—that when a Bill of this sort is sent by the overwhelming authority of this House up to the other place it should be returned mutilated in the form in which we receive it back from them today. It is obvious that when we have considered these Lords Amendment we shall
250
reject them and have reasons stated, in the phraseology of the House for disagreeing with the Lords in the said Amendments. I should like to warn the other place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that if they persist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—with these Amendments it will be a very dangerous course of conduct—
Mr. Frederic Harris: Unmitigated cheek.
Mr. Lubbock:—for this is the elected House and we are responsible entirely for dealing with matters of this kind.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: It is elections we want.
Mr. Lubbock: If the other place in their unwisdom were to see fit not to accept the Bill in its original form, when we ultimately send it back to them, as we shall do, it would be a very dangerous course and an unhappy day for the other place.
Dr. David Kerr: One can but admire Orpingtonian man. He exists, of course, in a climate of Piltdown man, and we learned a long time ago that Piltdown man was a fake.
I have a certain interest in the debate and must declare it. I am a London borough councillor—a joy and a privilege which is shared by very few hon. Members on either side of the House. I served on the London County Council for a number of years until right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite decided to break up that very great authority. Of course, I accept their assurance that they did so without a political thought in their minds. I accept that assurance for what it is worth because they have so few political thoughts in their minds at any time.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was at great pains to indicate that there was all-party agreement about the postponement of election dates. I accept that. It would be a pity, however, if we were not at equal pains to remind him and the House that there was no all-party agreement about the underlying principles of the London Government Act, and it is worth emphasising that that Bill was fought right through the House by the Labour Party, then in opposition. It is proper, I submit, to trace the present debate to the consequences of that London Government Act.
I must apologise to my colleagues who come from provincial constituencies and who have their minds on higher things; it is a pity, to put it at its kindest, that they have been subjected to what I can only describe as the casuistry of a mini-mind tonight. I cannot help feeling, when we are talking in terms of elections, that the kind of argument which has been developed by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has some curiously in-built contradictions to it. I have heard of rose-tinted spectacles and of crystal balls. The right hon. Gentleman based much of his argument on a whole load of crystal balls. If he is predicting that in May, 1968, the Labour Party would do significantly as well at the polls as they are likely to do in May, 1967, this is a display of quite justifiable lack of confidence in the future of his own party over the next
252
18 months. I can only suggest that if, after consulting Old Moore's Almanack, he comes to the conclusion that we have decided to postpone the elections for a year because we expect then to do better, and he agrees with us, then this does not say much for his hope for his own party in the London borough elections.
I take a certain amount of comfort from that, but I am bound to say, too, that he genuinely seems to overlook the fact that nobody is depriving London of elections. As he and his party are very sensitively aware, we have an election coming up. They most courteously declined the challenge of a debate last Friday on London housing. They are anxious, it seems, to enter the elections for the Greater London Council fortified by an Evening News poll which does much to restore the confidence which has been so effectively destroyed by the Daily Telegraph opinion polls. They are basing their confidence on a rather hollow instrument. Nevertheless, I can see the point.
During the last three years—and I remind the House that I speak as a borough councillor—the borough councils of London have been tackling the potentially dangerous results of the London Government Act, 1963, with a care and concern for the people of London which was never displayed by the then Conservative Government when they were putting the Bill before the House. It is quite clear that the work which has gone, particularly in the Inner London boroughs, to re-establishing the children's service, so carelessly destroyed by that London Government Act; the care shown in the Inner London boroughs to establishing the health and welfare services—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will link what he is saying with the Amendments before the House.
Dr. Kerr: I will gladly do so. I am emphasising that the care and concern which has gone into laying the basis for these services is justification in itself for a further extension of authority in order to maintain the continuity in building up these services. Hon. Gentlemen opposite speak as though there were no Conservative-controlled councils. The right hon.

253
Member for Kingston-upon-Thames spoke of the councils as the kept creatures of the Labour Party. But this includes Conservative-controlled councils like his own unanimous one. To speak as though there were a unanimity of council view is to speak as though the wishes of all of us on this side had been fulfilled. But they will not come near fulfilment until at least May 1968. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends ought to be thankful about this and not complain.
10.30 p.m.
We are facing the Greater London Council elections. Had the Government proposed to delay these and not the borough elections, the right hon. Gentleman might have had a political point—we are very sensitive about this—but we have not sought to do that—
Mr. Speaker: We have enough to debate without debating what we have not sought to do.
Dr. Kerr: I was making the point only for contrast, and I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I merely wanted to emphasise that the challenge thrown at us by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is some curious political involvement in this amendment of the London Government Act does not go unanswered. I would fling the challenge back at them and ask whether the London Government Act was not a piece of precisely the kind of political juggling which they are attempting to pin on us.
I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that action like this by the other place is fraught with danger for the future of an amending chamber. Many of us on this side are very concerned at the implications of a constitutional Amendment of this sort. I share the hon. Member's misgivings.
Mr. Charles Doughty: The speech of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), apart from being largely out of order, confirmed my worst fears that the Bill is a political Bill. There have been taunts—as there are entitled to be in the House—about whether the Bill would affect the chances of either party for good or evil, but we are discussing something much
254
more serious—a change in the Constitution brought about by the party in power, with no independent inquiry like the Herbert Commission before the London Government Bill. For reasons best known to themselves, they wished to change the voting system, they used their majority to pass the Bill—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Bill in general but the very narrow issue of whether the House doth disagree with the Lords in the Amendment.
Mr. Doughty: I will seek to do so. By their Amendments, the Lords have done something which they are rightly called upon to do, and something which the House ought to accept.
I was surprised that the spokesman for the Liberal Party, with whom I have agreed up to now, should have made the disgraceful speech to which we have listened.
Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's wonderful compliment.
Mr. Doughty: If that is what the hon. Member thinks is a compliment he will have a lot more. I thought that the Liberal Party was a firm supporter of the Constitution. Now I know better. The Lords have restored the rights of 5½ million London electors to have their borough council elections next year. We can agree or disagree with them. The Socialist majority will use their votes to disagree.
Many countries have a written constitution. If a change in it is proposed, complicated machinery like a referendum has to operate. We are spared that only because it is the unwritten part of the Constitution that the party in power does not abuse its majority to change it. The other place exists to correct any irregularities that take place here, and that it has done and we should agree with its Amendments.
It is ridiculous to say that the G.L.C. and borough council elections would be too close together. In my constituency, we have the Surrey County Council election a few days after the G.L.C. election and the same people will be

255
working in both. The district council elections for Surrey take place in May, a short time afterwards. This gives the lie to those who say that these people would not be able to carry out the work.
The Lords were right. They have stood by our unwritten Constitution, and it is the Labour Party which is using its majority to gerrymander the situation. I hope that this is not a precedent for the future. I hope that, the Government having made this mistake, they will never make it again.
Mr. William Molloy: Listening to the speeches, one would think that the Conservative Party over the past century has been in the van advocating the case for democracy at all levels. I have never heard such an appalling lot of hypocrisy since I came to this House. I hope that we—and I hope that some hon. Members at least will have the courage to join us—will chastise the other place for its arrogance.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose—
Mr. Molloy: I will give way in a moment.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Molloy: The hon. Member who sits for a Northern Ireland constituency has the nerve to tell me to give way. He can spend more of his time trying to wipe out the religious discrimination and gerrymandering in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. We are discussing the Lords Amendments, not Northern Ireland.
Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have I your protection from an utterly untrue statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy)?
Mr. Molloy: Before I leave that, it might be as well if—
Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have I no protection from you against an untrue statement?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Mr. Molloy: Before I leave that point, I would just say to the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) that I will go further and say that if he—
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you not already ruled that the hon. Member for Ealing, North is out of order in pursuing this matter? Will you permit him to do so or not?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Ealing, North must keep to the Lords Amendments.
Mr. Molloy: It is perfectly obvious, when we get to the quintessence of this matter, that the Opposition's anger is phoney. I was about to say that I think that it is quite proper in debate, on Amendments sent down from another place, that the Lords would have been doing this Parliamentary system of ours some sort of service if they had tried to put an end to some of the gerrymandering and religious discrimination which take place—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very wide of the Amendments. I must insist that he come back to them.
Mr. Molloy: There is one thing which you have contributed to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have saved the Conservative Opposition from being so appalling consistent. They claim, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) claims, that they have shown themselves to be the hall-mark of consistency all the way through the debate. Never before has the old adage that consistency is the last refuge of the un-imaginative been so well demonstrated. The fact of the matter is that all the great indignation of hon. Members opposite, with their terrible paucity of political thinking, makes some contribution to filling the vacuum.
There is no great feeling in the London boroughs about this issue. I am sorry that no hon. Member has mentioned that during the first year the new boroughs

257
were running, so to speak, two administrations. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), I have served for many years on a London authority. I am bound to say that I have seen more responsible behaviour from Tory councillors, whether in opposition or in majority, than I have seen from Tory M.P.s in the House. During the first 12 months when we were running two authorities there was a sensible tolerance between the two sides of the council chamber, irrespective of which was the majority party, and efficiency was maintained. It is regrettable—and people outside might like to look at this situation—that there is far more responsibility among Tory councillors than among Tory M.P.s. Many of them have demonstrated this time and time again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Amendment.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In your absence the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was allowed to range all over the world and compared Her Majesty's Government to Hitler and referred to elections in 1932. I submit with great respect that my hon. Friend should have the same freedom.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate must be related to the Amendment. I have already allowed some latitude to the hon. Gentleman. The House must allow the Chair to decide what is in order or out of order.
Mr. Molloy: All I was trying to say is this. It is pretty thick of another place to put down some of these Amendments.
I said on Second Reading that there were some Labour councillors who were not too happy about some of the proposals and there were many Conservative councillors who were not happy at the line their party was taking. The fact is that they had a difficult job to do without having a daily allowance which, I understand, is obtained in another place. They had the heavy responsibilities of making work legislation which the Tory Party rashly rushed through Parliament.
Mr. Doughty: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I notice that you are extremely tolerant and so are we on these benches. I submit that it is entirely out of order to debate the 1963 Act and the behaviour of Labour and Conservative councillors elsewhere on the Lords Amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to decide. It is correct that there has been a certain amount of latitude allowed to previous hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
Mr. Molloy: The origins of what we are discussing now are founded in the 1963 Act. Therefore it is almost impossible to make any reference to what is being proposed without referring to that Act. If I am out of order in referring to the 1963 Act, then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was out of order in bringing in Hitler, Mussolini and grabbing power. I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member opposite has aspirations to sit where you are sitting he must take some time to study the Constitution of this country.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The only issue, as I understand it, is whether the Lords Amendment should be accepted. How long is the hon. Member to be allowed to go on, without the smallest attempt at relevance, insulting hon. Members on this side? We must ask for your impartial protection as occupant of the Chair.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall endeavour to give every hon. Member the protection which the House should give to hon. Members, but the Chair must be allowed to decide on matters of order. Latitude was given to hon. Members previously. On more than one occasion I have drawn the attention of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) to the need to relate his remarks to the Amendment. I am sure that he will bear that in mind.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order. I was not in the least seeking to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but surely it is the undisputed right of hon. Members to appeal to the Chair when they feel that they are being

259
subjected to irrelevant and insulting language.
Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order. Can I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that hon. Members on this side of the House were subjected to the most appalling attack by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who accused us of being dictators cast in the Hitler mould? If hon. Members opposite cannot take what they are prepared to dish out, they ought to pack up and go home.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House cannot debate by points of order. Hon. Members must relate their remarks to the Amendment and it would be better if hon. Members allowed the debate to proceed.
Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. You have told the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a certain latitude was given earlier in the debate. I was present during that earlier period when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. How is it possible to assess how much latitude was given by Mr. Speaker and how much latitude you are now giving?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be most improper for me to answer that. It is a matter of judgment and great difficulty and delicacy. The hon. and learned Gentleman must allow the occupant of the Chair to rule on matters of order as they arise at the time.
Captain Walter Elliot: On a point of order. If I should catch your eye during the course of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will it be in order for me to discuss the 1963 Act, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) has been doing, and the behaviour of Socialist and Conservative councillors on various borough councils?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall endeavour to give the same consideration to the hon. and gallant Gentleman which I am endeavouring to give to the hon. Member for Ealing, North. I have reminded the hon. Gentleman of the need to relate his remarks to the Amendment and I shall continue to do so as long as it is necessary.
Mr. Molloy: I would have thought that the majority of hon. Members
260
opposite would have found nothing wrong with any hon. Member commending the work of councillors of all political persuasions, particularly those in the Greater London area. Equally, I would not have minded if some hon. Members opposite had risen in high dudgeon, but I was annoyed—hurt rather than annoyed—when the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) criticised us so vehemently. He has a remarkable propensity for dishing it out. What a pity it is that he has not the same propensity to take it!
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) spoke of the manner in which the other place dealt with these Amendments which are causing concern to people outside, who are asking about the other place "Who are these people?".
I am not suggesting that the ordinary Londoner is an authority on the British Constitution, but he has a remarkable knack of coming to the truth without a great deal of circumlocution. When we are told that there is a great danger of us emulating Hitler or Mussolini, in grabbing power, and when we have a look at the backgrounds of some of the people in the other place who are trying to impose their will upon us, it is a little bit more than thick. It raises a grave and serious issue.
I would have thought that all of us, as Members of the House of Commons, would have been concerned at the manner in which a constitutional Measure has been mangled and mutilated in another place, when not one Londoner or Briton went out on one evening to place a vote so that they could sit in their House. These are very serious matters. It seems, and this goes for my own Front Bench as well as the Opposition Front Bench, that the result of this long-ranging debate might be to make us all think seriously and look closely to see if we need another place.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: This is the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing this House on this particular Bill, because during its earlier stages a number of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides were immured upstairs considering another matter. I am very happy to have the chance of adding my words of support for the Amendments moved in another place. I am not surprised that the hon. Member

261
for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) should have seen fit to try to defend this shabby Bill in the way that he has and to support the Motion moved by his hon. Friend the Minister of State.
He knows that he sits for a seat in a borough which would go Conservative if there were an election next May and he knows perfectly well that he has to postpone the election if he is to keep the borough councillors in office long enough for them to be able to put their beastly comprehensive system through. The hon. Gentleman disclosed the paucity of his arguments by constantly having to be ruled out of order. It is an impertinence to the House that the hon. Gentleman should have seen fit to defend in the way that be did—
Mr. Molloy: I want to point out that I do not recollect being ruled out of order—not by the official Speaker, only by a bunch of "phoney" speakers opposite.
Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps the hon. Gentle-man will read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow and he will see then. The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) produced what seemed to be an astonishing argument. What he said was, "We are only fiddling one election, we might have fiddled two." To put that before the House as a serious defence of this shabby Bill is a remarkable proposition.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, to his ever-lasting shame and discredit, has been guilty of a grave departure from the high standards that have hitherto illuminated his great office. The fact that he yielded to pressure from the London Labour Party to postpone these borough elections this year seems to be utterly disgraceful. I say this representing one of the only two constituencies in Greater London which at the borough council elections in 1964 returned 100 per cent. Conservative councillors to its council.
Every one of them would have his seat put to the test if these elections were held according to the law, as they ought to be. I do not claim to have unique experience, but from speaking to councillors I know that they do not want to fight elections. No councillors do. They are very happy where they are, but their
262
electors expect them to fight the election. They elected them for three years and after three years they should jolly well stand up and answer for the conduct of the affairs for which they have been responsible.
Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: Would the hon. Member not accept that I was elected as a councillor for his constituency, declared elected for a period of three years, but that a Conservative Administration cut that down to two?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member has the unique distinction of having been the only Labour councillor on the former Wanstead and Woodford Council who was elected mayor of that borough. He knows—my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made the point earlier—that when there was a major reorganisation—[Interruption]—and when both sides of the House agreed that it would be impracticable to hold the elections in accordance with the law then in existence, it was right that the date of the elections should be changed. To try to draw any parallel—the hon. Member, as a lawyer, should know better—between the events of 1963 and the miserable, shabby manoeuvre in which the Home Secretary is now engaged is sheer humbug.
When right hon. and hon. Members opposite say that there is no great tide of pressure resisting the Bill, they are quite right, because the vast majority of Londoners do not begin to understand what is happening. They simply do not know. I find, however—and I know that in this I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends—that when the issues are put clearly, as I have been endeavouring and am continuing to endeavour to put them, to our constituents, they begin to see the true enormity of the gerrymandering in which the Home Secretary is engaged. Then they begin to realise what the issues are.
They realise it in boroughs such as the London Borough of Redbridge, which, I am happy to say, enjoys a comfortable Conservative majority. When one points out that in boroughs such as Ealing, Enfield and Hillingdon, Labour majorities are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, having been elected in 1964 at a time when there was an unprecedented swing in favour of the

263
Labour Party, they begin to realise the shabby manoeuvre in which the Home Secretary is engaged. Then, indeed, there is indignation because honest citizens are being deprived of their vote by the unilateral decision of a temporary elected majority in this House.
Although there is never any wild enthusiasm to vote in local elections in London—or, I suggest, anywhere else—the fact is that between 40 and 50 per cent. of the inhabitants of most boroughs, and a higher proportion in boroughs where the elections are marginal, take the trouble to turn out and elect their councillors every three years. If this Measure is allowed to go through as the Government wish, they will be deprived of that right. This is a deplorable thing, and it is to the shame of the Government that they should have done it.
When this debate has finished, the Government will wield their majority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Will they not? Is it a free vote for right hon. and hon. Members opposite? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), who is knowledgeable about these things, tells me that the Government have put on a three-line Whip. More shame on them.
If the Government use their temporary majority in this House and the Bill goes back to another place so that their Lordships may decide what they should then do, I hope and I urge that they should use their power to amend the Bill again in the terms of the Amendments which we have before us tonight.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask if the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is in agreement with his hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) in urging the other place to overturn the decision of the House of Commons? I do not think—
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) is a knowledgeable enough hon. Member to know that he had no right to intervene in my speech to ask my right hon. Friend that question. If he wishes to know the answer, no doubt he will ask my right hon. Friend when he is in order.
264
I urge the other place to fulfil its traditional function of protecting the liberties of the people. That is the function for which the second Chamber exists, and their Lordships would be failing in their duty if they surrendered weakly to the Government on such an issue. They would be entirely justified in returning the Bill a second time to this House with these Amendments.
Dr. David Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is raising an interesting situation in which hon. Members of this House are not allowed to refer to speeches which have been made in the other place, yet the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) is pleading a speech which ought to be made in the other place. Is that in order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All that I can say is that nothing which I have heard the hon. Gentleman say is out of order.
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Roebuck: May I ask if the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) is arguing for elections in the London boroughs, or for an elected second Chamber?
Mr. Jenkin: I will treat that intervention with the contempt it deserves.
The Government made no mention of this matter either in their manifesto or in the election address of a single Labour candidate in Greater London on the occasion of the election which took place on 31st March last year. It was not a matter for which they could claim to have one iota or vestige of a mandate. It was an entirely new matter, raised since the election, for which they cannot claim to have any tacit or overt support from the people. Furthermore, it is a Measure to alter the law to the detriment of the electors of Greater London.
It seems to be exactly the sort of issue where a revising second Chamber which is not held in any thrall to any Government at any time can justifiably use the power which the Constitution has vested in it to compel a postponement of the Bill for 12 months.
Mr. Lubbock: Can the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) quote me one single instance of a Tory Bill which has been sent back to this House mutilated in this way?
Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) down that devious path.
This is exactly the sort of issue which the House of Lords exists to decide. I recognise that if their Lordships exercised their powers they would succeed in frustrating the whole object of the Bill. That is what should happen. From the outset, it was seen to be a mean, miserable Measure which was brought in with no other intention than to preserve the dubious, slender Labour majorities of a number of borough councils in Greater London. As such, the Measure deserves universal condemnation, and I hope that their Lordships will take the hint.
Mr. Winnick: When the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was making his remarks he was getting so excited that I mistook him for the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I am not sure whether this is because they tend to look alike or because they are the same height. I rather tend to regard them as Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
References were made to the dictatorial behaviour of the Labour Party, the possibility that a General Election would be postponed, and so on, and it rather reminded me of the Gestapo speech made in 1945. It seems to me that the Opposition have not really learned their lesson. These smear attacks on the Labour Party do not work and are not attractive. It is a pity that the Opposition did not learn the lesson more than 20 years ago. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was preaching to us about the virtues of democracy, yet two rows back from him there sits the hon. Member for an area which is part of a province which is notorious for electoral abuse and which is being run by the Conservative Party.
Sir Knox Cunningham rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) intervenes,
266
I must point out to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) that that is very far off the Amendment. I hope that he will keep to the Amendment.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is quite clear that the hon. Member for Croydon, South is not giving way.
Hon. Members: He did give way.
Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman gave way to me and sat down. May I now put to him the point that I wanted to make?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Croydon, South thought better of it.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) to smear my constituency and my representation and to say something which is absolutely untrue? I am sent here by the electors on the basis of one man, one vote, and universal franchise, and I have 114,000 electors—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. and learned Member is going too far. I drew the attention of the hon. Member for Croydon, South to the fact that he was out of order in what he was saying and I think it would be wise if the hon. and learned Member did not pursue it.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I have your protection?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member is entitled to my protection, and I am doing my best to give it. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will allow me to get on with the job.
Mr. Winnick: I trust that I did not say anything controversial.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite braying at me. [Interruption.] This sort of braying will not do any good.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must allow the debate to proceed in an orderly fashion.
Mr. Winnick: When reforms take place in Northern Ireland, then will be the time—
Sir Knox Cunningham: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not get my attention by shouting.
Sir Knox Cunningham: I did not ask for your attention.
Hon. Members: Name him.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have deprecated references to Northern Ireland by the hon. Member for Croydon, South. I have ruled them out of order. I hope that the hon. Member will take that as enough.
Mr. Winnick: References have been made during the debate—
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. I do not want to get the House over-heated, but you ruled that you deprecated what the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) said about Northern Ireland. When he rose the hon. Gentleman repeated what he said. I think that he ought to be asked to withdraw it.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order. When an hon. Member deliberately repeats an affront which you have ruled out of order, is it not customary for the Chair to order him to resume his seat?
Mr. Winnick: I wish that the Opposition would not get so heated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) said earlier—
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Croydon, South was going to pour oil on the troubled waters. I thought that he was going to withdraw his remarks. I think that it would be most appropriate if he did so.
Mr. Winnick: Obviously, if I have caused offence, I will withdraw. If the cap fits, as they say, so be it—
Hon. Members: Withdraw, withdraw.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not catch the hon. Member's remark, but if it was a reiteration of the point he had already withdrawn, I must insist that he withdraws it again, and with some grace.
Mr. Winnick: I did say that if I had caused offence, then I withdraw the remark. Then I said something else, which again hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to dislike. I withdraw that as well.
During the course of the debate we have had tonight, references have been made to the Amendments passed by another place which we are discussing at the moment. What is somewhat disconcerting—and one of the reasons why I am speaking at this moment—is that it seems to me that here we have the position where an elected assembly like the Commons have decided on a course of action and a non-elected assembly have decided to undermine what we have done.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Is it not even worse than that, because the leader of this campaign in the non-elected House himself failed to get elected when he sat for election to this House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendments.
Mr. Winnick: If the point raised by my hon. Friend is out of order, then of course I cannot pursue it.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. Am I to understand that my interjection, which was to ask my hon. Friend whether he was aware of the fact that the lead in the other place for this particular Amendment was by none other than the person rejected by the electorate in Hampstead for election into this House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was not clear about all the implications of the hon. Member's remarks, but it does seem to me that dwelling too much on this particular aspect of the argument is hardly relevant.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to get your Ruling clear. My hon. Friend was making the point that it is rather undemocratic for a non-elected House to

269
try to impose its will on the elected House. I was asking him if he was aware that it was even worse than that because the lead in the non-elected House was taken by a person who could not get elected to this House and who was rejected as Member of Parliament for Hampstead and then went—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This may be interesting, but it is not relevant to the Amendment.
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a longstanding tradition of this House that we do not make personal attacks on people in the other House when they have not the opportunity to defend themselves? I think the hon. Member should be asked to withdraw.
Mr. Lewis: I made no personal attack; I stated the facts.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's remarks may not have been relevant, but I do not think they were a personal attack.
Mr. Winnick: If I could intervene in my own speech, the point made by the hon. Gentleman who just sat down—it seems a long time ago now—is a very important one. He suggested that if the House of Commons decided to reject these Lords Amendments, the Lords should repeat their impertinence by sending it back again. [Interruption.] I did describe it as an "impertinence" because this is the elected House of Commons. There are, no doubt, able and distinguished people in the other place, but we have been elected and, to the best of my knowledge, none of those in another place have been elected. Indeed, I gather that some of them—I will not name them—were once elected to this House but lost their seats. We must not allow them to undermine what we in this democratic House have decided. I suggest that in this matter—
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member ought not to pursue this matter in too much detail.
Mr. Winnick: I do not wish to come into conflict with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are tonight discussing certain Amendments which have come from
270
another place. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to those in another place and I am merely doing the same, but from another angle. It is a piece of impertinence for the Lords to reject what we have decided, and to suggest that they should do the same again would be a double piece of impertinence.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that his argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, would deprive the other House of any function whatever.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Winnick: Some of my hon. Friends cry, "Hear, hear." This may come as a shock to the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that if it were decided, as a result of some revolutionary action, that the other place should be abolished—which is possible, just possible—I would not lose any sleep over it.
It seems to have been suggested that a repetition of the struggle which took place earlier this century between the Lords and the Commons should occur. We may have many weaknesses in this Chamber. A point which we have over the Lords is that at least we have been elected by the majority of the electors.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It will not happen next time.
Mr. Winnick: Would the right hon. Gentleman like a General Election now? According to the opinion polls, we would get back with an even greater majority.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address his remarks to the Amendment.
Mr. Winnick: I must learn not to be provoked by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
It was said when we last debated this subject that there was a great deal of anxiety because the local government elections were being postponed for one year. I said at the time that I had not received one letter from my constituents, not even from my Conservative constituents, saying that the action taken by the Labour Government was wrong. Since that time I have still not received one letter saying that the Government are wrong. Who is expressing all this concern and anxiety? Who is saying, "This

271
is dictatorial action by the Labour Party"?
If it had been decided by the Government to postpone the Greater London Council elections, there might have been some political point for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make. But they have no grounds for objecting to the present proposal. I believe that it is sensible and logical to hold two separate elections, one in one year for the Greater London Council and one the following year for the borough councils.
Mr. Iremonger: That is what the Amendment would do.
Mr. Winnick: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are suggesting that there should be two sets of elections in one year. That was their original suggestion and the point at issue between the parties.
Sir D. Glover: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the London electorate is so inferior to that of Lancashire? In Lancashire we shall have a county council election and the local elections separated by one month.
Mr. Winnick: It is remarkable that the hon. Gentleman, a non-Londoner—if I may so describe him without offence—should intervene in our debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is true that he has every right to do so.
Sir D. Glover: I am a voter.
Mr. Winnick: It is remarkable that he is a voter, and we are very pleased that he is, I am sure, but it does not alter the fact that, unwilling to concede—[Interruption.] I may well be wrong, but it happens to be my personal point of view that the elections should be held in separate years, and I am entitled to my views. There have been accusations about our being dictatorial, but it seems to me that it is hon. Gentlemen opposite who are somewhat dictatorial. But I am entitled to my view that the elections should be held in separate years, and that is why I support the Government's attitude.
This was raised as a great political issue by the Conservative Party, but it has become a damp squib, a non-starter. I speak not only for myself but for my constituents, who have not sent me a
272
single letter on this issue. There is no concern over this issue outside this House. If hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that there have been votes in this matter, I believe that they will be proved wrong. If they were honest with themselves, they would tell us how many letters they have received from their constituents against the elections being postponed.
Basically, this has become a damp squib. No one is particularly interested in it. We all know that the Greater London Council elections will be held this year and the borough elections next year, and I believe that is the right course.
Mr. F. P. Crowder: There has been a certain amount of heat and give-and-take in the debate, and I hope the House will forgive me if I try to keep away from that type of argument. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) says "You pompous ass" because I have merely suggested that a matter which, after all, affects the democratic rights of the voters should be seriously considered. The hon. Gentleman can only think with his blood; he has no brain. Would it not be worth while considering this matter seriously and conscientiously when one thinks of the number of people who are involved? Does the hon. Gentleman remember the remark of the Socialist Attorney-General in 1946, "We are the masters now"?
We are told that it is impertinence for anybody to disagree with hon. Members opposite. It is a great pity if hon. Members opposite, however strongly they may feel, take a thoroughly arrogant point of view in this matter. I should have thought it only right that arguments on this side of the House should be listened to and considered. To sweep them away saying that they are utterly wrong and impertinence will not help in our discussions.
I hope that I may be allowed to speak from a purely constituency point of view, and do what is traditional in this House, and that is merely inform other hon. Members of the views of my constituents about this matter and how they feel about it. They may not be the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite; I accept that, of course, at once; but they are entitled to be heard in this House of Commons through their Member of Parliament. I

273
do not put their views forward more strongly than any other hon. Members have put their constituents' views, or, indeed, their own views, but I do say that the constituents of Ruislip-Northwood in the Borough of Hillingdon, which is a marginal seat, are entitled through their Member of Parliament to have their views put. I shall try not to exaggerate them or to put them too strongly, but my constituents are upset indeed that the will not have the opportunity this year of getting rid of the present council of Hillingdon.
Their main reason for that is that we are about to have a new system of education forced upon us in that borough. There has been a debate, which I initiated in the House by way of the Adjournment, on the comprehensive schools. A lot of people want them; a lot of people do not want them.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Do I take it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that other hon. Members, following the hon. and learned Member, will be allowed the same opportunity of discussing that system of education, if they wish to do so?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot rule on what will be in order in the future. That is hypothetical. I hope the hon. and learned Member will relate his remarks to the Lords Amendment.
Mr. Crowder: I should be very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I could have your advice on this matter. We are debating the date of the elections, and what in my constituency is causing controversy about the problem of the date happens to relate to comprehensive education. May I ask this of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? As that is the root and cause of my constituents' interest in this Lords Amendment, am I out of order in raising it? I think I should ask your guidance on that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A reference to comprehensive education as one of the arguments adduced is in order. What would be out of order would be to dwell on the matter.
Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order. Would it be in order to hon. Members on this side of the House who
274
are regular attenders to welcome the hon. and learned Member on one of his rare appearances?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Crowder: I am much obliged for the intervention of the hon. Gentleman. Of course, one is always delighted to be welcomed here. It is very nice indeed. I have already made three speeches on this matter, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman was present at any of them. Had he been present he might not have spoken in the way he did, because he might have learned something.
To come to the problem, I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but I do hope the House of Commons will sit tonight till breakfast time, because these are matters affecting the liberty of the subject. So do not let us have any nonsense about that. I know that many hon. Members like short, easy days, but I do hope that on a matter of this sort they will do the House the courtesy not only of listening to my ideas—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would help the House if the hon. and learned Member would relate his remarks to the Lords Amendment.
Mr. Crowder: I am much obliged. Returning to the Lords Amendment, the problem is this, and this is how the vast majority of my constituents are thinking and feeling about this Lords Amendment tonight. What the parents are saying in regard to the children is this, that if the House of Commons accepts the Lords Amendment we shall have an election this year, which, after all, was something they thought they were going to have in any event, until the last minute change. The argument follows that if they have an election this year they can defeat the Labour Council. Of course, it is difficult to tell what the consequences of an election will be, but the Borough of Hillingdon is very much a marginal seat and—I may be wrong, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite will be the first to say that I am wrong—I believe that if there were an election this year, the practical result would be that the Labour majority would be defeated in Hillingdon and we should not have this comprehensive education forced upon us.

275
11.30 p.m.
It would not be in order to argue the merits of comprehensive education, but I have hundreds of letters from constituents on the subject and there have been many meetings at which constituents have spoken on behalf of their children, from which it is clear that they feel very strongly about the subject. That is why they feel so strongly about the Amendment. If the Government refuse to accept the Lords Amendment, then those people who live in Ruislip-Northwood within the Borough of Hillingdon will have comprehensive education forced upon them. I am not arguing whether comprehensive education is a good thing. But hon. Members opposite will be the first to agree that there is heavy opposition to it. Surely in those circumstances, if that is the position, we should put the matter to the test. Why not let it be shown at the polls?
Mr. William Price: Is it not fair to point out that this has been put to the test at least twice in the last few years, and possibly more often?
Mr. Crowder: I do not agree.
Mr. Edwin Wainwright: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to be reading a newspaper?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is out of order to read a newspaper in the Chamber, and if the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) is doing so I must ask him to desist.
Mr. Anthony Berry: I was under the impression that it was in order to do so if one is preparing a speech. The headlines of this newspaper are, "Hopes for borough elections recede. Denial of democracy."
Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. I was about to ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you could blame any hon. Member for reading a newspaper during this speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Crowder: I have always wondered whether the hon. Member who made the intervention could read or write, but—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That remark may be correct or incorrect, but it is certainly not relevant to the debate.
Mr. Crowder: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) has been most courteous and understanding. Does he not agree that, whether comprehensive education is good or bad, it is a subject predominantly in the minds of the electors of my constituency? If that method of education is to be introduced this year, and if it will be very difficult to alter it subsequently, surely in the interests of democracy it is right that such a burning question in the constituency should be decided at the polls? There can be no argument but that that is a fair approach to a normal problem. I speak on behalf of my constituents—[Interruption.] This rabble-rousing is no good. This is what they feel—
Mr. William Price: I apologise for interrupting an interesting speech, which I do not claim to understand. He has not followed my point. He was arguing that the electors ought to have the right to decide whether they wanted comprehensive education. I said that they had that in 1964 and 1966 and they made the choice.
Mr. Crowder: That is not so. The hon. Gentleman says that comprehensive education was a predominant issue in the General Elections of 1964 and 1966, but it was not in Hillingdon, which was concerned with greater national issues, The ordinary voter in Ruislip and Northwood would not have voted mainly on that issue. But if elections were held this May, now that the matter has reached boiling point, it would become pre-dominant in Hillingdon—
Sir D. Glover: Surely the point is that, while those elections may have decided the principle, local authorities are responsible for individual schemes, and the electors should be able to vote on them.
Mr. Crowder: I am obliged.
Suppose that, in 1971, our negotiations with Europe were in a crisis, could the Prime Minister postpone the General Election? Would we have another septennial Act? Is that not what is happening now? We have heard little
from the Government Front Bench—
Mr. Edwin Wainwright: On a point of order. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman in order to mention the Common Market and 1971?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks carefully and will tell him if he is out of order.
Mr. Crowder: I was seeking only to draw an analogy between the postponement of general and local elections. If some negotiations were in a tricky stage, surely a General Election could be postponed. On the basis of this principle, could not the Government say that, because of the delicacy of some negotiations with Europe, it would be in the public interest to postpone the election for one or more years? Is it the sort of principle we are introducing by way of this Bill?
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Crowder: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. He has been bobbing up and down like a cork and he has been very kind, but I have given way to practically everyone in the House, although I am only too glad to do so.
The only real argument I have heard in the House for the postponement of the borough elections is that the G.L.C. elections would coincide and muddle the borough elections. But I remind the House of what happened in 1955. The General Election was held within three or four weeks of the local elections. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Within a fortnight."] I am told that it was within a fortnight. We were victorious in both. What utter nonsense and hypocrisy it is to suggest that it is impractical from an administrative point of view for the G.L.C. elections to be held with the borough elections. The answer is, of course, that the Government dare not face the borough elections. I give them these words:
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
That puts it not unto the touch,
To win or lose it all."
And lose they will.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder)—
Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not have escaped the notice of experienced Members of this House that hon. Members opposite are getting up one for one, and that means one thing and one thing only—that sooner or later the Patronage Secretary will try to close the debate. Can we have an assurance that he will not be allowed to do so?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the Patronage Secretary. The Chair is carrying out the traditional procedure in the selection of hon. Members.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would I be in order in defending the Patronage Secretary, who is not here?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman would not.
Mr. Pavitt: The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood quite rightly informed the House that he was going to take the heat out of the debate, and he succeeded. My only regret is that he did not shed a little more light upon it and help us. I accept his contention that he has to try to represent his constituents and put forward his interpretation of the mind of the people of Ruislip. I accept that perhaps he knows better than I know what they think. For my part, I can speak for the people of West Willesden, and I am certain that they would disagree with the Lords Amendments. They do not want a situation where we have a second election immediately after the G.L.C. election and, for all the various arguments put forward tonight and on many other occasions on this Bill, they would prefer us not to agree with the Lords Amendments.
The hon. and learned Member used as part of his argument the question of whether or not there was pre-empting of the issue of comprehensive education in his constituency. I can speak with a little more authority, because I am certain that the people of my constituency are anxious that there shall be maximum speed towards comprehensive reorganisation within the borough. Fortunately,

279
we have been able to put this to the test. Late last year three by-elections arose on Brent Council. They were contested heavily by the Conservative Party and in the election campaign the question of comprehensive education was made the prime issue. In all three cases Labour candidates were returned. This is a clear indication that in my constituency this operates in precisely the opposite direction from the way in which it operates in Ruislip.
11.45 p.m.
Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member has conceded out case. He said that they were fortunate enough in West Willesden to have three by-elections and the electors were able to say what they wanted. All we are saying is that all electors should have a full opportunity to say what they want.
Mr. Pavitt: Certainly it is fortunate, but it does not enhance the case of the Opposition. I was dealing with the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ruislip-Northwood who said that comprehensive education was likely to have an effect in his constituency. It would not make any difference in mine.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Member is supporting his case by reference to by-elections which were held recently. Will he inform the House what the swing to the Conservatives was in those three by-elections?
Mr. Pavitt: It is entirely irrelevant to the case. The fact remains that the elections were fought largely on the question of comprehensive education and the Labour candidates were returned.
I want to turn to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). I was rather surprised that the hon. Member, whose constituency is noted in this House for having a certain amount of political sagacity, should raise a major controversial constitutional issue between this House and another place and should have shown such a lack of political sagacity.
This Amendment may expedite some decision which may have to be taken if another place proves intransigent in trying to force this Amendment on an unwilling House of Commons. It would be foolish if hon. Members opposite were
280
to try to create a situation where there was a great constitutional conflict between us and another place on this issue, which, although important, affects only one-sixth of the population.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Member has referred to the main point of my argument. I will repeat what I said earlier. Does he refute the provisions of the Parliament Act which gives another place power to delay legislation for up to one year? If so, is he supported by his Front Bench?
Mr. Pavitt: The debate would be much too long if we went wider into the constitutional issues between this House and another place. The hon. Member, by the contribution he has made, is inciting another place to make this a constitutional issue. He is encouraging us to agree that it is time to review the relationship between this House and another place if the co-operation which it has accorded to other Governments is denied to this one.
Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: The hon. Member has said that there were three by-elections in predominantly Labour areas. The swing against them was so great that had it been reflected in elections all over Brent the Tories would be in power there now and there would be no comprehensive education in Brent.
Mr. Pavitt: I envy those mathematicians who can, with a by-election with a low percentage poll, analyse the figures, multiply the number they first thought of and say that this would have resulted in victory for them. The only way hon. Members opposite can win elections is by having hypothetical cases.
I am not sure how far the rule of tedious repetition applies, but this debate has gone on at every stage of the Bill and six or seven major points have come up time and time again. I have heard precisely these arguments, in many cases put by precisely the same hon. Members, again and again. Surely it is time that we got past that stage and had no need to rehash and to come back, like dogs to their vomit, to arguments which we have been through time and again.
I had the privilege of speaking on earlier stages of the Bill. The arguments were advanced on Second Reading

281
and during the Committee stage and we have all heard them. I suggest that the House has heard enough. I do not propose to redeploy them. I simply urge the Government to reject the Lords Amendments.
Mr. Berry: The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has referred to repeated arguments from this side of the House, but it is refreshing to have a new audience for them, for earlier stages of the Bill were distinguished by the absence of hon. Members opposite. I particularly welcomed the intervention, if not a speech, of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), although one of my hon. Friends was unkind enough to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was a Member. I can vouch for him. He is my constituent, and I would very much like him to give his views on the Bill and the Lords Amendments. His views would be of great interest in the area in which he lives.
I was very disappointed with the speech of the right hon. Lady the Minister of State. I was hoping that she would change her mind and make a different speech later, when I would have been delighted to send her a Valentine. Alas! She is not worthy of that tonight.
Although the arguments about the Bill have been repeated several times, the trouble is that hon. Members opposite are still repeating their old objections and saying that elections should not be held within a few weeks of each other. I would have thought that the numerous examples from London and other parts of the country would have made it clear that that argument is now irrelevant. In any case, the Lords Amendments would allow elections in London in future to be held in different years.
There is no doubt that the Government have played down the Bill and tried to keep down public interest in it. That is why hon. Members opposite have reacted so strongly to our criticisms. Comprehensive education has been mentioned. As hon. Members will be aware, the borough in which my constituency lies is very marginal, with a Labour majority. We have a system of comprehensive education half of which was turned down by the Secretary of State and the other half of which was put
282
together at very short notice and approved. I would like to hear the views of Labour Members who represent the borough. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie), who is a Minister, has been present for part of the debate but, understandably, has not spoken. However, I would very much like to hear the views of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), who made a brief incursion into the Government and who might have let his constituents know his views.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue this line too far. He has the Floor to express his own views.
Mr. Berry: I do not think that I shall hear those views and so I will leave that thought with the House.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) insists on returning to the issue of the letters. He has made the argument before and I have answered him before. I have quoted HANSARD at him, but he goes on repeating it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is stupid."]
He knows that there were a number of letters, and since the earlier debate I have had many more. My constituents are genuinely concerned about this delaying of the elections. The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) referred to a newspaper which I had, and I am happy to refer to it. I thought that the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) sitting next to him would have recognised it, because it is the Wood Green Weekly Herald, a newspaper circulating partly in my constituency and partly in hers and partly in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). Far from the people in the area not being interested in the Bill, it was the "lead" story in this paper last weekend.
That typifies the interest in my area in this Bill. If I may quote one sentence from the editorial in the paper, referring to the election of Councillors, it says in an excellent phrase:
"That term expires on 31st March, 1967, but the intention is that the elections be postponed until 1968, and some shimmery-shammery excuse about the administrative difficulty of holding two elections in one year is put forward as a reason. This is a negation of democracy."

283
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), who I am not surprised to see is not in the Chamber at the moment, referred to the possibility of another place delaying this Bill further and said that it would be an impertinence. The House of Lords has that right under the Constitution. It can delay a Bill for twelve months, and that I hope that it will delay this Bill for that period. If it does, and if this Government wish to cause a constitutional crisis and bring about legislation to change these rules and remove the delaying powers of the House of Lords, they will have to explain to the people of this country what it was that another place delayed in this Bill. It has delayed and is delaying nothing. It is the party opposite which is delaying elections, and the electors will not forget it.
Mr. Ivor Richard: I am very glad to be following the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry). As I said before, it seems that there is no one quite so good at elevating electoral motives into a constitutional principle as hon. Gentlemen opposite, and tonight we have had two so-called constitutional principles put before the House which, frankly on examination, are absolute nonsense. This debate is about votes. At least the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) had the grace to admit this, implicitly at any rate. He knows this and people on this side of the House also know it.
Mr. Crowder Mr. Crowder indicated assent.
Mr. Richard: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head in agreement. I am glad to see one person on the benches opposite who is honest about the opposition to this Bill. It is based upon the belief of the party opposite that it could win votes on the comprehensive schools issue in the borough council elections if they were held this year. Hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite know this and the hon. Member for Southgate knows this. I do not believe for one moment that the party opposite would have been so active in bringing this opposition forward, nor do I believe that its massive majority in another place would have been quite so ready
284
to put down these Amendments if the position had been reversed.
Does anyone really believe that if the Conservative Party felt that it would lose votes on comprehensive schools in the borough elections in London this year it would have spent this inordinate length of time discussing this comparatively simple and clearly advantageous Measure?
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson rose—
Mr. Richard: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I will give way later. I should like to deal with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southgate, who talked about the principle that it was right for the other place to assert in this dispute. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) the tail end of whose speech I heard—I am afraid that was all that I heard, but I did hear him interrupt on three occasions later, and I gather from them that the tone of his speech was as irresponsible as his interruptions—
Sir Knox Cunningham: Where was the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Richard: I am sorry that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech. I would have liked to, but unfortunately, as the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just interrupted me from a sedentary position knows, one does not have the advantage of knowing who is speaking from an annunciator. Had I done so, I can assure the hon. Member who is interrupting that I would have stayed out for his speech and I would have come in for the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford.
12 m.
The principle, apparently, which is now being put to the other place is that it is necessary for them, as the guardians of the constitution, to assert in defiance—I use the word advisedly—of the will expressed by the elected majority in the House of Commons, not once, but three times, that it is right for a massive unelected Conservative majority in another place to overrule the will not only of an elected Labour House of Commons, but also of the majority of the elected boroughs of London, some of which are Conservative.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I understand the hon. Member's argument to be that the Conservatives want these Amendments because they think that they will get more votes. The hon. Member wants the delay because he thinks that his party will not get the votes.
Mr. Richard: I am obliged for that intervention. I could not have put his case better.
This whole Measure concerning London started on an agreed basis. It was agreed among the London boroughs, Conservative and Labour, that it would be administratively desirable for the elections to be postponed. For a long time—[Interruption.]—if hon. Members opposite like to check the record, they will find it so. That was the way this matter proceeded for some time, until hon. Members opposite awoke to the fact that they thought that votes could be obtained on the subject of comprehensive schools in the Outer London area. It is precisely because Tory hon. Members decided that there might be votes in what had been agreed to be a matter of administrative convenience that the House of Commons has spent so much time in discussing this comparatively simple Measure.
Some hon. Members opposite are inciting the other place to assert that they are the guardians of the constitution. The principle that the other place is being asked to assert is that a Conservative non-elected House of Lords, should be entitled as a matter of constitutional principle to overrule the will not only of an elected Labour House of Commons, but also of the elected majority of the boroughs of London, some of which are Conservative. To elevate that sort of squalid electoral motive to the heights of a constitutional principle seems to me to be absurd.
Mr. John Page: I followed carefully the hon. Member's answer to the intervention by my hon. Friend. He said that the Opposition were opposing the Bill because they thought that they would gain votes if an election were held now. Does the hon. Gentleman accept the corollary that the Government have introduced the Bill because they feel that if there were elections now, they would be short of votes?
Mr. Richard: The hon. Member obviously heard his hon. and learned Friend's interruption but did not listen to my answer. He can read it in HANSARD, as can the remainder of his hon. Friends who are not present.
Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Member has made the point about the unelected Chamber thwarting the will of the elected Chamber. Is not the unelected Chamber having regard to the elected principle which this Chamber is denying?
Mr. Richard: Again I say to the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Ire-monger) that I have made the point twice. I am sorry that hon. Members opposite do not appreciate it. The point is that some hon. Members opposite are asking the other place to assert the non-elected will of a Conservative majority not only over the will of an elected Labour majority in this House, but, what is in some ways far more important since this is a London Measure, to assert its non-elected will over the will of the majority of the Metropolitan boroughs, some of which are Conservative. That is the point which hon. Members opposite must face. This is no great constitutional principle, but a scramble for votes which has been initiated by the Tory Party.
The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that it was necessary to test the issue of comprehensive schools, and I agree with him. He said that neither the 1964 General Election nor the 1966 General Election was a fair test.
We are to have elections this year for the Greater London Council. I find it impossible to believe that in Ruislip and Northwood, in the London Borough of Hillingdon, in my own Borough of Hammersmith, or in all the outer London boroughs, some of whose Members of Parliament I see opposite, comprehensive schools will not only be an issue but one of the major issues on which the Conservative Party will fight the Greater London Council election. At the end of the day, when the electorate has voted, the Conservative Party having made comprehensive schools one of the big issues, the electors of London will have had an opportunity in 1967 of judging whether they want comprehensive schools for London.

287
I reiterate what I have said in a number of previous debates on this Measure. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that they speak for their boroughs. I am not so arrogant as to think that I can speak for the whole of my constituency, let alone for my borough. I have no means of divining its collective will. However, if an issue in London was creating political foment to the sort of level that hon. Gentlemen opposite pretend, I should expect it to give rise to some kind of agitation on the part of my constituents.
I can divine what some of my constituents feel on such issues as Vietnam, the Common Market, and on an issue like abortion. I have a vast file of letters on any issue concerning animals, whether it be hare coursing or the export of live animals to the Continent for vivisection. I get a stack of letters whenever such a Measure is nearing the Bar of the House. On the present Measure, which hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to elevate into the great constitutional principle of the 1960s to rival the Parliament Act debates of 1910, what do we have? Nothing. The hon. Member for Southgate has a unique petition signed by a large number of people, a fair proportion of whom, I gather, do not even live in the London area, anyway. Apart from that, the common experience is that we have not had any letters, and we have not been besieged by electors. I have not had a queue of irate voters demanding to see me in the Lobby, asking for their constitutional rights and saying that they want to vote in the borough elections this year.
This whole opposition is a complete sham from start to finish. All that it is doing is to expose the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite for what they really are.
Mr. Hogg: The hon., and I believe learned, Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) addressed the House with great volubility and a maximum degree of gesticulation. He appeared to be unaware of the fact, since he argued that Greater London Council elections were somehow a substitute for borough elections, that at any rate in the outer boroughs, which he does not represent, the issue of education is not one which
288
can be raised in these elections, because the only constituencies in the Greater London Council elections in which educational issues can be raised at all appropriately are those for the Inner London Education Authority.
His principal argument, however, appeared to be that anyone who did not accept his rather idiosyncratic view of the difference between the two sides of the House on this Amendment was not, as he put it, honest. So far as I am concerned, this opposition is not a sham, and is based on what I regard as a principle. It is not just about votes. Obviously one hopes that if elections are held in the London boroughs this year one's own party will win, and no doubt one tends to think rather more optimistically than one's opponents that it is likely to win, but one cannot really conduct political arguments on that sort of principle.
The point in this case is not that we want an election this year, which no doubt we do, nor that we think we will win, which we do. The point is that the borough councils were elected for a certain period of time under the Act of Parliament, and that period of time expires this year.
The only issue in this Amendment is whether the desynchronisation of the borough council elections and the G.L.C. elections, about which there has been no controversy, should take place by postponing the borough council elections for this year, or by arranging that the borough council elections for this year, which will on any view take place on a different day from the G.L.C. elections, shall be for a period of time which will arrange the desynchronisation at the next legitimate elections.
That is the real issue raised by the Amendment. When one hears hon. Gentlemen opposite argue about whether Conservative borough councillors are better than Conservative Members of Parliament, or whether the House of Lords is elected or non-elected, or whether the issues of the Parliament Act have been resurrected by this important Amendment, one tends to lose sight altogether of the only point which really merits discussion at all, and that is whether the desynchronisation of the two sets of elections should take place so as to prolong the life of an elected

289
authority for one year beyond the term for which it was elected, or whether they should do it by the process of arranging that the new elections should effect the desynchronisation at the end when the new boroughs in the new G.L.C. meet with the term for which they are elected.
The House of Lords may be unduly simple-minded. The House of Lords had the misfortune to take the Government at their word. The House of Lords, unlike almost everybody in this House, including hon. Gentlemen opposite, believed the Government to be in good faith. This is the folly which it has committed. This is the only error of which it has been guilty. This is the only criticism which can be levelled against the House of Lords.
I well remember the speech with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill some months ago. The Government said "We want to desynchronise the dates of the two sets of elections." "Very well," said the House of Lords, "we will do that", and there is no doubt about it, this Amendment does it.
12.15 a.m.
The Government said "We will follow the precedent of 1948", and I can well remember the right hon. Gentleman citing the precedent of 1948 and saying that this Bill was designed to pursue it. "Very well", said the House of Lords, "we will follow the precedent of 1948. We believe that this Government is an honest Government; we believe that the Home Secretary is an honest man. We take him at his word. We will pursue the precedent of 1948, because the precedent of 1948 was that when one wants to desynchronise the elections, one does it by arranging that the elections should be for a desynchronous term."
But the House of Lords was wrong. The Government have not been honest. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has defiled himself. Sir Galahad has been found with his fingers in the till; he has been caught cheating at cards, and the Holy Grail is not for him any more. He has lost his political virginity, because, you see, Sir Galahad did not really mean what he said.
Sir Galahad, although he pretended that he did not know what was going on upstairs while he was strumming his piano down here, knew very well he was
290
prolonging the life of an elected body beyond the time for which it was elected. And throughout the whole of these discussions no reputable argument has been presented for doing that thing.
Attempts have been made, of course, to swim a whole shoal of red herrings into the stream, and they have wriggled about in various directions, some of them offensively accoutred and some less offensively accoutred.
It has been said that the Act of 1963 has some kind of bearing on the subject, but the Act of 1963, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has no bearing on the subject at all. In the Act of 1963 it was quite clear that if one was going to elect members to a dying authority for only a year, and that their constituencies were going to be shot from under them, one would not get the candidates. Therefore, one had to postpone the election, and this was agreed between both sides after adequate consultation.
Of course, the cat was just let out of the bag by the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), who is not now, I think, in his place. During the course of our discussion this evening he blew in, blew off and blew out, and he made it very clear why it was that he thought the borough elections should be postponed, as did an hon. Member who was roosting in the back seats opposite, in an interjection. They thought it was right that the borough councils—and I took down almost the exact words of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central—that the care displayed by the children's service alone justifies another year's authority.
In other words, the doctrine now is alleged to be that because a Labour borough council has done so well, a Labour borough council shall be prolonged in office by the authority of a Labour majority in Parliament which regards any Interference with its authority as impertinent because they say they have got a majority at a General Election on a different subject rather less than a year ago.
If that is democracy, I am a Dutchman. This is gerrymandering of the worst possible kind and the right hon. Gentleman has defiled the reputation which I know he values. The other

291
person who has defiled it worse still is the hon. and absent Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) whose interest in letters rarely exceeds his interest in democratic principles. He accuses people of imagining that they have received letters from his constituencies. He twitted me with not having sent him one such letter. True I did not retain the letter, but I remember well what was in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] The writer said that he could hope for nothing from his own hon. Member but that he hoped the Conservative Party would object to what was being done by the Labour Government—and we do.
Miss Bacon: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the points made during this discussion. I pay the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) this compliment; his speech, more than any other from the benches opposite, was to do with the Amendment.
Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order. Why should the right hon. Lady have the leave of the House to speak again when the Home Secretary is here?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Lady does not require the leave of the House and it was unnecessary for her to seek it. She is in charge of the Amendment from the Government's point of view and has every right to reply to the discussion.
Miss Bacon: The debate has ranged far and wide, from Hitler's Germany to Mussolini's Italy and from the Common Market to Northern Ireland. I regret having missed the speech of the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) because I am told that he promised to present me with a Valentine card if the debate went after midnight.
Mr. Berry: I said that only if the right hon. Lady accepted the Lords Amendment would she deserve one.
Miss Bacon: I regret to learn that I shall be disappointed.
It has been said that we did not mention the introduction of the Bill in our election manifesto. It comes ill from hon. Gentlemen opposite to raise that as an argument in favour of the Amendment.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Why?
Miss Bacon: Because I remember many Measures being introduced when the right hon. Gentleman was in power, and no mention of them—[Interruption]—for example, the Rent Act, 1958—had been made at previous General Elections.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I made the point that there was no mandate for this Measure and no mention of it at the last General Election. I said that in the context of the right of another place to insert the Amendment. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will now address herself to that point.
Miss Bacon: I did not gather that the right hon. Gentleman was adducing that argument. I thought him to be saying that we had no mandate for the Bill.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is correct.
Miss Bacon: The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) said that my right hon. Friend has yielded to pressure from the London Labour Party to introduce the Bill. In fact, we were first urged to introduce the Measure by the London Boroughs Association. It had a special committee which considered this very question. We heard a great deal about this special committee when we were debating the Bill in Committee, but we have not heard anything about it tonight, and I will tell the House why we have not.
The special committee of the London Boroughs Association was unanimous in recommending this course of action, and there were Conservative members sitting on it. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod), who is not with us tonight, made many allegations about this during the passage of the Bill in this House. When we were considering a similar Amendment previously, the right hon. Gentleman said that the special committee had not made the decision unanimously. So the Chairman of the London Boroughs Association, Mr. Norman Prichard, decided to call a meeting including members of the Conservative Party in order to settle whether this had been a unanimous decision. When the meeting was called, the leader of the Conservative Party on the London Boroughs Association wrote to Mr. Prichard saying that there was no need to call the meeting because he

293
was able to confirm the fact that the decision of the special committee which included Conservative members was unanimous.
Mr. Richard Sharples: Was the person who wrote the letter a member of the special committee when the Minister decided?
Miss Bacon: I do not want to waste time at this late hour, but I can read the letter. It is from Alderman A. G. Taylor, the leader of the Conservative Party on the London Boroughs Association, and Deputy Chairman of the Association. He wrote:
"I understand that the meeting of the special committee which has just been arranged for 29th December is solely to deal with the allegation made by an Opposition spokesman in Parliament that the special committee's recommendation at its meeting on 29th January last that the borough elections should be postponed from 1967 to 1968 was not unanimous. As you know, I was not myself a member of the special committee at that time, but I have made inquiries and am satisfied that the recommendation was, in fact, unanimous, and I have the authority of all the Conservative members present at that meeting to say this."
The special committee of the Association then circularised all the members of the Association, and 20 out of 32 were in favour of the change being made this year, including three Conservative boroughs. Therefore, it is very wrong indeed for hon. Gentlemen opposite now to say that this was just pressure from the Labour Party.
As has rightly been said, the issue on this Amendment is whether or not there should be two elections this year, those
elected to the boroughs then holding office for the next four years according to the Amendment, or whether we should make the change now. I remind the House that, although the present members of the London boroughs were elected in 1964, they did not really become operative until 1965, and there have been only two effective years of government since they were elected. It has been mentioned that in the provinces we manage to have two elections within a month or so of each other. I live in the provinces and know that this is true. But the difference here is that there are annual elections for the urban district councils and the rural district councils.
I must say that there is not a very great deal of enthusiasm shown for the elections which come within a few weeks of the previous ones. If we look at the poll in the Greater London Council elections and in the London borough elections in 1964 we see there were these results: the poll for the Greater London Council elections in 1964 was 44·2 per cent., compared with only 35·7 per cent. for the London borough council elections a month later. We believe, therefore, that it is right to make this change now. Mention has been made of the powers of the other place, and it was said in another place that this was being treated as a matter of principle. I hope the House will reject this Lords Amendment.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 151.

Division No. 269.]

AYES

[12.35 a.m.

Abse, Leo

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Dempsey, James

Albu, Austen

Brooks, Edwin

Dewar, Donald

Alldritt, Walter

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Allen, Scholefield

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Dickens, James

Anderson, Donald

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)

Dobson, Ray

Archer, Peter

Buchan, Norman

Doig, Peter

Armstrong, Ernest

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Donnelly, Desmond

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Driberg, Tom

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Cant, R. B.

Dunn, James A.

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Carmichael, Neil

Eadie, Alex

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Coe, Denis

English, Michael

Barnett, Joel

Coleman, Donald

Ensor, David

Baxter, William

Concannon, J. D.

Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Crawshaw, Richard

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Fernyhough, E.

Binns, John

Dalyell, Tam

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Blackburn, F.

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Boardman, H.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Booth, Albert

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Ford, Ben.

Boston, Terence

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Forrester, John

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

Fowler, Gerry

Bradley, Tom

Delargy, Hugh

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Freeson, Reginald

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Redhead, Edward

Galpern, Sir Myer

McCann, John

Rees, Merlyn

Gardner, Tony

MacColl, James

Reynolds, G. W.

Garrett, W. E.

MacDermot, Niall

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Gourlay, Harry

Macdonald, A. H.

Richard, Ivor

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

McGuire, Michael

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Gregory, Arnold

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Mackintosh, John P.

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Maclennan, Robert

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Hamling, William

McNamara, J. Kevin

Roebuck, Roy

Harper, Joseph

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Rose, Paul

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Haseldine, Norman

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Hattersley, Roy

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

Sheldon, Robert

Heffer, Eric S.

Manuel, Archie

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

Henig, Stanley

Mapp, Charles

Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Marquand, David

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Hooley, Frank

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Horner, John

Mayhew, Christopher

Skeffington, Arthur

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mellish, Robert

Slater, Joseph

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Mendelson, J. J.

Small, William

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Howie, W.

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Hoy, James

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Molloy, William

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Hunter, Adam

Moonman, Eric

Swain, Thomas

Hynd, John

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Swingler, Stephen

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenahawe)

Taverne, Dick

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Tinn, James

Janner, Sir Barnett

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Urwin, T. W.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Murray, Albert

Varley, Eric G.

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Neal, Harold

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

Newens, Stan

Watkins, David (Consett)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Judd, Frank

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

Weitzman, David

Kelley, Richard

Oakes, Gordon

Wellbeloved, James

Kenyon, Clifford

Ogden, Eric

Whitaker, Ben

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

O'Malley, Brian

White, Mrs. Eirene

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

Oram, Albert E.

Whitlock, William

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Orbach, Maurice

Willey Rt. Hn. Frederick

Lawson, George

Orme, Stanley

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Leadbitter, Ted

Oswald, Thomas

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Lee, John (Reading)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Winnick, David

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Pavitt, Laurence

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Lipton, Marcus

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Winterbottom, R. E.

Lomas, Kenneth

Pentland, Norman

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Loughlin, Charles

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Woof, Robert

Luard, Evan

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Yates, Victor

Lubbock, Eric

Price, William (Rugby)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Probert, Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Randall, Harry

Mr. Edward Bishop and

Mr. Neil McBride.

NOES

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Glyn, Sir Richard

Astor, John

Clegg, Walter

Goodhart, Philip

Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

Cooke, Robert

Goodhew, Victor

Awdry, Daniel

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Gower, Raymond

Balniel, Lord

Cordle, John

Grant, Anthony

Batsford, Brian

Corfield, F. V.

Grant-Ferris, R.

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Crawley, Aidan

Gresham Cooke, R.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Crowder, F. P.

Gurden, Harold

Biffen, John

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Biggs-Davison, John

Currie, G. B. H.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Black, Sir Cyril

Dance, James

Harison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Blaker, Peter

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Hawkins, Paul

Body, Richard

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

Hay, John

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Doughty, Charles

Heseltine, Michael

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Eden, Sir John

Higgins, Terence L.

Brewis, John

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hiley, Joseph

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Errington, Sir Eric

Hirst, Geoffrey

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Eyre, Reginald

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Bryan, Paul

Farr, John

Hordern, Peter

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Fisher, Nigel

Hunt, John

Bullus, Sir Eric

Fortescue, Tim

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Carlisle, Mark

Foster, Sir John

Iremonger, T. L.

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Channon, H. P. G.

Glover, Sir Douglas

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

296

297

Jopling, Michael

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Scott, Nicholas

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Sharples, Richard

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Kershaw, Anthony

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Sinclair, Sir George

Kimball, Marcus

Neave, Airey

Smith, John

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

Kirk, Peter

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Summers, Sir Spencer

Kitson, Timothy

Nott, John

Tapsell, Peter

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Onslow, Cranley

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Lambton, Viscount

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Teeling, Sir William

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Temple, John M.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Longden, Gilbert

Peel, John

Van Straubenzee, W. R.

MacArthur, Ian

Percival, Ian

Wall, Patrick

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Peyton, John

Walters, Dennis

Maddan, Martin

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Weatherill, Bernard

Maginnis, John E.

Pink, R. Bonner

Webster, David

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Pounder, Rafton

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Maude, Angus

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Prior, J. M. L.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

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

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Ridsdale, Julian

Miscampbell, Norman

Roots, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Mr. Francis Pym and

Monro, Hector

Russell, Sir Ronald

Mr. R. W Elliot.

More, Jasper

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Remaining Lords Amendments disagreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendments to the Bill: Miss Alice Bacon, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Quintin Hogg, Mr. Gordon Oakes, and Mr. Dick Taverne; Three to be the quorum.—[Miss Bacon.]
To withdraw immediately.
Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
Mr. Arthur Palmer discharged from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries; and Mr. Edward Rowlands added.—[Mr. Lawson.]

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
Deferred proceeding resumed—
The House again resolved itself into the Committee—
[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(RAISING OF LIMITS ON GUARANTEES &C.)
Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 12, at the end to insert:
'Provided that, for the purpose of encouraging trade with places outside the United Kingdom, part thereof may be applied in guaranteeing moneys invested in industrial and commercial undertakings overseas'.
The CHAIRMAN,The CHAIRMAN,pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)), put the Question, That those words be there inserted.
Amendment negatived.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SALOP)
Deferred proceeding resumed—
Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)), put the Question,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Salop (No. 2) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1529), dated 6th December 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December, be annulled:
The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 222.

Division No. 270.]

AYES

[12.45 a.m.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Astor, John

Glover, Sir Douglas

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Awdry, Daniel

Goodhart, Philip

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Balniel, Lord

Goodhew, Victor

Neave, Airey

Batsford, Brian

Gower, Raymond

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Grant, Anthony

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Nott, John

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Onslow, Cranley

Black, Sir Cyril

Gurden, Harold

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Blaker, Peter

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Body, Richard

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Percival, Ian

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hawkins, Paul

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Higgins, Terence L.

Pink, R. Bonner

Brewis, John

Hiley, Joseph

Pounder, Rafton

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Prior, J. M. L.

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hordern, Peter

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hunt, John

Roots, William

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Carlisle, Mark

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Channon, H. P. G.

Jopling, Michael

Sharples, Richard

Chichester-Clark, R.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Clegg, Walter

Kershaw, Anthony

Sinclair, Sir George

Cooke, Robert

Kimball, Marcus

Smith, John

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Cordle, John

Kirk, Peter

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

Crawley, Aidan

Kitson, Timothy

Tapsell, Peter

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Crowder, F. P.

Lambton, Viscount

Teeling, Sir William

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Temple, John M.

Currie, G. B. H.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Dalkeith, Earl of

Longden, Gilbert

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Dance, James

Lubbock, Eric

Wall, Patrick

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Walters, Dennis

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Maddan, Martin

Weatherill, Bernard

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

Maginnis, John E.

Webster, David

Doughty, Charles

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Eden, Sir John

Maude, Angus

Whitelaw, William

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

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

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Eyre, Reginald

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Farr, John

Miscampbell, Norman

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fisher, Nigel

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Mr. Michael Heseltine and

Fortescue, Tim

Monro, Hector

Mr. John Biffen.

Foster, Sir John

More, Jasper

NOES

Abse, Leo

Brooks, Edwin

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Albu, Austen

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Dickens, James

Alldritt, Walter

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Dobson, Ray

Allen, Scholefield

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

Doig, Peter

Anderson, Donald

Buchan, Norman

Donnelly, Desmond

Archer, Peter

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Driberg, Tom

Armstrong, Ernest

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Dunn, James A.

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Cant, R. B.

Eadie, Alex

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Carmichael, Neil

Ensor, David

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Coe, Denis

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Coleman, Donald

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Baxter, William

Concannon, J. D.

Fernyhough, E.

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Crawshaw, Richard

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Binns, John

Dalyell, Tam

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Blackburn, F.

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Ford, Ben

Boardman, H.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Forrester, John

Booth, Albert

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Fowler, Gerry

Boston, Terence

Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Delargy, Hugh

Freeson, Reginald

Bradley, Tom

Dempsey, James

Galpern, Sir Myer

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Dewar, Donald

Gardner, Tony

Garrett, W. E.

MacColl, James

Redhead, Edward

Gourlay, Harry

MacDermot, Niall

Rees, Merlyn

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Macdonald, A. H.

Reynolds, G. W.

Gregory, Arnold

McGuire, Michael

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Richard, Ivor

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mackintosh, John P.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Maclennan, Robert

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Hamling, William

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Harper, Joseph

McNamara, J. Kevin

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Haseldine, Norman

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Roebuck, Roy

Hattersley, Roy

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Rose, Paul

Heffer, Eric S.

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

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Henig, Stanley

Manuel, Archie

Ryan, John

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Mapp, Charles

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Hooley, Frank

Marquand, David

Sheldon, Robert

Horner, John

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mayhew, Christopher

Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Mellish, Robert

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Mendelson, J. J.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Howie, W.

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Skeffington, Arthur

Hoy, James

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Slater, Joseph

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Small, William

Hunter, Adam

Molloy, William

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Hynd, John

Moonman, Eric

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Swingler, Stephen

Janner, Sir Barnett

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Taverne, Dick

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Tinn, James

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Murray, Albert

Urwin, T. W.

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

Neal, Harold

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Newens, Stan

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Judd, Frank

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Kelley, Richard

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

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Kenyon, Clifford

Oakes, Gordon

Weitzman, David

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

Ogden, Eric

Wellbeloved, James

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

O'Malley, Brian

Whitaker, Ben

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Oram, Albert E.

White, Mrs. Eirene

Lawson, George

Orbach, Maurice

Whitlock, William

Leadbitter, Ted

Orme, Stanley

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Lee, John (Reading)

Oswald, Thomas

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Lewis, Arthur (w. Ham, N.)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Lipton, Marcus

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Winnick, David

Lomas, Kenneth

Pavitt, Laurence

Winterbottom, R. E.

Loughlin, Charles

Pentland, Norman

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Luard, Evan

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Woof, Robert

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Yates, Victor

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Probert, Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

McCann, John

Randall, Harry

Mr. Edward Bishop and

Mr. Neil McBride.

SCOTLAND (STATUTORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]
12.55 a.m.
Mr. James Davidson: My reason for seeking to raise this rather broad subject on the Adjournment is twofold. I am worried, and I know that many others are worried, by the fact that more and more boards and committees are continually being set up which not only seem to be non-accountable to the electors, be they comprised of members of committees of local authorities, directors on the boards of large companies, or members of statutory boards or the public committees set up by the Government, but which are taking
302
important decisions affecting thousands of people and large sums of money, often making these decisions far away from the places where the decisions will take effect, decisions which are very often contrary to the wishes of the people who are the nominal electors and who are, incidentally, the people who provide the money to carry out the decisions—the ratepayers, the taxpayers, the private investors, or the suppliers of the raw materials for manufacturing processes.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune" may be true for the consumer of a commodity where there is still some element of choice, as, for instance, in a well-stocked "sweetie" shop, but far too often there is no real choice and often the ratepayer or taxpayer or investor who pays the piper never even hears the tune. This is particularly true of Scotland under a system by which power and

303
wealth are concentrated in the South of England.
This in turn attracts many of those with ambition, brains, qualifications, or money to invest, away from the remoter regions to the Metropolitan area. Inadequate transport in Scotland and distance from the centre of the spider's web is another cause of depopulation and of the vulnerability of all types of industry north of the Border.
The trend towards centralisation in the London area has become a vicious circle. The greater the concentration, the greater the pull and the greater the ill-effects of congestion, remote control and bureaucracy, and the greater the powerlessness of the citizen. It seems to be generally accepted in Government and commercial circles that all ideas and decisions must originate in London, that all roads and ambitions must lead there, that everything at some stage must pass through the overloaded filtration plant of the Metropolis.
I make no apology for raising a subject which is no more a criticism of the present than of any other Government of the last 20 years; nor for making criticisms which are difficult to answer because of their general nature. I appreciate that the Government have established development areas in an attempt to redress the imbalance to which I have referred. I know that the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill is an attempt to provide the citizen with a new weeping wall, but as two sides of the wall are out of bounds—the local government side and the Ministerial decision side—its usefulness will be rather limited. I know that some decisions affecting Scotland are taken in Edinburgh.
In order to give the Minister something more specific to answer, I should like to give some examples of the kind of conflict to which I am referring, although I fully appreciate that local authority decisions are outwith his jurisdiction. However, I would like to give a few instances in which individuals, or groups of citizens, have found themselves powerless against local authority committees. It might be argued that the electorate has the opportunity at local government elections to remedy the situation, but under the present system of local government in Scotland—particularly in rural areas—so few men and
304
women have the time and money to serve on local authority councils that freedom of choice and opportunity is largely illusory, in spite of the dedication of many councillors. In one old people's home I know the patients can see the doctor only when the matron considers that they really need to do so.
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member is now raising seems to be a matter for local authorities rather than the Minister.
Mr. Davidson: With your permission, I am raising the issue of the conflict of the private citizen with public committees. I accept that this is not the Minister's responsibility—
Mr. Speaker: I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise, but he can raise only something for which the Minister is responsible—some Minister, any Minister.
Mr. Davidson: I accept your Ruling. I was hauled into a dispute between a hotel and a local authority, but perhaps this is also something into which I should not go. Whether it is a local authority committee, a statutory board or committee set up by the Government, this is still a matter of conflict between the private citizen and a public committee and a matter which should be brought to the attention of the House.
I will pass on to the position of the private citizen versus statutory boards I am certainly not the only Member of this House who has been informed that the Government cannot interfer with the decision of a statutory authority. Once the members of a board have been appointed to whom are they answerable? For example, neither the Hydro-Electric Board, the Coal Board, the British Railways Board, the Scottish Tourist Board, the Highland Development Board, nor any Rural Development Board, when it is set up, is apparently answerable to the electors, directly or indirectly.
None of these is listed in Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, under authorities subject to investigation. Yet the electors are the people providing the cash for boards to carry out their functions. There are many people who feel, as I do, that because coal is nationalised and the industry is run by the National Coal Board, coal should cost the same throughout the country, but

305
there seems to be no way of pressing this view upon the board. The argument used is that those close to the source of supply should benefit thereby. But on the basis of that argument, both whisky and electricity should be cheaper in the north of Scotland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Two identical dwellings in the same county and at the same altitude and latitude can be faced with an immense difference in the capital cost of connection to a main electricity supply, just because of an accident of geography, or the whim of the appropriate hydroelectric board. As for the Board of British Railways, and the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, the private citizen is by now well aware that his views, in conflict with the Board, are as effective as a pea-shooter against a tank. The T.U.C.C. is simply a valve to allow him to let off steam. The way that members of the T.U.C.C. vote on any particular closure is not even publicly disclosed.
In the case of the closure of the Dee-side Line, in my constituency, a year or two ago we engaged a firm of business consultants to see what could be done to make the line pay, but British Railways refused to divulge the key figures, although they had originally agreed to do so.
The sum of £360 was raised, partly by contributions from Ballater Town Council and the Deeside Tourist Association, and partly as a result of a public appeal for funds. The district traffic superintendent of British Railways at Aberdeen indicated to the committee and to the consultants that he would co-operate with the consultants and supply them with any information they might require. However, when half way through their survey, the consultants were informed in 1964 by the district traffic superintendent that British Railways were not prepared to amplify in any way the figures given in the heads of information supplied to objectors before the T.U.C.C. and in the Beeching Report. The actual words used in the final paragraph of the letter were:
"… the British Railways Board is under no obligation whatever to provide financial justification for a proposed withdrawal of a passenger train service, either to the T.U.C.C. or to individual objectors. Under the provisions
306
of the Transport Act, 1962, the T.U.C.C. can only hear objections on the grounds of hardship, and questions on the financial aspects of the case are not within their remit. In these circumstances, I very much regret that the Board is not prepared to amplify in any way the figures given in the Heads of Information … and the further breakdown in revenue and expenditure which is given on Pages 100 and 101 of the Reshaping Plan."
I must protest very strongly that British Railways, being owned by the public and under obligation to them, must be prepared to justify their actions. There was good reason in this case to believe that the figures given for the Deeside line in the heads of information and the Beeching Report were seriously inaccurate, but without further information from the Railways Board this could not be proved. Naturally, the inference drawn was that the board's case would not stand up to critical examination. It was significant that the figures in the heads of information did not appear to tally with those in the Beeching Report.
Application was made for local representation to the Scottish Economic Planning Council. It was refused on the ground that the decision was to be made "from a non-parochial viewpoint". In effect, this meant that British Railways' opinion was taken but that the business consultants' report, made at the expense of local residents, including myself, was never shown to the members of the Scottish Economic Planning Council before that council advised the Minister.
As for the more recently proposed closure of the Strathmore line—the direct route between the largest city in the North of Scotland, Aberdeen, and Scotland's main commercial centre, Glasgow—neither the North-East nor the Tayside consultative group was conferred with. The Transport Committee of the. Scottish Economic Planning Council apparently gave advice without drawing on local opinion, and an official statement to the effect that the journey via Dundee would take no longer was not strictly true.
It appears that the public are kept in ignorance of the activities of the Scottish Economic Planning Council. Its agenda and minutes appear to be secret and the public have to rely on Press reports based on letters from Government officials. Press reports, for example, made no mention of the fact that the S.E.P.C. advised the Minister of Transport on the Strathmore line in July, 1966. It had been

307
supposed that regional consultation would take place first on the lines of the Minister of Transport's White Paper, Cmnd. 3057, but not so. Aberdeen and the North-East will now almost certainly have to rely on one line, and the inferior one at that, for all rail traffic south.
One further point about the S.E.P.C. is that its members and those of the four regional groups, numbering about 125 in all, have been appointed by the Secretary of State, and not elected. Although the names of some women were put forward, none has been appointed. Whilst I would not care to see these bodies dominated by women, I suggest that they should at least be fairly represented.
Another example of impotence in the face of a decision by a statutory board was the recent refusal by the Air Transport Licensing Board to allow a Scottish airline to operate three direct routes between Scotland and the European Continent, mainly, it seems, because B.E.A. did not want competition, although that competition would have been via London and the Scottish airline would have operated direct from Glasgow. At this very moment, the international airport of Prestwick is entering the first round of a battle for survival against the massed forces of the London centralisation lobby.
I do not intend to give specific examples of the powerlessness of the private citizen in conflict with the boards of public companies, but it is, I think, generally accepted that the voting rights of the small shareholder are more imaginary than real. There is little that he can do to influence a company's policy or even to get somebody whose views he respects elected to the board. He is usually too distant or busy to attend the annual general meeting. Even if he did, he would have to convince the chairman that it was desirable to organise a postal ballot for election to the board.
In any event, the company's share capital is almost invariably concentrated—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has to show that some sort of Ministerial responsibility is involved.
Mr. Davidson: I was taking this part of the subject, Mr. Speaker, also as part of my theme that the private citizen is
308
powerless in conflict with statutory boards and corporate bodies—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's theme, but the general theme can only be developed as far as some Ministerial responsibility is concerned.
Mr. Davidson: I thought that, on the fringe, this was possibly applicable under the Companies Act. But I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker.
I realise that the Minister cannot answer this problem tonight, but to those who are interested in the spreading of wealth and power by economic instead of by political means, in stimulating economic growth, which I am sure is a concern of the Minister's, and in finding an answer to the problem of automation and the theories of Karl Marx, I can recommend a little book called "The New Capitalists", by the American Professors Adler and Kelso. It provides an answer to the problem posed by the steady shift of power from labour to capital by the process of automation, and to the fact that economic growth seems no longer to bear any direct relationship to consumer demand.
To meet the problem of the impotence of the private citizen in Scotland in conflict with statutory boards, public committees and certain corporate bodies, we must give people greater powers of decision over their own affairs. The problem will become greater still if and when we enter the E.E.C. I hope that we shall enter the Common Market, but this problem in Scotland should be tackled before we do.
We need further delegation of authority from central Government to a regional level and, at the same time, an increase of powers at local level. There must be a Scottish Parliament for Scottish affairs taking decisions in Scotland, elected regional councils for regional centres, and local authorities of a practical size for affairs of a purely local nature. But, at each level, the committees and boards which are set up by government, whether national, regional or local, must be answerable to the electors—to ordinary people—unless we are to lose the rights and freedoms for which our forbears in Scotland have fought so hard.
1.12 a.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): To seek to answer in an Adjournment debate an important subject of this kind is one of the most difficult tasks that I have ever had.
The entitlement of the individual citizen to reasonable treatment in his dealings with authority in its diverse forms and at its various levels is something which hon. Members in all parts of the House ought to safeguard, because every Government have a continuing responsibility to the extent that their powers allow. But when one looks at the profusion of Statutes that there have been in this century alone, not only by Labour Governments and Conservative Governments but even by Liberal Government, inasmuch as they can be recalled, with respect, there are Statutes persisting still which are subject to the same defects as have been continuing ever since. I admit that, because these have been errors in the past, no matter how they have emerged, that is no reason why they should persist.
May I take the point which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) made in relation to the activities of local government for which Ministers are not responsible? On many occasions, Parliament has given to local authorities the allocation of houses, certain planning powers, certain matters governing the transport of children to school, and many other discretionary powers, far wider than many people in Scotland recognise.
Parliament has done that in the belief that local government is energetic and vigorous and that there is a great response of electors to the election of councillors and the activity of work in local government. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that it is growing more difficult to get people to stand for local elections in Scotland, as it is in other parts of the country. It is particularly true of some of the rural counties, and Aberdeenshire is no exception. I take his point also that there are those active in local government who are to be commended for what they do.
If his prescription for the ills which he has sought to highlight is more local participation, one has to face the problem
310
that we have many uncontested seats in Scotland. The explanation and the remedy for that situation may be advanced by the Royal Commissions sitting in both countries. Certainly I hope so.
There is, I think, a study going on by the Maud Committee in England which may have some lessons for us in Scotland regarding the remuneration, be it on a full-time or a part-time basis, of councillors in this regard. Local democracy is very important and is very much concerned with the consultative committees which have been established by many of the nationalised industries. I shall not refer to the Parliamentary accountability of the nationalised industries, but simply to the work of the consultative committees.
The South of Scotland Electricity Board Consultative Council has 47 per cent. of its membership composed of representatives drawn from the local authorities. The North of Scotland Hydro Electricity Board Consultative Council has 50 per cent. of its representatives drawn from the local authorities. In the case of the Consultative Council of the Scottish Gas Board, 59 per cent. of the members are drawn from local authorities. I do not have precise figures for hospital boards and regional hospital boards in Scotland, but a high percentage of the membership is drawn from local authorities.
I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman. He is complaining that these persons are responsible only to their electors in the given wards, towns, or rural districts from which they are drawn rather than to the consumers of the area which is served by these nationalised boards. This is a very big topic of discussion. I do not think that there are any remedies peculiar to any one party in this matter. I think that this is a problem of democracy, rather than one of party doctrine, and we will just have to see how we can resolve it in various ways.
I doubt whether we can have direct elections for every statutory board and every consultative committee. I think that the people of this country would rapidly grow sick of going into the polling booths, unless of course we did it on the Americal model of pulling one lever to elect 200 persons to public office in

311
one heave. This is a matter which I cannot go into on an Adjournment debate, other than to add a comment here and there on one or two matters.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and said that perhaps we ought to extend its area. But we have discussed this, both in Committee and since in Parliamentary Question and Answer. We certainly have in mind the idea that we might at some later stage include certain areas. Bute and Arran have been advanced very strongly, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has advanced the case for North Perthshire, and indeed the hon. Gentleman at one time advanced the case for West Aberdeenshire being within the Highlands and Islands area. But even if we were to extend the present area—and we do not intend to; at present we intend to stick to the six crofting counties which have problems of their own to try to resolve—it would bring up the question of the direct participation of local people in the working of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
I think that the Board would be weakened if it were to draw its members from elected members in the Highlands and Islands, because I do not think that that part of the world has shown itself remarkably receptive to the ideas which might allow investment and progress to take place, and because of the very vested interests which would be taken on to the Board.
Mr. James Davidson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the area of remit of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and its relation to neighbouring counties. Perhaps he could in passing say something about the Cairngorms, which is a special case, because it is obvious that, geographically, the Cairngorms extend outside the area of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
Dr. Mabon: I think that is obvious, and I accept it. There are many matters which will flow from the work of the Board which are bound to overlap into other areas. Bute and Arran is perhaps as good an example as the Cairngorms area. Many of the recommendations
312
which the Board makes will come within the purview of other boards, for example, the tourist board, which is not a statutory body, but is a manufacturer's cooperative and has Government blessing. But it is not a statutory body, although it could become one, such as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) has advocated. There again, it will be difficult to find a tourist board which we could elect without depriving ourselves of a great deal of the expertise which we have only just acquired on the tourist board.
May I say, without disrespect, that this board was formerly drawn from people who, by definition, were not in the industry. They were do-gooders, and I mean no disrepect who meant to try to promote tourism, but they were not involved in the activities of tourism and this Government have taken an entirely different view of tourism, which we think has been quite undeveloped in Scotland. We think that this ought to be done by persons who are in the business of tourism, and that they ought to try to advance the interests of tourism.
Again, there is a danger in electing simply a tourist board and hoping we would somehow or other get the best results out of that, unless we have an administrative section along with the board—which would mean employing a large number of people we do not have to employ.
I do not want to go into some of the points about the National Coal Board, but I should like to touch on the subject of railway closures. I am glad that the hon. Member is willing to recognise that the structure of the 1962 Act was not brought about by the present Government. Indeed, I remember in this Chamber seeking with some of my hon. Friends to amend the Transport Bill of 1961–62 so that in addition to the S.T.U.C.C. there would be some council to take into account the social and economic consequences of many of the closures. All that Ministers in the present Government could do was to operate administratively so that there was an additional, non-statutory procedure to go through before these decisions could be processed in the proper way as laid down by Statute.
Of course the hearing of evidence of objectors is laid down by Statute as

313
a public hearing, but not the proceedings of committees, and this again cannot be changed unless Ministers bring in amending legislation. This must be comprehensive and radical, and this has meant waiting for at least these two years before a Bill could be presented to Parliament. A great deal of work has had to be done on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence first about the Deeside line, and he has been assured that the understanding of the Minister is that British Railways, Scottish Region, will not authorise the disposal of the track without obtaining the views first of the Secretary of State, and ultimately the consent of the Minister of Transport.
The Ministry has now defined the word "track" as being not just the track but also associated apparatus and buildings which would be necessary in the event of a decision to reinstate passenger services. This is very important.
I think it is fair to say about consultative groups that they have only just started to function. The North-East group and the Tayside group have not been slow in making their views known. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that these lines could be reopened at some later date if there was a clear economic reason why this should be done.
314
I think this is the best assurance one can give in the circumstances. I would hope we are through the worst of the Beeching proposals in Scotland, and, if I may say so, I think the Secretary of State has done remarkably well in his activities in relation to this with the Ministry of Transport. I am only sorry that the same vigour was not shown by the previous Administration in regard to earlier closures, some of which we cannot reprieve. But again we want to protect the tracks of many of these in case, as a result of group representations and representations from industry, we are able later to make use of these lines.
I think I can summarise the view of the Government on the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment in this way. We accept that the price of freedom in this country is eternal vigilance, not just on the part of Members of Parliament, or indeed of Ministers, who are essentially Members of Parliament, but also on the part of local councillors.
The Question having been proposed after half-past Nine o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-six minutes past One o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Smoking (Public Places)
  Smoking (Public Places)
  Health Centres, Wellingborough
  Health Centres, Wellingborough
  Invalid Vehicles (Garaging)
  Invalid Vehicles (Garaging)
  General Practitioners and Nurses (Incomes)
  General Practitioners and Nurses (Incomes)
  Flour (Chalk Additives)
  Flour (Chalk Additives)
  Common Cold Research Unit
  Common Cold Research Unit
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Private Medical Services
  Private Medical Services
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Dental Health (Children)
  Dental Health (Children)
  Mental Health Act
  Mental Health Act
HOSPITALS
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Maidenhead Hospital (Rebuilding)
  Maidenhead Hospital (Rebuilding)
  Drug Addicts (Treatment Centres)
  Drug Addicts (Treatment Centres)
  Northampton and Kettering Hospitals (Casualty Departments)
  Northampton and Kettering Hospitals (Casualty Departments)
  Maternity Cases
  Maternity Cases
  Beds (Number Unused)
  Beds (Number Unused)
  Domestic Staff (Shortage)
  Domestic Staff (Shortage)
  Mrs. Henrietta Burns
  Mrs. Henrietta Burns
  Maternity Facilities (Northallerton)
  Maternity Facilities (Northallerton)
  Electricians
  Electricians
  Patients (Inquiry into Deaths)
  Patients (Inquiry into Deaths)
  Harrow Hospital
  Harrow Hospital
  Agency Nurses
  Agency Nurses
  Patients (Meal Charges)
  Patients (Meal Charges)
  Kidney Machines (Wales)
  Kidney Machines (Wales)
  Midwives
  Midwives
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Scamp Report
  Scamp Report
  Selective Employment Payments Act (Guide)
  Selective Employment Payments Act (Guide)
  Unemployment (Croydon)
  Unemployment (Croydon)
  Apprenticeships (Teenage Girls)
  Apprenticeships (Teenage Girls)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  New Jobs (Scotland)
  New Jobs (Scotland)
  Pollard Bearings, Ferrybridge (Dispute)
  Pollard Bearings, Ferrybridge (Dispute)
  Printing Industry (Cameron Report)
  Printing Industry (Cameron Report)
  Manpower Requirements (North East)
  Manpower Requirements (North East)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Unemployment (Scotland)
  Unemployment (Scotland)
  Employment
  Employment
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEMS
  ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEMS
  FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICIAL (LETTER)
  FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICIAL (LETTER)
  MR. KOSYGIN (VISIT TO SCOTLAND)
  MR. KOSYGIN (VISIT TO SCOTLAND)
  GIBRALTAR
  GIBRALTAR
  FOREIGN SERVICE, GERMANY (ALLEGATIONS)
  FOREIGN SERVICE, GERMANY (ALLEGATIONS)
  CONGO (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  CONGO (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  PERMANENT YOUTH CENTRE, STRASBOURG
  PERMANENT YOUTH CENTRE, STRASBOURG
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Widow's Pension
  Widow's Pension
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Child Allowance (Mrs. Chalkeley)
  Child Allowance (Mrs. Chalkeley)
  Departmental Staff (Publications)
  Departmental Staff (Publications)
  Benefits (Marriage Certificates)
  Benefits (Marriage Certificates)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Leasehold Reform
  Leasehold Reform
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Domestic Gas Plants (Effluent)
  Domestic Gas Plants (Effluent)
  Rate Relief (London Boroughs)
  Rate Relief (London Boroughs)
  Local Government Officials (Allowances)
  Local Government Officials (Allowances)
  Coastal Authorities (Sewage Disposal)
  Coastal Authorities (Sewage Disposal)
HOUSING
  Land
  Land
  Rents (Birmingham)
  Rents (Birmingham)
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Cancer Research (Expenditure)
  Cancer Research (Expenditure)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Beaches (Oil Pollution)
  Beaches (Oil Pollution)
  Air Services, Wales (Grants)
  Air Services, Wales (Grants)
  Airports and Navigation Services (Deficits)
  Airports and Navigation Services (Deficits)
  Cotton Textiles (Imports)
  Cotton Textiles (Imports)
  Aircraft Factory, Blackpool
  Aircraft Factory, Blackpool
  Davies Investments Limited
  Davies Investments Limited
  Protection of Depositors Act 1963
  Protection of Depositors Act 1963
  Export Credit Guarantee Department (Shipbuilders)
  Export Credit Guarantee Department (Shipbuilders)
  Board of Trade Factories, Rhondda
  Board of Trade Factories, Rhondda
HOME DEPARTMENT
  New Prison Building
  New Prison Building
  Prisoner (Interview with Security Officer)
  Prisoner (Interview with Security Officer)
  Prisons and Borstals
  Prisons and Borstals
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Television Licences (Retirement Pensioners)
  Television Licences (Retirement Pensioners)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks (Cathkin and Springhall Area)
  Kiosks (Cathkin and Springhall Area)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Military Aid)
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Military Aid)
  Tasmania Relief Fund (Contribution)
  Tasmania Relief Fund (Contribution)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Brucellosis (Compensation)
  Brucellosis (Compensation)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Barracks and Married Quarters
  Barracks and Married Quarters
  Service Men and Families (Housing)
  Service Men and Families (Housing)
  Variable Geometry Aircraft
  Variable Geometry Aircraft
  Polaris Submarines
  Polaris Submarines
  Polaris Missiles (Warheads)
  Polaris Missiles (Warheads)
  Overseas Units (Disbandment)
  Overseas Units (Disbandment)
  Military Medal
  Military Medal
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gross Domestic Product (Increase)
  Gross Domestic Product (Increase)
  Royal Mint
  Royal Mint
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Economic Development Committees
  Economic Development Committees
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Coastal Authorities (Sewage Disposal)
  Coastal Authorities (Sewage Disposal)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Ironfounding Industry (Capacity)
  Ironfounding Industry (Capacity)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Directorate General of Research and Development
  Directorate General of Research and Development
  Barracks and Married Quarters (Cost)
  Barracks and Married Quarters (Cost)
  Sir Winston Churchill (Statue)
  Sir Winston Churchill (Statue)
SCOTLAND
  Local Government Officials (Allowances)
  Local Government Officials (Allowances)
  Perth Traffic (Study)
  Perth Traffic (Study)
  Protestant Primary School, Shawhead
  Protestant Primary School, Shawhead
TECHNOLOGY
  Legal Information (Retrieval by Computer)
  Legal Information (Retrieval by Computer)
  Hovercraft Development Ltd. (Resignations)
  Hovercraft Development Ltd. (Resignations)
  Joseph Lucas Limited (Prices)
  Joseph Lucas Limited (Prices)
WALES
  Roads
  Roads

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

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE: CATTLE SLAUGHTER METHODS
2.35 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will apply, with any necessary modifications, the humane killing regulations to any future slaughter carried out in consequence of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, the Slaughter of Animals Act 1958 and the regulations made thereunder apply to slaughter in slaughterhouses and knackers' yards. The principles of this legislation are and will continue to be adhered to in slaughtering in foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks wherever practicable. Slaughtering in foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks is normally carried out by a veterinary surgeon or by licensed slaughter men using the captive bolt pistol. In rare cases where animals cannot be closely approached, an
2
expert marksman using a rifle or free bullet pistol is employed. My right honourable friend has undertaken to make a Statement shortly about slaughtering procedure in the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northumberland.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that Answer. While I am perfectly satisfied that in the case of the Northumberland outbreak all possible precautions were taken, might I ask the noble Lord, in view of the correspondence in the Press, whether he would give an official undertaking that precautions against the use of firearms by irresponsible people will be taken in future?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I think we should await the Statement to which I have referred, which will be made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, before going any further into this matter.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the normal procedure was always followed. Could he say whether the normal procedure was followed in Northumberland?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, so far as I know, normal procedure was followed in Northumberland, but as allegations have been made that this was not so an inquiry is being carried out, and the result will be communicated to the House and public by the Statement of my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: As the noble Lord has referred to the inquiry, can he

3
also explain why it is not a public inquiry?
LORD WALSTON: Because all the facts will be more readily obtainable by having it in the form in which it is being carried out.

HIGH WYCOMBE BY-PASS
EARL FORTESCUE: 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 general situation regarding the High Wycombe By-Pass on A40; and whether the large notices "Opening 1966" which were only recently taken down will be replaced by a further and more accurate forecast.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the western section of the By-Pass from Stokenchurch to Handy Cross will be open to traffic early this summer. Work on the eastern section is in progress and the whole motorway is due to be opened in the autumn of 1968.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. May I ask a supplementary question which is cognate but not directly arising from this? It is at the request of a noble Lord who cannot be here. What is the position to the West of Stokenchurch, going down Aston Hill?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should have thought that that was quite another question. If the noble Earl's friend would like to have information he can either write tome or put a Question down on the Order Paper.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, first, whether he is aware that his Answer will be very gratefully received, because the line of this by-pass was first surveyed in 1921 and it is nice to know that it is going to be opened next year? May I ask him, more seriously, whether the Government have considered what will happen to traffic when it leaves the newly opened extension on the west side and has to go down the hill into High Wycombe, and
4
whether it will not be worse than not having that section opened at all?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I understand that a one-way system is to be introduced on some of the new link roads, and that will greatly reduce conflicting traffic movements. I agree that there are going to be difficulties there, and no doubt the police and the other responsible people will be doing what they can to reduce hardship.

THE MINISTER FOR DISARMAMENT
2.40 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the recent changes in ministerial duties at the Foreign Office mean that there is no longer a Minister of State with special responsibility for disarmament.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): No, my Lords. My noble friend Lord Chalfont's responsibilities in this field remain unchanged. His other duties were defined by the Prime Minister on January 23, 1967.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask, as a supplementary, whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House is able to give an assurance that the Government's activities and initiatives for disarmament will not be diminished by the new responsibilities undertaken by the Minister of State in charge of disarmament?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I can give that assurance very easily. We consider that the noble Lord's assistance in the field of disarmament will be still more effective with the new duties that have now been conferred on him.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that it would be entirely artificial to separate disarmament from defence? Surely these two matters are part and parcel of the same problem, and therefore is not my noble friend Lord Chalfont exactly rightly placed for coping with both?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I would certainly agree with that, too. I would say that disarmament is inseparable from national and international security.

MR. KOSYGIN'S VISIT
LORD SHEPHERD: I should like to inform the House that shortly after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be repeating a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the visit of Mr. Kosygin.
NEWQUAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. For some of your Lordships there will fie a feeling of having been here once before. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, is exceedingly familiar with the process, both of nationalisation and of denationalisation of steel, and a short time ago I noticed a number of your Lordships in the House of Lord's Library looking up your earlier speeches. I noticed, too, that the volumes had been elevated to such a height, through age, that it was a somewhat hazardous operation.
My noble and greatly loved friend, the late Lord Hall, who introduced the
6
Second Reading of the Bill nearly twenty years ago, started by pointing out that we should all agree that it was a controversial measure. The present Bill has been the subject of prolonged, thorough and, let me say, unguillotined debate in another place. The policy contained in it is one on which opposing views are strongly and, I believe, sincerely held in this House as elsewhere. Nevertheless, there are important changes as compared with the situation that existed on the previous occasion. To begin with, we on this side of the House shall not be so lonely as my noble friend Lord Longford and others were, because many of my noble friends who have joined us since that time will be taking part in this debate; and also, and equally important, during the discussions of the last two years much common ground has been revealed. I should like to start by pointing to three major points of agreement.
The first of these major areas of agreement is that there is a need for a fundamental structural reorganisation of the British iron and steel industry. The British Iron and Steel Federation themselves have recognised the need for basic change by setting up their Development Co-ordinating Committee, under Sir Henry Benson. In their Stage 1 Report published last July this Committee said that
"the cost, including capital charges, of producing British steel would now be reduced by developing works which are substantially larger than the average run of steel works at present existing in Britain and mostly some way larger even than the biggest of the existing British works."
This new emphasis on larger works and companies results to a large extent, though not wholly, from recent advances in technology and in management techniques which are making economies of scale increasingly important in the steel industry.
It is worth referring to the advantages of scale of which we hear so much. First, there are those which arise from the technological conditions of production. The Benson Committee formed the view that because of recent technological advances the optimum size for steel works would in the mid-1970s be 5 million ingot tons annual capacity for wide strip mills and 3½ million ingot tons capacity for multi-product integrated works. It is clearly impossible to accommodate

7
works of this size into the present structure of the British steel industry in which the largest company—Richard Thomas and Baldwins—has an annual capacity of less than 4 million ingot tons. The second type of advantages of scale are those which flow from bringing existing works under one central management for major policy and investment decisions.
This can clear the way for considerable economic gains—for example it makes possible the concentration of production on works with the lowest escapable costs and rationalisation in the movement of raw materials and finished and semifinished products. The scope for this type of rationalisation has been increased and will go on being increased by the development of new management techniques based on the use of computers. If I may give a particular example which is relevant to a single, organised steel industry, the Central Electricity Generating Board have shown, for example, how mathematical techniques, models and so on, and computers can be used to plan investment, not just in terms of individual power stations, but in relation to its effect on the electricity generating system as a whole over many years ahead.
The steel industry is well qualified, in the skill and scientific background of its managers and scientific advisers, to apply techniques of this sort once the basic organisation is there to enable this to be put into effect. While the British steel industry as now organised is unable to secure these advantages of scale, it is a fact that our main overseas competitors have been rapidly putting their steel industries into a position where they can secure these advantages. There are no steel works in this country with an annual capacity of more than 4 million tons; but there are seven in the United States, two in Japan and one in the European Coal and Steel Community. As for companies, there is none in the United Kingdom with an annual capacity of more than 4 million tons, but four in the E.C.S.C., eight in the U.S.A. and five in Japan. These figures emphasise, if any emphasis is needed, the urgent need for structural change in the British steel industry. Here I think there will be general agreement among your Lordships.
The second major area of agreement is that this basic industry cannot be left to
8
the free play of competitive forces, subject only to those restraints which apply to private industry as a whole. The steel industry is very capital intensive and subject to strong cyclical fluctuations in demand. As the experience of the 1920s and early 1930s showed, this means that in periods of surplus capacity, such as exists to-day, all-out competition would be likely to load to price cutting to a level which would endanger the future of the industry. The need for limitations on competition and a measure of outside supervision was recognised in the early 1930s when the tariff on steel imports was introduced and the Import Duties Advisory Committee secured the establishment of the British Iron and Steel Federation and a voluntary control on steel prices. This need was reaffirmed by the Conservative Party in the Iron and Steel Act 1953 and by the industry in the proposals for a new supervisory authority submitted last year which I understand were generally endorsed by the Party opposite. Thus the argument is not about whether there should be free competitive enterprise or public control in the steel industry; it is about the form which public control should take.
The third main area of agreement is that an end must be put to uncertainty and the industry must be given a permanent statutory framework in which to operate. The point was well put by Mr. Judge in his presidential address to the British Iron and Steel Federation in March last year shortly before the General Election, when he said:
"The British steel industry stands plagued with a political atmosphere of nationalisation and denationalisation ad infinitum. I should like to feel confident that the Government we have after the Election will see that there must be an end to this. Britain needs a real and lasting solution for steel."
That it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to achieve. I would only add that the need to put an end to uncertainty and introduce the new arrangements quickly is emphasised by the difficulties now facing the industry which were outlined by my right honourable friend the Minister of Power in his Third Reading speech in another place.
Now I fear I have to leave those areas on which there is wide, if not unanimous, agreement, and come to the controversial question: is this Bill the best method of

9
giving the industry the new statutory framework that it needs? Would it not be better to leave the industry itself under a new supervisory authority to make the necessary changes? And is it not true that it has already made a start on this with the Benson Committee and the proposed merger between Dorman Long, South Durham and Stewarts and Lloyds? Let me take the latter question first. The short answer is that the industry in the last few years has not made the necessary structural changes while its foreign competitors were doing so, and that the recent moves were made only after it had become clear that the Labour Government were going to be returned to office with a majority large enough to carry through the nationalisation measure. The Benson Committee was established on March 9, 1966. The proposals for a new supervisory authority were not submitted to my right honourable friend until May 10, 1966, after the General Election and after the Queen's Speech had announced that a Bill would be introduced
"to restore public ownership and control of the main part of the steel industry".
As for the merger, I cannot do better than quote from the leading article in The Times of November 29 last:
"They"—
that is to say, the three companies—
"will prove that the threat of nationalisation is not stultifying progress in the industry. In this case the reverse is true. The threat has encouraged the merger."
The necessity for such mergers is not something new. The Iron and Steel Board, the independent supervisory body established under the Conservative Iron and Steel Act 1953, said in their last Annual Report that the Board had
"for long"—
and I stress the words "for long"—
"been of the opinion that the industry needs to be reorganised into fewer but individually larger units equipped with plant of a greater size than is generally the case at the moment."
The case for this Bill is not just the negative one that the industry has failed to reorganise itself. We are not concerned here with punishing sinners, however repentant. The case for the Bill rests on two positive points. First, if reorganisation is to be effective, it must cut right across existing company frontiers—for example, it may well be desirable to group together under one management the three
10
works in South Wales and also the three works at Scunthorpe. The works in each of these complexes are owned by different companies which also own works in other parts of the country. Such drastic reorganisation is possible only with common ownership of all the main producing units, which, of course, means public ownership. Second, there are likely to be substantial economic advantages to be gained from strong central control exercised in certain fields by the proposed National Steel Corporation. For example, the Corporation, taking a view of the industry as a whole, will be able to take central decisions about new development and the withdrawal of obsolete plant and to ensure that their decisions are put into effect—a power which the Iron and Steel Board themselves have stated they lack. They will be able also to take measures to improve efficiency by concentrating output on works with the lowest escapable costs. They will be able to promote exports by concentrating them on works best placed to ship overseas. Measures of this sort go beyond anything which is possible with the existing companies or even with the multi-product competing groups envisaged by the Benson Committee.
Perhaps the main argument which has been advanced against the Bill is that it will lead to a monolithic central organisation eliminating all competition and all diversity. But this is not the intention of the Bill or of the Government. Certain key functions such as the planning of investment and the withdrawal of obsolescent plant, national labour negotiations and price policy will have to be exercised centrally by the Corporation. But, equally, it would clearly be impossible and undesirable in such a large organisation to take or even to attempt to take the day-to-day operating and management decision centrally. It will be necessary for the Corporation to reorganise the nationalised companies into a small number, probably from three to five large groupings and to delegate responsibilities to them to the maximum extent consistent with the efficiency of the industry as a whole. This technique of decentralisation, while exercising the necessary central control, is a matter which is well understood by the industry.
Let me now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. These give effect to

11
the general objectives which I have set out. The Bill establishes a National Steel Corporation. Clause 9 provides that there will vest in this Corporation the securities of the 14 major steel companies listed in Schedule 1, which satisfy the criteria in Clause 9(3). These companies form the dominant sector of the steel industry. They own all our integrated iron and steel works. Together they and their subsidiaries had in 1965 a capacity of 29 million ingot tons and they produce well over 90 per cent. of the country's total production of pig iron, crude steel and heavy products. They employ nearly 280,000 people, and have a turn-over of about £1,000 million. Their combination under the Corporation will therefore create a unit of management well able to stand up to those being created abroad. Concentration on these 14 major groups will also make it easier for the Corporation to concentrate quickly on major issues of policy without distraction.
Under Clause 9, nationalisation is to be effected by transferring to the Corporation the securities of the 14 scheduled companies. This is the simplest and most expeditious method. It will initially leave the companies in existence as going concerns. But the Corporation will be their sole shareholder and, as such, will be able to reorganise their company structure, to wind up companies, effect mergers and establish new groupings.
The Bill itself does not prescribe the form of organisation for the nationalised sector. The Government decided that it should not do so, for two reasons. First, it would be wrong to take decisions in advance about the organisation of the industry before those who would actually be responsible for running it could form their own views and give their advice. And, second, to prescribe the form of organisation in the Bill would have meant—and I emphasise this—undue rigidity, since the organisation could then have been changed, in response to changing economic and technical conditions, only by means of amending legislation. The essence of the situation is that here is an industry in which important technological developments are continuously occurring, which may affect the structure and organisation of the steel industry.
12
But the organisation of the nationalised sector of the industry is so important that it must come under the ultimate control of the Government and of Parliament. Clause 4 therefore requires the Corporation to undertake a review of the public sector's organisation immediately after vesting day, and to submit a report to the Minister within a year, or such longer period as the Minister may allow. It also requires the Corporation to submit further reports as often as they think it necessary or the Minister requires it. All such reports will be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Finally, Clause 7(2) gives the Minister power to give the Corporation specific directions on organisation; and, of course, the Minister will be answerable to Parliament for the use he makes, or fails to make, of this control. These provisions should ensure both that the organisation of the public sector is flexible and that it is under ultimate public and Parliamentary control.
Clause 4 also requires the Corporation to consult the trade unions before reaching conclusions on organisation, and Clause 30 contains important new provisions, introduced in another place, which makes it clear that there should be joint consultation between management and employees on all aspects of efficiency in the nationalised steel industry, and that the participants in the joint consultative and conciliation machinery should have all the information they reasonably need to play an effective part in the discussions. These are far-reaching new provisions which show the Government's determination to ensure, while maintaining—and this is important—the responsibility of management to manage, that the workers in the steel industry should have a real opportunity to participate in the taking of decisions affecting their livelihood and in the continuous development of the Corporation's general policy.
I should now like to turn briefly to the subject of compensation. I shall not say very much about this, because there will be further opportunities on which noble Lords will be able to deploy arguments. I will just state that compensation for quoted securities is to be based on the average of Stock Exchange quotations on mid-month days over alternative periods, whichever gives the higher valuation. The longer period is the 61 months from April, 1961, to April, 1966; the shorter

13
period is the 6 months from November, 1965, to April, 1966. The value of unquoted securities is to be settled between the Minister and the stockholders' representative. If they cannot agree, it is to be such value as may be determined by arbitration to be the value the securities would have had had they been quoted. Compensation will be satisfied by the issue of Government stock to the value, calculated in the way I have described, of the securities which are taken over. In our view the average of quotations over a five-year period is fully adequate to reflect fairly the value of the securities, in the light of the industry's varying performance and prospects. But no doubt other views will be expressed on this matter, and my noble friend will be prepared to deal with this more fully in reply to the debate. There are undoubtedly those who consider that the compensation is mean, but there are also those who think that it is over-generous.
Let me say a word about diversification, on which I think some quite unnecessary fears have been expressed. I hope that what I have to say will show the real anxiety of the Government to ensure that this situation is properly understood. The Corporation, under Clause 2, will have the power to undertake any activities which any publicly owned company was at any time authorised to undertake, and, by agreement, to acquire interests in companies other than those which are nationalised under the Bill. This is not a back door to wholesale nationalisation. All I want to say now is that the Government believe that it is right that a nationalised steel industry should have the same powers as privately owned steel industries to follow commercial opportunities and secure the advantages of diversification, provided that two conditions are met.
The first condition is that there must be some check to ensure that measures of diversification by the nationalised steel industry are consistent with the national interest overall. The Bill provides for this, in Clauses 2 and 37, by making any extension of the diversified activities of the Corporation and the acquisition of interests in companies by the Corporation or the publicly owned companies subject to the Minister's approval—a negative power of the Minister. The second condition is that all reasonable information must be published, so that there can
14
be Parliamentary and public scrutiny to ensure that inefficiency or losses in the diversified activities are not hidden in the results of the Corporation as a whole. This condition is met by a very important new clause, Clause 25, which was introduced in another place, and which requires the Corporation to publish very full information, going beyond the requirements imposed on companies by the Companies Bill, about the diversified activities of the nationalised steel industry. But, my Lords, again speaking as one who has been in industry, I would say that it is unlikely that any responsible management, would seek, merely for the hell of it, so to speak, to advance into areas which are not properly to the commercial advantage of the Corporation; and there will be the veto of the Minister where the national interest may transcend the commercial advantage to the Corporation.
Let me now turn to another area where anxiety has been expressed; namely, the private sector. The private sector of the iron and steel industry, after nationalisation, will consist of about 250 iron and steel companies and some 1,200 iron and steel foundries. Together, these concerns have an annual turnover of £400 million to £500 million, and employ about 200,000 people. This is still, on any account, a substantial section of the national economy, but it does not occupy anything like the same dominating position as the steel industry as a whole. Two points follow from this. First, it would be absurd for the Government, having decided that this sector should not be nationalised, to encourage or permit the nationalised sector, by unfair competitive practices, to drive this substantial private sector into the ground. Second, it is in general not necessary to continue special statutory supervision over this private sector. Clauses 27 and 28 and Schedule 2 to the Bill therefore provide for the dissolution of the iron and Steel Board and for the discontinuance of the powers of the Board, with one exception. It has always been recognised in the steel industry—and the Benson Report reaffirmed this—that the development of the industry needs to be looked at as a whole. Clause 15 therefore continues, but in a restricted form applied only to the basic fields of iron and steel making, the control over investment projects which is now exercised by the Iron and Steel

15
Board and which after vesting day will be exercised by the Minister of Power.
My Lords, while the Bill removes most of the statutory controls over the private sector it introduces a number of provisions designed to protect the private sector against the possibility of unfair trading practices by the Corporation. The Government believe that the fears which have been expressed on this score are without foundation, but we equally believe that it is desirable to do what we can in this Bill to remove the genuine misgivings of the future private sector companies. Accordingly, under Clause 2 and Clause 37 the Corporation and the publicly owned steel companies are required to obtain the Minister's consent before acquiring interests in any private sector steel company, even though that acquisition can in any case be effected only by agreement. Clause 5 requires the Corporation to publish the normal prices and terms and conditions of sale of iron and steel products by themselves and the publicly owned companies; and, in accordance with an undertaking given in another place, I shall be introducing an important new clause to give private sector iron and steel producers a right to appeal to the Minister against alleged unfair trading practices by the Corporation. I hope this will show to your Lordships the determination of the Government to encourage the iron and steel industry in its private sector.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Power will be the Minister with production responsibilities for the iron and steel industry as a whole—both the nationalised and private sectors—and he has repeatedly made clear that he intends to exercise these responsibilities in a positive and vigorous fashion to promote the health of both sectors of the industry. We may have an opportunity at a later stage to go into some of the plans he has for encouraging and assisting both sectors.
My Lords, let me turn now to the steps that will have to be taken after the passing of this Bill into law. Clause 9(5) provides that vesting day may not be later than 36 weeks after Royal Assent, and Clause 4 requires the Corporation to submit to the Minister within 12 months of vesting day a report on the future organisation of the industry. These two periods are, however, maxima, and the Govern-
16
ment hope and intend that both periods will in practice be well within these statutory limits. To this end, my right honourable friend the Minister of Power appointed at the end of September an Organising Committee to prepare for the establishment of the Corporation and the transition to public ownership. Their work has already gone a long way, and the Government are confident that, because of it, the transition to the new arrangements will be quick and smooth. The Government particularly welcome the fact that the leaders of the industry, both those who have joined the Organising Committee and others, are co-operating fully and whole-heartedly in the practical implementation of the new arrangements, irrespective of whether they were themselves supporters of nationalisation. In this connection, I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the undoubted achievement in terms of human relations and ability of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, Chairman of the Organising Committee.
May I now sum up the case for the nationalisation of the steel industry? Here, I ask noble Lords who do not agree with the views of those of us who sit on this side of the House to accept our belief that, in the special circumstances of the steel industry, where free competitive enterprise has not existed for many years, public ownership is necessary to make the industry more effective, more viable, and more adaptable to future developments. This is not just an attempt to introduce more nationalisation into British industry. What is the best form of organisation for each industry depends upon its particular circumstances. Whatever may be the long-term views of those of us who sit on this side of the House, as Socialists, of the sort of society we should like to build, the primary aim of this Government—indeed, it should be of any British Government—in the industrial field must be to stimulate quickly greater efficiency and increased productivity. In the aircraft industry the Government rejected proposals for either nationalisation or a majority holding. We have repeatedly recognised the importance of profits and the desirability of encouraging competition, where it is possible, as one stimulus towards more efficient management. I do not therefore believe that anyone can fairly accuse the present

17
Government of making a dogma of nationalisation; but I hope, also, that no one will want to make a dogma of private enterprise. Developments, both in this country and abroad, show how old-fashioned such a dogma would be.
I have to-day argued the case for public ownership of the iron and steel industry on its merits, and at this stage I do not want to embark on too long an argument of nationalisation versus private enterprise. I am bound to say, however, that it is my personal opinion that we have failed to give credit to the achievements of the publicly owned industries in this country. This is largely as a result of the political prejudices of the Conservative Party, who still to-day make a shibboleth of private enterprise and regard any extension of the direct influence of the community over industry as the work of the devil. It is high time we recognised that our nationalised industries—and this is technically so—are among the best managed in this country. It is interesting to see the unwillingness of noble Lords opposite to recognise this. There are noble Lords on that side of the House who have had experience, and who know how efficient they are. Let me point out that in certain areas these industries are leading the world. The gas industry has carried through with vigour and success one technological revolution. The Atomic Energy Authority and the electricity supply industry, working with the nuclear consortia, have given this country the lead in the exploitation of nuclear power.
I beg noble Lords opposite to recognise these facts, bearing in mind that public ownership flourishes in other countries and not least in the steel industry itself. Two of the fastest-growing steel industries are the Italian, in which the major steel producer is in public ownership, and the Austrian, which has produced the Linz-Donawitz technological development which has revolutionised steel-making. And steel is not the only example. I would also point out to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that the French half of the Concord is being produced by a publicly owned company.
One could go on endlessly, but what I wanted to say was this: public ownership has proved itself to be successful not only in the field of public utilities—which is sometimes said, unfairly and
18
absurdly, to be the only field for public ownership—but also in the field of competitive commercial enterprise. As one who has worked for many years in a highly competitive enterprise I have never been able to understand why private ownership was the only sine qua non for commercial efficiency.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will excuse me; but since he seems to be making quite a lot of this point may I ask whether he would agree that the return on capital employed in the nationalised industries or in private enterprise is indicative of efficiency? Some figures were given by a member of the noble Lord's Party in the House of Commons: in B.O.A.C., for 1964–65, the return on capital was 2·2; in B.E.A.. 3·5; in the National Coal Board, 3·7; in the Gas Area Boards, 4·3; in the Electricity Area Boards, 5·7; in the publicly owned sector of the steel industry, 0·2—and in the privately owned sector, 7·2.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will not give way to the noble Lord again. He will know, when he has been longer in this House, that interventions should be rather brief; and he will know also, when he has been here longer, that we have debated these matters at length. I could produce an equal number of figures of returns for the industries which he did not mention and still they would be of no more relevance to the case which is confronting us to-clay in organising the steel industry. However I know the noble Lord is active in the Conservative Party research centre, who no doubt produced these figures for him.
My Lords, there are other advantages in public ownership which are relevant to the steel industry. This is a great manufacturing industry which, whether under public or private ownership, needs to be run on vigorous commercial lines. But it is also an industry of focal and dominating importance to the economy which provides a basic raw material for manufacturing industry generally. And the role of the steel industry is not merely passive: it has a dynamic and positive role to play in sustaining economic development and in regional economic development. This again noble Lords opposite must recognise. The Government do not believe that functions as

19
important as these to the community as a whole should be left to private interests. They must be entrusted to a publicly owned industry the directors of which will be responsible to a Minister and ultimately to Parliament, for the efficiency with which they run the industry and for ensuring that the policies of the industry, while vigorously commercial, are also consistent with the wider national interest.
I do not expect the Conservative Party to accept these, as they seem to me, obvious social principles, but the Government's decision does not rest on these alone. The question to be asked is: could a steel industry organised into competing private companies carry through rationalisation with the speed and completeness which the situation demands? This is a question which noble Lords who reply to this debate must in fairness answer. Overseas steel industries have been carrying through rationalisation, in all sectors, for many years. We must, if we are to remain competitive, do very soon and very quickly what they have taken years to do. And the rationalisation must, as theirs has been, be really radical, extending into every branch of the industry. I am bound to say that I can see little prospect of a rationalisation of this sort being carried out with a privately owned industry as fragmented as the steel industry is. There are many conflicting and quite legitimate private interests involved here. Rationalisation may very well be to the short-term commercial disadvantage of some companies and their share-holders. How are we to deal with these conflicting private interests? Only by a long process of persuasion, for which we cannot afford the time, and with no guarantee at the end that the changes will be sweeping enough. The only alternative would be to impose rationalisation which, while the industry remained in private ownership, would mean sweeping aside quite legitimate private interests. In short, although the industry might be able to make some progress towards rationalisation by itself, it could not, with the best will in the world, carry through the radical and urgent reorganisation which the industry's circumstances demand.
The limited nature of the recent developments—the fact that the recent
20
merger is restricted to one sector and that the Benson Committee, while drawing up an ideal blueprint, has not solved—and I shall be interested to know how anyone would solve it—the basic problem of how to induce all the interests to move towards that new policy, proves that no solution other than the radical and whole-hearted one of public ownership will meet the needs of today.
The steel industry has suffered for too long from political uncertainty. It faces short-term problems of great difficulty and a fundamental structual reorganisation is urgent. The need now is to end uncertainty by passing this Bill into law and introducing the new arrangements. I know that many of your Lordships do not like the Bill althought I hope, I must admit with no great confidence, at least with the Party opposite, that my arguments for it have made some impression. But the last thing which the industry and the nation can afford is a prolonged delay. I do not ask any noble Lord to withhold the expression of strongly held beliefs. I do ask, in the interests of the industry and the nation, that you should give the Bill a Second Reading to-day and speed the completion of its remaining stages. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Shackleton.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARO: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Too late!
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I point out that 90 per cent. of the steel production in the free world is in private industry?
3.30 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the Excellent Socialist speech he made. In accordance with the latest technique, one trots out various semi-spurious management arguments, throws a computer or two about the place and talks about economy of scale—for once, we did not get "critical path analysis"; but I expect it at any moment. Then when we really got down to the dogma of taking things into public ownership, his eyes lit up and he almost began to foam

21
at the mouth with the joy and pleasure of taking over yet another industry. This is why, I submit, we must not be taken in by the so-called managerial arguments. Although it is a bulky Bill, it is a very empty Bill. It does very little. It is, as the Minister in another place when introducing it correctly described it, an enabling Bill, a Bill to enable the Socialist Government to take over the privately owned iron and steel industry, to compensate inadequately the shareholders and to set up one or two rather odd ancillary organisations of one type or another, some of which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in his speech of introduction.
Therefore I submit to your Lordships that we should not be taken in by the so-called managerial arguments. They change as the years go by. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was in the House of Commons with me when the then Labour Government introduced the steel nationalisation Bill in 1949. The arguments were somewhat different then. There was talk of various matters. Indeed, the arguments were different in the inter-war years when the Labour Party extolled the necessity for the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. Though the arguments change, the objective is always the same: "We are going to take over this industry, whatever people say and however poor the arguments may be"—and that is what we are witnessing to-day.
We are told, of course, that we must not say a word against the nationalised industries and that we should be reactionary old "so-and-so's" if we did; but we could produce many arguments against the nationalised industries, and if I am not too long in the course of my remarks I may do so to-day, or I may do so at a later stage in the discussions on the Bill. Let us look at the case for the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry without dragging in the other industries, good, had or indifferent—and some of them have very poor performances indeed.
The Socialist Party nationalised the industry in 1949. When we denationalised it in 1953, we made a sincere attempt to provide a permanent solution by setting up an Iron and Steel Board, which would offer that degree of central supervision which the noble Lord sug-
22
gested is needed now, and which at the same time enabled the denationalised companies to pursue their policies with the maximum degree of individual and competitive freedom. I freely admit that, after ten years' experience of the workings of the Board and the denationalised industry, some changes were required; indeed, after a decade it would be surprising if some changes were not needed, particularly with regard to the powers of the Board. As a result of investigation by the Restrictive Practices Commission it was clear that a change in pricing policy was needed. But this, of course, was no argument for wholesale nationalisation—none whatsoever. All that the Labour Government have done on returning to power is to say, "We must have nationalisation, and we will find some arguments to justify it afterwards." From time to time pious allegations of inefficiency are made, dropped when exposed, and then new hares are started. It is very interesting to see how the arguments have changed in the short period between the Minister of Power making a Second Reading speech in another place, and the present Minister's Second Reading speech in this House.
Of course, my Lords, the iron and steel industry faces problems of organisation and development, but this Bill makes no attempt to solve them. Instead, the Bill says, "We will nationalise the industry first and let the National Steel Corporation solve the problems afterwards", which is going about the whole matter in the wrong way, because the National Steel Corporation may well find that it might be better if the industry had not been nationalised. Then, of course, it would probably be too late, with the present Government in office, to turn the clock back.
If I may give an example from another industry where a Socialist Government have behaved in a much more rational way, I would mention to your Lordships the shipbuilding industry, where there are problems of far greater magnitude in proportion to the size of the industry than in the iron and steel industry. In this case they proceeded in what I would call a normal way. They said, "There is something the matter here. We will set up a special and urgent committee to go into the matter", and they set up what is known as the Geddes Committee which reported quickly. As a

23
result there is a Board in existence which is looking into what needs to be done to reorganise the shipbuilding industry. Surely, the time for legislation will be when that Board has completed its work. If the Board recommends public ownership of certain sections of the shipbuilding industry it will be a rational and logical development, and the proper subject for legislation; so that if the Socialist Government had been intellectually honest in this matter that is the way they would have proceeded. They would have examined the industry and the proposals made, and if the proposals included nationalisation, they would then have had ample justification for bringing this measure before your Lordships' House.
My Lords, of the many arguments which the Labour Government have put forward, it is possible for me, in the course of a short speech, to refer to only one or two. We are told that the industry needs reorganising; but the Bill does not tell us how this is to be done. We are merely referred to the National Steel Corporation who are to do it for us and we, as one of the two Houses of Parliament, are to have no say whatsoever in their plans and dictates. We are told that rationalisation is needed, and that foreign steel groupings are bigger than the ones in this country. But those foreign steel groupings have been brought about, not by nationalisation, but by the free flow of competitive forces. We are to be the only free-enterprise country with a substantial iron and steel industry that is to be nationalised in some extraordinary attempt to make it better able to emulate free-enterprise industry in other free-enterprise countries. Japan, America and the others are said to have bigger and better industries than ours; but they, fortunately—and Germany, too—have escaped the dead hand of nationalisation. I do not think we need say that the steel industry of Italy is any way comparable to that of Britain, and it is not a proper example or comparison for the Minister to give.
The Minister made great play with the L.D. process in Austria, an interesting development already being overtaken by the spray steel process in this country, being put forward by a small company,
24
the Millom Company, at its own expense; and because it is a small company it has been told, at the instigation of the British Government, that it is not to be allowed to proceed with this development.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? It has actually been told that it cannot go on, so far as it has been so told, by the Iron and Steel Board which was set up by the previous Government. Furthermore—the last thing I want to do is to say anything to the discredit of this highly enterprising company—the process was, of course, very largely developed by BISRA. I pay full credit to them for introducing it. But the noble Lord must not say that it is the Government who have said this development must not proceed. Indeed, the company would have a right to appeal to the Government.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I should be very surprised if the Iron and Steel Board, under the threat of dismissal in the next few months, would dare to take a decision of that sort without consulting the Ministry of Power—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Cheap!
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: It is not cheap or unfair, my Lords. That happens to be the case. As regards BISRA, who is the principal subscriber to the funds of BISRA? It is the privately owned iron and steel industry.
LORD MITCHISON: Will the noble Lord give way?
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I am quite willing to give way to the noble Lord, but I thought that your Lordships would like me to get on with my speech.
LORD MITCHISON: I wonder whether the noble Lord contends that Stewarts and Lloyds, who put up and completed for operation about a year ago an extremely large and expensive plant based on the L.D. process, have been doing the wrong thing the whole time.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: No, my Lords, they were doing the right thing at the time. But then developments take place. The trouble with Socialists is that they are for ever looking backwards and not forwards. They cannot accommodate themselves to changes in technology

25
and techniques. It may be that this great concept of large units is already out of date. With new processes it may be better to do it with small units. There is no guarantee. All we are being told by the Minister is that we must move towards larger units. I accept the fact that they may have been right at the time, but it does not mean that they are going to be right in the future; and it certainly was not right to stop the Millom company from making the developments with which they had planned to go ahead.
LORD ROYLE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? He is very generous. Why is it that the Millom firm have had to appeal to the Minister, if it is the Minister who is responsible for deciding? In fact, it is not the Minister, but the Iron and Steel Board.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, as I said, I am quite sure that the Board would not have reached a decision without first consulting the Department, and I shall be very surprised if the Minister overrules the decision of the Board. If he does, I shall be very glad to withdraw, but I do not for a moment suppose that he will.
We have been told that the industry has failed to put forward its own proposals, but it has been getting on with the job all the time. It has had to cope with the uncertainty arising from a situation after October, 1964, but it got down to the job and produced the Benson Committee Report. It has already been proceeding with its own ideas of rationalisation, so that the industry has not been backward or asleep in this matter. Then we have been told, if not this afternoon, certainly in the Minister's Second Reading speech, and in later propaganda, that there is no proper pricing or competition in units of the industry. Ask any salesman in the privately owned sector of the steel industry, and he will tell you that there is plenty of competition between the different companies, if not in price, then in quality, delivery and service. And the situation has been changed, of course, by the ruling of the Restrictive Practices Commission. As a result, the industry proposed to introduce a more competitive system of pricing, but that has been vetoed by the present Labour Government. How, in these circumstances, will nationalisation help to make the industry
26
more competitive in itself and with its overseas competitors?
Then it is frequently said that the industry cannot get the finance required for its development. This is quite untrue, because the industry has been able to invest well over a £1,000 million in major development schemes during the last ten years. In the case of Colvilles, a £50 million loan was made by the Government for the continuous strip mill which was to be located in Scotland, expressly at the Government's request for the development of industry in Scotland. That was a case of Government intervention rather than of putting industry where it was economically most suitable. It hardly counts, therefore, as a case of the industry being unable to raise any money for its own capital development. The industry is convinced that it can raise funds for its forward development programme if it is permitted to charge fair prices, and if it is freed from uncertainty about the future. A further charge made against the steel industry in its present form is that not only is it not making sufficient investment, but it has not sufficient capacity for the future. This is clearly contradicted by Labour's own National Plan, which on page 144 states:
"Steel capacity should be adequated to meet the needs of the Plan in the period to 1970."
There is also the question of exports. We are told that the steel industry is not doing well because it is not increasing its exports. But it is important to realise that the developing countries are setting up their own iron and steel industries—Argentina, Egypt and India, to name but three—so that those overseas markets are no longer available for British steel exports. Even so, the year 1965 was a record for direct steel exports from this country, which stood at a level of 4·7 million tons. At the same time, imports were reduced by 1¾ million tons. By value, exports were £203 million and imports £43 million. So that the iron and steel industry in its present ownership has made a substantial favourable contribution to the balance of payments.
There are many arguments against this Bill, and I hope that I shall not be accused of being an old-fashioned dogmatist if I dare to produce a few arguments against nationalisation. I do not mind admitting that I am against nationalisation in all its forms. I saw a good

27
deal of it at first hand when, as Minister of Power, I had the difficult position of trying to supervise three nationalised industries. I have seen some of the difficulties from inside. But as regards the iron and steel industry, the real difficulty with this nationalisation Bill is that it is going to cause a considerable measure of disruption in the short time that elapses while the new plans, whether they be good or bad, are worked out. In any event, it is boing to break up the integration of certain firms—notably Parkgate Iron and Steel Works, a subsidiary of Tube Investments, part of the Vickers Group, and another, as well. On the one hand, Socialists tell us that we should have big units and integration; but when it comes to steel industry we must break up this integration when it suits their book. In the case of the steel construction industry, we shall have the absurd situation of half the industry being nationalised and the other half, not nationalised, with all the problems that that poses for obtaining fair competition between the two sides of the industry. I am sure that when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt by a Government Department, it will be the nationalised half of the industry that will get the contract and not the private firm.
The steel plant industry, a very important exporting industry, is currently almost crippled by the lack of orders for new steel plants for no reason other than that the Government are determined to nationalise the industry. The industry has approached the Ministers concerned. It has been referred to the Chairman of the Organising Committee, who, I quite understand, is not in a position to say anything at this stage. But meanwhile this important exporting industry is languishing. There are unfair conditions for the firms who are left out, despite the assurances given by the Minister. Moreover—most important for the future—Britain's entry into Europe will be made more difficult. I am not going to deal with this aspect in detail, because my noble friend Lord Windlesham, when he comes to wind up for the Opposition, will do so.
But one of the worst features of this nationalisation Bill, even as thoroughly explained by the Minister, is that the spur of competition will be removed. In
28
conditions of competition it is only the successful that survive, and in the free-enterprise system it is interesting to see how many there are who fail, or who are swallowed up, before they finally fail, by those who are successful. One of the great difficultes for a nationalised industry—
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord would be good enough to explain to what extent and in what way competition is expressed in the steel industry?
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, there is a limit to the number of times I can give way. I am already giving offence to my noble friends on this side by doing so. There is considerable competition on price, quality and delivery by existing firms: and some do well, and some badly. Richard Thomas and Baldwins, who have lost something like £30 million over the last four years, provide a good example of a company who would have gone under if they had not remained nationalised and been supported by public money being poured into them. In conditions of competition, only the successful survive; and nationalised industry, deprived of its competition (and we have seen this in other industries which are already success symbols in the eyes of the Minister), will put on weight, in the form of more staff, with a slight laziness of attitude: "When in doubt, we can put up prices. We have only to go along to some consumer council, or similar body, to get official approval, or get the Minister to agree to put up prices." There is no difficulty in the long run. In the case of a nationalised industry it makes its case, and gets it prices up. And, of course, it always has more and more offices.
The present Labour Government can never make up their minds about offices. They do not like people working in offices, but everything the Government do creates more offices. We see a special section of this Bill devoted to ensuring that the many offices of the National Steel Corporation shall be located in the right places. What on earth are all these offices going to do? They will not be producing any steel. They will not he doing anything but producing typewritten bits of paper and committees and subcommittees. We have only to look at the

29
enormous bureaucracy of the electricity supply industry, and compare it with the industry before it went into public ownership, to see just what this office bureaucracy means, and to know that this is what the iron and steel industry will be saddled with in the course of the next few years.
Another weakness of nationalised industry is that nobody ever gets "sacked". Life becomes cosy and comfortable, with a few exceptions—those at the very top, who sometimes get pushed out. There is no need to worry about losses, because the taxpayer will pay. The industry must go on. It is nationalised. It is in public ownership. Bad luck about those losses, old boy, but the taxpayer will "ante" up. Short of capital? No need to worry: no need to attract private savings in competition with other private industries—which is what private enterprise has to do. Just put in a case to the Treasury, old boy, and after a bit of argument and with a bit of political pressure, you will get your money all right. This is what nationalised industry is really like, my Lords. So far as exports are concerned, there will be no need to fight for overseas markets any more. All there will need to be is a Committee on exports, who will report that it is really very difficult to export and probably not really worth the effort.
In this particular case, I hope that the Minister will keep a note for the Committee stage. We should like to ensure that the position of the steel export merchants will be safeguarded so that when the National Steel Corporation utterly fail to maintain their exports they will not have killed in the process the steel export merchants, who will be able to take over where the Corporation have failed. At the same time, the Corporation are being granted powers to go into other industries quite unconnected with iron and steel—everything from paintmaking to brewing. There will be no need for another Bill to nationalise another industry—the National Steel Corporation have the power already.
From a census that was taken it is clear that the bodies representing steel users do not want to deal with a nationalised industry. Labour voters themselves, in a recent Gallup Poll, do not want it, either. Only 20 per cent. of the Labour voters approached were in favour of steel
30
nationalisation. The Prime Minister did not even mention steel nationalisation in his own 1966 Election Address. Nevertheless, this Bill was passed by a large majority in another place, after a dummy run, so to speak, in the previous Parliament.
I think, therefore, that noble Lords on this side of the House (and I am sorry to put it to them) should acquiesce, allow the Bill a Second Reading, and do what they can to improve it during later stages. At the same time, we on this side of the House, and I hope everyone else, can remember the pledge given by Mr. Barber the Shadow Minister of Power, as recently as October 14, 1966, when he said:
"To whatever extent is necessary and practicable…and to provide the disciplines of competitive enterprise we shall denationalise the industry."
3.50 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, my noble friends, myself and the Liberal Party in general are against this Bill and against nationalisation. We believe that the origin of the Bill is not economic, but political, and, in our experience, no informed person outside the Labour Party believes that it will solve the problems of the industry. What the industry needs is rationalisation, not nationalisation. The background of this Bill, of course, is Clause IV, the
"common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange"
which clings round the neck of the Labour Government and the Labour Party like the Old Man of the Sea clung around the neck of Sinbad the Sailor.
The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, has indicated some of the difficulties that he and others have experienced with regard to the nationalised industries already in existence. My experience has been somewhat similar. In the first place, we have the airlines. The civil airlines and the Air Corporations have been under constant interference throughout the years. Time after time Ministers have tried to interfere with them, not on aviation grounds but on grounds of national prestige and matters of that kind; and from time to time some of us have complained in this House over the years on this score. The airlines have lost money very often because they have been forced to take decisions by successive Ministers which they would never

31
have taken if they had been left to their own devices. Then let us take coal. This has been a great disappointment, partly, I think, because expectations were raised too highly with regard to coal nationalisation. Certainly in my area in South Wales there is a feeling of great disappointment over the nationalisation of coal.
We come to the nationalisation of steel, and particularly the nationalised public company, Richard Thomas and Baldwins. This is a classic example of Government interference, backed, I may say, by the official Opposition. No Government, whether a Labour Government, a Conservative Government or even a Liberal one can be trusted to run an industry. The fact is that this classic example was before your Lordships in 1960 when a Bill was presented to this House on April 4, 1960, for the financing of the Richard Thomas and Baldwins works.
The strip mill which was proposed was desired by Richard Thomas and Baldwins in one part—preferably in South Wales, but definitely in one part. For political reasons—not for reasons connected with steel or for economic reasons—the Government were foolish enough to divide it up into two unequal parts, one-third in Scotland and two-thirds in Wales. I protested in this House on that very day, April 4, 1960, and pointed out that this was in defiance of the wishes of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, and made no economic sense. Not the Conservative Government, but a Labour Opposition speaker called me parochial in making that suggestion. He supported the Conservative Government in this absurdity, and said that I was parochial because I wanted it in one piece. Perhaps I was parochial, but my parochialism would have saved the enormous sums which have been lost by Richard Thomas and Baldwins, not because of their own fault but because of this ridiculous decision. They have lost £30 million in the last four years, and for this the Conservative Party were responsible.
On top of this, I would point out in this regard that a Conservative ex-Minister, who was at the Treasury at the time, speaking in the last week or two, has admitted that this decision was taken for social reasons, which is a polite way of saying that it was taken for political
32
reasons. And in the current issue of Crossbow, on page 26 (Crossbow, as your Lordships know, is the journal of the Conservative Bow Group), this very transaction is severely dealt with and condemned.
May I now turn to the question of a mandate? No doubt it will be said in some of the speeches that we shall hear this afternoon that there is a mandate for the nationalisation of steel. In my experience of politics, it is very rarely that one issue is picked out in the course of a General Election, except possibly in certain areas. Generally speaking, the views of the Parties are taken into account, their previous performance is analysed by the electorate and, except on some great issue, it is rarely that a particular issue is picked out all over the country. So I do not believe in the mandate argument. But should it be held that the mandate in this case is important, then the mandate was the other way about, because at the last Election the Conservatives and the Liberals were against the nationalisation of steel and the Labour Party were for it. A majority of 874,256 people voted for the Conservative and Liberal Parties: in other words, the votes cast for the Conservative and Liberal Parties were that number more than the votes cast for the Labour Party.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords perhaps—
LORD OGMORE: Must we have these interruptions? The noble Earl is going to make a speech. In the old days in this House I may say that interruptions were very rare. Now people pop up like a Jack-in-the-box.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Lord obviously does not like interruptions. Am I allowed to interrupt?
LORD OGMORE: Only a useful interruption.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If the noble Lord will allow me to put a point, I have been in the House for a good many years longer than he has.
LORD OGMORE: Not many.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Well, quite a long time.
LORD OGMORE: Two years.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: No; more than two. Perhaps the noble Lord would answer this simple point. If the Conservatives and the Liberals in the course of an Election collect more votes than the Labour Party, does that mean that the Labour Government have a mandate for nothing?
LORD OGMORE: It means that they are a minority Government, and should not use the argument of the mandate. I am not saying that they should not do anything. I am only quoting a possible argument that might be used from the Benches opposite about a mandate. There are something like another twenty speakers and somebody may use this argument. I am only saying that if there is a mandate, then surely the argument in this case should be on the other foot.
The trouble is that the boards of nationalised industries are very often creatures of politicians. They are liable to be dispensed with at any time if they offend for some reason, perhaps for a political reason. If they offend the Minister, the Minister can exercise personal spite by getting rid of them; and this has been done. In this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, said, a huge monopoly has been created. The industry will get feather bedding. What it really needs is competition so that it gets into a really competitive frame of mind. Instead of that it will have long-term security, a pension to look forward to and a hand in the taxpayers' pocket. In my view, the Government should hold the ring and see fair play. The Government themselves are to be one of the parties, and a very important party—the most important party; and the other parties, if there be any, find it very difficult to believe they are getting fair play.
Finally, may I say that I think this is a singularly inopportune time to bring forward this Bill, in view of our attempts to get into the Common Market? Entry into the Common Market means the adoption of a pricing system and also anti-cartel legislation, and both these items will be very difficult to adhere to if we have in this country one colossal monopoly, one great nationalised steel industry, whose tentacles will go, as Lord Erroll of Hale said, into so many different parts of the commercial and industrial field. I and my colleagues on these
34
Benches think this is a sad day: a sad day for the country, and a sad day for steel.

MR. KOSYGIN'S VISIT
4.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place, and I will make use of his own words:
"I am sure that honourable Members in all parts of the House will join in feeling that Mr. Kosygin's visit to this country has been a great success. And that this success is due both to his spontaneous and friendly warmth of manner everywhere he went and equally to the evident desire of the Soviet Government for the best possible relations between our two countries, a desire we have made clear we share.
"Honourable Members will have seen the joint statement issued this morning and will have noted the impressive list of subjects on which we have reached agreement in the field of Anglo-Soviet affairs. It is this clearly demonstrated evidence of our will to agree and this strengthening of the practical day-to-day links between the two countries which provided a firm and, I am sure, continuing foundation for our joint consideration of the greater problems of world affairs.
"On trade, we are driving for substantially increased shipments between us and a better balance. The Trade Ministers will meet shortly to review the working of the existing agreement and to see what can be done to put more life into it. In this connection I was very glad when Mr. Kosygin told me that the Soviet Union intended to purchase a substantial amount of additional consumer goods in Britain this year.
"But we are both agreed that the industries of both countries need to be able to plan on a longer-term basis, and we are therefore going to work for the conclusion as soon as possible of a long-term agreement enabling the two countries to develop their productive capacities for the purposes of expanding

35
trade. As soon as the long-term agreement can be worked out it will supplement and, we hope, supersede the existing agreement.
"Honourable Members will have seen the importance attached in our statement to the further development of the technological and scientificties between the two countries. We have made provision for stepping up the level and number of contacts in this field and the Ministers concerned are to meet in the near future to work out any improvement in formal machinery that may be needed for this purpose.
"The House will also welcome the other practical measures which have been taken to remove obstacles in the way of free exchanges between our two countries—including, among other matters, the arrangements for an early review of the possibility of expanding the air services of the two countries; the intention to conclude a navigation agreement in the near future; and the proposal to establish an Anglo-Soviet Consultative Committee to enlarge existing contacts in culture, science, sport and other fields. And I am sure that honourable Members will give a particular welcome to the final settlement of mutual financial and property claims and counter-claims which was agreed during the week. This settlement of claims arising since 1939 brings to an end an issue which has been a matter of contention between this country and the Soviet Union for over twenty years; and perhaps more than any other single product of the week's work it symbolises the wish of both Governments to turn their backs on these past differences and to look forward to a future of greater co-operation and friendliness.
"Last week honourable Members heard Mr. Kosygin propose that we should now proceed towards a Treaty of friendship and peaceful co-operation between our two countries. We have accepted this proposal and we look forward to negotiations leading to the conclusion of a Treaty which, in addition to its other positive advantages, can provide the framework within which all the kinds of bilateral contact I have mentioned can be developed.
36
"It has always been our position—and the Soviet Government fully understand this—that we remain loyal to all our alliances and obligations, as they do to theirs. But at the same time, our past historical ties with the Soviet Union and the mutual interests of the two countries make it possible for us to hold out a hand of friendship to them in this way without any derogation from our existing international commitments and loyalties.
"It is on the success of our discussions of our bilateral interests that we were able to build in approaching the wider international problems. For many, many hours, during formal working sessions and indeed long into the night, we discussed with the utmost frankness some of the outstanding problems—and dangers—the world is facing.
"The House will have seen that we recorded our satisfaction with recent progress towards the conclusion of a non-proliferation agreement and we emphasised the paramount urgency of bringing this to a speedy completion.
"Honourable Members will have noted also what we have said about our desire to reach an understanding in the wider field of disarmament—nuclear and conventional—leading to a world agreement on general and complete disarmament.
"We spent a great deal of time on the question of peace and security in Europe. We made wholly clear to Mr. Kosygin the policy on which we are working with our allies as regards nuclear consultation within NATO. At the same time, we emphasised the intention of our NATO partners and ourselves to develop positive contacts for easing tension within Europe as a whole. And in this context the British and Soviet Governments agreed on the need for closer bilateral relationships between individual Western and Eastern European countries. Our joint statement helps to point the way.
"My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I explained to Mr. Kosygin the purpose of the visits which we are paying to the capitals of the six member countries of the European Economic Community. We emphasised the economic importance of the discussions we are holding there,

37
and particularly the contribution that Britain could make to the greater technological effectiveness of Europe. We also stressed to him that we have in mind political as well as economic objectives. And we explained that one of the main purposes of our approach was not only to strengthen European unity and thereby to help to reduce European tension, and work towards a wider, fuller unity in Europe as a whole, but also to enable Europe to exert a more powerful influence in world affairs.
"We discussed with Mr. Kosygin the proposal to call a conference on European security. We agreed that this could be valuable. But we told him that it was essential that it should be adequately prepared and nothing should be done to detract from the importance of the bilateral method of solving problems and easing tension. Mr. Kosygin also is fully aware of our concern to see that all countries which have a stake in European security must be enabled to play their full part in such a conference.
"Finally, Sir, I must tell the House that we devoted the major part of our discussion to the problem of Vietnam, and we did so with a great sense of urgency and of the dangers the world faces if there is not a speedy and honourable solution.
"The House will understand I must not go into details at this moment of time. But I should like to make clear the view which I have reached after these very detailed and searching discussions—and to make it clear as well that here I am recording my own view and that of the British Government. I believe that, despite the deeply held differences in the attitudes of the major participants, the gap is not unbridgeable, given a realistic appreciation of the political and military factors involved and, above all, given a belief on each side that the other desires a negotiated settlement.
"I believe that a solution could now be reached. But if the present opportunity is missed, we must not give up hope. The road to a solution remains open. And one reason for hope is that the Soviet Government and ourselves, as the House will have seen,
38
'will continue to make a close study of the situation and will make every possible effort with a view to achieving a settlement of the Vietnam problem, and will maintain contact to this end'.
"I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that when honourable Members have read and studied the Statement issued to-day by the two Governments, they will agree with me that in terms of our bilateral relations this is a land-mark in Anglo-Soviet history, and that in terms of our wider discussion of world affairs and the continued contact that we have agreed to maintain, we have made a constructive contribution to international understanding."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement. Perhaps I should add a word of apology to the Leaders of the other two Parties as I think they have not had a chance of studying the Statement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for having repeated that Statement. I, too, think that the visit was a success, and I hope very much that Mr. Kosygin enjoyed it. I think everyone would agree that visits of this kind are useful, and that personal and political contacts of this sort are important for the future. I am particularly glad that Mr. Kosygin went out and met people other than politicians and officials.
I note what the Statement says about an Anglo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. I cannot pretend that as a general rule I think that a Treaty of this sort is very useful, but I remember that Mr. Macmillan once said on a similar occasion, "It might do some good, and it cannot do any harm". I think that is true, but I wonder whether the noble Earl could perhaps tell us a little more about the form that this Treaty will take. Will it be a non-aggression pact, or will it be something very different?
I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House must be disappointed at the lack of agreement on Vietnam, but I do not think this is at all the fault of the Government. I think we were all sorry to hear from Mr. Kosygin's speeches that the attitude of the Soviet Government was so little changed. My only small criticism of the Government in this regard is that they allowed, or

39
perhaps encouraged, speculation that something important in this field would emerge; and since it has not emerged I think the disappointment is that much greater. Nevertheless, I am sure this visit was both successful and worth while, and indeed that Anglo-Soviet relations are moving in the right direction.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for his kindness in reading out this long Statement, and to congratulate the Government on what, so far as one can judge, has been a most successful visit. When Mr. Kosygin spoke to us here, he spoke of a large number of important matters, and he also referred to these matters in his Press Conference and elsewhere. One matter in which we, on these Benches, were particularly interested was the non-proliferation agreement with regard to nuclear weapons. We feel a great deal of satisfaction from the fact that progress has been made, and we are glad to see Mr. Kosygin's great interest in the matter. We trust that both Governments will push on with progress in this field, because it is so important.
I should like to make one point with regard to trade. We understand that there is still a substantial difference between the volume of our exports to the Soviet Union and the imports we receive from the Soviet Union. There is an enormous balance on the wrong side. Was anything discussed with Mr. Kosygin in the hope of reducing this adverse balance?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I just comment on the remarks of the Leaders of the two Parties? I should like to express my gratitude for the generous tone adopted by both speakers. I think only one direct question was put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. He asked me what the form of this Treaty would be. If I may use the official language—or, perhaps, some might say, jargon—the modalities are being worked out. However, I will answer one aspect of his question: this
40
will not be a non-aggression pact. Otherwise I can only say that the scheme is being worked out. The noble Lord made one gentle criticism about the excitement in the Press, and I can assure him that it was not the wish of the Government. Of course, one cannot stop Press speculation, and I am sure none of us would wish to do so, but I agree with him that it often does no particular good.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for his remarks. I might make the point here that the Geneva discussions will start again next Monday on the whole subject of non-proliferation, and I am glad to think that my noble friend Lord Chalfont will be representing this country in Geneva on that day.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Government one question? Arising from the welcome success of the visit of Mr. Kosygin, can we have an assurance from the Government that this will result, not in diminishing, but in intensifying the representations we make to the Soviet Government about Mr. Gerald Brooke, who still languishes to-day in a Russian prison?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not know whether the visit will intensify the representations we are making, but it certainly will not diminish them. Those efforts will continue to be strenuous. In this I feel at one, as do the Government, with the noble Lord. There was another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to which I should have replied. The trade deficit is of the order of £70 million as between us and the Soviet Union, and that was duly discussed.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if the Soviet Government desire a new Treaty, can the noble Earl the Leader of the House say why they unilaterally abrogated the last one, which still had some years to run?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not feel that to pursue this topic at the moment would be helpful.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
4.17 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, perhaps we could now wrench ourselves back to steel. In the last twenty years there has been a great torrent of words about steel. It has always struck me as rather odd that this hard, metallic, word "steel" should generate sometimes more heat and emotion than a B.B.C. Wednesday night play, or even George Brown. During the last few weeks I have been wading through a great mass of literature and copies of Hansard on the subject of steel because, unlike some of your Lordships, I began without any preconceived prejudice in favour of nationalisation or against it. I do not believe in art for art's sake; I do not believe in medicine for its own sake. Therefore, I do not necessarily believe in nationalisation for its own sake, although I am bound to say that when the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, talks about de-nationalising steel if the Tories get back—"Oh, the brave music of the distant drum!"—I wonder why he does not also mention the railways and the other nationalised industries—or have the Conservative Party completely abandoned these? Are they determined only to stick to this one particular industry?
I have not come down in favour of nationalisation just for its own sake, nor even because I think steel management is weak, although it has its weaknesses. I have not come down in favour of it because I think the workers in the industry are lazy and restrictive, although there are problems there. Nor have I come down in favour of it because the quality of our steel is poorer than anywhere else in the world. On the contrary, it is the equal. Nor even have I come down in favour of it because of the day-to-day selling arrangements or price per ton produced, because I think these can stand comparison anywhere else, but simply because nationalisation is the key to rationalisation, and without proper rationalisation the steel industry will not be able to compete.
Since noble Lords opposite are so strong about the question of competition, let me emphasise again that this is the point of the exercise. We want to rationalise the British steel industry
42
because it has to live in an increasingly competitive world with the giant complexes in Japan, the United States of America and Europe. It has to be more competitive, and that is the reason why we are taking these steps. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on the arguments that he put forward in introducing this Bill. It saves me the necessity of making a very long speech, and I am not going to repeat them. But I want to comment a little on the line taken by some noble Lords opposite and some Members in another place on this issue.
It is a fact that on many important and serious issues noble Lords opposite reveal themselves as models of reason and logic and open-mindedness. I can recall many debates on social issues in this House in which I have been lost in admiration of the good sense that has been expressed in speeches of noble Lords opposite. But then we come to an issue like this and you can hear from here to Whitehall the crash of the shutters going down on their minds. It is a remarkable case of political schizophrenia, which is a state of mind marked by introversion and loss of connection between thoughts, feelings and action. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, for example, commented on the managerial issues and said these things change, and I could not help thinking at that moment that I wish noble Lords opposite would change sometimes. One of the key symptoms of this particular disease is that the victim always accuses his opponent of the very sin of which he himself is guilty. Thus, noble Lords opposite, rattling the bars of their dogmatic cage, accuse us of being prisoners of dogma. It is not double think but treble think; it is not so much distortion of fact as murder of fact.
Look at the record. When the Labour Government nationalised steel the Tories gave notice that they would denationalise. They did so, regardless of what that nationalised steel industry might have accomplished, regardless of what progress it might have made. They said, "Irrespective of all that, when we get back we are going to denationalise because we do not believe in nationalisation." They were not prepared to stand on facts; they were standing on this dogma. Then they had a golden opportunity to prove the truth of their thesis that steel under free enterprise could reorganise

43
and rationalise itself. We have had sufficient facts shown in this debate already, and I am sure we shall have many more, and certainly sufficient facts shown in the various debates in the other place to show that in fact the steel industry did not do this. It certainly did not follow out the precepts of its masters in the Tory Party.
Moreover, the old leaders of the steel industry—and I stress the old leaders—did their utmost to sabotage nationalisation after the Bill passed through Parliament and received the Royal Assent. They were perfectly correct in their opposition to nationalisation when it was still being debated, but after that they continued their opposition, thus weakening the new Steel Board that had been set up. Is that democratic principle, or is it dogma? The younger and better leaders of the steel industry to-day have indicated in recent speeches that they have learned something from history, though one of them has shown he has not, and I hope he will be taken to task about that in no uncertain way.
Now, after 14 or 15 wasted years, we are trying to get to grips with the steel industry again; and what happens? The Party opposite come out with the same dogma against nationalization—no facts, no figures, but dogma. The Party opposite tell us we have no mandate, and this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, speaking from the massed Liberal Benches. We had at the last Election a majority of nearly 100, and increased majorities in all the steel constituencies, or nearly all of them. If that is not a mandate, I should like to know what is. And the condition of the steel industry is, in my view, mandate enough.
Worst of all, we now have an official statement from their spokesman that tells us that if and when the Conservative Party get back they will once more denationalise steel, once more return to dogma. We may have a situation where a Conservative Government conceivably get back again in the year 2,000. Would this promise be remembered then? Suppose the nationalised steel industry of this country has a brilliant record: are you going to break it up? This shows the stupidity of the kind of dogma expressed. Yet we are the ones accused of dogma.
44
This is not politics; it is ping-pong. I find it rather sad to see some noble Lords opposite, whom I have respected so much in general debates but who have reverted to type and proved that under their ermine robes there are genuine 19th-century Tory hearts beating away.
I would say one word about compensation. I believe it is too high and too generous, and I should like the Government to look at it again. I got worried when I read that the Chairman of the Tory Party, setting up a new unit trust, had advised that investment should be made in some of the steel companies which were already being named as those that were going to be nationalised. I thought, "If it is good enough for the Tory Party we must be being far too generous." If the question of compensation went to arbitration rather than the principle outlined in the Bill, I believe we might have a fairer deal for the industry and the nation. As usual, the Labour Party has fallen into the trap of being too kind-hearted. But that is a thought I can live with, if we can get this Bill passed.
It has been debated and contested inch by inch in another place, not always responsibly. I have searched in vain for really constructive suggestions about how the steel industry might be organised to face the challenge of the 1970s. Apart from this suggestion and proposal of nationalisation, I have not heard them. I hope that in this House, at least, we shall show a small measure of statesmanship and pass it quickly and cleanly.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT MUIRSHIEL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, encouraged me a good deal in his opening remarks when he pointed out that he had approached this particular subject of the nationalisation of steel with an open mind. I thought for once we were meeting the perfect example of the floating voter, on this particular issue at any rate, and that he might still be willing to float the other way if his reason was appealed to, because he did say that the main reason for his coming down on the side of State ownership was that he was convinced nationalisation was the key to rationalisation. May I ask him (and I will try to develop this aspect in my own speech) what is the point of rationalisation, unless you can get really effective

45
management? And that is really the crux of what this argument on steel ought to be about.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made a most interesting, and gallant, if I may say so, attempt to justify this Bill. My noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale said the arguments had changed over the years, and he implied that Lord Shackle-ton had produced some new ones. I am sure he worded them afresh, but I must confess that all he said I seemed to have heard before (I mean no reflection on him) in relation to one nationalised industry or another. They are very interesting words, and they sound very attractive, until one gets down to the full implications of what State ownership means in a competitive industry of this kind.
I must declare an interest, as I am a director of one of the companies affected by the Bill, Colvilles, and the holder of a relatively small number of shares in that firm. But of course my interest in steel is vastly wider than that; it is the same interest that every one of us has in that particular commodity. By day, by night, bed and breakfast, coming and going, and sitting down, every one of us at practically every moment of the day is using one of the products of our great steel-producing firms. Clearly, it is of first importance to the whole nation that British steel Should be of the highest relevant quality, produced with the maximum efficiency, and that its price should be the lowest practicable and competitive with that of steels produced overseas. In brief, one must assume, or should be able to assume, that any Bill brought before Parliament which dealt with the organisation of the steel industry should primarily be concerned with just those objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, tried to establish that this Bill is concerned with these objectives. It is on this point that I would argue with him this afternoon. As a political issue, of course, the ownership of the nation's steel-producing units ought—I repeat, ought—to be relevant only in so far as ownership affects the national interest and efficient management; and I would suggest that these two, in a case like this, are completely synonymous, because no one in his sasses, in a free democracy, one would imagine, could deliberately opt for a principle of ownership which on all avail-
46
able evidence seemed likely to produce a less efficient form of management than that which exists. In that phrase "efficient management" I include all the social implications of good management.
But, what is this Bill about? As has been fully pointed out, it is largely concerned with the transfer of the ownership and control from the present proprietors and management to the State. No one at this moment knows—not after the speeches we have heard this afternoon, not after what was said in another place, and no one has been told over the last twenty years of argument—just how management under the State will be conducted in detail; or, what is more important, in what way management under the State can be made more efficient, and more truly democratic, if that is what one is searching for, than it is at present. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made his case, according to his lights, for certain things being done at the top control, in relation to the top control, of the steel industry, and argued that nationalization was the easiest way to do them. He did not develop how management would be handled throughout the industry in the way that it must be handled if we are to have an efficient industry. We are really being asked to buy a notoriously unattractive pig in a very opaque poke. I apologise for that alliteration, but it is exactly what it is.
I admit, of course, that the steel industry must, unavoidably, be organised in large units, and I agree that the units may have to become larger. But State ownership is not necessary for that. I admit, too, that the industry is of such importance to the nation, economically and socially, that in modern conditions no Government can ignore what goes on in the industry; and since the days of I.D.A.C. no Government has done so. Of course, the fundamental trouble when the State takes over, when the State owns, is: who is left as the referee? Somewhere, without doubt, there ought to be some kind of body which can watch dispassionately and objectively over the actions, or inactions, of an industry of this importance to the nation. At the moment, as has been pointed out, the body that does this is the Government-appointed Iron and Steel Board; a body which, I would emphasise, is not the owner, which does not represent the owners and which

47
has no responsibility for the details of management. In future, if this Bill becomes law as it stands, no such body can possibly exist, and those of us who have watched Parliament's struggles over the years to find some method of supervising the existing nationalised industries know only too well that Parliament is no such body. Nor can it ever be.
This, I believe, leaving all political theory behind, or aside—which is the place one generally leaves it, although I prefer to leave it right behind—the crucial issue in this Bill is just what I have been setting out. When the State owns, who remains as the referee? I might venture to add that a good description of this problem was put years ago in the words of a famous song:
"Who takes care of the caretaker's daughter, While the caretaker's busy taking care?".
It is not strictly relevant, but it has the right idea behind it.
My Lords, who does own the industry at this moment? And what influence do the present owners of the industry exercise over management'? These are relevant questions, and I think they are worth a certain amount of consideration. I have made some researches, but my researches cover only the firm with which I am connected. But I would submit that even they are worth considering because they have some interest.
The total number of holders of shares and stock in Colvilles at the latest available date was, in round figures, about 41½ thousand. The total number of ordinary shareholders was 34½ thousand, of whom no fewer than 33½ thousand held less than 1,000 shares, and the average holding in that particular group of holders was just less than 200 shares. Sharing the balance were 1,267 holders. These include some large holdings. Who are they? They seem to be made up of insurance companies, banks, limited companies, trust companies, pension funds, universities, religious bodies, and what I think are generally known as institutions. If one contemplates the ultimate ownership of all these larger holders of shares in Colvilles, one realises that the ultimate spread of ownership in Colvilles far exceeds the 40,000 direct holders: it must run literally into hundreds of thousands. That is only one company. Taking the whole lot of the British steel-producing companies, ownership of the British steel
48
industry must therefore be spread over an already astonishingly wide section of the community.
How do these owners exercise influence over management? How do they keep a check on efficiency? Can they do it? If they can do it, cannot 55 million men, women and children do it just as effectively?—because they are going to be the owners when this Bill goes through. What are the methods? In another place my next remark would, I suppose, be greeted with laughter, but I know that will not happen to me in this House. There can be letters to the chairman of the company and questions at annual general meetings. These are by no means ineffective. But, of course, the real and constant check on the efficiency of management is the willingness of individuals and those responsible for the running of great institutions to invest their money in the shares of a company, and the resulting movement in the shares of the company. Let the efficiency of management be in doubt; let the wisdom of management's decisions be seriously questioned, then neither the great institutions nor the individual members of the public are going to keep their money in such a firm, Management will have to change its methods or its personnel, or someone else will take over who can do the job better. Certainly, with management such as I have described no such firm will be able to raise new capital for modernisation or for expansion. In other words, even with the largest firm the existing system provides a constant and remarkably sensitive check on the efficiency of management—in addition, of course, to the price of the product and the profitability of the company, which is the more obvious question.
Where do we go from here if this Bill becomes law in its present form? What substitute can be devised to take the place of this sensitive system? Is it an overloaded Minister? The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I think used the expression that the members of the Corporation would be responsible to the Minister and, through the Minister, to Parliament for the efficient running of the industry. Really! Can an overloaded Minister see to it that the steel industry, with all its intricate processes and different products, is being efficiently run? Can a Government Department do it? Can a consumers' council do it? I ask that most

49
deliberately. We have had experience of different forms of consumers' councils in all the nationalised industries. While they can do some useful things, I doubt whether anybody would say that they are the type of body that could supervise the efficiency of an industry. And I have already given my own view on the ability of the Houses of Parliament to do it. The only possible remaining check is the price of the product; but once the State owns and controls there are too many ways, certainly in the short term, in which even this ultimate check on efficiency becomes obscure.
This argument can obviously be developed indefinitely, and I will resist the temptation. But there is one question which one must ask, because it acutely affects the efficiency and the speed of decision-making in the industry. With all the experience of existing nationalised industries, can any Member of the Government explain what the true relationship, not just the statutory relationship, of the responsible Minister under the Act should be, or, most important, will be, not only to the Corporation but also to the subsidiary groups or bodies which must inevitably be set up to run the industry? Can any device be found which will prevent simple politics, quite inevitable and proper in a democracy, interfering with the running of the industry? It simply is not good enough to use the old phrases—Minister's powers confined to financial control; Minister able to give only "general directions in the national interest"; "no interference in day-to-day running of the business", and so on.
Anyone who has been responsible to Parliament for a nationalised industry knows only too well that the statutory body cannot avoid looking constantly over its shoulder at the political implications of its possible decisions; nor can any Minister, certainly any Minister who wants to survive, ignore what he may learn of actions contemplated which are likely to produce sharp public reactions. I am talking of the hard facts and realities of life. As those of us who have had to deal with these matters know only too well, political interference in the detail of management sooner or later becomes virtually unavoidable. While the political process in a democracy is a very good thing for many purposes, I doubt whether any dispassionate adviser would
50
conceivably recommend it is a sensible method of running a highly competitive industry.
As an example of what I am trying to say, to this day the great British public remains convinced, as I do, that the Minister of Transport is personally responsible if the 5.15 p.m. train is overcrowded, dirty and late. And so, let us face it, she is. But what can she do about it? If she is not responsible, it is remarkably difficult for the ordinary member of the public to find out who is. The point I am making, and I will repeat it, is that no matter what is written into the Bill the Minister cannot and will not remain divorced from the details of management, and I need not re-emphasise what that can mean.
The fact is that this Bill solves not one of the problems facing the steel industry—and, Heaven knows!, there are enough of them—but, on the contrary, presents endless new problems, the great majority of them concentrated on the critical function of management. If this Bill must go through, our sympathy cannot fail to go out to the members of the Organising Committee who, one must assume, are struggling with the implications of the precise problems I have been trying to describe. One can only urge that, whatever operating groups may be evolved, they should have the maximum decision-making left to them. One can only urge that these groups should be so constructed so as to be truly competitive one with the other and able to offer competing service to a reasonable degree in price, quality and in ingenuity of management. And most important of all, to my mind, I hope that profound thought will be given to the problem of political interference in the management of an industry which is not a service industry, but one on which the competitive ability of a great proportion of British products must depend.
I do not believe that this problem can be solved. It is largely for this highly practical reason—and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that it is not for reasons of dogma—and not on any grounds of abstract political theory that I remain an unrepentant opponent of ownership by the State of any form of competitive industry.
4.45 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I will endeavour to be brief, but in view of

51
the comments which have been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Muirshiel, I am inclined to disgard much of my introductory comments in order to reply to some of the statements he has made. Those statements provide a completely erroneous basis, in my opinion, for much of the opposition to nationalisation. I am sure he will forgive my language when I say that I was amazed at the effrontery in asking how, on nationalisation, good management could be maintained—as though the whole conduct of an industry was vested in the people who were elected to its boards of management or boards of directors, or was dependent upon the 41,000 investors in a particular company.
My reply to the noble Viscount's comment in regard to management is that, in my experience, management as a consequence of nationalisation has improved, rather than deteriorated. One can quote, for instance, the mining industry and the quality of its management to-day as compared with the days when it was split into a multiplicity of small, private units. We have a nationalised mining community where management, not private directors, has been able to introduce the first automated mine in the world. We have a gas industry, whose quality of management and degree of initiative nobody, no matter how prejudiced he may be, could possibly dispute. Those qualities are far greater than ever they were in the old days of a variety of small private gas concerns.
My own personal view—and I am sorry if I get worked up about this question—is that the comments we have heard in the last speech are an insult to the men and women who are working in those industries, working for their living and giving qualities of management to those industries. Does the noble Lord suggest that the replacement of the 41,000 shareholders by 40 million or so future shareholders will mean that the quality of management will fall and that individuals will give less than their best because they are working for the nation rather than for individual shareholders? Surely the noble Viscount would never suggest that the quality of management must fall because the public interest is particularly involved or because the
52
nation takes over. I am sure that would never be said by any person who has knowledge of all the circumstances.
VISCOUNT MUIRSHIEL: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to answer the question which has been put to me. The noble Lord must realise that I was not casting any reflection whatsoever on the future actions of management. The whole point of my speech was to bring out that ultimately there must be some tests which are applicable. I do not mean going round and seeing whether a man is giving of his best. I have worked with the nationalised industries myself and I have the highest regard for the work done by the people running them to-day. My whole argument was to point out that if you take away—and let us face this old-fashioned phrase—the tests of the market place, no one in any country has yet devised another method of judging whether one firm is functioning better than another, whether one section is functioning better than another. That is the whole point of my argument.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for a very substantial modification of the views which he originally expressed. So long as we have got that out of the way, and we realise that management can be as good and possibly better under nationalisation, then at least we have moved a little step forward in the debate.
Secondly, the noble Viscount said that he would agree that the units should be larger. With that I, and I am sure everybody on this side, would agree. That is what we are talking about. But what has the industry done about it over the past years? What have they done about it over the period of years when they knew that nationalisation was imminent? It is all very well to come along to the House now and state that the units must be larger, and by implication indicate that private enterprise can undertake that job, when there is the living evidence that private control has done nothing at all to create the larger units which both sides of the House recognise are vitally necessary if the industry is to survive and meet the competition from overseas. I make no apologies for this diversion from my original comment, and have sought merely to deal with what are two basic fallacies in the arguments advanced by noble Lords opposite.

53
I should now like to deal with another point which is of considerable interest and which was raised from the Liberal Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made reference to the fact that all the ideas with regard to the nationalisation of steel are prompted by political considerations; in other words, it is a doctrinaire expression. But the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, knows that from earlier days, as well as I know, from the time when he was standing upon platforms urging its necessity in the national interest, and as a Minister—we will forgive him that, or rather we will forget it—he advocated that there should be nationalisation. He recognised then, and I am sure he must recognise now, that this is no question of doctrinaire expression. It is part and parcel of the very philosophy of Labour Party thinking.
Noble Lords opposite are entitled to their point of view. The point of view which they express to-day is consistent with the philosophy they hold and which they have held for a long period of time. They believe, and they are entitled to believe, that private control of industry is in the best long-term interests of the people who own the industry and of the nation at large. The Labour Party has never felt so. Therefore the decision to nationalise steel is not a doctrinaire expression but is a fundamental part of a belief that such is necessary if we are to secure the economic development of our nation.
I would remind noble Lords opposite that the Labour Government was elected for the purpose—no matter how one thinks it has done the job, at least it was elected for the purpose—of attempting to revitalise the nation, to revitalise the economy. The Labour Party has always believed, as noble Lords opposite have believed, that the steel industry is a vital part of our economy. It is impossible for any Government, regardless of its political complexion, to be able to "kid" itself that it can control the economy and at the same time leave one of the most important—indeed, the most important—basic industries completely to private enterprise. Not even noble Lords opposite believe that. They have never rejected the idea that there should be some measure of control over a basic industry—the steel industry. They have never rejected that idea over the past thirty
54
years. But do not let us hear any talk about doctrinaire expression. The Labour Party and the Labour Government had a clear mandate to nationalise steel.
I would remind noble Lords of another point. The argument has been expressed, and it has been implied in the debate to-day, that the public at large are not thoroughly acquainted with this problem and they do not fully accept all the implications of the nationalisation of steel. But I am going to say—and I defy any noble Lord opposite to challenge it—that there is no aspect of Labour policy which has had applied to it so much public scrutiny as has the nationalisation of steel. Indeed, between November, 1963, and October, 1964, the British Iron and Steel Federation spent £620,000 on anti-steel nationalisation propaganda. During 1964 individual companies spent a further £638,000.
Now I am not objecting to that. I have even conceded that they are entitled to do so. All I am saying is that there was ample opportunity given for the whole of the nation to see and to hear all the arguments against the nationalisation of steel. Yet, in spite of that, in spite of spending more than four times as much as the total amount which the Labour Party spent in the last Election, the result was that in the 30 main steel constituencies the average swing from Conservative to Labour was 4·4 per cent., or 0·8 per cent. greater than the national average. Therefore do not let us have the argument that the general public are not behind this proposal. In those areas where the people are more concerned with this question of steel they gave even greater support to the nationalisation of steel than the average in the community at large.
But so far as it is humanly possible in my comments upon this subject, I want to keep away from political considerations. It is not easy, but I will try to do it. I will try to do it because I honestly believe that the major purpose behind the intention to nationalise steel is economic. Both sides of the House agree—they have said so—to the necessity for rationalising the steel industry. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, "Let us rationalise it, but do not nationalise it." I should like him to tell me to what extent there has been rationalisation over

55
the past few years. There has been no indication of any attempt to rationalise. The basic objection to the industry to-day is that the production units are too scattered and too small. A modern plant needs for efficient production, to be able to produce at least 3 million tons of crude steel a year. Yet there is only one British plant which has achieved this; and the Germans are to-day talking in terms of units of 6 million tons.
What is more, noble Lords opposite who have had some experience of the steel industry know that to-day the firms simply refuse to specialise, and because of that there is added cost to the industry. In the North-East there are three firms which all produce plates. South Durham, probably the most modern, complains that, because of the other two which are producing plates, they have to run at less than full capacity. If we concede the idea that large basic industries have a responsibility only to themselves, all well and good: but we do not accept that philosophy. We believe that the major basic industries have a responsibility outside that to their own shareholders. They have a responsibility to the nation as a whole. The whole of our economy is dependent upon the efficiency of industries such as the steel industry. Therefore, no Government worth their salt could possibly tolerate a continuing situation in which a major industry such as the steel industry was in a state of perpetual disability as compared with its foreign competitors.
We have heard from both sides of the need for reorganisation. The Iron and Steel Board has indicated that the industry needs to re-organise itself into fewer but larger units; and their own technical studies—that is, studies which they made themselves, not studies made by the Government—prove the point. Yet, as I said a few moments ago, during the whole of the period that this matter has been under consideration not a single proposal has been put forward by the steel industry to deal with this problem. For thirty years there has been a measure of public control, but the present arrangement of private ownership under a measure of public supervision has failed. Would noble Lords opposite challenge this statement? Would they dare to advocate the complete elimination of
56
public control?. Would any noble Lord opposite say that at this time and in this state of affairs a situation exists in which the steel industry could be run without any vestige of public interference, if one likes to use that word? Of course he would not. A noble Lord opposite shakes his head: he accepts the truth of this statement. We have been able to demonstrate over this period that the measure of public intervention has been inadequate. It has been of a negative character. It has not been of a character which has been positive and has urged the industry to improve its methods. It has been restrictive. It has been neither good for the industry nor for the State as a whole.
Now I turn to my last point, and that is on the comment from noble Lords opposite that nationalisation, or public ownership, tends to destroy initiative and enterprise. More than one noble Lord said that. Let us have a look at that argument, and let us apply that argument to the experience of the steel industry itself. What has been the most revolutionary happening in the steel industry in recent years? It has been the oxygen method, introduced by the Austrian nationalised firm of Voest in 1953. It was not taken up in Britain until 1960—and, then, by whom? It was by the nationalised firm of Richard Thomas and Baldwins. So do not let us have any talk about destroying initiative. It is true that it has been taken up by the industry, but as an indication now of something that was needed. But a new idea was created by a nationalised industry, and years later was taken up by a British nationalised firm but ignored for a long period of time by private firms, who claim to be proud of their initiative and experimentation.
There is also the question of monopoly. Noble Lords opposite do not like nationalisation because it is monopolistic. I think one is more likely to find greater monopoly under private control than under State control. But in this case consumers are free to buy from non-nationalised firms; and, what is more, there is no restriction upon imports. When we look at the situation to-day, we see that there is little or no competition in the steel industry. For a long period of time the industry has fixed its prices at home, and has sought at least to

57
reduce competition abroad by international price agreements, some of which, as your Lordships know, have been condemned by the Restrictive Trade Practices Court.
Finally, the critics have argued (and the noble Lord opposite made this statement) that it would introduce bureaucratic control. One has only to look at the make-up of the steel industry to-day, with 18 layers of control: bureaucracy, from top to bottom, without any shadow of doubt. The organisation of the steel industry under so-called private enterprise is completely cumbersome; and, indeed, far from making it more bureaucratic, without any shadow of doubt nationalisation would simplify the structure.
Therefore, my Lords, regardless of the political considerations and regardless of the dedication that some of us on this side of the House may have towards particular ideals, I am personally convinced that here we have an industry of vital importance to the economy of this country, and I believe it is not only the right but the responsibility of any Government to make absolutely certain that that industry is run along such lines, determined by such organisation, as to be able to employ the industry in the best interests of the economy and not merely in the interests of a small section of the community.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer me this question? If, as he said in his speech, management in the nationalised industries is so much more efficient than management in private enterprise, why is it that in so many nationalised industries we have such great financial losses? The accounts of the railways last year show a loss of, I think it is, another £120 million. We have already written off, I think it is, £1,200 million—and so the saga goes on. There are the airlines, and I could quote plenty more. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell me why?
LORD PEDDIE: I can answer the noble Viscount by applying it to steel. Colvilles made a loss of £4·7 million on their strip mill, and that strip mill was less than half the size of the nationalised one. So I am sure the noble Viscount will not accept the idea that nationalised
58
industries are the only ones that make losses.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: That is not an answer to my question.
5.8 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to address your Lordships, being very much an absentee, unfortunately, from this House. I received a certain amount of encouragement, however, when, on looking at the the records of past debates, I found that my father had taken part in a similar debate in 1949, when the Second Reading of the Steel Bill of that date was being discussed. I must also at the outset declare an interest, in that I am a director of Colvilles. The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, referred to the loss which they made on their strip mill operations last year. He did not refer to the fact that they made a profit on their other operations.
The points which I should like to make really arise from my own position, first, as a director of Colvilles, one of the companies affected, and from having, as a result of this appointment, a certain practical knowledge of the industry; secondly, as a member of a family which 96 years ago founded what is now a modern and well diversified group responsible for the bulk of Scottish steel-making capacity; and, thirdly, as Chairman of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), an organisation which has earned a reputation for expertise in dealing with Scottish affairs, particularly on industrial and economic grounds.
I have been concerned to read in the Press, and to hear of the remarks made recently in Government circles, that there has been a change in attitude on the part of the leaders of the steel industry. It has been suggested that the managements of some of the companies scheduled to be taken over have somehow been won over to the acceptance of steel nationalisation as being in the best interests of the country. This is definitely not the case, and I feel it must be said for the record. The managements of the steel companies affected have never shifted their ground, nor have they given any indication of the acceptance of nationalisation as being the most efficient long-term method of

59
running the steel industry in this country. What they have said—and perhaps this is the point that has been misconstrued or misunderstood—is that, having stated, in their belief, that nationalisation is bad in principle and in practice, if the present Government proceed with their measures, they, as responsible men, will, in the best interests of the country, of their companies and of their work people, do what they can in the new context to achieve an organisation best suited to serve the interests of the nation.
Speaking from my personal experience of the steel industry, and also as a person who has some knowledge of regional planning, I am most concerned about the future control of the industry. Noble Lords on both sides of the House have referred to this and it has been discussed at some length; but I feel that I must make my own contribution to this point. In the steel industry we are dealing with a completely different problem of control from that, say, of the nationalised railways or electricity boards which are basically public services or utilities. We are dealing here with commercial undertakings which have to fight for their existence, being subjected to all the rigours of international competition. The future success or failure of the steel companies, or groups of companies, is also going to have a very marked effect on the regional development plans of the country as a whole. I am quite convinced, both from the efficiency of the companies or groups and from the effect on regional growth, that we must most strongly resist policy-making and administrative and commercial domination by a top-heavy, central authority for the whole steel industry.
May I turn to Scotland for a moment to illustrate this point? The Scottish steel industry has been called the mainspring of the Scottish economy. This is as true to-day, in terms of it serving a greater range of modern industry, as it was in the past when Scottish steel was mainly concerned with serving the shipbuilding and heavy engineering industries. Steel is a key industry, linked very closely with the tempo of industrial growth. The removal of policy-making responsibility from Scotland would be extremely harmful to the industry, and these effects would also spread far beyond
60
and into a whole range of other industries which, taken together, form the backbone of the Scottish economy. A second but no less damaging result would be the fact that, where local autonomy and policy-making disappeared, we should also see the disappearance of the policy-makers. This would have a weakening effect on the whole bouyancy, energy and strength of the Scottish community as a whole.
Scotland is short of policy-makers in industry. This is partly due to the arrival of companies from the South and overseas, and in the majority of these cases policy-making remains outside Scotland. The growth of a community depends very much on the inter-action, on the spot, of policy makers in different companies. Centralising the policy control of nationalised steel outwith the steel-making regions would have the effect of removing one of the main power centres of economic growth. It would also run counter to the Government's stated regional polices.
Let me take two examples, again from Scotland: the National Coal Board, which dismantled its area structure in Scotland, has no policy-making function there at all; the Forestry Commission, which was centred in London, has now moved largely to Basingstoke, and has taken staff and responsibility from Scotland. Both are detrimental to the Scottish economy. As a counter to that, one has the example of the Central Electricity Generating Board (which controls the English Generating Board) which has left the Scottish Board largely autonomous in the policy-making sense; and this has proved a real source of strength in discussions and negotiations concerning new industry starts in Scotland.
In a broad sense, it is important to Scotland that an industrial unit as large as the steel industry should have people at its head capable of making decisions without always having to refer to a higher authority elsewhere. More specifically, the ability to do so imparts a flexibility to local operation which, in the experience of the Scottish Council, has been vital to the success of the establishment of a number of major new industrial operations in Scotland. I think similar examples could be taken from other regions in the United Kingdom. This has been possible because at product

61
and market level. Scottish steel-makers have been able, thanks to their past independence, to seize opportunities quickly and to meet the requirements of potential users without delay, without having to go through the whole long rigmarole of referring back to some central, large, top-heavy body miles away.
If industry in Scotland is going to be deprived of this function, future judgments will tend to be made purely in terms of the maximum efficiency of the national industry as a whole without regard to the needs of the local consumers. This could be said also, perhaps, of the North-East coast or of Wales. In addition to advocating the highest possible degree of automony for the various steel groupings throughout the country, I would also express the strong hope that it will be possible for company names to be retained under the new State ownership.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I do not think that people who are not in close contact with the commercial world realise just how much importance a company name can have. This holds good not only in the case of local customers who may have had dealings with a company for many years, but also in international trade with individual companies and larger trading organisations overseas. I have had personal experience of this.
My Lords, may I conclude with a further reference to the problem of control, and to the timing of the possible changeover. I sincerely hope the Minister and his advisers appreciate the great complexity of this industry; that if and when the time comes for control to pass to the new Corporation there will be a team of men capable of exercising the necessary judgments and that they will have the staff and proper communications set up in time to allow them to carry out their tasks effectively. It would be fatal for the industry at the present time if there were to be a period of indecision or a lack of proper communication. The steel industry has a vital role to play in helping this country's economic recovery, and it would be a disaster if the industry were left like a great ship in a storm, whose steering gear has been disconnected, and whose officers neither have the experience nor the expertise to regain control.
5.20 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I rise to congratulate the Government on the introduction of this Bill. In another place all the possible arguments have been put forward against the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale has put them forward to-day. The Bill had a long Committee stage in another place; there was a long Report stage. Discussion was not guillotined, a procedure often used by the Conservatives in respect of controversial Bills when they are discussed in another place. My Lords, there has been a great change in Tory policy since 1964. When they were in Government and during the General Election in 1964, the Conservative Party and the iron and steel industry defended the present set-up in the privately owned sector and spoke in glowing and approving terms of its policy and record. When the Labour Party came to power in 1964, during the first debate on iron and steel in another place Mr. Iain Macleod admitted what had never before been admitted: that everything was not right with the steel industry. It is now conceded that there is a considerable need for a radical reorganisation and rationalisation of this industry. It is now seen that the 1953 Act was grossly defective. All this is admitted now, but only since the Party opposite has been defeated twice at the polls.
All the arguments against the Bill would have been appreciated more if, during the period when they were in power, the Conservatives had done something to deal with the structure of this industry which, as everyone knew, needed reorganising. In the long years of Tory rule the Party opposite were aware of the urgency of this need to deal with steel. Anyone with knowledge of the industry pointed this out repeatedly, yet nothing was done. I can only assume that the reason was a great political reluctance to interfere with private industry except in order to give it financial help. But, whatever the reason, the fact remains that no solution of any sort was put forward; not even the one which they now advocate of a reconstituted Iron and Steel Board. I think, therefore, that they cannot be surprised that the Labour Party, having gained power, have brought forward this

63
measure to bring about a structural change in the iron and steel industry.
It is not as though the Party opposite had not had plenty of time to effect a change, or that they lacked the opportunity to do so. I remember the arguments in another place over the de-nationalisation Bill. We said then that the powers given to the Iron and Steel Board were not sufficient and were too negative to bring about any effective control over the industry. We argued that the Board which the Party opposite had created should possess positive powers, so that it might bring about the changes and reorganisation that might prove necessary. But the then Tory Government said, "No", and would not meet the Labour Opposition in any way. That is why the industry to-day is in such urgent need of reorganisation.
The then Conservative Government had a good chance to group the industry effectively when the companies held by I.S.H.R.A. were sold back to private enterprise, but they did nothing. Therefore the arguments advanced by the Opposition to-day have very little validity, due to the fact that when the Party opposite had the opportunity to do something, they did nothing at all. If, as everyone knows, there is need to reorganise and rationalise, that cannot be left to the steel industry to do. The industry had 14 years in which it could have done so. It knew that the Labour Party said that there should be public ownership, but this did not spur them on. The industry could have done something, as their foreign competitors did, but they did not even start the job. It was only when the Labour Government decided that public ownership was the way to ensure the rationalisation and reorganisation of the industry that a move was made. Despite the threat of nationalisation over the last 15 years at least, no proposals came from the industry until May 10, 1966, nearly two years after the Labour Government came to power—apart from the proposals of the Benson Committee with which I disagree, and even these came too late because the decision to bring the industry back into public ownership had been taken. We had two General Elections in which to get a mandate to carry this out.
64
I remember the debates in 1953 on the denationalisation Bill. We were told then by Mr. Duncan Sandys that the Government accepted that State interference was necessary to keep private enterprise serving the nation. He claimed that by setting up this Board the Government had provided an effective instrument to ensure that the public interest was safeguarded. Far from having provided an effective instrument for safeguarding the public interest, this Board has undoubtedly failed; not because of its members but because of the reasons which we gave at that time: that with the powers which it was given and which we considered totally inadequate it could not do what was required.
What were the powers? The Board was required to maintain competitive conditions. I listened carefully to the speech to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale. The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, then Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, said in 1948:
"But we believe that the prices charged by the industry should be subject to Government supervision and approval. The idea that the industry is able to throw dust in the eyes of the Government in matters of prices is too ridiculous to require examination."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 15/11/48; col. 95.]
But this is exactly what the steel industry did. Members of the industry admitted that ever since 1953—and this was admitted before the Restrictive Practices Court—while they maintained a façade of competitive prices there was none in the industry. These were the men with technical knowledge and experience of the industry, who claimed that it was not possible to operate on the basis of competitive prices. The Board was set up to provide competitive prices and to ensure the interests of the public. It failed, as was shown before the Restrictive Practices Court.
It was not only a matter of prices. There was little, if any, competition in quality between the similar types of steel produced in the industry. This was borne out by Mr. Judge, chairman of Dorman Long & Company, who told the Court that opportunities for quality competition in the heavy steel products were fairly remote. The Board, set up in 1953 by the Tories, was to ensure the efficiency of the industry on de-nationalisation, and I have seen the Reports of the Board in 1964 and 1966. The 1964 Report pointed

65
to the need for greater efficiency in use of manpower and for changes in the structure of the industry, with greater concentration of its units. It referred to the need for a more determined effort to eliminate obsolescent capacity of all kinds. The 1966 Report again referred to this. The Board drew attention to the way in which the industry, with its proud record of creation and innovation, had fallen far behind European countries in introducing modern methods.
I am not saying that the whole of the industry is inefficient. There are some good steel producers; but, by and large—and there is no doubt about this—the industry has failed to live up to the needs of the national economy and the public interest. We cannot go on like this. Year after year we have had reports, recognitions, admissions, that the industry requires a vast reorganisation, including the reorganisation of its manpower, without anything having been done by previous Governments. At least this Bill attempts to grapple with the problem that we face after all these years. The Board as it exists to-day cannot solve them, with private interests operating within the industry. The Board's 1966 Report states clearly that its powers
"comprise a weak veto on company development schemes, and a right to fix maximum prices, and all these powers are passive and negative in character."
The Report further says that
"they have not proved to be as effective as was hoped in stimulating efficiency, nor can they be used to force industry to adapt itself to present-day requirements."
How can the Board be an instrument to protect the public interest, as was claimed for it in 1953?
As I read the debate in another place, the Opposition propose a Board with stronger powers that would provide maximum competition and opportunity for those in the industry to exercise judgment based on their experience. But the last Board, as I have shown, was set up to do this. That Board had 13 years in which to do it, but they had not the powers; and now we face the situation of this country lagging behind other countries. The Board proposed by the Conservatives would have left the steel industry in private hands and their powers would have been increased. But if, as Sir Henry Benson proposed, 16 out
66
of the 26 members of the Consultative Council are steel masters, then their loyalty and responsibility will be to the shareholders and not to the public interest. I am pleased that the Minister turned down this idea. Nor do I consider that adopting the Conservative suggestion would solve this problem, for we have tried it before. The question I ask is: why could there not have been rationalisation with the steel industry's active participation during the time the present Opposition had power? It would have been a more convincing argument for them against public ownership if they had put this house in order and had reorganised the industry into bigger units; but they left everything to the last moment, until their proposals were too late to be convincing.
We are told, of course, that this is a doctrinaire Bill, and that it is brought forward to appease what is called the Left Wing of the Labour Party. I agree when it is said that it is doctrine that has bedevilled the steel industry since 1950; but it is the doctrine of the Tory Party. We have known at least since 1951 of the obvious need for structural reorganisation. It was understandable, in political terms, that the Opposition should denationalise the industry in 1953, but the manner in which it was done missed any remaining opportunity for sensible grouping of the industry. They sold off the works at Scunthorpe and in the North-East, and small producers were left to languish without a link with any of the larger firms. This policy not only cost the taxpayers money, but, what was more important to the future of the industry, perpetuated the fragmented company structure of the 1930s to meet the challenge of the 1960s. It was the attitude of the Tory Party in the 1953 debates that they would stand or fall on its solution of combining a degree of central supervision with private ownership; and now their admissions of the need for structural change are admissions of the failure of the 1953 policy, which no one seems to defend to-day.
We must have plants with over 4 million tons capacity. There is not one in Britain to-day, and our competitors have a start on us in the race for world markets. The task is a dual one: first, how to achieve the necessary changes in

67
the organisational structure to secure the large plants we will need in the years ahead; secondly, because of the high level of investment in the smaller and often modern plants, precluding the premature scrapping of plants, how to integrate the running of them in the short and medium term in order to get the best use of the capital investment we have in plants of this kind. I believe that in this Bill we have the opportunity to organise the use of the present plant and investment to maximum advantage in the short term, and more quickly than in any other way. We shall be able to plan our long term without the pull of divided interests and loyalties, and foremost in the activities arising out of this Bill the public interest will come first. The European countries are responding in different ways to the challenge which confronts them in the markets of the world. This Bill will be more speedy and effective. It will allow us to catch up on the ground we have lost, and to go ahead.
Another argument against the Bill is that it will make it more difficult to enter the Common Market. Everyone knows my attitude on Common Market issues, and others who disagree with me are entitled to advance their arguments on this aspect. All I have to say about this to-day is that if the conditions of entry into the Common Market are such that an elected Government with a mandate to bring into public ownership their great industries are prevented from doing so, then it adds great weight to the attitude I take on Common Market issues. It goes to show what I have always said, that internal control and planning of our own economy is not synonymous with the Treaty of Rome.
I welcome especially the part of the Bill which deals with the participation of the workers in the industry. I hope that by experience we shall see many men in the steel works get more inner knowledge of the managerial side than was the case in the past. Apart from the safety and welfare of the workmen, the scope is extended for workers in a consultative capacity to deal with the efficiency of their works. This industry will face great difficulties, which are more likely to be overcome with the help of a plan (which this Bill gives), and if managements explain and discuss
68
with the people working in the industry what changes are to take place it will help to overcome many problems in the transitional stages. In this connection, it is essential that the men who are to serve on the Organising Committee and the National Steel Corporation should be people who will work to make public ownership a success. It is important that the Minister should select men in whom the workers can have trust.
I read the Second Reading speech of the Member for Vauxhall, Mr. Strauss, who was in charge of the nationalisation of steel Bill in the former Labour Government. It is interesting to read how, after his Bill became law, some people made strenuous and continuous efforts to sabotage it. He shows how those mainly responsible for the operation of the industry immediately set out to sabotage the industry as much as they could at every point, and tried to destroy its effectiveness once it had been brought into public ownership.
While I want to see the best men for the National Steel Corporation, we must protect ourselves against are currence of this kind. In view of this—and I speak now to my own Front Bench—can we afford to keep the vice-chairman of the organising committee, Mr. Macdiarmid? Can the Minister retain this gentleman, in the light of his public pronouncements at the shareholders' meeting of Stewarts and Lloyds, a firm which we are to take over? Surely he ought to resign, or else the Minister must dismiss him. In the light of his speech, can we expect that he will work to make a success of this industry under public ownership? He has said that the Bill is bad, and that the industry will not be a tax-paying, but a tax-eating enterprise. He also said that Stewarts and Lloyds will rise again from the ashes—and this, presumably, means from the ashes of nationalisation. I do not mind in the least his attack on the Bill, but I question very much whether his efforts will be to make a success of the Bill when it is on the Statute Book.
Mr. Macdiarmid's speech means that the steelworkers will have no faith in him, and will always be suspicious of him. It was a declaration of war on public ownership. And yet he is put in the position of operating something which he detests. With jobs of this character we who have been Socialists all our lives

69
do not mind what politics a person has so long as he is prepared to carry out the objects laid down in legislation. How can Mr. Macdiarmid carry out sincerely the object of this Bill when he is so terribly opposed to it?
When we nationalised coal, electricity and gas, the men who were appointed to run these industries carried out the objectives of the Acts; and I remember that in those days the Tories called these men Quislings. The Minister should be made aware that, since the publication of this speech, there has been great concern among the steelworkers and in the Labour Party throughout the country. The appointment met with some hostility from Members of Parliament; the Minister defended it, and it was generally accepted. Now it is impossible. I ask the Minister to bring Mr. Macdiarmid's appointment to an end. No good Government appoints a General in war to carry out an operation which he is against; and the same applies here. Let the Minister learn the lesson that Mr. George Strauss learned when he was Minister of Supply when he first nationalised this industry. It will be monstrous if this man is allowed to carry on, and it could well he dangerous. When the Bill is law it will be a tragedy if over the years its contents are sabotaged while waiting for a change of Government. I hope that the Government will at least take note of the few words that I have had to say on this particular issue.
I regard the compensation proposals as generous. All the articles which have been written by people who can assess these matters, in the Financial Times and elsewhere, describe the proposals as good. They have said that the compensation terms are encouraging, and that they have encouraged people to buy shares. There could not be a better test than that. Even Mr. Macdiarmid, who called the compensation terms despicable, told his shareholders that the value of Government stock which they will receive will show a capital appreciation of 75 per cent. on the original investment.
In supporting this Bill, I consider that we have the opportunity of a new beginning for this industry. The uncertainties will go, and we can look forward to making this industry one that serves the whole nation, and one which will provide a good standard of life for the people
70
who work in it. For years we have advocated the advantages of public ownership for steel. It is realised by all that if things went on as in the past the effects on this industry would be serious. Our duty now is to build up this industry by co-operation between Government, management and men, and to prove to the world that public ownership is not an out-dated idea, but is the only way to deal with the problems of steel.
It was a tragedy that steel was ever denationalised. But for this we should not be facing the problems that we face now. However, I am confident that this Bill will give the impetus needed to ensure an efficient industry, capable of competing in the world, and that it will be conducted in the interests of our nation.
5.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships this afternoon I, too, must declare an interest, as I am a director of a company which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, who has just sat down, knows well enough, the Consett Iron Company. Having declared my interest, I would ask your Lordships to accept my assurance that my financial interest in that company is very small indeed; in fact, if measured by the compensation terms in the Bill, it is under £200. So I hope your Lordships will accept from me that anything I may say—and I shall say something critical of the compensation terms—will in no way be motivated by personal interest.
I want at the outset to make my position absolutely clear, and to say this: my overriding interest in this matter—and I am sure it is the same interest of everyone in your Lordship's House—is that we should have a first-rate steel industry. That is the only thing that matters. I am not particularly interested in ownership, as such, whether private or State. My interest in ownership is concerned here with the profound influence that ownership can have on a correct determination of organisation. It is on organisation of the industry that I want to spend most of the time that I shall be addressing your Lordships.
I should like first to say a few words about compensation, because, quite frankly, although one might think that compensation and organisation are two quite separate things, they are interrelated. I take a very different view from

71
some noble Lords opposite in saying that I do not think that Stock Exchange values for compulsory purchases are generally right or proper; and I think in this particular case that is more than ever the fact. The basis of compensation is to be, as we were told by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, prices over two alternative periods, and in particular over a five-year period, when the weakness of the industry, as measured by its inadequate reserves, was due to the fact it was quite unable to build up proper reserves owing to the statutory maximum price system under which it had to work, a system which took no account at all of world market prices.
The industry was thus prevented in those earlier years under the Steel Board from building up the good reserves it needed, which would have helped it enormously when it came to having to contend with the severe economic strains that not only the British steel industry but steel industries the world over have had to contend with. When one takes that failure to be able to build up reserves because of statutory limitations, and adds to that the threat of nationalisation and other Government economic measures, I think one can only come to the conclusion—at least I do—that the basis of compensation worked out in the Bill is neither fair nor, I would go so far as to say, moral.
The terms mentioned in the White Paper just a year ago seemed at the time to many of us low enough. But for a British Government to go back on their word and to introduce, as they have done in this Bill, a lower rate of compensation—evenif, as I admit, circumstances have changed somewhat since the White Paper was published—seems to me highly improper.
May I illustrate what I am trying to say with a few figures? The Financial Times of July 2 last year gave some interesting figures which I think are illuminating. For the nine companies covered in the Bill whose shares are quoted, the total equity of net asset values was £567 million; whereas the total equity compensation is only £352·3 million. Your Lordships may very well say, "That is all very well, but surely in those assets are a great number of
72
redundant assets that are of no value at all". It is certainly true that in the industry there are a lot of old assets that would probably not be of great value, but I think another factor has to be borne in mind. My noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale referred to this. He quoted the figure of private investment in the industry in the last ten years as £1,000 million. I will go further and quote the figure for the last 20 years, in which the industry, with its own money, not Government money, has invested some £2,000 million. If one takes that and then considers how the net asset values and balance sheets are arrived at, one finds that the old redundant assets, what might be called not very good assets—though they have been very cheap producing assets, but that is by the way—are certainly written down to nothing at all, and these figures of assets I have quoted will almost certainly be based on the values of the modern assets, to which the £2,000 million to which I have just referred relates.
If I may come down to even smaller figures, I think it will help if I quote the case of the Consett Company, of which I am a director. If we go back to 1955, when the company was denationalised, we find that the price at which the public bought the £1 ordinary share was 25s. 6d. I have no doubt whatever that the average purchaser of those shares bought them, not by way of speculation but as along-term investment. They were small people as well as large institutions, as others have mentioned. Since then, the same company has invested in very modern capital equipment £31½ million, and to-day it can be reckoned that the net asset value per £1 ordinary share is 48s. The compensation price as calculated according to the White Paper worked out, not at 48s. but at 19s. 10d., and the compensation terms as now worked out according to the Bill give the figure 15s. 8d. Of course, those figures pay no attention whatever to the loss in value of the pound sterling. So I do not think I need say any more to make the point that I do not share the views of some noble Lords who say that these compensation terms are too high, that they are generous. I think they are not, and that the figures I have just quoted will bear me out.

73
However, may I move on and say something about organisation? I do not believe, first of all, that the affairs of the steel industry are quite so devastatingly bad as one would have gathered from the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, who spoke last, from whom one might have gathered that the industry was in a very bad state indeed.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: Where is he?
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: But I would say that, whether we look at the industry from the point of view of human relations in industry, or from the point of view of investment, to which I have just referred, or from the point of view of capacity, the availability of steel—from whatever way we look at it, it has not been too bad, despite having to contend with the problem of maximum prices to which also I have referred. But, having said that—and in saying this I know I at once lay myself open to the charge of being altogether too complacent, and I would say that complacency is something no industry at all, whatever it is, can ever afford, because if it becomes complacent that is the beginning of the end—I have no doubt whatever that the steel industry could be improved in a great number of ways. Of course it could. And should be, all the time. Indeed, the Stage One Report of Sir Henry Benson's eminent committee itself says that.
My own personal great regret—and here some of my noble friends on this side may not necessarily agree with me—is that action was not taken by the industry to set up such a committee very much earlier to consider this matter, instead of, as it must have appeared to be to the general public, at the last moment when nationalisation was threatened. I should have liked to see that done much earlier. Nor should I have blamed any Government, of whatever colour, if they had, for want of such a committee being set up earlier, put on some considerable pressure to bring that about.
My Lords, may I be allowed to make a personal comment about myself? My own record in connection with two other industries, which I think most noble Lords will regard (I hope I am not treading on anyone's toes) as something of problem industries, shows that I am by no means
74
afraid of change. I regard change as both healthy and stimulating, and indeed as necessary. Nor am I necessarily opposed to some measure of public control, and perhaps even a modest amount of public ownership, if that is shown to be absolutely essential in the legitimate public interest. What I do blame the present Government for in this Bill is that they appear to have been largely unaware of, or at any rate to have disregarded, the considerable change in thinking in the commercial and industrial world that has been going on for the last fifteen or twenty years. This change in thinking has more and more accepted the importance of the relationship between the private sector of industry, the public sector of industry and the Government. This has been going on all the time, and whatever the reason for this change (and I should myself put it down to advanced technology more than anything else, with all the consequences that flow from that), I do not think it has been recognised by the Government.
Perhaps I may quote an example of what I have in mind, which I think is quite illuminating. It may be only a straw in the wind, but I would suggest to your Lordships that it would have been entirely unthinkable, twenty years ago, that a nationalised industry should be allowed to have any form of membership with the then great private industries' body, the Federation of British Industries. Yet what is the situation to-day? In the Confederation of British Industry nationalised industries are welcomed as industrial associates; they pay their full subscription, and can, and do, play a valuable part. Surely that is evidence that thinking on the association between the private sector and the nationalised sector is changing. Yet what does this Bill do? This Bill, if I may say so, is based, without any shame at all, on a very old vehicle—not a vintage vehicle, but the 1949 Steel Act which we debated in your Lordships' House, though, not, I think, in this particular Chamber. I was given to understand (indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said this himself), that the whole concept of the present Government was to be a Government of advanced technological ideas; yet to me this Bill discloses a level of thinking which is completely barren of new ideas.

75
I should have thought that if Her Majesty's Government had really been intent on saying to themselves, "We must have a first-rate steel industry", and if they were anxious to provide that, they would have got together with the industry and thought out something really imaginative. I think that my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale said something on the same lines. I believe that, if that had been done, the industry would have welcomed this programme, together, perhaps, with a stiffened or strengthened Steel Board. The Steel Board has been criticised this afternoon for its ineffectiveness. But we all live and learn, and if the two sides had got together with a strengthened Steel Board I am sure they could have evolved a sort of amalgam, making the best use of both worlds. The dynamic enterprise that is possible in private ownership, together with the solid support and control of State resources, would have produced something worth while, which I think we could all have accepted. It is interesting to note that it is just over a year ago that the steel industry itself went to the Government and offered them State holdings in the companies. To my mind it was a disaster when that approach was turned down with contumely, without any serious consideration apparently being given to it at all.
I have no doubt that in this country we have a remarkable aptitude for making effective compromises, and I believe that something could have been worked out which would have been a source of admiration at home, instead of a source of apprehension, and would have been greeted by people overseas with the remark, "Here is something good that Britain has produced". If this had been the approach I think it would have been dealt with by the Government and by industry getting together to study the organisation first, in order to see what, if any, legislation was required. It may be that they could have achieved what they wanted without any legislation, but that they would have tried first to get the organisation right and then followed it up with the legislation; whereas what in fact has happened is that the legislation has come first, as a sort of blank cheque, and the idea of organisation obviously is coming second, because it is included in Clause 4 of the Bill. In other words,
76
this is an excellent example of the cart before the horse.
I want to make one point quite clear because I realise that I might lay myself open to the accusation that I was asking for the organisation to be part of the Bill. Here I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was absolutely right when, in describing the Bill, he explained why the details of organisation were not there. However, I still think we should know what the initial organisation would be. The point (and here again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton) is that it is no use putting the organisation in the Bill because the organisation must be infinitely flexible. The sort of organisation that is likely to be right on vesting day will almost certainly need considerable modification during the first few years. This is one of the reasons why I believe private enterprise has the advantage, because in my experience it is much easier to adjust private industry than to adjust a State-owned industry, with all the formalities and difficulties, and maybe even legislation or statutory orders, necessary to bring about the changes.
I am quite sure that if the Government had approached the problem in that way, something effective could have been produced, and it would have been produced in such a way as to safeguard what, to my mind, are the absolutely essential foundations on which any industry ought to operate. Perhaps I might say just a few words on what I have in mind in this connection. The White Paper of April, 1965, in paragraphs 25 and 26, indicated that the various companies would probably be grouped in certain ways, and I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, repeated to-day that this was the broad intention, that there would be groups of companies around the country, however the grouping might be arranged. That is a matter of detail.
On that assumption my first point is that the groups must be allowed to exercise real individuality and the maximum possible degree of commercial autonomy. They must be relieved in no way whatever of having to operate against genuine competition at home. Noble Lords have questioned whether there is that competition, but I still maintain that they must have genuine competition at home if they

77
are to be able to meet the very pronounced competition overseas. They must be subject to the healthy and searching effect of all the usual financial disciplines which those of us who have been associated with industry know are absolutely essential to keep all of us on our toes, even though those disciplines are sometimes extremely uncomfortable. We do not want any feather-bedding. But I suggest that in a State-owned industry these conditions must be hard—I will not say they are impossible—to create. It is only the tough, economic climate you are likely to get at group level, as opposed to the National Steel Corporation level, that will create what I think has been implicit in what many noble Lords have said, that is, the enthusiasm that is necessary, not merely at the top, but right down the line.
Yet, what have we been told? All we know from the Bill is that there is to be one shareholder. We do not know how the organisation will operate. It could be that it will operate as a single, inflexible, monolithic organisation, that would cut right across the conditions I have briefly indicated as my view for a healthy industry.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Viscount, may I say that I have been following his remarks with great interest. From what I have said I should not want to commit the Steel Corporation to any particular form of organisation. I suggested, for example, there are other possible ideas. But I see no reason why any of the criteria, the sanctions and stimulus—which, as he says, operate in industry, which can include publicly-owned industry, although my experience is wholly in the private industrial field—should not apply in the new Steel Corporation.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. It remains to be seen how possible it will be to bring this about. It is a very difficult thing. On matters of broad financial policy the Corporation must have the powers of a shareholder, but on every other aspect of direction and management I would hope that they go much nearer to decentralisation of the groups. I would say this to the noble Lord: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will approach this problem by keeping the
78
Corporation itself very small indeed. Presumably, it will have various functional departments—for instance, an engineering department—but I would hope that these functional departments will be regarded more as advisory to the group organisations and not executive. It will be absolutely no good if local executives have to refer to functional superiors a long way away matters which, in a management capacity, they should be able to answer for themselves, and then have to operate on decisions from above with which they neither agree nor think to be right.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and his team will inevitably acquire a tremendous degree of enthusiasm to get this going. I have had something of a similar experience myself. But I urge him to resist the temptation, which I believe would be a very genuine, strong temptation, of trying to drive the whole industry from the centre on too tight a rein. That could be fatal. Authority and responsibility are indispensable ingredients of enthusiasm, and if you want to engender enthusiasm down the ladder you must grant authority as well. If the noble Lord and the Minister would go for some sort of loose organisation, fully decentralised, as I have been trying to indicate, for my part it would go some way towards mitigating the apprehensions I have. Having said all that, I am afraid that one comes to a rather depressing conclusion, because I still maintain that the Bill, as at present introduced, has been introduced more as making industry a political pawn.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I ask the noble Viscount what he means? What would be the political motive for doing this unless it was to win votes, which I think the noble Viscount would hardly argue would be the case.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: My Lords, the Government might have done this to please some of their supporters. That is my feeling. I should have thought that if they had resisted the pressure and had done as I have tried to indicate—first of all, find out what was wrong with the industry, decide the organisation and then decide the legislation—it might be that they would come to the same conclusion in the end. But they have put the cart before the horse, and made

79
ownership first—which I do not think is the correct measure of organisation—and organisation second. I would put organisation first and ownership, maybe, second.
The Bill will go through and, despite what has been mentioned, very regrettably I think, this afternoon, I am quite sure that once the measure is on the Statute Book all those who have a concern in the industry will do their utmost to make it work. It has got to work. We cannot afford to have a steel industry that does not work. I should therefore like to finish on a somewhat more optimistic note. I should like to congratulate the Minister on one point, that is, on the choice of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. He is one of us.
LORD SHACKLETON: When the noble Lord says "he is one of us", does he mean one of your Lordships, or does it have a more sinister meaning?
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: The noble Lord is one of your Lordships' House. I am quite sure that he will find it a mammoth job. I wish him well. From my brief personal experience of his work elsewhere, no one could have been better chosen, and I wish we had more like him.
6.18 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, your Lordships would no doubt wish me above all things not to speak, but if I do at least that I should be short. I will do my best. If the noble Lord who has just sat down will excuse me, I will not follow him into the question of compensation. Perhaps there may be some other opportunity of dealing with that point. May I begin with a fairy story? It is about the Liberal Party. They once had a Yellow Book. They have forgotten all about it. It contained a great deal which now they would find too shocking for words. It is a pity they have dropped it like that. It was better than some of their modern doctrine, and showed, I think, a better understanding of the possibilities of industrial democracy.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will agree with me when I say that on some other occasion I shall be delighted to have a
80
debate with him in order to prove how wrong he is?
LORD MITCHISON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I am sure that it will be a very entertaining debate. This seems to me to be a debate which is really not about industrial organisation, but about questions of power and politics. The Liberal Party also, I think, had a song which said
"God gave the land to the people."
They would have to add now
"but some steelworks to a few well-heeled families."
One must face the facts about the steel industry. It is not governed by its shareholders—there are too many of them, for one thing; it is governed, in fact, by the directors. When one looks into the principal companies in the industry, including the 13 that are to be nationalised on this occasion, one finds a certain overrepresentation of some families who have old connections with the industry.
A NOBLE LORD: Shocking!
LORD MITCHISON: That is the fuedal system. I thought we had got beyond that a little. But there we are. I am not being rude to any of them. I am only saying that I do not think they are quite the right people to run an industry of that national importance. I am sure that noble Lords understand quite well that there is nothing personal in that remark: but this is a matter of public policy and interest.
Whether or not there is any connection, I do not know, but the industry has done quite badly. It has slipped back in competition with other countries. The imports of steel to this country have been rising, and the exports have been falling; and, while steel prices are about the hardest things in the world to compare fairly, I do not think there is any case for saying that in the production sense, it is now a cheaper industry than it used to be. And I think it is fair to say, as was said below, by the representative of the Ministry concerned, that our productivity has fallen badly in comparison not only with American productivity but also with that of other European countries. We used to be up at the top of the league; now we have gone back.
I do not think there can be much dispute about this because, after all, the

81
Benson Committee were appointed—no doubt at the last moment, and no doubt with the threat of legislation hanging over the industry—in recognition of the fact that there was a good deal wrong with the industry. If one looks at what is technically wrong (it is not easy for those of us who have not spent our lives in steel to get it right all the time), I think there are two points that emerge quite clearly. One is that we have not kept pace with the size of the units which are required for modern steel production, and therefore have lost the benefit of the economies which result from larger units of production. That, too, goes for the companies themselves, though that is a different point. The second point which emerges, I think, is that we have been bad, not so much in undertaking research as in applying it. I know that there is a case to be made on this. If one looks at the Research Report in 1963 from the Board one sees the sort of reason for it. But it has been an unfortunate history, and the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, happened to hit on a case. He started a little on the wrong leg, I think, but we got it finally.
One of the most important developments has been the use of oxygen injected at the top when the metal is being dealt with in the furnace. This process was discovered, I think, in Luxembourg or Belgium, and was first applied on a large scale, or at least on a workable scale, in a State-owned works in Austria. And it is sheer nonsense to say that State-owned works are any worse run than a privately owned works: only people who are quite blind to the facts continue to hold that kind of doctrine. The process was applied there in, I think, about 1949.I think that the noble Lord on this side did not get the date quite right. It did not actually sink into the British mind for quite a long time. Finally, Richard Thomas and Baldwins started it. I spent nineteen years as a Member for a constituency which included Corby, and I got a great deal of liking for Stewarts and Lloyds, much as I disagreed with them over many things. They were extremely slow about this. They said, "You cannot use this with the high-phosphorus Northamptonshire ores". Then it was discovered for them—not by them—that all one had to do was to put in some powdered lime at the top. That is what they are now
82
doing. The result was that they built an enormous, expensive new plant to do just this thing: to apply the practical discovery of this State-owned industry in Austria.
The industry in this country has been slow on the uptake, and the rest of the world had not been so slow. The result was that, on that particular point, and as a result of their not being up to date and modern about it, and not being prepared to see how important it was, this was one of the things which contributed substantially to our slipping behind. There is no point in saying that we in this country have spent a lot more on research than we used to. No doubt. But so we ought. In any case, we have been slow about it. Therefore, I feel that one has a case for saying, much more strongly than one could have done in 1949, that the industry itself is in sore need of reshaping.
I turn from that to what seems to me to emerge from all this. We had from the Front Bench opposite—and not only from them, because it was given in another place too—a remarkable indication of what they thought was a really good industry. In their view it consisted of percentages of profits; and because the percentages of profits in nationalised industries were low, clearly, they said, they did not work. My Lords, this is really a fantastic fairy tale. Let us have a look at this for a moment. First of all, let us take Richard Thomas and Baldwins, which is the example always given. What happened is this. When steel was denationalised in 1953 the big companies were offered, in one form or another, to the public, and naturally the public bought back the good ones first. Richard Thomas and Baldwins never succeeded in finding a buyer. The reason they did not succeed was not that they were nationalised but that they had been, and still were, the most unsuccessful. It had nothing whatever to do with the question of whether they were nationalised or not. I think the position has changed quite a little since then. But that was the reason; and that sort of comparison is completely bogus.
Moreover, where do we get to over this? Take nationalised electricity. If you want to produce the maximum return on the capital invested, you increase the charges and you mulct the consumer. The

83
fact is that in one firm or another a good many of these nationalised industries have been conspicuously successful in keeping down their charges to the consumer. Therefore, I say with confidence that we can argue about this until all is blue. But this is the wrong kind of test of what is needed. The real test is whether the industry can in fact supply the services which are required by the community. On that test, as I have pointed out, the steel industry has done rather badly.
There is another way of looking at that too. The steel industry has been working for quite a long time at something like two-thirds or three-quarters capacity. I think that probably in the nature of the case it is an up-and-down industry—technical, if you like to call it that, although I am not quite sure that that is the right word. One of the hardest things about it seems to be to decide what sort of capacity is wanted. Clearly, the private steel companies have an interest here. It is in their interest always to keep the capacity pretty low, so that they can sell all they produce in steel and thus do not have long and unprofitable periods of working on part capacity. I do not think that is the right way of looking at the matter in the national interest. I would say that one of the major points which make it necessary to have a nationalised steel industry is the question of comparing the economic position of the country and the extent of capacity or additional capacity required in the steel industry.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned an earlier intervention of mine. I have followed his argument carefully, and perhaps I may put this to him before he goes on to another point. He said that the profitability of the companies in public ownership, as against the profitability of companies still in private hands, was not, in his view, a fair test, and he thought that the capacity and use made of capacity was a better one. Could the noble Lord help the House on this matter? If one looks at the production of R.T.B. in 1963, for example, along with that of the United Steel Companies, the production of those two companies was almost the same, £3·3 million for the one as against £3·4 million for the other. Yet the profitability of United Steel was more than double that of R.T.B., and the capital employed in
84
R.T.B. was half as much again, £224 million, as in the United Steel Companies, £146 million.
LORD MITCHISON: All the noble Lord is saying is that Richard Thomas and Baldwins was a less profitable company. All I would say to him is that that is exactly the reason nobody bought it back. It is as simple as that. He need not go into technical dissertations as to why it was less profitable. The fact is, as I say, that it was not bought back by private industry because it was less profitable. All the steel companies at that time had been nationalised—it was not due to that.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, in fairness, I would say that since that date a large amount of public money has been poured into Richard Thomas and Baldwins to build their great new works, and in the last four years it has lost £30 million. It has had all the necessary capital pumped into it by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD MITCHISON: I feel inclined to say to the noble Lord that only a—I will leave out the next word—would really suppose that that had anything to do with its being nationalised or not. I have never been able to see this point. It is no use trying to persuade me about it; I am getting too old to be persuaded.
I turn from that matter to deal with the question of power in this industry. Large chunks of the steel industry moved from the coalin Wales to the ore in Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire. That move was a social change of the greatest importance, not only to South Wales which suffered intensely from it, as anybody who has been to that part of South Wales has seen, but also, on the credit side, to what happened in Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire. That was a major change of a technical character which had enormous social consequences. I agree entirely with those noble Lords who have said that this is an absolutely basic industry. One could not have a better illustration than what has happened to it in the past. Then, having done that, they started to work the ore in the long belt of gradually decreasing value which stretches roughly from the Wash southwestwards. They stopped at about Oxfordshire. The point where one stops working that ore is not only a business

85
decision, but a decision of the greatest social and economic importance to the country as a whole. It makes all the difference. It would not make such a difference in a small industry, in an industry which is less basic than the steel industry. But in the steel industry what happens to the main movements in it is a matter not for the quest of private profit, but for consideration in the light of the economy and the requirements of society as a whole. These are, therefore, matters to be decided by the Government of the day.
We were told that what we want is a first-rate steel industry, the best steel industry, and so on. When one looks at what that involves, it is not merely a question of efficiency but of what is the right thing to be done in certain circumstances. However much power one may seek to give to directors of steel companies or anybody else in a democratic country, it is the Government, and only the Government, which ought to decide that kind of thing. Those who seek to subordinate it to questions of private advantage or power in private hands are, I believe, doing a grave disservice to their country. It is a disservice which is particularly dangerous at a time when the world is changing around us, when other countries are developing, when the whole fabric of our civilisation is growing and changing, and when, as I see it, mistakes and narrowness of mind now may lead to untold trouble in the future. It is because I believe this to be a question of power, and a matter for social and economic decision in the interests of the country as a whole, and not merely a question of how one runs one particular industry, that I feel it must rest with the Government of the day. Given that conclusion, this seems to me to be the right kind of Bill.
With great respect to noble Lords who sought to put more into the Bill, I feel that they had not worked out what it was they wanted to put in. This Bill is simply a frame into which those matters are to be set. I was glad to hear tribute paid to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Those involved in consultation with the Government of the day will seek to get out the best scheme for the running of the National Corporation and the industry as a whole. That must be right. One could not try to put more than that into the Bill when dealing with a subject of this
86
complexity. I hope that I have not taken too long, and I hope your Lordships will feel that those of us who think this industry ought to be nationalised do so because we believe, as earnestly no doubt as other Lords believe the opposite, that it is right in the interests of the country, and I venture to say in the interests of the world at large—and is ultimately right in the interests of the men and women who live in the country, including those who work in this industry who have no doubt what they want in the matter. The iron and steel workers have been perfectly clear about it, and their views are of some importance.
6.38 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, following the usual custom, I will declare my interest in this matter of the Iron and Steel Bill. I came into the steel industry in 1943, and retired from it in 1962 and, therefore, I had an intimate knowledge of what was happening in the industry during the whole of that period. I did not intend to mention the name of the company, but as several other noble Lords have mentioned their connections, I will mention that the name of the business was Hadfield's. The experience I had there, having now retired as an octagenarian with very happy memories of the industry, was of a closely-knit collaboration in the industry at all levels.
I was a member of the Executive of the British Iron and Steel Federation. The members of that Executive were leaders of their industry, in each case competing very actively against each other, but always with the greatest friendship, and with a happiness in meeting at frequent intervals—almost like your Lordships'House—a friendship which one could maintain throughout. That feeling went right through the industry down to the workpeople on the shop floor operating the furnaces; and there was always a pride in the fact that there were no strikes and that there was great friendship at all levels. I know that we hear of strikes, stoppages and so on in the steel industry—it makes a very fine heading to a column in a newspaper—but if you look into them you find that they were due to misunderstandings with the industries which provided the ancilliary undertakings—the repairs to furnaces, the finishing-off of certain items made in a

87
firm such as that to which I referred, where there is also a great deal of engineering work, and so on.
I will give an example. What goes on in a steel works is not generally realised. Often a visitor will come who has never before seen a steel works, and he is always amazed, not only at the wonderful apparatus in the works, but at the pride in achievement of the people there. It gives a person a new outlook on what industry can be. I can think of the case of a young man who had never before been employed in a steel works. He was always changing from one place to another because he could not settle down and did not feel that he was appreciated. I do not know whether it was by chance, but he came as a labourer on the open hearth shop floor. After a time he said, "Well, I have never had anything like this. I am made to feel that I am of some use and I feel happy here, which I have never felt before." He referred to the manager of that department and said, "I feel that Mr. So-and-So is a gentleman." What he meant was that he was always being encouraged, and was not being set down as someone inefficient and of no use.
The time when I was in the works included the war period, and we were very busy on war production. Of course, that applied all through the industry. But at that time we were subject to destruction by enemy bombing, so there was no great move to increase the individual works. But in America they were out of bombing range, so great increases took place there. The German steel works were largely destroyed, so when peace came they started from scratch and had everything new. Those are the differences which are sometimes referred to and which make people feel that we are behindhand.
I can remember very well when we had a British Exhibition in Moscow. The British Iron and Steel Federation had a very fine stand of their own. That was at the time when Mr. Khrushchev was the leading person, and when he came on to the stand he said, "I realise that all the systems of steel-making which exist to-day were started in your country. It is true that we have taken them up, enlarged them and improved them, but you were the originators." That is quite dif-
88
ferent from what is so often suggested: that we are no use at all, and that we have to make excuses for not being as good as other countries. Other countries think very highly of us, and we should be proud of that and work up to it.
After that time developments took place, but ever since there has been any idea of steel-making, quite early in the century, it became a sort of dogma—se the word—in the Labour Party that steel ought to be nationalised. There was no particular reason for it, but there it was. An Iron and Steel Bill was introduced in 1949, and I will show in a few moments how very similar it was to what we have to-day. When that Bill was under discussion, visitors to the works sometimes asked the men, "What do you think of this?" The answer was, "Well, it does not make much difference to us. So long as we have the same management we shall be all right." They were sometimes asked about voting, but of course they voted Labour. They were not going to vote differently just because of one Bill, and that has been so all the way through. There has been a tendency to say that there was a vote in favour of the Bill, but that was only one Bill which was suggested in the general programme.
I must say that I am inclined to-day to feel very sorry for the Government. They have missed an enormous opportunity. As my noble friend Lord Rochdale has said, it would have been so easy to say, "Now here is this rationalisation which everybody here and in every other country is so keen about, and it can be proceeded with with the help of the Government." But as my noble friend said, there was always an unusually large majority—a strong Left Wing, as it is called—from the early days, from the beginning of this century, which had this idea of steel nationalisation. So I believe that the Government were compelled to push in the direction of nationalisation. To do that, it was decided to purchase seven great companies at an enormous cost. Is it £500 million or £600 million? I do not know. But that money has to be found at a time of great stringency, instead of taking the opportunity to encourage rationalisation.
Mention has been made of the Benson Committee. That Committee produced a very fine scheme which has been stopped because of nationalisation.

89
Nationalisation first became possible in 1949, though one Party had always been keen about it. In my experience, that period of nationalisation did not do very much harm. The first reason for that was that the companies in the Schedule, which amounted to hundreds, kept their individuality; they had one shareholder instead of a number. That state of affairs did not last very long, because there was a change of Government. But, in spite of what had been said about the disposal of companies in one piece, there was no difficulty at all in going to the market and obtaining new quotations. Those companies found that there was great competition for their shares. Here I must mention my own company again. A great many of the workpeople bought shares, and to this day more than half of those who attend the annual meetings are employees of the company. I say this to show the enthusiasm which could have been used without the waste of a tremendous amount of money at this time of stringency.
A good deal has been said in the last few weeks about the fact that Mr. Macdiarmid (and his name has been mentioned) has undertaken to be the vice-chairman of the organisation which has been set up to advise on the running of the industry. The explanation is shown in his chairman's statement and in the statements of the chairmen of several other companies: that the main thing is to keep the industry going, even if one does not feel that the best way of doing that is by nationalisation. That shows the spirit in the industry and the wish to keep it going and to be proud of it, while at the same time doing everything possible to resist the industry's becoming a political shuttlecock. In 1949 I made a public speech on this subject, and I happened to be able to turn it up. I found that what was said then was very much the same as what is being said to-day—the great difference being, as I have said, that the number of companies then involved was large.
Another reason why I feel sympathy for the Government is because, if one looks at the speech of the Minister of Power on the Second Reading. of this Bill—and I think I may quote him, as he is a Minister—one sees that, on July 25 last, in column 1223 of the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT, he said:
90
"I must begin by apologising to the House. Had I realised that the exclusion of so many steel companies would cause so much trouble I could have reconsidered it and included the lot."
I suppose that, in a way, that is typical of the position into which we have got. It is unfortunate, but I suppose inevitable, that there are few subjects upon which it is more difficult to get a rational discussion than the future of the British steel industry. The Minister ended his speech by saying, at column 1241:
"This Bill is no irrelevant genuflection to any dead dogma of the past…"
Most of us feel that that is exactly what it is.
One aspect of this matter which has always troubled me is that the steel industry has been attached (if I may use that word) to the Ministry of Power. Over all this time the Ministry of Power has been responsible for the nationalised industries, so-called. I am sure my noble friends will remember how the steel industry referred constantly to the Board of Trade because, being an export industry and a manufacturing industry, it had to work with the Board of Trade. People may have felt, "Well, there it is; it is just one of the industries under the Ministry of Power, so it may as well go just like that". I am sure it has not been fully compared with those industries which are in fact not industries at all, but services, and which have the reputation, at all events, of not being very good at making money. And there is no reason why the steel industry, on being nationalised, should make more money. If there is only one shareholder there are, of course, no shareholders to complain at an annual meeting if there is a loss.
I have mentioned the British Iron and Steel Federation and its composition. It has had its charter slightly altered recently, but all through, the work of the industry, to which I have referred, though not exactly controlled, is managed by that Federation. They have a wonderderful staff. Their loyalty, their efficiency and their collaboration have made it possible for the steel industry to be what it is. Under this Bill that great Federation will be broken up. The Minister has said that he hopes a special organisation will be set up to cater for those firms which are not in the list, which are not among the fourteen. From what he has said, I am sure

91
he means to make it as easy as possible for that staff to be engaged and to go on feeling that they are of real use, as they indeed are. I am sure the Minister is sincere about that. But, of course, there may be another Minister—we do not know—and she or he might have a different view. But there it is. The other organisation which has been mentioned is the British Iron and Steel Research Association. That is in a slightly different position. It has wonderful research laboratories in Sheffield, in Swansea and in London, and it enjoys a very high reputation throughout the world, being in close touch with similar research organisations in other countries.
I would end by saying that this Bill depends very much on the 1949 Act. There are 64 clauses, and 33 of them, I think, refer to that Act. In addition, there is the 1953 Act, to which reference is also made. I have turned up a record of what I said in a speech I made at the time the 1949 Act was a Bill. My closing remark was:
"We do not like it, we do not want it and we will not have it".
We did have it, and we did the best we could. I said then that what we were determined to do was to be true to the industry, and that it was not illogical that we should do everything possible to make the industry a success. I would say today that what is certain is that every man at the furnaces, be they open-hearth, electric arc or converters, will be loyal to the industry and will do his best to be worthy of the task he has.
May I quote from the closing, farewell article of Mr. Edward Senior, who retired as Director of the Federation? It read:
"The Industry is now to be confined within the disciplines of political theory. This I find saddening, just as we glimpse through the opening door the wider opportunities of more effective economic disciplines of greater competition within the European group. However the form and the organisation of the Steel Industry may change, never will its service to the country and the economy."
So now this Bill is before your Lordships. We have to accept it that the nationalisation scheme will take place; but we must do our best to make improvements by suitable Amendments.
7.1 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend, the Deputy Leader of the House, will not think me presumptuous if, as a Back-Bencher, I congratulate him on his forthright and vigorous advocacy of an essential piece of what I believe to be sound Socialism. I only hope that my next remark will not get me into any trouble. There are times when some of us feel that the velvet glove approach softens—I had better not say "stills"—the voice of Socialism in this House; but that could not be said to-day. For one in my position on the list of speakers to-day, when this debate has been going on for over four hours there is not much left to say; but I will try not to go over the ground which so many noble Lords have covered. I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no connection whatever, directly or indirectly, with steel; but I have spent some time as an observer in some steel works since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House and my reason for speaking to-day is merely to say, as shortly as I can, how I see the position.
I think everyone accepts that the iron and steel industry occupies a dominating position in our economy. I feel also that there may be general agreement among noble Lords that something is seriously wrong with the steel industry. I think this is borne out by the recently-published Report by the Special Development Co-ordinating Committee of the Iron and Steel Federation to which a number of noble Lords have referred. This Report recommended the reshaping and re-equipping of the industry within the next ten years. One would imagine that the industry itself would not make such a suggestion unless it were absolutely essential. That Committee was of the opinion that, by 1975, six or seven integrated steel works, those making steel from basic materials (coal and iron ore), together with two or three large non-integrated works, those processing scrap steel, could provide well over 28 ingot million tons a year. That Committee made it clear that by the reorganisation and the integration of certain steel firms there could be a considerable improvement in production. If there existed a sincere desire on the part of the industry to be really efficient,

93
people like myself, outside the industry, find it difficult to understand why it did not arrive at that conclusion very much earlier.
But, within a matter of weeks, plans for a massive merger of three of Britain's major steel companies—already capable of making nearly a quarter of the nation's steel requirements—was made known. I feel like asking: had the industry only then become aware of its inadequacies? It would seem to me, and to many others outside the industry, that the threat of nationalisation, which we all know will shortly become a reality, stampeded the industry into making an eleventh hour attempt to put their house in order. I say, with great respect, that it was an action which the industry should have taken years ago. For years the industry—and, for that matter, the whole country—has clearly known the attitude of the Labour Party towards steel. We nationalised it once and we made it perfectly clear that, if it were denationalised we would nationalise it again.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale—and I hope I am not doing him an injustice—was rather contemptuous of the nationalised undertakings; I though the tended to dismiss them almost with the wave of a hand. But I would ask him and other noble Lords to look at what some of the nationalised undertakings have been able to do. If we look at the achievements of the Electricity Council to-day we find there has been a 98 per cent.—in fact, almost 99 per cent.—rural electrification. Electricity has been taken into farms in the Highlands of Scotland and the uplands of Wales and into the little country areas—and not only into the farms but into the dwelling houses. I say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that this would not have been possible and would not have been done under private enterprise, for it would have been too costly they could not have found the money. I think this may well apply to the steel industry—although I am the first to admit that I am not an authority in these matters—and that the Party of the noble Lords opposite believes it does apply.
My Lords, this is not just a piece of doctrinaire Socialism; but, of course, it has political implications. It was, I think, the noble Marquess, Lord Aber-
94
deen and Temair, who said that no particular reason was given for the nationalisation of the steel industry. But we did not have to give a reason. I am a convert to Socialism; but I have been in the Labour Party a good many years—far more years than I care now to remember.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, but what I meant to say was that there was no need to mention a reason because there was no reason. It was the dogma without a reason.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: With the greatest respect to the noble Marquess, I say that in our view there was every reason—I repeat, every reason—to feel that something of basic necessity to our economy is so important that we cannot take the risk of leaving it in the hands of private enterprise. It is quite wrong to think that this has been done for no other reason than to placate a few members of the Left-Wing element of the Labour Party. This is a sincere attempt by the Government to do what they think right and essential in the interests of the United Kingdom: that is, to bring under public control an industry which is of supreme importance to our economy. For this reason, and for no other, we are doing it.
A good deal has been said to-day about the effectiveness and efficiency of the steel industry. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to quote from The Times of July 2:
"Over the past years the steel industry has not been operated in a markedly efficient fashion. The quality of some products has been poor, British steel has not been as competitive in world markets as it should have been."
This may be true or it may not be true; it is a quotation from The Times; but I think many of us realise to-day that the industry needs to be reorganised and rationalised. Those of us who have attempted to make some study, albeit without very much experience, realise that there are far too many plants in this country and perhaps too many on the managerial side, and possibly there may be too many workers in the industry itself. Another question we have to ask ourselves is: if the industry needs to be reorganised and rationalised, is it, as at

95
present constituted, able to bear the financial burden involved? We must face the fact that there is a poverty of capital. We have found this in other industries which have become public undertakings. I ask your Lordships earnestly to ask yourselves whether you think the industry can afford the capital necessary for undertaking such a basic operation as is needed at the present time.
If the industry had really been concerned with efficiency and effectiveness it would have undertaken years ago the kind of merger envisaged recently by Dorman Long and South Durham. It is precisely the kind of change which critics of the industry, and, if I may say so, critics of nationalisation, have been urging for the past twenty years. But the industry was content to turn a deaf ear. It was content, or seemed to be, to let things remain as they were. Now in the foreseeable future it is to be done for the industry—always assuming that the Minister succeeds in finding the right people for the top positions. I wish to associate myself strongly with what was said by my noble friend Lord Blyton about the Vice-Chairman. If what was said is indicative of what the Vice-Chairman thinks, the Minister, in my view, will have to reassess his fitness and his suitability for the job which it is envisaged he shall do, and I should like to make that point strongly.
My Lords, the need for change in the industry has become apparent because of the growth and reorganisation of the steel industries in several other countries. This point was referred to by my noble friend Lord Shackleton. The German steel industry is to be reorganised into four cooperative organisations which will in turn take over the administrative functions of individual companies, as well as control investment production and sales. The French industry is to reorganise itself into three units, two of which will be able each to produce more than 7 million tons—
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to ask him: does he consider that the French method of rationalisation is nationalisation in any way?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I would say, Yes.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is absolutely wrong. I am sorry to say so—with the greatest respect. But I will come to that point in my speech.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, two of these companies will each be able to produce more than 7 million tons, or twice as much as the largest British company. As my noble friend Lord Shackle-ton told the House, we are faced to-day with five companies in Japan, eight in the United States and nine in the European Coal and Steel Community each larger than the largest British company. Because we in the Labour Party recognise the importance of this industry to our economy, we feel that we have to face the fact that the industry must be brought under public control, since it is doubtful whether private enterprise can achieve what we feel is needed for the industry.
It may well be that the managing director of production at Dorman Long had the answer when he said about the steel industry in November, 1962:
"We are undoubtedly too complacent and resistant to change, believing that things will carry on much the same as they have always done, a silly view at any time hut with the greater competition from the Continent, a very dangerous one."
We have to face the fact that in some areas there has hardly been any progress at all; in others, there has been a refusal to specialise. The industry has invested about £1,100 million in the past decade. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, put it at £2,000 million in the last 20 years, and, with respect. I would not disagree with that figure. I think it only reasonable to ask what we have got for what has been invested. In research, expenditure has increased a little in the last year or two. The noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, said that we have a wonderful research department. I challenge that. I apologise to your Lordships for not being able to give the date, but I have here a cutting, which is not very old, from the Sunday Observer. The headline is, "Britain lags in world steel research race". It just is not accurate to say that we have got a wonderful research department. In point of fact, we are well behind the rest of the world, when it comes to research in the steel industry.

97
My Lords, along with other Members on both sides of your Lordships' House I realise that we shall not achieve very much by arguing and discussing what is wrong with the industry. The important thing is to know what we are going to do about it. I believe very sincerely that the solution lies in nationalisation and bringing under public control those firms which, with their subsidiaries, are responsible for producing over 90 per cent. of our steel. I do not believe that nationalisation is the anathema to the Party of the noble Lords opposite that they sometimes make out. They have not sought to denationalise the coal mines and the railways—but, of course, we know that neither of these two concerns was profitable in terms of money. Perhaps steel presents an entirely different problem. If the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, is right when he says that nationalisation of steel will make it more difficult for us to get into the Common Market, then, if I could do so, I should support this Bill even more.
7.20 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, my contribution to this debate will be brief, but in two distinctive complementary parts. First. I would complain that an important and controversial debate of this nature is being held on a Monday. I speak as a Peer whose habitat is some four hundred miles away. I noticed when I came into the House that the Benches on the Government side were thinly occupied. I protest that it is unreasonable to demand Monday and Friday sittings by Peers who give—yes, give—of their time to the work of Parliament.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has every right to take this view. There were protests on Friday about taking an important subject on a Friday. If we are not to take them on Monday we shall confine ourselves to three days a week, and I do not think that there is any Divine ordinance which says that the House of Lords must sit for only three days a week.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, perhaps, we may talk about this. I have a constructive suggestion to make, but I feel bound to make this protest because I believe that it is unfortunate to have a debate of this importance on a Monday.
98
Nevertheless, inconvenient as it is for many of us to come five days a week, which means leaving home on Sunday night and getting back on Saturday morning, I found it impossible to resist the command of my conscience to speak out against any further nationalisation. This is not a dogma; this is the fruit of some measure of experience, regarding which I will not weary the House. But I did not accept the responsibility of a Life Peerage to stay away from your Lordships' House or keep silent in a debate like this because there is nothing more to be done about it. Here we have in this Bill a sort of totem pole, indicative of some ancient tribal rite. At the top of the Explanatory Memorandum, page 1, line 1, are the words, "to bring into public ownership"—an anachronistic skull-and-crossbones right at the top of the pole. I believe that what is meant is to bring under State ownership and control. I cannot see why that is not said, except that the other is so old-fashioned.
I regret that I missed the beginning of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, but I noticed that he continually used this phrase. Its use in this connection upsets me. The iron and steel industry now is owned by the public. In his speech, the noble Viscount, Lord Muirshiel, outlined his views on this aspect. Apart from direct investments, which are very great—I am not interested myself—millions of people have life assurance policies, and I wager that few, if any, of the Life Offices have not in their portfolios shares in one or more of the companies in Schedule 1. I do not know whether it is appreciated that the total of sums assured in terms of life assurance averages £690 per head of the whole population. Other investors have invested in unit and investment trusts, all of whom have shares in the industry, as also have institutional investors.
The industry is publicly owned now, and the shareholders have more word in how to run the industry than they ever will under nationalisation, either in the form of the Bill which is before us or in the form of the other nationalised industries, in the control of which the public, who own them, cannot get a word in edgeways. It is inevitable that this Bill will receive a Second Reading. To refuse it would

99
only make the present confusion worse confounded. Of course, it is the threat of nationalisation over the years which is the main reason for the steel companies' present shortcomings.
State management and control have failed to make the grade in a competitive world, no matter how effective day-to-day operations may be—and some are not so effectively run at that. I believe with the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, that some middle course is the right one, some rationalisation which would include a measure of State participation, but quite distinct from nationalisation, which, as proposed in this Bill, would preclude the sort of rationalisation I have in mind. Perhaps some kind of middle course, as suggested by the noble Viscount, will ultimately be the outcome. I regard his constructive speech as most valuable. When the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, intervened, I felt like saying that I could not see his suggestion as coming within the four corners of the Bill as it stands to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, urged that we should keep away from political questions. I agree with him, but let us face the facts. What about Coal Board management? Excellent, no doubt, but the fact is that coal is being priced out of use, certainly in the domestic field. Here I declare an interest. As a consumer I cannot get the coal which I require for the apparatus which I have in my home. I rather wish I had been disloyal and gone over to oil, like many other people. And what about the fully-automated coal mine? It is not being operated at capacity yet and it lay idle for months, even years. As for the railways, where are the liner trains and where are the profits?
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, suggested that directors do not represent shareholders. I think that he is going too far. Within the scope of the Companies Act shareholders in privately owned industry have a better share in saying how their undertaking will be directed and managed than is ever likely under nationalisation in terms of this Bill. I assure the noble Lord that just as he believes earnestly in the other direction, I believe earnestly that this proposal is basically a mistake in the interests of the nation as a whole.
100
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred to rural electrification under nationalised electricity. Of course he appreciates that the first rural electricity scheme in the world was introduced by private enterprise in Southern Scotland, as was the first hydro-electric undertaking in Britain, and the second pumped-storage undertaking in the world. I will not go on about electricity supply, although it is a subject with which I am well acquainted in another country where we succeeded in getting some sort of rationalisation, some integration of control between the State and private enterprise which is working satisfactorily to this day.
I feel that this reactionary proposal has been a central feature of Socialist policy for years, and this is a fact which cannot be gainsaid. At the same time, other noble Lords have said—and one hears it up and down the country—that people are losing interest in the whole thing. They accept it as a fait accompli. But that the people so accept it to-day is, I think, as true as it is true that a rabbit accepts the situation when a weasel mesmerises it with its antics. So marked is this situation that people up and down the country, as one noble Lord has said only to-day, feel that even the steel managements themselves are unable to take a firm line in the matter. This, of course, is not the case.
It is my hope and prayer that this House may be able at the Committee stage to mitigate the most disadvantageous features of this Bill, especially in the direction of some sort of check or control, some referee, some system whereby the actual shareholders, who are the people, will be able to have more control over what is done than they are ever likely to get under this Bill. As I sit down, I ask: why is the Committee stage set down for a Monday?
7.32 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just preceeded me opened his speech by saying that he had come here to-day to speak against nationalisation. We appear to be cancelling one another out, for my reason for taking part in the debate is to speak in support of this Bill, and to welcome it most heartily, because I believe most sincerely in public ownership of our basic industries.

101
The noble Lord made reference also, to coal; and this is a subject which always attracts me. He spoke about this commodity being priced out of the markets. I would ask the noble Lord to consider some of the burdens that have been imposed upon the National Coal Board. Take coal royalties, for instance. Until 1990 the National Coal Board have to meet this liability. Then, take the case of subsidence. This is increasing every year, and the figure with which the Coal Board have been saddled has now reached the astronomic height of £10 million a year. I do not want to make this into a debate on coal, but the noble Lord provoked me when he made reference to it. He then made some reference to the automated colliery in Nottingham, from where I come, and said that it is not yet fully operative. This is quite true. There have been difficulties, and there has been a lot of capital expenditure. It is an entirely new experiment. Perhaps I might pass on the information to your Lordships' House that production has now commenced at the new Bevercotes Colliery, which, owing to the initiative and expenditure of capital investment by the Coal Board on behalf of the nation, will be the most automated pit in the world.
The Bill before your Lordships' House has evoked a great deal of interest. It is an interesting Bill. It is also an important Bill. The degree of controversy about it is no less than its interest or its importance; and I would submit to your Lordships that in a free society like ours, with a mixed economy, it could not be otherwise. During the passage of the Bill through the other place the Minister made reference to the fact—and I believe that this is some indication of the interest taken in the Bill by Parliament itself—that the Committee stage occupied 2,590 columns of Hansard, and the Report stage lasted 20 hours and 50 minutes. So one could go on to indicate the interest that has been evoked in Parliament by the Bill before us to-day. And not only has this happened inside Parliament; it has happened outside, as well. A variety of opinion has been expressed, not merely upon the principles but also upon the proposals in the Bill.
I calculate that one thing emerges from the multitude of voices that has been heard about taking over into public
102
ownership the steel industry, and it is this: that all is not well with the existing state of organisation and the structure in our British steel industry. The various channels of communication which are at our disposal, if one takes the time and trouble to listen to them, have not been hesitant in pronouncing judgment on the existing state of organisation in our steel industry. Sections of the Press, some steel owners themselves, and even the Iron and Steel Board, have joined the great multitude of voices commenting on the state of our steel industry. This industry has been pinpointed in pamphlets, speeches and articles in the Press—not just for the last few weeks, or the last few months, but for a number of years—and since the White Paper and the publication of the Bill before us to-day many of these different channels have pronounced their judgment on the organisation and structure of the steel industry.
I should like to make one or two quotations to place on record the judgment of these various channels of communication. I refer, first of all, to the article in The Times of July 2 last year, to which my noble friend referred. It said:
"The steel industry over the past years has not been operated in a markedly efficient manner."
Then, the Guardian, on the same day, said:
"The steel industry must rationalise or perish. This is the harsh economic, nonpolitical, undoctrinaire reason for reorganisation. The case for nationalisation is stronger to-day than what it was in 1949."
The following day, the Observer used these words:
"The case against the Government's Bill"—
that is, this Bill—
"would be much more persuasive if either the Conservatives or the steel masters had produced a convincing plan for bringing about the industry's much-needed rationalisation without full-scale public ownership."
What about the Iron and Steel Board themselves? This piece of machinery was the child of the 1953 legislation when the steel industry was denationalised. This is what they say:
"The Board have long been of opinion that the industry needs to he reorganised into fewer but individually larger units, equipped with a plant of greater size than is generally the case at the moment. Technical studies undertaken

103
in the Board's organisation certainly support the view that great advantages are to be derived from the concentration and the reorganisation of production."
Evidence of this nature, coming from the sources it does, indicates, in my humble submission, that "all is not well in the State of Denmark". Such evidence, less in volume maybe, is not unlike the evidence that was given about the coal industry in the years from 1919 until 1947.
So far as I am able to discover from maybe my limited investigations, the expert evidence, certainly respecting the structure and organisation of the steel industry, is in favour of a change. I admit to your Lordships—and I make no apology for it—that I am in favour of public ownership; and the best change that can come about so far as this industry is concerned is proposed in the Bill that is before us. There is not complete unanimity upon this, I know, but for some kind of change there are not many dissentient voices. The percentage for maintaining the status quo is, in my humble submission, very small indeed. This is where the nub comes. This is where the differences begin to arise: not that something shall be done, but how, and what, and when?
There have been years of procrastination. The steel owners, the post-1953 Governments up to 1964, have done little to improve the structure and the organisation of this all-important basic industry of steel. As has been pointed out in many speeches during the debate to-day, great changes have taken place, still are taking place, and are likely to take place, in the United States, in Europe, and in Japan, enabling them to compete more favourably. This Bill, as I see it, is to end the procrastination which has bedevilled this industry now for a very long time.
In my view, this Bill provides the best way of meeting the challenge made by those who know the industry much better than I do. Those who have given detailed study to the structure and the technicalities, and also to the challenge of other steel producing countries, have come to the conclusion—rightly, in my view—that the best and most effective way to meet that challenge, both internally and externally, is to take the industry into public ownership. And upon this course,
104
I believe rightly, the Government have decided, and I welcome this Bill in your Lordships' House to-day.
I do not want to take too long at this late hour, but there are one or two observations I should like to make about some of the provisions in the Bill. I think I will confine myself, if I may, to three, and they all begin with C: compensation, consultation, and the setting up of the Corporation. First, compensation. May I say just a word about this—and may I assure your Lordships that I am no financial wizard? But I do know this. In my lifetime, whenever public ownership has been proposed, it has always been a vexed question, and it has not been an easy question to answer. It has not been a small hurdle to surmount. There has always been a diversity of opinion. It was the same with coal royalties in 1937; it was just the same when the coal industry was nationalised in 1947, and it is the same again so far as this Bill is concerned.
The history of the arguments about public ownership reveals one thing: that there are always some Oliver Twists who are crying for more. Fair and adequate compensation has always been a principle of the Labour Party in taking over the basic industries into public ownership. My own belief—and I pass it on for what it is worth—is that some cases have been more than fair and some cases had been more than adequate: if I may digress for a moment, when compensation was not based on shares quoted on the Stock Market. So far as the taking over of property was concerned, the National Coal Board took over a lot of junk and rubbish in 1947. However, on this point there is evidence, according to the debates—and I have read most of the speeches both on Second Reading and on Third Reading in another place. The Minister indicated that the Government, in their decision so far as the terms of compensation were concerned in taking over the steel industry, are fair. Personally, on the figures which he produced in another place, I think the terms are over-generous.
May I now say a word about consultation? I have been connected with one of the heavy industries—coal—for the whole of my life. My experience has taught me (and I remember the 1912 coal stoppage and the 1921 and the 1926 stoppages) that

105
in any industry, whether it be private or public, good industrial relations are of great importance. Particularly is this so in this steel industry, with its complex and complicated techniques, where there is an interdependence from the top of the pyramid right down to its base. To ignore the need for consultation in modern industry, be it private or public, is fatal to its best interests. What there should be, and I believe what is growing, is a feeling of "togetherness" in our modern industry. That is most important. As I see it in this Bill, consultation is a step forward as compared with the principles of consultation that were laid down in some of the previous nationalisation measures. Consultation must mean more than the making of complaints and getting answers from the management. That is not consultation at all.
I should like to quote the Minister in another place, on the Third Reading of this Bill, when he said:
"a relationship…wherein the workers themselves take part in the formulation and production of ideas and become involved in the decisions which have to be made".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons: 26 /1 /67, col. 1801.]
That is the consultation that I believe we ought to have and that I hope we shall get when the steel industry is taken into public ownership.
May I now say one or two words about the Corporation itself? It is not an easy matter for any Minister to decide the personnel of the board. I must say that last Thursday morning, when I read the statement of the chairman of Stewarts and Lloyds at the annual meeting of shareholders, I was surprised, I was shocked and I was concerned at some of the things he said. One did not mind his saying that the Bill was bad. That is his opinion—all right. But when he, as one of the deputy chairmen who is to take part in the running of this industry, went on to question the sincerity of the Government in the introduction of this Bill, my reaction was that it was going much to far. If one had the time one could read at great length from the statement that he made less than a week ago. He talked about the Government's not being concerned with long-term stability in this industry and the purpose of this Bill as being to provide a Parliamentary circus for the Government's adherents who were in revolt because their bread was becoming scarce. I think that is
106
pretty awful. Then he said, "This company will rise again from the ashes", and, as my noble friend, Lord Blyton, said, surely he meant the ashes of nationalisation; the phoenix of Stewarts and Lloyds would be rebuilt. I think this gentleman wants not only Good Friday, so far as this Bill is concerned, but Easter Sunday as far as Stewarts and Lloyds are concerned. I think he should reconsider his position.
Frankly, if I had given expression to sentiments of that kind and I was going to take part in the activities of the proposed Corporation I should certainly have my hand on my heart, at any rate; and if he is not prepared to reconsider his decision in regard to becoming deputy chairman, then, in my humble judgment, the Minister should take action. I say that for two reasons. First, in the light of the statements that he has made and the sentiments that he has expressed in regard to this Bill, he will be suspect and non persona grata in the steel industry. If Mr. Macdiarmid is not prepared to do what I consider to be the right, proper and decent thing, then the Minister should take steps to see that a man whose heart is not in the business, whatever his technical and organisational abilities might be, should not be deputy-chairman of the Corporation.
Finally, I should like to say that I give this Bill a welcome. The steel industry of the future, under the ægis of public ownership, has my good wishes.
7.57 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat will not expect me to follow up some of the remarks he has made, because we view this problem from diametrically opposed points of view. I must say that the Government's case for nationalising steel is difficult to understand. It appears to rely mainly on the argument that the steel companies are far too small to take advantage of the latest techniques of production and direction, and that the necessary rationalisation recognised by the industry can be achieved only by nationalisation. No arguments can be put forward that the industry is a natural monopoly, like gas, electricity or the railways. It is not beset by social problems: nor is it a public utility. It is certainly a Socialist illusion to suppose that State planning will secure greater

107
advantages in investment, in capacity, in production, in marketing and in exporting.
As for the indictments that the steel industry as at present constituted cannot finance expansion, and cannot be subjected to price competition, I feel that this could be most usefully viewed in the light of what is at present being done in France under the Plan Professionel which was signed in Paris on July 29 last. This State steel industry agreement inaugurated a completely new formula of planning—or planification, to use the French word, and of concerted effort between one branch of industry, which has shown cohesion and realism and has agreed to make structural changes, and the State, which, taking note of the pledges given by the industry and deciding to control their implementation, has agreed that certain facilities will be provided, particularly in the realm of long-term credits at a preferential rate.
The important aspect of this convention is that the basis of this planning is essentially contractual. Indeed, it represents a major step in France's effort of elaboration of a political economy in a modern democracy. Therefore we see developed in the past few years close consultation and understanding between M. Debré, the Economics and Finance Minister: M. Marcellin, the Minister for Industry, and M. Jacques Ferry, the President of the Chambre Syndicale de la Siderurgie Française, which is the equivalent of the British Iron and Steel Federation. This consultation and understanding have culminated, following, as I said, over two years' reflection, in the signing of the convention and in a joint Press conference which took place at the Ministère des Finances on July 27, last. Particularly for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I should like to quote the remarks made at that joint Press Conference by M. Jacques Ferry. He said—I am translating:
"As President of the Chambre Syndicale de la Siderurgie Française I should like to say how satisfied I am with the agreement that has been reached between the State and the French steel industry."
And then, further on:
"Thus, within the framework of this convention and to its advantage the French steel undertakings maintain the essential elements of freedom of a private enterprise."
108
And still further on he added:
"I consider this agreement to be a happy solution."
With regard to this convention, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned in his opening remarks the question of the dogma of nationalisation, and also the dogma of private enterprise, possibly this French convention might be considered to be a halfway house between the two. In fact, it might to some extent meet the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and my noble friend Lord Ferrier.
On the other hand, what do we do in this country under a Socialist Government? In spite of the fact that the whole United Kingdom steel industry had accepted the need for rationalisation into larger units; in spite of the fact that the industry had set up its own development co-ordinating committee (the Benson Committee, whose Stage I Report came out on July 23), we see that the Bill for the nationalisation of steel had its Second Reading two days later. There, in the Benson Committee's Report, were clearly laid out the industry's proposals for rationalisation; and all the Minister can offer—and the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton said much the same—is the statement that he hopes that Sir Henry Benson and the members of his Committee will be willing to assist the Organising Committee, whilst he ("he" being the Minister) recognises the value of their work. That is, I must say, a very curious form of consultation, and a very strange way of concerting the powers of the State with the needs of the industry in the national interest.
No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, or the noble Earl who is to wind up will have read the article "Rationalisation in France" which appeared in the last month's Steel Review, as well as the Plan Professionnel which came out in the same Review last July. In fact, as I believe the noble Earl, as a former Oxford don, must surely speak French, I shall be delighted to hand him a copy of the Convention which was signed on July 29 by all the parties concerned, and also hand him a script of the joint Press conference which took place between M. Marcellin, M. Debré and M. Ferry, where he will read the complete details of what the French Government proposed. And if he will consult the

109
noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, he will see in effect what M. Debré did say, which is neither étatisation—that is, State-control—nor laissez faire.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think even the dons of Cambridge know what laissez-faire means.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that remark. There is more than that in the remarks of M. Michel Debré, I can assure the noble Earl. What stood out very much during the whole period of the negotiations prior to this agreement which was signed was, I was told by a friend of mine, who happens to be M. Jacques Ferry, the close collaboration and the joint consultation that took place I must say that as President of the Chambre Syndicale, the equivalent of the British Iron and Steel Federation, he played a leading part between the Government and the French steel industry, and I feel at this stage that if, in effect, the British Iron and Steel Federation had been given the opportunity to act in a similar way between the steel industry as a whole and the British Government they might have reached a solution along the lines of the French system, which is rationalisation without nationalisation and which might, in the end, have been more satisfactory than the nationalisation that the British Government envisage.
I turn now to the monolithic aspects of the National Steel Corporation. As the noble Lord mentioned, the Bill does not lay down in any detail the organisation of the industry after nationalisation. He went on to say that the Government's intention is that there should be competition between, certain groups. Even if it is intended that the National Steel Corporation should operate as competing groups, on the Italian principle, for instance, even with minimal central control, does the noble Earl really believe that anyone on the Continent will be taken in by this, solely on account of the fact that there will be just one shareholder controlling some 22 per cent. of the capacity of the combined European Coal and Steel Community and United Kingdom markets? The largest Italian group represents only some 8 to 10 per cent. I believe I am right in saying that the
110
Treaty of Paris of 1951 was so drafted as to make compliance with its terms possible only for a miscellany of individually operated groups, each representing in practice not more than 10 per cent. of the total Community capacity.
In view of this country's praiseworthy desire to enter the Common Market, whether this huge mastodon which is to be set up operates as a monopoly or as a cartel seems to some extent irrelevant so far as the opposition that is bound to come from certain members of the Six is concerned. That will come, I imagine, under Article 66(2) or Article 65 of the Treaty of Paris. Does the noble Earl really think there will be no reaction on the part of France, for instance? Does he really believe that M. Jacques Ferry, as President of the equivalent in France of the British Iron and Steel Federation, will quietly, without a murmur, without any reference to the French Government, without any reservations, see this one-shareholder, overpowering competitor enter the European Coal and Steel Community? I think not. My impression is that there could be a reaction fairly soon.
In conclusion, what seems fantastic is that the Government, in order to satisfy some old-fashioned Socialistic doctrinal principle, should have chosen this non-collaborative method to rationalise this basic industry and to repair any defects there may be in the present powers of the Iron and Steel Board rather than adopt a modern formula based, for instance, on the contractual principle which has been adopted in France; and I should be interested to have the views of the noble Earl as to how effective he thinks this type of convention can be from the French national point of view. I feel, too, as has been mentioned by one or two noble Lords, that our entry into the Common Market may to some extent be unnecessarily impeded with such a set-up, and that the negotiations for our entry can be protracted by the setting up of what I may call this large mastodon. I would end by quoting one sentence to the noble Earl. It seems to me a pity that the Government do not have what I may call the wisdom of M. Michel Debré. The French Economics and Finance Minister said on July 27 last year at the Press conference to which

111
I have referred—I quote this translation of his words:
"There is not on our part, for any industry which may be in difficulty, only one hypothesis: that it should become a State-owned industry."
8.11 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, it is late, and I shall do my best not to repeat anything that has been said during the course of this debate. I will start by saying that since the Tories denationalised the steel industry, I have been waiting impatiently for this Bill, and therefore I welcome it with as great an enthusiasm as anybody in this House. At the end of the war it was apparent that the steel industry had to work for the nation instead of for private profit. Two wars had proved that it was dangerous to allow the sinews of war to be in the hands of profit for the sake of profit, and it was proved that the great steelmakers had their hands stained with blood through the international ramifications of the industry of which steel is the basis.
If at my time of life I were to analyse my thoughts from the early 'twenties after serving in the First World War, what I learned about international steel and the armaments industry probably did more to bring me into the Socialist Movement in the early 'twenties than any other fact. The association, which amounted almost to a consortium, between Krupps, Bethlehem and Vickers resulted in terrible carnage, certainly in the First World War. Without any economic conditions at all, these facts justify these industries being brought under State ownership and control. In this, as in other matters, the Conservative dogma brought about denationalisation when the industry was beginning to benefit from State ownership and was moving and working in the nation's interests, and in those interests alone. Now we start all over again. Therefore, I support the Bill and welcome the legislation.
This is where I am going to be completely different, because I want to concentrate on a particular item which has been mentioned but briefly this afternoon. The Minister has decreed that, while the largest companies are to be taken over into his control, many smaller companies will remain independent, still working, I hope, in the interests of the nation. My
112
noble friend Lord Shackleton devoted a substantial part of his opening speech to references to those who will continue to be independent organisations. Therefore, I want to devote the rest of my remarks to one such company. It is a strange thing that the company I am about to describe has a greater hope under the new Bill than it had under the 1953 Act. I am referring to the Millom Hematite Iron and Ore Company of Cumberland.
May I, as briefly as possible, tell a story which is critical of the larger companies and of the existing Iron and Steel Board? I hope to show how the "big boys" behave towards their little brothers. During the past few years the British Iron and Steel Research Association have experimented with a completely new and revolutionary system of steel production—for brevity I will call it the spray system. It is fairly well known now. I have not the time to describe it, even if I had the technical knowledge. For the purposes of my argument it is sufficient to say that when the process was perfected all the companies connected with B.I.S.R.A.—they were the large ones; almost all of them—had the opportunity to try it out. They were not interested; they showed no interest. In spite of its great advance in economic saving in steel production, they still seemed to be committed completely to existing methods.
This process puts in the shade the great Austrian L.D. process which has done so much to establish the economy of that country and other countries. I wonder whether a nationalised steel industry would have failed to show interest! The lack of interest by the large companies is as great an argument for this Bill as any that could be produced. But at Millom there was a much smaller company producing pig iron from indigenous ore. It employed about 1,000 men from the small town of Millom, with a population of 9,000 or 10,000. This town is isolated from any other industrial area by sea, lakes and mountains, and is wholly dependent on this plant. The firm had struck a difficult time, due to the importation of pig iron from Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and from South Africa.
In passing, may I say that in my view there is a close relationship in politics here, because my information is that Southern Rhodesia is exporting pig iron to South Africa and South Africa is

113
sending her pig iron to Britain. Cheaper labour in ore mining and pig iron production in the countries I have mentioned brings about a cheaper price. In my view, this comes near to dumping. Two out of three blast furnaces were shut down in Millom, and unemployment and rendundancy resulted. It appeared almost as though the town was dying—a modern Jarrow.
A brilliant, youngish managing director, with experience in South Wales and in India, saw the B.I.S.R.A. process, and at the expense of his own firm he installed a pilot plant. It is a resounding and unqualified success. This is admitted by everybody who knows anything about steel production. The national and scientific Press have been enthusiastic. Articles have appeared in The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Guardian, the Observer, the New Scientist, the Statist, and note, my Lords, the Steel Times, the industry's own paper. Millom applied to the Iron and Steel Board to expand to a full plant—a works to expand, a town to he saved. The Board deferred the decision in a way which amounts to a refusal—in these days, when the cry for technological advance is so clear. It was the Board who turned it down. It was not the Minister, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, said. As I tried to say in an intervention, Millom have appealed to the Minister against that decision and are waiting for a reply. So it is obvious who turned them down, and I say this without any fear of contradiction: it was the existing Iron and Steel Board who turned down their application for expansion. It would appear that they were passing the buck to the Minister, who will have the powers under the new Bill.
At this late stage of the activity some of the larger companies are now having a look at the new process, I believe in an endeavour to cut out Millom from extension, they being new in the steel production field. The Times newspaper said:
"This is the most exciting new development in world iron and steel production for many years. It is being held back from commercial development by the Iron and Steel Board. World-wide interest has been aroused."
The kiss of life to the steel industry could be slow, lingering death to Millom if they are not allowed to proceed. I
114
want to say as strongly as I can that justice demands that the initiative they took should be rewarded. Millom is scheduled for industrial development under the 1966 Act. There is therefore some responsibility lying with the Board of Trade. I cannot believe that my right honourable friend, Mr. Douglas Jay, will let Millom die. It would cost a million pounds to set up expansion, with £400,000 working capital, much of which the company can raise. It would cost much more in redundancy and unemployment payments, and the removal of a thousand families, plus the loss to retail traders in the town, and all the resultant misery.
This is such a technological advance that the Minister of Technology must be interested, and since Millom are the pioneers they must have priority in that interest and help. But the main burden falls upon my right honourable friend the Minister of Power. He can overrule the Iron and Steel Board. Using this Second Reading debate on this new Bill, my appeal is that this small, independent company may have its chance, preferably now, and certainly under the new Bill with its new concept. A works, a town, 4,000 inhabitants can be saved; and at the same time a revolutionary process can be expanded for the wellbeing of the industry and the nation as a whole. It is important to notice in our arguments for nationalisation that this has happened under the old régime. It is a strange commentary that the new régime, nationalisation, could save Millom and others like it from the old so-called independent régime. Ye Gods, they talk about competition! It looks as if they are terrified of it.
I apologise for concentrating on this one subject in this debate. I have no financial interest, but I have seen the plant producing steel at Millom and I know the conditions of the area and its people. I feel very strongly about it. My appeal to the Minister of Power is to put right what the Steel Board have done wrong: give Millom the green light. This consortium of three Ministers—Power, Technology and Board of Trade—have it in their hands. And knowing all three of them so well and for so long, I am confident in my own mind, and I hope that confidence is justified, that they will not let Millom down. I hope, at

115
least, that I have been different in this debate.
8.25 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, wishing to be as fair as possible, as I always seek to be even in the most controversial legislation, I would at least say that the Party opposite have never made any secret of the fact that they want to see this industry under State control. They did this in 1949, and they now seek to do it again. Co-operation between the two sides of this industry will be vital for the steel industry's future. I, like many noble Lords, have no professional contact with the steel industry. I am not even a shareholder, but I have been round a steel works, one of the great steel works which is about to be nationalised, and also have been round a steel-making plant which is to remain under private ownership.
I went, I hope dispassionately and with no particular preconceived ideas, but having been round one of the great steel works in Rotherham I came hack with several impressions. The first was that this particular company had obviously poured a great deal of capital into its works, into equipment, foundries, machinery and even computers. I do not seek at this late hour to go into figures of productivity, but one significant thing I noticed was the excellent relations in this particular works between management and men. In my own line of business I deal with both private companies and nationalised undertakings, and I would immediately say that those who work in the nationalised industries do so with no less and no more will than others. They see it as a job, and I believe that their attitude is that nationalisation has been carried out through Act of Parliament and therefore they have a duty to perform. I believe this will be true of the steel industry in future.
One point which has been made is that there should be more central control of the steel industry. I have been looking through the 1953 Act which has been criticised by noble Lords opposite—and they have a perfect right to criticise it. In Section 15(3) of that Act there is a directive that the Minister may by notice in writing require information as to the costs of production and other matters
116
concerning the steel industry. In other words, that Act is not the laissez-faire concern which it has been made out to be in some political circles. I am not for one moment suggesting that the steel industry is perfect at the present time. It may well be that there are changes to be made. But what we have to consider, and what has already been considered by those concerned with all sides of the industry, is whether the new set-up will bring these changes about, and I want very briefly to give one or two reasons why I do not think this will be so.
As I understand it, there will be one centrally controlled Steel Corporation. Steelworks range through various parts of the country, from Motherwell in Scotland to Scunthorpe in Lincolnshire and Corby in Northamptonshire, not to mention the great steelworks of Sheffield, Rotherham and Consett. In the service industries, such as the railways and the electricity industry, there are regional boards where there is at least some element of competition between the regions. What worries me about this Bill is that little opportunity is to be given for the various steel concerns in the regions to have any chance of competing, and I should like the Government to give some thought to this.
As has already been mentioned, the 12 great steelworks are to lose their names and identity. In another place this gave concern, I think, to all sides of the House. I hope that the Government will also give further thought to this, because I feel that the one title of the National Steel Corporation will not go down well with our competitors, particularly in the European Economic Community or, indeed, with the component companies.
I understand that the Government are to bring in a new clause to cover some of the subsidiary companies and some of the smaller companies which will be using components manufactured by the companies which are coming under control. This is vital, because if there is delay in delivery it will surely create difficulties, particularly if there is central control.
A good deal has been said about the efficiency of the electricity and gas industries, and the fact that the Conservatives did not de-nationalise them. These

117
are service industries. It may well be a lair point that singly they would not have the necessary capital to bring in schemes, such as the Hydro-Electric Board's schemes and other big rural electricity schemes. But neither do nationalised industries seem to have the power to contain fuel crises in times of extreme temperatures in this country. I do not seek necessarily to make that as a political point. To some extent failures like that could occur under any system. But is there any guarantee that under nationalisation we shall not get similar problems, particularly delivery problems, with the steel industry?
So far as consultation is concerned, this is of course very vital. As I understand the Bill, there are to be trade union representatives on the boards of management. I have no quarrel with this, but I wonder whether the converse, which I think is important, will also be true. I believe that management should have some representation on the union side, because one will then get far more satisfactory consultation. Surely this could he properly tried out in this new revolutionary set-up.
There are other considerations which do not seem to be in the Bill. For example, there is the training of technicians for the industry. What incentives will there be in the Bill for graduates to go into the steel industry? How will the training be run? Will the National Steel Corporation have responsibility for this? Admittedly, these are Committee points, but they are points which I think the Government should consider.
Finally, Clause 36 of the Bill seems to me to be an absolute classic of vagueness, because the Government do not appear to have given any thought to the location of offices. Shall we have regional offices in Sheffield, in Lincolnshire and in Lanarkshire, where the great steel companies are situated, or shall we have to rely on an enormous central office in London with all its problems of communication? I, for one, have no wish to attack this Bill purely on political grounds. If it goes through Parliament, as it seems it will, it will be for both sides of the industry to co-operate as best they can, and at least to make the best of what will be a very difficult job.
8.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, unlike my noble friend who has just sat down, I have every intention of attacking this Bill politically. I must first of all declare no interest in the steel industry; I do not own even one share. But I have one great interest, and that is the welfare of the nation; and I sincerely believe that this Bill is a retrograde step. It is out-of-date, doctrinaire Socialism. I had hoped, but in vain, that the Socialist Party had grown up in the last few years, but I am afraid that my hope has been destroyed by this Bill.
As I pointed out in an intervention earlier in this debate, 90 per cent. of the steel-producing capacity in the Free World is in private hands. It therefore seems the height of madness to bring this nationalisation Bill forward at this particular time, when British industry is fighting for survival in the markets of the world. It surely is irresponsible: and it will give very cold comfort to those international sources which have lent us money. I have spoken to several foreigners, and they all assure me that the opinion abroad appears to be that when the steel industry of this country is nationalised it is going to harm the competitiveness of British industry abroad. It is true enough, of course, that Her Majesty's Government can, by a huge subsidy from the taxpayer, make this industry competitive abroad; but at what a cost in taxation and consequent inflation!
What really frightens me, however, is that this is the first time that any Government of this country have sought to nationalise our greatest manufacturing industry—in fact, any manufacturing industry. In the past, we have had some of our service industries nationalised, and we have had the coal mines nationalised; but that is quite a different matter. The record of the nationalised industries, from the point of view of their balance sheets, has been deplorable. The majority of them have been severely in the red. But if this great manufacturing industry is not efficient, it really will be a national disaster. It is bad enough if a service industry is not efficient: it is a great strain on the economy, of course. But if this great exporting industry is not efficient, it will affect every man, woman

119
and child in this country. It will affect the standard of living of all of us. This is a very serious matter. If Her Majesty's Government really want their economic policies to be taken seriously abroad, it is surprising that they should have brought this Bill forward. But, of course, wonders never cease. I never cease to be amazed by the antics of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the economy of this country—and I mean that perfectly seriously, although I may smile.
We have heard from several noble Lords opposite that the steel industry is not efficient. I heard my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale say that in 1965 the steel industry increased production and increased exports, and that the import of steel into this country during that year was considerably below that of the previous year. Can one really call that inefficiency? The Government have brought forward no coherent excuse for the nationalisation of this industry. All they can say is what I heard the noble Lord. Lord Mitchison, say. He quite astounded me. I understood him to say that in his opinion no private individual or private organisation should have any financial power in this country at all. That seems amost extraordinary statement to make. Even the Soviet Government are now inclining away from nationalisation in certain spheres.
To turn for a moment to the Bill itself, I am extremely worried about Clause 2. The noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, told us (I have a note here of what he said) that we need not be worried about Clause 2 being a back door to the nationalisation of every form of industry, every form of business activity, in this country. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that—and,of course, he is utterly sincere in what he says; but the fact is that, if it becomes law unamended, Clause 2 will give the Government the right, so far as I can see, to indulge in, and nationalise, every form of business activity in this country. They will be able to have shops; they will be able to have every form of manufacturing industry, such as breweries; and they will be able to have hotels—they already have hotels, of course—and even newspapers. This is a very serious matter. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, smiles; and I am sure that he sincerely hopes, as he said,
120
that it will not be back-door nationalisation. But once these powers are on the Statute Book they are there—I do not care what any Minister says: they are there.
The other thing I am very worried about is the Common Market. I have not been here for all the speeches, although I have for almost all of them, but I have not heard this aspect mentioned so far. I understand that, under the Treaty of Paris, no group of steel companies—a corporation, or whatever you may call it—may have more than 10 per cent. of the productive capacity of the community. In the case of the nationalised Steel Corporation, I understand, the capacity is going to be between 22 and 25 per cent. of the whole capacity of the Community. How is the High Authority under the Treaty of Paris going to like that, owing to the dominant position which the Steel Corporation will have? The High Authority will be able to dictate prices and dictate production programmes. In fact, it will turn the British Minister of Power into a mere puppet. How is the Minister of Power going lo like that?
Another thing that has struck me is that we have heard a great deal from the other side about not trotting forth the dogma of private enterprise. I intervened when the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, was saying how much more efficient the management of the nationalised industries was than the management of private industry. I say that this is not shown by their balance sheets; and if you are dealing in commerce you must go by the balance sheets. With the steel industry organised in this vast Corporation how is there to be financial and commercial discipline? I do not want to go into the point at length, but we all know that if an industry is nationalised and protected from the hard world of the free market, it is impossible to get this commercial discipline. At this point I should like to repeat a plea that has been made by other speakers, that the various groups in the Steel Corporation be allowed, if possible, to retain their independence and also that famous names such as Dorman Long and Colvilles will not be done away with—because they have great traditions and carry a lot of goodwill.
My Lords, I should like to say a word or two about the private sector

121
which I understand occupies about 10 per cent. of the whole of the steel industry. The noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, assured us that there would be no discrimination by the Steel Corporation against the private sector; but as the Bill is drafted I am not too happy that that cannot happen. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that any company in the private sector can appeal to the Minister. But, with great respect, the Minister is a politician. I should like to see an umpire, removed as far as possible from politics—though I recognise that this would be difficult—to whom the private sector could appeal.
My Lords, to sum up, I think that this is a shameful Bill. I do not agree with the one or two noble Lords on this side who have rather "run along with it". The real reason why the Government, the Socialist Party, want to control the steel industry is the power that goes with it. They are after the power. I am quite convinced that when they have the steel industry, and the power that goes with it, there will be increasing taxation at home to pay for the losses; they will have a stranglehold on the economy which will affect every one of us. We all know what to expect if that should happen anyone who has been behind the Iron Curtain, to any of the Socialist countries, knows of the lower standards of living. I foresee that in ten years' time, or even earlier, every man, woman and child in this country will regret the day that the Socialist Government were ever voted into power to take over this great industry.
Before I end, I should like to say something about compensation, because two or three noble Lords opposite have said that the compensation proposed is far too generous. I should point out that, under the threat of nationalisation, the shares in various steel companies have been considerably depressed on the stock market. My own view is that the compensation ought to be at least £100 million greater; for if these companies were sold on the open market, with no threat of nationalisation, they would probably get that extra amount. The shareholders are to be handed Government bonds; to be handed paper. We shall see in a few years' time what that paper is worth. We have seen so many Government loans and Government bonds depreciate over the years, sometimes by more than a half.
122
In five or six years' time the public in this country will probably wake up. My Lords, I have spoken long enough. My noble friend Lord Windlesham has done a tremendous amount of work on this Bill, and I know that he is very anxious to get to his feet.
8.59 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am the nineteenth speaker in this important debate, and I can assure the House that I shall be very brief. I am also the last Back-Bencher to speak in this debate. I spoke 19 years ago on the first nationalisation of steel Bill, and to-day I looked up what I had said then. Nineteen years ago I opposed the Bill; and I oppose it now, because I think it is not necessary. I believe that some further form of rationalisation is necessary, but I think one could achieve that without complete nationalisation.
In the concluding remarks I made 19 years ago—not in this Chamber, but in the smaller one; for the House of Commons used this Chamber while they were rebuilding—I said that I should like to refer back to the speech made by the Lord President of the Council in Toronto. The Lord President of the Council in those days was the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in those days Herbert Morrison. He said (I think it was in 1946) that it was up to the nationalisers to prove their case. I asked whether the case had been proved. I did not think it had been proved then, and I do not think it has been proved since, because the proof of the need for nationalisation would be that the steel industry, which has been in private hands since a Conservative Government denationalised it in 1953, had let the public down. I do not think the industry has done that in any way. Prices have been extremely competitive compared with those of foreign steel companies and, as has been said to-night on several occasions, since 1945, the end of the Second World War, the industry has spent something like £1,900 million on improvement to plant and on the provision of new plant. Since 1956 it has spent over £1,000 million.
In the Benson Report it is stated that up to 1962 (or perhaps it was 1963) 73 per cent. of the new capital ploughed back into the industry came from the industry's own resources. Since that date,

123
under the threat of nationalisation, the industry has not been so prosperous and has been able to plough back only 47·6 per cent. But it shows that the industry was providing a large amount of this large sum of money from its own reserves and making good profits until two or three years ago. When trade picks up again, as eventually it is bound to do, naturally the steel industry will make good profits again, and I think it is entirely wrong to say that the steel companies cannot finance the rationalisation which is thought to be necessary.
My Lords, I am not certain that very large units will be necessary, following the great improvements in steel-making about which we have been told, including the new Austrian system. It may be possible to have smaller units and a greater efficiency in steel-making. But even if it is found necessary to have larger units, I think that the industry could find the money as it has done so far. If the industry was left in private hands with Government control and, if necessary, Government help, I think that would be a good arrangement. A Conservative Government helped Colvilles and, with the provision of £50 million, a strip mill was set up in Scotland. At that time Colvilles had excellent plant for producing plate steel, but they did not have a strip mill and, therefore, the motor car industry or the making of refrigerators or other products using sheet steel had no place in Scotland. Up to a year or two ago the company was making a profit on its strip mill. The strip mill is not now making a profit, though the undertaking as a whole is; and a greater prosperity has been brought to Scotland. I do not think it was necessary to put all the plant in South Wales, or to pour all the money into the nationalised industry of Richard Thomas and Baldwins. That company put in a new strip mill which has not been financially successful, and they have lost something like £30 million in the last four years. It might have been something like £39 million had they not converted prior stock, which was interest-bearing into ordinary stock.
My Lords, I do not support this Bill. I feel it is entirely unnecessary. I think that there should be more rationalisation and, if necessary, more help; but, as my noble friend Lord Merrivale has said,
124
it should be on the French system. Financial help could come from the Government without the need to take over the whole industry lock, stock and barrel. I am certain that once the Government nationalises the steel industry they will break up the great companies. The Government will say, "Last time, when we left the companies as they were and changed only the ownership of the shares, it was too easy to put the industry back into private hands." Therefore they will break up the companies and make it impossible for industry to be returned to private ownership.
Instead of the great names like Dorman Long, Colvilles and John Summers, we shall have the Northern Region Steel Area Board, the Western Region, and so on, organised from a large head office in London, and I think that will be a great pity. The great names like Dorman Long, Colvilles and South Durham Steel are known all over the world, but I fear that they will disappear and we shall have the British steel industry organised on a regional basis. I know that some of the steel works are very worried about this and about whether they will be left out. There is the great firm of John Summers, which has a magnificent works near Chester, which I visited two or three years ago. I understand that this firm is very worried, in case it will not be big enough to be put into a region, as it stands in a rather isolated position to other works.
I cannot support this Bill at all. The Government might have thought out some better way of doing it. All the money that is going to be poured into the industry will have to come out of taxation. The National Debt is getting to a size where it is difficult for the Government to raise large sums on the open market, and therefore money lent to the Steel Corporation will be below-the-line loans and come out of further taxation of the British public.
9.9 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, rather than try to summarise everything that has been said in this debate, I think it would be more helpful if I emphasised some of the fundamental arguments which lie behind the criticisms that have been made from this side of the House, so that the Government will be left in no doubt about why this Bill is objectionable to us and many others outside the House.

125
Before doing so, since we shall be debating the Bill for some time on its different stages, I should make clear I have no interest to declare in the steel industry, financial or otherwise, nor do I stand to benefit, if that is the word, from any of the compensation terms.
I begin my remarks with the contradiction that lies at the heart of the Government's case. This Bill takes into public ownership the 14 principal companies concerned with the production of iron and steel. It does not say how the industry is to be organised after nationalisation. That is to be left to the National Steel Corporation and the Ministry of Power. The Minister of Power has made it clear repeatedly in the House of Commons debates that he does not want the Corporation to be bound by Statute on its organisation.
As we have heard this afternoon, an Organising Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was set up last autumn, and for the past four or five months the Committee has been meeting and considering the future structure of the industry, as well as the practical arrangements for the establishment of the Corporation and for the transfer of assets from the 14 companies to the Corporation. Parliament has had no information on the Committee's thoughts, although in this respect the readers of the Sunday Times have been more fortunate. On January 29, the Sunday Times reported—and if it is inaccurate no doubt the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal will tell us—that the Committee had already given the Minister its first suggestions on how the industry should be run. Two main points had been decided on:
"First, steel will be organised on the basis of groups of plants with considerable operating flexibility, unlike the wholly centralised control of coal or railways. But secondly there will be full financial control from the centre and in particular central decisions on pricing policy."
Such inquiries as I have made within the industry suggest that this report is accurate. If this is so, it is important, because the approach implied, which is in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was telling us, is very similar to the analysis made in the Benson Report, the Stage I Report of the Development Co-ordinating Committee of the British Iron and Steel Federation, to which reference has already been made.
126
The Benson Committee proposed a regrouping of the industry's resources, which would include closing down 9 million ingot tons of plant capacity over the next 10 years, and a concentration into larger and more rational units. This Committee, made up half of steel men and half of independents, is still in existence, proceeding with the second phase of its inquiry, and is understood to be cooperating with the Melchett Committee.
So this is the way the steel industry is heading. We have heard several times this afternoon references to the merger between Stewarts and Lloyds, South Durham and Dorman Long. If this is the direction in which the steel industry is going, the question that has to be faced is: Why is nationalisation necessary? True the Sunday Times report said that decisions on pricing policy are likely to be taken centrally. But price control, as we have already heard, is exercised now by the Iron and Steel Board. Pricing in the steel industry has been controlled by one form of public device or another since the 'thirties.
Leaving aside all the doubts about the quality of management attracted by the nationalised industries—and the noble Viscount, Lord Muirshiel, spoke most effectively on this question of management, and how essential the management element is in a commercially successful business—and the lack of commercial disciplines generally displayed in the nationalised industries under public ownership, there is one question which nobody has yet mentioned, so far as I know. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, mentioned it, and I do not know whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House will do so. That is the question of servicing a very substantial debt incurred as a result of the compensation paid to the shareholders in the fourteen companies.
In the same report in the Sunday Times of January 29, 1967, it said this:
"In the year 1965–1966 profits attributable to the equity shareholders in the nine quoted companies being taken over by the Government totalled only £14 million and are expected to he even less in the current year, thus giving no hope of fully servicing the £352 million compensation being paid for that equity."
To that has to be added another sum, estimated at the order of £95 million, in compensation for the four steel-making

127
subsidiaries of G.K.N., Vickers and Tube Investments. Then there is a large sum of over £100 million in compensation for prior charges. So a figure of between £550 million and £600 million total compensation is arrived at.
Therefore, why nationalise? This is the question that must be answered. Does the noble Lord opposite want to interject? When I offered him some figures earlier he swept them aside. But if we are to have a realistic discussion about the position of the steel industry, the argument must turn on a certain number of statistics which so far have been published in the Benson Report; and I am sure that when the review referred to in the Bill is published there will be a great many more. But if this is to be a realistic debate on the nationalisation of the steel industry, then we must make use of what statistics there are.
I come back to the question: Why is nationalisation necessary? Why employ this blunt, insensitive form of public control when the sort of reorganisation the Government want to see is already beginning to take place? The Minister of Power argued in the House of Commons, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, argued here to-day—it has also been raised by one or two other noble Lords in the debate—that this would not have happened "without the stimulus of nationalisation". I do not accept that, and I do not believe other noble Lords on this side do. It is remarkable that the Benson inquiry was carried out at all, in spite of the prospect of nationalisation. But whichever view is right, if this is the shape of future development in the steel industry that the Government want to see—one that is more or less in the direction in which the steel industry is now going, however late and for whatever reason—why is nationalisation necessary to-day?
Some alterations might have been needed to the system of pricing—that will not be disputed—in a period of surplus capacity, increased competition from abroad and falling profits. But the Iron and Steel Board is there. If it is not capable of exercising the public control that is now necessary in changed conditions, or if the powers are not adequate, then the powers could be changed, or a new authority could be set up. Therefore,
128
why is State ownership so essential to the reorganisation of the industry?—which is what the Government tell us is the reason for going ahead with this Bill at this time.
The Minister of Power on the Third Reading in the other place on January 26, 1967 (col. 1812), in a revealing passage, has already begun to prepare the way for bad results. He said:
"The next year or so will be a difficult time for the industry and the Corporation's initial results may well be rather depressing. I had better get on the record now."
If I may say so, the reason why the Government are now in this jam, and why the Party opposite are now in this jam—and it has been well demonstrated in the debate this afternoon—is that they have changed their ground. In order to impress opinion, in order to get the Bill through, the argument has been couched at the level of the need to reorganise the steel industry, to rationalise it in a way that will make it competitive in the world markets of the 1970s.
Mr. Marsh, in Luxembourg on January 13,as reported in The Times on January 14, said:
"… the British Government's decision to take this industry"—
he was referring to the steel industry—
"into public ownership was prompted wholly and solely by the desire to see the industry organised into fewer, bigger, more efficient units".
That was the reason given by the Minister of Power, described by him as "wholly and solely" the reason; and it is in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said in introducing the Bill in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
It was not always so. Something else has run through one or two of the speeches we have heard from the Benches behind the noble Lord opposite this afternoon. What about "the commanding heights of the economy" in 1959? Not only Mr. Bevan and the far Left were taking this line. In the debate on Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill in 1948, the then Lord President of the Council, known later to Members of your Lordships' House as Lord Morrison of Lambeth—not a man of the far Left— spoke more than once of "socializing" the steel industry. This came up in what various noble Lords opposite had to say

129
in the debate to-day: "I am a Socialist. I believe in public ownership".
Well, that was an argument used by the Lord President of the Council at that time. Later on—this is from the House of Commons Hansard, November 17, 1948, columns 492–93—the Lord President of the Council said that the measure was
"not only a Bill"—
he was referring to the Iron and Steel Bill—
"for the transfer of the ownership from private ownership to public, but it is also a Bill which will not only give greater dignity and freedom to the work people in the industry, but will represent an act of emancipation and a charter of advance for management and technicians as well."
My Lords, Lord Morrison of Lambeth had been a Member of a Sub-Committee of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party in 1929, which successfully recommended to the Annual Conference of the Labour Party that year a re-wording of Section 4 of Clause IV of the Party's Constitution setting out Party objects. As amended in 1929, Section4 of Clause IV, which still stands to-day, and to which all Labour Members of Parliament are required to subscribe—and with which the Minister of Power in the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons charged Mr. Donnelly, who was opposing the Government's measure—says this, and some Members of the Party opposite may need to be reminded of it:
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may he possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."
Let us make no mistake about this.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: Hear, hear!
LORD WINDLESHAM: This is relevant. I am pleased that the noble Baroness and others are echoing those fine words. Your Lordships may remember that the Labour Party in 1959 made efforts to remove that clause, or amend it, and the conflicts that were caused. I raise this point now solely because it has been said by the leadership of the Party opposite that this Bill is being introduced strictly for purposes of rationalisation, in order to reorganise the industry. Yet public ownership for its
130
own sake goes right back to the roots of the Labour Party.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord where there is any inconsistency? The Labour Party have made it abundantly clear over many years that the reason why they want to take the basic industries into nationalisation, under State control, is that the history of so many of them shows that they are incapable of rationalisation and proper organisation.
LORD W1NDLESHAM: The noble Lord will have to look at what is proposed when the review of the industry referred to in the Bill comes out. I think he will find it is going to be something not too dissimilar from what the industry itself is proposing, with certain changes in the central powers of the Corporation itself—control of pricing, research, development and production, and so on. Whether this is because of the threat of nationalisation, or for whatever reason, if the industry is already itself heading in the direction the Government wants, why is nationalisation necessary? Why do we need to accept an interest payment of about £30 million to £40 million a year, simply to secure ownership of the assets? My case is that there are other ways, easier and more effective, of doing precisely what the Government want to do, without ever taking over the assets.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not want to keep on interrupting the noble Lord, but the whole point of the speeches on this side of the Chamber is that they just did not do that until the Government made it perfectly clear that plans to nationalise were afoot.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that would be a classic case of "I told you so." If you can achieve your aim without nationalisation why incur a debt of £582 million just in order to be right?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might just ask the noble Lord a question? I have never quite understood what the Conservative Party's view about Election pledges was. Do they think they ought to be kept or not?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord on that. In fact I will now leave the point of public

131
ownership. I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, when he comes to reply, will deal with these political criticisms which we have made, because in one interjection a little earlier he indicated when it was suggested the Government were nationalising the industry for political reasons—well, that is what I understood him to say—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That was not what was said, but I will deal with it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, may I now come to the second major question, Europe, which has been referred to by my noble friends Lord Merrivale, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and one or two others. We are now faced, for the second time, with the decision whether or not to enter Europe, and we find the Labour Party resolutely looking backwards into the past instead of forwards to the future of Europe and of the steel industry in the Common Market. Let us look at what the Prime Minister said in Strasbourg on January 23, as reported in The Times on the following day. He said this:
"Those of us entrusted with the responsibilities of Government have the challenging duty—and it is an exciting one—of leading an impatient generation. It is a generation impatient of the mumblings, bumblings and fumblings of what has too often passed for statesmenship."
The Prime Minister can hardly have been thinking of steel nationalisation when he said that.
"It will, as history will—for this new generation will write the next chapters in that history—it will condemn beyond any power of ours to defend or excuse, the failure to seize what so many of us can clearly see is now a swirling, urgent tide in man's affairs.
"It we do fail—I want this to he understood—the fault will not lie at Britain's door. But the cost, and above all the cost of missed opportunities, will fall, and, in increasing measure, on every one of us."
That was at Strasbourg.
Back at home, how does the Iron and Steel Bill 1967 measure up to these fine words? The first point to make clear is that the issue of ownership as such is immaterial to membership of the Common Market or, in this case, of the European Coal and Steel Community. Part of the Italian steel industry is nationalised, and
132
under the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1951, it does not matter whether the assets of the industry are owned by the State or by shareholders. What does matter is the actual operation and control of the steel industry, and here there are most definite requirements.
The European steel industry is based on a number of competing groups, each of which is individually operated and none of which represents more than 10 per cent. of the total Community crude steel capacity. The High Authority recently held up a merger in Germany of three companies—the Phœnix, Rheinruhr and Thyssen merger—for almost two years because the combined companies would have a capacity of about 8 million tons. Yet here we are talking about a British National Steel Corporation which is to operate, in the words of the former Minister of Power, Mr. Lee, on May 6, 1965 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons (col. 1581)] as:
"A single unit of direction with a capacity of about 30 million tons of crude steel a year".
That would amount to between 20 and 25 per cent. of the capacity of the combined market of the United Kingdom and the Coal and Steel Community. The Treaty of Paris, in Article 66, on page 31 and elsewhere, does not allow a "dominant" position to any single unit. The interpretation which has been given by the High Authority to this phrase is not more than 10 per cent. of the total Community production. Yet here we are faced with 20 to 25 per cent. That being so, it is difficult to dissent from the conclusion of the Financial Times on November 23 last, that
"unless the National Steel Corporation takes the form of three or four competing and largely autonomous groups, it could become an important stumbling block to Britain's entry into the Community."
That was the Financial Times comment, in an article headed, "U.K. and E.E.C.—Industry", on November 23, 1966.
The fact that the consequences of this Bill will be incompatible with British membership of the Common Market is accepted by the Minister of Power. Between the Committee stage and the Report stage he went off to Luxembourg to discuss with the Coal and Steel Community the problem of a State-owned British coal industry and the prospect of a State-owned British steel industry.

133
When he came back, Mr. Marsh said he accepted that the Bill "presented difficulties" in this respect and that if an application for membership took place those difficulties would have to be negotiated. His remarks on that subject can be found in the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT for January 19, cols. 696 to 697. Therefore, we are now presented with the spectacle that, at the very moment when the Prime Minister is touring Europe, pledging his devotion to the European ideal, his Minister of Power—who in the past was one of the less ardent Europeans in his Party—is busy setting up what is accepted as being a new obstacle to membership. And this will no doubt leave an awkward question in the mind of anyone in Europe who studies closely what the Government are doing here, as well as what they are saying in Strasbourg and elsewhere.
I do not want to say anything more this evening about some of the very important matters which have come up in this debate. There is the question of the wide-ranging powers of the Corporation under Clause 2—diversification into many different activities besides iron and steel; the position of the substantial private sector and the relationship between that and the N.S.C.; the effects of an artificially depressed salary structure on managements, especially in the middle levels; and the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that profit is not to he taken as an indicator of efficiency—a view which I should have thought boded ill for the Corporation's future.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, that is not what I said.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I offered the noble Lord some figures—I do not want to go into them again—on the relationship between Richard Thomas and Baldwins and the United Steel Companies, offering him the comparison of the capital employed in both companies, the output of both, their production, and their profitability; and there is no doubt one shows up much better than the other. He told me there were other considerations than profit which one can use to judge enterprises of this sort. But these are questions which can and will be debated on further stages of the Bill and elsewhere. All I would
134
say, in conclusion, is that the Government, in persevering with this irrelevant Bill at this time, in spite of everything that has been said against it, from the Labour side in another place as well as from the Opposition side in both Houses, have shown themselves more concerned with the past of their own Party than with the future of the steel industry.
9.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just spoken will not think me unduly patronising if I congratulate him on an excellent speech and assure him that old friends of his father—and there are many in this House—have been delighted with the progress which the noble Lord has been making so rapidly. It has been a most friendly debate, initiated most effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who managed to inspire his friends without annoying his opponents, which no doubt is the definition of a perfect Parliamentary effort. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, began extremely well with some of the happiest of his jokes, and finished in a most statesmanlike fashion by advising his supporters to let the Bill through. In between there was not all that much to go on with. But I think if two parts of a speech are good—indeed brilliant, at the beginning and the end—why must we bother with the rest? At any rate, we all enjoyed his speech as always.
This has been a different kind of debate from that of 1949. I am glad that there are one or two veterans from those days and from the debates which began in 1946 and went on for several years. There are the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and of course I myself, and one or two others. In those days one most respected Peer, whose name I will not give because he is not with us to-night, but a leading figure on the side of the Opposition, denounced the nationalisation of iron and steel as "a definite step towards Communism". That has not been said to-day. I see the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, nodding his head, but I do not take that to mean assent; he is perhaps confirming my recollection.
On the whole, we have had some fruitful speeches and there has certainly

135
been nothing about which anybody could possibly take offence. The noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, who is a real authority on industry, let slip one remark which was slightly immunized by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he referred to it. The noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, said that he was afraid that we had been treating the iron and steel industry as a political pawn. I asked him what he meant by that. He said that we were proposing to treat it according to the ideas of our supporters, or some of them. I do not know what a Government are supposed to do. No doubt they should try to please their opponents and neutral opinion, but they must occasionally give effect to their own principles; and anybody who has listened to the speeches from our side to-day will realise what I mean.
We have heard powerful speeches from my noble friends Lord Blyton, Lord Wells-Pestell, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, Lord Mitchison and Lord Royle, who has apologised for having to leave us, and Lord Peddie, and of course Lord Shackle-ton. If anybody now supposes that we do not believe in what we are doing, that we are trying to placate some hypothetical Left wing, then they are living in some other world. The truth is that we think this is in the interests of the country. We have thought this for many years. It has been part of the official policy of the Labour Party since 1935, just before I joined the Party. Since then there have been eight elections of which we have won four and lost four, winning the last two which, I suppose, are the relevant ones. I can only assure noble Lords that we are not doing this to win votes. Noble Lords opposite—we have not heard much of this to-day; it was suggested elsewhere—always say that this is not at all popular. So we are not doing it to curry favour with the public; we are doing it, it is said, for some mysterious reason not disclosed. The truth is that we think this is right.
We have a very strong mandate for doing this. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, denied that we had any mandate. He said that the votes of the Conservatives and the Liberals came to more than the votes of the Labour Party; therefore we had not got a mandate for this and, I assume, that we had a mandate
136
for nothing. May I point out to him that no Government since the war has won a clear majority of the votes of the country at the Election? Therefore, on the argument of the noble Lord, no Government, in a sense, has any mandate for doing anything at all.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I said twice—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I finish this sentence? The noble Lord was very stiff with me, but I am going to be very placatory to the noble Lord, when I finish this sentence. We say that, according to the British Constitution, the Party that wins a clear majority of seats in the House of Commons is given a mandate by the country—not only the right but the duty to give effect to its Election policy.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I said twice, once in my original remarks and secondly when the noble Earl made the same point he has now, that I did not believe in the mandate theory, but that, if anybody in the noble Lord's Party put forward the theory of mandate, then the mandate was the other way about, as more people had voted for Liberal and Conservative than for Labour.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has now made that point a third time and it seems to me as weak as when he made it the first time. Veterans of past debates will recall that a great deal was made in the past by the Conservatives about the mandate. The question was, should the House of Lords have the right to interfere with something passed by the House of Commons; and it was argued that they had no right to do that if there was a mandate.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would my noble friend give way? Is it not a fact that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, voted for nationalisation when he was a Minister in the Labour Party, and is it not a fact that the argument applied to us today applied to the Tories equally when they denationalised the steel industry?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD:I am not going to investigate the past of any noble Lord. My own past would bear limited scrutiny, as I am sure is true of any other Member of the House. I am coming on to reply to another important point which

137
was raised by my noble friend, Lord Blyton.
I think it would be as well if I tried to deal with some of the particular points, before coming as quickly as I can to the general argument at the end. I will try not to repeat too much what has been said already. Anxieties were expressed, in a reasonable and temperate way, by two noble Lords who have every reason to talk about steel, the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, and the noble Viscount, Lord Muishiel, as well as by other noble Lords who are equipped, by talent or experience, or both, to offer their views. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesharn, the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. They expressed anxieties on particular points and perhaps I could reply to them, as it were, en bloc. I would assure Lord Clydesmuir, and those who think like him, that we can go a long way towards accepting his two main points. We agree that the nationalisation of steel is an operation of great complexity. The Corporation will need to consist of men with the experience and judgment needed to manage a vast industrial enterprise. We accept that absolutely.
While I understand I must not claim too much, and must not argue that we are getting more than a certain amount of co-operation from the industry, I personally think the Government have every reason to be grateful at this stage to the industry for the degree of goodwill and co-operation which has been exhibited. May I say how lucky we are that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, should be taking on this job? One noble Lord, I think it was Lord Rochdale, said he was "one of us". That was said in an amusing way, yet there is a certain amount of truth in the sense that we know where we are with him. We know him well, and that is the main point that was in the mind of the noble Lord. It was not the argument that only a noble Lord is entitled to preside over a nationalised industry; it is that we are extremely glad that the man who is taking this on is a man of whose personal capacities we can speak so highly.
May I say a word or two about points raised by several of the noble Lords I have mentioned, as regards the central authority? There is obviously some understandable anxiety that this central
138
authority might be top-heavy. We quite agree that that would be a great mistake, and of course the Corporation will be responsible to the Minister for the efficient conduct of the whole nationalised industry and for the finances of the industry. A number of key policy functions—investment, price policy, personnel policy, for example—willbe exercised centrally, but within this framework we intend that responsibility should be delegated to the groups into which the industry will be organised, and delegated to the maximum extent consistent with the Corporation's statutory responsibilities and with the efficient management of the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, explained that in slightly more detail earlier on. So I hope that noble Lords will realise that we are determined to try to make sure that there is the kind of delegation which would satisfy them. They will realise that we treat this as a major point, and there is no natural disposition on the side of the Government towards undue centralisation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Muirshiel, was worried because I think he felt that the nationalised industry would not be sufficiently subject to market discipline. Of course, he is aware, as an old Minister of a nationalised industry, that there are other disciplines imposed on nationalised industries than the strict market discipline—the accountability to Parliament, and so on. But I should think that there would be considerable market discipline operating here.
The Corporation will, of course, have to make both ends meet. Its financial objectives will be agreed, and certainly it will set out to make a surplus and not just to cover its expenses. There will also be acute competition. There will be competition, to some extent, from the private sector and, of course, strenuous competition from abroad. So I hope the noble Viscount will feel that there will be quite a lot of market discipline imposed on those who are running the Corporation. But there, again, I should like him to recognise that we consider the point he has raised to be of great significance, and not at all one which we are taking lightly.
A number of my own political friends referred to the speech of Mr. Macdiarmid, and here I speak carefully, after proper consultations. He is, as we know, the

139
Chairman of Stewarts and Lloyds and Deputy Chairman of the Organising Committee. I think I should make clear the relationship of the Organising Committee to the Corporation. I am not quite sure whether this point was completely obvious to all the noble Lords who spoke on this matter. Incidentally, I should have mentioned earlier the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, as having made a most powerful speech. When it comes to this question, I will answer him and the noble Lord. Lord Blyton, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, and other noble Lords all together.
The Organising Committee was set up by my right honourable friend the Minister of Power to pave the way for nationalisation and to ensure a smooth transition from private to public ownership. The Organising Committee has no statutory authority and its members are comprised of person of different backgrounds and diverse views. We are talking now of the Organising Committee and not of the Corporation. There is no question of this gentleman occupying any position in the Corporation at the present time. We are simply talking of him as Deputy Chairman of the Organising Committee.
In an exchange of letters with my right honourable friend on his appointment to the Organising Committee, Mr. Macdiarmid made no secret of his views on nationalisation but added—and now I am quoting what he wrote at the time—
"I am willing to accept part-time appointment as Deputy Chairman of the Committee and to work wholeheartedly as a member of it".
It was also made clear in the same exchange of letters—and this, I think, should be recognised by the public—that membership of the Organising Committee implied no commitment on either side to the Corporation. I am not sure that everyone was quite clear on that. The questions raised by Mr. Macdiarmid's speech last week to the annual general meeting of Stewarts and Lloyds are, however, essentially for my right honourable friend the Minister of Power. I most certainly will bring to his notice the very strong views that have been expressed in various quarters of this House to-day. I know—at least, I hope—that noble Lords will not expect me to go further;
140
but that is a carefully delivered statement.
I should say a few words, even at this time of night, about Europe. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will question the passionate interest in Europe on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, or on my part, and I doubt whether he would question now the desire of the Government to enter Europe on proper conditions; so there is no difference between pro-Europeans and anti-Europeans on this point. I should like to assure him that we are entirely satisfied, from all our contacts with our European friends—and I am speaking up to the minute, and after a great many very close contacts have occurred—that this Bill is compatible with the Treaty of Paris, which established the European Coal and Steel Community and which is specifically stated to be without prejudice to systems of ownership, a point made, incidentally, by the noble Lord himself. May I repeat that, after all these contacts in recent times, we are entirely satisfied that this Bill is compatible with the Treaty of Paris.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for telling us that. I am wondering if he is proposing to develop it a little to-night, or if at the Committee stage we could reintroduce this subject, because this is, of course, very different from what the Minister of Power himself said in another place on his return from Luxembourg.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I should not be prepared to admit to an inconsistency until I had seen the statement made by the Minister of Power, but I can assure the noble Lord that this careful statement represents the view of the Government—including, of course, the Minister of Power—about the up-to-date position. And may I say (I hope that in doing so I am not committing an indiscretion) that, having had a good many discussions myself in recent times about our possible connection with Europe, I have never found this mentioned as a difficulty which was in any way likely to keep us out. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that; and if there were any serious difficulties I think it is inconceivable that I personally, meeting Ministers confidentially on many occasions, should not have come across them. So, if I may put

141
it bluntly, I have no anxiety about this point myself. But if the noble Lord wishes to pursue it, perhaps the Committee stage would be better than this evening.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Earl is being extremely helpful. Perhaps I may make one brief point, and then we can leave it to another stage. He said he had not been aware of this point. In reading through the House of Commons Hansards, on the Iron and Steel Bill proceedings one could not fail to become aware of it, because it was a point raised by Mr. Barber and others from the Opposition Front Bench, and there were complete debates on it.
The only point I would draw to the noble Earl's attention—he will no doubt wish to look at it after this debate—is in column 696 of the January 19 debate, when the Minister said this:
"The suggestion that there is something indecent in our drawing up a Bill which will present difficulties for entry is an extraordinary constitutional argument".
Then, later, in column 697 he said:
"I accept that the Bill also presents difficulties. In exactly the same way the National Coal Board presents difficulties".
This is why there seems to have been a slight change of position.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I have no doubt the difficulties can be overcome, but I can assure the noble Lord that, in using the words I have used to-night, I am speaking with the full authority of my advisers and, I have no doubt, with the full authority of the Minister. I have not gone beyond that in anything I have said except where I have given my personal testimony to the fact that I myself have not encountered this as a difficulty in discussions with fellow Ministers. But I quite agree that perhaps it would be better to pursue it at a later stage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, who spoke so well about many aspects of this subject, was, I thought, very unfair to the Government about compensation. If I heard him aright, he even used the word "immoral". I am bound to say I think that is a rather fantastic use of language. There are quite as many people in this country who think the proposed compensation much too generous. We have had that view expressed to-night. If one took any particular owner of steel shares, I should think one would find he
142
is probably surprised at the amount he is getting. But I agree it is difficult to know where is the just solution.
You might say that the market price over a period, or at a given point, is the right answer. Certainly it would be much more reasonable than the cost of the assets. When all is said and done, surely the value of a company is more closely related to the future earning capacity of those assets than to their cost. I cannot myself see how the cost of the assets could provide a sufficient or adequate guide. But if one is defending the generosity—and I feel that I need to against some of my own colleagues—I would only say that where you are purchasing anything compulsorily you might argue that you ought to give more to the owner than you would if it were a voluntary sale. Therefore let us agree that the terms should be on the generous side. I will not go further except to say that I am sorry that the noble Lord used the word "immoral". Really I think the owners of steel shares, as the market has clearly shown, are being offered much more than they probably expected.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, speaking—or, rather, breaking into at moments—perfect French, dealt with the situation in France. If I may say so (again hoping that this does not round patronising), I thought he made the best speech he has yet delivered in this House. At any rate, it was one that I enjoyed. I make one point in comment on his remarks. The present scheme for rationalising the French steel industry has been the result of strong Government pressure. It has been implemented with the aid of massive injections of Government money. So it is not the industry, so to speak, stepping forward on its own, to put its own house in order. Pressure came from the Government, and so did a great deal of money. I can only say that if, during the many years of Conservative rule, they had produced a solution of that kind, it might or might not have worked. The years have been eaten by the locusts, and when we came into power it was natural that we should introduce our own alternative. There was a chance, but it was not taken, if the noble Lord would like to look at it that way.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the point I wanted to make was that, in effect, it was the equivalent of the British

143
Iron and Steel Federation who played a very important part in bringing together the industry and the Government. In fact the Government pressure was not so great, I assure the noble Earl, as he tried to make out.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it seems that we must both go on record on that subject.
I must say one word—it is drawing close to 10 o'clock—on the Millom company which was referred to by a number of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, referred to the fact that the Iron and Steel Board had failed to approve the project put forward by the Millom company and alleged that this decision was given after consultation with my right honourable friend the Minister of Power. I am authorised to state categorically that the Iron and Steel Board did not consult my right honourable friend before making their decision. I am sorry that the noble Lord should have indulged in an unsubstantiated suggestion of this sort. I hope he will take it from me that he was totally wrong. That grave bow from the noble Lord I take to represent a form of apology, and I accept it as such.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: Acceptance, not apology!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Royle, emphasised the importance of the Millom company to Cumberland and asked if anything could be done to assist them. We are all greatly concerned to ensure that spray steel-making, a British invention so full of promise, should be developed sufficiently to maintain the lead established by the work of the British Iron and Steel Research Association and the Millom company. My right honourable friend the Minister of Technology is considering, in consultation with the Minister of Power, the application for financial assistance for this project. I should like to emphasise that we are considering the whole question in very great detail. We are determined that all aspects of this should be taken into account, and certainly before a decision is made Ministers will consider all the points raised. I should like noble Lords to recognise that this is being taken very seriously indeed.
144
My Lords, I would only say one or two words—and they really will be one or two words—on the general issue. I will not follow in detail the example set by my old friend Lord Wolverton in quoting from a speech with which I wound up the first debate on nationalisation of steel that we ever had after the war, in June, 1946. But I will repeat in one or two sentences the points I made then. There was one proposition, I said, which cannot be questioned: the proposition that we need a single planning body to take major decisions. From that we pass on to the need for a single executive agency, and from that to the unification of the ownership of the industry. If there is to be a single owner of the industry, that single body must not be any section or group of citizens: it must be the people of our country as a whole. I said that over twenty years ago.
It was true then, and it is just as true to-day. Indeed it is truer, as has been brought out by various people, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison and other noble Lords. The argument applies to-day with still stronger force because it was possible, after all, to say, twenty years ago, "Just give the industry a chance; the war is barely over; let them put their own house in order." Well, my Lords, they had all the years, all the years of Conservative rule—13 or 14 or 15 years—and they failed to reform themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, and so many other noble Lords have said.
If they failed to reform themselves, I do not put it down to personal feelings. I expect that, as men and businessmen, they are as good as any in the country, and I have no reason to say they are not. I would say that it is inherent in the nature of the system, and our conclusion on this side of the House is not due to some desire to placate some hypothetical group of wild men; it is our own desire. Our conclusion, arrived at after sustained thought over many years, is that this industry will never be able to reorganise itself so long as it remains in private hands. We bring forward this Bill, not in a spirit of provocation but in a desire for reconciliation and a final settlement, a settlement which will let the steel industry know where it is, and give this industry—which, after all has many glorious achievements to its credit

145
—a chance to do still more noble service to the country. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this Bill should now be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.