Sitting of 9 March 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    London Airport Immigration Control)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to admit Commonwealth immigrants at London Airport and to what degree Commonwealth visitors are held up on entry by the examination of Commonwealth immigrants.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): The period between a passenger's arrival and the completion of the immigration check varies according to the density of the traffic, the passenger's own circumstances and the circumstances of others, whether immigrants or not, who are ahead of him. Everything possible is done to speed the process, and the great majority of Commonwealth visitors pass the immigration control before their baggage arrives in the customs hall.
    Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that visitors from old Commonwealth countries have complained that they are help up while intending immigrants from the new Commonwealth countries are interrogated? Would it not be wise to try to separate Commonwealth visitors from intending immigrants?
    Mr. Ennals: It is unusual if that is the case. When the examination of a particular passenger is likely to hold up the flow
    1724
    for some reason or other—documents or otherwise—he is normally set aside for later examination and those in the queue are taken as quickly as possible. We had an investigation last year which showed that the average time spent with an immigration officer was only 52 seconds.

    Immigrants
    Mr. Gurdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that effective control is now exercised by immigration officers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ennals: I have no reason to think that the present position is in general unsatisfactory, but I shall be glad to consider any difficulty which the hon. Member may wish to bring to my notice.
    Mr. Gurden: I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he satisfied that the health checks are still effective in view of the previous outbreaks of disease?
    Mr. Ennals: There are some health checks which are undertaken at the airport itself. As for our having additional powers for health checks, we have to wait till the committee which is looking into the question of inquiries reports. We shall then see whether further action is necessary.
    Sir D. Renton: As the net increase in Commonwealth immigrants in the last two years has consisted so largely of families, will the hon. Gentleman make sure that all people coming in as wives and dependants are genuinely so?
    Mr. Ennals: The net increase in 1966 was substantially less than the increase in 1965 and 1964. Immigration officers take great care to check the claims of those who come in as dependants. I am certain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to stop us allowing legitimate dependants in to join their families.
    Mr. Gurdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest approximate estimate of the numbers of immigrants entering Great Britain illegally.
    Mr. Ennals: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 5th December to a Question by

    1725
    the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew).—[Vol. 737, c.227.]
    Mr. Gurden: Why cannot a rough estimate be made? The Secretary of State's predecessor was able to give an estimate of the number of immigrants entering illegally.
    Mr. Ennals: If we knew the number we should stop them. There are two types of evasion. First, there are those who make a false claim in order to get in. I believe that we have reduced these absolutely to the minimum. Second, there are those who come in as students or as visitors and then stay beyond their permitted time. This figure has now come down to a very few hundred. The number of evasions has been greatly reduced.

    Coroners' Inquests
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to abolish or alter the form of coroners' inquests.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): My right hon. Friend must await the report which the Departmental Committee on Death Certification and Coroners is aiming to present by the end of this year.
    Mr. Whitaker: Can my right hon. Friend promise early action on this, as the Lord Chancellor indicated some years ago that he thought that they should be abolished? Meanwhile, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is danger of prejudice to a person's reputation or future trial in statements made at inquests similar to those made in committal proceedings?
    Miss Bacon: I realise that there is feeling about this, and there have been instances giving cause for some concern. The Brodrick Committee, which was appointed on 17th March, 1965, is expected to report by the end of this year. Obviously, neither my right hon. Friend nor the Government could consider any action before its report is published.

    Drugs
    Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by the Advisory
    1726
    Committee on Drug Addiction in their consideration of the need for a publicity campaign to help to stamp out the use of drugs.
    Miss Bacon: The Committee began consideration of the general question of publicity at its second meeting on 2nd March and intends to study the matter further.
    Mr. Orme: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is growing evidence of concern about the matter? There was a death only recently in my constituency. Would she consider consulting the medical profession in the inquiry so that differentiation might be made between the more harmful and less harmful drugs?
    Miss Bacon: Yes. As my hon. Friend will realise, and as was evidenced in the debate a week or two ago in the House, my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Health are in constant communication about this very grave subject. We are given to understand by the Committee that it is treating publicity as a matter of urgency, although, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science said last week, we must be very careful about publicity in this matter because some of it can perhaps be bad.
    Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of convictions during 1966 of people found guilty of trafficking in drugs, and the average fines and sentences arising from them.
    Miss Bacon: There is no specific offence of trafficking in drugs and it would be impracticable to extract from official records of convictions of unlawful possession or supply of drugs those cases which might involve trafficking.
    Mr. Orme: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this trafficking, or "pushing" as it is called, in drugs is a most detestable thing—
    Mr. Frank Allaun: For money.
    Mr. Orme: Yes, for money, or gain, and would she consult my right hon. Friend to see whether stronger action may be taken against the people involved?
    Miss Bacon: The offences are unlawful possession. In 1966 there were 1,153 convictions of unlawful possession under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964, and in the same year there were 1,100 convictions for possession under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965. As my hon. Friend will have seen, a great deal is at present happening to try to bring the people concerned to book.
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will so amend the law that it will become unnecessary to endorse on a drugs search warrant the name of every person who is to carry out the search.
    Miss Bacon: I am not aware that the requirement causes any serious difficulty, but my right hon. Friend will ascertain the views of chief officers of police.
    Mr. Moyle: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask her if she is aware that the police in my part of London regard this as a very serious obstacle in the searching of premises for drugs? Will she bear that in mind during her inquiry?
    Miss Bacon: Yes, certainly. I have heard of the difficulties experienced in my hon. Friend's constituency. We will consult with the chief officers of police and, if necessary, something might be included in the Bill on drugs which is to be brought before Parliament this Session.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has given to the Metropolitan Police and what advice to other chief constables to intensify the search for persons carrying on the drug traffic.
    Miss Bacon: None, Sir. Chief officers of police are fully aware of the importance of this matter, and the deployment of their available strength is a matter for them.
    Mr. Lewis: Does not the right hon. Lady think that special action should be taken, particularly at the ports and airports, to prevent these drugs from coming in?
    Miss Bacon: I think that the action taken by chief officers of police in the last few weeks has shown that they are fully alive to these dangers and are doing
    1728
    everything they possibly can about this very serious problem.
    Sir C. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action was taken by the Metropolitan Police, in information supplied to them by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, to charge the three self-confessed pedlars of drugs interviewed on the B.B.C. 1 television programme Twenty-Four Hours on 27th February; and what steps have been taken to trace the drug pedlar, of whom details were then supplied by the hon. Member.
    Miss Bacon: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that inquiries to trace these men have so far been unsuccessful but are continuing. The Commissioner informs me that he has no record of detailed information about an alleged drug pedlar having been supplied by the hon. Member.
    Sir C. Taylor: Is the right hon. Lady aware that directly after the programme on television I telephoned Scotland Yard and asked them whether they were prepared to pick up these self-confessed drug pedlars outside the B.B.C.? I gave full particulars, not only of the programme, but of a further drug pedlar who had been keeping one of the people on the television programme in a 15-guinea a week flat?
    Miss Bacon: I will certainly make further inquiries about this matter, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the police are doing everything they can to trace those who were on this programme. They have had help from the B.B.C., but some of these people had given fictitious names.
    Mr. Hogg rose—
    Later—
    Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory answer to Question No. 36, I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has lost his opportunity to do that.
    Sir C. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had thought that you were going to call on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I did not

    1729
    want to waste the Prime Minister's quarter of an hour for answering Questions in raising the point at the time. I ask leave now to do it, and for your further consideration. I think that if points of order are raised at the end of Questions, it will afford time for more Questions in future.
    Mr. Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. However, a point of order to raise a matter on the Adjournment must be made at the time. But, in view of the nobility of the hon. Gentleman's motives, the House has heard what he has said.

    Race Relations
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that a report commissioned by the Race Relations Board into the extent of racial discrimination in housing, in employment, in financial facilities and in public places not covered by the recent Act is expected to be published at the end of March, what preparatory work he is having done with a view to possible legislative action.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to amend the Race Relations Act.
    Mr. Roseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he now intends to take following the Report of the Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants to deal with discrimination in housing and employment.
    Dr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now seek to extend the Race Relations Act to cover private hotels and boarding houses.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): In the light of the reports referred to by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and any other possible evidence about the extent of discrimination in this country and the effectiveness of the Race Relations Act, the Government will review the need for and the practicability of strengthening the existing law and administrative machinery. Meanwhile the Departments
    1730
    concerned are carrying out what preliminary studies are possible at this stage.
    Sir G. Sinclair: But what steps are the Government taking to ascertain the extent of discrimination, if any, in organisations either under their direct control or receiving funds from them?
    Mr. Jenkins: I think that to some extent that is a separate question. But we are keeping that aspect of the matter under very close review.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: While I thank the Home Secretary for that reply, is it not now abundantly clear that as a result of the hotel cases in Great Yarmouth and Birmingham the Race Relations Board is virtually impotent in such cases? Can we have a firm undertaking for legislation to cover those cases and the discrimination that occurs in housing and employment?
    Mr. Jenkins: I have no doubt that there is a problem here, although the hon. Gentleman will have noted that the Yarmouth hotel keeper has now come into line as a result of pressure. I would not say that the Race Relations Board is impotent over the whole field. It is doing a very useful job, and I am carefully studying whether it could do a still more useful job.
    Mr. Rose: Since housing and employment are the most serious spheres of discrimination, would my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not allow timid conservatism on one side of industry or vested interests on the other to stand in the way of much-needed amendments? Is he aware of the very grave danger if the amendments are not passed of British citizens being born in this country to second-class status in the next generation?
    Mr. Jenkins: I shall bear in mind all my hon. Friend's points.
    Dr. Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the outcome of the Yarmouth case has been satisfactory, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was unable to take action because the word "hotel" is so narrowly defined in the Act? In the consultations that he will have, will he ensure that the Race Relations Act is extended to cover private hotels and boarding houses?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am aware of the view which my right hon. and learned Friend

    1731
    the Attorney-General took-and took inevitably in the circumstances. Although I greatly welcome the fact that the outcome in the Great Yarmouth case was satisfactory in the last resort, that does not necessarily prove that the machinery is satisfactory.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many people regard this kind of legislation as an improper intrusion into the realm of private judgment and that they reject the implications contained in the question that where there is something wrong there should be a law about it?
    Mr. Jenkins: I shall bear in mind that on this issue, as on very many, there is a difference of view within the House and in the country. But I do not think that that is necessarily always a reason for inactivity.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the recent conference concerning race and employment, nearly everyone present felt that there was a tremendous need to extend the Act to cover employment? Will he bear those views in mind?
    Mr. Jenkins: I had the advantage of opening that conference and I took note of the views which were expressed there. But I should say, to balance this, that I have no doubt that there are people who were not represented at the conference who would take a different view.

    Durham Prison
    8. Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on conditions in Durham Prison.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Five prisoners have been punished by the visiting committee on charges arising from the disturbance in E wing of Durham prison last month. The committee has also decided to inquire into allegations that have been made about the treatment of prisoners. I welcome this in the interest of the staff, who have an exceptionally difficult task, as well as that of the prisoners, and shall carefully consider its findings. The situation in the prison has returned to normal, but I shall watch it closely, as I am concerned about the problem of avoiding causes for tension without at the same time compromising security.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but are not the disturbances caused by conditions in maximum security wings which Lord Mountbatten has described as intolerable, save as a stop-gap, in a country with a record of civilised behaviour? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will do all he can to accelerate the prison building programme?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, indeed, I am not sure whether Lord Mountbatten used exactly the words that the hon. Gentleman used, but he expressed sentiments broadly in accord with them. I agree that these conditions can be no more than a stop-gap. But it is difficult to get rid of the maximum security wings until we have the maximum security prison. Lord Mountbatten thought that the summer of 1969 was the earliest date for that. In the meantime, I am trying to do what is possible, without compromising security, to make conditions rather more tolerable in the very difficult circumstances of the maximum security wings.
    Mr. Lipton: Has not the time come for a completely independent outside inquiry into conditions at Durham, conducted by people in no way connected with the prison service? Is my right hon. Friend aware that conditions seem to have worsened considerably since the maximum security wing was established?
    Mr. Jenkins: I think that everyone recognises that conditions are bound to be difficult in the maximum security wing, although there is a history of difficult conditions at Durham. The visiting committee is an independent body in the sense that the members are in no way my servants or directly associated with the Prison Department. I shall certainly look at what it says and see what then requires to be done.

    Death Penalty
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of recent incidents, he will introduce legislation providing for the imposition of the penalty of death for persons convicted of killing police officers on occasions when such officers were acting in the execution of their duty.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir. The House decided, by a decisive majority on 23rd November not to grant leave for the

    1733
    introduction of a Private Member's Bill including this proposal.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Whatever the House may have decided on a previous occasion, has not the right hon. Gentleman a special responsibility for the police? Is he aware that they are regularly exposed to violence in the exercise of their duties, and that with their great experience they think that this proposal would give them protection? Why will he not consider giving them the protection they want, need and deserve?
    Mr. Jenkins: Because although I think that I have and endeavour to discharge a special responsibility to the police, I also have a special responsibility to give my views to the House according to what I believe to be right. I propose to do that and not to follow the right hon. Gentleman's advice. I very much doubt if he is acting in the interests of the police or anybody else by constantly keeping this issue alive.
    Mr. Crowder: Will the Home Secretary consider this situation? In a case of serious armed robbery when a sentence is likely to be between 15 and 18 years there is little to be lost by a criminal to shoot his way out, murdering a police officer thereby. Will the Home Secretary consider that situation in relation to the question asked by my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Jenkins: These matters referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) are pre-eminently for debate. They were debated briefly three months ago and at length two years ago. I do not think that I could usefully add to that in reply to a Question.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will not the Home Secretary agree that on some occasions the community has to be tough enough to take pretty unpleasant measures to protect itself against something worse?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, but the representatives of the community have decided what the remedy should be and they decided it on 23rd November.

    Introductions (Computer Selection)
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will hold an inquiry into
    1734
    the growing practice of private firms and individuals selling introductions selected by computer, in view of the dangers to young people.
    Miss Bacon: While my right hon. Friend intends to watch this development, he does not consider that there is occasion for an inquiry at present.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that thousands of these forms are being distributed in various parts of London and elsewhere? Is she also aware that not only are the public being asked to part with money, but they are also being asked to part with information of a particularly personal nature? Does she not think that the public should be alerted to the dangers of fly-by-night operators who could use that information?
    Miss Bacon: I recognise that there is a problem with these organisations which call themselves variously "Operation Matchmaker", "Confidential Dating" and "Cupid". It is too early yet to say what might come of this development, but there are, of course, obvious dangers of abuse which will need to be watched.

    Delivery Tankers (Domestic Fuel Oil)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take the necessary steps to introduce restrictions to the carriage of petroleum and fuel oil in the same delivery tanker, in view of the danger of the wrong fuel being pumped into domestic storage tanks.
    Miss Bacon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 25th January to a Question by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke).—[Vol. 739. c. 312.]
    Mr. Allason: That reply referred only to discussing matters with the trade. Does the Minister realise that this is an extremely urgent matter and that it is very dangerous to have petrol pumped in to a fuel tank? There was a near-danger of explosion in my constituency. Will she put firmly the interests of safety about commercial interests?
    Miss Bacon: Yes, we always put safety above commercial interests, and a number of companies have already adopted this safeguard voluntarily. It may be that we shall have to refer this

    1735
    matter to the Standing Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances, but my right hon. Friend said that we would first discuss it with the trade.

    Air-Raid Shelters
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many old air-raid shelters remain in Great Britain; and why Her Majesty's Government retains them.
    Miss Bacon: About 150,000. It is the Government's general policy to retain existing shelters which might afford worthwile protection in any future war. But demolition at public expense is authorised if the shelter is beyond economic repair, or is a danger to health, or stands in the way of approved development, or on grounds of special hardship.
    Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend seriously suggesting that these worn-out relics would offer any protection whatever in a nuclear attack? Does she not think it is about time that we stopped kidding the public that these 150,000 shelters are of any value whatsoever?
    Miss Bacon: Of the 150,000, 138,000 are small domestic shelters and only 12,000 are public and communal shelters. Those with small domestic shelters can themselves destroy them at their own expense if they wish to do so.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a very serious matter and that in my constituency there have been a lot of grumbles about the state of some of the shelters? There are 29 communal air-raid shelters in my constituency. We have had a check made by the local authority. Most of them are in the centre of blocks of tenements and are a danger to children who play there. Will my right hon. Friend ask local authorities to make a report on the state of these buildings and will her Department see whether those which are bad can be dealt with?
    Miss Bacon: As I have said, those which are bad can be dealt with at public expense. If the local authority concerned would get in touch with us we would consider in those circumstances what could be done.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: I believe that in her original reply the right hon. Lady said that if these shelters were beyond repair they could be destroyed at public expense. Is the implication of that that, where possible, they are still being repaired?
    Miss Bacon: I am sure that if the hon. Member reads my reply he will see that that is not what I said. Of course, they are not being repaired, but if they are a danger to health or stand in the way of future development or could not be repaired—which does not mean that we are going to repair the others—and are derelict, we would destroy them at public expense.

    Blood Sports
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to provide for the abolition of blood sports.
    Miss Bacon: The Government will give careful consideration, when it is published, to the Bill to abolish hare coursing which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) has secured leave to introduce. On the wider question, I cannot at present add to my reply of 17th November.—[Vol. 736, c. 622–3.]
    Mr. Price: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her Answer relating to hare coursing? The loss of that particular blood sport will be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of people. Does she not, however, agree that the Government should get down to the whole question of the abolition of blood sports in their own time and not in private Members' time?
    Miss Bacon: Consultations have been going on about this matter, but, as I explained in answer to a Question earlier, the Government have no plans to give any Parliamentary time for this subject in the present Session.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the right hon. Lady watch her step in this matter; otherwise what will happen throughout the country to the sporting dogs, quite apart from those at Westminster?
    Miss Bacon: I assure the hon. and learned Member that I always watch my step.

    Jurors
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing legislation to provide that the original proceedings should be regarded as a nullity and a fresh trial ordered in cases where it is disclosed that pressure has been brought upon a juror from any source.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir. I do not think this would be desirable or practicable.
    Mr. Molloy: Would not my right hon. Friend reconsider that reply? Would he not agree that after the conclusion of any trial where a verdict has been delivered, if it is subsequently revealed that during the process of such a trial it would have been disqualified from having satisfied the condition of justice having been seen to be done, that trial should be disqualified? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance in regard to the details of the case I have sent to him that this should be evidence sufficient to warrant the investigation of what goes on in jury rooms?
    Mr. Jenkins: In that particular case the matter was looked at carefully by the Court of Appeal. On the point generally, there would be great difficulties about what my hon. Friend is proposing. It would be indefensible, as I think the House would realise, if a juror alleged—possibly long after an acquittal—that he had reached his verdict because he had been interfered with, that the person who had been acquitted should be subjected to a new trial.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the Home Secretary accept that if a proposal of this kind were brought before the House there would be strong opposition to it from this side of the House?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do indeed. I fully understand my hon. Friend's feelings about his constituency problem, but the difficulties associated with the remedy he proposes are quite insuperable.

    Crime Prevention Panels
    Mr. Roseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to set up regional and local crime prevention panels.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: At its first meeting, on 25th January, the Standing Committee on Crime Prevention decided, in principle, to recommend the setting up of a local crime prevention organisation. It is now considering what form of organisation would be most appropriate.
    Mr. Rose: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that this is vitally important in securing the co-operation and assistance of the public in combating crime at local level? Is he further aware that it will create greater public interest and awareness of the perils of crime and should help towards better relations between police and public?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am sure that it is important to have this organisation operating at local as well as national level. My hon. Friend and the House may be interested to know that crime prevention panels have been in operation at Bristol and Nottingham and, in addition, there is an important campaign which has recently been started in Sheffield.
    Mr. Iremonger: Can the Home Secretary tell the House what steps he is taking to involve the schools in the educational aspect of this?
    Mr. Jenkins: Involving the schools in the educational part of this is important, but in order to give exact details I would require notice.

    Summer Time
    Mr. Harold Walkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him, by the Trades Union Congress, about the advisability of retaining Summer Time throughout the year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Trades Union Congress has informed me that it is in favour of retaining Summer Time throughout the year, in conformity with mid-European time. Its views were sought as part of the review that I am undertaking of this matter. I am not yet able to make any further statement.
    Mr. Walker: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's move from his previous negative position, may I ask him if he

    1739
    does not consider that this is an important indication of the swing which is taking place in public opinion[Laughter.]—and a change from the 1963 review decision? Will he please come to an early decision so that we can bring ourselves into line, at least in this respect, with modern European practice?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am not aware that I ever took a negative point of view on this issue. There has been a significant movement of public opinion recently on this matter. We want to study it closely, and I hope that it may be possible to announce a decision to the House in the reasonably near future, perhaps before the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the Home Secretary aware that adopting this proposal will merely result in shifting noon from 12 o'clock to 1 o'clock, undermining the whole basis upon which time is computed around the world? Is he further aware that I shall shortly be introducing a Bill to repeal the Summer Time Act? Will I have his support?
    Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman's gloomy approach to these matters would remain unshakeable whatever I did about Summer Time.

    Fraud Squad
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to strengthen the Fraud Squad, in particular to provide for greater continuity of service and training facilities in legal and accountancy matters.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have nothing to add to the replies I gave to the hon. Member's Questions on 27th February. [Vol. 742, c. 35–36.]
    Mr. Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great public concern about the delay and difficulty in dealing with people involved in company frauds? Will he consider setting up a Fraud Investigation Unit, combining the Fraud Squad, the Board of Trade and the Department of Public Prosecutions, so that there would be much greater activity in this area and a more professional approach?
    Mr. Jenkins: It is possible to exaggerate some of the criticisms which have
    1740
    been made of the existing position. This is a very important area of police activity, and I am having consultations with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney-General.
    Sir J. Hobson: Does the Home Secretary realise that many cases of fraudulent trading now take over three, and of ten four or five years, to bring to trial? Is he aware that something must be done urgently to reduce this delay? Will he consider a system, which I believe is employed in New York, of attaching younger qualified accountants for a short period to the Fraud Squad in order that both may benefit from the experience of the other?
    Mr. Jenkins: I will happily consider anything to avoid these long delays which have built up over a very substantial number of years.
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the reorganisation of the Fraud Squad in such a way that it takes active steps to prevent and deter fraud in insurance companies, building societies, hire purchase companies and other commercial bodies.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Preventive action is already taken, within the limits of the powers available to the police.
    Mr. Mills: Compared with the amount of effort which is devoted to warning the public about locking up their homes and business premises, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient attention is paid to this sphere of activity in which many members of the public can lose vast amounts of money?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes. This appears in the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman's previous Question. I am considering the position with two of my right hon. Friends. One has to be careful in this matter to make sure that one is acting upon the basis of well-founded complaints, because otherwise it would be possible to shake public confidence and cause very grave consequences without there being reason for so doing.
    Mr. Ogden: Would my right hon. Friend give very serious consideration to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton

    1741
    Mills)? Can he assure the House that any suggested reorganisation will apply to Northern Ireland as well as to this country?
    Mr. Sharples: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking to improve the facilities for the investigation of fraud available to police forces throughout the Metropolitan area?
    Mr. Jenkins: That is a different question; I would be glad to answer it, with notice.

    Gypsies
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions have been given to the Metropolitan Police in respect of gypsies and other travellers in the Metropolitan Police area; and when a census of such travellers was last made by the police.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): No general instructions have been given. The police helped in a census conducted by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on 22nd March, 1965.
    Mr. Wells: Will the Home Office take reasonable steps to see that the Metropolitan Police conform to the standard of good conduct of the adjacent counties of London where these county councils and county police forces are doing all that they can to help these travellers in resettlement? Will he ensure that adequate provision is made within the Metropolitan Police area?
    Mr. Taverne: We will see that adequate provision is made in the Metropolitan Police area. I am not sure what particular instance the hon. Member has in mind.

    Fingerprints
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it takes the Metropolitan Police Criminal Records Office to search a single fingerprint against the main collection of prints.
    Mr. Taverne: The search time depends on whether it is known from which finger the print came and how common is the pattern, and varies too much for it to be practicable to make an estimate.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: In view of the Home Secretary's efforts to try to give the police the weapons with which to fight crime, would he not agree that the systems now practised in other parts of the world, using computers, would be one of the prime weapons in his armoury? How much longer are we to have to wait for this? I know that inquiries are going on, but how long will he have to wait before inquiries turn into action?
    Mr. Taverne: I can assure the hon. Member that in this area we are as advanced as anyone. Research is being sponsored to devise a means of automatically scanning a single fingerprint with a view to searching it through a large collection. This is a problem which no country in the world has yet solved.

    Vietnamese Spokesmen (National Liberation Front)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state his reason for the ban on admission to Great Britain of a spokesman of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front; and if he will now reconsider that decision.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Because, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I have concluded that it would not be in the national interest to agree, in present circumstances, to visits by representatives of the South Vietnamese National Liberation Front.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the next application made on behalf of Oxford, Cambridge and London students be considered favourably, both in the cause of free speech and because the former Foreign Secretary said that it was in the national interest for both sides to be heard?
    Mr. Jenkins: The national interest, and certainly the interest of the Government, is to bring this war to an end as soon as we can. It is the view of my right hon. Friend and myself that this would not be served by a change of policy on this matter.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that his reply has nothing to do with the national interest? The American point of view is heard extensively in this country. Surely it is quite

    1743
    right that an alternative position, democratically expressed, should be allowed? Is it not time that the Government reconsidered their view over these matters?
    Mr. Jenkins: I have the impression that the other point of view is also heard sometimes.
    Mr. A. Royle: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his decision will be welcomed on this side of the House and that the other point of view is put regularly by hon. Members below the Gangway on his side of the House?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not want to go into these wider questions. I do not think that it would be wise to make a change in policy at present.
    Mr. Kelley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in all wars the first casualty is truth, and that the only way in which the people of this country can possibly arrive at any conception of the truth is by hearing both sides?
    Mr. Jenkins: If the first casualty is truth, the great desire must be to bring the war to an end as soon as possible.
    Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Prohibited Immigrants (United States Citizens)
    Mr. Bagierasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many American citizens have been made prohibited immigrants in the last 12 months because of their connection with crime and gambling; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Eight; and I am considering whether similar action should be taken in some other cases.
    Mr. Bagier: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his firm and timely action. Would he confirm that some of those bans were on members of the Cosa Nostra, or the American section of the Mafia? Bearing in mind that we have some thugs of our own in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am not referring to right hon. and hon. Members opposite—will my right hon. Friend consider bringing forward legislation in this Session to alter the Betting and Gaming Act?
    1744
    Should he feel that it is not possible to do this, would he consider publishing a White Paper outlining his policies?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am anxious to amend the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, and subsequent attempts at amending it, as soon as I practically can. I do not think that I should add anything to what has been said about the exact affiliations of those concerned. But it is certainly my view that it is reasonable to use the powers which I have to prevent Mafia money from entering into British gaming.
    Mr. Hogg: While obviously one cannot comment on any particular decision which the right hon. Gentleman has made on confidential information and which therefore cannot be checked by the Opposition, will he accept it from me that we shall give him all support in any necessary action to keep out undesirable aliens connected with this trade?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Maintenance Orders (Enforcement)
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for regulations to ensure that a wife to whom payment is due under a maintenance order shall always be told of her right to be heard in enforcement proceedings.
    Miss Bacon: The point is being considered in the context of other possible amendments of the Magistrates' Courts Rules.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: When undertaking the review, would the right hon. Lady bear in mind the case, details of which I sent to her, of a deserted wife who found that she had lost £600 in maintenance arrears without having had the oportunity of attending the proceedings at which that decision was made?
    Miss Bacon: Yes. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman in the letter which I sent to him, this was an unusual case, but it brought to light circumstances in which this could happen. We are, therefore, looking into the matter.

    Kirkham Open Prison (Escapes)
    Colonel Lancasterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

    1745
    how many men absconded from Kirkham Open Prison during 1966.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Thirty-five, Sir.
    Colonel Lancaster: These are very disturbing figures. My own information is that 21 escaped in the last five months. In view of the built-up area in which Kirkham open prison is situated, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he is justified in extending the categories of prisoners who are sent there?
    Mr. Jenkins: I would certainly agree that the figures are not totally satisfactory, but they should be seen against the background of the level of escapes of 49 in 1965 and 46 in 1964. Furthermore, the only extension we have in view, which we shall not undertake without further consultation, would be to treat Kirkham in much the same way as Leyhill is treated where the level of abscondings is substantially lower.

    Scotland Yard (Messages)
    Sir C. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange that, if an extension at Scotland Yard is engaged, facilities are provided for messages to be left for urgent delivery at a central message office.
    Mr. Taverne: Present instructions are that, where an extension is engaged and there is no suitable alternative extension in the same department, any caller who wishes to leave an urgent message is connected to an officer who has been specially designated for this purpose.

  LUXEMBOURG (VISIT OF PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official visit to Luxembourg.
  Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a comprehensive statement following his consultations with the Heads of Governments of the European Economic Community countries; and whether it is his intention now to apply for membership of the Common Market.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer these Questions at the end of Question Time.

  MEMBERS (INTERCEPTION OF CORRESPONDENCE)
  Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister what fresh instructions he has given, since October, 1964, with regard to the interception of correspondence addressed to Members of Parliament on the authority of a warrant issued by a Secretary of State.
  The Prime Minister: The principles which underlay my statement to the House in reply to Questions on 17th November, 1966, are applied equally to correspondence addressed to Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Onslow: Why has the Prime Minister left it until now to tell the House this? Is he too thick to understand that the reputation of Parliament is in no way enhanced if Members who may be a risk to national security are given automatic immunity? Why will he not stop playing Sir Oracle on this matter and refer it to the Committee of the Privy Council?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can speak for himself. I have answered this Question when it was on the Order Paper. The Questions which I answered on 17th November were also on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am thick not to have given the answer before, perhaps he should have put down the Question before.
  Mr. Heath: Is there not a serious point here in that the Radcliffe Report made certain recommendations which were accepted at the time by Mr. Harold Macmillan, who announced his acceptance to the House, and the then Leader of the Opposition, the late Hugh Gaitskell, took no exception to them? The Prime Minister himself made changes on his own authority. As far as I know, there were no discussions with the then Leader of the Opposition, and certainly no statement was made to the House. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he had the responsibility to tell the House of a change in procedure which had already been announced to the House?
  The Prime Minister: No. I made clear on 17th November—and I am not aware that the present Leader of the Opposition objected to the statement I then made—that this was a very difficult question of balance between the rights of Members and national security. I said then that the practice previously followed had been altered. I have now been asked whether this applied to correspondence, and I have given the answer.
  Mr. Heath: The procedure followed until the right hon. Gentleman changed it when he became Prime Minister had been announced to the House by Mr. Macmillan. It was an acceptance of the Radcliffe Committee's recommendations. The Prime Minister, on his own authority, changed that procedure directly he took office. He did not tell the House that a change was being made. Why not, and should not he have done so?
  The Prime Minister: I think that it is certainly an arguable proposition that the House should have been told. But if the right hon. Gentleman really wants to go into the whole issue of action taken before 1964 on telephone tapping—[Interruption.] This cannot be isolated. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to go into the practice of the previous Government in all these matters—because Mr. Macmillan did not make a full statement to the House; he merely said that he accepted the Radcliffe Report—and if he would like to debate this issue, I should be very happy to join him in doing so.
  Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister has still not answered my question. It is very simple and straightforward. Mr. Macmillan announced that the recommendations of the Radcliffe Report would be followed. If the Prime Minister is trying to insinuate that those recommendations were not followed, he should openly give the details. What I am asking him is: when he changed the procedure, which he did last November, why did he not inform the House that he was changing it, and changing it on his own authority?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is on his favourite wicket of a procedural point. I decided, with the authority which must be exercised in these matters, that it would be wrong to
  1748
  go on with the practice that had been used in the past. I agree that this practice had not been committed on a very large scale but I felt that it was right to change it. When hon. Members opposite and in other parts of the House wanted to make a great political issue of this, with suggestions in the Conservative Press that we were tapping all these messages and activities of hon. Members, I thought it right to tell it to the House.
  Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that he is on his favourite wicket of failing to give information to the House and treating it with contempt?

  UNITED STATES (DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATIONS)
  Mr. Russell Kerrasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to enhance Great Britain's influence with the United States of America, he will supplement his hot line and similar diplomatic approaches to the United States Government by recourse to the public methods employed successfully by his predecessor between 1945 and 1951, notably during December, 1950.
  The Prime Minister: I take it my hon. Friend is referring to my noble Friend Lord Attlee's visit to Washington in December, 1950. As he will know I have visited Washington four times since October. 1964.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House who are far from dismissing the efforts of the Government towards a settlement in Vietnam are by no means persuaded that the Government are doing everything possible? Is he further aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—that many of us hold the view—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading.]—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must not be read.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Hon. Members opposite were under a misapprehension. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us hold the view that the Government could exert a more influential rôle with the American Government by operating in a more open fashion than has been the case in recent months?
  The Prime Minister: I know the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings about this to the point where he does not even need to prepare his supplementary question so thoroughly. In the Question on the Order Paper, he refers to a diplomatic approach, which is not an open approach, so I am not sure why, at the end of his supplementary question, he called for a more open approach. If what I think lies behind the supplementary question is that we would have more influence on the United States by a public denunciation of their policy which I know my hon. Friend would like me to make, I cannot agree with him.
  Mr. Goodhart: Does not the Prime Minister remember that in December, 1950, he was getting ready to bite poor Mr. Attlee?
  The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman spends so much time working out his questions and takes them so seriously. I was, indeed, very much concerned in the events of December, 1950. One of the problems that day when Mr. Attlee, as he then was, made his approach to Washington was that, although it was six o'clock in the evening when he sent his message, there was no guarantee, with the then state of communications, that he would even have a reply by the time he wound up the debate in the House that night.
  The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), who has put a serious supplementary question, and to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who has not, is that, compared with 1950—which is the basis of my hon. Friend's question—we now have immediate communications with the United States, whether by telephone or teleprinter, which makes suddenly arranged visits of the kind made in 1950 now unnecessary.
  Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many on this side of the House find the American reasons for the renewed bombing of North Vietnam increasingly unconvincing? Is he further aware that the mounting volume of criticism in the United States itself would be rendered more important if he came out now openly and dissociated the Government from the renewed bombing?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware that such a move would give great satisfaction
  1750
  to my hon. Friend, and if I thought that this was the right way to make peace in Vietnam more likely I might be tempted to follow it. But I do not think it is.
  Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is growing opinion in the United States in opposition to the current policy of President Johnson towards Vietnam? Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that the apparent support that we have given in public to the American policy has undermined our position as neutral co-Chairman and reduced our initiative in this matter?
  The Prime Minister: As I have often had to remind the House, there was never any suggestion that the co-Chairmen were neutral. I do not believe that our fellow co-Chairman, with whom I discussed this matter in great detail less than a month ago, regards his position as being that of neutrality. The position was that two co-Chairmen were chosen, one representing, broadly, the eastern point of view and one the western. We have, indeed, been the more neutral in our discharge of these duties in that we have not sent arms to Vietnam or become directly involved there.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister what discussions he intends to have with Commonwealth countries when the present European Economic Community probings are concluded.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave last Tuesday to a supplementary question by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).
  Mr. Molloy: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that any discussions he is to have with Commonwealth countries are of equal importance with, if not more important than, some of the discussions he has been having recently? Will he assure the House that all the views expressed by Commonwealth countries as well as the views of those countries he has visited in Europe will be the subject of examination and discussion in this House?
  The Prime Minister: Over the last two years I have spent at least as much time

  1751
  discussing world problems with my Commonwealth colleagues as with Heads of Government in Europe. Certainly, as I explained last Tuesday, when we come near to a decision on this question there will be the fullest consultations. Indeed, they have already begun in the visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I am going to Canada in May and will be having discussions then with the Canadian Prime Minister.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would it not be prudent to have an alternative ready in case France vetoes again our entry into Europe?
  The Prime Minister: This question was fully debated when we discussed the Government's announcement on 10th November. The Question on the Order Paper relates to consultations with Commonwealth countries and I have described the arrangements that will be followed.
  Mr. Maudling: Does it follow from the Prime Minister's earlier reply that no statement of Government intentions will be made until after his visit to Canada in May?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, that does not follow. I indicated on Tuesday that no statement is likely this side of Easter, which was what I was asked. We shall be in continuous touch with all our Commonwealth colleagues on this but, of course, I do not prejudge a decision that we have not yet taken. We shall be examining the consequences of our talks. I do not think that any final decision will be taken before May in the sense of any final decision to apply or not to apply to enter the Common Market.

  VIETNAM
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make public representations to the United States of America with a view to their stopping the bombing in Vietnam.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Winnick: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the bombing attack on the South Vietnamese village last week amounted to mass murder and that this is happening all the time in bombing raids
  1752
  on North Vietnam? Since nearly every liberal-minded American in public life has come out against escalation of the war, will not my right hon. Friend do the same, if only for the honour of our country?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's conception of the honour of the country is not necessarily one that all of us would follow. I have said on many occasions that the Government have a very special responsibility in seeking to end this horrible war, in the course of which some terrible things have happened, including the incident my hon. Friend referred to and some very terrible actions of deliberate, not accidental, murder committed by the other side. I do not believe that peace in Vietnam would be advanced by the course my hon. Friend advocates.
  Mr. Paget: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, last July, when we dissociated ourselves from American bombing, it did not make much difference to them but that when, a few days later, they dissociated themselves from the £, it made a lot of difference to us? Could we, in future, refrain from such unprofitable exercises?
  The Prime Minister: Almost for the first time, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has his facts wrong. First, our dissociation was in June, not July. Secondly, there was no dissociation from the £ by the United States Government at any time. Thirdly, it is an insult to President Johnson—I will not say whether it is to me because I am not very much concerned about this—to suggest that our attitude to Vietnam has ever been based on financial considerations. I hope that no hon. Member will suggest as much. We dissociated ourselves last June and our action was understood by the United States. It made no difference in our relationship so far as economic co-operation was concerned.
  Dr. Ernest A. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House and many people in the country will applaud him and the Government for their determined and persistent efforts to bring an end to this terrible bloodshed and get the contestants to the conference table?
  The Prime Minister: I think that this is our duty. I am very glad that this has been said by my hon. Friend. I noted the view of the Leader of the Opposition last weekend, who did not take quite such a constructive view of efforts by the Government to get peace in Vietnam.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since we all believe in the Commonwealth, will the Prime Minister have due regard to the views of Australia and New Zealand on this very difficult question?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, of course. This was fully discussed with them during the visit of the Prime Minister of Australia last year and at the Commonwealth Conference. The Commonwealth goes more widely now than perhaps the hon. Gentleman understands its geographical coverage.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I understand that.
  The Prime Minister: He will recall that the Commonwealth as a whole, with only one dissentient, proposed in 1965 a Commonwealth peace mission to the capitals of the countries concerned—[Interruption.] It was not a laughing matter, any more than the war in Vietnam is a laughing matter. It was not our fault or that of the Commonwealth that that mission was not accepted. The fact that it was not accepted has continued this bloodshed for two further years, which even hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they stop tittering, will deplore.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does the Prime Minister accept that, so far, the methods used with regard to President Johnson and the American Administration have failed? Secondly, can he explain how he equates, in Ho Chi Minh's words, the "American bandit" with the householder—the Vietnamese people?
  The Prime Minister: I am not cure that my hon. Friend's slogans will help in this particular matter. I agree that all the efforts which we have made have not yet got the response from Hanoi required to bring peace. If that is what my hon. Friend is concerned about, I am sure that she will use her undoubted influence in that direction to help get peace.
  Sir John Rodgers: When the Prime Minister is in Canada, will he find time to go to New Zealand to discuss this prob-
  1754
  lem with the Prime Minister of New Zealand?
  The Prime Minister: It is not exactly next door, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. He will also understand that, last September, when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite took a cynical view of the Commonwealth Conference, I had full discussions on these matters with the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and Australia and all others concerned from every point of view of the Vietnam matter.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister, to answer Question Q1.
  Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way at all, when the issue of Vietnam is being raised, for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to be made to take the matter seriously?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

LUXEMBOURG (VISIT OF PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Questions Q1 and Q12.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I visited Luxembourg on 7th and 8th of March for discussions with the Luxembourg Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.
We covered a range of subjects, financial and economic, arising in the context of eventual British membership of the European Economic Community.
My right hon. Friend and I are most grateful to the Luxembourg Ministers for the very friendly and co-operative spirit in which they approached these discussions, and for the expert and constructive way in which they examined the problems with us.
We also had the opportunity in Luxembourg of a useful talk with the acting President and other members of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community.

1755
This concludes the series of visits to Heads of Government of the Six in which my right hon. Friend and I have been exploring whether the conditions exist—or do not exist—for fruitful negotiations leading to British membership of the European Economic Community.
As I said at the half-way stage, we—and I believe our friends in the six Governments—have found these high level visits of the greatest value in defining and clarifying the issues involved.
It is now for the Government to decide on their future course of action in the light of the information collected during these discussions. Thereafter, a statement will be made to the House.
Mr. Marten: Referring to the conditions which the Prime Minister has mentioned, bearing in mind that the Government were elected to honour the pledges which the Labour Party gave at election time, can the right hon. Gentleman give a promise that he will honour the pledges which he gave about the Common Market in his Bristol speech on 8th March, 1966, when—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be reasonably brief.
The Prime Minister: I thought that that was a very good speech [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are all very narcissistic about our speeches, as I have had occasion to say before. Some of the central themes of that speech, naturally, have formed part of the fabric of our discussions with representatives of the Common Market countries. One of the problems which I had was that, during the 1964 election, the then Prime Minister described the question of British entry into the Common Market as a "dead duck", and I had to disillusion them.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: During the Prime Minister's conversations, did he point out to the Heads of Government that, although the large majority of people in this country are anxious that we should join the Common Market on the right terms—[HON. MEMBERS: "HOW do you know?"] Did he take the opportunity of pointing out that we could not go on kicking our heels on the doorstep of Europe indefinitely, waiting, perhaps, for the change of mind of one person?
The Prime Minister: I think that the very serious question raised by the hon. Gentleman is one which is very much in the minds of the Heads of Government in Europe with whom we have had discussions. I think that we all felt that the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) was treated intolerably in this matter, and that there is a general feeling among those with whom we have been speaking that we must have a much speedier conclusion this time, and that, if the conditions are right, we must not lose the momentum which has been created over the past few months.
Mr. Anderson: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his tremendous personal success in his visits to the capitals of the Six, may I ask whether he does not agree that the interim period following the Luxembourg visit is now vital? What specific measures has he in mind for maintaining this momentum?
The Prime Minister: While thanking my hon. Friend for his unsolicited and unjustified testimonial, what I have said is that it is important to have established this relationship at senior Ministerial level. Looking back on the previous occasion, the whole matter was treated rather as an operation in grocery than as an operation in politics. It would have been better if the then Prime Minister had personally identified himself in the talks in the way that my right hon. Friend and I have. However, I believe that we have been able to identify the main political and economic problems which have still to be solved.
So far as the next stage is concerned, I agree with my hon. Friend about the need not to lose momentum. We shall make a statement in the House as soon as practicably possible after Easter. I am sure that the whole House will treat the subject seriously, whatever view is taken, and will recognise that it is a momentous decision which has to be made, with such a wealth of facts and information as a result of these tours which must be considered very deeply and carefully by the Government before a decision is announced.
Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is reported in the Press today that he and the Foreign Secretary gave an undertaking during their Luxembourg conversations that Article

1757
108 of the Treaty of Rome would never be invoked in case of difficulties with sterling should we become a member of the Community? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he gave such an undertaking?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman did not get it quite right. He knows Article 108 very well. There is a phrase in it which says, in effect, that where balance of payments difficulties arise, either through inherent balance of payments difficulties or through the type of currency held by the particular country, certain things would follow. There was great anxiety among our friends in Europe that difficulties arising from external operations of sterling, of a non-European character and not related to the balance of payments, could plunge the members of the Community into serious difficulties.
Our undertaking was to the effect that we would not propose to invoke that part of the Article which talked about the type of currency involved, to deal with a situation where sterling might be in difficulties even though the balance of payments was all right, through actions in sterling balances or the wider aspects of sterling. We thought it right to give this undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when Italy was in difficulties Article 108 was not invoked, although in that case it was a European question.
Mr. Thorpe: As one who hopes that the right hon. Gentleman will be successful in his application for Britain to join the Common Market, may I point out to him that, should he at any time feel inhibited by election speeches, will he fortify himself with the knowledge that the Conservative Party in 1959, violently opposed going into Europe, and then stood on its head, albeit too late, to try to get in in 1962?
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Some latitude must be given to the leader of a party.
Mr. Thorpe: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a supplementary question from the Leader of the Conservative Party. Does he not think that it would be very difficult to distinguish between internal and external stresses upon sterling for the purposes of
1758
Article 108? Secondly, does not he feel that great initiative might be taken by Her Majesty's Government by advocating at this stage the creation of a new European reserve currency?
The Prime Minister: On the long preambular question of the hon. Gentleman, it is a fact that I have had occasion to remark in previous debates that the Conservative Party fought the 1959 election on the basis of statements violently opposed to any discussions with Europe. I should be happy to requote these statements. In 1964, as I have said, the Conservatives said that it was a dead duck. We have a mandate from the electorate, on the basis of what we put in our election manifesto, to enter into negotiations if we are satisfied that adequate terms can be secured.
On the Question of Article 108, in my opinion it is possible to distinguish between internal and external stresses, despite the difficulties referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The problem is a little unreal, because every problem of balance of payments difficulties—whether it be in the case of Italy, who was a member of the Common Market, or Britain, two years ago or last year, who was not a member—has been dealt with by consortium action by European and non-European countries.
The right way to deal with this problem is through the I.M.F., the Basle Club and such bodies. We should be prepared to invoke Article 108, but not in the circumstances that I have indicated. We should be prepared, if we became a member of the Community, to discuss regularly with other members any question of currency reform.
Mr. Maxwell: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that as a result of his and the Foreign Secretary's visit to the countries of the Six every one of them is now firmly convinced of our intention to set into the Common Market if the terms are right? Will he bear in mind that we need Germany's enthusiastic support for our application and, therefore, be more helpful to them on the question of offset costs—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have speeches at Question Time. Questions must be brief. The hon. Member has asked enough.
The Prime Minister: I think that the Heads of Government of the Six are fully convinced of our determination, as described in the statement of 10th November, provided that we can get over the outstanding difficulties, which we have identified and to some extent narrowed. It is not right to link the question of offset costs to this matter, or to seek to bribe our way into Europe. The German Government are fully aware of the advantages for Europe as well as Germany and Britain of Britain's entry, if we can get the right terms.
Mrs. Short: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he and his right hon. Friend will discuss with the leaders of the Commonwealth all the information that he has obtained on this tour of the Six, and also discuss this with the E.F.T.A. countries and report their reactions back to us before any decision is made? Does not he think that he should now embark on a tour of Eastern Europe, in case—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must insist that Questions are kept reasonably short.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that, following each visit, we have communicated full details of our discussions to the E.F.T.A. countries as well as to the E.E.C. countries and the Commonwealth. This process of consultation will continue during the very important period that now lies ahead.
As for communication with Eastern Europe, as my hon. Friend knows I have had opportunities of discussing this and broader questions fully this year and in two visits to Moscow last year with the Head of the Soviet Government, and their position and ours is well understood in relation to these problems.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Prime Minister has truly said that the Government have been able to identify the main political and economic problems involved, but this House is not and will not be informed about them before we have a chance to debate this matter, let us say, in May. Will he therefore consider producing a White Paper before the debate, if he can?
The Prime Minister: I certainly recognise that this is of first importance. When we have analysed our impressions and
1760
have been able to go into all these questions, and the Government as a whole have considered them, the House should have the fullest information. It will be a matter for discussion how we do it. I am not sure that a White Paper is the right answer, but a full statement to the House in advance of the debate will be necessary so that the facts and considerations can be made available to the House. I envisage a full debate on this question.
Mr. Anderson: Can the Prime Minister say what support he had from the countries of the Common Market concerning the sterling area and for the statement in Europe to the effect that the £ would not be affected if Britain entered the Common Market?
The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend is drawing on anything that appeared in the Press this morning, I believe that that is not an accurate account of what was said. We have made it clear throughout that the position of the £ as a currency depends upon the determination of the British Government and people to take the measures necessary to strengthen our balance of payments, which is now moving into surplus. This is the most important fact that Europe wanted to hear.
As for the Article 108 problem, which is a very complicated one, I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman that flurries in sterling, if such there be, arising not from our action or from the position in Europe, but from external factors, would not, we feel, justify us in invoking the words of Article 108 which I quoted in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is not the weakness in the undertaking given by the Prime Minister the fact that Europe knows that he cannot bind any future Government and that if we sign the Treaty of Rome the terms are as written and not as he gives undertakings upon them?
The Prime Minister: We debated the question of the Treaty of Rome and the present practice of the Treaty in the very full and, I believe, constructive debate which we had last November. So far as any treaty is concerned, it has always been the position, as we understood it when we were in opposition, that of course a treaty is binding on the country.

1761
I have not envisaged yet the nightmare possibility of a Government headed by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). He has to hold his seat next time first. But, certainly, I would have thought that no treaty would be signed which is not acceptable to the House as a whole and we would not commend such a treaty to the House unless we felt that British and Commonwealth interests were adequately safeguarded. Given that, I believe that the Government would be able to sign with the full support of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman)rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 13TH MARCH—In the morning—
Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations and the Parking Places (Transfer of Functions) Order.
Remaining stages of the Teachers' Superannuation Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
In the afternoon—
Private Members' Motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, as the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business.
TUESDAY, 14TH MARCH—Supply [13th Allotted Day]: Air Estimates, 1967–68, Vote A.
WEDNESDAY, 15TH MARCH—In the morning—
Motion on the Post Office Accounts. In the afternoon—
Supply [14th Allotted Day]:
Air, Votes 1, 2, 7 and 8;
Navy, Votes 1, 4, 5, 8 and 9;
Army, Votes 1. 2, 8, 9 and 10, Royal Ordnance Factories Defence (Army) Purchasing (Repayment) Service.
I understand that the House may find it convenient to devote two hours to each of the three Services.
Lords Amendments to the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill.
THURSDAY, 16TH MARCH—Supply [15th Allotted Day]:
There will be a debate on the Plowden Report on Primary Education, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Civil Estimates and Defence (Central) Estimates, Vote on Account, 1967–68, Supplementary Estimates and, if necessary certain Defence Estimates.
At 10 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on all outstanding Votes.
FRIDAY, 17TH MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 20TH MARCH—In the morning a debate will be opened on the Land Commission Orders, which are on the Paper and will be resumed on the following day.
On Monday afternoon—
Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
The House will wish to know that it is intended to propose that the House should arise for the Easter Adjournment on THURSDAY, 23RD MARCH, until TUESDAY, 4TH APRIL.
Mr. Heath: As far as the Supply day is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we were unable to use this day for a debate on decimalisation, because there is the Decimal Currency Bill on the Order Paper. As the House obviously still wants to have this debate, so that its views can be expressed before the Government go ahead with the Bill, we would be prepared to delay the debate on Plowden a little if the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared temporarily to withdraw the Bill, so that the House could debate decimalisation and express its view freely. Then, of course, the Government could reintroduce the Bill in accordance with the wish expressed by the House.
We makes this proposal to the right hon. Gentleman across the Floor of the House to be helpful and to avoid the problem which he mentioned last week, that there would have to be two days' debate. which he could not afford. In

1763
view of the warm reception which he has received this afternoon, and the strong position which he now occupies with his party, perhaps he will be able to meet this request.
So far as prices and incomes are concerned, as everybody seems to have been told the Government's proposals except the House of Commons, would the right hon. Gentleman kindly arrange for a statement to be made on this at an early date and then for the House to be able to debate it? It is not good enough to wait until the whole thing is settled and then bring it to the House.
Mr. Crossman: On prices and incomes, I hope that my right hon. Friend will make a statement well before the Easter Recess, and I think that there will be a White Paper as well. No doubt, when that has been studied, we can debate it.
On the first point, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me these interesting offers across the Floor. Naturally, we will have them discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion 459, on the rights of Members of Parliament, which approves of the attitude of Opposition Members in abstaining on the Leasehold Reform Bill?
[That this House approves of the action of Opposition Members of Parliament who abstained from voting against the Leasehold Reform Bill and maintained the rights of Members of Parliament in a democratic Parliament to refuse to vote for what they believe to be wrong.]
If he changes his mind, and agrees to it being discussed next week, will he allow a free vote?
Mr. Crossman: Free or not, the Motion might attract the support of the majority of hon. Members, but it does not arise on the business for next week.
Sir W. Teeling: May I have some guidance from the right hon. Gentleman about Monday? He refers to the opposed Private Business, but did not mention that the only Private Business is the Brighton Marina Bill. He will realise that there are two matters on that. The hon and learned Member for one of the Aberdeenshire seats—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot now argue about the business. He can only ask for time to debate an issue.
Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. The hon. Member was referring to me, but he misstated my constituency, Sir.
Sir W. Teeling: I have not got to the hon and learned Gentleman yet. I understand that a Bill is being opposed and then followed by an Instruction, one by an hon. and learned Member for an Aberdeenshire seat and one by an hon. Member for a Birmingham seat—
Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. He has done it again!
Sir W. Teeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long we will be allowed for each?
Mr. Crossman: I think that it is usual when we are discussing the business for next week, for me merely to say that the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business, but if the hon. Gentleman really wants my guidance of how to act in this circumstance, I suggest that he comes to me and we discuss it, but not across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Roebuck: Would my right hon. Friend give consideration to an early debate on the future of the Commonwealth?
Mr. Crossman: I will give consideration to it, but it is unlikely before the Easter Recess.
Sir R. Cary: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a most unsatisfactory outcome of the debate last Tuesday concerning the limb-fitters at Roehampton, who could provoke another work-to-rule? I think that the House ought to have an opportunity—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate now a vote and a debate which have taken place.
Sir R. Cary: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, then, whether the House may have an opportunity before the Easter Recess of discussing that most urgent and humane problem again?

1765
of the Board of Trade, would not that be thought so. The Prayer was moved in the normal way, and the decision was taken.
Mr. J. T. Price: The Leader of the House has no doubt been informed by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade of his intention to make a very important statement next week on the present distressed state of the Lancashire cotton industry and the serious unemployment and trade dislocation flowing from that situation.
Can my right hon. Friend tell me this afternoon what day this statement will be made and at what time? Moreover, can he give me an undertaking that the statement will not be made during the Monday morning sitting of the House, when, for physical reasons, it is impossible for large numbers of north-western hon. Members to be present on these benches?
Mr. Crossman: Yes, I can give that assurance straight away. I have always realised that Monday mornings would be a quite unsuitable time for statements of that kind. I cannot tell my hon. Friend on what day it will take place, but will certainly bear in mind its very great importance to hon. Members. It might possibly take place in an afternoon.
Mr. Grimond: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has given a firm undertaking—I see that firm undertakings are not very well received by him—that there will be a White Paper on the incomes policy and an economic debate before we rise for Easter? If so, will he ensure that there is some explanation in the White Paper of the Government's proposals for a national dividend?
Mr. Crossman: What 1 think I stated, as the right hon. Gentleman will find when he reads HANSARD, was that I expect a statement before the Easter Recess and I added that I thought that there would be a White Paper as well. I gave no assurance of a debate, because we do not have a day for it.
Mr. Coe: May I remind my right hon. Friend that he gave an undertaking to me last week that he would consider the possibility of a debate on the cotton industry at one of the morning sittings? If we are to have a statement from the President
Mr. Crossman: I should not have a convenient time to have a short debate?
Mr. Crossman: That is a possibility worth considering, but I do not yet know on what day the statement will be made. I think that the best thing would be to hear the statement and have question and answer, and then, perhaps, consider what to do after the Easter Recess.
Mr. Iain Macleod: In one respect—I realise that it has always been so—the business statement is incomplete. It includes Government business, Orders subject to affirmative Resolution and the rest, but not necessarily the Opposition's Prayers to annul Orders. The latter, particularly when prices and incomes is a subject of debate, may well be the most important part of the business of a day or even of the whole week. Will he consider whether the House could be given this information in some way on Thursdays?
Mr. Crossman: I appreciate that, and I think that it would be for the convenience of many Members. The difficulty is that I announce our business. It will be a matter for consultation through the usual channels to see whether it would be for the convenience of the Opposition to have their business put on my statement. If it were so, I should myself have no objection.
Mr. Heffer: At Question Time, the Minister of State, Home Office, stated that the Government were sympathetic to my Bill to abolish live hare coursing. Are the Government considering giving time for the Bill? Will my right hon. Friend say what the Government's position is regarding it?
Mr. Crossman: We have not yet seen the terms of my hon. Friend's Bill, but the Government are sympathetic. All I can say is that it does not arise on the business for next week.
Mr. Hastings: Last week, the Leader of the House undertook to speak to the Foreign Secretary about the possibility of a debate on Aden. Many of us still feel that the situation there is desperately dangerous and urgent. When shall we have a debate?
Mr. Crossman: I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and discussed the question with him. It

1767
is a grave situation, but it is his considered view that the situation would not be improved by a debate during next week's business.
Mr. Palmer: Could my right hon. Friend provide himself with some time so that he could make again in the House the excellent speech which he made at Morden last night?
Mr. Woodnutt: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that at twenty-five minutes past twelve, towards the end of yesterday morning's sitting, we were discussing the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order, but the debate was adjourned five minutes later. In view of the importance of this matter to the Isle of Wight, which will probably declare its own U.D.I. before the end of the year and because we want these forts, when does the Leader of the House propose to have that adjourned debate resumed?
Mr. Crossman: I am ready to explain the matter to the hon. Gentleman. If he will ask me about it after business questions today, perhaps behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, I shall clear the point up for him.
Mr. Rose: There has been no debate on sport and leisure facilities since 4th December 1964. Now that the first Annual Report of the Sports Council set up by the Department of Education and Science has been published, will my right hon. Friend change his view that this is a matter for private Members' time and afford time for a debate in the House in the near future?
Mr. Crossman: That was not quite my view. What I think I said was that I recognised this as an important subject, but, since we had great pressure on Government time, at least right up to the Easter Recess, I urged hon. Members to take the opportunity of private Members' time or, indeed, the Consolidated Fund Bill. Later, perhaps, we may find Government time, but not in the near future.
Mr. Clark Hutchison: As the Government have said, in effect, that they are blocking the Livestock Export Control Bill because it has not been discussed, will the Leader of the House give time next week for it, and ensure that the Bill is treated in the same way as the Sexual Offences Bill—and, possibly, the anti-
1768
coursing Bill as well—for which time was given?
Mr. Crossman: I give the assurance that the Bill will be given no more and no less advantage than any other Bill which comes up in the normal way.
Mr. Parkyn: As the Minister of Technology now has greatly increased responsibilities and the Ministry is one of the largest Government Departments, will the Leader of the House give the House an opportunity to debate the whole subject of technology at an early date.
Mr. Crossman: There is a debate on one important aspect of it today. We had a debate on the brain drain recently. I think that the work of the Ministry comes up in a great many different debates, but I shall bear in mind the possibility of a debate on the Ministry itself.
Mr. Kershaw: Last week, the Leader of the House gave the impression that the Government had made up their mind not to give a free vote on the question of decimalisation. Is that right? Is it still the position?
Mr. Crossman: What I said was that it was not a matter for the business of next week.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: If it is not possible to have a full day's debate on Lancashire's problems before the Recess, will my right hon. Friend favourably consider having one shortly after the Recess?
Mr. Crossman: As I said earlier, I recognise the importance of the matter. A statement will be made, and I am sure that Mr. Speaker will give opportunity for question and answer on it. After the Recess, we must see what the prority is in debates, but there is not much Government time, and I urge my hon. Friends to remember that they have opportunities for debate, such as the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. St. John Stevas: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision about an early debate on Aden? How can he justify his extraordinary statement that the situation there would not be improved by a debate in the House? Surely, the purpose of this House is to debate matters—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may ask for time. He must not argue.
Mr. St. John Stevas: Is it not the purpose of this House to debate matters of urgent importance, such as the situation in Aden?
Mr. Crossman: I appreciate that point. If the Opposition feel that the matter is of urgent importance, they have their opportunities. I said that my right hon. Friend had considered the matter and did not think that it was opportune to debate Aden next week.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: In view of the deep feelings and anxieties, at least on this side of the House, about how we should best help to resolve the war problem in Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend please consider giving at least a full day's debate to this subject as soon as he possibly can, and at least before Whitsun?
Mr. Crossman: That is a long way beyond next week's business.
Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Will the statement on the annual Farm Price Review be made next week, and, if so, will the Leader of the House do his best to ensure that it does not clash with any other major statement at 3.30?
Mr. Crossman: I shall bear that in mind. I think that my right hon. Friend intends to make his statement on 15th March.
Mr. John Fraser: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many hon. Members are delighted by the decision to debate the Plowden Report on Primary Education. As there is much more interest in this subject than in some of the Service Estimates, does my right hon. Friend think it possible to find, say, an extra hour on Thursday?
Mr. Crossman: I am prepared to consider that. If there Were a strong demand for an extra hour, this could be discussed through the usual channels, but my suspicion is that it would not be wanted on Thursday. I will consider it through the usual channels.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that there is important business ahead of us. Mr. Stratton Mills.
Mr. Stratton Mills: With particular reference to next week's business, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that,
1770
when Ministers are giving details of finance and expenditure, it would be of great value if they would stop the somewhat curious practice of expressing the figures in terms of constant prices?
Mr. Crossman: I shall pass that advice to my right hon. Friends.
Mr. John Lee: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time is now approaching when there should be another debate on Rhodesia, to discuss the success or otherwise of sanctions?
Mr. Crossman: I shall bear that in mind, but I cannot say that I think that it has particularly high priority.
Sir S. Summers: My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) drew attention to items of business which are not Government business. During the past ten minutes, the Leader of the House has repeatedly used some such phrase as "next week's business". Next week's business is not confined to Government business. Will he bear in mind that, when he is announcing the next week's business, his statement ought to cover more than Government business?
Mr. Crossman: When the point was put to me, I said that it has been the practice to give Government business. If we were to alter the practice, it would have to be done after consultation through the usual channels. I conform to the normal procedure unless we agree to change it.
Sir F. Bennett: One subject which has not been mentioned today is Malta, about which I tried to ask a question last week. Obviously, we all want to concentrate on a successful outcome, but there is general anxiety about it on both sides of the House. Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that, as soon as possible, we shall have our impatience rewarded by an early statement on this problem, which concerns us all?
Mr. Crossman: I think it probable that my right hon. Friend will make a statement tomorrow morning.
Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may think, there are hon. Members who believe that the time is opportune for a debate on Aden? In view of the very grave anxieties about

1771
the position there, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware that there is a difference of opinion about this. The Government believe that, on the whole, the time is inopportune and that we are not able to find Government time to debate this matter. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think differently, they can draw their own Opposition conclusion.
Mr. Biffen: If the statement on the policy of the Government on prices and incomes during the period following the period of severe restraint will be an outline of Government policy, will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the undesirability of that being announced to the House before Parliament has had a chance of debating the matter, so that the House at least has parity of consultation with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly bear that in mind. It is one of the problems of parliamentary government. I thought that I had been asked mainly whether I would give an assurance that a statement would be made; and I said that a statement would be made before the Easter Recess.
Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that several weeks ago at business question time he said, in reply to me, that he would consider allowing a free vote on the subject of decimal currency? In view of the extremely welcome remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday evening, will he now give an assurance to the House that this matter will be the subject of a free vote, that it will not be decided through the usual channels—as he stated in reply to the Leader of the Opposition—and that it will be decided in accordance with the wishes of the House, as expressed by 67 hon. Members in Early Day Motion No. 319.
[That this House welcomes the statement of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in Command Paper No. 3164 that the decision of Her Majesty's Government to retain the £ system in a decimal currency is subject to the final approval of Parliament, and trusts that such Parliamentary approval will be sought by a free vote of the House of Commons.]
Mr. Crossman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am bearing Motion No.
1772
319 in mind. I would only add that the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise on the business for next week.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lance Percival. [Laughter.] I apologise to the House. Mr. Ian Percival.
Mr. Percival: I wish that the question I am about to ask might provoke the same amusement as did your reference to my namesake, Mr. Speaker, but I must question the Leader of the House on a more serious topic.
Further to the questions and answers which we have already had about the textile industry, is the right hon. Gentleman really aware that there is very grave concern indeed in Lancashire at the rapid and extremely serious deterioration in the position? There is great indignation at the failure of the Government to take action—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is beginning to discuss the merits of the case. If he wishes, he may ask the Leader of the House to provide time for a debate.
Mr. Percival: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision that there cannot be a debate on this matter before the Easter Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I explained that I could not do so. It is rather difficult to avoid otiose repetition, but I must repeat that my right hon. Friend will be making an important statement on this issue next week. There will then be a chance of putting questions and receiving answers about the matter. I should have thought that that was a satisfactory solution from the point of view of all hon. Members.
Sir J. Rodgers: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that two or three weeks ago he said that he would make representations to his right hon. Friend the First Secretary to make a statement on the Government's prices and incomes policy? Can he name the date on which the First Secretary is likely to make that statement?
Mr. Crossman: I am not, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did make representation to my right hon. Friend; and I have announced that the statement will be made before the Easter Recess. I cannot at this point announce the day on which it will be made.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.5 p.m.
  The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As this is the first occasion on which I have spoken in the House as the Minister responsible for the shipbuilding industry, I will begin by saying something about the industry itself.
  British shipbuilding, which we are discussing today, has been through a very difficult period. Its difficulties are not over yet. During the last few years it has been the recipient of a great deal of criticism. Much of it, I am sure the industry would now admit, has been justified criticism. Some of it has not been justified.
  But today, with the presentation of this Measure, we are making a new start. And in looking to the future, we must not only concern ourselves with the re-organisation of what already exists, important as that is, but we must also begin thinking about ways and means by which this industry can take advantage of the new technologies that now exist. Nothing would be more fatal for this country than to concentrate only on the science-based industries and exclude from consideration the equally, if not more, important question of applying science and technology more rapidly in all industries. That is certainly the spirit in which my Department faces the job which must be done.
  I will, first, refer briefly to the background to this debate. In the autumn of 1964 it became clear to the Government that a major reorganisation of the industry was urgent it British shipbuilding was not to decline further in world markets. The Shipbuilding Credit Act, 1964, saved a number of yards from bankruptcy by stimulating British orders with loans at the Exchequer lending rate. This scheme simply provided more work for the out-of-date and fragmented structure of the industry. However, it was in the nature of an emergency blood transfusion and did not of itself contribute to bring about the fundamental changes which it had
  1774
  become obvious would be necessary if the industry was to become competitive.
  It was for this reason that the Government decided to set up the Geddes Committee in February, 1965. The Committee was asked to look at the industry and recommend what action it thought should be taken by the employers, unions and Government, and to report in about a year. In fact, it reported 53 weeks later and its report was published on 24th March, 1966.
  I am sure that the House would want me to once again express our thanks to Mr. Geddes and his fellow members on the really excellent job of work which they did. It was no mean achievement to complete such a comprehensive inquiry in such a short period and to produce a Report that was so analytical in its diagnosis, clear-cut in its recommendations and capable of winning support from both sides of the industry and from the Government.
  This is the first time the House has debated the shipbuilding industry since the Geddes Report. This Report is, therefore, one of the essential documents for today's debate, although I hope that I will not need to repeat the arguments in great detail contained in it.
  The Report proposed that the industry should have three months in which to demonstrate its willingness to make the effort suggested in the Report. I think that the House as a whole felt that both sides of the industry had made a promising opening response and welcomed both the action taken in the Finance Act to grant shipbuilders relief from indirect taxes and also the Government's decision, which my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, announced on 9th August, to introduce legislation on the lines recommended in the Report.
  After that. Sir William Swallow, formerly Chairman of Vauxhall Motors, agreed to become Chairman of the new Shipbuilding Industry Board, and he and his colleagues, Mr. Hepper and Mr. Gormley, were appointed on a non-statutory basis by early November. We are fortunate in having a Board of this quality and I am sure that the whole House will wish its members success in the immensely difficult job which the Government have asked them to undertake.

  1775
  Immediately after that, following the history through, the responsibility for shipbuilding was transferred from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology. We not only took over the staff concerned from the Board of Trade, so that the links between the people who had worked on it in the Board of Trade and the industry were maintained, but we have done our best, in discussions with the shipbuilders and in the visits which my hon. Friend and I have paid to shipyards, to convince shipbuilders that there is no weakening of our concern with both the day-to-day and long-term industrial problems of shipbuilding as a result of the change.
  Since November, developments have been rather less dramatic. Some negotiations between the companies about groupings have been proceeding, although I must say, frankly, rather more slowly than the Government had hoped. Sir William Swallow and his colleagues, having waited for some time for concrete proposals for reorganisation to come forward, have recently been active in stimulating the planning of reorganisation within the industry.
  This is not, I believe, just a matter of waning enthusiasm with the passage of time. There have been real difficulties in the way of reorganisation. First, the industry faced increases of labour and other costs in the period before the prices and incomes standstill and much of the work on hand had involved losses. Companies which had escaped the worst losses found the prospect of joining up with those which had made heavy losses an unattractive one. On the other hand companies making severe losses felt that if they did join a group at this juncture they might not be assessed at their full worth. This has been a factor we have had to take into consideration.
  This view was exacerbated in two other ways. In view of their losses, some shipbuilders were nervous at taking on new orders at prices which might lead them into further financial difficulties. This reflects the basic problem of the industry's weakness in the face of world competition with which the Geddes Committee was concerned. An additional problem, to which many hon. Members drew attention, was the disparity in the credit terms which a British shipowner could get if
  1776
  he ordered overseas—often 80 per cent. of the contract price for eight years at 5½ per cent.—compared with the much higher rates of interest he had to pay when ordering from a home yard.
  As a result of both these problems, and others, the value of orders taken by the British industry has been falling fast: from £93 million in the first half of 1965 to £78 million in the second half; to £47 million in the first half of 1966; and to £26 million in the second half of last year.
  If credit had been the only problem it could no doubt have been dealt with by arrangements rather similar to those introduced in the 1964 Act. But this would only have masked the long-term weakness, and would have tended to defer the changes necessary if the industry is to hold its own in the world market. What we have done, although it involved some slight delay of a few weeks in the introduction of the Bill, is to work out a way of helping on the credit problem which would reinforce rather than undermine the reorganisation of the industry as proposed by Geddes. No doubt a lot of this debate, and may be that in Committee, too, will concentrate on this aspect of what we are putting before the House.
  I now turn to the substance of the Geddes Report. Its proposals for regroupings are certainly important and, indeed, it is often regarded as a report on shipyard groupings. I would summarise the proposals as follows.
  First, there must be a group headquarters capable of using modern technical and management methods, and inspired with a philosophy which the Committee set out in one of its appendices.
  Secondly, Geddes visualised that each group might contain four to six yards, each specialising in the type of ship built.
  Thirdly, it foresaw a labour force of, perhaps, 8,000–10,000 in total, with about 1,500–2,000 men working in a simple shipyard and up to 3,000 men working in the more labour-intensive yard where more sophisticated ships were built.
  Fourthly, it foresaw that the group might include ship repair yards managed separately, but able to take advantage of the services provided by the group.

  1777
  Fifthly, it advocated that the manufacture of slow-speed diesel and marine turbine engines which had grown up in some composite yards for historical reasons in the past should be hived off and concentrated in a smaller number of establishments that specialised in engine building.
  However, groupings on these lines, whether the yards are close together, or, in some cases, geographically dispersed as they are in a number of the Japanese groups, are only the first legal and financial step in the direction we have to go. There is a great deal of talk nowadays about the economies of scale and the benefits of large organisations we debated this recently in the House. Whatever the justification for these views may be in other fields—and I am not sure that size by itself guarantees anything at all—I agree with the Geddes Report that groupings in shipbuilding provide no more than the framework in which the necessary changes are likely to take place best.
  If the industry is to regain a position of competitive strength, it is greater efficiency in all fields of management—greater yard productivity, greater throughput and greater specialisation combined with flexibility—that will be the key. This is what the Bill calls the reorganisation of resources—buildings, plant, equipment and manpower.
  In my view, no yard in the country, I would almost say no individual in the industry, can duck the need for change. It certainly cannot be escaped by approaching grouping cautiously: the going is likely to be equally difficult, possibly more so, for yards which decide to go it on their own. The Geddes Report said that the individual yard which becomes really strong in a particular sector of the market may succeed, but it will represent an easier course than grouping.
  These changes, for which grouping will he the preliminary in many cases, present a tremendous challenge to both sides of industry. I speak, first, of management. Shipbuilding is an ancient industry with much devotion, skill and craftsmanship locked up in it. But I hope that we shall not now accept that there is any mystique in it. It must become competitive. It must have modern management skills in marketing, design, development, purchas-
  1778
  ing, industrial relations, production and financial control. The industry must have these skills whether by recruiting from outside or by training up its own forward-looking men. This is not an optional extra, but an integral part of grouping and reorganisation.
  The challenge to the workers and the unions is equally dramatic. These are the men who have invested their life in this industry, and whose future employment depends upon it. They are certainly entitled, as any worker in any industry is entitled, to look forward to a future that provides good employment prospects. They are also entitled to a share in improved amenities and the chance to be trained and retrained so that they can raise the level of their skill. But, at the same time, they must know that all these things depend upon the rapid modernisation of the industry, and that restrictive practices, designed to give security in the past, can—if they are maintained now—destroy that very security by destroying the competitiveness of the yard.
  I feel that in this debate hon. Members on both sides will, in what they say, sense and reflect the new spirit in the industry on the side of both management and labour. Both sides have stressed their understanding of what is needed from them, and this will give the industry a chance to make its fresh start. As we move from this early period of general welcome into the far harder job of implementation of the Report, both sides will be tested to the full in the very difficult negotiations and transitional arrangements that will have to be made.
  If I had to summarise the Geddes Report in three sentences, I should do it like this. First, the competitive success of the British shipbuilding industry depends on the industry itself, the managements and workers in it Secondly, the Government should help, but all public expenditure should be directed to and conditional upon the reorganisation of the industry. Thirdly, the job is urgent: the industry must not look forward to aid on a continuing basis. This is a job that has now to begin.
  I now turn to the scope of the Bill, which deals with the financial help by the Government and its administration. I should, first, explain, although I am sure that all hon. Members know, that

  1779
  the Bill is concerned with all the yards building vessels of 100 gross tons or more, of which there are about 60, as compared with the 26 yards building vessels of 5,000 gross tons or more, on which the Geddes Committee concentrated as a matter of convenience.
  Clause 1. The Bill starts by making competitiveness the over-riding objective of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, for whose establishment the Clause provides. Hence it follows that all the assistance which the Board will be giving will be based upon the need to make the industry competitive. The Clause follows the Geddes Report in making the Board an independent body and, similarly, the Report is followed in Clause 9, by which the Board is to expire at the end of 1970 unless its life is extended by Order for not more than an extra year.
  Clauses 2 and 3 again follow the Report in providing for two types of grant to be made. Clause 2 provides for up to £150,000 to be spent on consultants' reports in connection with the grouping schemes. These grants will be made by the Board on its own initiative and without consulting the Minister.
  Clause 3 provides for grants of up to £5 million to be made in respect of transitional losses as a result of grouping or the reorganisation of resources. This expenditure will require Ministerial approval.
  Clauses 4, 5 and 6 deal with the £2½ million worth of reorganisation loans proposed in the Report. However, under the Bill rather greater flexibility is given to the Board by leaving the amount which it wishes to devote to various purposes to the Board's own discretion, instead of tying it down into separate compartments. This is a sensible arrangement, though I can well understand why Geddes made the recommendations that he did.
  I should also mention that there is one technical change from Geddes. Instead of providing for a remission of interest due on a reorganisation loan in the first three years, the Bill provides that payments of interest may be financed by way of grants—that is, over and above the £5 million—so that the exact cost of it can be known and identified. There is in fact no practical difference. This is a
  1780
  tidier and more convenient way of doing it.
  Clause 6 provides that the Board may, subject to the approval of the Minister, take an equity holding in lieu of giving a loan or accept an equity holding in discharge of a loan. In both cases the equity holding will count against the limit of £32½ million imposed on all these reorganisation loans.
  This equity provision has been included in the Bill because it seemed to the Government that where substantial sums of public money were being placed in an industry it ought to be open to the agency that placed it there to take a share in the ensuing profitability of the enterprise which received it. This is an option which the Board will be able to take. I cannot imagine how this provision could be in any way controversial but, if it is, we shall no doubt have an opportunity of debating it in Committee.
  There are obviously circumstances in which the company concerned might well prefer an equity holding to the provision of a loan, in order to avoid paying interest at a fixed rate. This is not at all the intention of the Clause. In some cases the Board might see an advantage in an equity investment, but in other cases it might feel that taking a convertible loan would be a better way of investing its money. We are here dealing with the taxpayer's money, and the taxpayer is entitled to be satisfied that where his money is spent he will get the most favourable possible return upon it.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: How is it proposed to control the channelling of these public moneys which are being advanced to the industry towards particular types of construction? I am thinking particularly of container cargoes. How is it proposed that the direction of the funds to particular classes of construction will be controlled? This is a matter in which the taxpayer will obviously have the keenest concern.
  Mr. Benn: I am coming to the rôle of the Shipbuilding Industry Board later in my speech.
  The Board is to be set up as the executive body. The Board, in deciding whether to make a loan or to take an equity holding or take a convertible loan, would examine this in the context of the

  1781
  reorganisation and the redevelopment of the yard or grouping and in this case would come to the Minister for authority. There will be an opportunity to take into account a number of considerations bearing upon what the money is needed for.
  Mr. John Farr: Can the Minister confirm that, if a company accepts a loan, it may be required to accept Government participation by way of shareholding in lieu of repayment?
  Mr. Benn: No. The position is this. The Board has £32½ million, which was the amount recommended by Geddes, and it has certain options open to it. It has the ability to make a loan. It has the ability to make a grant to cover the first three years' interest on the loan. It has the power to take convertible stock or make an equity investment. In considering what it should do the Board will take account of the circumstances.
  This is a perfectly straightforward extension of a range of options to the Board, with the knowledge that in every case the Board will have to come to the Minister for approval of the proposals it makes. I do not know whether that meets the hon. Gentleman's point. I will come on in a moment to other considerations which might be in the Board's mind.
  In addition, the Board might well have in mind the desirability of an equity in order to give itself a continuing say in the management of an enterprise at a time when questions of management reorganisation were of crucial importance. This relates back to what I was saying earlier about a mere grouping not being enough, about there being a need to ensure that management is there to take advantage of the possibilities which are opened up by the grouping.
  Since the Board is to be a statutory authority and is to have these powers vested in it, I do not want to say much now that would limit the exercise of its choice. In each case, I shall be called upon to approve proposals for the taking of an equity and to approve any sale of any equity thus acquired. I have discussed, and shall no doubt be discussing, with the Board the way in which it might wish to use this power.
  I might underline the fact, in case any hon. Member has any doubts about it, that there is no question of compulsory
  1782
  acquisition of shares involved. If the company in question does not wish to make equity available, it is under no obligation to do so. It would then be for the Board to decide whether, in those circumstances, it wished to offer a loan as an alternative. This will probably meet some questions which might otherwise have arisen.
  Clause 7 provides for the credit scheme. The ceiling on the Government's liabilities under the proposed guarantees is put at £200 million. In view of the changed circumstances which I have described, this goes much beyond the £30 million credit scheme proposed in the Geddes Report, but the provisions are certainly consistent with the spirit of the Report.
  One objective, as I have said, is to prevent British shipowners from being forced to place their orders abroad in order to take advantage of better credit facilities. In working out the detailed arrangements and the terms and conditions, the Government will certainly have regard to this objective.
  The second objective is, however, to reinforce and in no way to weaken the reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry. No guarantee can be given unless the Shipbuilding Industry Board advises me that the shipbuilder concerned is currently making all the progress that can reasonably be expected of him at the time and that the order is suitable and necessary for the particular yard's progress. I must make it absolutely clear that unless there is such a provision we shall not only be throwing over the entire Geddes Report, but making it most unlikely that the reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry will proceed at the pace required.
  The House will have noted that this puts great power into the hands of the Board. but I know that it intends to exercise this power wisely and sensibly, bearing in mind the overriding need to leave the industry in a stronger position than that in which it found it, because unless the industry can become more competitive, its future will be very uncertain indeed.
  Under this Clause—that is, Clause 7— I shall be responsible for giving the guarantee on the basis of which the shipowner will obtain credit through commercial channels. I shall have to consider,

  1783
  with the appropriate expert advice, the security for the guarantee.
  The House knows that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has arranged for discussions to be held with the London and Scottish clearing banks with a view to their agreeing to apply the same fixed lending rate, at present 5½ per cent., which they apply to medium-term export credits enjoying the benefit of an E.C.G.D. guarantee. A statement on the details of the arrangements will be made as soon as possible.
  There are two other provisions I should mention before I pass from the Bill itself.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Clause 7, as my right hon. Friend knows from correspondence which has passed between us, I have a strong constituency interest in the foundry industry, which serves the Clyde shipbuilding industry and, indeed, other shipbuilding industries in Britain. I realise that this is very difficult, but can my right hon. Friend give any hope to the foundry industry that certain advantages can be given to those British shipbuilding yards which make major purchases from the British foundry industry? I do not expect an answer off the cuff.
  Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend wrote to me on this subject two or three days ago. I set in hand an immediate study so that I would have an opportunity of saying something, in case my hon. Friend raised it in the course of the debate. I have had letters from other hon. Members on this subject.
  This raises a very difficult question. An effort to impose a condition about foreign equipment of any kind in a ship could have the very opposite effect from that which my hon. Friend wants to achieve. I will, when I have had an opportunity of considering the matter more fully, write to my hon. Friend, and it may be that opportunity will arise for me to make a statement on this matter in Committee. I must not as of this moment hold out any hope that the particular objective which he has in mind will be possible to achieve in the way he hopes to achieve it.
  May I now turn to two other provisions in the Bill. One is Clause 13, which provides for the Bill to apply to
  1784
  Northern Ireland, which I am sure will be welcomed.
  Mr. John Rankin: Before my right hon. Friend deals with Clause 13, may I ask him something about Clause 11, which deals with the appointment of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Council?
  Mr. Benn: I am coming to that. My hon. Friend has anticipated my speech, which indicates that I have prepared it in the right order.
  Clause 11 deals with the Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Council. This Council was proposed by Geddes with functions similar to those of an economic development committee for an industry. The Council has already met on a non-statutory basis, but in view of the importance which Geddes attaches to this form of consultation, we thought it right that it should be given a statutory basis in the Bill.
  The statutory references made in the Bill are deliberately flexible as it would be quite wrong for Parliament to lay down in any great detail how the Council should work. The interests represented on the Council are, of course, the builders of large and small ships, ship repairing, engine manufacture, the trade unions, marine equipment suppliers, and the British Ship Research Association. In this way, I hope that all the main interests concerned are represented, and I think that it will provide a very useful advisory body.
  In case my hon. Friend were to point out that not every interest is represented, it is not possible within a Council of this kind, which is expected to do a fairly detailed job, to represent every interest. This is a problem which arises with economic development committees, and although I shall listen in case this is not the point that he is putting forward I warn him that it is not possible to meet every need.
  Mr. Rankin: My right hon. Friend anticipates partly what I meant to say. I was cheered by the Press notices which said that the composition of the Council so far is as stated. "So far", I presume, means that there may be further additions to the Council. I was thinking of one which I might venture to suggest if I am fortunate enough to be called to speak.
  Mr. Bean: I am glad to have anticipated my hon. Friend's question, just as he anticipated my answer. It is possible for additions to be made, but I do not want to hold out any hope to him that every interest in shipbuilding can be represented, particularly bearing in mind the number of unions as well.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: This is the first mention of ship repairing in the Bill. Does this mean that the grant provisions of the Bill with respect to credit will be available to ship repairers?
  Mr. Benn: No. They will not be available for ship repairing. I referred earlier to the rôle of ship repairing in the larger groups. But the loans and grants are not available to ship repairers. On the other hand, on the new Shipbuilding Council it was thought right to bring in the ship-repairing interests because there is a combined managerial interest, but that does not alter the scope of the Bill.
  The other provisions contained in the Bill deal with the necessary administrative and financial arrangements, including the publication of reports and the disposition of the assets of the Board after it has completed its work. If there are any detailed questions on the Bill that I have not dealt with, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with them in winding up the debate.
  When Geddes recommended the establishment of a Board. I have no doubt that he had in mind the great advantages that would come from having a statutory authority capable of exercising executive action during the period of reorganisation. Had he thought that this job could have been done by the Minister responsible for the shipbuilding industry, he would no doubt have recommended accordingly. But he did not think it could he so done. I am absolutely sure that he was right. Although, as Minister, I shall be required to authorise certain expenditures and actions by the Board necessary to preserve ultimate parliamentary control.
  I hope that the House will agree with me, that it would not be right to interfere in any detail with the work of the Board. It wants to get on with the job with the minimum of political interference. I do plan to keep in very close informal contact with Sir William
  1786
  Swallow and his colleagues, and I expect that we would often meet to talk about the industry informally. But I believe that we should get into real difficulty if it appeared that I was trying to do his job. For this reason, I am anxious that in the months that lie ahead I shall not be drawn by hon. Members or others into too much comment on the detailed arrangements and negotiations in which the Board will be involved with the individual yards.
  I know that Members of Parliament with constituency interests in shipbuilding and others with special knowledge of the industry will be watching anxiously to see how the reorganisation is proceeding, but I would like to feel that the self-denying doctrine of nonintervention which I have described will be acceptable to them and that I will not be pressed at every moment to reveal the exact state of negotiations between the Board and the yards. I believe that this really would be destructive to the purpose that Geddes had in mind. We ought to accord to the Board enough room to operate and give them the sort of commercial privacy for the negotiations which will be necessary to make a real success of this job.
  Finally, may I say a word about the prospects for the industry. As the whole House knows, merchant ships are built for an international market, and ships sold to the domestic owners are not sold on a protected home market. Ships are not subject to import duties here, or in most other shipbuilding countries. It is an intensely competitive industry internationally, in a sense which is true of few, if any, other industries. There may be stern internal competition in respect of naval vessels and a few others, but over most of the market, ship orders have to be won in the face of bids from foreign builders.
  Behind the competitiveness of the shipbuilding industry, and reinforcing it, is the competitiveness of the shipping industry where British shipowners are competing on an international freight market, where an unjustifiably high price for the ship might have secondary effects upon its trading possibilities. Therefore, the success of this new industry after reorganisation will still depend upon its capacity to meet its rivals in terms of price, delivery, quality and credit.

  1787
  There are two factors which condition its success. One is, of course, the total world demand, and the other is the success of the British industry in getting a rising share
  The Geddes Committee put forward some provisional and tentative figures in tonnage terms in the light of a study made for them by consultants and in response to a request from hon. Gentlemen opposite—and we had many anxious discussions about this—a copy of this study has been put in the Library for the use of any hon. Member who might be interested.
  The Government's own studies have confirmed the inevitable uncertainty of any estimates of this kind. The precise effects of technological changes are difficult to forecast, but what will be the effect on the demand for ships, if we can make more use of the ships we have or of the new ships we might build? Similarly, there is the question of large tanker sizes, fuller and more efficient use of ships, or the substitution of fewer, more sophisticated, container ships for a larger number of mixed cargo vessels. These all affect tonnage forecasts.
  As the Geddes Report stressed, tonnage statistics are not a good guide to the value of the business. There is an enormous variation in the price per ton of different types of vessel and the shipbuilding business represented by any tonnage figure must depend on the mix of ships within it.
  For all these reasons I would ask the House not to press us to hazard a guess at the total world demand for ships during the next few years. What matters is that the British shipbuilding industry is getting a larger share of whatever market there is. Since, in recent years, the British share of the world market has fallen, it is possible to visualise—and, indeed, I do visualise—a substantial increase in the tonnage launched in Britain without necessarily there being a very large increase in the total tonnage built in the world.
  The challenge which really faces the industry today is that of grappling to get a larger share of the world's market of ships. For my part, I look for rising sales of British ships, and I hope that out of this debate and out of the progress of the Bill we shall have an end of the
  1788
  pessimism which, in the past, has gripped this industry and handicapped it in its attempts to face the challenge which has confronted it.
  I hope that I have said enough to show that the Government are seriously determined to play their full part in the job that lies ahead. This is an industry for which this country is famous. There are skills locked up in it which are still not being fully used, and which once released to work within a reorganised industry, will be capable of far greater achievement than now seems possible.
  This is an industry which is due not only for structural reorganisation, but for the injection of a great deal of modern technology. It will require, and I am sure will get, inspired management to carry through the changes which have to take place. Parliament is being asked, in this Bill, to authorise a substantial sum of public money to help the industry to do just that, and it is placing the main responsibility on a Board whose members will have to grapple in detail with the problems which will be thrown up.
  It is customary at the launching of a ship to say, "God bless this ship and all who sail in her", and I would like to feel that as the Bill passes through the House the same spirit will animate both sides as we send it on its way.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. David Price: I should like to join the Minister in his thanks to Mr. Reay Geddes and his colleagues for the excellence of their Report. We do not have to agree with all their precise recommendations in order to appreciate the thoroughness of both their analysis and their proposed plan for dealing with the problems of the industry, and the House is truly in their debt.
  As the Minister said, the Bill has two main objects: first, to implement the Geddes Report, and, secondly, to establish a credit scheme for British shipowners who place orders with British shipbuilders.
  Before dealing with the Bill itself, I should like to make some comments on the present state of the industry as I see it, to say why it is necessary for the Government to bring forward a Bill of this nature—although there may not be any great Second Reading controversy across the Floor this is a matter about

  1789
  which we have to give some explanation to the public—and to speculate a little on the future of the industry.
  I shall not go into any figures with regard to the present state of the industry, because I think that in this debate we can assume that we have all done our homework on the Geddes Report. My copy is so heavily thumbed and marked that it is almost in pieces.
  I should like to draw attention to a number of factors which I believe are relevant to our consideration of what we ought to do to help the industry, and what the industry ought to do to help itself. The first factor which strikes me is the enormous dominance of Japan among the shipbuilding industries of the world. The House will have studied with interest the figures given in Appendix H of the Geddes Report. These show that in 1965 total Japanese launchings were greater than the total launchings of the seven leading European nations. I therefore suggest to the House that we must study, and go on studying in depth, the reasons for Japanese success and learn from them. If we can—and these figures are very difficult to obtain—we must get precise Japanese costings; to get the financial returns not just for the shipbuilding industry, but back to the supporting industries; how far the profit is made in the yards, and how far further back by the equipment manufacturers.
  Secondly, I suggest as a fact that shipbuilding is now subsidised in one form or another in all our competitor countries. Hon. Members will I am sure have seen the interesting article in The Times of 21st February entitled, somewhat emotively, "How shipbuilding yards are cosseted in Europe". We know that production is directly subsidised in such advanced industrial countries as the United States of America, France, and Italy, and Japan of course has many devices to assist her shipbuilders. Easy credit schemes for both foreign and home shipowners have undoubtedly played an important part in the remarkable growth of the Japanese industry. Therefore, the question which we must ask ourselves is, can the British industry alone survive without Government help? Frankly, I see no reason to expect it to be able to do so.
  Mr. Rankin: Perhaps I might cheer the hon. Gentleman on a little. Is he
  1790
  aware that Japan has put on record the fact that she fears nothing but Fairfields' shipbuilding yard at Govan? This is her real competitor.
  Mr. Price: I do not intend to discuss the details of individual yards with the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that although Fairfields were getting orders, they were not making any money on them, and this is the point to which I shall come in a moment.
  My third point is that British shipbuilders—and this is the point which the Minister made—have to compete on an international market with no tariff protection and little natural protection for their home market. As the Geddes Report said:
  "The concept of a home market is difficult to apply at all because ships sold to 'home owners' may spend their life competing for international trade, seldom or never touching a home port."
  I think we can therefore agree that whatever scheme we have to assist shipbuilders, any scheme which compels shipowners to buy British ships will not assist the national purpose. We hope that British shipowners will buy British ships, but they will do so not because we compel them, but because they are the best buy. Therefore, any proposals for assisting British shipbuilders which would add to the cost of British shipowners must be rejected.
  Let us remember, too, that British shipping has to compete on the oceans of the world on world terms and not on British terms, and even if we wanted to protect British shipping, physically we could not do it. We could no longer reinstitute the Navigation Acts. It just is not "on", and therefore if that is the difficulty for British shipping, the same argument I suggest applies to British shipbuilders.
  Fourthly, British shipbuilding is an assembly industry and I think it is worth reminding ourselves, as the Geddes Report said, that nearly three-quarters of the final cost of most ships represents bought-in materials and components. It is therefore not enough to deal with the problems in the yard unless some impact can be made on the suppliers and the subcontractors.
  I do not think that British shipbuilders have used their purchasing powers

  1791
  sufficiently to put pressure on their suppliers as to price, standards, and delivery dates. I think that they have given purchasing too low a position in their managerial priorities. I suggest one can see that by the relatively low position of the purchasing manager in the managerial hierarchy. As an assembly industry it might learn from the motor car industry, where the purchasing director is always a main board director.
  Having said that, I recognise that the British shipbuilder may still be at a disadvantage against his foreign competitors in the matter of bought-in supplies and equipment. Unlike the shipbuilder, most of his suppliers enjoy tariff protection, and I wonder whether the Board of Trade would be prepared to make selective tariff cuts on assembly materials for shipbuilding where the case can be made that the British suppliers are uncompetitive. As the House knows, I believe in selective traffic cuts where British suppliers are uncompetitive.
  The next aspect is the structure of the industry. The Geddes Report is largely about that. It is worth recording that none of our large yards is in a group launching more than 250,000 tons a year, but that the three largest Japanese companies together launch as much per year as the combined launchings of the entire British and German shipbuilding industries. This consideration was very much in the minds of Mr. Geddes and his colleagues.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: What does my hon. Friend think the optimum size of units is? There is clearly no advantage in just getting bigger and bigger for the sake of getting bigger and bigger. Surely there must be some economic level where the optimum size begins to show benefits?
  Mr. Price: I would not attempt to answer that without extremely detailed studies with specialised industrial consultants. However, some things are obvious. If one were concentrating mainly on large ore carriers, the units would be very much larger. But if one were building specialised naval craft, I suspect that the units would be smaller. Much of the work is in the electronics and control equipment of such ships.
  1792
  I am too much of a professional in management studies to answer my hon. Friend's question now. If he likes to pay my fees and the Minister gives me the facilities for a year, I will try to come up with an answer. This is no doubt what Sir William Swallow will be doing.
  Those British yards which invested most did not thereby become the most competitive. The Geddes Report says:
  "Yard modernisation was not of itself any guarantee of commercial efficiency. Therefore the mere provision of more capital is not in itself sufficient."
  My final point is so obvious that I hesitate to make it. It is the importance of good industrial relations, particularly in an industry which has memories of a severe and savage past which cannot be removed easily. Geddes had a severe judgment to make of industrial relations in the industry when he said:
  "The joint failure of both management and unions to tackle the problems of bad industrial relations resulting in the wasteful use of labour has cost the industry dear in money and reputation."
  I hope that we can agree with the Report that
  "We shall not achieve anything constructive by attempting to allocate responsibility for this state of affairs."
  Like the Minister, we want a new start in the industry. It will not be easy because of the vigour and high standards of international competition. We must give the industry every opportunity to compete successfully. There is said to be a new spirit of co-operation in the industry and we must foster and encourage it. Nothing is to be gained by allocating blame even where we may feel sincerely that it is justified. Let us remind everyone in the industry that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and the house of British shipbuilding is a house that we want to see standing. But the test of a new spirit—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree—is, in the final analysis, not to be judged in paper agreements but by what happens in the yards.
  With that in mind, I turn to the Bill itself. The credit scheme for home shipowners embodied in Clause 7 is, in immediate terms, although not in long terms, the most important feature of the Bill. I believe that it will redress the balance of disadvantage which has made it more expensive for a British shipowner

  1793
  to place an order in a British yard than abroad.
  Certainly, the figures that we all have bear this out. If one compares the figures for ships being built for British registration at the end of 1964 with the similar figures for the end of 1966, we find that the total in 1964 was roughly 1·6 million the total in 1964 was roughly 1·67 million tons—very nearly the same. But whereas, in 1964, 1·47 million tons were being placed in British yards, in 1966 the figure was 0·85 million tons. In other words, in 1966 roughly half the orders for British registration were being placed in foreign yards, whereas two years earlier about 75 per cent. were being placed in British yards.
  Of course we do not know how far factors such as cost, reliability and delivery dates came into these decisions to place orders abroad, but I suggest that, as long as the British owner got more favourable credit terms abroad, it was not fair to blame our shipbuilders for their apparent failure to satisfy our owners in the face of world competition.
  The credit scheme will put matters right, but no more than that. The British shipbuilders will be competing on world terms for orders from British owners. It does not mean that British shipbuilders will be subsidised so as to have an advantage over foreign yards. All I suggest that the British shipbuilder will get is comparable conditions with those of his foreign competitors.
  To many of us, subsidised credit schemes are, in general terms, undesirable. Like Geddes, I should prefer to see all subsidised credit schemes for shipbuilding abandoned by international agreement and I ask the Government to go on trying to achieve this. Nevertheless, I do not think that they have much chance of succeeding. The practice is too well entrenched and countries like Japan have done far too well out of such schemes for them to abandon them readily. Therefore, I find myself inevitably supporting the idea of the credit scheme in the Bill and I ask the House to support it because I see no practical alternative.
  But I am also sure that the Government are right to go much further than the temporary scheme produced, some what reluctantly, by Geddes. They are right because I do not see foreign Govern
  1794
  ments abandoning their credit schemes, and as long as our competitors have credit schemes we must continue to have them ourselves. If this view is correct, it must be right to introduce a scheme of indefinite operation. It must also be right to raise the Geddes figure of £30 million to something more substantial. The Government's figure of £200 million seems to me to be somewhere near the mark and I do not think we need delve into it further at this stage, although I hope that, in Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will give us a little more of the thought behind it. In my own estimation, I thought that the figure might have to be a little higher.
  My only criticism of the Government's proposal for credit is the linking of the scheme to S.I.B. approval. I do not object to conditions being attached to the granting of credit. It is the only sort of scheme that most of us could support. But I question whether the S.I.B. is so infallible that its judgment alone should be the one on which the granting of credit is determined.
  I will give examples of the sort of questions which worry me. If a yard decides to stay out of an S.I.B. merger, does that mean that it is ineligible for credit? What happens to firms smaller than those featured in the Geddes proposals? In neither case may such firms necessarily be inefficient but, as I read it, there is doubt as to whether they are eligible or not.
  Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this more fully, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the credit is not limited to yards which group but is also available to single yards which reorganise their resources.
  Mr. Price: I was about to put to the right hon. Gentleman a method by which I think one might he able to achieve the objective—which we all share—of wanting the scheme to assist the rationalisation and efficiency of yards. We might achieve it by including in any contract eligible for credit penalty clauses on delivery dates and performance. I have had this put to me by a rather successful shipowner in my part of the country whose unit is smaller than the Geddes yards. When we come to the remainder of the Bill, the part devoted to the recommendations— —
  Mr. E. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting point. What does he mean by penalty clauses?
  Mr. Price: When orders are obtained for naval vessels for foreign Governments it is common to have extremely tight penalty clauses on failure of performance and on delivery dates. Firms which are prepared to accept contracts on those terms say that they sort out one's managerial thinking very definitely, and that if a firm is inefficient and takes such an order it loses a great deal of money on it. That is common practice in certain other kinds of contracting, but I understand that in many parts of shipbuilding it has been the prerogative of the owner half-way through an order to want a lot of alterations, and that gives the builder a complete let out if he is slow on his delivery dates. If the builder is prepared to accept the penalty clauses it is not a bad test that he is reasonably efficient, because one cannot very often repeat accepting such a contract and failing to come up to it.
  I was turning briefly to the bulk of the Bill, which is the implementation of the Geddes Report. We entirely agree with the purpose of the Bill, and I was glad that the Minister reminded us that that was to promote the ability of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry to compete in world markets.
  The heart of the Geddes recommendations lies in his merger proposals. I think that we are in general support of the arguments deployed by Mr. Geddes and his colleagues in favour of his broad conclusions but the difficulties arise—and the right hon. Gentleman hinted that he was aware of them—when we come to the details of mergers. For instance, what happens when the financially viable firm is asked to merge with the financially non-viable firm? Could the capital of the non-viable firm be written off under the S.I.B. scheme, which might be helpful?
  As the Minister told us, since Geddes reported the situation has deteriorated. The order books of British shipbuilders have dramatically declined. We have had another year's crop of annual reports, which tell of further deterioration in the financial position of many shipbuilding firms. Not surprisingly, that has produced a certain lack of enthusiasm among some parties to the proposed mergers,
  1796
  although one hopes that the loans and grants offered in the Bill will be a pretty sizable dowry to some of the reluctant brides.
  We want to be reassured—and I think that we have nearly had that reassurance—that the S.I.B. will not use its powers to compel a merger, but will use its powers and loans to encourage one; in other words, that marriages will be done through the S.I.B. as marriage broker, but that there will not be shot-gun marriages. If they catch the eye of the Chair, some of my hon. Friends will show that they are rather worried on that point.
  The right hon. Gentleman commented on the whole question of future demand for British ships, and we agree with him that it depends on the background of world demand. Some of us think that Geddes adopted a rather optimistic figure for world demand in the years 1972 to 1975. He forecast that it would be between 15 million and 19 million tons. At present it is about 14 million tons. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing us to see a copy of the Sigma Report. I was rather disappointed in it. It has an attractive mathematical elegance, but some of the factors on which the right hon. Gentleman touched and on which I want to touch are not properly gone into in the Report, such as the sophistication factor in shipping techniques and handling methods which should enable a larger amount of work to be done in the oceans of the world by a given tonnage of shipping. I do not think that that has been properly estimated.
  Some of the forecasts one has seen in responsible journals of the likely impact of an increasing use of containers and container ships in terms of tonnage were almost, though not quite, ignored in the Sigma study. I do not want to compete with Geddes in giving my estimate, but there has been a great deal of responsible comment that the world demand will be less. That means that the task of the British shipbuilding industry to achieve the Geddes target of 2¼ mililon tons after reorganisation will be harder.
  If British shipbuilding can reach only, say, a target of 1½ million or 1¾ a million tons rather than the 2¼ million tons upon which Geddes was working, there is the question whether there will be room for

  1797
  four to five groupings of the scale he proposed or whether we shall have to readjust our ideas and think either in terms of only three groupings, which would be a very severe thing to work out, or accept that his target of about five groupings remains right but that they should be of a smaller annual capacity. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will comment on that.
  Will S.I.B. fulfil the Geddes recommendations about setting up a realisation company to purchase assets which will be surplus to requirements as a result of groupings and to dispose of them? If the Government do not intend to implement that recommendation, do they believe that all existing yards are needed and can be filled? I do not see how they can, on the sort of estimates that we have of what the industry can achieve.
  It is interesting to see what has happened abroad. The French have reorganised their shipbuilding industry somewhat along Geddes lines. I understand that as a result only four French yards are still in use for new shipbuilding and that their annual output is slightly less than half ours. That suggests that some of our yards will have to be taken out of use for shipbuilding and, we hope, put to some other use. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary the Government's thinking on that.
  There are one or two features of the Bill about which we are not very happy, which will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman. The powers the Minister takes under Clause 1(4) raise certain doubts in our minds. I hope that his reassurance may creep into an Amendment, because we are rather distrustful of promises on Second Reading, remembering our experience of Clause 2(1,b) of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act.
  The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that we do not like Clause 6 and shall seek to alter it. It is not only on general grounds that we do not approve of the Government's taking a further equity interest in British industry. It is rather that from the taxpayers' point of view—I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about that—such equity holdings are likely to be less secure and pay a lower yield than fixed interest loans. Furthermore, we believe
  1798
  that if the Clause's provisions are freely used they may frustrate the Bill's purposes, because financially viable firms will not be so keen to participate on those terms and only the financially weak firms will accept Government participation, which is clearly preferable to liquidation. My worries are less on doctrinal grounds than a concern lest the Government will commit too much of their money to the less good in the industry. I have a curious preference for supporting success. I fear that in this sort of exercise there is a danger of our finding ourselves as a nation putting too much of our money into the less successful.
  With these important reservations, we support the Bill. Like the Minister, we wish Sir William Swallow and his colleagues well in their endeavours. We trust that the Government will allow the mergers to come about voluntarily with the result that larger groups will enable the industry to become fully competitive in world terms, but as the Minister said, much will be required of management and men alike. The industry must not, and I am sure will not, expect the S.I.B. to do it all alone, because even in shipbuilding one Swallow does not make a summer.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. William Small: I am glad to learn from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) that he supports the Bill. I know that he is a competent expert in managerial affairs and I think his understanding of the Bill was very fair.
  On another occasion my right hon. Friend the Minister described this as an ancient industry. That was before he was removed from our midst. Then, fighting tradition, in August, 1963, he came back to this House and now he has the responsibility of seeing this Bill passed through. I must pay some compliment to the previous Minister of State who was appointed by this Government to have charge of shipbuilding. The action by the Labour Government of making a Minister of State exclusively responsible for the shipbuilding industry reinforced the morale of that industry. Under that kind of umbrella we set up the Geddes Committee. Most hon. Members have read it thoroughly, so I shall not go into it.

  1799
  This is a hard industry in which people do not all talk the sophisticated language that we get in some managerial boardrooms. Hon. Members should go on occasion into mangerial boardrooms to find what goes on. Recently I had some association with the Minister of Power. Mining is a traditional industry which is going through trying times. The private sector of the shipbuilding industry is traditional and these two industries are necessary for the good of the nation. Against that background I look at the international scene and the reasons for this Bill.
  The background of the Bill is related to international competition. When I look at the league figures I find no grounds for comfort. The permanent excuse of shipbuilders of this country has been that they have been held back because of restrictive labour conditions. This has been due to the "old boy network". I am not blaming either side and I know that there is need for change, but for five years when the price of steel stood still I never heard complaints from hon. Members opposite about getting steel prices down in order to be more competitive. The Geddes Report is a "must", for we are sailing with the winds of change. Time is not on our side. The Japanese and the Swedes have already leap-frogged over us in new techniques. They have passed beyond the techniques which are applied in Britain.
  The trends are for standardisation in size. Whether we like it or not, the big international oil companies make the shipbuilding industry a national concern either in Scandinavia or in Japan. Development is necessary to capture this share of traffic in the world. This is the meaning of today's debate on shipbuilding. We cannot expect to capture this trade by having many shipyards in this country on a "one-off", tailor-made basis. There is not then a base load on which to run the industry. We have to get into the big stuff, the big time, and on a big scale, or we shall not be at the races.
  The recent dramatic decisions of certain tanker companies to buy from Japan were vital factors which showed that the industry has to refashion itself to live and the formula is contained in the Geddes
  1800
  Report. If this is not accepted quickly there will be a pretty bleak outlook. In market effectiveness and productivity value, root and branch reorganisation is required. Restrictive labour practices are already beginning to ease. I find this everywhere. I find it in my constituency in the initiative of shop stewards who publicly passed a vote of confidence in their employers. This is the nature of acceptance. The trade unions were first in accepting the Geddes proposals. This was very well done. We are waiting for scientific management to be applied to the needs of the nation. Groups have to operate to the maximum efficiency.
  I am not an expert, as a member of the untutored proletariat, but my view is that there should be four or five large groups and one naval yard in each group to sustain the defence of the nation with specialist craftsmen and expertise for naval building. If there is a tendency over the next three or four years for people to uproot themselves and to go elsewhere from the industry, we shall not be able to secure the defence requirements of the nation.
  We should have four or five groupings, on Merseyside, Clydeside and so forth. We are engaged in a search for the soul of the shipbuilding industry. The Minister of Defence, concerned with procurement for his Ministry, visited 64 yards during his reign of office. He went to Japan, Sweden, Scandinavia, and Russia and prepared a report. He laid down a six-point programme. I shall not worry the House with the details. It was generally considered a realistic approach to the problem.
  The responsibility rests generally on the Minister hiving off to the S.I.B. certain decisions. I have looked at the composition of the S.I.B. and I have looked at Sir William Swallow's record, which is a very competent one. I believe that he will do his job well. I have also looked up Mr. Gormley's record. In my opinion he will bring much which is not generally afforded from mathematicians to the differential between the treatment of labour in mining and in shipbuilding, both of which industries are ancient and traditional. Some of the best welfare schemes for workers, such as pithead baths, were provided in the mining industry, but shipbuilders did not apply such schemes until recently.

  1801
  I understand that Mr. Hepper is also on the Board. For six years he was with Courtaulds. At the time of the Courtaulds-I.C.I. merger he should have sharpened his knowledge of what mergers mean. Money is available to lubricate the market. When speaking to some of the shipbuilders about acceptance of the Geddes proposals, I found them very sceptical. When the money came in they were to be married. Someone said that there would be some strange marriages, and some queer honeymoons. I added that now that the money was available it was respectable to be married in terms of a "Scottish engagement"—a well known phrase indicating that there is money in the kitty. It helps.
  In essence, this is a matter of human relationships, of the meeting of minds and the will to change. I support the Bill as it affects my constituency. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart Mr. Edward M. Taylor) who, I understand, is to wind up tonight from the other side of the House, is a worried man, because today is the day of the Pollok by-election. Yesterday we heard about the container terminal at Greenock; at 7 p.m. yesterday he saw on the tape news about three Leander frigates for a yard in my constituency, and he saw the reports of 2,000 new jobs at Rootes, Linwood. He has seen the National Opinion Poll, giving a 0·1 per cent. lead for Labour. If he is a little nervous tonight we will appreciate why.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I was not sure if I liked that last remark about opinion polls at Pollok, but apart from that I am in agreement with a great deal of the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small). I welcome the Bill, but it must be said that one of the troubles in the shipbuilding industry has been of weakness in the freight market. Unless this can be put right, the Bill will not help. Apart from that general consideration, the strong case for the Bill is that our industry has to compete on very unfair terms with those in other countries. The best case I know of is the Japanese owner who receives a loan of up to 100 per cent. of the cost of a ship, at 4½ per cent., repayable over 15 years. Partly as a result of this 70 per cent. of British orders went to foreign yards last year, and in the last quarter of
  1802
  1966 only 40,000 new tons were ordered in this country.
  There has also been a hold up in the future of container ships. The result of all this is that there is considerable urgency in bringing this Bill into effect. That brings me straight to Clause 72,a). The Minister said that guarantees would not be confined to yards which had amalgamated. I am glad. But may I draw his attention, and the attention of the Minister who is to wind up the debate, to the wording of the subsection. It is perfectly clear that this part of the Bill will not come into force until the yard can show that since the coming into force of the Measure a reorganisation of the resources used has been carried out, or that the shipbuilder
  "is making satisfactory progress in the preparation of plans for, or in putting into effect, such a reorganisation."
  If I read that correctly it seems to mean that there will be some delay between the passing of the Act and the coming into effect of this Clause. As we are agreed that this is the most important Clause in the Bill in many respects, and as we are agreed about the present rather alarming state of the industry, I would hope that this can be amended, and that it can be made clear that this Clause can be brought into effect at once in respect of yards which have already modernised or reorganised themselves, as many yards have done.
  It is worth saying that British yards have spent an immense amount of money since the war on all sorts of new equipment and new layouts. I must press strongly on the Minister that yards which have done this should be eligible under this Clause at once. It may be the intention of the Bill, but I hope that he will make this clearer.
  Further on in the Clause, in subsection 5) there is reference to
  "a partially constructed ship."
  This apparently means that the Clause can be applied to the completion of a partially constructed ship. There may be very good reasons for that. I do not follow why it is in the Bill. Does this mean that an owner may have ordered a ship, and it may have been laid down and partially completed, without any assistance under this Bill and then, when this Bill becomes an Act, it can be invoked to provide assistance? Is that

  1803
  aimed at a situation when a yard is actually in process of building ships, so that at that point the Measure can be applied to those ships? If not, what is it aimed at?
  The other point about the Clause is that it speaks in one or two places, and particularly in 1,b) about
  "the equipment of that ship".
  We all know that the industry is an assembly industry, and that the equipment is an extremely important part of the ship. Is this provision there simply to ensure that if assistance under this Clause is granted, the ship must be totally equipped with British equipment? If not, I am not certain why it is in the Clause, because normally the cost of a ship would include not only the hull but all the other equipment.
  Is it the case that one cannot ask for assistance under the Clause unless one is building a ship in a British yard and it is being totally equipped with British equipment? I should like to raise one or two points about the £32,500,000 which is available under the previous Clauses. Here again, I wholly agree with the object. I do not say that it ought to be more because, this is a common cry. But how far is it expected to go? As the Minister has rightly said, size of the yard is not everything, nor is the spending of money. Fairfields spent an immense amount of money but that did not save it because it took on a thoroughly unprofitable contract.
  There may be a good place in British shipbuilding industry for small specialised yards. I hope that they will not be forced into combines with totally unsuitable colleagues in the industry simply for the sake of getting something big. This can work both ways. Denny's went out of business, possibly because it became too specialised, but Yarrow's is an extremely specialised and profitable line of business.
  Is it the intention of the Government and Geddes that we should compete to a greater extent in the building of very large bulk carriers and containers? There are only seven yards in this country which can build a ship of more than 1,000 ft. in length. One has only to look at the situation of a great many British yards to see that it will be difficult to
  1804
  build bigger ships on their present sites. Look at Swan Hunters, or any of the yards on the Clyde. They are jammed up on rather small rivers, with a network of roads and housing estates at the back which makes it very difficult for them, even angling their berths and running across neighbouring yards, to compete with the very big range of ships which may be possible in the next 10 or 15 years.
  Mr. W. E. Garrett: The right hon. Gentleman is extremely misinformed about the River Tyne, particularly on the north side, where there are more than ample berths and where there is more than ample land available for the building of ships of the size that he has in mind.
  Mr. Grimond: I am not criticising the Tyne. I know that Swan Hunters consider it rather an advantage in some ways that it is rather cramped for space. But if one goes to Sweden one sees that the Swedes have built an entirely new yard, the Gitawerke yard, on a green field site. I do not say that this is right or wrong, but there might be a case for doing it if you want to hold very large ships. If so it would be immensely expensive and quite outside the range of finance provided by this Bill. My point is that this is an industry of great diversity, and that there may be a place for small specialised yards, but if one is to enter into the building of very big ships, there can be very few yards in the country able to deal with them and to make them competitive for the largest class of the future may be more expensive than the Bill allows for.
  May I ask about the provisions for the buying of shares? I do not want to argue this on ideological grounds, though I have some doubt as to whether the Government, or a body set up under them, are suitable for collecting a parcel of equity shares. What I want to ask is whether the Minister is satisfied that these shares, after they are acquired, should be held by the Shipbuilding Industry Board. It will be in a position of being part owners in certain yards, and also deciding about credit and other grants for yards with which it will be in competition. No doubt it will be perfectly fair. But if one looks at the Schedule one sees that stringent rules are written in to the effect that no member of the

  1805
  Board shall have any financial interest in matters which might affect his judgment. Does not the Minister think that the ownership of shares might be thought to affect that Board's judgment? I do not put it higher than that. I think that they will want to make a success of the yards in which they have equities, and as equity shareholders they should. I am wondering whether, if shares are to be held, they should not be held by the Government.
  Suppose that the Board do take up a shareholding. Will they appoint directors? I have never felt happy about the situation in British Petroleum. The Government used to say that they took no part in the management of the B.P. business. But that is part of the equity holder's obligation. It would be extremely difficult for the Government, once they became shareholders in a large number of shipyards, to be completely disinterested in the management. I should like to know what the intention is in this respect.
  Have the Government considered the possibility of giving help to the equipment industry? As I say, this matter is of enormous importance to shipbuilding. If the equipment industry in this country were to decline and it became necessary to import equipment from Japan, it would be very serious indeed. It has been suggested that a grant might be made to the British Marine Council. I merely put that suggestion to the Government.
  I come now to the question of the groupings of yards. Naturally, no one is ever very precise about what will happen to the yards which are isolated. But, again, if the Minister winding up the debate can enlighten us on this matter, it will be welcome. What is expected to happen to the Caledon yard in Dundee, or Hall Russell's, or the Falmouth ship repairing yard? There is great value in some of these small yards. Often they get orders of a specialised sort which no one else goes after. I very much hope that the result of the Bill will not be to deny them the finance available to their competitors simply because they cannot be grouped in a physical sense.
  Would the Minister say a further word or two on the Common Market and its relationship to the Bill? I know that
  1806
  the French industry is heavily subsidised. I have been told that in theory that is contrary to the rules of the Common Market. Have the Government any information about whether the Common Market intends to enforce its rules and, if so, whether the Bill will be within them? Is it true that under the Common Market regulations one must add transport charges to the price of steel? If so, what will happen to Harland and Wolff and other yards which are far from the steel-making centres?
  My last question relates to diversification. Many yards have now diversified, and I should have thought that it was sensible for them to do so. Is this to be encouraged? I should have thought that it should be encouraged. I think that I am right in saying that this is entirely left out of account in the Bill, and it might well be an important matter in keeping certain yards viable which cannot be viable on shipbuilding alone.
  I do not represent a shipbuilding yard area and therefore I have tried to be as brief as possible. I hope, however, that I shall have answers to some of these questions when the Minister winds up the debate.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Milne: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will, I am sure, forgive me if I do not comment too closely on his argument, but I wish to take up two of the points which he mentioned, particularly on Clause 7 and the question of guarantees for loans for shipbuilding. We shall await with interest the Government's reply on this matter at the end of the debate.
  The second and, in my view, more valuable point which the right hon. Gentleman made was a plea for the smaller shipyards and the question of how they fit into the context of the shipbuilding industry as envisaged in the Bill. I think that we all welcomed the recommendations of the Geddes Report and the shot in the arm which it gave the shipbuilding industry. The point in the Geddes Report which I wish to recommend to my right hon. Friend is the stress laid on the fact that shipbuilding is a growth industry and that within the framework of the Geddes Report and the Bill we are not merely concerned with the question

  1807
  of concentration or the question of groupings into four or five large groups and leaving the shipbuilding industry on that basis.
  One of my hon. Friends mentioned earlier that this industry is supposedly bedevilled by industrial troubles. But the industrial relations in the industry have been a lot better than the industry has been given credit for. In most shipbuilding areas too many people have attributed the difficulties of the industry to bad relations instead of considering the basic problems confronting it.
  Another factor which we should point out clearly and loudly is that very little indeed is needed to bring the British shipbuilding industry back into the forefront of shipbuilding nations. We have been so keen on talking about the supposed tremendous superiority of the Japanese, Swedish, German and Norwegian shipbuilders that we have failed to consider ways in which in a reasonably short time our industry can be restored to its former position.
  However, time is not on our side, because in the next two or three years the whole pattern of shipbuilding orders and over the next five to ten years the shipbuilding programme will be completed and laid down. Therefore, what we are able to do in the industry in the next 18 months to two years will be vital. It is a tribute to the Government and to the Departments concerned that 12 months from the publication of the Geddes Report we are translating it into legislation.
  I wish to make two points on industrial relations. I come from a constituency which has a shipyard, but it is no longer operating. Following the publication of the Geddes Report in March last year and the publication of the labour relations agreement in the Fairfield yard of June, 1966, we were confronted with the closure of a small yard in the August of that year by owners who were based in Hong Kong and who issued notices to the men in that yard while they were on holiday. A tremendously damaging blow was aimed at the industry, because this affected not only the shipyard workers in my constituency but the mood and outlook of shipyard workers from one end of Britain to the other.
  This is why I welcome the inherent principle contained in the Geddes Report
  1808
  and which underlies the Bill—that, if the industry is to survive, the working conditions and amenities available to workers in other industries should be within the reach of those in the shipbuilding industry. This is vital and I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends are looking closely at this matter.
  Most of the shipyards of Britain are based on development districts, which are attracting new and modern industries. The shipbuilding industry will simply not attract or retain the labour force that it needs to become a growth industry if it does not pay attention to working conditions and other conditions which are inherent in this matter.
  I want briefly to refer to the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland concerning small yards. Too often do we write off the small yards. There is a danger, when considering the Geddes Report and the Bill, of looking too closely at the question of bigness and size as the means by which the industry will become the one that we want it to be.
  Do not let us forget that the main orders in shipbuilding in the months immediately ahead—our German competitors in particular are well aware of this aspect—will be for the replacement of the liberty ships that were built in the years following the war. There is a tremendous market for those ships based on ten or a dozen different designs.
  All of us, according, I suppose, to the shipyard areas from which we come, will have preferences for one type of replacement or another. My view is that the computer-designed "Conqueror" liberty ship is the British answer to what its competitors are able to provide. The same yards, however—and this is where the plea for the small yards comes in—which are capable of building ships in the region of 14,000 or 15,000 tons, can be adapted to build some of the larger-type vessels that will be required in the shipbuilding industry in the months and years ahead.
  The building of 500,000 ton deadweight tankers has been suggested. Some of the distant-water trawlers, which are being built elsewhere but which were designed in Britain, could be built here, not necessarily only in large yards, and play an important part not only in the trawling industry or in shipbuilding directly, but

  1809
  in providing the type of processing plant within them that can give to the tropical countries some of the foods that their people so urgently require. Therefore, when dealing with the shipbuilding industry, we are not only dealing with it in isolation but we are dealing with the rôle that it can play in the general economy.
  I was intrigued when, in his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Minister talked about the urgency of the matter and the speed with which the Bill is needed. That is indeed the approach that we require in the industry. I am certain that the people in my area and on the North-East Coast generally not only welcomed enthusiastically the Geddes Report, but look to a quick passage of the Bill on to the Statute Book not only as the means by which we can become a leading shipbuilding nation once, again, but so that we can show the competitors which I have mentioned that we still have a leading rôle to play among the shipbuilding nations of the world.
  5.55 p.m.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: I do not differ greatly from what the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) has said, because it must be obvious to those in the House today that we are all here with a sincere interest in and a desire to help the industry with which we are concerned. If I may refer to the hon. Member's speech, it is to say that while I, too, am in the position of having had two yards in my constituency closed, happily the closures took place in rather better circumstances than those which the hon. Member has described.
  I share with other hon. Members the view that the Bill deserves a welcome because its objects of profitability and competitive ability for the industry are laudable, provided that the resulting improvement in the industry is through viable units and not a series of mergers for the sake of merging. Each must have something to contribute.
  The main respects in which the Bill differs from the Geddes Report are in the recommendations as set out in Clause 6 of the Bill, in which the Shipbuilding Industry Board is given power to buy shares in the industry. Hon. Members opposite would not expect my right hon. and hon. Friends to welcome that pro-
  1810
  vision without question. Nor would they be surprised that some of us see the Government's own stamp on the alterations which they have written into the Bill as distinct from the recommendations of the Geddes Committee.
  The two questions which I want to ask the Minister are, first, at whose behest the shares will be acquired. I know that the Minister has given certain reassurances to those who, like myself, have doubts on the subject and that those assurances go a long way to answering our question. If, however, I read Clause 14) aright, it is the Government who will direct the Board in the buying of shares in the industry. We should, therefore, express our doubts and make it clear that our anxiety is based upon the view that there should be no compulsion upon companies.
  I accept the Minister's statement that there will be no compulsion on particular yards, but I would like him to go a little further and assure us that no loan will then be withheld from a yard which did not wish to be compelled to have its shares acquired. Such an assurance would fully meet this question which is in mind.
  What will happen after 1970, and what will happen on the dissolution of the Board? This is a real problem about which the industry and all hon. Members would wish to have more information. I emphasise especially that the importance of this seems to lie in what will happen in the case of a non-viable unit. We cannot dismiss the possibility of certain units at that stage falling into this category, much as we hope that they will not do so.
  Before leaving that subject, I would like to say a word about the yard, which has already been mentioned, where public money has recently been invested. I have the highest regard for the man who has long fought for such a pilot scheme. He is a lifelong friend of mine and I wish him well. In my view, however, this is the time neither for praising nor for criticising that experiment which is taking place on the Clyde. It is a great enterprise. It is a proving ground scheme which should not be judged until the financial reports on contracts undertaken by the new management are available. That is not now, but that will be the test.
  I turn now to mergers. If I do that in Clydeside terms, it is because, like

  1811
  a good many other hon. Members, I am myself Clyde-built. I want to put on record that, during the last few years, about 16 yards on the Clyde have been reduced to eight by voluntary merger or takeover. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that if an announcement was made in the House that eight yards were to close on one river, there would be a public outcry which few Governments could withstand. Yet that has happened, and, with few exceptions, the men from those yards were quickly and effectively absorbed elsewhere.
  In my view, closure in itself is not a disaster, but who knows what is the right number of yards for the future? We may each have an opinion on the point, but who knows which is the right judgment? If Japan is to be taken as a criterion, it may be that we should think in terms of mergers containing fewer than the 27 existing yards.
  I add my plea to those who have made the point already that the consideration must not only be size, but that there must be considerations of viability, profitability, modernisation of plant and method in the yards concerned, good labour relations and conditions, and an export record and potential. I was glad to hear the Minister emphasise that. Those features exist in some yards and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) said, the key problem is how the profitable yards are to be merged with a larger number of presently unprofitable yards. The weak cannot be strengthened by weakening the strong, and there may be a case for going it alone
  I was surprised and not at all displeased that the Minister should have made special reference to that possibility. However, I do not intend to go into the possibility today, because I should have hoped that it would not be necessary. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) rightly made that point, and I too regard it as the last resort. However, in the context of what I am saying, it is the ultimate possibility which we cannot dismiss.
  I want to follow up what the hon. Member for Scotstoun said and take the example of a family firm whose value lies in showing that it can be run profitably as a viable unit. The hon. Gentleman
  1812
  knows that, when the yards in my constituency and elsewhere closed, the people made redundant were absorbed in the yard in his constituency and elsewhere. I should like to join with him in looking for a moment at the record of Yarrows, on the Clyde, which employs 2,500 men. It is a yard which falls foremost within the Geddes definition of those capable of carrying through sophisticated naval orders. Only yesterday, it received a £7 million order for two frigates from the Ministry of Defence, so adding to the three being built already, two of which are for export.
  The hon. Gentleman also made reference to the unique event of the shop stewards' meeting in the yard and proclaiming their confidence in the management, as management declared their confidence in the shop stewards. In that connection, I want to quote a passage from the hand-out issued by the management and joint shop stewards committee:
  "In our opinion sufficient steps have not been taken to make public the state of labour relations in the shipyard, the boiler works and the engineering works at Yarrows. We believe there is an essential communications job to be done and both management and labour are co-operating in this. We believe that labour relations at Yarrows are second to none on the Clyde, in Scotland, or anywhere in Britain."
  I hope that we shall dismiss for all time the old-fashioned idea that labour relations cannot be good.
  I go on to point out that the flexibility agreement to which the hon. Member for Blyth made reference is one which is not concerned solely with one yard, but an agreement which was reached in the whole upper reaches of the Clyde. So progress is being made and, while we welcome it, we know that that progress can go further.
  We cannot ignore another facet of labour relations, which is the fact that during the two years from April, 1964, to April, 1966, hourly earnings of ship building trades in general increased by more than 25 per cent. I do not want to dwell on that today. It is a fact, and it is behind us, but it illustrates a difficulty within the industry which we cannot afford to have repeated in the circles of the industry as they were at that time, when another yard on the Clyde put back by six months the launching date of the largest ship being built in the

  1813
  country, due to labour shortage. These are difficulties under which no industry can operate successfully, and we must seek to overcome them.
  The problem remains of merging the successful without prejudicing their success, and if I have spoken particularly of the firm of Yarrows, it is because I believe that such a firm is a national asset. It has a first-class team, and it shows that profitability and viability in a British yard is possible and practical and exists today.
  In wishing the Shipbuilding Industry Board well, as I do, we should remind ourselves and the Board that we must take great care not to destroy the firms which are successful. Let us take them as an example, and let us remember not to merge for the sake of merging. If we look to the requirements for the future, we must include viability, without which neither directors, management, shop stewards, men nor shareholders can have success in the industry in which we seek to offer a future.
  If I have spoken with some strength of conviction, it is because for generations my family built ships on the Clyde. My grandfather was broken in fact and in finance by a venture which was beyond his resources. It was far beyond the resources of one man and, from that, I know the need for bigger units, but I also know that the essential requirement is viability.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. W. E. Garrett: I wish to add my general approval to the broad outline of the Bill, because Government assistance on this occasion is offering probably the strongest challenge that the industry has to reorganise itself and regain some of the worldwide fame which our shipbuilding industry enjoyed.
  In my constituency there have been built some of the finest ships to sail the seven seas. I listened with keen interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), and I noticed his plain desire to get away from the past and the troubles which afflicted the industry. I make no apology for bringing the matter to the fore again, because clearly the party opposite must bear some responsibility for its complete indifference to the difficulties which the
  1814
  industry has experienced over the last 15 years.
  The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has a slight interest in one of the largest firms in Wallsend, and I am sure that he would wish to take note of some of the remarks which I intend to make There was an extremely indifferent approach to management—so much so that some of the lower ranks of management became disillusioned and left the industry. One of the curses of the industry has been its inability to recruit the right type of modern management with the right type of thinking, which will enable it to compete with the other nations that have been mentioned.
  There has also been a fundamental lack of understanding among shipbuilding employers about the functions of trade unions. This has built up some bitter hostility, which has diminished during the last few months and especially since the advent of the present Government. We must criticise the industry for its failure to develop techniques that it has pioneered. Many of the new techniques and new sources of knowledge which have been pioneered in the research establishments of the shipbuilding industry have been allowed to fall into disuse and to be developed by other countries, especially Japan. All this happened under the last Conservative Government.
  I have been dismayed by the way in which shipbuilding management has capitulated to the full blast of competition. I have always been told that the great thing about free enterprise is its ability to face competition, but in the shipbuilding industry—which the Conservative Party looked upon as one of the best examples of free enterprise—there has been a complete failure to accept worldwide competition. The results have been tragic for the industry.
  I make no apology for saying that I am worried about certain aspects of the Bill. We have referred to the reorganisation of the industry but no mention has been made of the labour problems which are likely to arise, or which already exist. I know that I shall be forgiven if I point out that in my constituency 900 men have been informed that they are to be made redundant in the next few weeks. Those men are employed in the marine

  1815
  engineering department of one of the largest firms on Tyneside.
  It would not be so bad if their skills could be utilised elsewhere, but unfortunately there is a fair degree of unemployment in the region; indeed, the unemployment ratio is higher than the national average. It is tragic that when we talk about reorganisation we are at the same time talking about displacing skilled men. This means that we are wasting one of our vital assets. I am talking not only of craftsmen but of technicians and people in the higher ranks of management. They, too, will be out of work.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell his colleagues that in present terms reorganisation implies unemployment, and this emphasises the need to bring industry into regions such as Tyneside. I fear that as a result of reorganisation there will be more and more unemployment in the marine engineering sections of the industry. I forecast that in the North-East in the next few weeks two more firms will announce reductions in the number of people they employ.
  I hope that the grants available for reorganisation under Clause 3 will include the making available of sums of money in the form of severance pay for workers who will be displaced. The Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, makes provision for payment in this respect, but I hope that on this occasion employers will be generous and will make additional payments. We must face the challenge. We cannot accept things as they are. It is clear that more and more people will become unemployed, although in the long run the industry will benefit from reorganisation.
  The National Coal Board has faced very difficult problems of reorganisation and has overcome them. A similar story could be told of the aircraft industry, and the recent case of the car industry is an example to be borne in mind. I hope that the industry will overcome the labour problems involved in reorganisation. A great deal will depend on managements and trade unions forgetting the bitter days of the past. Each will have to have a better understanding of the feelings and outlook of the other. I hope that good will will prevail during the difficult period of reorganisation.
  1816
  I cannot understand the provisions of Clause 7. I should like to know how they will affect the marine engineering section of the industry. As I see it the Bill makes ample provision for shipbuilding, but in Committee we shall have to examine in detail the way in which marine engineering will be affected. We have lost many orders throughout the world because other nations now have engines equal if not superior to ours Furthermore, there is now a wide variety of marine engines. It is therefore necessary to give as much emphasis to marine engine builders and turbine builders as we have given to the constructors of ships.
  I have objections to some parts of the Bill, but in the main I welcome it. It will go a long way to help the industry. By 1970 this industry, of which the nation is so proud, should have got out of its present difficulties and regained its world markets. We should once again become the principal shipbuilding nation.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I hope that I shall not be regarded as striking an unduly discordant note if I say that I am sorry that we are having the debate in this form. It is many months since the Geddes Report was published, and many requests have been made for a debate on it. We have always been fobbed off, and now, instead of having a general debate on shipbuilding, we are discussing the general provisions of a Bill. It is another example of the sort of controversy we had on the subject of decimalisation, and it indicates the Government's refusal to seek the views of back benchers before they, the Government, have made up their mind.
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of what the hon. Member is saying, may I ask whether we are restricted simply to the terms of the Bill, or whether it is also in order to make references to the Geddes Report, on which the Bill is based?
  Mr. Speaker: It will be in order.
  Mr. Galbraith: I was saying that I thought it a pity that we were not able to have a general debate on the Geddes Report before debating the Bill. It is a pity from the point of view of the shipbuilding industry, because the Geddes

  1817
  Report recommends that the industry should be propped up, and we should be asking why the industry should be propped up.
  Mr. Rankin: Why not ask?
  Mr. Galbraith: I wish the hon. Member would not keep interrupting. He did it during his right hon. Friend's speech. I hope that he will not go on doing it during mine.
  Nowadays it is too often the custom to prop up industries which are unprofitable, just because they used to be trend setters many years ago. This propping up is obviously popular with the industry, but whether it is a good thing for the country is a different matter. The cost of propping up has to be paid for somehow, and inevitably it adds to the burden of the sector of the industry that happens to be profitable.
  The argument in favour of subsidies—which is what the loans amount to—is that they put British shipbuilders on a par with foreign shipbuilders so that they can compete on equal terms. This seems to be perfectly reasonable, but if foreign countries are so stupid or generous as to offer ships at less than their true cost, why do we not accept their bounty gratefully and encourage our shipping firms to buy in the cheapest market thus provided? This would obviously be good for the British shipping industry and the British taxpayer. Of course, if that happened on any scale, it would probably sound the death knell of the British shipbuilding industry, at least on its present scale. Nevertheless, if it were the right thing for the nation, it might have to be faced.
  Two arguments have been advanced against allowing this to happen: first, the cost in foreign currency of building abroad; and, second, the need, on defence grounds, to be able to equip our mercantile marine in the event of war. Geddes was not very impressed by either argument and I would agree, but I should like to know the Government's view. Do they discount both these arguments and justify propping up the industry, at considerable cost to the taxpayer, on pure economic grounds, which is what Geddes came round to?
  If it is right to prop up the industry, is the Bill the right way to do it? Here, I must begin to question some of the assumptions of the Geddes Report. If
  1818
  saving the industry is what is required, I believe that cheap loan facilities alone would do the trick, but, of course, they would have to be available to every yard, no matter where the ship is built, and not only the most favoured yards, which satisfy the S.I.B. The industry thrived while it had the £75 million loan of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) to subsist on and ran into difficulties only when the loan ran out. I think that the same thing will happen again. All will be well while the loan cover exists and when it ends we may be in the same position again.
  The Bill goes further than merely providing cheap loans. It seems to imply that the money will be available only where reorganisation is taking place and there is increased efficiency. We also know that efficiency in the eyes of the Geddes Committee means amalgamation. But since when has size been the criterion of efficiency?
  When I was Civil Lord of the Admiralty and occupied much the same position as the right hon. Gentleman in relation to the industry, I visited practically every yard in the United Kingdom, about 86 of them. I should like, however, to illustrate my view with examples from the Clyde. I hope that the House does not tire of this, because it is the river that I know best and my constituency stretches along one of its banks.
  On the Clyde, it is certainly not the big yards which are the profitable ones. Fairfields' —which people seem frightened to mention—at one end, though boosted by the publicity men in a way which would make any wanton envious, when it comes to actually unrobing and disclosing its figures is as coy as any maiden. We have not the least idea of what is going on there, financially anyway. John Brown, at the other end of the upper reaches, which is still uncontaminated by the State, frankly admits its losses.
  On the Clyde, it is not these mammoth firms, but much smaller ones like Connell and Yarrow, which are weathering the storm best. So do not let us think that size offers a magic cure-all for the industry's difficulties. Sir William Swallow, when he was originally appointed, recognised this, and, in a robust private enterprise way, nailed his flag very sensibly to

  1819
  the mast of economic viability when he said:
  "Groupings alone are not the automatic answer. They would have to be economic and viable."
  But he said that in August and I want to know: has he changed his mind since then'? Has he come under the centralising spell of the right hon. Gentleman and his party and is it sheer size now which is to be the criterion of efficiency rather than the figures in a company's profit and loss account?
  What about these groupings? Are they to be left to the natural inclination of the firms or are they to be "shot-gun marriages"? If so, why? What is the justification for this pressure to amalgamate in the shipbuilding industry, when in every other industry the Government have to act not to encourage amalgamations but to prevent them—or, at least, as in the case of The Times, to have them examined through the Monopolies Commission. There must surely be some strong reason why units in shipbuilding should have stayed separate, contrary to the normal industrial tendency, and this seems to me to be good grounds for viewing with the greatest suspicion attempts to join firms together against their natural inclination, which is what the Bill is all about.
  The amalgamation of firms, of course, is not the only proposal in Geddes. If these amalgamations are to be encouraged by the threat of withholding public money, should not the power of the purse be used also to secure the amalgamations of the unions, which Geddes also strongly recommends, and which to me seems at least as important for the industry's future viability as any of the other proposals in the Report?
  On the Clyde, for example, I am informed that about a dozen unions are involved. This situation is utterly ridiculous. If the Government and the S.I.B. really mean business, I would strongly urge them not to spend one penny of the public's money on the industry until the union aspect is streamlined and brought into conformity with what Geddes recommended, which was about four unions. Without this, the industry could never successfully compete with foreign firms, which have only about one or two unions.
  1820
  Competition with foreign firms is very important because we want to build not only for British shipping firms but for export. Some highly modernised, specialist firms, like Yarrow, which have good labour relations and a go-ahead management are succeeding in doing just this, mainly with naval vessels, and they are doing it profitably.
  However, the profits of medium-sized firms like this can never support the burden of the great "loss leaders" on the Clyde like Fairfields' and John Brown. Even if they could, their overheads would be bound to reduce profit margins and perhaps make their tendering prices for foreign orders much less attractive than they are now, when the firm is a single unit.
  So what I want to know is what effect on the profitable firms' competitive ability do the Government think that amalgamation with the less profitable ones is likely to have? The Government and the S.I.B. must face up to the problem of profitability. It is no good reforming the industry and making it look neat and tidy on paper, if in the process we make it impossible for the few profitable firms to continue competing successfully abroad.
  What about the size of the industry as a whole? Geddes talks hopefully of it being a growth industry, as did the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), but I am very doubtful about this. During the last century, as countries developed, we found to our cost that they set up textile mills because the technique was fairly simple. Now this process has been carried a stage further, and throughout the world, shipbuilding firms are being set up on a national basis for prestige reasons.
  Because of this factor alone—apart from anything else—I see no chance of this country building anything like the 2¼ million tons of shipping suggested in Geddes.
  If I am right in this, then the existing yards will be under-utilised. Under-utilised yards can never be efficient and this seems to point to the inevitability of some closures. I know that "closure" is a dirty word, but we should face up to it. If there are to be closures, would it not be better to carry them out before amalgamation, rather than afterwards, or to allow the natural process—which, for

  1821
  example, led to the voluntary liquidation of Denny's—to continue, particularly when there is no loss of employment?
  Naturally, the closure of a yard always causes a great deal of hard feeling. So I wonder whether it was to overcome this hard feeling that there is so much official enthusiasm for amalgamation as a sort of public relations exercise or smokescreen to conceal what is really going on? Once a merger has taken place a yard will cease to have a separate identity and then concentration of the group's efforts to get fuller utilisation of its resources, with the disposal of what is not needed, will, presumably, not cause the same outcry that is caused when an individual yard or company is closed. The group will not be closing. It will just be rearranging its activities and carrying on its business in a smaller area, even if more intensively.
  Perhaps the Minister will say whether or not I am right in this assumption, what is to be the fate of these surplus yards and how they will be dealt with. There is one of these on the Clyde now, in my constituency. It is Barclay, Curle. The intention seems to be that it should be forcibly amalgamated with the other yards on the Upper Clyde. There is also its other half the Elderslie repair yard, and it is rumoured that that firm's ship-repairing yard is to be allowed to opt out, in spite of the Geddes opinion that repair facilities should be available to strengthen a consortium.
  About the only advantage of the conception "one area, one group", as propounded by Geddes, is that it prevents competition for labour and maximises flexibility. If this is to be made to apply to shipbuilding—and that is the thought behind the Bill—should it not also apply to ship repairing?
  As hon. Members will have gathered, I am not unduly enthusiastic about the Bill. I take this view on practical grounds, and I stress that. Apart from the dangers of favouritism under Clause 7 and backdoor nationalisation under Clause 6, I would like to have seen more research going on into the sort and size of industry this country needs and not what we would like to have for old times' sake. Having decided that, I would have been willing to have encouraged the yards which wanted to
  1822
  stay on in business to amalgamate, when they wanted to do so, but I would have preferred a much less rigid approach to amalgamation so that the successful yards which do not want to amalgamate are encouraged to go it alone, without suffering the penalty which seems to be implicit in the loan Clauses.
  Our hearts, naturally, go out to the weak, but from a business point of view it is the strong, not the weak, which should get our help. There is not anything like enough recognition being given to the fact that the shipbuilding industry is an animate thing in that it cannot be made to thrive however many boards there are advising it. This is a common mistake made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but the results of the nationalised industries show how right we are to be sceptical of the efforts of officialdom to produce growth and efficiency.
  I want to see a viable and go-ahead shipbuilding industry where the strong have an incentive to expand. I do not want to see a subsidised industry in which the weak are featherbedded and the strong held back by compulsory integration and by the Government constantly breathing down their necks. Let there, as a bridging operation, be loans, freely available, and let there as an experiment be encouragement given to firms to group and amalgamate. But do not let that encouragement amount to pressure which forces firms which are successful on their own to join with others which are not successful, and perhaps lose their profitability in the process.
  I urge the Government to adopt a flexible approach to the problem—an approach which, while it might help the weak, does nothing to weaken the competitive position of the strong because if we weaken their competitive position, we might as well say "goodbye" to a viable shipbuilding industry, which is the only industry worth Britain's while seeking to preserve.
  Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members have made brief speeches so far. If this continues, I shall be able to call every hon. Member who has a right to be called.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) really believes what he says,

  1823
  he should have had the courage to persuade his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to oppose the Bill. The hon. Gentleman made the most melancholy speech I have heard on the shipbuilding industry since I came to this assembly. He was so obsessed with his observations that he failed to look at the melancholy countenance of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). Here is an odd thought: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Hillhead is disturbed because his hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart is seated on the Opposition Front Bench and will wind up the debate? I regret to have to witness this conflict on the benches opposite. I thought that we had a monopoly of it.
  I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Hillhead say, in effect,"There is no use our going on with the British shipbuilding industry. It is cheaper to buy our ships abroad". That could be said of every British industry that is not considered as fully viable.
  Mr. Ridley: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence done exactly that by scrapping the British aircraft industry and buying aeroplanes abroad?
  Mr. Shinwell: That intervention is totally incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Shinwell: Like other hon. Members, I wish to be brief. I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite not to interrupt me, because they know that I am easily provoked. The hon. Member for Hillhead was telling British shipowners, "Buy your ships abroad." That was the basis of his argument.
  The Geddes Report is one of the best Reports ever produced. It is a milestone in the history of the British shipbuilding industry and is making a future for the industry. I also congratulate the Government on the production of the Bill, although it should have been produced earlier by a Conservative Administration. I recall several debates when the Labour Party was in opposition and when my hon. Friends and I demanded of successive Tory Governments the introduction
  1824
  of an effective and worthwhile credit scheme to help to prop up—to borrow a phrase from the hon. Member for Hillhead—the British shipbuilding industry. But that is history, and I will not go further into the matter.
  The Shipbuilding Industry Board will be of little value unless the scheme is fully implemented. That is essential and, by "fully implemented", I have in mind amalgamation of existing shipbuilding yards—I do not know how many; perhaps three or four or four or five. Nor do I know how many divisions there should be. That will be a matter for the Board to decide, in consultation with the firms concerned. We must build up a concentrated and worth-while shipbuilding industry—otherwise, it will be of no value to the nation. We can provide credits, we can even provide mergers, and all that sort of thing, but unless we have effective and worthwhile industrial relations we are wasting our time.
  How can we bring that about? The hon. Member for Hillhead asked: why do the Government not try to amalgamate and merge the trade unions? It is a new philosophy on the part of the Tory Opposition to build up powerful trade unions. I thought that they wanted to destroy them—
  Mr. Galbraith: The suggestion in Geddes is that there should he only four unions in the shipbuilding industry.
  Mr. Shinwell: First, the hon. Gentleman says, in effect, that the Geddes Report is of no value, and now he asks why the Government do not adopt this suggestion of Geddes. I have never before heard Tories demanding that the trade unions should be amalgamated and consolidated so as to become more powerful. The party opposite wants to weaken the power of the trade unions. At the same time, I think that it would be advantageous if there were fewer trade unions in the shipbuilding industry, and I am certain that that will come about.
  How are we to bring about more effective industrial relations? Perhaps the only defect in the Bill, is that it does not deal with this aspect, but I doubt whether anything to that end could have been injected into this legislation. It must be left to the various firms associated with the industry. Steps need to be taken

  1825
  to provide security of employment. Lack of that security is one of the shipbuilding industry's troubles.
  Shipbuilding is an assembling industry, so there is a great deal of sub-contracting. Men are taken on by sub-contractors for a while and when there is no more work on a particular vessel they are put out of work and the sub-contractors seek to re-assemble them at a convenient time later. In some way we must provide security of employment. Just how it can be done, I do not know, but it was done in the shipbuilding industry.
  I remember when, in the shipping industry, men were discharged from a vessel and then had to wait for weeks before obtaining another ship. The good sense of the ship owners, the Maritime Board and the trade unions concerned conceived a scheme which enabled men not only to be employed at sea but to work by the ship instead of being out of employment when off articles. They are now often on articles lasting for a couple of years or so. That is the kind of security that is wanted in the shipbuilding industry.
  I have been surprised at some of the speeches from the other side. Some people are never satisfied. We have here a Measure that will do a world of good for the shipbuilding industry—and for the shipping industry as well—yet from some hon. Members we have had only criticism. They have asked: why should the Government buy shares in the shipbuilding industries? I, in turn, ask: why should anyone buy anything in any industry unless he has confidence in it?
  It is precisely because the Government have confidence in the future of the British shipbuilding industry that it is suggested—there is no compulsion about it—that shares may be bought in that industry. That is an excellent idea. In any event, I assert as a valid principle that if the Government provide some financial assistance for an industry they have a right, at their discretion, and with the consent of those concerned, to buy an equity in that industry. It is an excellent principle. It is operating in the case of Fairfield's.
  I am Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party's Shipbuilding and Shipping Committee, and some time ago I was delighted to visit the Clyde, with
  1826
  an all-party committee. We saw some of the big firms, like John Brown's, and some of the small firms, like Connell's. I said then, and I say it now, that if the Fairfields experiment does not succeed it will be disastrous for the future of the shipbuilding industry. We have in Fairfields an example of effective and worth while industrial relations and we want the same thing to apply to other aspects of the industry.
  I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward this Bill and I ask him to ensure the Board's implementing it as quickly as possible and so injecting some real substance into the industry. To that, I would add one last word. I have said that credits are valuable and that mergers are valuable, and so are industrial relations, but they are not enough unless delivery dates are observed. It is sometimes very boring when this House is unanimous, but I hope that on this occasion there will be an all-party support of the Bill and a unanimous demand to secure its implementation as rapidly as possible.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I had the pleasure of travelling to the Clyde with him before Christmas and looking at the various yards. I was concerned at Fairfields to see the number of men wearing white helmets and doing time-and-motion studies. I was concerned at the great contrast between that yard and the yards we had visited earlier that morning—small yards run by family firms, such as Connell's. There was efficiency and life at those yards as opposed to what I would describe as the heavier atmosphere at Fairfields, which depressed me a little.
  Following that short visit, I have to ask: why should small yards like Connell's which have been making a profit and running efficiently be compelled to join with, say, John Brown or Fair-fields, which are not doing well at the moment? Will that improve shipbuilding?
  I have represented a shipbuilding constituency for six or seven years, and I cannot fail to be concerned about what has happened during that period to the shipbuilding industry. Between 1954 and 1966, our production has fallen whilst

  1827
  [MR. MCMASTER.]
  that of other countries has risen rapidly. We produced about 1½ million tons in 1954 but last year we only produced just over 1 million tons, and I believe that during the current year production has fallen quite a lot further.
  During that same period world tonnage under construction has nearly trebled. It has gone from about 5 million tons to 14 million tons. The Japanese share has increased dramatically. It was 413,000 tons in 1954, and it is now 6 million tons. Between 1954 and 1966, the United Kingdom's share of world output has dropped from 27 per cent. to 8 per cent. This is a very serious situation. The Geddes Report—and it is an excellent Report—held shipbuilding to be a growth industry, but the Geddes Committee reported about a year ago. Since then, the industry has dropped away. This is an industry which Geddes said was a growth industry.
  Will the Bill do enough for the British shipbuilding industry? Is it sufficient simply to ask the banks to provide £200 million? Much play has been made about the provision of the £200 million, but this money is not coming from the Government. All that the Government are doing is guaranteeing the loan. They are asking the banks to provide the money. Is there any evidence that the banks will be willing to provide as much credit as this at this reduced rate of interest of 5½ per cent.?
  I wonder whether the Bill gives enough and gives it quickly enough. The Japanese shipbuilding industry is determined to corner the world market. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) asked: why not let us buy our ships abroad; why not exploit the situation; if foreign shipyards―the Germans, the Swedes or the Japanese—are prepared to sell their ships at cut prices, why not take them and let our yards close? The answer is obvious. Anyone with any experience of monopolies knows what happens. They will cut the price all right until they get complete control. Then, once our yards are out of existence and it is impossible to reestablish them, we shall have to pay whatever they charge.
  This is just what the Japanese are determined to do. They are using every method in their power. They do not
  1828
  allow the Japanese shipowner to buy his boats abroad, as we allow ours. I believe that the Japanese put a 15 per cent. duty on boats which their shipowners order abroad. They also give the Japanese shipowner every encouragement to order his boats in Japan. They do not merely lend money to him at 5½, per cent. They offer him credit at 4½ per cent. for up to 15 years, with repayments not to commence in certain cases until the boat has been sailing for two years and earning money for the owner. The Japanese are out in the first instance to build up their mercantile marine. This is the competition that we have to face. This is the argument for supporting our shipbuilding industry.
  I admit that in a perfectly fair world, all other things being equal, it might be wise to buy our boats, as the Government have decided to do with our aircraft, in the cheapest market. But this is not a perfectly fair world. Other countries —France, Italy and the United States—subsidise their shipbuilding. If other countries gave up subsidising their shipbuilding, there would be a very good case for us to do likewise. We must face facts as they are. If we admit that other countries are subsidising their shipyards, we must be prepared to answer the question, "Will we subsidise our shipyards or not?" in the affirmative and subsidise them.
  Then the question arises: what degree of subsidy should we pay to our yards and how should we administer it? I remember suggesting in a debate about five years ago, when the Conservative Government were in office, that a scheme very like this should be made available to British shipowners. The then Minister of Transport made available first £30 million, later £60 million, and, finally, £75 million in subsidy. Unfortunately, that money was given out a little too freely. It tended to keep inefficient yards in existence. I welcome this scheme. It is much more selective. It appears that it will encourage yards which are improving and also those which are amalgamating.
  I want to speak about the yard in my own constituency—Harland and Wolff. This is one of the biggest yards, not only in the United Kingdom, but in the Western world. It is a yard which when I entered the House in 1959 employed

  1829
  24,000 men. Reference has been made to Yarrow's, which employs 2,500. My yard employed more than ten times that number.
  The management at Harland and Wolff has done its best to modernise and turn it into an efficient yard. It has closed 13 out of the 18 slipways which it had in 1959. The five which remain are very modern. The management has reduced the yard's work force from 24,000 to about 11,000 or 12,000. The yard laid off men very drastically from 1961 to 1965. This is a yard which is trying its very best to remain competitive. The trade unions have co-operated with the management in a totally admirable way. There is now tremendous flexibility between the boilermakers and the other sheet metal working unions, which is the important place for flexibility.
  The yard still needs capital. It is still losing money. Its accounts for last year show a loss, in spite of this rationalisation, of £3 million. The yard has lost money over the last three years. Harland and Wolff, the biggest yard in the United Kingdom, cannot afford to go on losing money and to go on taking building contracts at a loss in order to remain in business. It barely survived the depression between the wars. It has no reserves now to enable it to survive. Many of its main contracts are running out this month.
  Will the Bill place new work in this yard quickly enough to prevent a further dramatic rundown between the spring and summer of this year? I believe that the Bill is not sufficient. I believe that some control should be exercised over British shipowners to encourage them to build at home. It has been suggested recently by, I believe, Mr. Hunter, that the investment allowance should not be given to British shipowners who order abroad.
  The danger is that British shipyards will go to the wall. Many of the main yards might well be forced to close down if they cannot find orders, and find them quickly. As it is not in the interests of the British ship-owning industry as a whole for British shipyards to go to the wall, I suggest that British shipowners, who are among the main customers of British shipyards, should not merely be given further encouragement, as is provided in the Bill, but that some sanctions
  1830
  should be used to persuade them to place orders straight away in British shipyards.
  This country has a wealth of experience and expertise in shipbuilding. We have skilled management. We now have more flexible trade unions, although I agree that there are 19 unions—15 main and four or five smaller unions—looking after the interests of the men in each yard in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that Geddes is right in saying that this number should be reduced to four or five.
  Shipbuilders should be in a position to bring in better management, to bring in young men with university degrees in engineering and in management and they should give them the backing which is necessary to strengthen the management in the industry. We can, if we are given proper support by the Government, modernise ourselves so that we become one of the best shipbuilding countries in the world and build up or recover the position we have lost in the past ten or fifteen years.
  The Government should do more to help the yards in the immediate future. It is, after all, the next year which is critical. The trend revealed by the figures I quoted earlier shows that the position in regard to rundown over the next 12 months is serious. Why has no scheme yet been put to the Government, in spite of the fact that the Geddes Report was published just about a year ago, for amalgamations between the existing yards? Do the Government really believe that rationalisation and amalgamations will take place just on the strength of the Bill? Is the Board strong enough to persuade shipbuilders to amalgamate? How will yards which are losing money he persuaded to join each other?
  Mr. Small: The hon. Gentleman is giving a fair description. It would seem that the only solution available is Government and trade union money and a Fairfield-type experiment.
  Mr. McMaster: No. I regret to say that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not agree, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that the Fairfield experiment is the right way to get the industry out of its present problems.
  I believe that Government money must be provided, because that is what other

  1831
  countries are doing with their shipyards. I believe that some further scheme should be added to the existing scheme of guaranteeing loans, to persuade British owners to place orders in Britain. It is not sufficient to say to the banks, "You will have to give loans at 5½ per cent. to British shipowners."
  We saw at the end of last week what happened. Four large orders were placed in Germany. Why was that? One order was placed with Fairfields. I have been thinking about that order, and I would like to know more about it—
  Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman has never done anything—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions, even sedentary, prolong speeches. I am hoping that speeches will be reasonably brief.
  Mr. McMaster: In respect of those orders last week, I am not happy to see four orders out of five going to Germany. I feel that more could be done by the Government to help our yards, and that perhaps a more imaginative scheme than the one incorporated in the Bill, providing a direct grant to British shipowners who are prepared to scrap some of their older vessels and build new ones in British yards, might provide the answer.
  As a maritime nation, this country is bound to maintain both its shiping and its shipbuilding industry. There is a clear duty, not only on the Government but also on trade unions and management, to look very carefully at the existing set-up. The Government must ask themselves whether they are doing enough, whether they are doing sufficient in this Bill to enable the industry to survive. Management must be certain that it is modern, up to date and efficient. The main onus rests on the management.
  Finally, the trade unions must be satisfied that they are sufficiently well organised, flexible and productive to meet the needs of the most competitive industry in the world, because competition, not only in Europe, but also in the Far East, is fiercer than in any other industry.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, East
  1832
  (Mr. McMaster) saw fit to pass his scabby remarks about Fairfields, when he was a guest last November in company with a number of us; and when he had the opportunity, after his visit to the yard, to make any comments he chose before a meeting of the Board and those who were with him on that visit.
  May I say to the hon. Gentleman that the people in white overalls, to whom he referred, were men drawn from the floor of the shop and trained by the new management, at cost, to be experts in time and motion studies in order to try to promote speedier production and productive methods in Fairfields.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
  Mr. Rankin: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has newly entered the debate and should at least keep quiet for a little while.
  Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was in the Chamber for both of the main speeches. It is true that I have been out since, but I sat through both of them.
  Mr. Rankin: To return to the Bill, and to leave my introductory remarks as a happy memory, perhaps I might reinforce to some extent what has already been said, that in the Bill we are provided with grants, loans and guarantees of very considerable amounts. They are there in adequate quantity to be used when the conditions justify them. While I am grateful for these things, they are not sufficient.
  The Bill also proposes changes in the shipbuilding industry such as rationalisation and engine grouping. Those of us who are familiar with Clydeside know that both of these changes have long been necessary. Rationalisation has to some extent been taking place on Clyde-side, and is more necessary now than ever. I believe that discussions are in progress to reduce the number of yards presently operating on Clydeside as separate units. This applies also to engine grouping. The day when so many yards on Clyde-side should each have their engine department is no longer necessary. It has been recognised for long that one engine producer on Clydeside could meet the demands of all the shipbuilding yards on Clydeside.

  1833
  Those two changes are applauded and accepted, but whatever alterations in structure we provide, and however much money we provide, it is only by the spirit which we engender among the men in the yards that the industry will be saved. To ensure this spirit of co-operation between men and management is one of the first essentials of survival in the industry. The first step towards achieving this is by reconstruction at boardroom level. To that end the management of the future must reflect all the interests involved in building ships and engines.
  The taxpayer must be represented on the Board through Government. The unions must be represented, and so must finance. Yet that change alone will not promote a thriving shipbuilding industry. The main contributors to that end are the men in the yards. They must first be assured of continuity in their jobs. Redundancy must become minimal, and be replaced as quickly as possible by Government retraining and re-employment facilities.
  Open channels of communication between the shop floor and the board room are imperative. This involves regular consultation by the creation of a contact officer between employers and employees. On his shoulders must rest the onus of keeping the negotiating machinery well oiled and always ready to start. He must be independent, with his own private office within the yard, and preferably someone who has served at chief shop steward level.
  When we have achieved security of employment, there ought to follow a reduction in the turnover of men. I wonder how many hon. Members on either side of the House have grasped what has been happening and what is still happening in most of our shipyards with regard to the turnover of men. In 1965, the turnover at Fairfields was 85 per cent. Today, as a result of the new management, it is 19 per cent.
  Perhaps I might illustrate what I mean about the turnover of men. Let us assume that at the beginning of 1965, 3,200 men were engaged at Fairfields. At the beginning of 1966 there would still have been 3,200 men there, but the 3,000 of 1966 would not have been the 3,000 of 1965. During the year 3,000 men would have left the yard, and 3,000 new men would have come in. There was no con-
  1834
  tinuity of employment, and, therefore, this changeover was taking place all the time.
  If the changes which I have suggested materialise, increased production leading to better wages and higher salaries will certainly follow, and productivity will increase. But when we get increased productivity, we must at the same time secure quality and delivery on time. One of the things which got Fairfields into trouble was its inability, for reasons over which the firm had no control at the time, to meet its date of delivery. This is an important aspect of increased productivity.
  I can talk with some authority about the new methods to which I have been referring because they have been working successfully at Fairfields, despite all that we have heard tonight from one or two hon. Gentlemen, and as a consequence output has increased. Since the yard came under its new management, four ships have been produced, and two have been launched, representing a total output of 100,000 tons. This has happened since December, 1965 and hon. Members must allow a short time on the firm's side for getting things organised after the change.
  There are orders for a further five ships, one of which is the container ship. The order for this was won against world competition at a contract price of £1 million less than that quoted by any other firm in Britain. If this is not a tribute to the new management and to the workers at Fairfields, I would like to know what is.
  The Japanese have just put it on record that because of the new scientific management at Fairfields, the only shipyard in Britain which she fears as a competitor is this one. There is, of course, much still to be done, and this is true of all shipbuilding yards.
  If I may refer to Fairfields again, the wages situation—and I think that this is true of most shipyards—can best be described as a sort of dog's breakfast. Obviously, one of the big duties which rests on us and on the Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Council is to get a national wages policy. We have still to determine the relationship between different grades of employment in terms of what is called "job content". This

  1835
  is another matter for consideration not only by us, but by the new Council.
  We have to emphasise the importance and the use of value engineering, and this is now being done at Fairfields. Everybody in the shipyard, at whatever level he is employed, must try to ensure that value is being given for money. To put it another way, a definite attempt is being made to make every employee, at every level, cost conscious.
  When so much that is new is being tried out at Govan and is succeeding, it seems strange that the Council which is to influence the future of shipbuilding in Britain is not to have among its members someone from Fairfield's. Does this mean that the Council will be tenanted only by individuals who are representative of the older ways of thinking in shipbuilding? I was comforted to hear my right hon. Friend say today that the Council was not complete, and
  I hope that the new thinking at Fair-fields will be represented within the Council.
  It is a long time since Robert Browning said:
  "Tis time new thoughts should animate the world; new light should dawn from new revealings."
  I do not think that I am using exaggerated language when I say that these new thoughts are animating the Board representing the three sections of the community to which I referred earlier. If this new thinking does not become more evident, the drift across the Alantic will.
  I conclude by drawing attention to the drift which is now taking place. There was an article in the Reader's Digest of last February which told us that
  "American industry hired more than 5,000 immigrating engineers and scientists last year… As these facts reveal, the United States is suffering a technological manpower shortage that may be rapidly approaching crisis proportions. The National Science Foundation estimates that, in order to maintain its rate of economic growth, this country"—
  that is, the United States—
  "will need 1,375,000 engineers by 1970, 718,000 more than were available in 1960. But all of America's universities are not expected to graduate more than 450,000 during the decade "—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a little wide of the debate.
  Mr. Rankin: and—
  "leaving a deficit of over 250.000".
  That is a measure of the shortage which we in this country, as well as the United States, will face, and it is essential that we bring our industries up to date technologically so as to attract and keep our best brains at home rather than lose them to meet the need on the other side of the Atlantic.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Later in what I have to say I shall follow the hon Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) in some of his observations about Fairfields.
  There is no reason whatever for maintaining a British shipbuilding industry unless it is competitive and viable. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead Mr. Galbraith) asked the question which we must ask ourselves, and it clears the air to answer it in that sense. As we have an industry which has become uncompetitive, before we throw too many bouquets about the House or the country, we must be certain that what we intend to do will make it viable and more competitive.
  The industry is unfortunate in the sense that it is the only industry in this country which has been exposed to the full flood of international competition since the end of the war when normal commercial conditions returned. It is a measure of our lack of competitiveness and our inefficiency industrially that this one industry which has been exposed to competition has got into such an unhappy condition. There is also the direct disadvantage which has developed that other countries have subsidised or guaranteed credit for their shipowners to an extent which has positively discriminated against British shipowners placing orders in British shipyards. To the extent that the Bill corrects this and removes the anomaly, everyone will welcome it.
  I regret the need for dodges of this sort when the world cannot compete, country with country, on fair terms. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us a little about his negotiations to try to improve competition for shipbuilding and to put it on a fairer basis. We must recognise, also, that there will be cumulative effects upon our own

  1837
  economy if we are to match credit terms and subsidies throughout the world.
  Shipbuilding is inefficient in its prices as well as in regard to credit. As 75 per cent. of the cost of a ship is accounted for by materials bought in, we have very little control over 75 per cent. of the problem. The chapters in the Geddes Report dealing with bulk purchasing, particularly the buying of steel, which accounts very often for 20 to 25 per cent. of the cost of a ship, are singularly unimpressive. I am not at all sure how, when one industry is exposed to full competition, it is supposed to be able somehow to impress the sharp edge of competition upon those who supply it further back down the line. To the extent that this can be done, it is something which we must do, of course, but I am not very hopeful about it.
  We can talk about the 25 per cent. of the cost of a ship which is broadly within the control of the shipbuilder. Two suggestions for improvement have been made. One is that there should be shipbuilding groupings. The other is that we should improve labour relations, with which I include better management. We all want better management all the time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hill-head asked some pertinent questions about groupings. The Geddes Report itself is not very clear on what the point of better groupings is. We read on page 50:
  "…there is less certainty or agreement on what the main objects of grouping should be, the form it should take and how it should be brought about".
  For that sentiment to be expressed in the Report makes clear that there is, not an obvious advantage, at best.
  Why have the shipbuilders themselves not done more grouping if it is to their advantage? I know that there are difficulties, there are family firms, some are making losses, and so on—the Minister quite rightly outlined some of the reasons —but if one asks shipbuilders individually, a great many will say that there does not seem to be any great advantage for them in grouping. I am certain that shot-gun marriages will do much more harm than good. I do not know conditions on the Clyde well enough, but hon. Members who have discussed the situa-
  1838
  tion on the Clyde have pointed out that some yards are viable as they are, some can never be viable, and others are viable in groups on certain conditions.
  The point about specialisation is not a very good one. If people want to arrange that one yard will build all tankers, one will build all cargo ships and one will build all warships, they can do that without necessarily merging the finances of the yards. Such arrangements have, in fact, been made. The specialisation argument does not afford a strong reason for forcing groupings. We are left with the argument that we must have large units for reasons of production, that unless three, four or five yards are grouped, one cannot achieve the efficiency of production which is necessary. I should prefer to achieve viable yards by means of letting the inefficient and out-of-date units wither away. If units are merged and then some of them have to be closed down later, the new grouping is landed with the dead capital of the closed units, on which it has to pay interest. It has all the problems of threatened closure and the bad labour relations which that situation brings. In my view, the best thing the Government could do would be to encourage the closure of yards which are clearly getting into difficulty, thereby producing the men and the opportunity for other yards to expand and to make themselves individually viable.
  This is the fundamental error lying behind the salvation of Fairfields. Its merits as an experiment I shall come to in a moment, but I have always regarded the decision to save Fairfields as dangerous, for this reason. At a later stage, one has to say in the new grouping that yard A, yard B or yard C must be closed. One might as well have accepted it in the first place when Fairfields appeared as a candidate. But the biggest reason for supporting groupings, although I am not sure that they would do the trick, seems to me to concern labour relations. It may be possible for bigger groupings or yards to offer more permanent employment to shipbuilding workers, which is of the utmost importance if we are to improve labour relations in the industry. It is difficult to exaggerate the evil results of bad labour relations in shipbuilding in the past. I do not want to apportion blame, but I think that we are closing our eyes to the truth if we

  1839
  try to pretend that it is not labour relations but something else which has been wrong.
  I am certain that the bad feeling has led to a bad reputation, and that the bad performance has led to a low productivity, which is, more than any other single factor, responsible for the high prices and bad reputation of some British shipyards. The casual employment system has been the main cause of that trouble. Bad communications are a secondary cause, and the dirty, cold nature of much of the work is a third cause, especially when perhaps combined with poor welfare facilities.
  On the other hand, the unions' practices have not made matters easy for management. Over-manning and demarcation can cause up to a 20 or even 30 per cent. increase in the price of the labour element. The practice of limiting apprentice entry into a trade is unforgivable in our present situation, with the need for more skilled men. The resistance to accepting dilutees, people who have been retrained for particular skills, is as strong as ever. It is causing many firms in shipbuilding not even to bother to undertake retraining, because they know that the retrainees will not be accepted. The multiplicity of the unions is a severe handicap to avoiding demarcation. The fact that different men must perform different jobs when the same man could easily do them adds to cost.
  To those who point out that the strike record in shipbuilding is not too bad my reply is that it is not the strikes which do the damage but their threat, the times when managements have agreed under a strike threat or some other pressure to maintain a practice which is unforgivable.
  Whatever may have been the past in the industry, we must do away with the whole of that seamy side of shipbuilding. With the Bill we are accepting a much greater discipline for employers. To me and to some of my hon. Friends the idea of Government intervention to knock firms together, to put them in pawn by lending them money and taking their equity, is one which we slightly dislike in principle. But if we are to accept it—and for the sake of the shipbuilding industry I am prepared to do so—we must ask for something from the other side of the industry in the form of better discipline from it.
  1840
  Amalgamations of the unions are long overdue. Is the practice of demarcation between the many different unions to be brought to an end? Can we have an end to refusing entry into the shipbuilding trades for those who exceed the quota of apprenticeships? Can we have an end to over-manning and all the restrictive practices which the Geddes Report condemned so well and so truthfully? What agreements has the Minister made, and what consultations and conversations has he carried out? Before we spend this money and make these grants and loans, has he assurances that the things for which I asked will be done? There is no point in injecting a large sum of public money into the industry, even if the employers'side—the groupings and the rest—are absolutely right, if the unions will say, "We have dodged this crisis. We need not bother. We can go on as before."
  The crisis in the shipbuilding industry is about bad productivity and bad labour relations. Although one may chide and correct the management side for its failings, of which there are plenty, one does not solve the problem until one gets a bargain that the other side will also corrects its weaknesses. That is the lesson of Fairfields. The men woke up one day and found that the yard was to close because of bankruptcy. It was that shock of closure which persuaded them that it would be in their interests to sign a new deal. The same is true of the Appledore shipyard in Devon.
  But in making the bargain, one must make certain that one gets an understanding that really meets the case. The test of Fairfields will not be what orders it has had, what prices, and so on, but what the balance sheet looks like in five or ten years' time. If the result of all the improvement that is alleged to have been made is a profitable shipyard tendering in the open market, winning contracts and making a profit, I shall be the first to applaud the experiment.
  I believe that we have a similar situation in the industry as a whole, because both sides are very worried about the future. They can see the empty berths and read the balance sheets. The profit and loss accounts are published, and everybody knows that the industry is threatened with a dire situation. We must take advantage of that shock to get both sides together and make a

  1841
  bargain guaranteeing that for the future they will do their part in making the industry viable.
  I now wish to say something about the effects of the Bill upon our national finances. If we are to spend this money and make these loans, we must do so in the full knowledge of the effect on our national finances if we do that sort of thing very often. We are making grants of over £5 million, loans of £32½ million and guaranteeing £200 million in security on loans. Whether or not we nationalise the industry, the interesting thing is the extent to which the taxpayers must find the money. The grants of £5,150,000 come straight on to the taxes and the loans of £32½ million will be a prior charge upon the nation's savings because they will have to be paid for out of taxes. That money will be raised from the taxpayers and lent to the shipyards before any other private industry can start to tap the nation's savings through the capital market. On top of that, there is whatever subsidy and risk are involved in guaranteeing the £200 million loans.
  Loans to private industry have suddenly started to rocket, from £1 million all through the 1950s to £13 million in 1962, £20 million in 1964 and £32 million in 1965. Doubtless, by next year they will have reached a figure of about £100 million a year. The nationalised industries this year took £764 million, and when on top of that private industry is, as it were, being propped up, the successful British industries and the earners will he paying an ever-increasing slice of their taxation to Provide that sort of grants, loans and capital. That may be all right, but before we extend the process we must make sure that we are extending it to an industry which will be viable.
  The test of whether this is a good Bill or not is whether this is a once-for-all injection of the nation's savings and the taxpayers' money which will allow the industry to stand on its own feet or whether it is just one more round of subsidy which will have to be repeated in five years' time. I would look very much less favourably on another application from this industry. It is important that the Minister should assure us tonight that he has the real co-operation of both sides of the industry to make quite certain that when they implement the Bill
  1842
  they will produce some thing which can grow of itself, which does not need more help from us, which can go forward and get orders and make a profit at the end of the day—an industry in which the men can have their wages put up year after year by dint of high productivity and in which restrictive practices and the bad old days are forgotten things of the past.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that hon. Members know what time is left. If everyone shares out the time reasonably I can call all the hon. Members who have sat here all day hoping to take part in the debate.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: This seems a useful Bill which the House will wish to welcome. My right hon. Friend gave a very useful and helpful account of its provisions in his opening speech. I am grateful to him for the reply he gave to the intervention I made, which dealt with the point on which I feel most concerned. That is the extent to which it will be possible for the Government to develop, shape, influence and even in certain circumstances control, the type of construction programme which the shipping industry will undergo.
  I realise that this may not be practicable and that it might even be injudicious to embark upon it, but I have one regret. It is that we have not had from the Government any outline of their policy for shipbuilding. We have not heard from them what classes of construction they intend to encourage. It is fair to say that an aspect of the whole matter which, relatively to others, has been little investigated is the extent to which the policy of the Shipbuilding Industry Board is to be geared to the kind of construction programming policy that the Government seek to implement.
  In the Bill we are providing for grants relative to group schemes for loans, for interest relief, for acquisition of shares, all requiring the approval of the Minister, and for the Minister to guarantee loans for the purchase of ships. It seems that that degree of Ministerial intervention justifies the claim—and it is a claim that should be spelled out in this House—that the money should be expended on vessels which meet the requirements of Government policy and especially of exports.

  1843
  In principle, if loans are to be guaranteed by the Minister or advanced and are to be authorised by him, it is right that the Government—through the Board, by all means—should have a decisive say in the shape and character of the shipbuilding programme.
  The need for the construction programme in this industry to correspond with Government policy is all the greater because of the reduction of the shipbuilding production target with which we are confronted. I understand that the Geddes target of 2½ million tons by 1972 has gone by the board. We now hear of a production target of 1½ million tons. That is a very serious and grave decline of aspiration; there is no doubt about that. It is a sad thing that the forecasts in Geddes are now, in effect, no longer applicable. The fact that this is the trend appears to increase rather than to diminish the underlying need, which I intervene in the debate to emphasise, for the Government to participate actively and at each stage in the shaping of the construction programme and in the decisions on the classes of ship which will be built.
  Particularly in the present state of our affairs the Government must come to a decision—for all I know they may already have come to one and, if so, I should be glad to have it spelled out when my hon. Friend winds up the debate —about the through-transport concept and the use of containers. Just how do the Government anticipate that shipbuilding and shipping will comprise container construction and container fleets? What are the Government thinking about this? How far is Government policy relative to money advances to the shipbuilding industry married up with their intentions in that regard?
  We are expecting from the shipbuilders costly new ships larger than the conventional cargo liners and quite different from them in character and content. How far is it intended that moneys provided for in the Bill should be earmarked for container construction? If the Government want to encourage this programme, and the House is authorising advances and grants and loans on such a considerable scale, it is not asking too much that some of these funds should be effectively
  1844
  earmarked for the construction of container ships.
  The need for Government participation in the use to which this money is put as the phases follow one upon the other is brought home by the fact that whatever is done will involve the most careful liaison with the National Ports Council. If, as I hope is the case, the Government are well disposed to a substantial container construction programme, it is no use building those container ships if the docks are not ready to handle them.
  The main object of the container policy is to speed up the turn-round in the ports and to secure that the container ship spends a far higher proportion of its existence at sea than the conventional cargo liner does. But this involves the most careful planning from the centre and very carefully worked out liaison by the National Ports Council, the Shipping Industry Board and the Government.
  The Government are the only nexus, or bridge, available between the S.I.B. and the National Ports Council, and great importance will attach to their activities in this respects. The signs are that the deep sea container berths will be concentrated more than is desirable in the area of London and Tilbury. Liverpool, which is Britain's most important port, and which handled, in the last calendar year, more than 4½ million tons, is taking second place. I hope that this will be watched with care by the Government.
  The proposed £1 million container berth sanction for Liverpool is, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to agree with me in this, a comparatively small affair and much less than was hoped. I am very glad to read today that Ministerial approval has been given for the first stage of the Gladstone Dock extension scheme, which is to contain a considerable number of container berths. The position is that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was in the forefront of planning for container traffic. The seaboard extension was designed for it. I am very glad to hear that this effort has not been thrown away, although I have still to study the modified scheme which has Government approval.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: On a point of order. May I inquire whether this is relevant to the Bill? It may be relevant to the shipping

  1845
  industry Bill which is coming forward, but several of us are anxious to take part in the debate on this Bill, which deals with shipbuilding.
  Mr. Irvine: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, whose sense of relevance has always had my admiration.
  What I am pressing is, I think, clearly understood. If the money is to be authorised to be granted and expended in this fashion, the House should properly insist that the deployment of the system should be followed through by the Government. It is not good enough to make provisions for loans and grants and payments if in matters of this kind the Government do not ensure that they are aware of the purposes for which the money is being spent.
  The Government must further ensure that the whole complex of developments relative to such expenditure of the taxpayers' money should be kept under control, and directed aright. What I suggest is that the character of the ship construction programme is a most important aspect of this matter, that responsibility for it is one which the Government must undertake, and that the Government's direction and advice to the S.I.B. about the construction programme is one which it should sustain, more particularly in view of financial resources being made available in this Bill.
  This should be done because in the complex of which I speak, the Government are the nexus between the industry, between the Government's own concept of the export trade and the National Ports Council. The proposition which I put to the House is that all these things have to be considered together and the moment at which we should make it plain that we expect that the Government should control this matter is on the Second Reading of the Bill, when we are dealing with the expenditure of these funds and the making of the grants. That is the aspect which the House should consider with the greatest care.
  Although I welcome the Bill, my one regret is that opportunity has not been taken by the Government so far—perhaps we will hear something from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—to give the House a clear outline of the kind of construction programme which the Government want to see developed.
  1846
  If these sums are to be expended they should be expended for a purpose and in conformity with a programme fully acceptable to the House.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The shipbuilding industry is as far removed from the County of Rutland as is the sea from the centre of England, but the Member of Parliament for Rutland and Stamford is not quite so far removed. This is an industry which I knew in my youth; my father was employed in it and so was I. I say he was employed in it: for part of the time he was unemployed in it, because it was during the bad years when the closing down of a shipyard in the town of Jarrow led to an 85 per cent. unemployment situation.
  Later I was employed in the industry as a labour officer, as the term was, and I know something about it, and about the difficulties of dealing with a great many unions. Those were the days when the foreman used to hire and fire in the shipyards, when the riveters used to employ their own heaters, and anyone who says that there have not been changes in the shipbuilding industry since that period before the war, and imagines that the industry has stood still has obviously not made a study of it. It has made a good deal of progress. I suppose that the industry is now in roughly the position that it was in 15 or so years after the 1914-18 war. The crisis came a little earlier then. Since the last war the industry has managed to keep up its production, and get orders, because there has been a need for ships. It is only in recent years that the whole market has become competitive.
  This is why the Geddes Report was so timely. The industry needs a new enthusiasm—that is all. It is rather like the railways. I travelled to Manchester in the new service on the railways the other day. It is a splendid service and I was amazed to find that there was a touch of enthusiasm among everyone working upon it which I have not found in the railways for years. If this could be translated to shipbuilding, then the industry would have nothing to worry about. Nevertheless, we have to be concerned about the serious reduction of Britain's share in the world output of shipping. There are very good reasons

  1847
  for this, and provided that we look at these reasons and act to deal with them then the future for the industry will be bright.
  The first reason is that overseas Governments have been heavily subsidising their own industries and Governments in this country have ignored this for years. They have known that it has been going on, but no action has been taken. Clearly our shipowners cannot compete against the very heavy hidden subsidies provided by overseas Governments. There has been piracy, not of the seas, but of the slipways throughout the world.
  Secondly, British shipowners, particularly in recent years, have been encouraged by cheap prices overseas, so that they have been helped by the subsidies of those Governments abroad. I am sure that it would not be right to give £200 million of very acceptable loan to British shipowners if they are still to place their orders abroad. If shipowners get the advantage of these loans, they at least have a duty to place their orders in this country providing—and here I may go against some of the things which some of my hon. Friends have said there is only a marginal difference in the tender between a foreign shipbuilder and a builder at home. Our shipowners must take into account the fact that the Government are giving this very heavy assistance to them.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology Mr. Edmund Dell): Perhaps I should make it clear that these credit facilities are exclusively for use in British yards.
  Mr. Lewis: I accept that. It strengthens my point.
  Thirdly, there is no doubt that the industry has not kept as up to date as it might have done. I believe that the shipbuilding industry is technically good. It has some of the best technical people in shipbuilding in the world. But it has not been financially or administratively good in its management.
  There are two other factors which have reacted against the British shipbuilding industry and which have not been mentioned today either by the Minister or by any of his hon. Friends. If there is inflation at home, then an industry which is competing with heavy overseas competi-
  1848
  tion is more adversely affected by it than any other industry. As its wages go up, so its prices go up and it finds it difficult to compete. There is, therefore, a duty imposed on the Government when they are considering the economy as a whole to remember that a competitive industry such as shipbuilding needs to work in an economy in which inflation is kept under control.
  The other factor which has affected the industry is the cost of its supply services. The putting together of a ship involved a great many ancillary companies. The Geddes Report suggested that four or five groupings should be brought together. I would think that that is too few. The pattern of the industry is such that it can still be made a viable industry without reducing it to so small a grouping. But there is a lot to be said for common purchasing and a common marketing programme overseas. In this respect, the Board might be able to help a good deal.
  Much has been said about the prediction in the Geddes Report about world growth. I agree with almost every comment made by the Minister and by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh Mr. David Price). It would be a mistake to hazard a guess at what might be the growth of world shipping and the requirements for production in the shipyards. I think that the Geddes Report has got it too high. I should like to see the British shipbuilding industry of such a size that it can cope when there is not a big demand. The size of the industry must be right so that it can keep people employed, can produce ships at the right price and in quality—because in this industry quality still matters—and do so at a normal level of demand. Allow countries abroad to increase their production to take account of peak situations if they wish. Those countries which increase their production to take account of peak situations will very soon founder when it comes to a normal market situation. This is when the British shipbuilding industry will score because it will not have done this and it will not therefore find itself in a crisis situation.
  The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that it was desirable that there should be full employment in the industry. He knows about this matter. He was a Member of Parliament in the

  1849
  days which I well remember when shipyards were closed down and when those which were not closed were running on short time and employing very few people. The industry can be enthusiastic about increasing its productivity only if it has an assurance on this matter. I do not think that there is any need for pessimism in the industry. The seas are wide. There is no suggestion that because we have air travel there will not be an increase in sea travel. Cruising will be a growing and very popular form of holiday. It is only just beginning. The carriage of goods abroad as world trade grows will place an increased demand on shipping just as it will on air travel. Neither do 1 think that navies are yet to be discounted.
  I come now to labour relations in the industry. It is often said that bad labour relations are caused by remoteness in management. Labour relations in the shipbuilding industry have been mixed. I would not say that they have been all that bad. Yet we do not have remote management in this industry. The management is constantly involved with the men on the ships. It could well be that what was said by one of my hon. Friends, that the unions have contributed to bad relations more than anything else, is true in this case. The unions have been bedevilled by their own structure. They have not been able to help themselves. In an industry in which there are so many unions there are bound to be demarcation disputes. In addition, in an industry in which there are many unions there is the difficulty of management not knowing with whom it is dealing—whether it is the shop steward, the district office or the head office. The lines of communication between management and unions founder because of the structure which exists. This is what makes the case for reducing the number of unions.
  The wage structure in the industry, also caused by the union structure, is much too variable. There are too many grades and too many people in the shipyards earning too little who work alongside others who are, not earning too much, because one would not wish to say that anyone should earn less than he is able to get, but too much in relation to others alongside. There are certain craftsmen in the industry who find themselves unable to get the sort of money which they
  1850
  see their friends getting and which they think they should get.
  Management is a little too tightly controlled. I am rather in favour of a two-tier board structure. I think that the shipbuilding industry should consider this. There should, perhaps, be a board at the top which deals with finance, which gets the orders and which lays down the main administration and a second tier executive director board below it. This would be very useful in this industry. It would give the opportunity to young technicians and to the foreman who becomes a shipyard manager or an assistant shipyard manager to come on to the executive board and finally, perhaps, to get on to the main board of the company.
  The Industrial Training Act is certainly something of which this industry also needs to take advantage. There is a need for wider training among the various skills within the industry so that one grade knows the skill of another. There is today too much restriction on job exchange. Change here is dependent largely on the amalgamations of unions. The greater use of university research and better training for management are things that the Board should influence the industry to carry out.
  The Bill is a vehicle of reform. Of that there is no doubt. I just wonder, if I may be a little political at the end of my speech, whether it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The Board will finish in 1970, 1971 at the latest. Why this short term? In my view, if we are to set up a Board like this, we must give it time. This is certainly not time enough.
  The Bill contains provision for the Board to take equity shareholdings. To do so, however, would weaken the Board, because it would have to discriminate. It would have to take an equity shareholding in one company as against not taking it in another. If it takes an equity shareholding in one company but not in another, presumably it must favour that company because it is part of it.
  If the Board takes equity shares, what will happen at the end of the three or four years'? To whom will it hand them over? Will the Treasury take them? Will the Government come back and say "The Board has now taken equity shares in X + 2 or X + 4 companies. We cannot

  1851
  possibly disband the Board. We must, therefore, keep it." We might then get the situation where we were moving towards the nationalisation of the industry.
  Looking at the Bill—we must be suspicious about this—one sees that the powers of the Minister are very wide and rather hidden. Clause 14) states that
  "The Minister may with the approval of the Treasury give to the Board directions of a general character."
  Those directions could be very wide indeed. If the Minister were to give the Board directions, what would he do if the Board ceased to exist at the end of four years? These are matters which we will probably probe in Committee.
  It is important for the Minister to recognise that the Board must not be put in a position in which it is subject to the direction of the Minister on the wrong things. The Minister said in opening the debate that the Geddes Committee had asked him not to interfere too much, and the Minister assured the House that he did not intend to interfere too much. I have indicated by my quotation from the Bill that the Minister is taking powers to interfere if he so wishes.
  Will the Minister force mergers, for example? If we get the wrong mergers, we will get the wrong structure for the future. If, for example, we get the merger of a profitable company with a marginal loss-making company, that would be a good merger, but if we were to get the merger of two loss-making companies, that would cause an impossible situation. A merger of a marginally profitable company and a loss-making company could turn that marginally profitable company into a loss-makig company. Only the Board, in consultation with the industry, can decide this. If the Minister interferes where he should not, he will get the structure wrong for the future.
  Finally, I hope that the Bill is not a means of featherbedding the industry. I have said that the industry wants enthusiasm. It wants encouragement, and the Bill can provide the encouragement which it needs. The one thing which it does not want, however, is encouragement to believe that because we now have the Board, the Bill and the financial assistance that goes with it, everybody can rest on their laurels and all will be
  1852
  fine. If the Board stimulates the industry and if the Minister allows it to do so, I believe that the Ministry can be made viable, therefore, of advantage to the nation and profitable to both the managements and the people who work in it. If, however, the Government do not ensure this then the Bill will have been in vain.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Booth: Whether Britain's shipbuilding industry succeeds or fails, as an island people we depend on ships. It is, therefore, not surprising that another island people, the Japanese, have taken from us during the last 12 years the rôle of world premier shipbuilder. What is surprising is the extent to which Britain's share of the world shipbuilding market has fallen and the length of time that has been allowed to elapse before any attempt has been made to tackle the fundamental causes of the decline.
  In 1952, Great Britain and Northern Ireland built one-half of the shipbuilding tonnage launched in the world. In 1966, United Kingdom yards built one-thirteenth of the world's production. This is the measure of the decline. Over the same period, Japan has increased her production by over 6 million tons a year while United Kingdom production has fallen; and this in a period when the world market has grown beyond the dreams of pre-war shipbuilders.
  The major importance of the shipbuilding industry to this country in our present economic situation is that practically the whole of its production is either export-earning or direct exports. Those of its products which are sold at home are export savers and ultimately earners of invisible exports, and those which are sold abroad are a direct contribution towards the solution of our balance of payments problem.
  It has been said tonight that the Geddes Report is timely. I am tempted to say that it has come very late. We have to thank a Labour Government for the fact that we have the Report at all in a form in which we can deal with the fundamental problems of this industry. The Conservative Government could have acted on the D.S.I.R. Report of 1960. They could have recognised in that Report, which dealt with research and

  1853
  development requirements of the shipbuilding and marine engineering industries, the very real problems that faced the industry.
  To pick out two of those problems which are particularly relevant, the D.S.I.R. Report of 1960 showed that the ratio of qualified engineers and scientists in shipbuilding and marine engineering to other employees was a relation of one in 88. Even this did not give the whole picture. In marine engineering, the position was not quite as bad. The ratio was 1 to 49. However, in the country's shipyards in 1960, the ratio of qualified engineers and scientists to other employees was 1 to 139. Therefore, it was clearly foreseeable in 1960 that we had not the set-up within our yards to meet the problems of the industry.
  In paragraph 30 of the same Report it was stated that while the United Kingdom yards were alert to the technical possibilities, they were often slow or failed to reorganise their production methods in order to take advantage of those technical possibilities which then existed. Many yards had employed production engineering consultants to advise them on production layouts, but the implementation of the recommendations of those consultants either was not tried, was tried in such a way as to cause labour upset, or was abandoned altogether. It was also pointed out then that none of the research organisations which served the shipbuilding industry had hitherto included in their programmes any major investigation designed to improve or change production methods.
  The basis was there to act upon in a period of Conservative Government. However, the basis was not used. Surely it is clear, even to those who were not working in the industry at the time, that without qualified engineers and scientists it was impossible to introduce the new techniques which were required in the industry.
  I can say from my own experience that, in the drawing offices of the marine engineering industry, the industry was losing the very people whom it needed to carry though the changes which could have kept us in the forefront of world shipbuilding. The constant tonic of conversation in a drawing office was who would be leaving next and where he would be going. The turnover of staff in drawing
  1854
  offices in the marine engineering industry at that time was enormous. It was not a question of a man going from one firm in the industry to another. Men were going into the aircraft industry and were going out of the marine industry altogether. The people being recruited to replace them were without the same qualifications and, as a result, the standard of qualification in the industry's drawing and design offices was falling.
  At that time, Japan had completed her Geddes Report. It was completed in the early 1950s, and, by 1956, Japan was already building half a million tons more than United Kingdom yards.
  The right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who was then Minister of Transport, introduced a Bill to provide £75 million worth of facilities for the industry. I do not think that I could be accused of misrepresenting the attitude of a considerable number of shipbuilders if I said that they took the view that that money was necessary to get them over a bad patch. The fact that they regarded it as a bad patch showed that they were not facing up to the real problems of the industry.
  Even today, the attitude in the industry is still one which reflects what I would call an inbred management structure. It has not attracted into its management the people who could and would have revolutionised production methods by taking advantage of the new techniques which had been made available in many instances by British skill and brains. The values of our very fine research and development organisations, such as B.S.R.A. and Pametrada, has been severely circumscribed by the reluctance or the inability of some managements in the shipbuilding and marine engineering industry to apply much of the knowledge that these research and development organisations have made available.
  The new ideas and methods which have been brought to light by Pametrada and B.S.R.A. have been regarded with scepticism and suspicion by the industry. Very often, the attitude in the industry has been "You cannot tell us anything about building ships. We have been doing it for 50 years". At one time, the attitude was that little yellow men from the other side of the world could not tell us anything about building ships, but

  1855
  those same little men today are showing us how it can be done.
  As a marine engine draughtsman, I remember clearly reading the report of the discussion which followed a paper delivered to the Marine Engineering Institute on the building of advanced supercharged marine diesel engines. The paper was presented by a Japanese who came to this country. He was questioned on his paper and asked where he got his information, and what was the background and production of the firm in which he was employed. It transpired that the firm had build only 40 marine diesel engines, but that it had a research staff of 120 on the job. They were coming to Britain to give us a lesson in how to advance our own technology in an industry in which we have once led the world.
  Amongst the most important factors which together constitute the problem of the industry is undoubtedly the state of labour relations. Unless a proper labour relationship is developed, it will be impossible to reshape the industry to meet the challenge which it now faces.
  On the question of labour relations in the industry and the need for manpower planning, it is significant that Fairfields won an order for a 27,000-ton cellular container ship ordered by Overseas Containers Limited. The other five were all obtained by the same German consortium. If we are to discuss objectively the advantages or disadvantages of consortia, it is as well to realise what that German consortium has gained. It is the consortium of Deutsche Werft, of Hamburg, and Blohm and Voss.
  That consortium has now got an order worth £5 million to build five 27,000-ton vessels. It will have to produce only one set of drawings, which they can then duplicate. It will require one set of jigs, one set of fixtures and one set of templates. It will be a much cheaper vessel to them than it will be for Fair-fields. Nevertheless, Fairfields has won an order for one of the six.
  We can have consortia in this country by virtue of the Bill. In connection with the vessel for which Fairfields has won the order, the Chairman of Overseas Containers Limited, Sir Andrew Crichton. said of the unsuccessful British yards:
  1856
  "They were wildly out in price and far too late in delivery times."
  Much stress has been laid on credit facilities, but they are only part of the problem. We can have all the credit facilities in the world, but if we cannot get delivery dates and basic prices right, we shall not win shipbuilding orders.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Today, it is announced that the order for two frigates is going to the Clyde. Does this mean that labour that should be going to speed up the delivery of container ships is going into the production of naval ships?
  Mr. Booth: I accept that, and I shall speak briefly about its effect on our yards later.
  The current lock-out of shipbuilding draughtsmen is indicative of a management attitude which is incompatible with the achievement of the technological revolution required in the industry. This lock-out is in breach of the procedure agreement.
  The shipbuilding employers have not stuck to their agreement. If the reverse situation had occurred, and the Draughtsmen's and Allied Technicians' Union had taken out every shipbuilding draughtsman in the country, hon. Members opposite would be howling their heads off tonight. If anybody thinks that the situation is peculiar to D.A.T.A. I invite him to consider the situation which existed in 1965 on the Clyde, when E.T.U. members were locked out as a result of a dispute in John Brown's.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman explain in what way the procedure agreement was breached by the employers? Was it not a fact that there was a go-slow or a work-to-rule before the lockout?
  Mr. Booth: The case of the breach of agreement that I was speaking of was the Draughtsmen's Association lock-out. A procedure agreement provides that there shall be no withdrawal of labour at any yard, and similarly no lockout, until the agreement has been completed in respect of that yard. In the case of a dispute involving the whole industry, after the completion of national negotiations either side has a right to withdraw or exclude labour. In this case the breach of the procedure agreement arises

  1857
  because, on the grounds of a dispute at a single yard, the shipbuilding employers have locked out every shipbuilding draughtsman in the country.
  I admit that the situation is slightly different in the case of the Clyde lockout. It is significant that the E.T.U. was seeking to obtain a productivity agreement to enable the better use of the skill of its members. If this industry is to succeed there must be effective manpower planning, so that we can use the critical path analysis method of building vessels.
  To achieve this against a background of bad labour relations, we require proper worker participation in the industry at yard level, group level, and national level. We require something similar to the structure we envisaged when we discussed worker participation in the steel industry. The basis exists for a genuine bargain to be struck, since it is not in the interests of employees and employers to have men laid off when yards are slack or excessive overtime and a scramble for labour when they are busy.
  I congratulate the Government on the inclusion of main engine manufacturers in the Bill. Since so small a proportion of the cost of a ship remains in the hands of a yard, it is important that the Bill should include main engine manufacturers. I am sure that the combined purchasing power of the main engine and shipbuilding industry could have a major influence on the standardisation of components, which is seriously needed. The need to adopt metric standards, which has now arisen, may provide the ideal opportunity in which to do this, but it is hardly likely that a marine engineering and shipbuilding industry which does not appreciate the value of standards within its own manufacturing range will use its powers to influence the component manufacturers from whom it buys.
  The tragic truth is that although Pametrada—probably the most advanced maring steam turbine research station in the world—prepared for the British shipbuilding industry a set of standard turbine drawings which could be used over a whole range of powers and steam conditions—and this was the ideal opportunity to take advantage of standardisation—not one of those turbines has gone into botch production in a British marine engineering works. They have been produced by one-off methods.
  1858
  Drawing office economies have not been achieved. Turbines have been sold to separate owners who have had modifications carried out to suit themselves. I know the attitude of the British shipowners, and that it is not easy to sell good standard equipment. However, the fact that the Japanese, the Swedes and, in some cases, the Germans can do it shows that these standardised products of the marine and shipbuilding industry can be sold if the price is right.
  In Tokyo, the first of the freedom vessels has been launched. These are 13,600-ton deadweight vessels. They have planned their production as far as it is possible to plan the production of any vessel. They have the on-berth time of the vessel down to 25 days and the total building time down to 50 days. I question whether any British yard could build a vessel of this type in much less than six months. This is the sort of challenge which we are facing. It follows, therefore, that we must have this technological revolution in the industry.
  There is a special problem over yards which are heavily engaged in naval work. Such a yard is Vickers, in Barrow, in my constituency. There, the whole resources of a yard have been changed to meet a particular military requirement, that of the Polaris submarine. The labour force and the capital structure have been changed. With the ending of that programme, this yard will face a very special problem, and I hope that the Minister will give us a sympathetic ear when we approach him again on the requirements of this yard.
  I hope that it will be made clear that the purpose of the grants and loans in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 is to enable the industry to win export orders. The £200 million referred to in Clause 7 is clearly directed at the home market. Failure to win export markets would ultimately result in the loss of the home market. A limited form of public ownership is provided for by Clause 6. At least to the extent to which public money is to be used in this legislation and to the extent that it will raise the value of the industry, that measure of public participation must be obtained. This industry could not raise the money itself on the private market or obtain investors to this level in shipbuilding.

  1859
  Clause 11 refers to the dissolution of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Industry Board set up by the Bill, and the establishment of consultative machinery. I believe that this aspect of the Bill must be further considered. I believe that we have in this country the talent and inventiveness for a first-class industry, with the first numerically controlled frame bending machine is to be installed in a British yard under the auspices of the B.S.R.A.
  But the technological revolution in our yards is not a once-for-all operation which will be over by 1970. It is the start of a new evolutionary process in the yards, in which the processes of the yards and the engine works will be continuously changing. The Government must continue to have a say in this and I hope that we will be able to ensure in Committee that this process of change will be a continuing one, in which Government participation and direction will be provided for in the interests of the nation.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: When we in this House discuss the warts and scars on the body politic about which it is easy to argue whether the inheritance of Conservatism or the environment of Socialism is responsible, the House is always full and there is an interested audience. However, when we discuss the jugular vein of the economy, the shipping and shipbuilding industry, on which the survival of the country to some extent depends and in which the major decisions which we make here this evening will have a far more lasting effect on the basic cost of living of our citizens, lo and behold, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the House of Commons.
  I must declare my interest. I advise a major liner operator in the shipping industry who has a considerable share in the company known as Overseas Containers Ltd. I have no direct interest in shipbuilding, although, in the course of the work which I did before coming here for the company to which I referred, I visited most of the world's major shipyards, in the United Kingdom, Northern Europe, North America and Japan. In the tour which I made I also visited most of the large marine engineering works, diesel and turbine, throughout
  1860
  the world. I can safely say that I know what we are up against and that I have a fair idea of the resources which we have in this country to meet the present threat and challenge.
  I have no false confidence about the balance between these two sets of forces, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)—who I regret is not now in his place—that we in Great Britain are still the premier ship-owning country of the world, that we still have the largest merchant fleet in the world, but relatively much smaller than it was, and that we must obviously continue to build ships. This is a sine qua non which hon. Members on both sides of the House can accept without difficulty.
  I disagreed, regretfully, with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) when he spoke about sanctions on the British shipowner and suggested that there was no point in making these contributions to the efficiency of the shipbuilding industry, financial or otherwise, if we allowed the ship owner to build where he pleased. I cannot go with him all the way on that because it is essential to the survival and viability of the shipping industry in Britain that the shipowner, given all the environmental conditions which affect his choice, should be able to exercise that choice wherever the essential conditions of his trade decide him to do so.
  We must look at the essential order of priorities. The first thing on which we all depend—on which Britain depends—is international trade. That includes international trade in ships. The shipping industry, in its turn, depends on the volume and growth of international trade and the shipbuilding industry, in its turn, depends just as fundamentally on the survival and viability of the shipping industry.
  I see no sensible possibility of inverting this pyramid—and what a disastrous precedent it would be if we were to take steps to invert it, either by means of this Bill or any other means. If we were to try to set it the other way round, then that would be accepted as a normal action to be taken by every other major industrial country, which would then build all its own ships for all its shipowners. This, carried to its logical conclusion, would ultimately mean, not

  1861
  only in shipping but in every other respect, the end of international trade.
  I will refer briefly to the O.C.L. orders for container ships. It can be safely stated that the Fairfield tender was competitive with that of the German consortium—the three German yards in the consortium—for the five ships. However, the House must accept this qualification: no judgment may yet be made, either about the German yards or about Fairfield, until we know whether these ships have been built and delivered on time at the price stated, with the yards concerned making a profit. If these conditions are not fulfilled, none of the types of judgment which the House of Commons likes to make about enterprises, public or private, can be made. Thus, no judgment about either the Fairfield or German yards should be made at this stage.
  The House might be interested to know, considering the container revolution which is taking place at our shipyards, that early in the 1960s I went round a large number of yards in Britain. I was aware at that time, perhaps before many, of what was happening in the container sphere. I said to the managements of many of these yards, "If you want to get your toe into the door of the future you should start designing container ships now, so that when the British shipping industry asks for this type of vessel you will be equipped to build them, with sophisticated plans and developments". This suggestion, by and large, was not accepted.
  What type of shipyard do we need to encourage in the United Kingdom? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) mentioned the Arendal shipyard in Sweden, which I have seen. I have also seen in Japan the Sakai, Negishi and Mitsubishi building-dock yards. It is worth stating that Japan alone now has six major building-dock yards. There is also one at Arendal and the Eriksberg yard in Gothenburg can probably be regarded as the only other major building-dock in Europe.
  There is a view that we do not need building-dock yards in this country but that we should build, as our yards are well capable of building, small, complex, "sophisticated" vessels. But recent
  1862
  O.C.L. orders show that we dare not any longer act on the assumption that the so-called "sophisticated" vessels will invariably be small. We must, indeed, draw the opposite conclusion. The large ore-oil tankers have very complex pumping systems, and they are in the 70,000-ton category, and we have very much larger tankers with equally complex arrangements. We have on the horizon what is called the "Lash" type of vessel carrying 2,000-ton barges. Those vessels are large, and are likely to become larger. I have seen what are, perhaps, futuristic reports—though they are based on realistic assumptions—suggesting that by the end of the century container ships will be in the 40,000, 50,000 or even 80,000 ton category.
  Will we be able to build this type of ship? If so, what type of yard will we need? I believe that one of the types of yard we still need is the building-dock yard. Sir John Hunter boasted some time ago that a ½-million-ton tanker could be built on the Tyne. That is certainly a technical possibility, but can Swan Hunter's or any British shipyard build a ½million tonner in our present facilities as economically as it can be built in the largest building docks in Europe or Japan? The answer to that question must be, "No"—or, at least, the onus of proving that the answer is not "No" rests very firmly on those asserting the contrary.
  In perhaps this one respect the United States are comfortably behind us. The American shipyards are high cost and completely or almost completely dependent on subsidy as is the vast majority of their international liner shipping, but now —and this is a point that the House should consider in its general discussion of the Bill and the purpose of the Bill—the United States Government are using a major contract worth 1,000 million dollars for building logistic supply vessels to induce within the United States the construction of a major building dock shipyard.
  I regard this judgment by the United States Government as being of the greatest significance. They have seen this position, and are anxious to re-establish, as we are here with this Bill, the viability —indeed, the supremacy—of the American shipbuilding industry. They have
  therefore devised a very big carrot in the shape of an order for 30 ships, and they

  1863
  say to the three major companies invited to tender, "A condition of your order is that you shall create this type of facility in the United States." I do not see this imaginative, perhaps dramatic, type of thinking coming out automatically or inexorably from the Bill, and we should carefully consider whether or not the whole focus and emphasis of the aid we are giving and should be giving to the industry should be changed somewhat in that direction.
  We can take another point from this United States exercise. Is it not of great and undue significance that the major competitors for the contract are not shipbuilders in the conventional sense, but three of the greatest aero-space firms in the United States—Lockheeds, General Dynamics and Lytton Industries. These are the only three firms which are in the running at all, so I am told.
  My question to the Government is this. How are we to achieve similar results, because do not we want to induce into our shipbuilding industry the whole complex of management and technological skills which we recognise as being preeminently applied in the aero-space industry. When are graduates of the highest calibre—technological graduates, management graduates, administrative graduates—from our best universities, from Imperial College, from the Operational Research Department at Birmingham, perhaps from some of those of our students who have been on post-graduate courses to M.I.T., to the Harvard Business School, or to our own business schools—to be recruited on a large scale into the shipbuilding industry? Not until this test is passed, not until we can see in the rush to the universities every May not only the pre-eminent scientific firms of this country hanging on the doorsteps of the universities but also our pre-eminent shipyards competing for their fair share, shall we know success.
  Mr. Grimond: I find the hon. Gentleman's speech profoundly interesting. I was in a yard on the Clyde—Connell's—not so long ago. I there asked why the firm had comparatively few graduates compared with Japanese yards. I was told by those to whom I spoke that they tried very hard to get graduates but could not get them. They already go round the
  1864
  universities, but graduates do not come forward. This in some ways bears out what the hon. Gentleman has said. This is an unfashionable industry. It is believed to be of an old-fashioned nature. If we were to build a new yard and set out into a different type of shipbuilding, we might get a greater response from graduates. I do not think that it is the industry's fault. I think that in universities and technical colleges shipbuilding is felt to be an unfashionable way of spending one's life.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am much obliged for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. I accept the point he has made. He has put his finger very accurately on the key to the problem. This is a two-way situation. Not only must industries be actively seeking, but they must have the reputation to attract. This is one of the things which, looking forward, we ought perhaps to hope to achieve as a result of the Bill. The whole technological reputation of the industry must be raised. Only if it is raised will it have the power to attract. It must attract, not only by financial incentives which, as we all know, are an important but by no means the only incentive which a young man of the right type looking to his future career seeks, but by the whole range of greater opportunity which a first-class scientific industry can offer.
  A great deal of play has been made of the words "public money". It should be realised that in one sector public money is certainly involved—that is, the money for the consultancy fees and the direct subsidy to the shipyards of £37½million.
  There is also the very important sum of £200 million. It is most important for the House to realise that this is not public money. Public money is not directly involved in the £200 million. It may not be involved at all, even if the E.C.G.D. guarantee is given over the whole of this sum, if there is not one single case of default under the guarantee. The money is being supplied by the banking system. It is not clear from the Bill exactly how this will work and what incentives will be given to the banking system to make loans of this kind. A rate of return of 5½ per cent. is not all that attractive to the banks, even with a Government guarantee.

  1865
  I will mention some figures which are in operation. Current rates for the Treasury bill yield averaged 6 per cent. throughout 1965 and 1966. The latest figure I could get this morning was 6·17 per cent. for January, 1967. Two and a half per cent. Consols throughout the same period averaged well over 6 per cent. This morning it is 6·61 per cent. The local authority rate—another type of gilt-edged borrowing—was well over 7 per cent. throughout 1966 and is at the moment 6·4 per cent. This is the sort of return which money offered under very favourable conditions indeed—Government or municipal-guaranteed—can obtain.
  Now the banking system is being asked in some way or another, which is not clear, to make £200 million available at 5½ per cent. This will involve somebody voluntarily going without something. If the banking system were asked to do this pro bono publico the House of Commons should not lose sight of the fact that somebody else will have to pay a higher rate of interest on the whole range of bank lending in order that the banks will not be seriously prejudiced by the financial arrangements. This is a matter of the greatest importance, because it seems that we are moving very rapidly into the stage where at times the argument seems to be that the Government have merely to wave a magic wand and capital for socially approved purposes will simply be forthcoming, and be made to be forthcoming, from the banking system.
  I would draw the attention of the House to the question of balance of payments considerations. It seems to me that a much more comprehensive analysis is needed of the balance of payments considerations, where we are deciding whether or not to have shipyards or any other type of industry. The assumption is made far too glibly that because a ship, when exported, produces an obvious net gain on the foreign exchanges, there is really no further argument at all about it. But this can apply to every export industry in the country without exception. Every export industry in the country that ships something across the borders and across foreign exchanges brings in a total amount in foreign exchange and, in this respect, and by this limited criterion, the shipbuilding industry is in no stronger or more favourable position than any other.
  1866
  The point that I should like to emphasise is that a proper distinction must always be drawn after comparing the total or global balance of payments consequences of investing funds in the shipbuilding industry, with the total or global balance of payments consequences of investing the same amount of money in any other variety of capital investment opportunities which are available to capital in this country. This is a comparison which must be made. I cannot accept the smooth and glib assumption that because we export a ship and get 2 million dollars or francs, or whatever it may be, this is a complete justification of investment in the shipbuilding industry.
  Finally, I should like to emphasise one point which I tried to raise in the form of a question earlier in the Session. It is whether—it has been suggested by my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench that we have no option—we must now accept that for ever and ever we live in a world of interest rate subsidies. I do accept this now, but shall we have to accept this for the indefinite future?
  This situation existed before G.A.T.T. was set up in 1947, and G.A.T.T. has had a tremendously stabilising and constructive effect on international trade. Within that organisation we have been able to get agreement over a wide variety of international trading variations that this type of thing shall not be done. In this particular sector of shipbuilding, the subsidy, for some reason, does not apply. There is no international agreement. Successive Governments have endeavoured to obtain one but there has been no success. I believe there is a committee sitting in Paris at the moment.
  I sugggest that this is a disastrous course to pursue by this country or any other country into the indefinite future. What happens? We stabilise the interest rates and we make the situation comparable. The next country that decides that its shipbuilding industry is in further difficulties with its competitors or subsidised interest rate will reduce it by 1 per cent., and this will lead to an all-round reduction of 1 per cent. The ultimate is that shipbuilding finances will be 0 per cent., because this is the floor below which interest rates cannot fall.
  One of my hon. Friends suggests subsidies. This is the next step. We follow

  1867
  from interest rate subsidies to more comprehensive subsidies, and from there to the position where it is almost impossible to determine in any true or real sense the economic viability of the shipbuilding industry. I suggest that it is this fundamental economic viability which the Bill is seeking to promote, and I hope that it will do so.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am left with only three or four minutes in which to speak owing to the utter inability of the last two speakers to listen to the appeal made by successive occupants of the Chair.
  I shall, therefore, not attempt to make the comments that I had hoped to make, but merely call attention to one matter which is of particular concern to my constituency, and about which there has been a great deal of correspondence and discussion with the Ministry.
  Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth): Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to say that it also affects my constituency?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: That will become clear in a moment.
  When the Bill was published, many of us looked at Clause 7(5), in particular, with a great deal of interest, as I found from his speech the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) had done. It appeared from a reading of the subsection that when ships were under construction and orders had been given and all the other conditions had been met, special facilities might be available for loan purposes. Unfortunately, it appears that this reading is wrong. Unfortunately, according to a letter which I have had from the Ministry, the subsection is intended merely to cover the situation where a ship is moved from one yard to another, or some other question of this kind arises.
  This is most disappointng, because some time ago a shipyard in my constituency—and there may be other examples of this kind of problem—received an order for a cargo vessel from the other side of the River Tyne, in North Shields. It was an important order, but it was suspended temporarily because of the utterly impossible situation which had developed about credit terms and facilities, and even
  1868
  at this moment no decision has been reached on whether the order is to go forward.
  Representations were made to the Ministry to try to ensure that this case would be covered by the terms of the Bill when it came to be presented, and when it was presented we had every hope that this type of case would be covered, subject, of course, to all the other conditions being met, which we understand. It is, therefore, very disappointing to hear that this is not so, and I still hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will be able to say that this matter will be considered to see whether some special consideration can be given to it.
  During the last few moments available to me, I would only add that I very much welcome the Bill, all the more because it is not simply propping up the shipbuilding industry, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) seemed to suggest it was. Here we are getting away from the idea of merely giving out a certain amount of dole. Here we are trying to tie the provision of extra finance and loans to specific schemes for developments and improvements in the yards. Surely everyone in the House regards this as most urgent and necessary.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I have been charged with the task of winding up the Opposition's case on the Bill, and I apologise in advance to the Minister and the House for any inadequacies in this my first effort in this capacity. However, as I earned my living in the shipyards of the Clyde before coming to the House, and as many of my constituents help to build and prepare the great variety of vessels on the stocks and dry docks of the Clyde yards, I can at least claim to have some involvement in the subject we are discussing.
  This has been an interesting and, at times, lively debate, enriched by the fact that almost every hon. Member participating has had personal experience in the shipbuilding industry or has a constituency interest. I heard all the speeches except of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), both

  1869
  of which, I am sure, were good. Many of the points and suggestions which have been made will be of real value to the Shipbuilding Industry Board which is about to embark on its major task of reorganising and revitalising the industry.
  The happiest speech, I think, came from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small), who was able to announce that a yard in his constituency had secured two major orders. Let us hope that this will be a good omen for the progress of the Bill. Several hon. Members rightly stressed the vital importance of shipbuilding and ship repairing to our island economy. How right my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) was to mention the ship-repairing industry as well. Although about 76,000 people in Britain work in the shipyards, 26,000 are employed in ship repairing, a vital component. But these figures do not tell the whole story. Although only 76,000 people are employed in the yards, about 250,000 families in the United Kingdom depend directly or indirectly on the industry for their livelihood.
  The value of the industry cannot be measured in terms of numbers alone. The fact that shipbuilding provides substantial employment in areas such as the Clyde, Tyneside and Northern Ireland, demonstrates its importance for the development districts. We were all impressed to hear the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) talking about the great importance for the East Coast constituencies of Scotland of yards like Caledon and Henry Robb. We were touched to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), when he told us of what had happened in his constituency.
  The Bill comes before us at a time when the industry is facing real and urgent problems, if not a crisis. Orders placed at British yards last year, at 482,000 gross tons, were the lowest for years and about one-quarter of the 1965 total. The total order book at the end of the year, at about 2 million gross tons, was not far off a five-year low. Orders are now urgently required if the tempo of activity is to be maintained.
  Orders at any price, of course, do not make for a prosperous industry, as several hon. Members have pointed out. The
  1870
  Geddes Report makes clear that the existing return on shipbuilding contracts is not, on average, anything like adequate to finance reinvestment and modernisation. If this view of the Geddes Committee was ever in question, the gloomy trading results coming from some of the largest shipbuilding companies have confirmed the trend. The tragedy is that, while profits have slumped, costs have soared.
  Wages costs alone have rocketed in recent years. According to the Ministry of Labour Gazette, average weekly earnings of shipyard employees rose from £17 11s. in April, 1964, to over £22 in April, 1966. The extra burden of high interest rates and tight credit in Britain has put our shipyards in a perilous position, facing not only the full rigours of international competition but also the favourable credit terms and subsidies, which foreign shipyards have available to them.
  To deal with this serious and unique situation, the Geddes Committee proposed a series of unique remedies, and the Bill largely implements its proposals. The Bill does not guarantee that the industry will survive and prosper, but it is designed to create the circumstances in which the joint efforts of management and men can make this possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) made the good point that this will give a real boost to the industry and, perhaps, give it some of the glamour which will help to attract from other industries and from commerce and the universities the people who are rightly required in shipbuilding and ship repairing. But how right was my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) to say that as a lot of public money will be going into the industry we were entitled to look for progress! I am sure that it will come, and the Bill provides the means for it.
  The most welcome provision for the industry will be those in Clause 7 for guaranteed credit up to £200 million to finance the purchase of British-built ships by British shipowners. Several of my hon. Friends have pointed out the intolerable position at present in international shipbuilding credit. British shipowners find loans of more than 50 per cent. very difficult to obtain at home and even if

  1871
  they can get them the interest charges of 8 to 8½ per cent. are prohibitive.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) said, credit of up to 100 per cent. is available in Japan for long periods at interest rates below 5 per cent., and in a market where the cash customer is becoming relatively extinct no British shipyard, however efficient, can beat that credit barrier. We see the same kind of subsidies, although they vary from place to place, in France, Sweden and elsewhere. The credit scheme envisaged in the Bill, although it involves a large amount of money, will no more than put British shipyards in an equal position in credit provisions.
  Although the Bill provides the substantial upper limit for the credit of £200 million, there is a limitation on the period during which the credit facilities will operate. Clause 7 does not lay down a time limit for the completion of a ship's finance under the scheme, and that is a departure from Geddes, with its suggested two-year rule which the Minister may care to explain. But Cluase 9 sets a limit on the operation of the scheme, since it provides that the S.I.B. should go out of existence by the end of 1970, or by 1971 at the latest.
  Some hon. Members who have spoken today and many people in the industry fear that the effect of the credit provisions will be simply to plunge the industry into an impossible credit position again in 1970 or 1971, because no matter how successful the reorganisation of the industry, no matter how efficient it becomes if we again have a "credit war" in 1970 or 1971 it will be impossible for the British shipyards to obtain the orders they need.
  What is clearly needed is an international agreement to prevent a credit war, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead said, is just another form of subsidy war which benefits no one in the long run. I therefore ask the Minister to say whether he intends to take the initiative to discuss with our foreign competitors a code of conduct on credit provisions. I hope that he can give us an assurance on that, as there is otherwise a real danger of our finding ourselves in 1970 or 1971 in exactly the same position as we are in today, even
  1872
  though we hope that the industry will be far more efficient by then.
  Another factor which causes us concern was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in his excellent speech. It is that Clause 7(2) gives the Shipbuilding Industry Board a very broad power to refuse the credit in respect of shipyards which are not reorganised since the operation of the Act, or have not made satisfactory progress along those lines. In addition, under Clause 7(2,b) the Board is instructed to refuse credit unless it considers that the order will contribute to increased efficiency in the yard concerned.
  I fear that that may lead in practice to the Board's allocating particular categories of orders like tankers, bulk carriers or passenger liners to particular yards and groups, which will possibly affect the flexibility of tendering of particular shipyard managements. It may result in the shipyards feeling obliged to approach the S.I.B. before even tendering for work.
  That would be dangerous, because flexibility of operating operation is very valuable for the shipyards. I think, particularly, of a rather remarkable job which was done by Connell's, on the Clyde, only two years ago, when it built a very small craft which could not fit into any pattern of organisation simply to experiment with new prefabrication techniques. If the Government insist on particular groups of vessels going to particular yards that flexibility may be removed. The subsection must lead to a limitation of choice and a curtailment of inter-yard competition, and I think that the shipyards feel that point.
  These restrictions on the flexibility of the credit scheme will be probed by hon. Members on this side of the House in Committee, but the Minister may wish to clarify these points at this stage. In particular, he may care to comment on the poition of a yard or grouping which has reorganised its resources before the Act comes into operation. An obvious example is the new Associated Shipbuilders based on Swan Hunter and Smith Docks, because a strict interpretation of Clause 7(2) would appear to exclude such a group from the scheme.
  Another point of detail is that the Clause relates to the construction of a ship and appears to omit a major jumboising conversion of ships, a process in

  1873
  which international competition is fierce and by which real contributions to the efficiency and progress of the industry can be made. Can this kind of job be included in the scheme, or is it to apply only to new construction? I hone that there will be a scheme in the Bill to allow major conversions or jumboising jobs such as these to be included.
  A second general provision which the Bill makes is that for offering loans and grants to facilitate mergers and reorganisation. The Geddes Committee did a service in emphasising the extent to which rationalisation and modernisation has taken place. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) has pointed out forcibly the number of Clyde yards which have closed in recent years. We have seen closures and also mergers. The Geddes Committee was also right to point out the extent to which shipyards have modernised. My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone has spoken about the millions of pounds which have been spent and paragraph 243 of the Geddes Report makes a clear statement that the Committee
  "formed the opinion that in general the British shipbuilding industry is not behind its competitors so far as modern equipment is concerned".
  Reference is also made to the application of computer technology in the shipyards which has been largely pioneered in Clyde shipyards in co-operation with Glasgow University to shipbuilding design calculations like hydrostatics, tank calibrations and the fairing of lines.
  The Bill appears to accept the conclusions in this Report that more reorganisation and mergers are urgently required. While I do not think that anyone would disagree in principle with the conclusions of the: Geddes Report, a few notes of caution are appropriate. The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) pointed out that trading conditions in the industry have deteriorated since the Geddes Report was published a year ago and mergers which might otherwise make sound organisational sense may have been frustrated by the rather difficult financial position in which some would-be participants find themselves.
  Some yards will be unable to fit into the new grouping. One Clyde yard may fall into this category. Barclay Curie and
  1874
  others might not be able to fit in. The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) pointed out that this could affect employment and undermine job security and, therefore, prejudice co-operation in the proposals. The Minister asked: are we satisfied that increased size will inevitably bring increased efficiency? He voiced his reservations on this and it is a qualification. Assuming, however, that the Geddes premise that generous loans and grants will facilitate reorganisation on scale, we find one major item of conflict in the Bill's provisions.
  Clause 6 empowers the Board to acquire an equity stake in the groupings and the general direction in Clause 1 makes clear that the Bill could be used by an unscrupulous Administration to nationalise broad sections of the industry by the back door. The Minister has given assurances about this today, but we have had assurances in respect of other matters. I have in mind the kind of assurances we had on the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, only a few weeks ago. The Government are under an obligation to explain the reason for this Clause perhaps a little more convincingly and in more detail than we have heard from the Minister.
  Here we are in conflict with the Geddes recommendation in paragraph 332. The Report made it clear that quite apart from the broad social and economic conditions, it rejected the proposal of State participation as being inconsistent with the objective of promoting the competitiveness of the industry. We oppose State participation in principle because, in our opinion, it never assists flexibility, progress or the long-term prospects in any industry.
  In an industry where harsh and unpopular decisions have to be made, the existence of a few State-owned yards or yards in which there was State participation, in whose survival and success the Government would have political and ideological stake, will not facilitate reorganisation, or make the very difficult task of the Shipbuilding Industry Board any easier.
  There is also the question of patronage in shipbuilding, available to the Government in naval contracts. If there were a substantial number of yards with State participation, we wonder about the allocation of naval contracts, which are so valuable and important for the long-term

  1875
  growth of a yard. The Bill deals with the reorganisation of the shipyards, and we cannot be unmindful of the fact that the success of the industry depends more on the 75 per cent. of costs which cannot be directly controlled by the yards, rather than the 25 per cent. of costs which the efforts of management and men can influence.
  The most substantial cost is steel—about 20 per cent. of the total cost of the ship. The Minister may wish to report on any developments in achieving the rebate on steel costs called for in the Report. The possibility—and it is one which is causing very real concern in Scotland and elsewhere— is of the National Steel Corporation adopting differential regional prices, which could have a severe effect on major shipbuilding activities in Scotland and elsewhere. We have to remember that the nationalised industries, with one or two exceptions, have adopted the principle of differential pricing. If the steel industry does this, the future of shipbuilding on the North-East Coast and on the Clyde could be affected.
  I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that this question is being discussed with the Minister of Power, and that something will be done. Despite all its provisions on grants and loans and credits, the Bill will not succeed unless a new spirit of co-operation and flexibility enters the industry. It is rather unfortunate that we are discussing the Bill at a time when there is a major dispute in shipbuilding affecting the draughtsmen. I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of this issue, although I am tempted to do so, but I would like to make one point.
  Considerable praise and acclamation has greeted moves towards flexibility and co-operation which have recently taken place. I would like to put to the Minister and the House, in all humility, the suggestion that, whereas in the past outside observers have too readily condemned the turbulent labour relations and demarcation problems in the yards, without having regard to the deep-rooted human causes of this position, now the reverse has happened.
  Now we are all too ready to hail uncritically the signs of change and flexibility, agreements and statesmanlike
  1876
  pronouncements before these splendid sentiments have been accepted, applied and practised in the sheds and berths of the shipyards. I could not readily give an estimate about the number of agreements and pacts in which I have participated and signed, providing for maximum co-operation and flexibility in the yards.
  I doubt whether the practical success and achievement which occurred was anything like as great as the wonderful promises of those agreements. I do not want to under-estimate what has happened, but there is a real danger of our being mesmerised by some of the flexibility agreements which have been signed. It would be much better if we saw some real signs of progress. We cannot under-estimate the progress that needs to be made. Over-manning is a major problem.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow-in-Furness referred to the lack of progress in bringing in new methods and techniques. I know for a fact that it is almost impossible to introduce some of these because of the scale of manning demanded. To refer to only one machine, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Schichau Monopol burning machine, a German machine which can save a great deal of money. Unfortunately, it was demanded at the time of the introduction of these machines that two skilled men should operate them. This was wasteful, and a much greater saving could have been made if this over-manning had not been insisted on. There are many examples like this.
  Demarcation is a major problem which involves a great waste of time. We do not want jacks of all trades in the yards—clearly, that would be nonsense—but the servicing of one person's own job could save time if a plater were allowed to do the incidental burning and tacking associated with his job. Restrictions on the recruitment of apprentices is another problem, and the question of wage differentials is very serious. There is a deep rooted resistance in the yards to new techniques and flexibility which is not difficult to understand, for change and progress have claimed many victims.
  There is the obvious case of the riveter which has been referred to today by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford. The riveter used to be the kingpin of the

  1877
  yards, concerned with hammering in the rivets which held the plates and sections together. The technique of welding has largely displaced riveting. Apart from some internal work and repairing, welders have taken over the riveter's place at the top of the earnings league. One of the favourite stories in Greenock which the Joint Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office will be familiar with is the one about the traveller going through Port Glasgow who passed a church outside which there was a substantial crowd. He asked what the crowd was there for and he was told that it was a case of a welder marrying a commoner. This represents the change which has taken place in the relative value placed on trades.
  If we consider what has happened to the riveter, we see the importance of the problem. Some of the riveters have been absorbed, with some difficulty, into other trades. Others have taken on poor jobs at low wages—tack welding and the like—with very little job security. Others have been forced to take on unskilled work. This is despite the fact that riveters are members of the one great steel work union in the shipyards—the Boilermakers' Society—which includes platers, caulkers, welders, burners and now the blacksmiths, shipwrights and drillers. So that one union, or perhaps a small number of unions, is not the answer.
  Unless we can introduce some job security and the prospect of interchangeability and more flexibility, we will not overcome the very serious labour problems in the industry. Unless we can offer job security, unless we have the assurance of interchangeability following retraining in the event of redundancy, which could stem from these agreements and this Bill, we certainly cannot hope to get rid of the resistance to change which at present exists.
  I therefore ask the Minister, on the basis of the reports which we have had from the shipyards, whether he is satisfied with the progress which has been made on the shop floor in applying these agreements about which we hear so much and what facilities will be available to the Shipbuilding Industry Board to ensure that it is properly advised about this and is not mesmerised by a flood of agreements and declarations which are not in fact carried out.
  1878
  Bad labour relations and the high incidence of strikes are also a result of the procedure for discussing grievances and avoiding disputes. The existing procedure agreements, made between the wars, are sound in themselves, but they suffer from two main disadvantages: first, because the Boilermakers' Society is not party to them; and, secondly, because the strict timetable for yard, local and central conference is not adhered to in practice. Months can pass without a claim being properly discussed because of the procedure and all too often a strike, official or unofficial, is the only practical way of stimulating negotiating machinery. Until we can get an agreement which works and is applied fairly, then we will have substantial numbers of strikes which would not happen if there were adequate machinery properly applied.
  These problems must be attended to within the industry. My only fear is that the sizable and very generous assistance in the Bill might possibly be used to finance further inaction and will not ensure the speedy progress which is urgently required. These and other reservations we shall pursue in Committee, subject only to the desire on this side of the House to assist the speedy passage of the parts of the Bill which will bring much-needed assistance and stimulation to the industry.
  As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bill does not guarantee the survival of the industry, but it creates the circumstances in which survival and prosperity are possible and real objectives. The shipbuilding industry has no divine right to survive, but it is true to say that our island economy will be infinitely poorer if management and men do not grasp the opportunities which are before them in the Bill. For these reasons, and with these reservations, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on his first appearance at the Box. He and I share a constituency interest in shipbuilding, and I was certainly very interested in his speech. It seemed to me that the hon. Member spoke with all his usual

  1879
  eloquence but with, perhaps, more than his usual moderation. I hope that the mantle of statesmanship is not already falling upon him.
  We have had an interesting debate, which has been informed by many hon. Members who have personal experience in the shipbuilding industry. The debate today has formed a useful launching for the Bill. I would like in the time at my disposal to deal with as many as possible of the various questions that have been discussed.
  I start by considering a matter which has been raised many times during the debate—that is, the problem presented by the likely future production of the industry. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) criticised the Sigma Report, which was placed in the Library of the House, and he said that Sigma had ignored various aspects of the problem. Sigma's methods are still of considerable interest—for example, its study of the evolution of the demand for particular types and sizes of ships, despite the very short time which it had to consider this problem which was presented to it.
  There are at least two factors of which Sigma could not take account in making its estimates. One was the alteration in the international load line rules which has taken place since and the other is the speed of change to container ships, which has gathered pace since Sigma reported, although even today we do not know exactly how far the change will go. I should say this in defence of Sigma's very interesting work on the problem which is shown in the document which was placed in the Library.
  As to the general problem, I know of no industry in which the figures can be so misleading. To take deadweight tonnage, for example, the value per deadweight ton can, as the Geddes Report showed, vary in the ratio of 1 to 7. Gross tonnage is simply the measure of the air contained in the enclosed spaces of a ship. All we can say, and this we certainly say, is that all the estimates which we have made show that, provided that the industry becomes competitive and takes the opportunity which the Bill presents to it, there is no reason why there should not be a substantial expansion in the production of the industry.
  1880
  The principal points which have been made in the debate are, first, that the industry itself must do market research to determine the fields on which the industry should principally concentrate and where the industry sees itself getting orders in the years to come. Secondly, the industry must take the opportunity which the Bill gives it of becoming competitive. It must not rely simply on the British shipowner and any preference that he may have for ordering in British yards. It must seek to increase the percentage which it has of world trade in shipbuilding. The percentage is now, unfortunately, so low that quite a small increase in the percentage of world trade in shipbuilding obtained by the British industry would make up for quite a lot of uncertainty about the total amount of shipbuilding which will take place in 1972, 1975 or whatever year one uses as the basis of one's estimates.
  Many hon. Gentlemen opposite have criticised Clause 6 of the Bill, which enables the Shipbuilding Industry Board to take equity in shipbuilding yards as an alternative to making a loan or accepting equity in the form of repayment of a loan. I was very glad to hear from the hon. Member for Eastleigh that his objection to it was not really doctrinal. It is an interesting development that a provision of this sort should be objected to other than on doctrinal grounds. I should like to think that he is even prepared to accept the doctrine behind the provision, if there is a doctrine.
  He was concerned that, if equity was taken, the taxpayer's interest might not be protected adequately. He seemed to think that the equity option might be used as an easy way of financing the shipyards, whereas a loan with a rate of interest and a time of repayment would be a very much more stiff way of financing the shipyards.
  It is not the intention of the Government that the option should be used in that way. I am sure that the Shipbuilding Industry Board will use the equity option in a commercial manner, which is what we want. After all, in so far as there is doctrine behind the Clause, it is that the taxpayer is just as entitled to invest his money in a way which looks like bringing him the best return as any other investor. There is no reason why the taxpayer should be singled out from other investors

  1881
  by being denied this particular form of investment.
  The equity provisions will have many uses. If they can be useful to the industry, they can be useful to the Shipbuilding Industry Board. For example, the Board might consider, in the case of a particular yard, that a continuing participation in management might be advisable and might help it to ensure that a particular grouping in which it was investing became competitive.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart, suggested that in the Geddes Report it was said that State participation would be inconsistent with efficiency. We should be clear about this, because the Report did not say that. The Committee said that, in its view, State participation was not necessary to increase competitiveness, which is rather a different point. It did not say that it was inconsistent; it said that it was not necessary.
  That is a judgment which I respect, but I can see a number of cases in which it could assist the development of efficiency in a particular shipyard group by enabling a continuing management participation. I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite, having rejected the doctrinal argument against it, will consider it simply on the practical grounds.
  The hon. Member for Renfrew, East asked for an assurance that, if a company did not wish equity participation by the S.I.B., it would not be forced to receive it. One thing which I should say is that there is no compulsion in the Bill. No one has to accept a loan from the Shipbuilding Industry Board, and no one has to agree to participate in a merger. However, the Government are entitled to indicate the conditions upon which they are prepared to give assistance to the industry through the mechanism of the S.I.B. It would be quite impossible if the Board entered into negotiation with a potential group in which it thought that it ought to have an equity participation knowing that, if that group refused, it would be bound not merely to accept what it said but also to give it a loan on terms which the Board might not itself consider ideal. I am afraid that I can give the hon. Lady no such assurance.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon.
  1882
  Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) asked certain questions about whether equity participation by the Board might not influence it in its attitude to particular groups in the industry.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart even suggested this might influence the Admiralty in the placing of naval orders. That is a little exaggerated. The Board is a temporary board, which will exist at the most only until 1971, and the answer to the question what happens to any shares that the Board takes when it goes out of existence is as laid down in the Bill—they go to the Minister of Technology.
  Mr. McMaster: When this money is invested will there be a new issue of shares or will the money be used to buy out existing shareholders?
  Mr. Dell: Either is an alternative. The Bill does not lay down which shall take place.
  I now leave Clause 6 and turn to another major subject—the problem of mergers. Much was said about the problem of small yards, and what part they might play in this picture. At times there was some confusion between two different sorts of small yard. There is the small yard which was considered by the Geddes Committee, which builds ships of over 5,000 tons and which, for reasons I shall give, could often gain considerably from being included in a grouping. There are also small yards which are not really facing international competition. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned one example—the small yard which builds coasters and trawlers, which might be in a different category. But there might be cases in which even that sort of yard would gain from being included in a grouping.
  What disturbed me a little about certain comments of hon. Members opposite was the very reserved way in which they considered the problem of mergers, illustrated by the suggestion that the Government might be pursuing mergers for the sake of mergers. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) said that size and efficiency do not necessarily go together. No one could but agree with him My right hon. Friend made exactly the same point. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on

  1883
  the other hand, in whose speech I was interested, made the point that mergers have not been going fast enough. I agree.
  What troubled me was that hon. Members opposite seemed to place far too little importance on the central recommendation of the Geddes Committee—the principal specific for making the industry competitive—not that size necessarily leads to efficiency but that there are many areas in the industry in which efficiency will be obtained only if there are mergers. This is the case for a whole series of reasons, into which the Geddes Report went in some detail and which hon. Members have mentioned.
  One argument deployed by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—who has told me that he was unable to be here this evening to hear my reply—was that the type of economy of scale which the Geddes Committee expected from grouping is very small. I have been going round shipbuilding yards in order to become acquainted with the establishments and their principal personalities and I have come across shipbuilders who have said, "O.K.—there may be some economies of scale. You may get some, for example, from the flexibility that you will achieve in the use of labour. You may get some advantage from the greater security of employees and the resulting better labour relations in the yards." But these, they say, are very little and some of them seem to take the attitude that they are not worth either fighting for or cooperating with the Shipbuilding Industry Board to achieve.
  The trouble is that what is being overlooked is that, in addition to the economies of scale which can be achieved—they can be considerable—there are great opportunities arising from merging which have not existed in the industry until now. I will give a few examples of these as they arise out of comments made tonight. Let us consider management in the industry. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) pointed out how few graduates there were in the industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) referred in an interesting speech to the lack of qualified scientists and engineers.
  1884
  It is true that this may partly be due to a generalised unfavourable image of the industry, but it is even more due, I believe, to the fact that, when there are so many small shipyards—many of them, in recent years, uncompetitive—graduates are simply not willing to commit their lives to such an industry. The only prospect of getting qualified scientists and engineers will arise by having groups of a sufficient size and resources to give such people security and a future.
  This is the picture which Geddes painted, and the Committee correctly said that an attempt to increase the strength and improve the calibre of yard management applied piecemeal in over 20 separate yards or more—the Bill deals with 60—would involve excessive costs and recruitment difficulties. I suggest to those hon. Members who are afraid of merging for merging's sake that they will not deal with the management problem unless there are larger groups, to which the right quality of management is willing to go.
  The question of marketing is relevant. This industry has depended during its whole existence on the British merchant fleet and British naval construction. It has had too little of the world market and has gone out too little to secure a share in that market. This also can be done only by a sizable industry with the resources to launch a proper marketing effort to make sure that this country gets not just British ships which are to be built but ships of other countries' merchant fleets, where we have in the past got so small a share—
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: Time is running short and my hon. Friend is dealing, with great care and punctiliousness, with points raised by hon. Members opposite. Will he spare a moment to deal with points raised on his own side?
  Mr. Dell: I am sorry that I have not yet come to the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), but I thought that it was worth making the point that when we are considering the problem of merging, we are considering not merging for its own sake but the practical needs of this industry today, the needs to meet the fundamental requirements if the industry is to become competitive—
  Miss Harvie Anderson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would accept that part of the problem posed by hon. Members on both sides was how to merge a minority of successful yards with a majority of unsuccessful yards. So far he has not provided the answer to that and I should be grateful if he would.
  Mr. Dell: I grant the hon. Lady that I have not yet provided an answer to that. Accepting the warning of my hon. and learned Friend, perhaps I had better go no deeper into that at this stage. Perhaps we should consider these matters further in Committee.
  I am glad that the linking of the credit scheme with reorganisation has been widely accepted. The hon. Member for Cathcart claimed that this would limit the choice of British shipowners. I assure him that nobody is more interested in having a competitive British shipbuilding industry than the British shipowner who wants to build in this country.
  Certain points of practical detail were raised about the credit scheme and I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned that the guarantees under the Bill could not be given in advance of the Measure receiving the Royal Assent. This should not hold up orders being received by British shipyards, provided that the co-operation which we have been offered enables the Bill to get on to the Statute Book with reasonable speed.
  In any event, time will be required to reach the point of giving formal legal guarantees, and this cannot be ignored. First, the matter will be put to the Shipbuilding Industry Board, which will consider whether an order is appropriate and whether it is linked in the correct way with reorganisation. Secondly, the Ministry of Technology will consider whether the security is adequate. These steps are bound to take time but I believe that, if this process is started now, understanding that a legal formal guarantee can follow only after the Royal Assent, there should be no difficulty.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend mean that this matter can be further investigated?
  Mr. Dell: I think that my hon. Friend will find that, in practice, there will be
  1886
  no difficulty; and I trust that my remarks are of comfort to him on this score.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me to explain the meaning of Clause 7(5). I assure him that this provision refers to rare cases in which a vessel has been partially completed, in either a home or foreign yard and must, for unforeseen reasons, be transferred elsewhere under a new contract for completion. It means no more than that. It is certainly not retrospective in effect and it does not cover renegotiated contracts. The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that Clause 7(2,a,i), which refers to the credit scheme being dependent on the coming into force of the Measure, was too restrictive. I do not believe that, in practice, he will find it operates in a restrictive way.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also questioned me about yards which were already reorganised. He will appreciate that reorganisation is a continuing process. I do not believe that any yard or shipbuilding group will claim that reorganisation had been completed by the date on which the Measure is passed. That is why I say that, in practice, there will be no restriction on the effectiveness of the Bill.
  A number of hon. Members asked whether the guarantees would be limited to wholly British ships. There is no such limitation. It should be remembered—and this relates to the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who argued the need for selective tariff cuts for components used in British shipbuilding—that imports of components and materials for British shipbuilding have been duty-free for 30 years.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East suggested the introduction of a scrap-and-build scheme. I do not believe that such a scheme would be of particular use to the industry, because the British fleet has a comparatively low age and it would not, in the long run, lead to more work but simply bring some work forward.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland asked whether the Bill was consistent with membership of the European Economic Community. As has been pointed out during the debate, Italy and France provide, and have for years provided, heavy direct production subsidies. The

  1887
  Dutch have recently introduced a credit scheme. In those circumstances, I cannot imagine that the Bill would in any way be inconsistent with our membership of the European Economic Community.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) referred to the closing of the Wallsend Slipway. It is true that Geddes referred—and I feel that it correctly referred—to the need to concentrate engine building in a few units, and this inevitably results in the closing of uneconomic units in the industry. I have consulted the Ministry of Labour on the subject of redundancies which have resulted and it has assured me that it will give all possible help to place redundant employees. It is reasonably confident of the prospects of further employment, especially for skilled men, and this is helped by the fact that in this case the redundancies are being phased over a period.
  My hon. Friend also asked about the effect of the credit scheme on marine engineering. I think that when the marine engineering industry is consolidated in the way proposed by Geddes, it can only benefit from the very large amount of credit which is now being made available to the shipbuilding industry under the Bill, as the ships to be built will require main engines to motivate them.
  The hon. Member for Hillhead asked me to refer to ship repairing. The Bill does not deal with ship repairing. There is nothing to prevent a ship repairing yard being included in a group, but there is no intention that any of the finance made available under the Bill shall be devoted to ship repairing. The Measure deals with shipbuilding, not ship repairing, except that the Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Council includes representatives of the ship repairing industry and of the management side of the industry as a whole.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh said, and I quite agree with him, that it will not be easy for the industry to become competitive. It will certainly be a hard struggle in face of the competition of the Japanese and in face of the situation in which so much of world shipbuilding is subsidised. I was asked what was happening about subsidies. The ques-
  1888
  tion of subsidies to shipbuilding is being discussed in a special working group of the O.E.C.D. I hope that the discussions will be successful, but we know the history in this field and must watch how things go.
  The object of the Bill is to ensure that the industry becomes competitive—to give it a chance of becoming competitive. I am glad that the House has decided not to divide, because I am sure that in this Bill the industry has an opportunity, that may not be repeated, to make itself efficient and competitive in world markets.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 Committal of Bills).

  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a public board with the function of promoting the ability of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom to compete in world markets. it is expedient to authorise—

  A. The issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums to be paid by the Minister of Technology to the board and to be used by it for making loans not together exceeding £32,500,000.

  B. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  1) sums to be paid by the Minister to the board and to be used by it—

  a) for making grants which except in so far as they are in relief of interest on loans made by the board) do not together exceed £5,150,000;

  b) for meeting expenditure on subscribing for shares, being expenditure which when taken together with loans made by the board, does not exceed the amount specified in paragraph A above;

  c) for meeting the expenditure of the board so far as it does not consist of grants or loans made by the board or of expenditure on subscribing for shares;

  2) any sums required by the Minister for fulfilling guarantees given by him in connection with the construction of ships in shipyards situated in the United Kingdom and the equipment of ships constructed in such shipyards, so however that his total

  1889
  liability at any time in respect of such guarantees exclusive of any liability in respect of interest on any principal moneys the payment of which is the subject of any such guarantee) shall not exceed £200,000,000;

  3) any expenses incurred by the Minister in consequence of any provision of that Act whereby property, rights and liabilities of the board are transferred to him on its dissolution:

  4) any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister for the purposes of that Act

  5) any sum required by that Act to be paid by the Minister into the Exchequer in connection with the issue of shares in satisfaction of a loan made by the board;

  C. Borrowing for the purposes of the Act in any manner authorised by the National Loans Act 1939

  D. The payment into the Exchequer of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of the said Act of the present Session and the re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such of those sums as fall to be so re-issued by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. Benn.]

  9.59 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I hope that the House will forgive my raising one or two matters on the Resolution. I have sat through the Second Reading debate, which became as much a debate on the Geddes Report as it was a debate on the Bill itself. Perhaps the House has not given all the attention it should have given to the financial provisions of the Bill, which are largely contained in the Resolution. The House should remind itself of the very considerable sum to which we are being committed. I am not saying that all the money has to be found; indeed, it has not, but it is a considerable total, amounting to £237,650,000. That is the maximum authorised under the Resolution.
  The Treasury has considerable control all the way through. There are 10 different mentions of the Treasury in the Bill. Everything the Minister can do under the Bill is something financial. The Resolution gives him authority to do it. Yet even the most important power that the Minister has—that is, of giving directions to the Board—is subject to the Treasury. Therefore, the Treasury has a very big hold here. I am delighted that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has turned up.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, who has sat through the debate, in which I had hoped that he would have been
  1890
  called. However, he must stick to the Money Resolution.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Indeed, Sir, but I hope that I shall be allowed to welcome the one Treasury representative on the Front Bench, who, after all, is mainly concerned in this matter.
  One matter gives some cause for concern. Paragraph B(2) deals with the authority to permit by way of guarantee the expenditure of a sum not exceeding £200 million to guarantee any loans, which I understand will be charged at the rate of 5½ per cent. by the banks. Paragraph C says:
  "Borrowing for the purposes of the Act in any manner authorised by the National Loans Act 1939."
  I have been looking at that Act. I hope that the House realises that tinder that Act the Treasury would be entitled to issue stock at a far higher rate of interest than that at which the loan which the money was being raised to cover had to be serviced. Is that fully appreciated? This matter must depend to some extent upon whether any stock the Treasury issues to finance these loans up to £200 million will be specifically related to the shipbuilding industry under the Act, or whether it will form part of a general issue of stock. Is it to be a named stock like Electricity Stock, Gas Stock, and so forth; or will it be part of a general Treasury issue?
  Under the Resolution, read in conjunction with the 1939 Act, it will be possible for the Treasury to fix a higher rate of interest for the money it is using to cover the loans being made at the fixed rate of, I understand, 5½ per cent. on the money provided by the banks. We are at least entitled to know what is in the Treasury's mind in exercising the powers given to it under the Resolution, assuming that is passed by the House.
  It is extraordinary that, although the Resolution covers the sums paid by the Minister in the form of grants, in the Bill this is one of the few things where the Minister is given powers without having to seek the approval of the Treasury to exercise it. As I understand, the Resolution will cover the present financial year or this Session of Parliament, but what will matter in the future is what is in the Act itself. Here we have power given to the Minister to make grants up to £5 million.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point which the hon. Gentleman must raise when we come to the Bill itself.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I draw your attention to the fact that the Resolution covers only this Session of Parliament. Under the Resolution, the Minister will be provided with funds to pay grants up to £5,150,000. That is under paragraph B(1,a), but when it comes to relating the Resolution to the actual fine, the Bill insists that the Minister shall consult with the Treasury before he commits himself to any of the loans, whereas he does not have to consult the Treasury when paying these grants.
  There seems to me to be an extraordinary inconsistency. The liability mentioned in the Resolution is far greater in respect to the loans—the potential is far greater. In actuality, one would expect the biggest liability within the Exchequer would come under the heading of grants, yet the Minister does not have to ask the Treasury for permission before he gives the grant. I would be grateful if this matter could be cleared up.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter which the hon. Gentleman could raise when we come to the Bill itself.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am trying to understand exactly why there should be this inconsistency between the Resolution and the Act. I thought that before we passed the Resolution we should be clear that the Resolution is properly drawn. That is my point.
  I am extremely grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence. I have appreciated, right through the Second Reading stage, that ultimately the Bill is, above all, a financial Bill. We therefore ought to pay particular attention to this Resolution and I am grateful to the House for having heard me.
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The Resolution provides, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has stated, for a large charge on public money, a charge which has been written up as £232½ million. That is a very large charge. However, £200 million is to be provided, not by the Government but
  1892
  by the banks. Part of the £32 million can be used by companies to whom an advance is made to buy shares.
  The Parliamentary Secretary admitted to buying existing shares in shipbuilding companies as part of the reorganisation and amalgamation. In so far as this is used to take up existing shares, it goes out of the industry and does not assist it. I should like the Government to make clear what part of this £232 million they expect to be charged to the taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With all due respect, this is a matter which the hon. Gentleman must raise when we come to discuss the Bill. On the Money Resolution we can discuss the Resolution.
  Mr. McMaster: If I may restrict myself entirely to the Resolution, I should like to be told by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what part of the Resolution he expects to be charged to public funds, and what part of it will be retained and used by the industry for the purposes set out in the Bill.
  10.10 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): I shall endeavour to answer the questions which have been raised on the Money Resolution.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked a question about paragraph B (2), which enables the Minister to give the guarantees which are necessary under the £200 million credit scheme. We hope that no guarantees will have to be paid, but this paragraph will enable the Minister, if he has to meet a guarantee through a default, to pay it. If he has to meet such a default it will have to be met through a vote of the House. The House will have the right to vote on it.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the point about relative rates of interest. The point here is that the rate of interest in question under the credit scheme is a rate of interest charged by the banks when a guarantee is given to them by the Government, and therefore there is no necessary relationship between that rate of interest which is their commercial judgment of an appropriate rate of interest for money over a long period, say eight years, guaranteed by the Government, and any particular rate of interest

  1893
  at which the Government are themselves borrowing at any time.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked a question relating to the financing of the loans and the grants. The grants are to be financed out of voted money, so again the House will have the opportunity of taking a decision. The loans, which are repayable, will be financed out of the Consolidated Fund, and, therefore, Treasury permission will be required.
  With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), it is not possible to say what part of the £32½ million loan money will be used to acquire shares. This is something which we can discover only in practice as the Shipbuilding Industry Board pursues its work. All I can say is that any part which is used to acquire shares will then give rise to a vote of the House, because, the money having been borrowed
  1894
  from the Consolidated Loan Fund, it will have to be repaid to the Fund, and the only way in which the Minister will be able to pay it, having bought shares, will be by the House voting the money to enable him to do so.
  Question put and agreed to.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS SERVICES)
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins discharged from the Catering Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons Services); Mr. Frank Taylor added.—[Mr. Lawson.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Essex and Southend Police Forces (Amalgamation)
  Essex and Southend Police Forces (Amalgamation)
  Dorchester Prison (Expenditure)
  Dorchester Prison (Expenditure)
  Detention Centre, County of Holland
  Detention Centre, County of Holland
  Disqualified Drivers (Arrest)
  Disqualified Drivers (Arrest)
  Road Fund Licence Summonses (Welsh Language)
  Road Fund Licence Summonses (Welsh Language)
  Mr. George Raft
  Mr. George Raft
  Wakefield Prison (Unauthorised Articles)
  Wakefield Prison (Unauthorised Articles)
  Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill
  Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill
  Brigadier Mark Maunsell
  Brigadier Mark Maunsell
  Mr. L. A. Nowlin
  Mr. L. A. Nowlin
  Inflammable Dolls (Imports)
  Inflammable Dolls (Imports)
  Road Safety Bill (Breath Testing Devices)
  Road Safety Bill (Breath Testing Devices)
  Vehicle Removal Unit (Fire Brigades)
  Vehicle Removal Unit (Fire Brigades)
  Fire Service (Pay Claim)
  Fire Service (Pay Claim)
  Self-Service Petrol Stations
  Self-Service Petrol Stations
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  H.M. Prison, Oxford (Young Detainees)
  H.M. Prison, Oxford (Young Detainees)
  House of Commons (Police Traffic Duty)
  House of Commons (Police Traffic Duty)
  Nicholas Purcell
  Nicholas Purcell
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Colony Club
  Colony Club
  Inflammable Textiles (Research)
  Inflammable Textiles (Research)
  Holloway Prison (Teenage Detainee)
  Holloway Prison (Teenage Detainee)
  Aliens (Work Permits)
  Aliens (Work Permits)
  Shrewsbury Prison (Site)
  Shrewsbury Prison (Site)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Commonwealth Development Corporation (Cyprus Projects)
  Commonwealth Development Corporation (Cyprus Projects)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Secretary of State (Labour Party Meeting, Glasgow)
  Secretary of State (Labour Party Meeting, Glasgow)
  Mr. N. A. Morling
  Mr. N. A. Morling
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Business Consultants)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Business Consultants)
  National Union of Teachers (Deputation)
  National Union of Teachers (Deputation)
  Teachers (Salary Negotiations)
  Teachers (Salary Negotiations)
POST OFFICE
  Mail Boxes
  Mail Boxes
  New Sub-Post Office, Blubberhouses
  New Sub-Post Office, Blubberhouses
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  British Theatre Museum
  British Theatre Museum
  University Fees
  University Fees
  Christ's College, Liverpool (Pay Increases)
  Christ's College, Liverpool (Pay Increases)
  Secondary Schools, Brentwood
  Secondary Schools, Brentwood
  Orchestras (Performances)
  Orchestras (Performances)
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  Secondary Education (Consultation With Parents)
  Secondary Education (Consultation With Parents)
  School Milk (Cost)
  School Milk (Cost)
  British Museum (Storage Space)
  British Museum (Storage Space)
  Antarctica (Scientific Research)
  Antarctica (Scientific Research)
  Medical Research Council (Staff Superannuation)
  Medical Research Council (Staff Superannuation)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  ADEN
  ADEN
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Brickworks (Minister's Visits)
  Brickworks (Minister's Visits)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation (Yields)
  Taxation (Yields)
  Purchase Tax (Craftsmen)
  Purchase Tax (Craftsmen)
  Free Depreciation
  Free Depreciation
  Decimal Currency (Minting Costs)
  Decimal Currency (Minting Costs)
  H.M. Stationery Office (Northern Ireland Publications)
  H.M. Stationery Office (Northern Ireland Publications)
  Civil Service (Professional Engineers)
  Civil Service (Professional Engineers)
  Surtax
  Surtax
  LONDON TAXI SERVICE (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  LONDON TAXI SERVICE (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  RAILWAYS (FREIGHTLINER TERMINALS)
  RAILWAYS (FREIGHTLINER TERMINALS)
  AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (DONATIONS)
  AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (DONATIONS)
  CANINE DEFENCE LEAGUE
  CANINE DEFENCE LEAGUE
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Flooding (Trefriw and Conway Valley)
  Flooding (Trefriw and Conway Valley)
  Beer Prices (Mansfield Area)
  Beer Prices (Mansfield Area)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Fishery Protection Squadron
  Fishery Protection Squadron
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Laundry and Dry Cleaning Industry (Investment Grants)
  Laundry and Dry Cleaning Industry (Investment Grants)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  National Health Service (Superannuation Regulations)
  National Health Service (Superannuation Regulations)
HOUSING
  Council House Rents (Rugby)
  Council House Rents (Rugby)
  Land Commission (Acquisition of Land)
  Land Commission (Acquisition of Land)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rights of Way
  Rights of Way
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Retail Drapery Wages Council (Report)
  Retail Drapery Wages Council (Report)
TECHNOLOGY
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal at Sea)
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal at Sea)
ELECTRICITY
  Gas Turbine Plant
  Gas Turbine Plant
  Drax Power Station (Output Capacity)
  Drax Power Station (Output Capacity)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Coal Consumption)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Coal Consumption)
PORTS
  Investment Programme
  Investment Programme
TRANSPORT
  Municipal Passenger Transport Association (Area C)
  Municipal Passenger Transport Association (Area C)
  Unlicensed Motor Vehicles
  Unlicensed Motor Vehicles
RAILWAYS
  Delays (Scotland)
  Delays (Scotland)

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

TELEX MESSAGES AND THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
3.7 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: 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 to what extent the transmission of Telex messages is covered by Section 4 of the Official Secrets Act 1920.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, it could be contrary to long-established practice to give information about the interception of communications.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, as it is now public knowledge that cables are intercepted, may I ask if he can say whether or not Telex messages are intercepted?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am afraid that, as the noble Lord will gather from my first Answer, I have nothing to add.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, is it not the case that it is impossible to intercept Telex messages?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I have nothing to add on that comment, either.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that that is not being intercepted?

OVERSEAS STUDENTS' FEES
3.8 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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, in view of the decision of the Fulbright Commission to reduce the number of scholarships for British graduates at American universities, they will reconsider their intention to increase fees for overseas students in universities and other places of higher education; and whether they will make a statement.]
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I understand that the Fulbright Commission decided to spread the effect of increased fees for overseas students in the United Kingdom over certain categories of their awards, including travel grants to British students. As I informed noble Lords in reply to a supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on Tuesday of last week, the effect on the finances of the Commission would have been very much the same if fees had been increased generally. On the last part of the noble Lord's Question I have nothing to add to previous Government statements.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask whether it is not desirable that there should be an increase rather than a decrease in the two-way exchange of British students to America and American students to Britain? Is it not obvious that this decrease is a result of Government policy and is bound to have adverse effects? Is it not also a fact that this action by the Government is the exact opposite of what the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his Party political broadcast last night about Socialist education policy? Therefore is it not yet another example of the hypocritical and two-faced behaviour of the Government in saying one thing and doing something else?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not know what the Secretary of State for Scotland said last night, but I am sure it was very wise and that

1537
what I say is in no way in conflict with it. But I must suggest to the noble Lord that it is a pity that, so far as I can recall, he was not in the House for, and did not take part in, the lengthy debate on this subject which we had the other day, when I had the honour of replying for the Government to about 15 speeches. At the end of that day, and after another day in the House of Commons when the Secretary of State made a brilliant speech, I thought that most of these issues had been clarified. I am sorry that the noble Lord began using violent language. I would have ventured to retaliate, but I know that he is physically so much one's superior.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Earl quite sure that the Fulbright Commission would have reduced the number of scholarships if the fees had been put up at the same level for everyone and the increase had not been discriminatory?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, that is what is calculated. One cannot be absolutely sure, but I am advised that that is what would have been expected.

BRITAIN AND THE TREATY OF ROME
3.11 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will confirm that, before announcing their readiness to adhere to the Treaty of Rome, they were assured of the support of the trade unions in the implementation of Article 48.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, no decision has yet been taken whether to open negotiations for membership of the European Economic Community, and no assurance of the kind indicated has been sought. As regards the Treaty of Rome, the Government's position is, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister
1538
stated in another place on November 10, that the Government would be prepared to accept the Treaty of Rome subject to the necessary adjustments consequent upon the accession of a new member, and provided that we received satisfaction on the points about which we see difficulty.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that it is necessary for Her Majesty's Government to define their attitude to these fundamentally liberal provisions of the Treaty of Rome before seeking admission to the European Economic Community?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that the point made by the noble Lord must depend upon detailed negotiations when they start. Of course, we are all aware of the implications of Article 48, but we have not reached the point when detailed discussion would be of use.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that under the conditions of the Treaty of Paris the trade unions will oppose the mobility of labour, and the putting of French and Italians into British industry here?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as my noble friend is almost certainly aware, these questions have been discussed between members of the Government and British industry as a whole, and no objection to this aspect of our entry has in fact been raised. We are not deeply concerned by problems arising from Article 48.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that Article 48 deals exclusively with the subject of mobility of labour, and is he not aware that certain limitations are implied—are indeed imposed—on the mobility of labour? First, is the noble Lord aware that it does not apply to the public services? Secondly, is he aware that it applies only to cases where an offer of employment is actually made? Thirdly, would it not he foolish on the part of the trade unions, and on the part of the Government, to give unqualified assent to a clause in such ambiguous terms as to where an offer of employment is actually made, when that might mean

1539
that, at a time of strike or lock-out, it would be perfectly lawful for an employer in this country to import labour from abroad?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think we cannot build up our approach to Europe on the basis of a series of hypothetical crises. In fact, this, as a problem, has not concerned our colleagues in Europe, and I do not see why it should concern us particularly at this moment, when we are at a very early stage of negotiations.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the Government a question which the noble Lord's answer has prompted? This is a Treaty which has been signed by a large number of people, and into which a large number of countries have entered fully. In approaching the matter, how can we say that we want to modify this Treaty in our own regard? Surely it is a thing we have either to swallow or to reject. It is not like the curate's egg, parts of which may be appreciated.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think we are all in agreement with the noble Lord, but what we are asking is that we, as a new member, should be allowed a period of adjustment. On every point this is our attitude.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
3.15 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of their announced readiness to accept the Treaty of Rome, how soon we may expect steps to bring their policy into conformity with Article 67.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I indicated in answer to the noble Lord's previous Question, no decision has yet been taken whether to open negotiations for membership of the European Economic Community. As regards the Treaty of Rome, I cannot add to what I said in reply to the noble Lord's previous Question.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask him this further question? Is it not a fact that there would be no support for this country's admission to the European Economic Community from the citizens of members of the European Economic Community if they thought it would add to the risk of their being subjected to the sort of restrictions which are current in this country?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I think those of us who read the newspapers are well aware, this question of the movement of capital arising from portfolio investments is a problem, but it is a problem of the transitional period and will be dealt with as such.

THE EASTER AND WHITSUN RECESSES
3.17 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I made a business statement about the Easter Recess. Subject to the progress of business, it is hoped that the House will adjourn for the Easter Recess on Wednesday, March 22, and reassemble on Tuesday, April 4.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for that information. I wonder whether he can give the House any information about the Whitsun Recess. I understand that something was said a month ago in another place, but so far as I know nothing has been said in this House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not doubt that the noble Earl has seen the statement of the Lord President. If it will help your Lordships, I will repeat it. He said:
"I have…stated the Government's intention to relate the Whitsun Recess to the secular holiday on 29th May"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 9/2/67, col. 1830.]
He then went on to say that he understood that it would be for the convenience of Members:
"if the adjournment were to be beamed backwards, that is from the secular to the Whitsun Holiday weekend. In this case, it would be possible if, as has happened before, the adjournment lasts for two weeks, to make it stretch between the two events".

1541
He further went on to say:
"I am sure that the House will understand that the outcome of this must depend upon the progress of business, and that there must be some time before a final decision is reached".
My Lords, if I may add an additional translation, this means that Tuesday, May 30, is expected to be the end date of the Whitsun Recess, and that it will last for either ten days or two weeks and three days before that date, beamed backwards, depending on the progress of business in both Houses. Of course, it would not be usual to indicate so long in advance the length of the Whitsun Recess, but if it but this seems to me a quite is helpful I can at least clarify to the House the date of the end of the Whitsun Recess.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, extraordinary arrangement. It is one thing to make holiday plans when you know the date on which you are going away, and are able to adjust it as to when you come back. But that we know only the date on which we are to come back, and not when we can go away, seems to me to be the height of folly. Furthermore, having split the holiday from the Whitsuntide, presumably to spread the load of people travelling, why is it that the Government intend to encourage the whole of Parliament to return on the Bank Holiday itself, as will be necessary if Members are to be in their places the following day?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords I appreciate the moderation of the noble Earl's approach. I can only say that I have taken careful note of what he said
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, with regard to the "beaming backwards" of the Recess, can the noble Lord the Deputy Leader of the House say how far backwards the beams are likely to extend?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I thought I had explained that the beam could be as long as a fortnight, plus such additional days as would normally be added to a fortnight's Recess. The beam would go backwards a fortnight.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I return to this question of the date when we reassemble? I should like the noble Lord to consider with his colleagues whether it would not be better for the
1542
House to reassemble on the Wednesday, so that people may travel back the day after the bank holiday rather than on it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I did not make it quite clear. I agree that we are using an unfamiliar technical phrase. The Recess could be of either ten days, or two weeks and three days, depending on business. This, of course, is what the noble Lord was objecting to; namely, that it is more helpful to know when the holiday begins than when it ends. On the noble Earl's final point, again I have taken a note of what he said.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it now accepted as part of Socialist planning that everything should be put into reverse?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say that I am disappointed at the lack of ingenuity that has been shown in the replies, but we can occasionally rely on the Liberals to step in and add to the merriment.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, might I make one appeal to the noble Lord regarding the arrangements for Recesses? Many Members of this House have various engagements which they have to arrange in advance. It would be of great help if we could know a little earlier when we are going to be here and when not.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will take note of the noble Lord's point. I will also discuss this with my noble friend the Chief Whip later. Unfortunately, he is in Bermuda at the moment, not on holiday but on business.

FISHING VESSELS (ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT) (GRANTS) SCHEME 1967
3.22 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on February 15, 1967, be approved. This Scheme gives effect to the Government's promise in the White Paper on Investment Incentives of January 17,

1543
1966, that grants for fishing vessels would be adjusted to take account of the abolition of investment allowances. The adjustment is in three respects: first, the rates of grant are increased by 10 per cent., from 25 per cent. to 35 per cent., for deep-sea vessels of 80 feet or more in length, and from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. for inshore vessels of under 80 feet in length. Secondly, existing ceilings on the amount of grant payable in individual cases are abolished.
Thirdly, herring vessels are made eligible for improvement grants for the first time. These grants will no longer be restricted to a limited list of improvements; they will be available for all improvements approved as worth while. The new arrangements will be retrospective to January 17, 1966, when investment allowances were abolished, and the opportunity has been taken to combine the existing separate schemes for white fish vessels, herring vessels and improvements into a single scheme.
I should draw your Lordships' attention to three new features which have not appeared in previous schemes. The first is that the safety and seaworthiness of a vessel is specified as one of the objects for which improvement grants may be made. Secondly, provision is made for grants on the cash expenditure incurred by fishermen who build their own boats personally. Thirdly, provision is made for the payment of a reduced rate of grant of 20 per cent. in a case where a vessel is built in a foreign yard at a cost which does not compare fairly with the cost of building a comparable vessel in this country. In the past no grant has been given in such cases. The rate of 20 per cent. is the rate which would be payable in the case of a merchant ship built in similar circumstances. It takes account of the fact that no investment allowance will be payable and is a fair and reasonable compromise from the point of view of fishing vessel owners and British shipbuilders.
Finally, I should tell your Lordships that a further increase of 5 per cent. in grants will in due course be payable on expenditure incurred in 1967 and 1968, but separate legislation will be made before this can be implemented. This Scheme is simple, helpful and I think
1544
non-controversial. It provides a very fair measure of assistance for the investment we all agree is needed to secure the economic development of the industry and to enable the industry to make its full contribution to the national economy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1967 be approved.—(Lord Walston.)
3.28 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this Scheme. We are glad to know that it is being consolidated so that all the grants under various schemes applicable before are now going to come under one heading. We are also glad to see that the herring vessels are going to be able to get grants for the first time. The fishing industry does not have an easy time. The work is extremely arduous, returns are frequently in doubt and the commodity itself is perishable. Coupled with all that is the increasing rise of capital costs. So these grants which the Government are making, and proposing to continue, will help the fleet owners to keep their ships modern and up to date. I was glad to see two other points: one, that the upper limit of the grant is now going to be abolished so that the grant may be as much as the circumstances allow; the other, that owners can get a grant if they make their own ships. That seems to be entirely reasonable.
I thought from what the noble Lord said—there certainly was the impression—that the grant was going to be considerably increased: from 25 per cent. to 35 per cent. for the smaller vessels, and from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. for the larger ones. This would seem a substantial increase. But, of course, the capital allowances which were available before are now not going to be available. So I would assume that the net result to the trawler owner would probably be the same as, or only a little better than, it was previously. We welcome this Bill.
May I ask the noble Lord some questions because I think the answers will be helpful? Can the noble Lord say how many fishing vessels have taken advantage of these grants over the last year? How many grants have been given for new vessels and how many given for the

1545
modernisation of older ones? Of the grants that have been given, can the noble Lord give us any indication of the proportion that goes to the near-water vessel, the proportion to the middle-water vessel and the proportion to the distant-water vessel? I do not expect the actual figures, but if the noble Lord could give an indication of whether there has been an improvement generally throughout the whole fishing fleet or whether it has tended to be carried out in only one specific part of the fishing fleet this would be helpful.
Paragraph 10 of the Scheme allows a grant of only 20 per cent., which is less, for those ships which are purchased from abroad or those modernised by equipment purchased from abroad. Can the noble Lord give any indication of the proportion of ships and the proportion of modernisation which is done as a result of purchases from overseas? Is it large, and is it on the increase or the decrease? If the noble Lord can give some information on those points we should be grateful.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I welcome this scheme so far as it is a consolidation of existing schemes? May I point out to the House that this scheme is, nevertheless, still laid in pursuance of no fewer than four recent Acts of Parliament concerned with the fishing industry; namely, the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953; the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1957; the Sea Fish Industry Act 1959, and the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962. For the sake of those people who have to find their way about in this mass of recent legislation concerning sea-fishing, may we have not only a consolidation of Schemes, which we are about to have now, but also a consolidation of all these recent Statutes?
3.32 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, if I may, I will deal first with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I
1546
have much sympathy with the point he made, but I think he would agree that it would probably be desirable to defer any attempt to consolidate until we have the further legislation, to which I referred in my earlier remarks, to implement the extra 5 per cent. grant. I will certainly undertake to see that his proposals are considered. Not being a lawyer myself, I am very much in favour of anything which makes something simpler and easier to read or understand, and I think that might well be the case here.
I am grateful for the welcome given to this Scheme by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Regarding ships bought from abroad, the number is very small indeed. At the present time I know of only one, but it is conceivable that there may be a few others. It is certainly not a significant number. With regard to the total amount of money involved in the past under the existing Schemes, it varies between the lowest figure in 1962–63 of£406,000 to a maximum high in 1964–65 of£1,695,000. It is running at an approximate average of£1million a year. The division between inshore and distant water fishing again is somewhat variable, but with considerable weighting in favour of the distant water vessels, either conventional or the freezer type of trawler. Without wearying your Lordships with too many figures, in 1962–63 the distant water vessels received£100,000, the near and middle water vessels£142,000, and the inshore vessels£115,000; but that figure varies considerably from year to year. I do not wish to weary your Lordships, but if the noble Earl would like these figures I can give them to him at a later stage. Once again I should like to thank your Lordships for your support of this Scheme, which I am sure will be of benefit to the industry.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TEESSIDE ORDER 1967
3.35 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Teesside Order, the approval of which I am moving this afternoon, creates a single large County Borough of Teesside by amalgamating the County Borough of Middles rough, the boroughs of Redcar, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby-on-Tees, most of the urban districts of Billingham and Eston; part of the urban district of Guisborough, a small part of the urban district of Salt-burn and Marske-by-the-Sea, and parts of the rural districts of Stockton and Stokesley. What the Order does, therefore, is to wrap up the present very variegated situation consisting of one county borough, three non-county boroughs, three urban districts, two rural districts and a number of parish councils, into a large county borough under a single administration.
The proposal is one of those which came to the Minister from the Local Government Commission as a result of their North-Eastern general review. I will relate the familiar stages, which are the same in this case as in other recent Orders. They started their review in 1959; they consulted the local authorities concerned; they published their proposals in draft form early in 1962, and they then held a statutory conference, as they were bound to do, at which these proposals were discussed with local authorities in statutory form in late 1962; they published their final Report and Proposals in October, 1963, and in January, 1965, an inspector reported to the Minister on the results of the local inquiry which he had held into the objections. The Minister decided to accept the Commission's proposals and issued his decision to that effect in October, 1965.
My Lords, Teesside, as we all know, because we have just been approving a Bill to supply it with water, is an area of enormously rapid industrial growth. The population has increased by more than 50,000 in the last 15 years and so far as one can see that is by no means the end of the story. There is great potential for further growth. The Local Govern-
1548
ment Commission therefore came to the conclusion that this is substantially a single economic, physical and social entity, and that the present division of the area between 10 different local authorities and two county councils is no longer relevant to the nature and problems of that part of the world.
I should like to quote the two key passages of the Commission's Report. They state that it was:
"necessary to ensure that the pattern of local government was such as to make the planning of development and the organisation of services fully effective, and to make certain that new development, such as houses, main roads, bridges and shops would match the growth and location of industry instead of perpetuating the patterns of the past. We were impressed by the need on Teesside for more housing to relieve over-crowding, to replace outworn properties, and to meet the increase in population due to industrial expansion. Yet unless Teeside could be planned as a whole, it seemed to us impossible to ensure that new houses would be built in places most convenient for the people who would live in them, as it was difficult for the present ten separate housing authorities, each with their own housing list to do other than build within or near their own boundaries."
The Commission also said:
"With the southern moorland, the coast and the river, Teesside has a splendid setting and it ought to be made worthy of its 400.000 inhabitants. This task requires a comprehensive plan for the whole area designed to secure the benefit of its port, its industries and its commerce, the reclamation of its marshlands, the building of new roads and bridges, the renewal of obsolete parts of the old riverside development, the designing of new centres and the provision of new amenities."
For these reasons they recommended a large county borough in the proposal which is now before your Lordships. It was I think only natural, therefore, that this proposal should have the full support of the County Borough of Middles rough and of the boroughs of Stockton and Redcar. These authorities between them represent about 70 per cent. of the population of the area. In order to achieve a single administration, they are content to forgo their historic identities.
Like all such Orders, this one will reduce the counties of Durham and the North Riding. Both will lose urban areas of some importance. Durham will lose the urban districts of Stockton and Billingham, which between them have a population of 118,000. The North Riding will lose the urban districts of

1549
Redcar, Thornaby and Eston and the industrial development in the northern part of Guisborough Urban District together with the northern strip of Stokesley Rural District. The loss of population will bring the North Riding down from about 428,000 to 316,000. These are both sensible reductions of population, but the Local Government Commission, the inspector and the Minister were convinced that the effects on the two counties would not outweigh the advantages which a new county borough would bring to Teesside.
A word about the familiar vexed question of the relation of this change to the Royal Commission on Local Government. If your Lordships will cast your minds back to November, 1963, you will recall the publication of the Hailsham Report on regional development and growth in the North-East. This Report picked out Teesside as one of the areas fitted to support rapid economic growth and said that there should be discussions with the local authorities about the exceptional step of a planning survey of the area, to be undertaken with Exchequer assistance. This was done and early in 1964 the authorities agreed on how it should be carried out. In 1965 the Teesside Survey and Plan began to be worked out. It was commissioned by the local authorities acting jointly, with the Ministers of Transport and of Housing and Local Government contributing about half the cost. This work is still going forward. It is being done by consultants and consists of a comprehensive land use and transport survey, which will give rise to an overall plan for the area. The final report and recommendations of the consultants are expected to be in hand early next year.
The point of this is the timing compared with the Royal Commission Report. We are going to get this unusual consultants' report on overall planning well before the Royal Commission can report, let alone before the date on which their recommendations can be put into effect. It was for this reason, among others, that the Government thought it right to go ahead with this amalgamation, so that the new large county borough should be all set to take over and carry out the recommendations of the consultants, if they are acceptable, as we hope they will be, and they were unwilling to put all this in cold storage until the Royal Commission on Local Government could report. I will
1550
not go further into detail at this stage, but if any noble Lords want further details of the background, I will be happy to give them later. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Teesside Order 1967 be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm, having regard to what was said on the setting up of the Royal Commission, that it is going to take all this length of time to report? We were told in another place that this was being dealt with as a matter of urgency and that it would be treated dynamically. Now it appears from what my noble friend says that it will take a long time and that we must proceed with a lot of these Orders in the meantime.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Report of the Royal Commission is still expected, as we have always hoped, late next year—that is, towards the autumn of 1968. How long it will take to consider the recommendations, adopt or amend them and put them into effect, is anybody's guess. Different numbers of years have been hazarded, and I should not like to hazard any new figure.
3.45 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I start by saying two things? First, I have no intention of asking the House to divide against this Order, because, for reasons which have been carefully explained already, many of us do not think it suitable for your Lordships' House to throw out a Government Order of this kind, although of course we have the power to do so. I will not go into the arguments again. Secondly, although some noble Lords do not agree with me, I agree with the Government about the need in the comparatively near future to set up a large new local authority in this area. However, I would ask the Government not to try to force this Order through this afternoon.
This Order, as the noble Lord has said, is based on the recommendations of the Local Government Commission. These recommendations have been adopted with no alterations of any consequence. It seems strange that the Government are relying on this Report to such an extent, because they are coming to the House next Monday to ask us to do away with the Local Government Commission and

1551
set up a Royal Commission to deal with the same sort of problem. It seems an odd situation. It seems to me inconceivable that the recommendations of the Royal Commisison will be the same as the recommendations of the Local Government Commission. First of all, there has been a lapse in time of several years and circumstances locally have altered; secondly, there are different terms of reference for the two Commissions and, thirdly, already different evidence has been submitted to the Royal Commission from that submitted to the Local Government Commission.
What does this Order do? I will not go into the question of rate able values, because they are liable to extreme fluctuations over a comparatively short space of time. The important thing here is the question of population. The noble Lord has given figures. May I repeat them in round figures, which are easier to remember? The Order will set up a new local authority of approximately 400,000 people—that is, of about the same size as the City of Bristol. At the same time, it will reduce the population of the North Riding of Yorkshire from about 400,000 to about 300,000.
The evidence which has been given before the Royal Commission, which is now dealing with this question, has been variable. Different bodies have put forward different solutions to the problem. May I quote two of them, which show the lines on which this evidence is running. First of all, in the evidence they have submitted the Department of Education and Science have said that in a mixed urban and rural area like the North Riding there should be a minimum population of 500,000. This Order proposes to reduce it to 300,000. They said further that from their point of view there should be no top limit to the population in an urban concentration, but the minimum must be at least 500,000. Teesside is going to be only 400,000.
The County Councils Association said that all first-tier authorities—and these two are first-tier authorities—should have a minimum population of 500,000. There they agree with the Department of Education and Science. They said that in an area of high density of population, such as Teesside, a figure of 1 million
1552
upwards is probably the most suitable. And so goes other evidence. Neither Teesside nor the North Riding are in line with these recommendations. Under this Order, they will be smaller. One of the reasons is that the terms of reference of the Local Government Commission are different from the terms of reference of the Royal Commission. I will not say that it is impossible, but it is most unlikely that the eventual recommendations of the Royal Commission will be in line with what is proposed in this Order. As the noble Lord has said, this Order becomes operative in 1968. Of course, there will be consultants who will report on parts of it; but apparently it will come into force before they have reported. The Royal Commission have already received virtually all, if not quite all, the written evidence to be submitted to them, and it is expected that they also will report in 1968. So if this Order is passed now, there is a likelihood, if the Royal Commission do not agree with the Order, that there will be two major upheavals in the space of two, three or four years. This really seems nonsense.
With all the respect that I can muster, I must say that all over the country the Government are making a most untidy mess of local government. If the Government are going to try to force through this Order to-day, I think we are entitled to ask two questions, and to have answers to them. The first is: Why now? Why is it impossible to wait a comparatively short time for the Report of the Royal Commission? If the Report of the Royal Commission agrees with this Order, there will be a delay of two or three years, which in the matter of local government is not a very long period. If they disagree, and the Order goes through, then there will be two major upheavals in a short space of time.
The second question that I would ask—and I ask it for my own information—is: Why is it that this Government, whenever they want to do something, always seem to find the most inefficient way of doing it? because this is an inefficient way of running local government. I beg the Government to delay. It will not be for long. This particular set-up is nonsense. I know that Her Majesty's Government believe, quite erroneously, that they are always right. But may I again quote to them the words of Oliver Cromwell,

1553
which were misquoted by Mr. Silverman earlier in the week:
"I beseech you…think it possible you may be mistaken."
3.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I must first of all declare an interest, because my home, like that of my noble friend Lord Derwent, is in the North Riding of Yorkshire. But if I have a particular interest, I may also perhaps claim to have some special knowledge. I shall be sorry if the Government insist on forcing through this Order at the present time, though most reluctantly, I concur with the advice that my noble friend has tendered, that we ought not to divide upon it. I shall be sorry for that; and I think that, in the long run, the Government will probably be at least as sorry. I regret that we should be unable to divide, because the arguments against implementing this Order now are extraordinarily strong.
As my noble friend has said, a strong Royal Commission are now sitting and have gone a long way with their work. They are charged with the specific duty of recommending what the authorities in local government should be, and (I ask your Lordships to note this especially) their boundaries. Both these issues are being prejudged by the present Order. If the Royal Commission recommend different authorities and different boundaries—as I think is most likely, on all the evidence which has so far been tendered to them, and which has no Party bias aboutit—then, if this Order is put into force, some time at the end of 1968 the whole of the omelette will have to be unscrambled.
There will have been a waste of time and of energy; and, perhaps even more important, there will undoubtedly have been a waste of money: because the first thing that happens when a new local authority is set up is not just that there is an increase in staff; there are also buildings, and so on, required. Just think of the expense that will be incurred. And this waste of money will take place in an area where at the present time I think we all agree—certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer does—it is vitally important that economy should be used; namely, in the public sector. Why not
1554
wait for the Report of the Royal Commission?
I was greatly interested in the point made by the noble Lord opposite, but I should like to reinforce what was said by my noble friend Lord Derwent. I do not think we shall have to wait very long for the full Report of the Royal Commission. But there is no earthly reason why the Royal Commission should not be asked, when they have come to their general conclusions and before they have written their full Report, which of the interim Orders that would have been held up for the moment—assuming that they were held up—satisfied their requirements and which did not. If on this Teesside proposition the Royal Commission, in answer to that inquiry say: "Yes; this is a good idea: go ahead", then the Government can go ahead straight away. If, on the other hand, the Royal Commission say: "No; this is not a good plan. It is not consistent with our recommendations. We are going to recommend something quite different in the matter of the size of areas and in boundaries" then nobody on any side is going to contend that the Order ought to go through. But if the Order has gone through, and the Royal Commission so report, the Government will have to undo all the work which they are now insisting on doing.
May I add this comment? There is a special additional reason, which applies only in the case of the North Riding, why it would be undesirable—indeed, quite wrong—to take a decision to-day. We know under this Order what is to be taken away from the North Riding; but what we do not know is what, if anything, is to be added to it. There is a great argument as to whether Ripon and Harrogate, or one or the other, should be added to the North Riding. That is a very natural and normal proposal, convenient in every way. They are both places much more closely related to the North Riding and to Northallerton than they are to Wakefield. In fact, I should have thought that the argument that both Ripon and Harrogate ought to go into the North Riding was quite unanswerable. But we do not know what the proposal about this matter is going to be, and I suggest to your Lordships that, until we know where we stand about that, it is impossible to take any right decision as

1555
to what the boundaries of the North Riding should be.
The Government are really quite extraordinarily and unnecessarily dictatorial in these matters. I do not mind them dictating to us on what are mere issues of Party policy, if they think they are right, Heaven knows! I think they are not as a rule, but on this kind of issue, which has nothing to do with Party politics, why must they be so dictatorial and lam it into us in this way? If they persist in flouting the Royal Commission they will be incurring unnecessary expenditure when economy should be the order of the day. It is quite unnecessary to take this arbitrary decision and, although I do not know whether this will have any effect upon the Government, I am sure an overriding decision of this kind is not going to be lost sight of by voters in the municipal and local elections.
I have one other question I should like to ask, to which I think we are entitled to have an answer. I see there is a Motion down for Monday next, from the other side of the House, by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, for a Humble Adress praying that the Sheffield Order 1967, laid before the House on February 8, be annulled. As I understand it, that it is an Order which is to compel a district of Derbyshire, which does not want to be absorbed, to go into Sheffield. We are entitled to ask what line the Government are going to take over that. Are they going to say that Sheffield shall not have it, or are they going to say there shall be a free vote? Why on earth cannot the Government withdraw this Order and have another free vote? The noble Lord is always courteous to the House and he said he would give us all the information we require when he replies. I think your Lordships will agree that one piece of information we certainly ought to have is what course the Government intend to take in regard to the Motion next Monday.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask one question about this Order. Can the noble Lord give us any idea of the proportion of local residents who are in favour of it? I quite realise that Her Majesty's Government are not particularly interested in that, since only about a fortnight ago we passed the
1556
Plymouth Order when it was quite clear that 90 per cent. of the local residents were strongly against it, but none the less it would be interesting to know.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I do not intend to make a speech, but in case silence may be taken as acquiescence I should like to make it clear that I strongly disapprove of this Order.
4.5 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I feel that in the course of this series of Local Government Orders which I have been presenting to the House recently I may not have gone as fully as I should have done into the general background of the Orders, because it is clear to me that there are many misconceptions still abroad. Therefore, I hope the House will bear with me if I go into this at a little greater length. Until to-day I had thought of holding this back until next Monday, when we have an Order coming forward which is more contentious than this one, but I see now that it will be better to do this to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, spoke about two pieces of evidence which had been presented to the Royal Commission and which, taken in isolation, I agree with him would give the impression that the proposed change might be out of harmony with what might come out of the Royal Commission. But I must remind the House that these are only two pieces of evidence out of a large number of submissions which have been made to the Royal Commission, which by no means agree with each other. A great quantity of conflicting evidence has gone into the Royal Commission and, of course, the evidence is not of such great importance; what is important is what is said by the Royal Commission itself. Of this we have at the moment no idea, and it would be quite wrong for the Government to temper their course in these Orders so as to agree with any possible recommendation which might come from the Royal Commission, rather than any other recommendation. We just have to wait until we get the Royal Commission's recommendations.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, asked why we had to do this now. The answer is because we need the new county borough ready in 1968 to put into effect the results of this special survey which is

1557
being carried out, which I would remind noble Lords opposite stems from the energetic intervention of the then Lord Hailsham a few years ago, which I mentioned earlier. So far as my noble friends on this side of the House were concerned, this was considered to be a good thing. We were not very sure at the time, but it has turned out very well. Lord Hailsham went to the North-East because there was an economic crisis, and he came to the wise and far-seeing conclusion that there should be a special survey, the results of which in fact will be ready next year; and we think we should be letting down the people of Teesside rather badly if we did not have the appropriate form of local government ready to put into operation. I think the ghost of Lord Hailsham should be hanging over this Chamber this afternoon. To oppose the Order at the moment would seem to be cutting away a good deal of the ground from under his excellent feet.
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, asked why we did not ask the Royal Commission whether this Order—and I imagine he would say, whether all these Orders—will satisfy its requirements. The answer why we do not do that is because the Royal Commission does not know what its requirements will be.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I am afraid he has misunderstoood. What I said was that the Government should ask the Royal Commission, as soon as it knows and before it makes its final report, what its recommendations are going to be; and, when they have made up their mind on the size of the authority, whether the Orders which have been held back for the moment do or do not conform. If they do, let them go straight ahead; if they do not, even the noble Lord would not agree.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not really see any need to ask the Royal Commission about it. As soon as the Royal Commission says what size it thinks would be right, we shall be able to see for ourselves.
If I may ask the House to stand back a little and look at this matter, I think it has been clear to all Ministers of Housing and Local Government for a good many years—possibly even decades—that the present structure of local government
1558
dating back to the '70s and '80s of the last century was coming towards the end of its natural life. The demography of the country was changing so fast, people were going in such large numbers to live in cities, transport was improving, and all this made it clear that the day of "dickering" with the present system was rapidly coming to an end and we should be compelled to have a complete, radical overhaul. It so happened that it was the last Minister who faced up to this situation and said, "Right, we will now appoint a Royal Commission to look at everything from the bottom up". The moment he did that he was faced with a problem: what do we do about the existing machinery of adjustment in the local government structure? I would remind the House that this is really quite a complicated matter.
The existing local government order, the old local government order, had three ways of adjusting itself. There was a Local Government Commission, which we are going to wind up, which carried out, first, general reviews and, secondly, special area reviews. In the general reviews the Commission looked at the boundaries and nature of top tier authorities, counties and county boroughs. In the special area reviews it looked at the boundaries and nature of both top tier and second tier authorities. There was a third means of adjustment, the county review, where the counties themselves examined their own second tier authorities. So you had the centre looking at the top tier, you had the centre looking at the top and second tier together, and the top tier looking at the second tier.
All these three machines were producing recommendations of changes under the 1958 Act fairly regularly. There were a good many in the pipeline when the Minister decided to set up a Royal Commission. Clearly, it was a problem of turning the tap off, and the question was: "When do you turn it off? Do you turn it off there and then, and waste the seven or eight years of work which had gone into those proposals which were awaiting decision, or do you examine the pile of proposals on your desk and take those which seem to you most urgently in need of implementation and implement them, although we all know that in a certain number of years the Royal Commission will come up with completely new answers? The Minister

1559
chose the latter course, and I cannot see anything illogical or indefensible in having done so. He did not accept every recommendation which came from the former adjustment machinery. In no less than seven cases he refrained from taking action on Local Government Commission recommendations, because the Royal Commission was coming up, and he said: "No, these are not urgent; in these cases it will be expedient to hold our hand until we see what comes out of the Royal Commission on Local Government." The Orders coming before the House now are the other cases in which he said: "No, this is so urgent that we will go ahead with it in spite of the Royal Commission." Each has to be judged on its merits.
I should like to turn for a moment to what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said about local opinion. It all hinges on local opinion, and it is for this reason that we have the immensely complicated machinery of the old adjustment machine; You have a look at the situation, draft your proposal, and consult with the local authorities. You make a firm proposal, and you send it to an inspector to hear the objections from the local people. The Minister considers all objections, takes his decision, and the decision goes to the House of Commons where representatives of local people can once again come forward and speak in favour or against the decision. What more one can possibly do than that to make sure that local opinion is fully tested and weighed at every stage, I do not know.
In conclusion, I should like to take up the image that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, gave us: the whole omelette, he said, may have to be unscrambled in a few years. So it may, but the Government believe that it is well worth the effort to keep the omelette up to date in the meantime before any major unscramble.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I put one point to the noble Lord? He mentioned a number of authorities where the Government decision was not to proceed. Does this apply to Tyneside? Is that one of the seven?
LORD KENNET: No, my Lords, Tyneside is in a different position from all
1560
the others. Nothing will be done that will not have to be confirmed in this House. It is an atypical case. The Local Government Commission made a certain recommendation. The Minister neither adopted nor rejected it, but made a new proposal of his own, and that proposal is at present still lying there and at the moment no steps are being taken to implement it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL [H.L.]
4.17 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
Qn Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD GRENFELL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to impose conditions on grant or renewal of licence for refreshment house]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I did not warm to this clause when this Bill was first introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and I am afraid that on a closer look the cooling process has continued. I find this clause very discriminatory in various ways. The clause deals with one particular kind of nuisance, the occasional noise and disturbance that residents living near a cafésuffer from late at night. Let us be quite clear about this. We are not here speaking of the café which is a dope depot or a gambling den; we are speaking of cafés which serve light refreshments to young people who congregate there perhaps after the cinema or theatre.
I will grant that loud human voices, reinforced by the revving-up of motorcycle engines are disturbing late at night. But why pick on this particular clash of noises? People who live in the overpopulated large towns and cities are subjected to every kind of noise, by day and by night. Up till now noise has been the concomitant of industrial progress.

1561
I am sure that many noble Lords must have noticed the houses along the railway line when approaching Paddington or King's Cross stations. I have often wondered how the people who live in them endure the continuous noise from the trains. There are thousands of people who live literally on the banks of the main railway lines, the major highways or on the edge of an airport.
Should we then not begin to legislate against the continuous noise from which these people suffer? Are we out simply to preserve small pockets of amenities in the more fortunate neighborhoods, as in this clause? In that case, we are fighting a losing battle. Democracy is fast catching up on us, on the remaining oases of quiet. Hampstead, one of the districts whose amenities the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has in mind, I believe, is as full of trippers at weekends as any South coast seaside resort. Amenities these days are spread wider and thinner; and I say firmly: why should that not be so? If the object of this clause is as stated:
"…in order to avoid disturbance to residents of the neighbourhood and to preserve reasonable enjoyment of the amenities of the neighbourhood…"
and if this object is achieved, late-night cafés will be relegated to districts which presumably have no amenities to be enjoyed. Is this really what we want for our young people?
I maintain that this is not a good way to tackle this problem. Local authorities should have proper discretion in the first place for their licensing. What will happen, if a threat of withdrawing the licence, without even a warning, is held over the head of a cafe proprietor, is that cafés will be turned into clubs, and then there will be much less control of any kind over them. Moreover, local authorities already have too many niggling powers, and I, for one, have no urge to increase them.
Much play has been made of workers who have to start early and so need to go to bed early. In my experience, it is not always the people who retire early who are the hardest workers in this world; nor do I feel that there is anything immoral about staying up late. When there are so many problems with our young people to-day, when we have to re-think so many of our past attitudes towards our children, I cannot believe that this clause tackles them
1562
seriously. After all, we in this Chamber are not like a lot of retired nannies and governesses, legislating to tuck up our teenagers at night. This is no solution whatever.
Finally if it is indeed true that there is widespread disturbance and noise from late-night cafés all over the country, then it is time for the law and the police to take vigorous action, and not for local authorities to fiddle with licences. If, however, these outbreaks are sporadic among our young people, then this clause is something of a sledgehammer to deal with what is, after all, a social nuisance and irritation, and not a social evil. I think we should leave our heavy ammunition for those social evils that we have to cope with.
4.23 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, would go and repeat that speech in the neighbourhoods where some of these late-night café-bars are operating and causing such intense annoyance to the neighbours. She spoke of "occasional noise and disturbance". If it were "occasional noise and disturbance", as on Burns Night (which I think was an instance quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, on Second Reading), well and good. It is because this is happening night after night throughout the year, and particularly on Fridays and Saturdays, that sleep becomes impossible. And I submit to your Lordships that this is a matter to which we in Parliament should give some consideration.
The noble Baroness said that we should give proper discretion to the local authorities, and she thought that they might use unreasonably the threat of withdrawal of a licence. My Bill does not provide for the withdrawal of a licence. I particularly made sure that it did not. All that my Bill does is to empower a local authority, if it receives complaints that one of these places is excessively noisy, to fix a closing hour, which must not be before 11 p.m.; and if the owner or manager of the café-bar objects, then he can lodge an appeal with the local magistrates, who I submit are the best people to reach a final decision on the matter.
Perhaps I can best answer the noble Baroness if I may have your Lordships' permission to read a letter that I have received from what is certainly not, in

1563
my opinion, one of the more "fortunate areas"—I am quoting the noble Lady's words, because she seemed to imply that the only complaints came from people who were living quite comfortably and did not like people making any sort of noise around them. This letter is from an eastern part of London, and it says:
"Congratulations on your caféBill. May it become law! What is good for main business roads is bad for areas like this. Cafés offering very little refreshment attract the lay bouts and loose girls for miles round; unlicensed cars block the roadway for residents, and it is from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. that engines rev. and shouting and abuse take place. Your critics would soon change their minds if they spent a night here."
I have received a number of letters since the Second Reading of the Bill, all of them to that general effect, and not one of them has included a criticism of my Bill.
I stress that this is a matter in which, as the noble Baroness said, the local authorities should have a proper discretion. She intimated that perhaps responsibility should be taken away from local authorities and left to the police. The complaint of the police in dealing with these matters is that there are no statutory powers which they can invoke. All they can do is to frequent the places in the late hours of the night. As a result of their presence the noise is probably quelled for a time, but the moment they leave it springs up again. Meanwhile, of course, it becomes well known to people who have more criminal intent that on Friday and Saturday nights the police are likely to have to congregate around these places, and that leaves a free rein to the burglars elsewhere. I am sure your Lordships are aware that the police in London and big cities are grossly under strength. One of my purposes is to try to relieve the police of duties which take up their time but which are not really connected with the suppression of crime.
I am sorry to have to sneak like this to the noble Baroness, but from all the evidence that I have received I am quite convinced that some new power is necessary here. If any noble Lord, or any Member of another place, can think of a better way of achieving this end, then, as I made quite clear in my Second Reading speech, I shall be only too glad to consider Amendments. But I have had discussions in certain quarters, and
1564
this appears to me to be the best way in which we can try to check this late-night nuisance. I note that there have been no Amendments tabled on this Committee stage of the Bill, except two by my noble friend Lord Ilford, which do not in any way strike at the main purpose of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will be persuaded by me to agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
4.29 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
Delegation of county council's functions
".—(1) A county council shall, if so requested by the council of any county district situate within the county and having a population of sixty thousand or more, delegate to that council their functions under this Act and the Refreshment Houses Acts 1860 and 1964.
(2) Where such functions are delegated to the council of a county district council under this section that council, in the discharge of those functions, shall act as agents for the county council".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. With the leave of the Committee, I think this Amendment can conveniently be discussed with Amendment No. 2, which also stands in my name. The purpose of the first Amendment is to insert a new clause which will make it possible for the larger county districts to claim responsibility for the administration of this service. As your Lordships know, this is not an uncommon arrangement in local government. There are many cases where the large county districts are given power to claim from the county council responsibility for administering a particular service. The figure which is usually taken is a population of not less than 60,000. Accordingly, I have taken that figure in my Amendment which proposes that a county district having a population of 60,000 or more shall be entitled to claim delegation of the functions to be exercised under this Act.
There are substantial advantages to the public in this arrangement. In the first place, it makes the administration of the service more local and, because it is more local, it is more readily accessible to the public than is the case when the administration is carried out by a more distant

1565
authority. There are a number of large towns which are county districts with populations exceeding 60,000, in some cases very considerably exceeding that figure, which will not be responsible for administering this service unless this Amendment is adopted. The City of Cambridge is one such town. I think that the citizens of Cambridge would be rather surprised if they were to go to the Town Hall to discuss with the officials whom they expect to be responsible for administering the service to find that the Cambridge Corporation is not the authority for this service at all, and to be sent to offices of a very much smaller authority, to the Cambridge County Council.
There are a number of examples of this sort. Worthing is another case in which the residents would be rather surprised if they heard that their local council is not the authority for carrying out a service of this nature. There are in fact about 25 towns which fall into this class, having a population exceeding 60,000, and who will be entitled to claim the administration of this service. In addition to these non-county boroughs there are 11 urban districts whose population exceeds 60,000. Again, I should think that as regards all those authorities it will come as a surprise to their residents who may be interested in this matter if, when they go to their town hall or council office, they are told that the local council is not the authority responsible for this very simple matter.
A service of this sort is a service which is very readily administered by the smaller authorities. It is in fact just the sort of service which they can undertake. They have the necessary staff, and they have the accommodation. I have very little doubt that the majority of authorities who would claim this service will be able to administer it with their existing staffs or with very small additions. That is not necessarily so with the larger authorities, and I think that here is an example of the sort of service which ought to be administered locally by the local council, and which can conveniently be administered in that way. I hope that my noble friend will look at this matter in the light in which I have been endeavouring to present it. This Bill will provide a useful new service—I am afraid I am a long way from agreeing with the noble Baroness's views.
1566
It is essentially a service which ought to be administered locally.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ilford.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I have listened with a great deal of sympathy to what my noble friend Lord Ilford has said, and I am attracted by many of his arguments. Nevertheless, I hope that the Committee will not decide to add this new clause to the Bill. I will explain why. The new clause, of course, does not merely alter this Bill: it goes right back and alters the Refreshment Houses Acts of 1860 and 1964, and it alters them in a way which is bound to attract controversy. I would suggest to my noble friend that if he wishes to pursue this matter further he should initiate (and I should be glad to lend my good offices to this end) discussions with the County Councils Association and other bodies which may be interested. If he would do that, perhaps an agreed solution could be found.
To the best of my knowledge, these Amendments appeared on the Order Paper in your Lordships' House for the first time yesterday, so that few people outside could have had any time to give consideration to them. I submit that it would be wrong in principle for the Committee to subtract a power from the county councils—because in certain instances it would amount to subtraction—without the county councils generally having had any opportunity to consider the matter. This Bill has still to go through another place, so there is plenty of time.
My noble friend has just said that he is a supporter of the Bill, as I understand are the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. But if at this stage of the Session we send the Bill to another place with a point of unresolved controversy in it, nothing is more certain than that it will not get a Second Reading. Therefore I express the hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw the Amendment at this stage. If, as I say, I can lend my good offices before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, as I hope it will, to examine further whether in a place like Worthing, for example, it would be better for the decisions to be

1567
taken in Worthing than in Chichester, or wherever the headquarters of the County Council are situated, well and good. But, in my view, not only would it be wrong in principle to alter the Bill in this manner and to alter the 1860 and 1964 Acts at such short notice, it would also imperil the chance of the Bill reaching the Statute Book.
LORD PARGITER: I have listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, said in moving his Amendment, and also to what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said in reply. I should like to confirm that so far as this is concerned there has been no consultation whatever as to the desirability of extending the power to authorities beyond those proposed in the Bill. The Bill was considered by the County Councils Association, and in general terms it was approved, and was thought to be a useful addition to the powers of local authorities to control something which is an undoubted nuisance. They accepted the Bill in that spirit. There may be arguments in favour of extending the powers to other authorities, but certainly we should have the strongest objection to this being done without consultation. We should strongly oppose such a step, not only in this House but also in another place, to the best of our ability. I am speaking from the Association's point of view. Quite fortuitously, there happened yesterday morning to be a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the Association and we were able to take a quick look at this matter. Without prejudice to the possibility of what might come about as a result of negotiation, we should certainly strongly oppose any alteration of the Bill at this stage.
There are certain factors to be considered. When one comes down to administering something which is of fairly general application over small areas, there is the possibility that two adjoining local authorities may exercise these powers in different ways. In that event, all you do is to drive a nuisance from one area where the local authority decide to close the place to another area where the authority decide to leave it open—which might be in the next street or a couple of streets away. There will therefore be a confusion about what may happen if there is any change in the Bill as at present
1568
drafted. There are strong arguments in favour of local application, and I am not opposing local application as such but on many occasions it creates anomalies which are difficult to iron out. However, my Association is always glad at any time to enter into consultations.
I should also like to refer to the fact that the Amendment is not limited only to this question of a closing hour for refreshment houses: it brings in also the whole question of their control. I do not know what is involved in that, and certainly I am not prepared to see a change in the law unless I know what the Amendment is inclined to do. For the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, will accede to the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and withdraw the Amendment, without prejudice to consultations which might take place to consider whether or not it is desirable that it should go forward at a later stage.
LORD BOWLES: May I at this stage intervene, and perhaps make the Government's position clear, in case the consultations which have been referred to fall through and are abortive? The position seems to us to be that since 1949, under Section 15(1)(d) of the Finance Act of that year, the duty-levying and licensing authorities under the Refreshment Houses Act 1860 have been county boroughs and county councils. The purpose of the new clause appears to be to give the larger county district councils a greater say in the control of refreshment houses, if they wish to have the county councils' functions delegated to them. The normal provisions for delegation by county councils, Section 274 of the Local Government Act 1933, worked the other way round: the county council does the delegating, the district council concurs.
Notwithstanding the Government's neutral attitude to the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I must say that this new clause is open to certain objections on the part of the Government. First, this is a Private Member's Bill which deals with a relatively minor nuisance. It is not an appropriate medium, we think, for introducing a radical change in the allocation of functions to local authorities. It would apply not only in the special cases aimed at by the Bill, but also, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said, in

1569
respect of applications for refreshment house licences. Secondly, the result might well be an uneven pattern of responsibility, as my noble friend Lord Pargiter pointed out, with one county district requesting delegation and its neighbour not. This could give rise to uncertainty and confusion.
Thirdly, and finally, I would again mention the fact that, as every noble Lord in this House must now be well aware, a Royal Commission is sitting at the present time. This fact calls for a specially strict scrutiny of any changes in the distribution of functions to local authorities—although it is true that this is a minor function. It will be some time before any recommendations by the Royal Commission can be given effect to, but, even so, the Government regard the proposed change as inopportune at this stage in the consideration of local government, unless there are very strong reasons based on the merits of the case. In the Government's view, no such reasons have yet been put forward. The Royal Commission will doubtless have things to say about delegation as a principle, and about the 60,000 population as an appropriate line of demarcation for functions. Meanwhile, the Government would not wish to see either of these concepts given additional support now.
LORD ILFORD: It is true that these Amendments were put down at a rather late stage, and I have no objection whatever to my noble friend's consulting with the County Councils Association before he comes to a final decision. I hope that he will not listen too long or to attentively to what he may hear from that quarter. But I do not wish to press this Amendment to-night and, with my noble friend's assurance, I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, without amendment; Report received.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
4.46 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 3:
General duty of the Corporation
3.—(1) It shall be incumbent on the Corporation—
(b) to secure that neither the Corporation nor a publicly-owned company shall show undue preference to, or exercise unfair discrimination against, any such persons or any class thereof in the supply and price of such products, but without prejudice to such variations in the terms and conditions on which such products are supplied as may arise from ordinary commercial considerations or from the public interest;
LORD ERROLL OF HALE LORD ERROLL OF HALE moved, in subsection (1)(b), to leave out "ordinary". The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if when debating Amendment No. 1 we were to consider Amendment No. 2 at the same time. It has always been made plain by Her Majesty's Government that the Corporation shall act on a commercial basis, and shall work on ordinary commercial lines. During earlier stages of the Bill, and also in another place, there was some doubt cast upon whether it was therefore appropriate to include the phrase, "or from the public interest", because it could be held that if the Corporation is to act on ordinary commercial principles, then it could not necessarily always act in the public interest. There might be occasions when to act in the public interest would be to go against the duty of acting on ordinary commercial lines. The two Amendments seek to help the Government out of their difficulty, and Amendment No. 1 seeks to do this by deleting the word "ordinary", so that the Corporation will have to operate only on commercial lines. The term "commercial lines" is somewhat broader than "ordinary commercial lines", and would cover certain matters which might otherwise only be appropriate or intra vires under the heading, "the public interest".
I submit to your Lordships that there might be cases where it would be undesirable for the Corporation to do what

1571
it wished under the blanket heading of "the public interest" because, of course, there would be no means of challenging the Corporation's action at any time. It would be able to say, "We are doing this in the public interest." But "the public interest "is nowhere definable, and this would really enable the Corporation, if it so wished, to do very much as it liked. But we have been assured that it is intended that it shall operate on ordinary commercial lines, and we therefore think that it would be best if this were made plain in the Bill.
There are one or two cases where it might be difficult for the Corporation to justify operating on ordinary commercial lines as distinct from commercial lines as, for example, if one considers that feature of the Geddes Report which suggested that steel should be supplied to shipbuilders for ships at a fixed percentage below the standard prices, in order to give shipbuilders an advantage. Of course, this would be a clear subsidy to another industry, and it could be held that that was something in the public interest. But it could also be held to be an operation on commercial lines, using the phrase in its broadest sense because, if the discount was not forthcoming, the shipbuilders might not win orders and so the steel industry would not be able to sell the steel at all.
So it would be a perfectly permissible commercial concept to fall in with the Geddes Committee's Report if the Corporation in fact wished to do so. But, of course, if we left in the phrase "or from the public interest", one could on occasions get very severe discrimination, perhaps on a geographical basis or for other reasons. The defence by the Corporation could be, "We are acting in the public interest", in which case they could not be called to account in any way. As the intention is that the Corporation shall act on commercial lines, I submit that we should write it into the Bill in that form; and I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way clear to accepting these two Amendments, the first of which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("ordinary")—(Lord Erroll of Hale.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is interesting, and an indication of the
1572
thoroughness with which it has been discussed, that at this stage of the Bill one is able to narrow our discussions down to points about which it can still be argued there might be an ambiguity, and I sympathise with and appreciate the pertinacity of the noble Lord. We have, of course, seen the second of these two Amendments many times before; and on this occasion the noble Lord has tried to meet our point by suggesting the deletion of the word "ordinary". I am afraid that this would not help; indeed, on some counts it might be regarded as almost more objectionable than the deletion of the words "or from the public interest". It would allow the Corporation to vary prices according to any considerations which could be described as commercial instead of only those commercial considerations which are normal and standard in business dealings. In this respect, the Corporation's freedom would be greatly increased in a way which noble Lords opposite would not, I think, welcome. On the other hand, the deletion of the word "ordinary" would do nothing at all to allow the Corporation to act purely in the public interest. So these Amendments would not overcome the difficulties which the Government see in the removal of the reference to "the public interest" without creating new difficulties.
Let me again state why there is this reference to the public interest. I want to emphasise at the outset that the Government intend (and I think there is no dispute that this is the Government's intention) that normally the Corporation shall behave as a commercial body, and that its financial objectives will be set with this object in view. It is the view of the Government—and, indeed, of noble Lords opposite—that no other course would be possible in such an internationally competitive market as the steel market. The question at issue is not whether the Corporation should in general act commercially—for on that I think we are agreed—but whether it should never, in any circumstances, act in any other way. I suggest that it is impossible to say—indeed, I go so far as to say that it would be absurd to say—that a publicly-owned organisation should never in any circumstances act otherwise than commercially in fixing its prices. Governments of both Parties have in practice recognised that it is sometimes

1573
desirable for nationalised industries to behave in such matters other than commercially.
We cannot necessarily foresee now all the circumstances in which the Corporation, in fixing its prices, might have to take account of considerations other than the purely commercial. Indeed, this is really the argument for leaving in the reference to the public interest: it gives the Corporation a greater freedom to react to circumstances which cannot necessarily be foreseen. Even so, we can point to some cases which might arise. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Shepherd gave us one example; namely, the need to reduce prices selectively to meet competition from imports. The noble Lord opposite would probably say that his Amendment to the phrase, by the deletion of the word "ordinary", would meet that; but, although this might be very strictly in the public interest, it might mean a very long stretch of the words commercial considerations". There might be a strong national interest to compete effectively with imports, and we want to make sure that the powers of the Corporation to do so are beyond question.
Again—and here the noble Lord himself gave an example—it might be desirable for the Corporation to give specially favourable treatment to certain areas or certain classes of consumers, and the noble Lord might object to one of these. As regards areas, it certainly might he desirable to take into account the Government's regional development policy; and, as regards classes of consumers, again there are those who might be in a special position. The noble Lord referred to the Geddes Report, which contained a recommendation that special treatment should be given to shipbuilding consumers of steel. Although this has not proved appropriate in this instance, similar cases might arise elsewhere in future when action of this type would be desirable. If we accept this Amendment, by deleting the word "ordinary", we introduce a new element without a very precise meaning attached to it, but we do not make clear (which is desirable) that there is freedom to act in the public interest. Any of these cases would have to be looked at on its merits, and no doubt on such occasions the Minister would be consulted, as this could be almost a major issue of policy. But although, again, I well appreciate
1574
what the noble Lord is trying to do, I do not believe he has got over this difficulty.
In all cases, of course, the Corporation would be answerable to the Minister and, through him, to Parliament for the way it carried out its duties, under Clause 3(1)(b). The need to retain for the Government and Parliament the ultimate right to direct nationalised industries as to the public interest is recognised in the standard provisions (in the present case, Section 4(1), which is the revived part of the 1949 Act), which give the appropriate Minister power to issue the nationalised body with general directions on matters which appear to him to affect the national interest. Administrations of both Parties have incorporated such a provision in Statutes affecting nationalised industries, and the reference to the public interest in Clause 3(1)(b) follows the same principle. Indeed, I believe it improves the ultimate control by the Minister and Parliament in matters affecting the national interest.
I do not suppose that I have completely satisfied the noble Lord on the fact that the intentions of the Government are wholly honourable, which I am sure the noble Lord accepts is in itself a justification; but I am quite satisfied, having listened very carefully to his arguments previously, and having gone into this very thoroughly, that we need to retain these words in the form in which they are now in the Bill.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, might I support this Amendment, very briefly? What worries me about it, of course, is that in nationalised industries, owing to political movements, you are inclined to get certain pressures mounting up, and the Articles of Association of these 14 companies which the Corporation are taking over in the public interest are so wide that they cover every form of business activity in the country. I am afraid that if this phrase, "from the public interest" is left in the Bill then, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has just said, it really gives the Corporation ample excuse to indulge in any form of commercial activity in the country.
With their vast powers they may—I will not say that they will—run some small business out of existence, and they

1575
could say that it was, "from the public interest". I think it could lead to great danger in the future. If the Corporation were not bound entirely by commercial interest and by commercial considerations, by unfair trading, they could play havoc within the whole commercial field of the nation. I wish the noble Lord could have given us a little more satisfaction on this point. I feel sure that in the future we will regret that the words, "from the public interest" were left in the Bill.
LORD HAWKE: I should be happier about this if it were left entirely to the Ministry to give directions when they are to do something against their own inclinations and "from the public interest". It does not seem to be so in the Bill. If, for instance, as is occasionally the case, a public airways corporation is ordered in the public interest to buy British aircraft, everybody knows about it; it is mentioned in their annual report, and so on. I am not so much afraid of the Corporation acting wildly in the alleged public interest, because ultimately they have to be a profit-making body and, therefore, if the public interest is going to prejudice their profit and loss account they will be reluctant to act in the public interest. It is ministerial interference in the name of public interest which is to be guarded against.
I do not know whether it is generally known, but during the first Labour Government, when the steel industry was in private hands, the Ministers of the day decreed in the public interest that prices for exports were to be at a certain level. I remember getting a small quantity of British rail at£20 per ton and then having to make up with Belgium rail at£45 or more. But Her Majesty's Ministers, for some unknown reason, thought it in the public interest that British goods should, in a sellers' market, be sold vastly underneath world prices; and this led to all sorts of trouble. Once you start doing things "from the public interest" you get into very difficult terrain.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5:
Publication by the Corporation of lists of prices and conditions of sale
5.—(1) The Corporation shall from time to time publish, in such manner as appears to them best adapted for informing the persons affected, and in such form as appears to them
1576
appropriate, notices containing prices which they propose should normally be charged in the United Kingdom by them and publicly-owned companies for iron and steel products, and terms and conditions on which they propose iron and steel products should normally be sold in the United Kingdom by them and publicly-owned companies.
5.5 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "sold" to insert:
"including all sales and conveyances by way of sale between the publicly-owned companies and their subsidiaries."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 5 of the Bill concerns the duty of the Corporation to publish its prices and conditions of sale. We believe this to be a most important provision, but as the wording is at present the duty that is placed on the Corporation is, I would submit, insufficiently precise to meet one particular set of circumstances. This is where the Corporation is selling to one of the publicly-owned companies or any subsidiary which is itself a steel-consuming company.
In an important statement on the consequences of steel nationalisation in the structural steelwork and bridgework industry, made by my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale in Committee, of which I think the Government will have taken note, it was pointed out that in this industry there are nine subsidiary companies of the 14scheduled companies in the Bill, which between them control about one-third of the total output, by value, of the industry. These companies will be part and parcel of the organisation under the control of the Corporation which will itself include the steel-producing companies. The remaining companies in the structural steel industry, that two-thirds which remains in private hands, will buy their steel from the Corporation or from the publicly-owned companies at the best prices; and the prices must be published under this clause of the Bill.
The private sector in the structural steel and bridgework industry hopes that the prices procedure will also be applied to the publicly-owned companies in the construction steel work industry, so that they, the subsidiaries of the publicly-owned companies, are charged exactly the same prices on the same terms and conditions of sale as are the privately-owned companies. The Government's answer to this

1577
Amendment might be that the Consumer Council is the correct body through which any private industrialist in the structural steel industry should pursue his complaints; because he will be a consumer. Therefore the Consumer Council exists for that purpose. It is true that Section 6(4)(a) of the 1949 Act which gives the Consumer Council the duty to consider any matter affecting prices and other matters concerning consumers is revived in this Bill, so the power is there. But how are the privately-owned consumers in the structural steel work industry to know what prices are being charged to the publicly-owned consumers? Is there a possibility of book sales? Is there a possibility of purely notional prices? How is any preferential price, even if it be suspected, to be proved? What, in any event, could the Consumer Council do about it other than to make a report to the Minister?—which I would suggest is not much of a sanction.
The only way out of this—and it arises solely because the publicly-owned companies can be both producers of iron and steel products and consumers of iron and steel products in this industry—is to require the Corporation's published list of prices to apply to all consumers, including both publicly-owned and privately owned companies. That is the purpose of the Amendment. However unintentionally, it seems that some companies in the private sector in the structural steel work industry could conceivably be placed in a less advantageous position than those in the public sector. This is clearly not the intention of the Bill; nor is it the intention of the Government. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I might add to the noble Lord who is to reply that the words, "conveyances by way of sale" in the Amendment are intended to cover the possibility of purely book sales by one of the public sector iron and steel producers to a public sector iron and steel consumer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, after ("sold") insert ("including all sales and conveyances by way of sale between the publicly-owned companies and their subsidiaries")—(Lord Windlesham.)
5.10 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am afraid that for a number of reasons I cannot advise your Lordships to accept
1578
this Amendment. First, it is technically defective, although I appreciate that this can always be overcome at a later stage. But it is technically defective because it would apply only to terms and conditions of sale of iron and steel products and not to prices, and because it would also appear to cover only sales between publicly-owned companies, on the one hand, and their subsidiaries, on the other, and not sales between different publicly-owned companies.
Secondly, it is unnecessary because Clause 5(1) covers all sales by publicly-owned companies regardless of the identity of the buyer. Thirdly, it would carry positive disadvantages because a reference to sales inside the public sector might imply that sales outside it do not so fully come within the scope of Clause 5. Those are the technical objections, but the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is concerned about this and we shall have an opportunity to discuss in particular the position of the structural steel manufacturers or operators on a later Amendment.
The noble Lord is obviously concerned that the steel consuming subsidiaries of the Corporation may get an unfair advantage over their competitors in the private sector because they could purchase iron and steel products more cheaply than those competitors. This again raises the question of arm's-length trading which was discussed in the Committee stage, although it covers only part of it. My noble friend Lord Shepherd gave some important undertakings. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, was kind enough to say, on first impression, that they had gone a long way to meet the views of those affected.
These undertakings were, first, that under Clause 25 the Corporation would inevitably have to explain a good deal of the basis on which trading takes place between different sectors of their activities. Secondly, my right honourable friend the Minister of Power would discuss with the Corporation the possibility of including in their first report on organisation, under Clause 4, a discussion of the principles on which trading between different sectors of the Corporation's business will be based. Thirdly, the final responsibility would rest on the Minister as a result of Clause 7(2) and he would be prepared, when he gets the Corporation's first report under Clause

1579
4, to discuss this issue further with interested organisations, such as the Confederation of British Industry.
I believe that these undertakings, which I reiterate unreservedly, go a long way to meet the substance behind the present Amendment. In view of this, and of the technical objections to the Amendment which I think are overwhelming, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it. If there is anything more that he feels I might usefully say on Third Reading, or if there is any point which I have not made clear, I should be glad to do so; but, for the reasons I have given, this is not an Amendment which I can recommend your Lordships to accept.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his answer. I know that it will be studied with great interest in the structural steelwork industry. When we come to Amendment No. 15 I think that the undertakings given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on arm's-length trading during the Committee stage are relevant. These two Amendments cover to a certain extent some of the same ground, so that might be the time to return to the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, withdraws his Amendment, perhaps I might inform him that I do not share his view as to the ineffectiveness of the Consumers' Council.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 8:
Re-establishment of Consumers' Council and committees
8.—(1) On such day as the Minister may by order appoint for the purposes of this section (which shall not be later than six months after the vesting date as defined in the next following section), the Council that was established by section 6 (1) of the 1949 Act by the name of the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council and ceased to exist in consequence of the enactment of section 1(1) of the 1953 Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, be re-established by that name, and the following provisions of the said section 6 with respect to the Council shall, by virtue of this subsection, be revived and shall again
1580
have effect with respect to the Council, namely, subsections (2), (4), (5), (7) to (10), (13) and (15).
LORD ERROLL OF HALE LORD ERROLL OF HALE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "subsections (2), (4), (5), (7)"and insert
"subsection (2) (with the omission of paragraph (c) and the word 'and' where occurring immediately before that paragraph) and subsections (4), (5), (8)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in seeking to move this Amendment I submit that it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if we considered at the same time Amendments 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31. This group of Amendments, although formally we are discussing only the first one, deals with membership of the Consumers' Council. In the Committee stage I made the proposition by means of an Amendment that we should delete from the proposed membership of the Consumers' Council the two members drawn from the National Steel Corporation. It seemed to me and to my noble friends on this side of the House somewhat wrong that the Corporation should have members on a Council whose function, in acting as consumers' representative, was to consider complaints against the Corporation.
The case was argued in the contrary sense by Her Majesty's Government, but, nevertheless, towards the end of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that he thought I had made out a good case and that he would have the matter looked into again. Having been given that encouraging opening, I venture to take up your Lordships' time by tabling these Amendments again but speaking to them only briefly. I hope that my little hook will draw forth Government acceptance of this series of Amendments, the first of which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("subsections (2), (4), (5), (7)") and insert the said words.—(Lord Erroll of Hale.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, moved Amendments similar to these in Committee, and such was the power of his eloquence that my noble friend Lord Hughes promised to consider their principle again in consultation with my right honourable friend the Minister of

1581
Power. The Government have been considering very carefully the arguments for and against, including representatives of the Corporation on the Council. My righthonourable friend has had a further talk with representatives of the C.B.I. Undoubtedly there are arguments on both sides. There is a good deal to be said for having representatives of the Corporation sitting with the Consumers' Council and getting the full flavour of the discussion; but we have decided, despite these arguments, that the need to increase the independence of the Consumers' Council is decisive and that it is necessary to make plain that the Council really is an independent body.
The Government are anxious that the Council should develop into a vigorous and effective body, and if it is to do this it must have the confidence of all steel consumers. May I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that there are powers, in an Amendment which has gone into the Bill, under which the Minister has to lay before each House of Parliament a statement on any matter brought to him by the Council, and his reasons for not giving any directions thereon. So I believe that it could be a powerful body. To further that, and because it is argued that confidence would be increased if the Corporation's representatives were excluded from membership—although no doubt it will often be convenient for the Council that they should attend as assessors—I am happy to advise your Lordships to accept these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Vesting in the Corporation of securities of scheduled companies
9.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and to the provisions of Part II of the 1949 Act revived by the following provisions of this Part of this Act, all securities of the companies specified in Schedule 1 to this Act shall, on the vesting date (as defined in subsection (5) below), vest in the Corporation by virtue of this section, free from all trusts and encumbrances.
(2) Securities created by a company specified in the said Schedule 1 as collateral security for a loan to that company shall be excepted from the operation of the foregoing subsection, but any securities so created shall be cancelled as from the besting date.
5.20 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "securities" and to insert: "ordinary and preference stocks and shares" The noble Lord said: My Lords, on February 27 last I moved this Amendment in Committee, but withdrew it, without prejudice to later proceedings, on the Minister's assuring me that he would carefully consider the arguments that I had put forward. I look forward in due course to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has to say. I think that it will be convenient to the House to take this Amendment and the next three together, since they are consequential on the one which I now move.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I had thought that Amendment No. 6 was on a slightly different point—the subject of collateral securities.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think the subsection becomes meaningless because it is based on the securities in this subsection. Perhaps the point can be raised when we reach the next Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: I thought it a rather pointless Amendment, but I see now that the noble Lord intends to "mop it up".
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, it was not intended to attack that subsection, but that subsection would lose any meaning in its grammatical construction and sense if we adopt this one. That is the only purpose of the next following Amendment. I must apologise to the House if I repeat some of the arguments that I used in Committee. That is necessary because one cannot be sure that the House is constituted this afternoon in the same way as the Committee was constituted on that occasion. It may also, perhaps, be for the convenience of the Minister who is to reply.
The effect of my present Amendment will be that the ordinary and preference stocks of the 14 companies will vest in the National Steel Corporation, but the present owners will retain the fixed interest stocks and the contractual rights that go with them. The Government will thus acquire the control of the 14 companies at a reduced expenditure of public money—something which, other things

1583
being equal, I imagine they would welcome. A more important result is that they will acquire that control without the injury to the credit of the British Government at home and abroad which I fear will otherwise result from the present proposals for the compulsory acquisition of these fixed interest stocks.
I assure the noble Lord that my concern for the credit of the British Government—the present Government and future British Governments—is the main ground on which I am moving this Amendment. I want to explain again to the House why I think that the credit of the British Government is endangered. If the Bill is passed in its present form, the immediate result will be that the 14 companies and the fixed interest stocks will all remain in existence, but the stocks will pass from the present owners to the National Steel Corporation. In return, those owners will receive a Government stock, particulars of which are not yet known, and will lose all their existing contractual rights to the redemption of the stocks that they hold.
May I again remind the House how the public acquired these stocks? The public acquired these stocks, and the contractual rights that go with them, either through the public sales of these stocks by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency (which I shall refer to as ISHRA) or direct from the companies. Since everybody agrees, I think, that the two categories should receive the same treatment, I shall for brevity and convenience deal in my argument only with stocks offered for public sale by ISHRA. This Agency was set up by the 1953 Act. Its members were appointed by the Treasury to return the industry to private enterprise
"as they may with the approval of the Treasury determine".
The Agency was given statutory power to acquire and to sell securities. Section 28 of the Act declared that the Agency was not to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown. I mention that in fairness, because that provision is sometimes used against the argument which I shall put forward, though in my submission it in no way affects the principle of English law to which I shall later refer. One important consequence of Section 28 was that the Agency did not, and does not, enjoy Crown immunity.
1584
Under these powers conferred by Statute, ISHRA acquired the stocks concerned with monies provided by the Treasury, and under Treasury control, and offered them for sale to the public on the terms of prospectuses. Every prospectus provided for all the usual matters dealt with in a prospectus—that is to say, the rate of interest, the date or dates of repayment and the price at which the security would be repaid. Of all these contractual rights the Bill will deprive the owners. As a result, stocks redeemable at par or over will be acquired at the price of allotting Government stocks worth (to give one example) £81 or less.
Of this proposal I would say two things. First, it has struck many authorities in the City as unprincipled and wrong. Secondly, it contravenes an established principle of English law. Let me deal with these two points in order. On the first point, again for the sake of brevity, I will give one example only. I expect that the point will be dealt with more fully and far more authoritatively by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, whose name also appears to the Amendment, but let me quote a few sentences from the letter sent by the Chairman of the Stock Exchange to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on November 15 last. He wrote:
"My Council has been considering the compensation terms proposed for holders of those redeemable fixed interest securities of the iron and steel companies which were offered for sale by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency. The Iron and Steel Holdings and Realisation Agency is a Government agency which was established under the Iron and Steel Act 1953, and in the prospectus or document of offer the securities to which we refer were clearly stated to be redeemable on certain conditions. In view of the terms on which these stocks were sold to the public, my Council consider that it is only equitable that the holders should be given the opportunity of retaining their securities and thereby of obtaining the redemption price at the appropriate time. The absence of such options would lay the Government open to the allegation that there had been a breach of good faith."
I give that as a representative example of the representations made by important City interests.
The principle of English law which Her Majesty's Government propose to contravene is the principle laid down by Cockburn, Chief Justice, in 1864 in the case of Stirling v. Maitland, a principle

1585
expressly approved by the House of Lords in Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd. v. Shirlaw, reported in [1940] Appeal Cases, at page 701. I should like to quote the principle as stated by the Chief Justice, and the brief words of Lord Atkin in approving that principle in the House of Lords. The Chief Justice used these words:
"I look on the law to be that, if a party enters into an arrangement which can only take effect by the continuance of a certain existing state of circumstances, there is an implied engagement on his part that he shall do nothing of his own motion to put an end to that state of circumstances, under which alone the arrangement can be operative."
That is the principle of English law which I say the proposals in the Bill, as they now stand, contravene. After citing the words of the Chief Justice which I have just quoted, Lord Atkin, in the House of Lords case, said:
"That proposition, in my opinion, is well-established law".
If any other body were to behave in the manner in which Her Majesty's Government propose to behave under the provisions of this Bill, as they now stand, then, in my submission, there would be a remedy in the courts. I concede at once that if the Bill passes into law as it now stands, there will be no remedy in the English courts, because Parliament can make law whatever it wishes. But that will not necessarily protect Her Majesty's Government in proceedings in a foreign court, and, above all, in proceedings in an international court. That fact, I think, is calculated to do great injury to British Government credit.
Perhaps I may add another consideration, which I ventured to mention in Committee, and to which the Minister on that occasion made no answer. Needless to say, I do not complain of that, because he heard it then for the first time and was not prepared. I think, however, the point is one of some importance. If it were held, or thought, abroad that the National Steel Corporation had acquired its assets or escaped from its liabilities too cheaply, that might cause great difficulty to Her Majesty's Government in their negotiations for entering the European Common Market; and, further, that fact would make relations difficult between the National Steel Corporation and the European Iron and Steel Community.
1586
When I say, "acquired its assets or escaped from its liabilities too cheaply", let me make it plain to the noble Lord who is going to reply that I am not here criticising or mentioning the price at which the ordinary stocks and shares are about to be acquired. What I am talking about is the treatment of the debenture holders. Even if the present debenture holders have their stock compulsory taken from them and given to the Corporation, the Corporation will itself have the same rights on redemption of these stocks that the present holders have against the various companies.
What reasons have been given by the Government for insisting on acquiring these fixed interest stocks, with all the disadvantages that I have mentioned? When I last spoke, the only reason I could discover that had been mentioned by Her Majesty's Government was the reason given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Standing Committee of another place on November 23, 1966. Again for the sake of brevity I do not propose to quote what the Chief Secretary then said, because it will be well known to the Minister who is going to reply. What I will say is this. He made the point that all this was required in order to give the Government, or the Corporation, the powers it desires for reconstruction; and he was of the opinion—I say under the illusion—that if these stocks were not acquired the debenture holders would be in a position to prevent the liquidation of one of these companies, should such a liquidation be desired by the Corporation.
I gave reasons on the last occasion, which I hope I need not repeat in detail, for saying that that is just bad law. There would be no such power in the debenture holders to prevent a liquidation—though I concede at once that their security might then become repayable. But I know of no reason why the companies or the Corporation should be relieved of the ordinary consequences under English law. A company has an unfettered right to go into liquidation; but, as I say, the effect may be that the debenture may become repayable, according to the terms of issue.
On the last occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, called my attention to one or two other matters, which again, for the sake of brevity, I will deal with

1587
quite shortly. He drew my attention to Section 307(1) of the Companies Act 1948, which reads as follows:
"The liquidator or any contributory or creditor may apply to the court to determine any question arising in the winding up of a company, or to exercise, as respects the enforcing of calls or any other matter, all or any of the powers which the court might exercise if the company were being wound up by the court."
I was not unaware of that provision. But it does not have the effect—nor does any other provision of the Companies Act have the effect—of enabling the debenture holders to prevent or sensibly to hold up the liquidation, provided that their rights are properly dealt with in accordance with their contract.
Since I am to have the valuable support, among others, of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, I will only say one thing in conclusion. As the House knows, I am opposed to this Bill. I do not think it is a wise Bill, but I ask the noble Lord who is to reply to believe that I am speaking with complete bona fides when I assure him that I should equally press this Amendment if I were in favour of the Bill, because if this Amendment were adopted it would be in no sense a wrecking Amendment. The Government would acquire control of the 14 companies, which they say is their object; they would not be held up in any reconstruction that they or the Corporation might desire, but they would avoid entirely that injury to the credit of British Government, at home and abroad, now and in the future, which is likely to result from ignoring a well-established principle of English law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 32, leave out ("securities") and insert ("ordinary and preference stocks and share").—(Lord Conesford.)
5.42 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I rise to support this Amendment and I think we all ought to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, for having put it down again, because this matter raises an important question of principle and I do not think your Lordships can consider it too deeply. I wonder whether we might bear in mind, as we discuss this matter, two thoughts which seem to me to be of vital importance. The first is that we are dealing with a proposal to
1588
repudiate debt—a partial repudiation of debt, of course, but none the less a repudiation of debt. The second thing I ask your Lordships to bear in mind particularly is that many of the principal victims of this repudiation of debt will be the holders of life policies and those who depend upon pension funds for their retirement, when that time comes. I suppose I ought to declare an interest because I am interested under both heads, but perhaps that is an unnecessary point of punctilio, because I doubt whether there is a single noble Lord present who would not have to declare an interest under one or other category, or perhaps both.
Those are serious things to say, and I propose to justify them both. The investors who, for the most part, subscribe for or buy the sort of stocks we are talking about to-day are the insurance companies or the pension funds. The insurance companies buy them for their life funds and the pension funds buy them for obvious purposes. A life fund is managed and built up in an extremely careful and skilful way. It comes entirely from the skilful and careful and wise investment of the premiums paid by the policyholders, and in investing those funds two principles are always followed by the manager of the fund.
The first is that he goes to his actuary and asks, "In the year so-and-so how many of my policy holders are likely to die and how much money shall I have to find for them?" The actuary will tell him with remarkable accuracy about how many people will die in that year and how much money will have to be found. Of course he cannot identify the particular people, and every one of us here hopes that each of us will beat the average. The actuary joins cordially in that long life wish, unless we happen to be annuitants as well, in which case his loyalty is divided! None the less, the manager of the fund knows within narrow limits how much money he will have to pay out in any particular year. So the first thing he looks for in an investment is one which has a fixed redeemable date which falls in that year, and then there is a complete balance on each side of the account. He knows within reasonable limits of accuracy what is going out and what is coming in. That is the first investment

1589
criterion, and the same process applies to a pension fund.
The second investment criterion is that not only must the money be available on redemption in the right year, but it must carry a proper yield in the meantime. This yield contains two separate components. One is what is called the "running yield", which is the interest which comes in year by year, related to what is paid for the stock. The other is the difference between what is paid for the stock and what is promised on redemption, and the combination of these two gives the result and it is what the actuary or the life manager will call the yield to redemption.
So there must be redemption in the right year and there must be the right yield to redemption. Both those factors exist and are known under the stocks as they stand to-day. The object of this Bill is to deprive those companies and those funds of both those factors. It proposes to substitute a stock the redemption date of which is unknown, and one cannot tell whether it will fall into the right year for a life fund or a pension fund; and it proposes to abolish altogether that part of the yield to redemption which is related to the difference between the price of purchase and the price of redemption. The first point is perfectly obvious and I need not elaborate it. The second is perfectly obvious, but if your Lordships will do me the favour of thinking about it for a moment, it will be seen that in each case the stock which it is proposed to issue is not£100 for£100 but a stock which is related to some past purchase price or market price.
Those are general remarks and I should like to bring them home by an actual illustration of what is proposed under this Bill. I could take many examples, but I will weary your Lordships with only one. That is the 4¾per cent. debenture stock 1968–78 of the United Steel Companies Limited. The history of that stock is this. It was created in 1953 by a trust deed in the ordinary way, a solemn covenant with a trust deed, and the stock was subscribed by ISHRA. The provisions with regard to redemption of that stock do not come from the subsequent offer for sale; they are solemnly set out in the covenants to the trust deed, and they are these. The stock was to be redeemable finally at par
1590
on December 31, 1978. The company had the right to redeem it earlier than that: at£102 between 1968 and 1972, at£101 between 1973 and 1977, and at par from 1977 onwards. And—this entirely reinforces the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—the trust deed specifically laid down that in the event of liquidation the stock should be repaid by the company at whatever was the appropriate premium or price, having regard to the year in which the liquidation happened.
There is nothing these debenture holders can do to stop or impede the liquidation of the company at all. All that happens is this. If the company goes into liquidation the liquidator has to pay the debts of the company, the commercial debts, bank overdrafts, bills of exchange, every debt except this solemnly secured one which he is relieved under this Bill from having to repay. There is absolutely no obstacle to the amalgamation or merger or liquidation of the company. The only object of the Bill in this respect is to make quite sure that if that happens the debenture holder is penalised by getting substantially less than he would have done if this solemn covenant had remained.
That was the position, and the stock was taken up and subscribed for under that trust deed on those terms by ISHRA. In 1961 ISHRA made an offer of this stock to the public, and they put that trust deed on public exhibition so that everybody could see exactly what were the terms of the stock. The money, of course, which had been subscribed for the stock by ISHRA had been put up by the Treasury, and ISHRA, directly or indirectly, sold it on behalf of the Treasury. In fact, they took care to say in their offer for sale that
"no part of the proceeds of the present offer is receivable by the United Steel Companies Limited."
Of course not. It was going directly or indirectly to the Treasury, so it could not go to the company. This was done by or on behalf of the Government, and what was sold was the stock on the terms of that trust deed, which is just as legal and valid to-day as it was at the time. The life companies and pension funds who bought this stock know exactly where they stand. It is in the right slot, so to speak, for the year, and it is in the right

1591
bracket for the purpose of yield to redemption.
What necessity, let alone what justice, can there be in impeding the operation of a pension fund or life fund by taking away part of the rights that they have, by repudiating that part of the debt which is the difference between the running yield and the yield to redemption, and giving a stock where no life manager can say that it fits into his life fund, and no pension manager can say it fits into his pension fund? This is a really serious thing to do. It is a very bad thing to do. There is no reason for doing it. I wholeheartedly support this Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will say in no uncertain way that this is not the way a British Government ought to conduct business.
5.53 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, the reasons for doing it are that the British electorate since the 1920's have had before them the question of nationalising the iron and steel industry, and at the last Election they decided decisively that it should be nationalised, and this is one of the necessary parts of the nationalisation process. It has been awfully like a rather High Church service up to date. I have listened with reverential attention to words which I found it extremely difficult to understand. It is on the face of it extremely unlikely that some remarks made by a judge, however distinguished, about one hundred years ago, about something quite different, are going to have much effect on what Parliament has to do nowadays. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has forgotten is that Parliament does not follow the law; it makes it, and every Statute, unless it is a purely codifying or explanatory one, in fact changes the law, and of course it is perfectly true that this Statute is changing the law.
Whether it is changing it rightly or wrongly is, in a democratic country, I suggest, to be decided by the will of the people, and under our Constitution, by the results of the last Election, in a matter on which there is the clearest possible mandate and the clearest possible dispute. Your Lordships, I am sure, will appreciate that if this Amendment is carried to-day—and your Lordships having a built-in
1592
Tory majority here will no doubt be able to carry it if you so choose—it will go back to another place and it will there be turned down, and the practical result will be nothing so far as that goes, except the wasting of a certain amount of Parliamentary time and perhaps galloping a step or two further down a rather dangerous slope.
Let us just see a little more what really is proposed. What is suggested is that by this Bill the Government are taking certain debentures, certain preference shares and certain ordinary shares, and they ought not to take over the debentures. That is only part of the picture. What the Government are taking over is not the whole but the major part of the iron and steel industry of the country. They could of course do it in other ways. They could do it, as was done by a Tory Government before the war by taking over the assets—in that case the assets of London Transport. They could do it in that sort of way now. But after the war, beginning, I think, with the railways, it was found more convenient—and I think there are reasons for it, good reasons of convenience—in cases of this kind to take over the securities of the various companies concerned. Of course, when the railways were taken over by the Transport Act a year or two after the end of the war very large numbers of debentures were taken over, and they were not paid for at par and they were not left standing as they were.
I rather doubt whether anybody had thought about this argument at that time. I cannot find it, at any rate. Probably something was said about it—there were very long debates—but I cannot find it. But now, what was done then was apparently quite wrong; it was a gross injustice, particularly to life assurance managers.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, if I may intervene, I said nothing about life assurance managers. I am talking about the interests of those of us who pay premiums to life companies and pension funds and who were certainly not told at the last Election that the intention was to erode their funds under their feet.
LORD MITCHISON: I hope life assurance managers will have full regard to the interests of their policyholders. I

1593
assume that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, would have agreed with that. I do not mind which he talks about, life assurance managers or policyholders. Of course they were not told; of course you do not tell people in detail at a General Election what you are going to put in a Statute as long as this. They would not be interested; they would be bored stiff. It was nothing strange. This has been done before. I have given one instance of the railways companies, and there are a number of others if one cares to go through them. They may not have known the form the Statute was going to take, but they must have been much more stupid and blind than I believe them to be if they were not well aware this was a distinct possibility.
I will go further. If this was to be done by taking over shares—and it is not necessarily the case that it would be done in that way—then it was almost inevitable that the debentures would be taken over, too. The reason is perfectly obvious. At the present time the steel industry is in a difficult position. It is not the only steel industry in the world to be in a difficult position. One of the objects of this Bill is ultimately to get what I think I would call a rationalisation of the industry, and it would undoubtedly involve changes in the structure of the companies whose shares and so forth we are now considering. That being the position, is it really suggested you can leave the debenture holders sitting there?
It is not a question of whether they have or have not a technical right to stop a liquidation. One thing is perfectly clear. If a steel company, the XYZ steel company, disappears for reasons of national interest—that is what is happening—the debenture holders will have to be paid off, and what the debenture holders are really after is a little more money. That is part of it. They hope to have a certain nuisance value,—which noble Lords who have spoken have given to them—and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was referring to this in the comments he had to make on this question. He quite rightly put his finger on this as the real obstacle to doing what is done now.
I must say that when I heard the case put for it to-day I said to myself: "Well, this of course is pure politics. There is
1594
nothing personal about it; it is Party politics; indeed it is". This is nothing but Party political mudslinging, and that is all it is. For noble Lords to get up and say that we are breaking principles of English law—which is irrelevant to what we are doing at the moment; we are carrying out the will of the Electorate—and that we are depriving people of their vested rights, and all the rest of it, seems to me completely off the point.
Any nationalisation Bill, any Bill that involves a change of ownership of this kind effected by Statute, is bound to take over things. Whether they are taken over in the form of assets or shares and obligations of the company is, I suggest, really quite immaterial. The real point is that they are being taken over because it is in the public interest—and it is what the public have voted for. That is the essential point. When they are being so taken over then quite obviously you have to pay people and compensate them fairly; and I say with some pride that my Party, at any rate, have always compensated fairly, and indeed rather more than fairly. I think we paid the railway companies too much, but that is a matter of opinion and it is long past now.
So far as this Bill is concerned, what are these people being given? They are being given the market value of the rights they have. A debenture holder has a long trust deed which has a Stock Exchange quotation; and the Stock Exchange quotation is, we suggest—and it has not been denied—a fair and proper measure of the value of the rights that are being taken over. These rights include the rights to redemption, the rights to redemption at a premium, if they are there; the rights to interest and any other incidental rights of debenture holders.
I say that there is no more injustice, and no less injustice if you think there is injustice at all, in taking over debentures than there is in taking over shares or than there would be in taking over assets. All this stuff we have heard to-day is really completely off the point and it is highly undemocratic. We are not yet being governed by the City of London in matters of this kind. The people of this country have a right to take over into public hands any industry which is vital to our country, and they should exercise

1595
that right and not try to deal specially with one particular part of it, and one particular set of rights. It is quite off the point.
6.5 p.m.
LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to endorse what has been said so far in favour of this Amendment. At the same time, may I take this opportunity of briefly raising a supplementary point which I do not think has been discussed before. I do not want to confuse the main issue by introducing compensation terms in any detail, but I think there is something to be said for considering the anomalies which will arise under the Bill. It has been pointed out already that trade, bank and ordinary creditors are to be left intact with their contracts, while funded creditors are to have theirs forcefully terminated. However, even this general rule has its exceptions.
John Summers 4 per cent. first mortgage debenture, for example, is apparently exempt, because Schedule 4, paragraph 59(1) of the Bill, which defines "securities" very widely, excludes those parts of loan capital which can be redeemed with not more than a year's notice, or at a price not exceeding par. Then there is the case of holders of John Summers 6½per cent. second debentures dated 1976/78, who will receive much more favourable treatment than the holders of any other debenture stock, although the security is inferior to many. They will be bought out at a price at which if they can secure a return of only £6·3 per cent. from another source, they will not be losers. Holders of United Steel, the 4¾ per cent. 1968/78, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has referred, will, on the other hand, have to secure a gross redemption yield of £7·3 per cent. if they are not to suffer. This despite the similarity of the redemption dates.
This discrepancy arises from the artificial method of assessing compensation under the 61-month formula. During many of these months, as noble Lords are aware, the Summers debenture holders have the potentially valuable right to convert their holding into the equity capital, as it was in fact a convertible debenture, and therefore commanded a relatively higher price in the market than other comparable stocks. This right has run
1596
out, but holders are apparently to be compensated at this relatively higher level as the result of a special situation which came to an end nearly twelve months ago.
I do not want to labour these points as there are many more examples, and in any case I said that I wished to treat them merely as supplementary to the main argument. But in giving my wholehearted support to this Amendment I felt it was worth while drawing attention to these anomalies which I do not believe have been previously pointed out, since, in fairness, I do not think that their existence ought to be overlooked.
6.17 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to everything that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said, and I fully accept the spirit and sincerity of his speech, in particular in relation to the spirit in which he moved this Amendment and his purposes behind it. I have read all the arguments on this matter, both here and in another place. I have been at great pains to satisfy myself personally that what was being done in a difficult field was in fact the right and, indeed, the honourable thing for the Government to do. I shall set out as best I can the various considerations and I shall also state, as fairly as I can, the arguments as I understand them of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I therefore ask the House to forgive me if I am somewhat lengthy, because I want to be sure, and I want the noble Lord to be satisfied, that I have understood what he had to say.
I shall also deal briefly with some of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, though I slightly regret his use of words like "repudiation of debt". In my view, there is no question of repudiation of debt. It is always possible to use language of this kind if one disagrees with what is offered, but I can assure the noble Lord that the Government do not regard this as repudiation of debt. I should be sorry if too much emphasis were given to this suggestion and I hope that the arguments which I shall put forward will be such as to ensure that the good name of the Government, and therefore of this country, is not damaged by what the Government are proposing to do.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for a

1597
moment? If he does not like that colourful word, "repudiation", would he accept "depreciation" of debt?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it the noble Lord, whose ingenuity is great and, as I have already indicated, is of a kind that makes me reluctant to exchange arguments with him on matters of terminology, would allow me to make my speech, I think he will be able to attach whatever phrase he wishes to what I have to say. The reason I say this is that I want to make clear that what the Government are doing we believe to be honourable and correct; and I am sure that the noble Lord, although he may not himself believe it to be honourable and correct, will do me the credit of accepting that at least I am convinced on this matter.
One of the main arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, against the vesting of debentures in the Corporation was based on the established legal principle to which he referred which was enunciated by Chief Justice Cockburn and subsequently adopted by your Lordships' House sitting in their Judicial capacity on appeal cases. I cannot remember whether he in fact referred to this matter to-day, but he certainly did on the previous occasion. That principle is founded on the simple and sensible proposition that:
"…if a party enters into an arrangement which can only take effect by the continuance of a certain existing state of circumstances, this is an implied engagement on his part that he shall do nothing of his own motion to put an end to that state of circumstances, under which alone the arrangement can be operative."
I say this to make clear that this is fair.
Having said that, I must say that I thought my noble friend Lord Mitchison really demolished the argument, though I shall go on to deal with it, in the first few points of his speech on Committee stage. I think it must be conceded by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and those who advanced this principle in support of their case against the vesting of the debenture stock that it would not be invoked in the courts of this country to found a remedy against such vesting. It is also common ground that, for the purpose of applying the principle the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, when they sold debentures to the public, were not, in law, acting as
1598
agent for the Crown and therefore the Government cannot be said to be a party to the sale.
I am coming on to deal with the moral argument. It is recognised that in law the principle has no application to the circumstances which we are considering. This is not to suggest that there is not something to be learned from it; but, at most, it seems to me that it can only serve as the basis of some moral argument against the Government's proposals in the Bill to vest the debentures of the Schedule companies in the Corporation.
I should like to say a few more words about ISHRA's position in all this. ISHRA was merely the seller of those debentures and as such—and if any noble Lords feel inclined to think that I am skating over this, I will pick up the various arguments—cannot be regarded as having incurred continuing obligations towards the purchasers, any more than any other seller of debentures in the course of ordinary dealings on the market can be said to guarantee to the purchaser a continuing state of affairs. For this reason, I find it hard to see how the quoted principle can be said to be relevant. If it is accepted that the proposals in the Bill involve no departure from relevant legal principles, those who object to the proposals must fall back on moral arguments which, it seems to me, boil down to a claim that fair compensation for the debentures is not being paid and that in fact there is an element of repudiation.
This is a claim which I find very difficult to credit when one compares the compensation prices for these debentures with their present prices on the stock market. There have been a number of quotations and some interesting examples given in relation to John Summers, 6½per cent., which was originally a redeemable stock. I think that was the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, referred, and he also referred to United Steel. I have a number of figures before me. I am not sure that they are entirely relevant to the basis of the argument, but it is true that the estimated compensation price of United Steel is about £80 as opposed to the last price in dealing of £76 10s., and of course it was sold to the public at £81.
An argument has been used, and was used on the previous occasion by the

1599
noble Lord, Lord Somers, that the market prices have been depressed. Well, no noble Lord has raised the question of whether nationalisation has depressed prices, so I will perhaps leave that unless any noble Lord wishes me to deal with it later. Some of your Lordships—and this is the basis of the argument from both the noble Lords, Lord Cones-ford and Lord Tangley—feel that something more is due to the debenture holders to allow for the price on the redemption of their debentures; and they refer to the solemn nature of the arrangement which is set out in the trust deeds. I realise that as the result of the vesting of the debentures in the Corporation the present holders will not enjoy the gain they may have looked to receive from holding their securities to redemption, but the current value of this gain must surely be among the factors taken into account in stock market prices, which leads to the switching from stock to stock and which is reflected in some fairly lively dealings in these debentures. I was surprised to find that this was so. It is therefore reflected in the compensation that will be paid. It cannot, in my view, be contended that fair compensation has not been paid for the bundle of rights represented by these securities.
The suggestion has been made elsewhere that compensation should be given to prior charge stockholders in the form of stocks with terms the same in all material particulars as the stocks being taken over by the Corporation. This would be tantamount to a bonus for the debenture holders. Instead of their securities being backed by particular companies, they would be backed by the Corporation and in effect by the Government. They would in consequence have a higher value and would thus be receiving what we regard as fair compensation plus a bonus because the nature of the stock is thereby changed. This I submit would be unfair to the Exchequer, and unfair in comparison with the compensation for other classes of security. I would ask noble Lords to face this particular dilemma. They may argue that the simple solution is not in fact to take over and abolish the stock.
During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, questioned the
1600
need for the vesting of debentures in the Corporation; and he made a number of interesting and, I thought, entirely fair comments. The remedies of debenture holders are many and varied. Some of these remedies derive from the general law relating to the enforcement of charges over property and some derive specifically from Statute. In every case the terms of the relevant trust deeds specify the particular rights of the debenture holders in question. In general terms the position of a debenture holder might almost be likened to that of a mortgage. A debenture holder can apply to the court for the appointment of a receiver if he considers that his security is in jeopardy—where the company has been wound up, or where the winding-up is imminent, or where a company is disposing of its undertaking in violation of the terms of its security. There are, of course, many other examples which could be given of circumstances in which a debenture holder might apply to the court for the appointment of a Receiver; and, indeed, of other proceedings which he might bring against a company in appropriate circumstances.
The plain fact is—and I have looked into this as carefully as I can—that the continued existence of these debentures in the hands of persons other than the Corporation would constitute—and I put it no higher than this—a continuing risk of interruption and delay in the execution of the Corporation's plans to reorganise the structure of the industry quickly and effectively. Anything which might stand in the way of a rapid and effective reorganisation of the industry cannot be accepted, and it is for this reason that the Government propose that the debentures of Schedule 1 companies should vest in the Corporation, but at the same time they have ensured that the holders of those debentures are fairly compensated.
I should like—and again I hope I can do this fairly—to sum up the arguments which have been made against the vesting of the debentures. They are, first of all, that by acquiring the debentures compulsorily the Government are defaulting on financial obligations entered into by a Government agency; secondly, that debenture holders are entitled to certain rights under their contracts with the companies and these should not be overridden; and, thirdly, that the acquisition

1601
of the debentures is not essential to the transfer of the steel works to public ownership. I believe that those are the three main complaints. There were also certain detailed criticisms of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, explained in an extremely interesting and informative way with regard to the operation of pension and life funds. Those of us who have at times been involved in this are aware of these arguments, and I do not dissent for one moment from what he had to say in that regard.
I have explained that when ISHRA sold the debentures, legally it did so on its own behalf and not as an agent of the Government and it incurred no continuing obligations towards the purchasers of the securities. Their rights were, and those of the present holders are—I am putting the legal position—against the companies concerned. Under the Bill the rights under the contracts with the companies are not being destroyed or modified, but transferred—compulsorily it is true—to the Corporation, by whom they will continue to be enjoyed pending any reorganisation of the companies. In exchange for their debentures and for the rights which they confer against the companies, the present holders will receive compensation which, in the Government's view, is on the generous side of fair and just. In these circumstances, I cannot see how it can be said that the Government are defaulting on any obligations of a Government agency.
6.24 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question, as he will not be allowed to speak again? Am I to understand him as saying that the receivers of this Government stock will receive such quantity of it as they will be able to sell in the market and, with the proceeds of that, buy a security of at least equivalent status, with similar running and redemption yields, and date of redemption, as the stock which they are giving up?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am always nervous when the noble Lord gets up. But, in fact, they are receiving Government stock in compensation at a higher value than anyone would have to pay if they were to move into these stocks to-day. Indeed, as the noble Lord knows,
1602
there will in effect be a bonus to those who buy such stocks at the moment.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment. I must reintroduce the argument which I used on the Committee stage. I quite agree that the compensation is going to be a small fraction above what the holders are receiving at the moment. But one must go further back than that. It was from the time when the Labour Government won the Election in 1964 that steel stocks and shares began to fall, and they fell not because of any inefficiency in the steel industry but because steel nationalisation was part of the Labour programme. They have continued to fall steadily every since. Therefore, having fallen practically to the bottom of the market, the Government are now, of course, stepping in and taking them at a very cheap price and giving, as the noble Lord said, a fraction more.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I find it difficult to reply when the noble Lord makes a point which I had deliberately skipped because he had not previously raised it. I will, if I may, return to that point if there is time at the end, but I do not think it is entirely significant in relation to the arguments which I am now trying to put. The holders of the security stocks will have the option of retaining the Government stock issued in compensation, which will be dated, or selling it and reinvesting in another industrial stock with terms closer to their requirements. Certainly there is disturbance, which is regrettable, to the insurance funds, but I should be a brave man to attempt to suggest what are the various components and factors and influences which weigh in the market in determining the price at which any particular stock can be purchased.
I hope I can find where I was in my speech. I think I was saying—and this is perhaps what triggered the noble Lord, Lord Hawke—that I could not see how it can be said that the Government are defaulting on any obligations of a Government agency, and in that respect I was on the narrower point of ISHRA. I went on to say that debenture holders have contractual rights. But surely it is a completely untenable proposition—it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, will not agree with me—that the contractual

1603
rights of debenture holders must never be disturbed.
Compulsory acquisition of property for public purposes against fair compensation is nowadays accepted as essential by all the Parties in your Lordships' House, and there is no reason why debentures should be treated differently from other property rights; nor indeed have they been. Debentures were compulsorily acquired on the previous occasion, as indeed—as my noble friend Lord Mitchison said—they were under the nationalisation of other industries such as the railways. So that precedent does not support the omission of the debentures. If the steel companies' debentures were left with their present holders, the Corporation and the Minister might be inhibited from carrying out with the speed which the situation demanded a far-reaching re-organisation of the present company structure. It is therefore essential to the policy of nationalisation that all the rights attaching to the debentures should be vested in the Corporation.
I hope that, whatever else I have done, I have convinced your Lordships that the Government are not proposing to take over the debentures in a fit of absentmindedness. I hope, too, that it is common ground that debentures are not in some way sacrosanct and immune from compulsory transfer under all circumstances. I also hope your Lordships will now agree that the disposal of some of these securities by ISHRA has no direct bearing on the matter. The Government have considered very carefully all the arguments which have been made on this subject. As I said, the point was thoroughly debated in another place. It was examined again by your Lordships in Committee, and to-day I think it has been even more exhaustively argued. I think I can claim—and I think noble Lords will agree—that throughout the debates on this Bill the Government have shown themselves ready to meet criticism and to make changes in the Bill whenever there appeared to be genuine fears and difficulties. But this is not a case where the Government are persuaded that a change would be justifiable.
In the light of this full discussion I hope that your Lordships, even if unable to give full agreement to what I have said, will at least be satisfied that I have
1604
deployed the argument fairly, and that it carries a measure of conviction that, in a situation which is not as simple as some people have thought, and where in fact a judgment has to be made one way or another as to what is the appropriate figure, this is a solution which, if not satisfactory from the point of view of some noble Lords, is at least one in the case of which the Government have attempted to act with fairness, and on which they have been heavily criticised by some of their own supporters. I therefore hope very much that the noble Lord will not decide to press this matter to a Division.
6.32 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for a very careful reply and for accepting (and I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, did not accept) my own bona fides in the matter.
LORD MITCHISON: I am so sorry if I appeared not to do that. I did not mean to give that impression in the least. If I am going to disallow the noble Lord's bona fides, I shall tell him so in no unmeasured terms.
LORD CONESFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that clear. As regards the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, I can be very brief. He implied at one stage that I was attacking nationalisation, or the principle of nationalisation. I was doing, as the House knows, nothing of the sort. Of course I accept nationalisation, and the main object of this Bill. The motive for my Amendment is that I am absolutely convinced that the Government, whatever their intentions, are in fact injuring British credit, and are doing it for no good reason whatsoever.
There was one really important matter, with respect, that I hoped the noble Lord the Minister would answer, but which he did not. That was the point I ventured to make about the difficulties that could be caused to our entry into the European Community. That, I think, does deserve a little further consideration, for this reason. I agree with a great deal of the analysis of the Minister; that is, that the present owners will lose their present stock and will get in its place another stock of which we know very little. What he has not told us about is on what terms

1605
these debentures will be repaid to their new owners; namely, the Corporation. If the Corporation simply excuses the debt or treats it in some way quite different from the ordinary practice of English law, then it is my view—I may be quite wrong—that that may cause quite serious difficulties in the negotiations to enter the European Community, and certainly in the relations of the Corporation with the European Iron and Steel Community.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am sorry I did not deal with that point. Of course, this argument could be applied to all the compensation terms. All I would say to the noble Lord is that there is no question of there being any hidden subsidisation of the Corporation of a kind that would bring in doubt the bona fides (or perhaps the word should be "purity") of their trading operations in this respect. These matters are bound to be revealed at various stages—and I give a positive assurance of that kind. I do not myself believe, from all the inquiries I have made, that this particular matter would be a serious impediment. I know that there are other aspects on which noble Lords have doubts, although I do not agree with them, but I can give an absolutely categoric reply to the noble Lord on this matter.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble Lord. I genuinely believe, for the reasons that I tried to give to the House and that I gave to the Committee, that the present proposals of Her Majesty's Government are injurious to British credit and are unnecessary for any of the purposes of nationalisation that they have in mind. As to the statements which the noble Lord has made, and which another Minister made on a previous occasion—that if these debentures were not taken over, a reconstruction could be successfully delayed or prevented—I can say only that I believe that to be a contention which, in law, is quite unfounded.
Now the question is: should I withdraw the Amendment? I think I should not—and I will tell the noble Lord why I have formed that conclusion. This matter has never been yet discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons. It was discussed one day in Committee, and on a Division the Government majority was only four. I know that that is a sufficient majority; but, that being the case, it seems to me that, if this House shares my view of the possible threat to British credit, we should give the House of Commons an opportunity of considering this matter. I say at once that T should certainly accept their conclusion; but I think they are entitled to know our view and to give their own view on whether this is injuring British credit, and is injuring it unnecessarily. For those reasons, I believe that it is in the interests of Parliament that we should divide on this issue, and I therefore do not think fit to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I, with leave, say just this, in the light of the constitutional doctrine enunciated by the noble Lord? I find it strange that, in the case of a matter which we have discussed fully and which has certainly been discussed in Committee in another place, in a Bill which was never guillotined—as have been so many measures introduced by both Labour and Conservative Governments—it should be suggested that we make an Amendment to a Bill merely to enable another place to discuss it on the Floor of the House. The suggestion seems to me to have—and I mean this in no offensive way—a specious attractiveness but little real validity; and I hope that noble Lords, in voting for this Amendment, will not do so for that particular reason.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 39; Not-Contents 26.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M

Colville of Culross, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Airedale, L.

Colyton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L

Ampthill, L.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Fortescue, E.

Audley, Bs.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gough, V.

Barrington, V.

Derwent, L.

Hacking, L.

Birdwood, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ironside, L

Redmayne, L

Strathclyde, L

Killearn, L

Rowallan, L

Swansea, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V

St. Helens, L.

Tangley, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Selkirk, E

Terrington, L

Monson, L

Sempill, Ly

Teynham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Somers, L

Thurlow, L

Reay,L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V

Gifford, L.

Peddie, L.

Bowles, L.

Hall, V.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Burden, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Champion, L

Kilbracken, L

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L.

Citrine, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sorensen, L.

Crook, L.

Mitchison, L

Stocks, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Moyle, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Pargiter, L

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 36, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not agree that this Amendment is consequential. I do not want to waste time on it, but in my view there is no point in fixing collateral securities. In order to save the time of the House I wonder whether the noble Lord would prefer not to press this. If we find that it is essential, perhaps he would move it at the Third Reading. The Government for the sake of consistency would then accept it.
LORD CONESFORD: Willingly. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Compensation for vesting of securities]:
LORD CONESFORD: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 35, leave out ("securities") and insert ("stocks and shares").—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD CONESFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, which is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 8 line 44, leave out ("securities") and insert ("said stocks and shares").—(Lord Conesford.)
Clause 11 [Valuation of securities quoted before May 1966 and of new issues]:
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It is a technical Amendment designed to facilitate the proposed merger between Dorman Long, Stewarts and Lloyds and South Durham, about which noble Lords will have read. In order to save time, I will not give the arguments in favour of this merger, which are well known. It is almost a consequential Amendment designed to make it clear that technical changes in rights which might result from the merger do not affect the present compensation position of the different classes of shares. The concern is to ensure that compensation rights are the same. The companies also are anxious that the compensation of the different classes of security shall not be prejudiced or put in doubt.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, at end insert ("and for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, an alteration effected, after the last of the relevant days, in rights attaching to securities shall not be taken to have changed them into different securities.")—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have only two comments to make on this Amendment. First, it illustrates the usefulness of your Lordships' consideration of this Bill. This is a case of defective wording which the Government themselves have now amended. Were it not for the opportunity of giving consideration to this Bill in your Lordships' House, the merger between Dorman Long, South Durham and Stewarts and Lloyds could probably not have been taken account of in the Bill at all. Secondly, this merger shows that rationalisation can take place within

1609
the steel industry along the lines indicated by the Benson Committee without nationalisation at all. This brings us back however to the general arguments discussed at Second Reading which I shall not pursue now.
Clause 15 [Provision of production facilities to be subject to Minister's consent in certain cases]:
6.50 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETONmoved, in subsection (2), to leave out, "a notice published in such manner as he thinks best adapted for informing the persons affected ", and to insert, "order". The noble Lord said: My Lords, again we have a whole stream of Amendments which it might be convenient, if noble Lords agree, to consider together, Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 19 and 20. They arise out of an Amendment to Clause 46 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in Committee. That Amendment provided that a notice issued by the Minister under Clause 15 should be subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure. For reasons explained by my noble friend Lord Hughes, the Government felt that the Affirmative Resolution procedure would not be appropriate in this case, but we undertook to introduce Amendments to make the substance of the notice subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and this group of Amendments fulfils that undertaking.
My Lords, perhaps I should say that under this clause the notice relates to the publishing of notices defining those projects in the private sector which must be submitted to the Minister but that they will now he given by way of Order which will be subject to a Prayer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 38, leave out from ("by") to ("require") in line 40 and insert ("order")—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, these Amendments, resulting, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, from Amendments putdown from this side of the House on Committee stage, represent a considerable concession by the Government in the interests of Parliamentary accountability, and we welcome them. They do not go so far as we had originally asked, which was for an
1610
Affirmative Resolution procedure. This was indicated as the most appropriate form of procedure by the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation when they made their recommendations on the subject of Statutory Orders of special importance. None the less, it is a substantial gain from the point of view of those concerned with the degree of ministerial answerability.
The only other point I should like to make on these Amendments is that they deal with a politically explosive area of potential controversy. The whole question of the extension of production facilities in the private sector will be affected by this clause when the Bill becomes law. Millom cases will no doubt arise. The Minister will set the level of production facilities by tonnage, by price, or by whatever standard may be decided, and that Order can be considered in Parliament. A motion to negative it can be tabled. But thereafter, once the level is fixed, as I understand it, the Minister's own decision will determine whether or not consent to proceed is given. Some of these, as Millom is already, may be very difficult social and political decisions. We would be wise to note that as we welcome these Amendments.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 41, leave out ("notice") and insert ("order").—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 5, leave out ("publishing a notice") and insert ("making an order").—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("A notice") and insert ("An order").—(Lord Shackleton.)
Clause 25:
Information respecting certain classes of business of the Corporation and publicly-owned companies to be contained in the Corporation's report to Minister
25.—(1) If a body in the group consisting of the Corporation and the publicly-owned

1611
companies has, in the course of a financial year of the body ending after such date as the Minister may determine for the purposes of this subsection, carried on business of a kind to which this section applies, or business of that kind of two or more classes that differ substantially from each other, the Corporation shall determine the amount of the turnover of the body for that financial year in respect of business of that kind or, as the case may be, of each of those classes; and if the amount of turnover in respect of that business or, as the case may be, of any of those classes, is determined by the Corporation to have exceeded £250,000, there shall be contained, if the body is the Corporation, in the report which, by section 4(6) of the 1949 Act, they are required to make next after the end of that financial year or, if the body is a publicly-owned company, in the report which the Corporation are by that section required to make next after the end of the financial year of the Corporation with or within which the first-mentioned financial year ends, a statement of—
d) the interest rates charged to publicly-owned companies for loans made to them by the Corporation or by the Minister, and the amounts of such loans; and
6.53 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved to leave out paragraph (d) of subsection (1). The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment I am proposing reverses a decision of your Lordships' House taken on a Division, and in the circumstances I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I go rather thoroughly into the considerations which have led the Government to put down this Amendment. I should like to begin by reminding your Lordships that the publicly-owned companies will have four sources of funds for financing their capital expenditures: First, their internal resources, consisting of provisions of one kind and another (notably depreciation) and any retained surpluses on revenue account; secondly, temporary borrowings from persons other than the Corporation (notably the banks) made under the provisions of Clause 19(3); thirdly, the issue of shares or stock; it may be assumed that issues of this kind will normally be subscribed for by the Corporation; and, fourthly, loans from the Corporation.
On the average, internal resources provide about two-thirds of the capital requirements of companies in the private sector. There is no reason for assuming that the publicly-owned companies of the
1612
Corporation will on average contribute less than this proportion towards their capital requirements; but even if they did fall somewhat short of the general average, it would be surprising if loans from the Corporation became the preponderant source of capital for the publicly-owned companies. Even in the exceptional case where a company in, say, its early years, is more than normally dependent on loans from the Corporation, it is easy to exaggerate the saving to the company in interest charges over the cost of borrowing from the market. Over the years, the difference between the Exchequer borrowing rate and the rate for good industrial debentures has been in the region of½per cent. per annum. If we take the ratio of turnover to capital employed as averaging 3 to 2, and if we assume that all new investment by a publicly-owned company is financed by loans from the Corporation at the Exchequer lending rate, the saving as against borrowing from the market would be in the region of only 0·3 per cent. of total costs. Normally, the saving would be even smaller, as any saving would only apply to that part of the increment in total capital employed that is financed by loans and the ratio of this to turnover would be quite small.
My Lords, I have, of course, been speaking of averages and the normal case. This is an average across the whole of industry. Noble Lords will remember this appeared recently in The Times in relation to the 300 leading firms. This is the ratio of turnover to capital. There will always be exceptional cases—new businesses, for example—where the proportion of investment financed by Corporation loans could be very high and where the ratio of turnover to capital employed might be unusually low. But in considering the need for a legislative provision, it is useful, I submit, to start by looking at the situation in the round and at the normal case. I think the truth of my contentions is demonstrated by the borrowing provision in Clause 19. Your Lordships will see that provision is made there for new borrowings by the Corporation up to a limit of £400 million. The Corporation's total saving in interest on future borrowing from the Exchequer may thus be estimated as about £2 million per annum after five years. I do not want to suggest that this saving in interest is the complete measure of the

1613
importance to the Corporation of borrowing from the Exchequer, but in comparison with a total turnover already exceeding£1,300 million a year it is plain that the saving on interest is negligible as a factor in the publicly-owned companies' competition with the private sector.
Your Lordships, while accepting what I have said as true in general, may still be concerned about the exceptional case and the possibility that the Corporation may occasionally make loans at rates well below the rates at which it borrows itself from the Exchequer. In the Government's view, what is material in such cases, as indeed in all cases, is not the terms on which capital is made available but the use that is made of such capital; that is, not the cost of the capital to the publicly-owned company but the earned rate of return. The Government introduced Clause 25 so that Parliament, and companies in the private sector and the public generally, could calculate the rate of return on capital which was being obtained on their non-iron and steel activities by the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies and could therefore judge the efficiency with which the capital was being used, and be satisfied that the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies were not competing unfairly with the private sector by accepting unduly low rates of return in particular instances.
Under Clause 25, as it originally stood, the Corporation would have to provide details of turnover, profit or loss and capital employed, separately in respect of nearly all the non-iron and steel activities of itself and the publicly-owned companies; and it is required to do this in such a way as to ensure that a true and fair view can be obtained of the rate of return on capital as your Lordships will see from subsection 4 of this clause. This is a more far-reaching obligation than will be imposed on companies in the private sector, even after passage of the Companies Bill. It is an important safeguard of the interests in the private sector that may be affected by the non-iron and steel activities of the new Corporation and, as it applies to all capital employed, in the Government's view it makes unnecessary any provision confined to fresh borrowings.
There appear to be some 50 or 60 future publicly-owned companies which
1614
will be engaged mainly in non iron and steel activities. Loans may be made to them on a number of separate occasions in each year. The publication of the details of all these separate loans could become very lengthy and serve no useful purpose. The terms of the Corporation's borrowings from the Minister will undoubtedly be given in the Corporation's accounts, in the same way as they are for other nationalised industries. In the ordinary case, these rates will constitute a floor for loans by the Corporation to the publicly-owned companies.
Despite what I have said, some of your Lordships may still like to have regular confirmation that the Corporation is not making loans at low rates of interest to publicly-owned companies whose principal operations are outside the field of iron and steel. In the Government's view, as I have said, this is unnecessary, but in deference to your Lordships' view and to the fact that we had failed to convince the noble Lord, I have consulted my right honourable friend the Minister of Power, and if your Lordships were able to agree to the Amendment I am proposing I am authorised to undertake that in respect of loans made by the Corporation to publicly-owned companies whose business consists wholly or mainly in activities not being iron and steel activities the Corporation's accounts will include a statement that the loans had been made at rates of interest not less than those at which the Corporation could have borrowed from the Exchequer, at the time and on equivalent conditions as to duration, frequency of payment of interest and so on. In the event of any loans being made at rates lower than the Exchequer lending rate at the time, details of the amounts advanced and the rates chargeable will be given, together with a note as to the reasons for the exceptional treatment.
It may well be that on Committee stage we were not as convincing or as clear as we might have been in the explanation we gave in resisting the Amendment, which was passed on that occasion. If so, I must take some of the blame. But I think that something has been achieved, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the positive undertaking which we now give freely on behalf of the Government will go a long way to relieve the anxiety he had on this matter and that he

1615
will feel it would be appropriate now for the House to agree to this Amendment.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 17, leave out from beginning to second ("and") in line 19.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the full statement he has just made on this Amendment. When we inserted into the Bill in Committee the words which he now proposes should be left out, restoring this clause of the Bill to what it was before Committee stage began, I emphasised that, although the Amendment might be technically defective, an important issue of principle was raised and that by putting the matter to a Division we should be ensuring that the Government would look at the matter closely and carefully and would be able to return to it on Report stage. I think that our Division in Committee has proved to be abundantly justified by the full and helpful statement which the noble Lord has just made. His assurance towards the end of his speech goes a long way to meeting the points we made, and I think that good has been done. I am grateful to the Minister and would advise my colleagues on this side not to resist this Amendment, because we have obtained nearly all we asked for.
7.8 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause:
Right of objection of consumers of iron and steel products to trade practices of the Corporation and publicly-owned companies appearing to be unfair.
".—(1) Subject to subsection (5) below, the three next following subsections shall have effect where a consumer of iron and steel products, being neither the Corporation nor a publicly-owned company, makes to the Minister written complaint about a practice employed by the Corporation or a publicly-owned company in selling iron and steel products, being products of an activity specified neither in paragraph 4 nor in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the 1953 Act, and the complaint is expressed to be made on the ground that the practice is unfair to the complainant and specifies the respect in which he considers that it is so unfair.
(2) The Minister shall forthwith after receiving the complaint send a copy thereof to
1616
the Corporation and, after such period for consideration of, and comment upon, the complaint by the Corporation as the Minister thinks reasonable has elapsed, shall send to the complainant a statement of the comments, if any, made by the Corporation on the complaint and shall, if he is of opinion that the complaint raises a question of substance and that the complainant has a reasonable case to make in support of the complaint, afford the complainant and the Corporation an opportunity of appearing, either personally or by a representative, before a person appointed by the Minister.
(3) The Minister shall consider the report of the person appointed under the last foregoing subsection and may, if it appears to him that the practice complained of is unfair to the complainant, give to the Corporation such directions as appear to him to be requisite to secure the removal of the grounds on which it is so unfair; and the Minister shall furnish the complainant with a statement of any such directions and the Corporation shall give effect thereto.
(4) Where a complainant avails himself of the right conferred by subsection (2) above to appear before a person appointed by the Minister, the Minister shall furnish the complainant and the Corporation each with a copy of the report of the person so appointed, and a statement of the conclusions reached by the Minister on considering the report.
(5) The Minister may by order give a direction that subsection (1) shall have effect as if the reference to products of an activity specified neither in paragraph 4 nor in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the 1953 Act did not include a reference to products of a specified description or that that subsection shall have effect as if the first-mentioned reference were omitted."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this Amendment we return to the subject discussed earlier under Amendment No. 3; that is, the relations between the Corporation or the publicly-owned companies in their non iron and steel activities, and the privately-owned enterprises with which they will be competing. This new clause has been drafted on the basis of the Government's own new Clause 30, in which a complaints procedure for iron and steel producers in the private sector has been incorporated into the Bill. Our Amendment seeks to provide a parallel right for consumers of iron and steel products, so that complaints can be brought against the Corporation or the publicly-owned companies where their trading practices appear to be unfair. I suggest that the Government have conceded the validity of our argument by inserting what is now Clause 30.
Until the Committee stage, there was little recognition that in the structural

1617
steelwork and bridgework industry there will be a substantial public sector, amounting to about one-third of the industry by value. My noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale at that stage tabled a proposal to set up a tribunal. Perhaps that went a little far. It was not acceptable to the Government. Now we return to the same point, but with a modified procedure, modelled closely on what the Government themselves proposed as appropriate for producers of iron and steel in the private sector.
I should like to deal briefly with something said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when we discussed Amendment No. 3—that is, the assurances given in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on arm's-length trading. To deal with Lord Shepherd's three concessions in detail these were set out in Hansard of February 28, at columns 1058–59. The first was (col. 1058) that:
…Clause 25 requires the Corporation to publish much information about each of their main diversified activities…"
This is useful, but it does not deal with the question of a procedure for handling complaints by the consumers of iron and steel products against the Corporation. Secondly, while we are glad to have the assurance that:
"the Minister of Power will discuss with the Corporation the possibility of including in their first report on organisation under Clause 4 a discussion of the principles on which trading between different sectors of the Corporation's business will be based…"
this again does not seem to deal directly with a complaints procedure on the lines we have proposed; that is where there is a private sector and a public sector outside the iron and steel producing industry.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said (col. 1058–59):
"…the final responsibility in this matter will rest with the Minister as a result of Clause 7(2) which enables him to give the Corporation specific directions on organisation."
Frankly, I find it difficult to see the relevance to a complaints procedure of the directions given by the Minister on the subject of the Corporation's internal organisation. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply may at this stage, or, if he has had inadequate notice, on Third Reading, help us with this, because it is likely that the Minister
1618
will be inclined to see things the way the National Steel Corporation sees them, and this may not help the private sector.
We discussed the Consumers' Council a little earlier this afternoon. It has been the experience of the steel industry, in the two most recent instances when it has made representations to the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council, that recommendations were made by that Council to the Minister but that in each case, after the correct procedures had been gone through, the Minister found (for understandable reasons) that he had to support the National Coal Board. So where one has both private and public sectors of an industry, and complaints going up to the Minister, as in the Consumers' Council procedure, the private sector may feel that it is not getting a fair deal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Windlesham.)
7.14 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, imitation is certainly a sincere form of flattery, and I am glad to see the noble Lord take Clause 25 and adapt it so skilfully to another purpose. Again, I think this Amendment is representative of the state that we have got to on this Bill. We are arguing in increasingly narrow areas, where there is just a tendency one way or the other. This is not to suggest that this Amendment is without interest. As one goes through the Bill, one gets to feel instinctively what it is that is concerning noble Lords when they put down Amendments, and one would wish to give as full satisfaction as possible. But I must make clear that I think this new clause goes too far. It would mean a reduction in the Corporation's commercial freedom, which I really think would be unacceptable. It is a principle recognised by both Parties that the nationalised industries should, except in very special circumstances, and subject to such safeguards as the existence of consumer councils, be given reasonable freedom to conduct their own commercial affairs. Such freedom would indeed seem to be essential if the Corporation is to be vigorous and enterprising, a result which both the Government and the Opposition, and even the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, want to

1619
see achieved. To give any dissatisfied customer a right to appeal to the Minister when he thinks the price he is being charged is unfair would be a very considerable potential interference in their commercial freedom, expose them to harassment by querulous and disputatious customers, and involve them, and the Minister, in time-wasting argument. It would also put them under a liability to which no private firm, and no other nationalised industry, is subject.
In making these general remarks, I fully appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has a particular section of industry in mind, and that there are, on the face of it, reasons why he wants this particular group considered. My other main objection to this new clause is that it would cut across the position of the Consumers' Council. Indeed I doubt whether there would be a point in having a Consumers' Council. One would get into arguments as to how a matter was to be dealt with, and whether it should go before the Consumers' Council. We are anxious that the Consumers' Council should develop into a vigorous body, in which the Corporation's consumers have complete confidence; and we have taken steps to-day to strengthen even more the Consumers' Council, at least in regard to its independence. Again, here, presumably, the Opposition are in favour of this because they have suggested Amendments which we have accepted.
This new clause, I must say, would leave the Council with practically nothing to do so far as the sale of iron and steel products was concerned. Consumers of these products who felt that they were being treated unfairly would look, not to the Council, but to the Minister for redress, and to that extent the Council would be weakened. And this would be all to no purpose, I would submit since under the Bill as drafted consumers of the Corporation's major products can make representations to the Council whenever they think they are being treated unfairly, and the Council can in turn make representations on the subject to the Minister, who, under Amendments accepted by the Government in Committee, is required to tell Parliament if he takes no action on such representations. Therefore, it is argued that adequate means of making complaints already
1620
exist: the new clause would add nothing to them, while weakening the body which represents consumers' interests.
Noble Lords may ask why, in view of these general considerations, the Government have incorporated into the Bill Clause 30, which allows iron and steel producers to complain to the Minister about unfair trading practices by the public sector. The reason is this. Private sector iron and steel producers are in a unique position. They will be simultaneously in competition with a dominant nationalised sector, and dependent on it for supplies of semi-finished steel. They will, therefore, be in a very special position—indeed, one so special that the Government felt that special safeguards were necessary and therefore inserted Clause 30 in the Bill. Iron and steel consumers in general are not in this position, and there is therefore no need for the special safeguards of Clause 30. Moreover, Clause 30 does not cut across the responsibilities of the Consumers' Council as this clause would, since Clause 30 covers those who, although they are consumers, have special difficulties arising from the fact that they are also competitors of the Corporation; and the Consumers' Council is plainly not meant to protect the interests of the Corporation's competitors.
The noble Lord referred in particular to the steel constructors and an area where, like private sector iron and steel, they are both consumers and competitors of the Corporation. The private firms in the constructional steel industry are, in our view, not in quite the special position of the private sector iron and steel producers. Unlike the private sector iron and steel producers, they are not in competition with a wholly dominant nationalised sector, since the Corporation will control only some 40 per cent. of the constructional steel industry, and they are much less dependent on the Corporation than are the private sector iron and steel producers for their basic supplies, since they can also get the finished products they need (except at the heavier end) from the private steel producers or from merchants as well as from imports.
It is therefore plain that the special considerations, which in the case of private sector steel producers justify the exception from the general principles governing the nationalised industries, do

1621
not apply to the constructional steel industry, but members of the British Constructional Steelworks Association will of course be able to appeal to the Consumers' Council, and the Association will be quite free to make representations to the Minister of Power if it thinks that in relation to the constructional steel industry the Corporation is taking action against the public interest.
I can understand the anxieties, but I hope that for the reasons I have set out it will not be acceptable to go as far as the noble Lord has suggested.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said. This is arguable either way. The proof will be the manner in which the National Steel Corporation and the publicly-owned companies do in fact conduct their business. In this House, and no doubt in another place, people who have been interested in this Bill will watch carefully the trading practices, not only of the iron and steel producing companies, but also of the publicly-owned steel consuming companies in the constructional steel industry. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43:
Restriction of disclosure of information obtained under Iron and Steel Acts
43.—(1) No information obtained under this Act, the 1953 Act or the 1949 Act shall be disclosed except—
(c) for the purpose of enabling the Corporation or the Minister to discharge their or his functions under this Act or the provisions of the 1949 Act thereby revived or of enabling the Iron and Steel Board to discharge their functions under the 1953 Act or this Act; or
7.23 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAMmoved, in subsection (1)(c), to leave out "the Corporation or". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House it might be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together. These Amendments return again to the subject discussed on Committee stage of the extent to which consent of a company or an individual who is required to produce information to the Corporation or the Minister, may be needed. In the
1622
Bill as it stands at the moment, a number of criteria are set out. In some cases, the consent of the informant is required; in other instances his consent is not necessarily required.
The argument is a somewhat complex one which I will not repeat again at this late hour. It is set out in the House of Lords Hansard for February 28 at column 1048. In reply to that detailed argument the noble Lord, Lord Winter bottom, who answered for the Government, said in column 1051 that the Amendment was not effective in relation to Clause 39(1). But it is clear that the privately-owned companies, so far as I can see, do not really come within the province of Clause 39(1). On Clause 39(2), the noble Lord, Lord Winter bottom, suggested that the Amendment went too far, as it would prevent the disclosure to the Corporation of information about the plans of individual companies, even when that disclosure could do no conceivable commercial damage to the company concerned.
The position here surely is that in those circumstances, where nobody thought there could be any commercial damage, the company concerned would be quite willing to give its permission, or the information could be given to the Corporation in the form of a summary. Having looked at Hansard quite carefully, which is what we said we would do, I feel that a little further explanation is required from the Government on the question of obtaining the prior consent of the people who are required to furnish information. That is the purpose of these three Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 1, leave out ("the Corporation or").—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think there is any difference or disagreement between the two sides about the need to provide complete protection for the legitimate commercial interests of the private sector. The Government have many times made plain, both in this House and in another place, their desire to protect these interests and, generally, to ensure that the private sector is strong and competitive. This is, therefore, common ground between noble Lords opposite and the Government. The only question at issue between us is whether the Bill needs to

1623
be amended to provide this protection for the private sector. I hope to show that an Amendment is not necessary; but I hope in doing so I can meet the noble Lord's point by giving assurances which will allay the private sector's fears at this point.
The Amendment deals with the disclosure of information to the Corporation. The only person, apart from the Corporation, who is enabled to collect information under the Bill or the revised provisions of the 1949 Act, is the Minister. The question is, therefore, under what conditions the Minister can pass on to the Corporation information obtained under the Bill. The Minister is empowered to collect two classes of information under the Bill. First, Clause 41(1) allows him to collect certain information mainly to support the safeguarding, vesting and compensation provisions. I do not think this power need worry us now. It can, because it is wanted for a limited purpose, be collected, so far as the private sector is concerned, only from persons having property owned in 1964 by a company coming into public ownership. And in any case the power expires a year after vesting date. As the Bill was originally drafted, these powers also extended to the collections of information from private sector producers, but in Committee in another place the Government, in order to allay the fears of the private sector, removed them from the scope of this provision. So I do not think that there is anything in the existence of the powers in 41(1) which need concern the private sector.
The second class of information which the Minister can collect under the Bill consists of the forecasts of iron and steel productions and capacity which he can collect from private sector producers under Clause 41(2). On this point, I do not think I can do more than to repeat the categorical and unqualified assurance given in Committee by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom that no commercially valuable information obtained by the Minister under Clause 41(2) about individual companies would be disclosed to the Corporation, even when it was necessary to enable the Corporation to discharge their functions.
1624
I said that the Bill empowers the Minister to collect two classes of information. But inevitably, in his general administration of the Bill—perhaps especially in his control of private sector development under Clause 15—he will acquire a great deal of information about private sector companies. Indeed, I would almost say that I hope he does, since I hope that really good and close relations will grow up between the Minister and his Department and the private sector, and that the private sector will keep the Department continuously aware of their thinking and their problems. The fact that the Minister is also responsible for the nationalised steel industry does not in any way weaken such responsibilities as he has as the sponsoring Minister for the highly important private sector, and certainly my experience of Ministers is that in these matters prejudice does not influence them when they are discharging duties that clearly are laid upon them. All the information acquired in the way I have mentioned should be protected where it is confidential, and the Government are anxious that this should happen in order to encourage the development of mutual trust and confidence between the Department and the private sector.
So I am glad to give the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the additional assurance that no commercially valuable information acquired by the Ministry in this way will be passed on to the Corporation. I hope noble Lords will agree that these are comprehensive assurances, and that they cover every aspect of the matter conceivably of interest to the private sector. I hope that here I have at least met the noble Lord's wish that we should go further and explain the position a little more clearly, and that he will feel he can now withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I was interested to hear the assurance the noble Lord has just given, which repeats what Dr. Jeremy Bray, who was Parliamentary Secretary at that time, said in Standing Committee D on December 14 in another place. The reason why we moved these Amendments both on Committee and again to-day was that we had hoped that, in order to implement the assurance given by Dr. Bray and repeated now, the Government might be able to see their way to amend the Bill so that a safeguard was written into the Bill.

1625
However, the assurance has been given to us again to-day by the noble Lord. We take note of it, and, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46:
Regulations, orders and rules
46.—
(4) The power conferred by the said section 4 and that conferred by the said sections 5 and 30 to make an order shall include power exercisable in the like manner to vary or revoke an order.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 11, after ("5") insert ("15").—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 19, leave out from ("by") to ("to") in line 20 and insert ("each of the following provisions, namely, section 4 of the 1949 Act and sections 5, 15 and 30 of this Act") .—(Lord Shackleton.)
Schedule 3 [Amendments of revised provisions of 1949 Act]:
7.34 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved to add to the proposed amendments to Section 4 of the 1949 Act:
"In subsection (6) after the words 'financial year' there shall be inserted 'and in any event within six months thereof' ".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 21 and 26 together; 26 is consequential on 21. Both of these Amendments seek to place on the Corporation a limit of time of six months in which they would have to publish their annual report. At the Committee stage an Amendment was moved from this Bench to set a period of four months instead of six. We have now extended that by two months in the hope that the Government will be able to accept this slightly longer period. There is one additional argument that can be put to the noble Lord: that six months is exactly double the period in which the scheduled companies now produce their
1626
annual reports. We have added a further period of three months because it is accepted that the Corporation may need a longer period to co-ordinate and gather in the information from the 14 companies, in the first instance anyway. The period of six months would therefore seem to be generous.
The Government might reply that no other nationalised industry has this obligation placed on it to present its report in a fixed period, so why should it apply to the National Steel Corporation? That must be one of the stock ways of blocking any proposal. We are now twenty years after the main body of post-war nationalisation Statutes. At some time a new pattern has to be set. Somebody has to be first, and this amendment is not meant as a criticism of the National Steel Corporation before it is set up. There is a need, I should have thought noble Lords on both sides could agree, for more speedy production of Government statistics and official reports.
Having said that about the detailed wording of his amendments, I would add one rider. The effect of a provision of this sort would be to increase the Minister's accountability to Parliament for the whole steel industry, the private sector as well as the public sector, and it was for that reason that we originally introduced it. We have not yet had in this House, and I have not found in reading the debates in another place, an explicit statement by the Government of the extent to which the Minister of Power will accept responsibility in Parliament for the National Steel Corporation. If the noble Lord felt it possible to make a statement now I think it would interest the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 44, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, first of all on a small technical point, the effect of this Amendment would be to require the Corporation to submit their annual report to the Minister within six months of the end of a financial year, and I assume that what is in fact intended is that publication—which takes place some considerable time after submission To the Minister—should be within six months of the end of a financial year. But I fully take the point of the

1627
noble Lord. I think this is an interesting Amendment, and one which personally I have been rather sympathetic to. But there are objections which I should like to give. We have considered this point very carefully since it was discussed in Committee, as has my right honourable friend the Minister of Power, and I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
The noble Lord has suggested that the argument that it has never been imposed on other nationalised industries is not necessarily valid. On the other hand, it might well be a valid argument, and the reasons why it was not imposed on other Corporations might apply equally to the steel industry. The noble Lord referred to what he regarded as a reasonable length of time. I must point out that if the scheduled companies produce their reports within three months these are very much simpler; and a report covering the whole of the steel industry, with all the things which are required to be put into it and which Parliament is asking for, will be a very substantial report anyway. Last year the annual reports of the Gas Council and Boards and the Electricity Council and Boards were all published within a week or two after six months from the end of the financial year. The task of producing the Corporation's annual report will, moreover, be greater because of the much greater diversity of their activities and the new requirements of Clause 25. This, therefore, would require the Corporation to produce its reports significantly more quickly than the Gas and Electricity Councils and Boards have found possible.
An extremely tight timetable would be vulnerable to delays, and I will not repeat the arguments that I advanced previously. But it could be awkward if some snag led to the Corporation's failing to meet the statutory requirement, and indeed it might be damaging to the quality of the reports themselves. Up against the hard timetable, as we all know, at certain times when you have to fulfil a requirement you do the best you can, but it is not as good as you could have done if you had had a little longer.
The annual report will contain important information, but I think our main reason for rejecting this request must
1628
be that its implication is that the Corporation cannot be trusted to produce its report as soon as possible. Although I agree one can meet this argument that it has not been imposed on the other Corporations, by saying, "It is just too bad, but at least we will impose it on this", I am confident—and I have gone into this fully—that the Corporation will act, and indeed will have the strongest reasons to act, reasonably. It is so much in the interests of the Corporation that they should get out their report, because this is their opportunity to explain what they are doing and to put their best face alongside the various facts they have to put before the world. Furthermore, I am sure that their duty to Parliament and to the Minister will ensure that this report will come out as soon as possible.
The noble Lord asked, as I think it is reasonable in this context, whether I would say something about the Minister's answerability to Parliament. I regret taking the time of your Lordships so late in the evening, but it may be convenient if I do so now because it will enable noble Lords to study what I have to say, and if noble Lords have any points which they wish to raise about it or in regard to its interpretation there will be an opportunity on Third Reading.
I do not think anyone has yet brought together in a single packet all the main points in regard to the Minister's accountability to Parliament for the activities of the National Steel Corporation, or indeed the extent to which it compares with other nationalised industries. Ministers are answerable in full to Parliament for the action which they may take under powers conferred on them by Statute, or for not taking action which they have the power to take. And it follows that the extent to which the Minister of Power is answerable for the National Steel Corporation depends basically on the powers in relation to the Corporation conferred on him by this Bill now before us.
Many of these powers are similar to powers conferred on Ministers in relation to other nationalised industries. They include the power to appoint members of the Corporation, the power to give general directions when this appears to the Minister to be in the national interest, control over the general lines of investment, and research and development programmes,

1629
and control over borrowing. These general powers taken together mean that the Minister has the responsibility to ensure that anationalised industry is conducted efficiently and in the national interest; and it follows that Ministers are answerable to Parliament for the general efficiency of the industries under their sponsorship.
Ministers are also answerable to Parliament for the action which they take, or refrain from taking, in those fields where they have specific powers, such as the power to approve the general lines of investment and research and development programmes, the control of schemes for the provision of pensions, redundancy compensation and similar payments, and the power to give specific directions arising out of the reports of the consumer councils. In all these respects the powers of the Minister under the Iron and Steel Bill are similar to the powers of Ministers under other nationalisation Acts, and the degree of answerability to Parliament will be broadly the same.
There is one important limitation on this which is well known and I feel bound to mention it. The then Lord President of the Council, the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth, whom I had the privilege of serving as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, and who was well known in your Lordships' House, said in a statement in another place on December 4, 1947, that:
"it would be contrary to the clearly expressed intention of Parliament in the governing legislation if Ministers were to give, in replies to Parliament or in letters, information about day-to-day matters".
That statement has been endorsed by successive Governments, and although the rules about the admission of Parliamentary Questions have been somewhat relaxed or dented, it remains the case that Questions about day-to-day matters are not generally admissible. Questions about the general policy of the industries are, however, normally accepted and answered, and the position of the National Steel Corporation in this respect will be the same as that of other nationalised industries.
The Iron and Steel Bill, however, differs from earlier nationalisation measures in two important respects. First, it gives the National Steel Corporation wider scope than any other nationalised in-
1630
dustry. Second, most of the earlier Acts, although the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act is an exception, laid down in some detail the organisation of the nationalised industry, whereas this Bill does not. For reasons which have been explained on a number of occasions, the Government are satisfied that it is entirely right to give this greater degree of flexibility to the Corporation; but as a corollary, the Minister has a number of specific powers in relation to the Corporation not enjoyed—if that is the right word—by Ministers in relation to other nationalised industries.
They include the provisions in Clauses 2 and 39 under which the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies require the Minister's consent before acquiring interest in or forming companies, and the Corporation require his consent before engaging in non-iron and steel activities. Clause 7 empowers the Minister to give the Corporation specific directions on organisation, and forbids substantial alterations in organisation except with his consent. Section 4(4) of the 1949 Act empowers the Minister to give the Corporation specific directions to cease activities or to dispose of assets other than iron and steel activities or assets in Great Britain, and to secure the winding up of any publicly-owned company. The Minister will be answerable for the use he makes of these powers and for any action he might have taken under them but refrains from taking. Thus, in return for allowing a greater measure of flexibility in the original Act Parliament will have a greater opportunity to call the Minister to account than in the case of any other nationalised industry.
It is here that I can link this up again without too much difficulty to the noble Lord's Amendment. It is the Corporation's annual report and accounts which are laid before Parliament which will provide the foundation for consideration by Parliament. Under Clause 25 it will contain much information about the diversified activities, and under Section 4(7) of the 1949 Act it will contain copies of any direction given by the Minister to the Corporation unless, in the Minister's opinion, publication would be contrary to national security or to the Corporation's commercial interest. In accordance with undertakings given in

1631
another place, the Minister will use his powers under Clause 6 to require the publication of a wide and comprehensive range of statistics relating to all the main activities under the control of the Corporation.
In another place the National Steel Corporation will come within the ambit of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. All this means that there will be available to both Houses almost a mine of information, going in some respects beyond that provided by other nationalised industries, on the basis of which it will be possible to hold the Minister responsible in the way I have described. I apologise to the House, and I am grateful for the patience of noble Lords. I hope that what I have said by itself will have justified the putting down of the Amendment, which certainly raises points of interest, though I hope that the noble Lord will now feel that there is no need to press it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is not able to accept the Amendment and the arguments which have been advanced on a limited period of time. One argument he offered, that the Gas and Electricity Councils had presented their reports to the Minister in a period of time just over six months, seemed, if I may say so, the weakest of the arguments he deployed. However, I will not press this point. The general statement which he made—and he has confirmed that it is the first time that a comprehensive statement has been made—on the extent to which the Minister will be responsible for the steel industry to Parliament is extremely important. We are grateful to him for making it at this stage, so that, as he suggested, we can look at it rather carefully between now and Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.52 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved to add to the proposed amendment of Section 4 of the 1949 Act:
"In subsection (6), for the words 'the publicly-owned companies' there shall be substituted the words `their subsidiaries'."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment also relates to Amendment
1632
No. 27, and if it is acceptable to the House perhaps I may speak to both together. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that more information on subsidiary companies than might otherwise be the case is included in the Corporation's annual report.
Those of your Lordships who took part in the Committee stage will remember that from this side of the House we tabled a series of Amendments concerning the publication of the annual report, and that these contained two different proposals in the same Amendments. The first was a limited period of time, on Committee four months, which we have now changed to six months; and the second was more information on subsidiaries. At Committee stage these two aims were wrapped up in the same series of Amendments. In replying for the Government the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, gave an encouraging response on the second of our two aims in those Amendments. That was the desirability for the reports to contain information on subsidiary companies. We have therefore separated the subsidiary company point from the period of time point, and have tabled these two Amendments, Nos. 22 and 27, in the hope that the Government may be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 44, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD SHACKLTON: My Lords, we saw the force of the noble Lord's arguments; and, although we were not able to accept the Amendments as they then stood, I am glad to say that these new Amendments, which are technically correct, are Amendments which the Government would support. Therefore, I would advise your Lordships to accept them—a happy note on which to end the Report stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before we part with this Amendment, may I ask the noble Lord one question? I take it that quite a number of the subsidiary companies will be governed by company law in the ordinary way and will be making their reports and giving all the necessary information, depositing their accounts with the registrar of companies, and so forth. So that what the noble Lord is now giving is something additional to that; and, if I understand him

1633
correctly, it is something we very much welcome. Perhaps I may take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord on the way in which he has handled this Bill. He has been most helpful and has given a great deal of information. We are very grateful to him.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful to the noble Lord. If I may, with permission, reply to the noble Lord, I would say that this is something additional. It was something for which the Opposition asked, and it is one of the ways in which I believe we have improved the Bill together, in the co-operative and almost model way in which we have dealt with the Bill. Again, I should like to thank noble Lords opposite for their help.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 48, at end insert ("and at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the word and' ").—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move No. 24.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 8, column I, leave out ("and (10)").—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 9, at end insert:—

("Section 6(10)

The words 'with the approval of the Minister' and the words from and copies' onwards shall be omitted").—(Lord Windlesham.)

Schedule 4 [Form in which Provisions of 1949 Act have Effect by Virtue of this Act]:
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 27.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 16, leave out ("the publicly-owned companies") and insert ("their subsidiaries").—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 29, at end insert (" and")— (Lord Windlesham.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 37, leave out from (" companies") to end of line 39—(Lord wi ndlesham.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, leave out lines 20 to 27—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 41, leave out from second ("Council") to end of line 44.—(Lord Windlesham.)

PRIVATE PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT (LICENSING) BILL [H.L.]
7.58 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL
7.59 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should not wish this Bill to be dispensed with entirely formally, even though the hour is late. There is one question that I should like the Lord Chancellor to answer. It is a point which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, during the Second Reading debate, and I think that I myself mentioned it also. It concerns the inter-relationship between the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Council on Tribunals.
I noted with interest the list of examples—and it was only a list of examples and not a comprehensive list—of the things which the Parliamentary Commissioner might be able to deal with, which was given by the noble and learned Lord at one point in the Committee stage of the Bill. He included in it a series of incidents or occasions which might be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, which are also quite clearly within the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals. I refer particularly to the operations of a Government Department in dealing with matters of appeal; for instance, against planning permission and other similar events. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the Council on Tribunals and the Parliamentary Commissioner would have overlapping functions. I know that the Parliamentary Commissioner is to be an ex officio member of the Council on Tribunals, and I have no doubt that there will be the most sensible liaison between him and that body. Nevertheless, these are matters which are of interest to citizens and of which I hope they will want to avail themselves; and possibly their advisers will wish to do the same.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could therefore confirm that, notwithstanding the advent of the Parliamentary Commissioner upon the scene, the Council on Tribunals will still be seized of the same matters as it was seized of before, and that there will hereafter be a choice for a member of the public either to refer the matter direct to the Council, or, through the noble and learned Lord himself or his Member of Parliament, to seek to have the matter raised by the Parliamentary Commissioner so that both channels are still open and a citizen may make use of either of them as he thinks fit in the
1636
circumstances. Of course, how it is then worked out behind the scenes is another matter. But it would be useful if the noble and learned Lord could confirm that this is still the position, and that there is in no way a derogation from the powers or position of the Council on Tribunals as a result of the new powers given to the Parliamentary Commissioner. I think it would be a good thing if that point were dealt with, because I do not think it has been covered since the noble Baroness raised it.
The only other thing I want to say from these Benches is that we hope that the Parliamentary Commissioner will now be able to undertake his task, and to come into his kingdom to which he has been for rather a long time a shadowy heir apparent. We wish this experiment very well indeed, and we realise—and I hope that the public realises—that it is a limited experiment, as it must be in a country with so many people who might wish to complain about these matters. But we hope that out of this experiment experience will grow, so that in due course it may be possible to see whether we can extend the limits of the Parliamentary Commissioner's jurisdiction and give him an even more comprehensive task to do than that which pertains to him under the Bill. With those words of welcome, I think it would be a good thing to send this Bill, having been improved by this House by Amendments from all three Parties, on its way to another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I, in the first place, make it clear that I was not seeking to dissuade the noble Viscount from addressing the House. I had thought that perhaps our observations might more usefully, or more usually, be made on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. But, of course, any noble Lord is equally entitled to address the House on the Motion, That the Bill be now read a third time.
I think that the House has substantially improved this Bill. It is not for me to express an opinion as to whether another place was or was not wise not to include Members of your Lordships' House among those through whom the Parliamentary Commissioner might be reached. I am sure that another place having, whether wisely or not, taken that view, your Lordships were wise to deal with

1637
the matter in a dignified way and not to get on a high horse about it, and to express the view which after a Division your Lordships took.
We have considerably clarified what I think was the common intention throughout in wanting, first of all, the Parliamentary Commissioner to have as wide powers of investigation as possible; but, secondly, that he should not act as a one-man Court of Appeal from discretionary decisions. In the form in which the Bill reached us, this was, I think, open at least to doubt as a matter of construction, and I have no doubt that we have considerably improved the Bill in that respect. We have, again I think rightly, altered the Bill to provide that not only annual reports but also all the special reports to the Select Committee shall be published to this House as well as to the other House; and, speaking for myself, I am equally sure that we were wise in not including Regional Hospital Boards to start with.
It has always seemed to me, if I may say so, that there were three requisites to the success of this enterprise. The first is that we should get the right man as Parliamentary Commissioner—and all noble Lords in all parts of the House have agreed that the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate comes under that expression; secondly, that he should have the widest possible powers of investigation; and, thirdly, that he should not be overwhelmed to start with. We have always had to recognise, first, that the largest country in which the idea of a Parliamentary Commissioner has ever been tried has a population of 6 million; secondly, that it is most important that it should not only be the fact, but should be known to be the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner himself looks at the cases—which is why his personality is so important; and thirdly, that there may be a great tendency for anybody with any sort of grievance, whether it comes under the Bill or not, to try out the procedure to start with. That is why I feel we were Quite wise not to include Regional Hospital Boards, at any rate to start with, because they can always be included later if we think fit.
1638
To deal with the point which the noble Viscount has raised, it occurred to us that there is a field within which there may be some overlap as between the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Council on Tribunals. After considerable consideration, we came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible to write down on a piece of paper what would be the best thing to happen in every case of that kind. It is for that reason that we have provided, in Clause 1(5), that the Commissioner shall be ex officio a member not only of the Council on Tribunals but also of the Scottish Committee of that Council, because we felt that this possible overlap was best left to them to work out together. I confirm, in answer to the request, that there is nothing whatever in this Bill which derogates in any way at all from the present powers of the Council on Tribunals, and there will be some cases in which the citizen will have a choice and will be able to do what he likes. But I think the presence of the Commissioner himself on the Council will ensure that there is no duplication, and, obviously they will consider together what is the best way in which to handle any particular case.
I have been an Ombudsman enthusiast throughout, and I believe that here we have something which is going to be a considerable arm for ordinary Members of another place against the Executive, to a far greater extent than they could ever have controlled the actions of Ministers or Departments before; secondly, that this will provide a remedy for grievances of the citizen against the central Government; and, thirdly, while I do not know of any country which has a better Civil Service than we have, everything is always capable of improvement in administration and this step will also, I believe, have that effect.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed
1640
to have been read 2a and reported from that Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.