Sitting of 6 February 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
    SAINT SAVIOUR, PADDINGTON BILL(By Order)
    CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL(By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

PETITION

  Wigg v. The Spectator Limited
  Sir J. Foster: I beg to present a Petition from Peter Frederick CarterRuck, esquire, partner in the firm of Oswald Hickson, Collier and Company, Solicitors for the Defendants in an action entered in the Jury List of actions for trial in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court and entitled Wigg v. The Spectator Limited.
  The Petition states that the issues in question in the proceedings concern correspondence of and reports prepared by and for Members of Parliament and statements made thereafter during debates in the House of Commons on 21st and 22nd March and 17th and 21st June, 1963, and that, for the foregoing reason, the evidence of certain hon. Members touching upon such proceedings in the House is relevant to the issues in question in the proceedings in the High Court of Justice.
  It continues:
  "Wherefore your Petitioner prays that the leave of your Honourable House may be given to call the following witnesses to give evidence of statements in the House of Commons in
  202
  the said proceedings in the High Court of Justice, namely, Desmond Louis Donnelly, Member of Parliament for Pembroke, Ian Hedworth John Little Gilmour, Member of Parliament for Central Norfolk, John Anthony Kershaw, Member of Parliament for the Stroud Division of Gloucestershire, Angus Edmund Upton Maude, Member of Parliament for Stratford-upon-Avon Division of Warwickshire."
  Sir J. Foster: I beg to move, "That leave be given to the said Members to attend and give evidence accordingly."
  Petition to lie upon the Table.

  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1966–67
  Accounts ordered,
  of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1966–67, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1967, and (2) the distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon. —[Mr. Harold Lever.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GAS

    Underground Storage
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on proposals made to him regarding the storage of gas underground in Great Britain.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): My right hon. Friend has not received any proposals for the underground storage of gas.
    Mr. Marten: As one of the proposals in the mind of the Gas Council is that gas should be stored underground in my constituency, in an area of outstanding natural beauty in the Cotswolds, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if a request is put to him, he will take fully into account the views of the local people, particularly as regards the superstructure above ground which need not be ugly if enough money is spent on it?
    Mr. Freeson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been close consultation already between the Gas Council and the local planning authority on this matter. Indeed, the Gas Council invited local authority members and, I think, the hon. Gentleman, to visit France where there are similar works. The Council has given an undertaking for the closest possible consultation before any moves are made in the matter.

    North Sea Gas
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Power what was the date of the last strike of natural gas in the North Sea.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): The latest public announcement of a strike of natural gas there was made by Mobil Producing North Sea Ltd., on 23rd January.
    Mr. Moyle: Would my right hon. Friend tell the exploration companies that if they get a reasonable price per therm for natural gas there should be no dragging of feet and that, if they are doing this out of pique at not getting the exhorbitant price which they are asking, this will not be tolerated?
    Mr. Marsh: There is no evidence at present that the delay in settling the price of North Sea Gas is having any effect on exploration. It is encouraging that we have had and are still having discoveries in the North Sea.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to information which I have received, the total discoveries of gas in the North Sea are about 50 per cent. larger than the published estimates of 3,000 million cu. ft. a day over the next 30 years? In view of the effect which these large discoveries may have on the final negotiated price, would he see that all future strikes are announced to the public and given to the Committee which is considering this matter?
    Mr. Marsh: No, the position is that all the companies submit their drilling logs in confidence to the Ministry. The fullest information is made available to the Ministry. There is a great element of doubt over some of the figures from time to time, and, indeed, there is a great
    204
    deal of mythology about the whole exercise. But I am satisfied that we have enough information on the matter.

  ELECTRICITY

    Domestic Consumers (Supplies)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to regional electricity boards that they should not cut off supplies to consumers who are elderly or who have families with young children without notifying the local welfare authority of their intention.
    Mr. Freeson: No, Sir. Electricity boards generally treat such cases sympathetically and keep in touch where appropriate with welfare organisations.
    Mrs. Butler: Does my hon. Friend think it right for families in these categories to be living in unheated houses lit by candles because illness or some family misfortune has coincided with the arrival of an electricity bill, the timing and amount of which is quite unpredictable? Would he have further discussions with the boards to ensure that these cases do not occur without the welfare authorities knowing?
    Mr. Freeson: With respect to my hon. Friend, as I have indicated on previous occasions, I have had considerable discussions with area boards about this matter, and I am assured and convinced that there is the closest contact between the boards and the various local welfare authorities, as has been the case in my hon. Friend's constituency recently.

    Aluminium Smelter
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power (1) what consideration he has given to setting up an advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactor, or a modern thermal power station close to the steelworks of Sheffield with a view to supplying electricity at below average prices on the same basis as electricity offered to aluminium and ferro-alloy smelters;
    (2) whether he will give a general direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board to supply electricity to aluminium and ferro-alloy industries at

    205
    special prices below the average prices charged to industrial consumers.
    Mr. Websterasked the Minister of Power (1) what directions he has given to the Central Electricity Board regarding the supply of electric power to potential aluminium and ferroalloy smelters at special prices, and on what basis of charging;
    (2) what directions he has given to the Central Electricity Generating Board regarding the supply of aluminium and ferro-alloy smelting plants in development areas.
    Mr. R. W. Elliottasked the Minister of Power if he will give his approval to expenditure by the Central Electricity Generating Board on an advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactor or a modern thermal power station close to the chemical industry on the north-east coast with a view to supply electricity at below average prices on the same basis as has been offered to aluminium and ferro-alloy smelters.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend has given no general directions to the Central Electricity Generating Board on these matters, nor would it be appropriate for him to do so. He is, however, willing to authorise the Board to negotiate special contracts for long-term supplies to selected large-scale new consumers, subject to the conditions set out in the Government statement of 4th October, 1967.
    Mr. J. H. Osborn: Is it not a fact that the cheapest coal is in the East Midlands and Yorkshire area and that the most modern electricity generating plant is there? Will the Minister take steps to see that these special terms are made available to the grey areas, particularly Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, so that they can benefit from the natural advantages that are there already?
    Mr. Freeson: I think the hon. Member should refer back to the statement which set out this policy, and which I have already mentioned. The position is that specific projects have been submitted for consideration. They will be studied by the Department and a Government decision made on them. It
    206
    is not a question of general directions being issued in the matter.
    Mr. Webster: What is the period of amortisation in mind in the case of A.G.R. and what is the element of subsidy in the case of the aluminium smelter?
    Mr. Freeson: I am afraid I do not understand the terms of the question. There is no A.G.R. in mind, so I cannot answer the question.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Why does the Minister confine this policy to new industries? What representations has he had, for instance, from the steel industry that it should be entitled to fuel at a low cost which represents the size of its demand?
    Mr. Freeson: The general purpose of the policy is to establish additional consumption and to establish prices in relation to this consumption in different industries and projects above marginal costs. However, the policy statement of October last year, to which I have referred, does not preclude absolutely the possibility, in certain circumstances, of existing industries receiving consideration.

    National Coal Board (Consumption and Cost)
    Mr. Concannonasked the Minister of Power what is the increase in the cost of electricity to the National Coal Board since 1st September, 1960; and what is the difference in total consumption of electricity between then and now.
    Mr. Freeson: Between 1960 and 1967 total consumption by the National Coal Board rose by about 150 million kilowatt-hours and the cost of the electricity purchased by the Board increased by approximately one farthing per kilowatt-hour.
    Mr. Concannon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the date mentioned in the Question is the date of the last increase in the price of coal to the C.E.G.B. from the East Midlands coalfields? This coalfield supplies, on average, 20 million tons of coal at between 3d. and 3½d. per therm at the moment. Is my hon. Friend aware that to be able to do this, and to cover increasing costs, the East Midlands coal field has to increase its productivity by

    207
    about 4 per cent. per annum? Does not my hon. Friend think that this is a tremendous achievement?
    Mr. Freeson: I agree with my hon. Friend, and he knows, from the visits that I have made to his part of the country and my meetings with him, how impressed I have been with the records which have been achieved by the industry there, but the details of this kind of costing are for the National Coal Board and the industry, and not for the Department.

    Devaluation (Investment Programme Cutback)
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Minister of Power which new power station will be deferred as a result of the cutback in the electricity industry's investment programme following devaluation.
    Mr. Marsh: Final decisions have not yet been taken.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Does this affect the Seaton Carew station, and what other stations does it affect?
    Mr. Marsh: The final decisions on the power station programme have not been taken, so it affects the others which have previously been discussed.

    Capacity and Demand
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the expected growth in United Kingdom power station capacity between now and 1971, and the related movement in the gross domestic product giving rise to the industrial and domestic demands that will be put on that capacity; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: Capacity is expected to increase by about 22,000 MW between the end of 1967 and the end of 1971 and should be fully adequate to meet demand.
    Mr. Biffen: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly address himself to the other part of the Question, which asks about the prospective movement of gross domestic product?
    Mr. Freeson: That is not a matter for the Ministry of Power.
    Mr. Palmer: Would my hon. Friend say that he is satisfied that, in the event
    208
    of British productivity improving as it should in the next three or four years, there will be enough generating capacity to cope with it?
    Mr. Freeson: I am quite satisfied that that will be the case.
    Mr. Lubbock: As the hon. Gentleman is answering questions relating to the power supply for the whole of the United Kingdom, is he aware that the electricity supply in Northern Ireland is very uneconomic because of the fragmented nature of the utilities in that part of the Kingdom? Will he take steps to see that there are amalgamations to increase the efficiency of supply in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Freeson: The question is interesting, but it does not come within the purview of the Ministry of Power.
    Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman go back to the original Question, part of which he has not answered? It asked him to relate capacity to the movement in the gross domestic product. We are not asking him to adjudicate on that, but certain figures have been given. On what basis is he working out his figures?
    Mr. Freeson: The forecasts will be presented as usual by the industry and we will make decisions in the light of them. I said that we do not expect capacity to be below the levels which we foresee.

    Fuel Costs
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Power if he will arrange an early meeting with the Chairman of the National Coal Board and the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board in order to arrive at a decision on the relative costs of the fuels required by the electricity industry.
    Mr. Marsh: No, Sir. As a result of discussions which I had with the Chairmen, a study on nuclear costs was made with which both industries were associated. The results were published as Appendix 44 of the Report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the United Kingdom Nuclear Reactor Programme. A separate study on coal costs is still in progress.
    Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply is rather disappointing in view of the fact that too much public controversy exists between the heads

    209
    of the nationalised industries'? Is he aware that anything that can be done to alleviate this position would be beneficial to the industries concerned'? Can he expedite a meeting of this kind?
    Mr. Marsh: Many meetings have already taken place about this. The outstanding study at present is on coal costs, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will bear in mind what he has said.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Devaluation (Fuel Prices)
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power whether he has completed his examination of the effects of devaluation on oil prices; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Power what increases he now estimates will be caused by devaluation on the price of petrol or diesel oil for industry, for public transport and for the domestic user.
    Mr. Marsh: On 22nd December, 1967, I announced that a detailed examination had found that devaluation would raise the prices of petroleum products by an average over all products of Id. a gallon. The devaluation element varies for the different products. For petrol it is 1½d. a gallon and for diesel oil it is 1d. a gallon. I also announced that I had concluded that the temporary surcharge of 2d. per gallon on all products allowed since 29th June, 1967, could be reduced to the extent necessary to compensate for the devaluation increase. The schedule prices of the main petroleum products were therefore unchanged.
    Mr. Lane: Does the Minister agree that the prices of individual oil products ought to be free to move down or up in the time ahead in response to market pressures?
    Mr. Marsh: This is a very wide-ranging subject and I think it would create real difficulties at the moment. We have a very friendly relationship with the companies, and since, after full and fruitful discussions, we were able to reach an amicable agreement. it would be a pity to spoil it all.
    Mr. Emery: Has not the Minister anything further to add than merely repeat the statement that he made in December? Has he not taken into consideration the effect that a lowering of rebate may well have on the purchase of oil in the industrial and public transport sectors?
    Mr. Marsh: It is very difficult. I am asked what the effect of devaluation was. There has only been the one devaluation. I cannot be expected to change the answer as weeks go past.
    The question of rebates is a very complicated issue. The rebates vary from industry to industry and customer to customer.
    Mr. McGuire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a more prudent estimate of the increase in the cost to the country of the effects of devaluation, coupled with the natural forecast increase in oil, is about £275 million?
    Mr. Marsh: I regard that as a somewhat large figure. The effect of devaluation on this is about £75 million per annum.
    Mrs. Thatcher: How does the Minister square his decision on oil prices with his oft-repeated assertion that devaluation would improve the competitive position of coal with relation to oil?
    Mr. Marsh: There are other devaluation Questions on the Order Paper later which may be discussed. The devaluation position improves the position of coal in terms of exports. The whole point that I have made is that the increase in fuel oil prices in relation to coal is so small as not to affect internal demand.

    Capital Expenditure Programmes
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power what is to be the curtailment in the capital expenditure programmes of each of the three nationalised industries under his control, as announced on 18th November, 1967.
    Mr. Marsh: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the Questions by the hon. Members for Honiton, (Mr. Emery), Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) on 30th January.—[Vol. 757, c. 252.]
    Mr. Ridley: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that if, in the long term, the level of investment in the nationalised industries as a whole is considered excessive, the proper course would be to adjust the test discount rate?
    Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman's Question is a clear one,
    "To ask…what is to be the curtailment in the capital expenditure programmes of each of the three nationalised industries …"
    This is a- question of curtailing specific projects. This has been done and the figures have been given to the House.

    Fuel Policy
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Power when and how he will announce the outcome of his revision of the Fuel White Paper.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Power to what extent the revision of energy potential brought about as a consequence of devaluation has affected the indigenous fuel industries for 1968.
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power in what respects, after completing his study of the consequences of devaluation, he intends to alter the assumptions underlying the Government's Fuel Policy White Paper.
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Power if he will give an assurance that, before he comes to a decision on the reconsideration of fuel policy due to devaluation, he will consult the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power if he will now publish his reassessment of national fuel policy consequent on devaluation and accompanying measures.
    Mr. Marsh: As I explained in the debate on 22nd January and in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on 23rd January [Vol. 757, c. 77] the consequences of devaluation are not sufficient to affect materially the policy guide-lines in the Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 3438). The White Paper is not being revised. Paragraph 6 of the White Paper makes it clear that policy will be kept under continuing review.
    Mr. Emery: The reply that the Minister has given appears to be slightly different from what we have been led to believe before. The White Paper was taken back for revision as far as the coal aspects were concerned. It appears that the Minister has said nothing new on that. Is it not shocking that a matter of months after the Government have produced this White Paper we still do not know their final views on the matter?
    Mr. Marsh: I find it difficult to understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. The White Paper has never been withdrawn. An idea got around in the Press and on the B.B.C., for reasons I have never understood, that it had, but it has not. What I said was that we would go away and work out how far devaluation impinged on the policy. It does not.
    Mr. Lane: Can the Minister tell us when the White Paper will be returning to this House for further discussion and approval?
    Mr. Marsh: That is a matter for the wisdom of those who determine the business of this House. It is not for me. The White Paper is published as Government policy.
    Mr. Woof: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is highly desirable that consultations should take place with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to obtain an economic and objective survey of the mining industry in the review? Would he not also agree that such consultations would ensure that the nation would gain tremendous potential from coal which would be cheap enough to challenge other competitors?
    Mr. Marsh: As I was saying, there is no review in progress. The White Paper is based on the assumption that the coal industry will be viable, as I think it will, in the 1970s. That is why this House has unanimously agreed to make financial provision on a very big scale to hold it together. I am in no doubt that once the industry gets down to this level it will be competitive, but only if it gets to the right viable level.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there have been new factors in addition to devaluation since November, namely, the offer

    213
    of aluminium smelting companies to fire their power stations with coal? This being the case, will my right hon. Friend either withdraw the White Paper and issue a new one, or make representations to the Leader of the House for a debate, which we were promised in the first place?
    Mr. Marsh: I am always willing to convey views to my right hon. Friend. As far as the aluminium smelters are concerned there is an offer to set up a smelter based on coal, but this will not be producing until the early 1970s. It will use only half a million tons of coal a year anyhow. It will not really have any effect on the figure of 155 million, given the margin of error which there must be on such questions.
    Mr. Kelley: Is my right hon. Friend trying to say that the White Paper on fuel policy was withdrawn without any idea of reviewing it in the light not only of devaluation, but of the coal commitment factors which ensued therefrom? I understand that an increase in capital expenditure in certain industries is not desirable in the present economic situation.
    Mr. Marsh: We must get this clear. The White Paper was never withdrawn. What happened was that between the White Paper being presented to the House and any debate, there was devaluation. At the request of many people I agreed to go away and produce different figures which resulted from devaluation. There is no increase in capital expenditure. It is merely a question of seeing how far the position of oil has changed vis-à-vis coal.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Referring to the Minister's previous answers about the aluminium smelter, will he give an assurance that the future of aluminium smelting will be determined in relation to the commercial future of aluminium here, and will not get tied up with the coal versus nuclear battle?
    Mr. Marsh: The question of aluminium smelting is quite separate from the question of an overall fuel policy. We are talking here of about one-third of 1 per cent. of the nation's energy requirements, and that does not have very much effect on fuel policy.

    Shipbuilding Steel (Price)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Power whether negotiations have yet been concluded on the price of shipbuilding steel; and with what result.
    Mr. Marsh: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland; North (Mr. Willey) on 31st January.— [Vol. 757, c. 366.]
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: The right hon. Gentleman talked about a further statement. Is he aware of the urgency of this problem? The shipbuilding industry has received many inquiries. It is necessary for it to quote fixed prices, taking into account the price of steel. This is urgent.
    Mr. Marsh: Of course, it is urgent. This is why the Steel Corporation entered into immediate discussions, and the Press announcement after its December meeting, which was agreed by both the shipowners and the Steel Corporation. said that
    "both sides found the meeting constructive and looked forward to continuing discussions."
    I think that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating their anxieties.

    Price Increases (Notification)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Power how many requests for increases in prices have been notified to his Department under the voluntary arrangements of the prices and incomes policy since devaluation; how many of these requests have been agreed entirely or partially; how many have not been agreed; in how many instances price increases have been proceeded with despite non-agreement; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: Under the voluntary early warning procedure my right hon. Friend has received five notifications of proposed price increases since devaluation, four of which were attributable to cost increases resulting from devaluation. No comments were made on the proposals in three cases; one case is still under consideration; and in the case of petroleum products devaluation increases were allowed but offset by reductions in the temporary surcharge introduced after the Middle East War.
    Mr. Biffen: In view of the considerable range of industrial products which are covered by the presumptive price control of the Ministry of Power, and in view of the importance which the Government attach to the maintenance of stable prices by the Government in the post-devaluation situation, by what numbers has the hon. Gentleman increased the staff dealing with these inquiries?
    Mr. Freeson: That is quite a separate question.

    British Steel Corporation (Orders)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from steel users about the decision of the British Steel Corporation to adopt a system of centralising orders; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.
    Mr. Jenkin: In the event of the decision being put into effect or being threatened to be put into effect, if the Consumer Council for Steel made strong objections, as appears likely, to the centralisation of orders, will the hon. Gentleman give the maximum weight to those representations so as to ensure that there is no elimination of competition between the various operating groups?
    Mr. Freeson: Any such views would be taken fully into account, and if, for any reasons, the objections to such proposals were not accepted, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Minister is required to lay a statement before Parliament.

    Joint Meter Reading
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Power what is the result of his Department's study of the question of joint meter reading and billing in this country, having regard to French experience, details of which have been sent to him; and whether he now proposes to recommend to the gas and electricity boards that they combine their meter readings.
    Mr. Freeson: The study of the advantages and disadvantages of joint gas and electricity meter reading and billing as well as other related matters is continu-
    216
    ing. Full account is being taken of French practice and experience in this field.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: How long will the inquiry take and when can we have a decision on the matter?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not in a position to say how long it will take. One reason is because, unlike the position eight or nine years ago, there have been major developments in the computer field which complicate the relationship between meter reading, billing and accounting and other matters of management control.
    Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I tabled a similar Question about 18 months ago on this very subject and received precisely the same answer—that there would not be any saving? Is he aware that I saw this system working in France? Cannot we hurry this up, for if it can work in France, why cannot it work here?
    Mr. Freeson: The basis of the industries concerned in France is radically different from that applying in this country. In that country there is a unified industrial management, whereas we have two separate industries. However, the position is being studied closely. As I said, it is much more complicated than it was eight or nine years ago.
    Mr. Emery: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that major savings could be made in this sphere? Is he further aware that if he considers that a computer cannot overcome some of these difficulties, his thinking is very far behind normal managerial practice?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not believe that there would be major savings, any more than the Weir Committee did eight or nine years ago. I was not suggesting that computers could not overcome the difficulties that are involved, but that other problems also arise.

    Electricity and Gas Industries (Organisation)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Power when he expects to introduce legislation to alter the organisation of the electricity and gas industries.
    Mr. Marsh: I am examining whether there is a need for changes in the structure and organisation of the gas and electricity industries. I have no proposals for legislation at this moment.
    Mr. Palmer: Has my right hon. Friend seen the detailed reports which have appeared on this matter in the Economist, the Financial Times and other newspapers? is he aware that speculation of this kind is unsettling to the staffs in the electricity and gas industries? Will he make a statement soon?
    Mr. Marsh: I cannot be held responsible for what appears in, for example, the Economist. If I were, that would indeed be taking something on hand. On the general point of the organisation of these industries, I would remind my hon. Friend that these are very big industries and that it is important that the study should be comprehensive. Certainly no steps will be taken which would lead to a loss of savings which could otherwise be made.

    Aluminium Smelter (National Coal Board and Alcan)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the arrangement proposed between the National Coal Board and Alcan relating to the aluminium smelter.
    Mr. Freeson: This matter was debated at length only last week and I have nothing further to add at present.
    Mr. Peyton: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the N.C.B. of its statutory duty not to give preference to one customer against another? Will he, moreover, point out to the N.C.B. that the excuse of marginal tonnage is not sufficient in respect of an agreement covering a period of 25 years?
    Mr. Freeson: The N.C.B. is fully aware of its statutory position in this matter. I do not believe that it requires any reminder from me.

    Nuclear Power Stations (Siting)
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Minister of Power whether the Government is prepared to relax its present requirement that nuclear stations must be built in remote areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marsh: With permission, I will answer this Question at the end of Question Time.

  COAL

    Mining Costs
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power how many pence per therm coal costs to mine in the United Kingdom at present on average.
    Mr. Freeson: In the year 1966–67 the average cost of production, including interest, of all N.C.B. deep-mined coal was 4·6 pence per therm.
    Mr. Ridley: How then can the Coal Board make offers of 3d. or 3¼d. a therm, as has been reported, or are those offers not true?
    Mr. Freeson: I stated in the debate last week the position of the Department concerning the offers that have been reported in the Press. I have nothing further to add to what I said then.
    Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend has referred to average prices. Surely he knows that there are great variations in the quality of coal. If we take into account the kind of coal that is used for the generation of electricity, the therm cost is very much below the figure he gave.
    Mr. Freeson: Not only that, but, as the years go by and the industry modernises itself, the average cost will come down even further. This is the intention of the N.C.B., and there is every reason to believe that it will achieve its objective.
    Mr. Woof: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Coal Board's recent offer to supply coal to the Central Electricity Generating Board at 3¼d. a therm for a power station at Seaton Carew was based on the likelihood of coal being highly competitive in the 1970s? Is he further aware that the recent rebuff by the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board should be challenged either by his right hon. Friend or by the Government? The Government are supposed to be the real gaffers. What is at stake is the livelihood of thousands of people in the 1970s.
    Mr. Freeson: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken when he describes the reaction of the C.E.G.B. to the National Coal Board's offer in this case as a rebuff. There was a counter offer referring to supplies in connection with the whole of the requirements of the C.E.G.B.—not a rebuff.

    Smokeless Solid Fuel (Stocks)
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the current level of stocks of smokeless solid fuel; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: Overall stocks of solid smokeless fuel together with expected production should be adequate to meet demand during the remainder of the winter.
    Mr. Gardner: Can my hon. Friend say what effect the decline in the production of gas coke has had on stocks, and can he say what increase is being made in the development of solid smokeless fuels, using the softer kind of coal?
    Mr. Freeson: The latter part of the question is a matter for detailed consideration by the National Coal Board itself. There is a problem here with the reduction in the supply of gas coke, but already alternative fuels are on the market to replace them, and the demand in future will depend on the economics of producing new types of fuel.

    Exports
    Mr. Alisonasked the Minister of Power (1) if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board, in the national interest, to divert further capital resources to the promotion of exports;
    (2) what representations he has received from the National Coal Board about the development of South Killingholme, near Immingham, as a modern coal port.
    Mr. Freeson: The National Coal Board is fully conscious of its export opportunities and the action necessary to exploit them. My right hon. Friend has recently informed the Chairman that the Board's proposed development at Immingham, which will serve both home and export markets, is acceptable on financial and fuel policy grounds.
    Mr. Alison: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the original Treasury veto on the expenditure of £7 million has been lifted? As the National Plan for Coal abolished a firm figure for coal exports, can he say what the new revised firm figure is in the light of devaluation?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not sure why there is this emphasis on the word "firm" in the context of coal exports. One achieves what exports one can. If they are higher than originally estimated, one offers congratulations to the industry. The industry has reviewed its figures upwards, and it is expected that there will be a somewhat higher export figure than originally visualised.
    Sir C. Osborne: As Immingham is in my constituency, may I ask whether this proposed development for coal exports has been cleared with the local authorities, in view of the fact that there are enormous developments in the district for petro-chemicals? Will one development clash with the other?
    Mr. Freeson: I shall certainly pursue the query which the hon. Gentleman has raised in so far as it concerns my Department, but I have no reason to believe that the plans for this development at Immingham have not been worked out in full consultation with the local planning authority.

    Devaluation (Coal Derivatives)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Power what are his proposals about coal derivatives in the light of devaluation.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend is sure the National Coal Board will take full advantage of any opportunities arising.
    Mr. Eadie: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to the country if there were a re-examination of the question of coal deliveries? Would not he further agree that the Report of the Committee which considered this subject some years ago is now out of date?
    Mr. Freeson: This is a matter for the National Coal Board. It is in close contact with whatever is going on in this respect, not only in this country, but in others, and I think that we must leave it to the Board to put forward proposals.
    Sir B. Craddock: Can the hon Gentleman say whether research is continuing into the production of oil from coal'?
    Mr. Freeson: Research is going on all the time, particularly in countries where there are cheaper coal supplies, and the National Coal Board is in touch with this.

    Prices
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Power what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the National Coal Board's practice of charging regional prices reflecting the price of winning coal.
    Mr. Freeson: The Board's policy is that the prices of coal should broadly reflect the costs of production in the individual coalfields. This policy is supported by the Government and was endorsed by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in their 1966 Report on Coal Prices (Cmnd. 2919).
    Mr. Taylor: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this policy imposes an intolerable burden on areas like Scotland, where prices are so high, and where the position is becoming worse in smokeless areas? Smokeless fuel in Glasgow costs 18s. 3d. a bag, 3d. more than in the North of England.
    Mr. Freeson: There is no question of unfair discrimination in this industry against Scottish coalfields. The fact is that here, as anywhere else in the country, it is not possible to sustain a price level which allows for continuing huge losses in particular collieries.
    Mr. Lawson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that industry in Scotland is prohibited from importing cheaper coal, if it can get it? It is one thing to charge regional prices. It is another to uphold them with the power of the State.
    Mr. Freeson: I am not aware that there is any restriction on the N.C.B. bringing in coal from other parts of the country should it be necessary to do so as part of its commercial negotiations with industry.
    Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is at least an essential part of public accountability that these
    222
    regional prices should be published, so that the world knows what they are?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not aware that any part of industry is short of information on the price which it is being charged for coal.
    Mr. R. W. Elliottasked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to prevent the National Coal Board from entering into contracts to supply coal at a price which would increase the annual deficit of the Board.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to base policy guidance of the Board upon the premise that the industry should incur continuing deficits. Its agreed financial objective is to make a profit of £10 million a year.
    Mr. Elliott: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that that is a very welcome Answer? However, will he also realise that the low price offered to Alcan must mean either that other consumers will pay more or that the deficit will increase? Will he continue with a policy of honesty in this regard?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not accept either of the two points in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary.
    Mrs. Thatcher: As the hon. Gentleman said in a previous debate that he expected that the deficit of the National Coal Board this year would be £10 million, does he still stick by that estimate?
    Mr. Freeson: That estimate has no connection with the supplementary question, which asked whether this specific proposal meant an increase in the deficit of the Coal Board. When it comes into operation—should it come into operation—it will not be until the 1970s.
    Mr. Speaker:Mr. Concannon.
    Mr. Concannon: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are already mines mining coal at a price of 2·3d.—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to ask Question No. 24.

    Capital Investment
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Power what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding

    223
    the level of return to be earned by the National Coal Board on the capital invested.
    Mr. Marsh: The National Coal Board's financial objective is to break even after interest and depreciation including £10 million a year to cover the difference between depreciation at historic cost and replacement cost.
    Mr. Taylor: Is this the immediate target, or only for the early 1970s?
    Mr. Marsh: This is the target which was set out in the White Paper on financial objectives. It is a net return of about 6 per cent.

    Capital Liabilities
    Mr. Concannonasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on his plans for the reorganisation of the capital liabilities of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Freeson: No such plans are under consideration.
    Mr. Concannon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the reorganisation of the liabilities of the coal industry in the 1965 Act was done on the assumption that the industry would be mining 180 million tons in the early 1970s? Would he not look again at this, since the £450 million which was transferred to the reserve fund will be used this year, and this will put an increased burden on the units which are already becoming capital-intensified?
    Mr. Freeson: It would be far too early, only two years later, to undertake a further major capital reconstruction of the kind which my hon. Friend suggests.

    Redundancy Payments (Durham)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Power what is the estimated number of mineworkers in the county of Durham who will qualify for redundancy payments in 1968 according to the provisions in the coal borrowing powers Act.
    Mr. Freeson: The National Coal Board are unable as yet to give an estimate, as the number will depend on how many are able to be transferred to pits remaining open as others close.
    Mr. Shinwell: In that case, why did the Government initiate this new scheme
    224
    without having any idea of how many men would be made redundant? Is the inability—either of the Government or of the National Coal Board—to furnish a figure due to the fact that there is a continuing process of closing mines, which is adding to the insecurity which now exists in the North-East?
    Mr. Freeson: On the second point, of course, the answer is, "Yes". This is a continuing process and it was not started recently. On the first point, the Scheme introduced under the Coal Industry Act relates to the period up to March, 1971 and not just to this particular year. Therefore, it would not be possible to give a full estimate of the number of men who will be affected by the Act.

    Proposed Power Station (Seaton Carew)
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Power how many miners' jobs he estimates would be saved in County Durham if the proposed new power station at Seaton Carew were coal-fired instead of nuclear-powered; how much would be saved on the capital costs; and in reaching his decision, what account he will take of the cost to public funds of paying unemployment benefit and redundancy compensation payments to 7,000 miners.
    Mr. Marsh: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) on 17th January—[Vol. 756, Col. 620]—the Government are examining the many factors affecting a decision on the method of firing the power station and we will make a full statement on the main points relevant to the decision later.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Power what discussions he has held with the Northern Regional Economic Planning Council about the proposed power station at Seaton Carew.
    Mr. Marsh: None so far.
    Mr. Willey: Will my right hon. Friend rectify this as soon as he can? Is he aware that the Chairman and Council have complained repeatedly that Ministers do not sufficiently consult with them? Will he reassure the North-East on this score, in view of our feeling that there should be better consultation between the Minister and the Council?
    Mr. Marsh: Yes, Sir, and my right hon. Friend will no doubt agree that of first importance is the question of getting clear what we should consult. As soon as we have taken a decision on that, I see no reason why we should not then go ahead with the consultation. Obviously the Regional Council has a right to be consulted.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the Minister make public the price at which the N.C.B. has offered coal for Seaton Carew and other power stations of this sort?
    Mr. Marsh: I have learnt from bitter experience that the nationalised industries may suffer from many things, but certainly not from an inability to put their case across in public.

  HOSPITALS

    Non-urgent Cases
    Mr. Gurdenasked the Minister of Health what are the numbers of non-urgent cases awaiting hospital accom

    NUMBERS OF PATIENTS ON WAITING LISTS—ENGLAND AND WALES

    Region

    June 1967*

    December,1966

    December,1965

    December,1964

    Total England and Wales

    540,876

    536,447

    517,224

    498,972

    Newcastle

    21,854

    22,641

    22,261

    23,392

    Leeds

    23,128

    23,667

    21,539

    20,999

    Sheffield

    44,553

    42,420

    41,951

    40,234

    East Anglian

    12,857

    13,421

    13,351

    12,393

    North-West Metroplitan

    32,264

    33,020

    30,878

    29,854

    South-East Metropolitan

    27,385

    25,816

    25,372

    25,421

    South-West Metropolitan

    34,632

    35,026

    33,617

    31,996

    Oxford

    18,585

    18,969

    19,220

    16,931

    South Western

    35,978

    36,267

    35,181

    32,621

    Welsh

    24,241

    22,456

    21,600

    19,197

    Birmingham

    51,824

    51,375

    47,612

    45,483

    Manchester

    63,617

    63,391

    1,081

    58,015

    Liverpool

    17,794

    16,015

    15,386

    15,617

    Wessex

    17,448

    16,350

    15,198

    14,961

    London Undergraduate Teaching Hospitals

    31,286

    32,593

    30,539

    29,930

    London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals

    19,020

    10,113

    11,178

    10,436

    Provincial Teaching Hospitals

    49,426

    48,938

    47,691

    47,585

    *Latest available figures. Waiting list totals in June tend to be higher than those at the end of the year.

    NATIONAL DIVIDEND
    Ql. Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Prime Minister following devaluation and his subsequent discussions with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress, what estimate he has made of the amount of the likely national dividend for 1968 and 1969; and if he will make a statement.
    modation for treatment in each of the hospital regions; and what were the figures for December, 1966, 1965 and 1964.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow):As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gurden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his action in closing down the Moseley Hall Hospital, Birmingham, has seriously aggravated the position?
    Mr. Snow: During the last 10 years the population has increased overall by 7·6 per cent. During those 10 years—a large proportion of which came under Conservative Administration—the number of in-patient cases treated increased by 31 per cent., and the hon. Gentleman's party could have taken action in view of that tendency.
    Following are the figures:
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 21st November, 1967, to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) and to my speech in the debate on Government expenditure on 18th January.—[Vol. 754, c. 1136 and Vol. 756, c. 1973.]
    Mr. Roberts: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the key to increasing the national dividend is economic expansion and that, in this light, Government restrictive measures on the economy —and on industrial development in the South-East in particular—are quite absurd?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My hon. Friend will be well aware that the key to increased production is export-led expansion; and the measures we have taken are designed to see that, with the new opportunities for export, an export-led boom rather than a consumer-led boom is given a chance to develop.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer say last night that there would be virtually no increase in private consumption in these two years, in which case what is the relevance of either the Question or the Answer?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure if the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the original Question or my hon. Friend's supplementary question. However, in our discussions with the T.U.C. we have told them—and I have informed the House, and they have issued their reports on this—what will be available for wages in this year and probably right up to 1969. Nothing that my right hon. Friend said last night was in any way incompatible with what I have told the House.

    HUMAN RIGHTS YEAR
    Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister what plans he has regarding the celebration of Human Rights Year.
    The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have made a grant of £10,000 to the United Kingdom Committee for Human Rights Year, a non-governmental body which is organising a programme of activities. We have also invited the United Nations Secretary-General to hold a seminar in London next June on freedom of association and we intend to participate fully in the International Conference on Human Rights in Tehran in April.
    Mr. Onslow: Since human rights really begin at home, does the right hon. Gentleman expect any of that to be regarded as an adequate substitute for a General Election?
    The Prime Minister: Democracy in this country, unlike that in some countries supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite—[lnterruption.]—is based on a Parliamentary majority returned at a General Election, which was held at the proper time—indeed, ahead of the proper time.
    Dr. Gray: Would my right hon. Friend say what progress has been made in implementing the principle of equal pay for equal work and in respect of discrimination against women?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that I answered that on the last occasion we had supplementaries on Human Rights Year. He will also, no doubt, have seen the statement in the T.U.C. 's report following its discussions with us.

    ANGLO-SOVIET RELATIONS
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress achieved in Anglo-Soviet relations since Mr. Kosygin's discussions with him on his official visit to Great Britain a year ago today.
    The Prime Minister: In addition to the Answers I gave to Questions on 25th January, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the bilateral measures agreed between the Soviet Union and Great Britain since Mr. Kosygin's visit last year.
    Mr. Marten: Would the Prime Minister mark the first anniversary of Mr. Kosygin's visit to this country by stating clearly when he goes to America today or tomorrow that the British people and Her Majesty's Government fully support the United States and its allies in their support of the South Vietnamese fight for freedom?
    The Prime Minister: That does not seem to arise in any sense out of the Question. However, I can inform the hon. Gentleman, in the context of the Question, that what I shall say in Washington is exactly what I said in Moscow in regard to our position over Vietnam and in regard to the basis on which peace can be found in Vietnam following the San Antonio speech.
    Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister saying that what he told Mr. Kosygin is

    229
    that the British Government stand by the approach of President Johnson in his San Antonio speech on the question of a settlement?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course I dc. That is exactly what I told Mr. Kosygin. The purpose of our discussions in the Soviet Union was to see how far the relatively narrow gap between public statements, the San Antonio speech and the State of the Union Message on the one hand, and the statement by Mr. Trinh on the other, can be bridged. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the events of last week have made these things much more difficult.
    Mrs. Anne Kerr: While he is in Washington, will the Prime Minister remind not only President Johnson but the people of the United States of the text of the resolution carried at the Labour Party conference, which asked not only for the stopping of bombing but for our dissociation from the American aggression in Vietnam?
    Mr. Speaker: We are wandering from the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Peyton: Why does the Prime Minister, by way of a change, not try a nice long visit to Chairman Mao Tse Tung whose aims in South-East Asia the Government are doing so much to help?
    Mr. Speaker: That is even more remote from the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will the Prime Minister make clear that there can be no improvement in Anglo-Soviet relations so long as the Soviet Union persists in fomenting trouble in the Middle East by training and arming Egypt for a renewal of the war against Israel?
    The Prime Minister: In my talks in Moscow we discussed Middle East questions, including the Suez Canal question, at great length. Their position is, of course, basically different from ours, but both sides have supported the resolution put forward in the Security Council by the British Government.
    Following is the information

    1.Trade: The Minister of Foreign Trade of the U.S.S.R. visited this country in April, 1957 to review with the President of the Board
    230
    of Trade the workings of the Anglo Soviet Trade Agreement. Official discussions were held in Moscow in June, 1967.

    2.A protocol between the Confederation of British Industry and the Soviet State Committee of Science and Technology, for collaboration in the field of industrial technology, were signed in Moscow on the 25th of November,1967.

    3.Air Services: following discussions in Moscow between the Board of Trade and the Soviet Ministry of Civil Aviation, a decision to extend the Anglo Soviet Air Services Agreement to cover new direct services by air lines of both countries between London and Leningrad was announced on the 2nd of December,1967.

    4.The Agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. covering the Settlement of Mutual Financial and Property Claims was signed in London on the 5th of January 1968.

    5.The Agreement for Co-operation in the fields of Applied Science and Technology between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. was signed in London on the 19th of January,1968.

    6.Anglo Soviet Consultative Committee: the Committee was formally established by an Exchange of Notes in Moscow on the 22nd of January,1968.

    7.A Treaty on Merchant Navigation between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. will be signed shortly.

    BUILDING PROGRAMME
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to a letter sent to him by the National Federation of Building Trade Employers regarding the effect of devaluation on the building programme; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member is referring to the letter sent to me by the Federation shortly after devaluation, my reply noted a difference between their and the Government's estimates of the effect of devaluation on building costs and drew attention to the importance of maintaining a policy of firm prices in the building industry in view of the stabilising effect of such a policy on the economy as a whole. Since then, of course, the Federation and other organisations connected with the building and civil engineering industries have been discussing these matters with those of my right hon. Friends concerned.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Does the Prime Minister agree that the price of a three bedroomed house will go up by £350 in

    231
    1968 as a result of devaluation, S.E.T. and the Land Commission?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will be aware of the Answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works. He estimated that the effect of devaluation on imported materials would be to increase the cost of building an average house by about 1½ per cent. I am aware that the building employers contest this figure. They can discuss it, of course, with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Clegg: Has the Prime Minister yet decided which local authorities are to have their programmes cut as a result of devaluation?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my statement of 16th January and to what was said on this subject by my right hon. Friends in the debate which followed.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is there not a case for stricter control of unnecessary imports for the building industry and the substitution of home-produced materials?
    The Prime Minister: Wherever this can be done, of course, it is now much more financially worth while to do it. I am sure that those in the building materials industry and the building industry will do all they can in that respect, but there is a limit to substitution by British produced materials—timber, for example—for those which are imported. In other cases, there is an incentive to substitute British produced materials.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Palmerasked the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that the case for British entry into the European Common Market is adequately conveyed to the French public.
    The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that public opinion in France, as in the rest of Europe, understands our point of view, and that the efforts we have made and will continue to make have contributed to this.
    Mr. Palmer: As I am sure the Prime Minister would agree, no Government
    232
    lasts for ever. [Interruption.] Would he therefore look ahead to the time when in France a new and more progressive regime will replace that of General de Gaulle and which probably would look with favour on British entry to the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think it is possible, even in this country round about the turn of the century, that there may be a change of Government, but so far as the position in France and the rest of Europe is concerned, we are determined to push our application for entry now without waiting for a change of Government in France.

    SIMONSTOWN NAVAL BASE
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from the Prime Minister of South Africa about future use by the Royal Navy of the Simonstown naval base; and what reply he has sent.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In those circumstances, and arising out of what has recently been said in South Africa, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has assured the South African Government of our continuing desire to cooperate with them in operation of a base whose importance to us and our allies has been so enormously increased by recent events?
    The Prime Minister: The first point is that I have had no communication at all from the Prime Minister of South Africa. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why not? He did not send me one. That probably is the reason. In regard to the main part of the question, we have continually assured the South African Government that we attach importance to the Simonstown Agreement and regard it as still in force.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not disgraceful that a leading British politician now on a visit to South Africa should state that if a Conservative Government were elected they would sell arms to the South African Government? Did the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) ask permission to visit Mrs. Helen Joseph?
    The Prime Minister: I have no idea whether the right hon. Gentleman has asked permission to vist any particular South African citizen. Of course, all right hon. Gentlemen on their visits abroad, whatever their party, are responsible for their own statements. The statement the right hon. Gentleman made was not the statement or the view of this House after the debate and the Division on this matter in December.
    Mr. Heath: Does the Prime Minister agree that the statement which my right hon. Friend was reported to have made was exactly the same as the statements made in this House by Her Majesty's Opposition throughout the debate?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it was exactly in accordance with the views of the right hon. Gentleman and everything said by hon. Members opposite in the debate. I still think it shameful that they should hold those views. The House rejected them.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is not the Prime Minister aware that our good friends in South Africa —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] —cannot understand our wanting to use the base and not being prepared to sell arms to defend the base? Will he not alter the policy of refusing to sell them arms?
    The Prime Minister: There will not be any alteration. The matter was fully debated in the House in December and the House reached a conclusion which is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Orme: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) has no authority to negotiate with the Rhodesians on behalf of this Government?
    The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman when in South Africa in the same interview made that quite clear and said that he had no intention of attempting to mediate. Certainly, when he had a discussion with my right hon. Friend, neither he nor my right hon. Friend suggested any mediatory activity on his part in present circumstances.

    WINTER EMERGENCY COMMITTEE
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister when he will abolish the Winter Emergency Committee.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 12th December to a Question by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J.LangfordHolt).—[Vol. 756, c. 208.]
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not Cabinet meetings one long emergency committee nowadays? With regard to the emergencies committees in which the Winter Emergency Committee has now been merged, can the Prime Minister say what effect the work of the Winter Emergency Committee and the main emergencies committees has had on the welcome improvement in the efficiency of many local authorities in the clearing of ice and snow?
    The Prime Minister: I explained to the House two years ago why this Committee was necessary. The hon. Member will join with me in applauding the much larger margin of capacity both in electricity and gas as a result of the work of that Committee and the Departments concerned. In regard to local authorities we have always recognised that a sudden cold spell such as the one we had before Christmas is liable to create difficulties on the roads before local authorities can get working, and also on the railways. We had the same in January, I agree that many local authorities are getting more alive to what needs to be done in the first few hours of a snowfall.
    Mr. Tilney: Will the Prime Minister tell us what is being done, because every fall of snow seems to produce chaos in all forms of transport?
    The Prime Minister: Action on roads is a matter for the local authorities. Some were a bit slow off the mark in December, but much faster off the mark in January. Really bad road conditions are beyond the capacity of any early solution. As to rail transport, as the hon. Gentleman knows, if we were to equip every set of points, every part of the railway system, with heaters, underground or otherwise, it would be impossibly expensive in relation to the normal freezing up of points and other railway facilities in the course of an average winter.

NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS (SITING)
The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will now answer Question No. 48.
It has previously been Government policy that nuclear power stations should be built on remote sites. In view of the knowledge of the safety factors we now have, some modification of this policy is now feasible, while still maintaining a proper standard of public safety.
The advice given to the Secretary of State for Scotland and me by our independent Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee is that in a country such as the United Kingdom the major contribution to public safety derives from the high standard of design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. As the result of advances in technology we are advised that the safety of a gas-cooled reactor in a prestressed concrete pressure vessel is such that it may be constructed and operated much nearer built-up areas than we have so far permitted.
We have accepted this advice, but each application for a site will, of course, be considered individually.
Mr. Leadbitter: That Answer is welcome and reassuring, and it augurs well for the projection of the nuclear power programme in the future. Can my right hon. Friend now say that the sites at Heysham and Hartlepool fall within the terms of his statement, and, based on the criterion of safety, are acceptable to the Government for development?
Mr. Marsh: Yes, in terms of safety.
Sir D. Renton: The Minister has said that nuclear power stations may now be- built much nearer to built-up areas than formerly. How close does he mean?
Mr. Marsh: It is impossible to say, because this will depend upon each site. One wants a population density which is sufficiently light so that, in the even of any very unlikely occurrence, at least the population could be moved from the immediate surroundings of, say, a mile and a half, or two miles or so. This would mean within most areas like
236
Hartlepools or Heysham. This question would be open to discussion in relation to each individual site.
Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that nothing in the statement he has just made will negative the Government's promise to build a nuclear power station at Invergordon?
Mr. Marsh: I do not think that that comes within the Question.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that there are valuable overseas contracts, such as the one for B.A.S.F. in Ludwigshafen, which could be secured if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to set an example by siting nuclear power stations in the centre of large conurbations? Is he also aware that in London, in particular, there are many antiquated coal-fired stations occupying large chunks of land which could be released if it was the Minister's policy to put nuclear stations in greater London itself. Will he therefore give consideration to this matter—in Greenwich, for example?
Mr. Marsh: That latter sally raises an entirely different point. As the hon. Gentleman says, the power station in Ludwigshafen is very close to a centre of population, and another station will be built 20 miles north-west of Hamburg. There is no reason why a British nuclear station could not be used for that site.
Mr. McGuire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this review will cause some of us great disquiet, because this is a new and untried technology and there is ample proof throughout the world that the nuclear power stations in this country can be very dangerous? My right hon. Friend should hesitate very long before deciding to build in this way, because it is a new and untried technology and the results, if anything goes wrong, could be disastrous.
Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend is not on this occasion being his normal, restrained self. Far from this being an untried technology, the United Kingdom has 132 reactor years of experience. That is a great deal of experience. It would be a great mistake for people to raise fears which are not justified. There has never been an accident to a nuclear power station in this country.
Mr. Doughty: As modern coal-burning techniques have improved enormously, would it not be better for the Minister to concentrate more on coalfired stations, thus ensuring employment for miners?
Mr. Marsh: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is joining the fuel policy debate rather late in the day.
Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are other considerations apart from safety ones? Will he take into account in the future, apart from what is contemplated for Scotland in this particular instance, that there are social, industrial and security considerations which cannot be ignored?
Mr. Marsh: I take my right hon. Friend's point entirely. I have made a statement purely on the safety aspect. This in no way impinges on any other aspect.
Mr. Deedes: Does not the Minister's statement mean that some half dozen of these stations which have been put in remote areas and many miles of highly controversial pylon and overhead lines are now proved to be unnecessary?
Mr. Marsh: I do not think that it means that the stations are unnecessary. The, stations which are farthest from centres of population—Dungeness and Wylfa—are about 60 miles from such centres. I think that it was right to wait until there was this firm evidence. This is a serious decision to take. The Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee has considered this matter and has come to a decision. I think that it was right to change the policy. This does not make the original policy wrong.
Mr. Manuel: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a great deal of concern on the question of safety? Is he aware that during the past year there have been two mishaps in Scotland where dangers were very evident from radiation spread and that strict precautions had to be taken?, If my right hon. Friend has moved so quickly from the previous position to that which he has enunciated today, he should tell us what grounds he has for proceeding to change the policy?
Mr. Marsh: I think that my hon. Friend should give his grounds for making that statement. I repeat that there have
238
not been any accidental radioactive releases by United Kingdom power stations.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the building of nuclear power stations in remote areas has some positive advantages in regional development? Will he keep this aspect in mind as well as the safety aspect?
Mr. Marsh: I think that there are also advantages in having these stations near centres of population in terms of amenity and of transmission costs.
Mr. Palmer: Would my right hon. Friend in this connection look at the American experience and refer particularly to that part of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which deals with the siting of nuclear power stations and which points out how in the United States they are getting much closer to centres of population?
Mr. Marsh: Yes. I think that there is a general recognition in advance nations using nuclear power stations of the ability to do this in the light of experience.
Earl of Dalkeith: Will the Minister carry out a public opinion poll in any area where he is considering setting up a station, if it is in a highly populated area, before he takes a decision to site it there?
Mr. Marsh: That would be an interesting hut not particularly practical constitutional innovation. I have made a statement purely on the safety aspect of siting nuclear power stations. If the hon. Gentleman believes that they are unsafe, he should say so. I do not think that it is either necessary or practical to conduct what I may describe as Gallup polls.
Mr. Ginsburg: Will my right hon. Friend publish the report of his experts? Without being alarmist, will he specifically tell the House whether there would be any danger in the hypothetical event of an aircraft crashing into a nuclear power station?
Mr. Marsh: There is no danger of a nuclear explosion in any one of these stations. The report of the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee is highly technical, but I will consider the suggestion my hon. Friend has made as to publishing it.

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE REPORTS (MANPOWER TRAINING FOR INDUSTRY)
3.40 pm
Mr. William Hamling: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Ninth Report from the Estimates Committee in the last Session of Parliament and of the Second Special Report from the Estimates Committee relating to Manpower Training for Industry.
I am very glad to have this opportunity of commending to the House another Report from the Estimates Committee, and I am pleased to see on the Front Bench my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who I understand intends to intervene in the debate rather early. I congratulate him on the very prompt way in which he and his Department have implemented the Industrial Training Act. It is characteristic of him that he should have this interest in industrial training, and it is an example of the way in which the present Government have been very prompt to act in certain directions.
Before I come to the Industrial Training Boards, and the part of the Report dealing with them, I should like to say something about the Vocational Training Scheme and remind the House of one or two of its historic aspects. It came very much to the fore between the wars, against the background of mass unemployment. It is fair to argue that the Scheme's whole purpose—certainly in the 1930s, when my family had very direct connections with it— was to provide a way in which men who had been unemployed for a very long time could return to industry.
The Scheme took on a different aspect after the Second World War, when the main purpose of vocational training was training for resettlement and reconstruction. There was a big increase in the number of centres and of men and women attending vocational training schemes. Unfortunately, the Scheme was run down in the 1950s and it was not until 1962 that there was a shift in emphasis and the Government of the day, our predecessors, began looking at vocational training to develope and discover new skills. The Ministry view was that it was to give "accelerated adult training" and
240
"…a thorough grounding in the basic skills of a trade normally acquired by means of apprenticeship."
In November 1966 there was a demand for more than 4,500 places. Is it now easier for trainees to find jobs? One of the things we discovered in taking evidence was that there was a certain amount of wastage during the courses, that some of those who had finished their training did not find it very easy to get work. Has there been an improvement? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the present wastage figures during and after training?
The Report says that instructors at vocational training centres are below strength and that they are under-paid. We think that instructors' salaries should equate those of Grade B lecturers in technical colleges, because to a large extent they are doing the same job.
We also wish to ask about the impact of the Industrial Training Act on the two instructor training colleges run by the Ministry. When we visited one of them, we noticed that a large number of the trainees were instructors from private industry. This is to be welcomed. It is a good thing that private industry should be sending its instructors to be trained in this way. We may see that developing in future years.
I should also like to underline the importance of Government courses for training disabled workers. A very large number of them are trained in the Government vocational centres. It is a job which perhaps could not easily be done anywhere else, and my right hon. Friend and his Department should be congratulated on the work they are doing.
One aspect of the question of vocational training that comes to mind is the discovery of pockets of regional unemployment, to which reference was made in the House yesterday afternoon. Some people seem to think that there is a work fund, just as 150 years or so ago people talked about a wage fund. The idea seems to have got abroad that to find work for people in one place we must make people unemployed somewhere else. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend is not a supporter of the view of the work fund.
Perhaps I may interpose here a purely local question, asking my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the question of

241
the future of the training school at A.E.I., Woolwich, where 400 apprentices under Paining will become redundant in the next 12 months. We shall return to that subject on another occasion.
I now turn to the Industrial Training Act. Some people might question whether the Estimates Committee was right to conduct an inquiry into the operation of the Act at this stage, so early in its working. Should we have waited until the Industrial Training Bards had got off the ground and all of them had been set up? There can be various views on this, but we felt that it was a good thing to start looking at matters early and start asking questions early, so that we might have a thorough discussion of the operation of the Act and the Industrial Training Boards quite early in their history.
The Act, put on the Statute Book by the former Conservative Government, was very revolutionary; to some people it is too revolutionary. Some hon. Members still think that industrial training is the responsibility of industry alone, and that all that the Government or public authorities should do is to act as a kind of adjunct to the industrial training carried on in private industry. That view was very noticeable in our recent debate on the agricultural levy. It was a very good debate, but it seemed to me a little unfortunate that so many hon. Members who took part did not seem to have read the Report, or to have read or understood the replies given by witnesses to some of the points raised. Some hon. Members seemed to be of the opinion that agricultural training was the responsibility of the industry alone. Both the Labour and Conservative Parties now officially accept that it is the responsibility of Government to intervene, that it is more than the Government's job these days to provide technical education to back up the training provided in industry.
The objectives of the Act were, first, to secure an adequate amount of training in industry at all levels—and, I emphasise, at all levels. We are not only concerned with training at the level of the ordinary worker, but at all levels. The second objective was to improve the quality of training, and the third to secure a fairer distribution of the costs of raining. The instruments of the Act are the Industrial Training Boards.
242
By 9th October last year, 21 of these boards had been set up, and we took evidence from two of them—the Engineering Industry Training Board and the Construction Industry Training Board. We did this because the engineering and construction industries are of a very dissimilar nature. Engineering is predominantly an industry of large or moderately large employers. The construction industry, rather like agriculture, is one of mainly small employers with a few giants. But even in agriculture, of course, there are some giants from the point of view of operation if not, perhaps, from the point of view of employment.
In the Report and our discussion of the Report, one of the things we considered was the approach of the boards to their tasks. We felt that, in the early days of the appointment of a board and of its work, there was need for thought about the purposes of industrial training within its industry. We felt that there was a need to relate training to technological changes within the industry and to discuss those changes. We felt that there was a need to think about the deployment of existing manpower and possibly the redeployment of manpower. Finally, we felt that there was a need to discuss training priorities.
We also considered the printing industry during our deliberations and took evidence from one very large employer of labour. It is obvious that here, for example, is an industry where very great technological changes are going on. We thought that it would be rather absurd to start collecting large sums of money and appoint training officers and instructors until the board knew where it was going to start. We felt that there was a need to think about the future of an industry as a whole and that it is perhaps far better to spend the first 12 months thinking about the purposes of training and analysing what the job of the board should be before a board starts committing large sums of money to training courses and so on. The view of the Ministry of Labour was well stated. It stated:
"A Board is preoccupied during the first year or year and a half of its existence with setting up an organisation and working out its first levy proposals and its first interim grant scheme. It is only after that first stage that they start to address their minds to the broader

243
long term questions such as what training objectives should we have in this industry?"
We wonder whether this is not the wrong way round and whether the best way is not rather to start thinking first about the future of the industry and what training should be about before a board starts collecting money and preparing a grant scheme.
Sir Spencer Summers: Would the hon. Gentleman apply that also to the agricultural industry?
Mr. Hamling: I did say that I would not try to go over the ground covered in the debate on two evenings last week. It may well be that some of the difficulties of the Minister in that debate might have been resolved if twelve months' thought had been given first. But, knowing farmers as I do, I must say that many of them are a conservative lot and, frankly, I think that one could have a thousand years' discussion with some of them and at the end of it still be no better off. I think one has to make a move sometime.
One of the priorities in training I want to dwell upon is the future of apprenticeship. I know that many people, in talking about industrial training, are thinking first of apprenticeship training. I was engaged in a minor way in education in the printing industry before coming here and spent much of my time dealing with apprenticeships. I thought that the system of apprenticeships in the printing industry was scandalously old-fashioned. There is a great need for study of the future of apprenticeships not only in the printing industry but also in the steel and agricultural industries—indeed, in every industry.
We are still to a large extent living in the past in this context. I talked to a five year student at the London College of Printing who bewailed the fact that at 21 his life was set for him. It is an appalling situation when a young man of 21 has the attitude to life that, "Here I am in this industry, stuck for the next 40-odd years". That is an appalling state of affairs in a modern industrial country.
There is a great need in all our industries for vast technological change and for looking at the whole future of apprenticeship. There are some very old-
244
fashioned ideas about. I came from an industrial town in the North where lads went into industry and started apprenticeships and for the first couple of years were no more than "hand rags" about the place—messenger boys, tea lads, etc. That sort of thing still goes on in many industrial places.
Mr. John Robertson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give us some specific instances. We have heard this sort of thing said before. It is not my experience, and I was an apprentice engineer. If there are such firms, will my hon. Friend tell us which they are? It is time we knew. We do not want broad allegations but concrete instances now.
Mr. Hamling: I will take time off and conduct my hon. Friend around one or two industrial places in London. I will show him what goes on. He does not need to go far from this building to see the sort of thing going on still. In any case, a large amount of time of apprentices is wasted in doing routine jobs when they should be under training.
Mr. James Hamilton: Does not my hon. Friend know that, in many industries, including the construction industry, the period of apprenticeship has been reduced to four years? Perhaps that underlines the point he is making.
Mr. Hamling: Looking at some of the jobs in the construction industry, I think that if apprentices cannot learn them in four months there is something wrong with them. Even four years is too long a period for some of the jobs. There is a tremendous waste of potential ability in our youngsters. I know from my experience in the printing industry that much of the time of apprentices is wasted and, knowing the jobs they do, I am sure that they could be learning them in a much shorter period than is devoted to them at present. Also, of course, there is tremendous waste of potential in a boy in as much as he is only expected to learn one branch of his trade and must be devoted to that branch perhaps for the following 40 years, being denied the opportunity to learn other branches. At the age of 16, when many of them start, it is too early to concentrate on a particular branch of the trade. I hope that in the plans being prepared by the industrial training boards, consideration will be given to this.

245
Maybe we are looking at the wrong end when we start talking about apprentices. It was certainly the view of some of the witnesses who came before us that firms ought not to start by training apprentices but by training managers. It is so obvious in many industries that it is the managers who are the big stumbling blocks, not so much the workers. In paragraph 52 of the Report some strong evidence was given to the effect that there was a tremendous need for management training. As one witness, himself on the management side, put it:
"The employers do talk regularly at great length about the training of apprentices and from time to time at shorter length about the training of front-line supervisors, and never about the training of themselves."
This is fundamental to the situation.
One of the troubles is that in some industries there is still a certain amount of nepotism — the fact that a manager becomes a manager because he is born into the management class. This is certainly one of the feelings among my own trade union students over many years.
I now turn to the levy grant system. The Committee made certain recommendations on this, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would perhaps go further than the Departmental Reply on this point. One criticism of the levy grant system has been that small employers find great difficulty in meeting it. This was very much the burden of the debate the other night. It is only fair to point out that it is not only in agriculture and horticulture that one has small employers. This is why we took evidence from the construction industry. This is an industry where I certainly expected to find a great deal of opposition to the levy from small employers. My colleagues on the sub-committee will bear me out when I say that I did not find as much criticism of the system as I thought we would.
I now come to deal with training officers and the training of instructors. In the Departmental Reply there is a distinction between these two categories, training officers being those who are largely administrative, and instructors those who actually do the job of instructing. This distinction is emphasised, but I find it difficult to make such a distinction very firmly. There is a great danger of separating the two functions and of
246
regarding the training officer simply as an administrator. Training officers should be familiar with the techniques of instruction, and it is perhaps desirable that they should be drawn from the ranks of instructors.
Perhaps the training officers might be the people who train the instructors. Again I speak with some experience of this because, during my Service career, I spent some time at the Royal Marine School of Signalling, rejoicing under the title of the Assistant Superintendent of Signalling, Royal Marines. My job was to run the signals school, which was a kind of vocational training institution. I was the senior instructor, as well as being an administrator, and my job was to train the instructors. This is a very interesting and easy job for a training officer to do. Goodness knows, we have too many people who spend their lives, particularly in education, simply being administrators. They tend to get away from the real job. I hope that this distinction will be regarded, not so much a distinction of principle as merely two aspects of the job of instruction.
My colleagues will no doubt deal with some other aspects of the Report and its recommendations. I do not expect readily that all the recommendations that we made ought to be adopted, or will be adopted. It may be that we got things wrong and that my right hon. Friend, in his usual ebullient and charming way, will point out where we did go wrong.
The future of industry depends so much upon modern industrial training. After all, when young men go into industry they need to have a constructive future. They need the best training. Skill is so short that we need to look for it wherever it may be. Similarly there are so many men and women in middle years who want to change their direction. Particularly when we look at the unemployment situation and at the redeployment of labour, there is a tremendous need for finding new skills and for training people in new industries, and perhaps new branches of existing industries. With those things in mind I commend the Report to the House.
4.7 p.m.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): I welcome the opportunity afforded by the Report of the Estimates

247
Committee for a thorough debate on industrial training. This is—I was going to say the House at its best—but this is an occasion where we have a one-line Whip, we are not looking over our shoulders and we have, perhaps, gathered round us the dedicated people who know something about the subject so that we can have a searching review of the position.
No one can dispute, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has said, that the question of training men and women in industry and commerce is one of the essential factors in the promotion of national efficiency and economic growth. The Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee took much evidence and put many questions, probed opinions and drew conclusions. Then it set out its recommendations. It has served the House well. Although my observations on the Report will show that I cannot go all the way with it on some of the recommendations, the inquiry has nevertheless illuminated a number of important issues and stimulated thought and discussion.
In the three and a half years since the first training boards were set up under the Industrial Training Act, there has been, I believe, despite what anyone else says, unprecedented progress in the development of industrial training. Thanks to the foundations laid by the last Conservative Administration, the seeds of the training revolution have been sown on fertile ground. Both sides of industry have welcomed and fostered this development. A total of 21 boards has now been established—an average rate of one board every eight or nine weeks. They span a wide range of industry and commerce. Plans to set up another five boards during 1968 are well advanced, including a board for the printing and publishing industry, which was mentioned in the Report.
By the end of this year 16 million work-people will be covered by boards, out of the 18 million that were estimated to be within the scope of the Act. We all know that the creation of an industrial training board achieved nothing by itself. But to an industry which is prepared to support it and work with it, it offers potential gains which are immeasurable. Not only will its activities
248
give an impetus to the expansion of training, to the development of modern and better training methods but, perhaps more important in the long run, is the gain in productive efficiency which better training will engender. It is not only the nation but the individual himself who gains advantages from training.
Allowing for the different circumstances of their industries, the boards have made progress with commendable speed. They are already able to deploy considerable resources. During the current year they will be making grants to a value approaching £120 million. Increasingly they are able to give advice and guidance to individual firms, not just through published literature but through training advisory officers. Already boards employ between them over 500 training advisers who can help firms improve their training performance, both in relation to boards' grant schemes and to each firm's particular needs. The Engineering Board, for instance, is making over 40,000 visits to firms a year.
In order not to deprive industry of its own training experts, and this is the point my hon. Friend was on, many boards have recruited officers who had little or no experience of training and have given them the basic training themselves. This has affected the speed with which these advisers could be deployed. Not all boards, however, will think it is right to use their training staff on regular routine visits to firms. The best use of these advisers is a matter for judgment by the individual boards in the light of the needs of their industries. However, there is no doubt that, especially in industries where systematic training is not widespread, these officers are already bringing the message of the Act and offering helpful advice to managements on the organisation of the training.
I think that the Chairman of the Committee, whose advice we have had, would agree that much of the work of the boards has a direct bearing on the quality rather than the quantity of industrial training. For this reason it is not easy to find a simple valid measure of much of the progress which I know is being made. For instance, most of the boards in their grant schemes lay down minimum standards for the receipt of grants about such matters as the employment of properly trained instructors,

249
the development of systematic training plans and the use of comprehensive and reliable training records. These conditions must, I am sure, be making their contribution towards improving the overall effectiveness of the training which is given in industry.
More far reaching in their impact are the training recommendations which the boards publish covering such matters as the nature, content, method and length of training, the selection of trainees and the standards of instruction. The boards' training recommendations are intended eventually to cover all categories of worker. This will inevitably involve a great deal of consultation, research, skills analysis and take some time. But already the Wool, Jute and Flax Board, the Iron and Steel Board and the Gas Industry Training Board, to name only three, have published their recommendations on training for a wide variety of occupations and other boards are giving similar priority to this work.
It is sometimes said that the training boards exist primarily for the benefit of the larger firms. But through the development of group training schemes the services of qualified training officers and comprehensive training facilities are being made available to many small and medium sized firms who could not otherwise obtain them. There are now over 200 groups compared with only about 60 some two to three years ago. About three out of four of the groups are in the engineering industry and they have a membership of over 2,000 firms and 11,000 trainees. The Construction Industry Training Board has introduced group schemes to its industry for the first time and has already established more than 20 schemes. Schemes have also been started in industries as widely different as iron and steel, ceramics, textiles and hotel and catering.
Some of the boards are also doing some pioneer work in their own newly established training centres. At its centre at Bircham Newton for instance, the Construction Board has set out to provide courses for many of the basic operations in civil engineering for which hitherto no systematic training programmes had been provided. Similarly, the Shipbuilding Board has set up a training centre at
250
Southampton to provide an entirely new first year course of training for craft trainees in boat building, while the Wool, Jute and Flax Board has a small training school for burlers and menders. The Water Supply Training Board has also set out to provide a range of off-the-job training facilities for the industry in a number of board centres.
One of the most striking advances is the acceptance by a growing number of boards that for most craft occupations it is desirable at the outset to have a period of full-time training away from the pressures and demands of the job in a special training centre or school. The Ministry has added its own grants to the grants of the boards to encourage this, and the resultant progress is evident. In the engineering industry off-the-job training places increased from 14,000 to 24,000 in the year ending September, 1966, and by now the figure has reached 30,000. There has also been substantial growth in the number of off-the-job training places in the iron and steel and shipbuilding industries during the past two years under encouragement from their training boards.
Off-the-job training is important as a means for greater training efficiency. The Engineering Board is finding, for example, that with one year's training off-the-job some trainees are reaching standards of practical work which were not previously attained until the second or third year of training. Other boards too are finding that by relating the length of training periods rather to what needs to be learned than to traditional apprenticeship periods customary training times can be shortened. Thus for instance, the recommended training for craft trainees in iron and steel and shipbuilding is now four rather than five years and the Foundry Committee has recommended programmes of training for pattern-makers lasting just three years.
Off-the-job training is also important as a means to more flexible training arrangements and a more versatile labour force. Thus all craft and technician trainees in engineering follow a common broad-based course of training for the first year. Similarly the Shipbuilding Industrial Training Board has recommended common courses of initial training for a number of different craft occupations.

251
A yet more significant step towards greater versatility is foreshadowed in the proposals for modular training which have been under discussion in the engineering industry and are soon to be published as training recommendations by the Engineering Industrial Training Board to follow on the Board's first year training recommendations which are already being put into effect. The modular proposals concentrate on the training needed to acquire particular skills rather than particular traditional occupations and envisage that trainees will be able to acquire a combination of skills relevant to their aptitudes and to the needs of the firm, not only during the initial training period, but also as demands arise later in their working life.
I have given just a few examples of the hard signs of progress being made in industrial training through the work of the training boards. I shall be drawing attention to others also as I deal with selected topics later in my speech.
I should like to say something about the Central Training Council which aroused the interest of the Committee. This Council was established in May, 1964, to advise me on my functions under the Act and any other matters relating to industrial training which I may refer to it. The constitution of the Council is laid down in the Act and its members include employers, trade unionists, the chairmen of Industrial Training Boards, educationists and some independent members. The first three-year term of office of the Council came to an end in May last year and I should like to take this opportunity of recording my great appreciation of the very notable contribution which the Council has made. Individual members have given a great deal of time and thought to the work not only of the Council itself but also of its various committees and working parties. This was a tremendous voluntary effort. I am sure that the House would wish me to express appreciation to the eminent and busy men who voluntarily gave their services.
The Council has looked at some of the major issues which are of central importance to progress under the Act—for instance, on the relationship between industrial training and further education,
252
and on the principal tasks facing industrial training boards—and has published a series of memoranda about them.
The Council has been acutely aware in reviewing the work of the different industrial training boards that there are large areas—as, for instance, the training of training officers, training for commercial and clerical occupations and training for management—which are of common concern to all boards. It has felt that the best way in which it can give guidance on these subjects is to set up a series of specialist committees to study them.
These committees have prepared four reports so far, all of which have been published as Council documents. There have been two reports on training officers dealing with their initial training and with the longer term pattern of training that is required. There has been a report on training for commerce and the office, and a report on the training and development of managers which presented the common features of effective schemes of management training and development and considered the way in which training boards might help to promote them. A report on training for office supervision is now with the printers and will be available shortly. These reports and the Council's memoranda have been given a wide distribution and have served not only as part of its advice to the Minister but also as guidance to the training boards and as information documents to the public generally.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West knows, I have already accepted the Estimates Committee's recommendation that before the end of the Council's period of office in 1970 there should be a review of its administration and functions. Members of the Council will be associated with the Ministry in this review. One of the matters to which we shall have to give careful attention is the suggestion—discussed by the Estimates Committee with a number of the witnesses who gave evidence—that the Council ought to be independent of the Ministry with its own secretariat and budget. If this means that the Council should have some executive functions and cease to be purely advisory, it does seem that there would be a very difficult problem in establishing a satisfactory relationship between the Council and the industrial training boards themselves, which

253
are the executive agencies under the Act in its present form. I shall be most interested to hear any suggestions hon. Members may have as to how this difficulty might be overcome, because there are two schools of thought about it. There are those who think that it should be maintained in a purely advisory capacity.
I should like to say a few words on further education. It is no longer disputed that our modern conditions of rapid technological change and intense international competition demand a work force which is both highly trained and educated. This integration of education with training is essential if people in industry are to be equipped to carry out their work effectively and to have the opportunity to advance to more demanding and responsible work. As early as July 1965, I made it clear that I would normally approve the proposals of industrial training boards only if they made it a condition of grant to employers that day release or equivalent was provided for young people in occupations requiring a substantial amount of training.
The Industrial Training Act places a statutory requirement on industrial training boards to make recommendations on the further education to be associated with their training recommendations. That is a very important element in the Act.
The local education authorities are responsible for providing the courses of further education needed to meet the demand arising from boards' recommendations. In making this distinction, the Act merely recognises the existing responsibility on the education authorities to provide the education service. But the Act assumes also that further education and training are complementary aspects of a single process, and makes provision for the active participation of the education service in its administration at all levels. It provides for the appointment of education members on the Central Training Council and on every board. Assessors from the Education Departments attend the meetings of boards and committees and are able to contribute an educational viewpoint at all stages of discussion of training recommendations. Similarly, there is close and continuous contact between my Ministry and the Education Departments.
254
There are established arrangements for direct liaison between boards and the education authorities in the development of courses of further education.
I turn to the point on which my hon. Friend laid much emphasis—management training. I do not believe that there is any dispute about the need for improved management performance. The increasing size and complexities of organisations and the technological processes that they control are demanding highly skilled and professional managers. Neither the nation nor industry can afford inefficient management, be it in the private or the public sector. Let me make one point quite clear. There are many firms in all sectors of our economy who can stand comparison with anyone in the world. The picture that is sometimes presented of British management being right down in the depths compared with any other nation is sheer nonsense. But let us also admit that there are many areas of British industry where there is room for improvement.
All this is, I believe, common ground, and the Estimates Committee had no doubts that urgent action is necessary. In my reply, I stressed that the boards are giving management training the highest possible priority consistent with their other responsibilities. All but two of the boards established prior to March last year include management training in their grant schemes, and, indeed, the other boards who have reached the stage of drafting their grant schemes make similar provision. Because the boards are autonomous, these grants vary immensely in scope and amount; but all the grants are, I believe, generous and cover, in whole or in part, fees, out-of-pocket expenses and refund of salary. Bearing in mind the benefits accruing to the firm—if the courses have been carefully matched to their needs—then I am quite satisfied that these grants provide acceptable incentives.
I referred earlier to the Report of the Management Training Committee of the Central Training Council. It was published last autumn and has been very well received by industry. It was the basic document at a two-day conference sponsored jointly by the Ministry of Labour and the British Institute of Management last month, and both I and my hon.

255
Friend the Parliamentary Secretary addressed the conference.
I believe that this Report will come to be seen as an important landmark in management training and development in this country. It sets out in simple terms the common features of effective schemes of management training and, through the operation of the industrial training boards, the pattern outlined in the Report will, I believe, come to be widely adopted in industry.
Before turning away from management, I would like to pay a tribute to the educational services. I would not have thought, and I doubt if any other hon. Member would have thought, ten years ago that today we should have 21 universities with departments concerned with business studies and two graduate business schools. In addition, numerous colleges and organisations in both the public and the private sectors provide courses in management education and training. We have all recognised in previous debates that for far too long there has been a lack of unity between those who teach and those who practise. I believe that, under the sheer impact of events, there is a growing understanding one for the other, and I am sure that we all welcome this. Increasingly, college staff—the majority of whom have had industrial experience themselves—are going out to industry to find out what their needs are and providing instruction accordingly.
Sir Keith Joseph: I welcome everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said about management education. However, before he leaves the topic, he is unambiguously responsible for industrial training. In so far as the Government have responsibility for management training, is he also unambiguously responsible for that, or is it split between Ministries?
Mr. Gunter: As far as I know, I have responsibility, via the industrial training boards. I hope that that is the right answer. I think that it is.
Mr. Peter Emery: Can the right hon. Gentleman elucidate a little further on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)? Are the powers for management education previously held by the Department of Edu-
256
cation and Science now to be transferred to the Ministry of Labour?
Mr. Gunter: In the light of what has just been said, I think that I had better ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to make the necessary inquiry and provide the answer when he replies to the debate.
Turning to the aspects of vocational training for which the Government are directly responsible, I must give first prominence to the expansion of our Government training centres—though they are not, as too many seem to think, the beginning and ending of the Government's direct contribution to industrial training. Too many people assume that the Government's training centres are almost entirely responsible for the training of our people, and that is quite untrue. In October 1964, we had 25 Government training centres with 3,900 training places. By the time I addressed the House on the same subject some 14 months ago, there were 32 Government training centres with 6,400 training places. By the time that I hope to be talking at the end of this year, we shall have a lot more. I said 14 months ago, that our immediate plans aimed at a total of 38 centres and 8,000 training places by the end of 1967. As the House knows, this target was duly achieved. Our plan for 1968 is to raise the number of training places to 10,000—by opening four new centres and four extensions to existing centres; by more intensive use of space already available; and by transferring the first year apprenticeship classes at Government training centres to the care of local technical colleges so as to make way for more adult classes.
All these plans are going according to schedule. Many of the new classes in our present centres are already in being. Work on building four new centres and extensions either has already started or will do so shortly. The first year apprenticeship classes will all have been moved from Government training centres by the end of the year.
The achievement of 10,000 training places may in some hearts be regarded as a notable landmark, but it must not be regarded as a resting place. The Government have already arranged for work to start during the next financial year on the building of six further centres.

257
Their locations—already announced—will be Darlington, near Durham, Wrexham, Wakefield, North Staffordshire, and West London; I expect all to be in business by the end of 1970.
I now have to tell the House that which has not been announced, that, besides the six that I have just mentioned. the Government have decided to build a further seven centres. They will be sited in West Monmouthshire, at Dundee and Middlesbrough, and in the areas of Basildon New Town, South-East London, Wolverhampton and St. Helens.
The effect of all these plans is that, by the end of 1970, we shall have 55 centres with about 13,400 training places and the ability to turn out nearly 23,000 trained men a year—that is, about 3½ times the capacity of October, 1964.
Rightly, I think, we have not confined the expansion of Government training centres to the development areas. But the immediate programme is heavily biased towards the needs of those areas. It is vital that the expansion of industry and employment which they need should not be delayed by a lack of skilled labour. Thus, 11 of the 17 new centres to be opened by the end of 1970 will be in development areas. There will then be 27 centres serving these areas, as against only 10 in October, 1964; and they will have a substantially greater share of the training places which will then be available.
All these figures represent solid achievement and firm plans for the immediate future. Yet I am often told that all this is not enough, and I do not suppose that it is. I am often told in particular that there should be a mushroom growth of Government training centres throughout the development areas. But it is not always appreciated that Government training centres are not, as is often supposed, the easy answer to every re-training problem. They have the limited—though vital—purposes of adding to our stock of skilled labour and of giving a second chance to workers who have never had, or no longer have, a usable skill. The courses they provide are of highly concentrated training, and they are designed for those who are equal to the exacting demands of that highly concentrated training.
258
I am glad to be able to say that there is no present lack of suitable applicants; but it is still true that the bulk of retraining is needed at the semi-skilled level and that this job is best done by industry itself. That is why we are encouraging the growth of such training in development areas by training grants, financial assistance towards managerial training, the loan of Ministry instructors to start up training in firms' own workshops, and free courses of training for industrial supervisors and instructors.
Another issue that my hon. Friend raised during the proceedings of the Sub-Committee was instructor training. The industrial training boards generally have appreciated the importance of properly trained instructors and have made substantial provision for instructor training in their initial grant schemes. My Ministry in turn, as the House knows, makes grants to the boards to help meet certain of these costs. Many boards also pay grants designed to meet, in whole or in part, the cost of employing instructors.
The importance of providing effective courses of instructor training has long been recognised by my Ministry and the demands made on our two instructor training colleges at Letchworth and Hillington are heavier than ever before. The expansion of these two colleges, which I referred to in my reply to the Committee, will be substantially achieved this month. Small instructor training units are being established alongside Government training centres, at Perivale, Liverpool, Killingworth and Leicester. The Perivale unit is already established. The provision of a further such unit is being considered for South Wales. These colleges and units will, I am sure, make an increasing contribution to industry's general requirements in the instructor field—complementary, as it were, to the work of the boards.
There is a growing practice whereby boards make arrangements with selected colleges to run courses slanted to the needs of their industries. The Wool Board were pioneers in this field; and several other boards have done likewise. The Industrial Training Service has run 45 special courses for instructors, often on behalf of boards.
I turn now to manpower forecasting. I hope the House will forgive me for speaking at greater length than usual,

259
but I thought it was better to have a good look at the whole situation.
One of the major duties of the training boards is to consider the future manpower requirements of their industries and to prepare estimates of the training needed to support it. The Central Training Council has identified this as being a high priority for the boards in their future work and the Estimates Committee has rightly drawn attention to the role of the Ministry's Manpower Research Unit in this field.
It is fair to say that at the outset the boards were anxious, first of all, to establish themselves as working organisations and to stimulate the interest and cooperation of employers by bringing in schemes of levy and grant. There were also some obvious high priorities like producing training recommendations for new entrants to their industries, and it has been right for the boards, in my opinion, to concentrate on the quality of the training of these young people on whom the whole future of industry depends. Nevertheless, the planning activities of boards are of vital importance and I expect them to be given a great deal of attention from now on.
The Manpower Research Unit was set up with the object, among other things, of helping the boards, and it has already given guidance to them on the collection of statistics, which is, of course, basic to this sort of work. Existing statistics are very largely inadequate for the boards' purposes, and the collection of occupational statistics to their own requirements can be expected only in the longer term to yield results suitable as a basis for their forecasts. In the immediate future they may have to rely largely on information about current shortages of manpower and on mainly qualitative assessments of likely manpower trends. The Manpower Research Unit's main task is to prepare manpower forecasts on a consistent basis for all industry groups in broad occupational categories. This will provide a framework within which training boards can develop their plans to expand training capacities.
It is also necessary, however, for the Unit to carry out more detailed studies of particular industries and sectors in
260
order to supplement the often inadequate data available and to give a more complete and up-to-date picture of changes in occupational structure. Such a study of the electronics industry was published at the end of last year, and other studies now under way cover the printing industry, the machine tool industry and the hotel and catering industry. The Unit anticipates a considerable development in this aspect of its work. Some of the training boards also intend to undertake similar studies of their own. The Unit and the boards will work in close cooperation to ensure that the best possible use is made of resources and that there is no duplication of work. If joint inquiries are required in co-operation with one or more boards the Unit will gladly take part. Although quick progress cannot be made in this highly technical sort of work I hope that manpower forecasting will make an increasingly important contribution to the task of the boards.
Mr. John Page: We have been listening with the greatest care to what the Minister has been saying. Is he satisfied that the information available to the Manpower Research Unit is made available to the Ministry of Education early enough so that in highly technical spheres long-term assessments can be made of the kind of educational background that will be needed before, so to speak, the vocational training can take place?
Mr. Gunter: This question was raised with me about a fortnight ago. I understand that the facilities for it and the speed with which it is done are satisfactory. However, as the hon. Gentleman has raised it again, I will have another look at that.
I turn now to the question of adult retraining through industrial training boards. The Industrial Training Act placed on the training boards an obligation to take a fresh and critical look at both the length of training for various occupations in their industries and the point at which such training—and retraining—is required. We are beginning to realise that the need for training does not end at 21 or any other arbitrarily determined age. The Central Training Council observed in its first report in November, 1965, that the concept of an apprenticeship served in a man's teens,

261
which will enable him to pursue a sharply defined occupation for the rest of his working life, had become increasingly unrealistic. There is now, I think, a general acceptance of the idea that there is a need for training and retraining of adult workers, either to bring them up-to-date in their own occupation or to enable them to perform a different kind of work altogether. Training and retraining can be seen, therefore, as the means both of satisfying the more immediate manpower requirements of particular industries and, in the longer term, of helping people to keep their skill and knowledge abreast of the needs of changing technologies.
It is helpful to distinguish two types of adult training and retraining. The first of these is at the semi-skilled and operator level and is carried out in firms themselves. It may be insufficiently organised or inexpertly done at present, but it takes place on a very considerable scale. The grant schemes of all the longer established training boards recognise for grant in various ways the schemes of adult retraining undertaken by employers and I am confident there will be a progressive improvement in the quality of this training. It was in order to encourage retraining for semi-skilled occupations by firms themselves that I brought in a new scheme of grants in the spring of last year. Under this, a sum of £2 million was made available to the boards to enable them to make grants to employers towards the capital cost of machinery and equipment purchased for use in their training bays or centres. The scheme was originally designed to last one year but I have now decided to continue it in the development areas.
Adult training to bring men to skilled level is largely carried out by accelerated methods in Government training centres. The G.T.C. programme is not sufficient by itself to meet all the needs, and it is important that we try to secure a far wider acceptance of the practice of giving up-grading training to the skilled level in industry itself. I have had talks on this, both within my National Joint Advisory Council. and at a special meeting which I convened with the representatives of industry. Although there was support in principle for an extension of upgrading training, there seemed to be a great recognition of the many difficulties at plant level. Whatever the difficulties,
262
I hope that we can make progress on this question of up-grading within firms. I believe that the largest reservoir of this type of labour could easily be acquired by this quick and happy method. The Ministry, the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. are again working on this programme, and I have made it clear that if a new scheme of grants is required I shall be willing to consider the possibility of giving any help that we can afford.
Something that is very near to our hearts at the moment is the training of redundant workers. The whole range of employment services provided by my Ministry—and there have been some important developments lately I am talking about the placing services—is available to help redundant workers find new jobs, but I think that we ought to be a little careful in the use of our language when discussing this problem. Our experience is that many redundant workers are able to take up new jobs without any retraining at all, and many of them do. They are adaptable. Wherever retraining is required, most of it is at the semi-skilled level, and is best given in the new firms on the machines or processes on which the men will have to work. For those redundant workers who need, and are suitable for, training at the skilled level, I hope that Government training centres will increasingly become available.
In addition, as the House knows, I have recently opened four new Industrial Rehabilitation Units in development areas, and these are intended particularly to provide a service for districts most affected by colliery closures, where the disablement figure is tragically high. Through these Units miners and others can be given skilled vocational guidance and an opportunity to familiarise themselves with new types of work which can make full use of their capabilities.
Mr. George Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend comment on a point which has been given much publicity, namely, the difficulty which is sometimes experienced in placing retrained men in industry? What experience has his Department of this?
Mr. Gunter: On the whole, the record has been very good. During the last nine to 12 months there has been an increase in the number unplaced. This is largely

263
because of the rise in unemployment. It is a fact that sometimes the trade unions in certain areas object to the placing of these men. There has been a limited amount of this, but generally our centres have achieved remarkable results. We are very conscious of the numbers who are unplaced, because I have always argued that there is nothing more cruel than getting someone to work hard, to accept his retraining, and then to find that he is not able to get a job. This is something to which we must pay great attention.
I propose, now, to say a few words about comparisons with other countries. I am sure that during the debate comparisons will be made with Sweden and France, and I have been inundated with requests from Members to catch up with Sweden. We have been urged to extend our training to at least the Swedish level of 1 per cent. of the total working population under training. For Britain this would mean 240.000 workers.
I have always believed that making comparisons, in league forms, with other countries gets us nowhere, because the statistics do not always start from the same point. The statistics are not on the same basis because of wide differences in economic and social conditions, and because we organise our industrial training and vocational education in different ways. It will be remembered that the Industrial Training Bill was presented by the Conservative Administration. It was one of the happiest Bills to go through the House. We were all agreed about it, but we must not forget that the House took a certain policy decision, one different from that taken in many other countries. When the Bill was introduced by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), I agreed with him that we could not have vast training in industry and at the same time try to keep pace with other countries which put the emphasis on training in Government centres, and I therefore suggest that the circumstances are different. If we take the criterion of 1 per cent. of the total working population, which amounts to 240,000 workers, I am glad to tell the House that our level is higher than that in Sweden much higher.
People tend to assume that the number of people being trained in Govern-
264
ment training centres represents our total training effort. This is a complete misconception of the policy adopted by successive Governments of training far higher numbers in industry, in some cases with the help of technical colleges. In October 1965, the last date for which statistics are available, returns from employers to the Engineering Industry Training Board showed that more than 300,000 workers, or nearly 10 per cent. of the labour force in the industry, were receiving either training or retraining during a particular month. British industry as a whole must, at that date, have been training many more than 300,000—a figure which itself is higher than 1 per cent. of the total working population.
Returns sent to my Department from firms employing 11 or more workers showed that, for the manufacturing industries alone, firms had 450,000 workers under training in May 1967. Over the three years from 1964 to 1967—in effect the first three years of operation of the Industrial Training Act—there was an increase of 15 per cent. in the numbers under training in these firms in manufacturing industries as a whole. Comparable increases for metal manufacture were over 12 per cent.; for engineering over 20 per cent.; for the manufacture of metal goods 70 per cent.; and for electrical goods 35 per cent.
I do not say this in any spirit of complacency. Because of technological changes there is too much concern about the future for anybody to be complacent. but I suggest that it is time we stopped saying that anything this country does is inevitably worse than what other countries do. It is just not true. I would welcome any comparison of our training effort with that of any other country in the world.
I have ranged widely over the problems of industrial training, and the achievements of the many organisations and individuals who are contributing to its success. I am sure that during the debate other points will be raised, and many contributions will be made. If the House desires, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will intervene to pick up some of the, threads and answer some of the questions.
The party opposite brought the Act to fruition we are proud to build on

265
the foundations which they laid. We would all recognise, I hope, that training is a long-term investment, which will pay off progressively in the years to come. Therefore, not only should all those who play a part in promoting industrial training be encouraged by the fact that they are contributing to the productive efficiency of their industry and the nation, but all those who participate in training are making life richer for countless numbers who are benefiting because of the efforts deployed in training.
5.1 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The Minister said that the Committee had given him and his Ministry much food for thought. This was obvious from the length of his speech. I make no complaint about this, since it is a compliment to the Committee that he should give us today such a considered commentary on our study. On behalf of those of my hon. Friends who were on the Committee, I would say that it was a happy Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee, due, I think, mainly to the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Greenwich—
Mr. Hamling Mr. Hamling Woolwich.
Mr. Lewis: On these Sub-Committees, we forget each other's constituencies and think only in terms of Christian names, which I am not allowed to use in the House. If anyone doubts that that was a happy Committee, I would say that we are still serving on the same Sub-Committee together, considering something a little different.
Just before the debate, I heard from the British Federation of Master Printers that they were a little concerned at not having been called to give evidence to the Sub-Committee, although we heard one of their member firms. They need not consider this a reflection on them, since we had a choice to investigate many firms and organisations. However, since the Federation seem to think that people outside might consider that they have done nothing towards training, I must say that we certainly do not believe this—I take their point. They want it to be known that they have kept comprehensive manpower statistics over the year and have made many inter-firm comparisons of performance, They also
266
have the good work of the Institute of Printing, which has done a great deal for training in the industry. If that helps them to feel better, I am sure that the Committee and the Chairman would agree that it should be on the record.
This Report arose out of the Industrial Training Act, 1964. Before that, there was little legislation on training apart from the Redeployment and Training Act of 1948 and the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act of 1958. The 1964 Act broke tremendous new ground. Both sides of the House were very happy with it and I had the pleasure of sitting on the Committee which considered it. It was the basis of a revolution, in the right hon. Gentleman's word, in commerce, in technical work, in apprenticeships and management. It was long overdue.
I felt, as the Chairman did when we began our consideration, that we were being a little premature, but I now am sure that it was a good thing to consider how the boards were operating this soon after the first was set up in June, 1964. Anyone who reads the Report must do so recognising that our consideration of this matter came early. I would like another look taken at the training in three years to see how things are going, since this would be good for the boards and the House.
Before the Act, training in British industry at its best was very good and many of our firms offered the finest training opportunities in the world. However, over a large section it was indifferent and over too large a section, at the bottom, it was non-existent. The bottom strata were prepared to poach skills by raising wages and not paying a "transfer fee". Meanwhile, they offered no training and did not contribute towards the training of their employees. Thus, the levy grant system which the Act introduced was to even out an unfair and inefficient system and promote more and better training.
This levy grant system is not a tax; we should make that clear. We did not intend to impose an extra tax by that Act. It is quite proper that right hon. Gentlemen should also make it clear that this is not a tax The levy system must be taken together; with the grants. If some look on it as a tax because they are not susceptible of receiving a grant,

267
then they must prefer the old system of the poacher who does not pay.
The Act achieved three main things. First, it secured an orderly expansion and improvement of training generally through the training boards, which are representative of industry. Second, it brought the expertise and some of the money of Government, through the Ministry of Labour, into the provision of better training. Nothing which has happened to the Ministry in recent years has been better than the introduction of the Act and the creation of the boards, because this gave it an area of work which will develop and do great good.
In case it is thought that too much Government money is going on this at the moment, it should be recognised that rather more than £100 million—the amount is growing—comes from industry and, up to now, £6½ million from the Government. There is scope for more Government money here, though I do not suggest that the Government contribution should ever become anything like that of industry.
The third achievement of the Act was that it began for the first time to involve our educational institutions, creating better instruction, better trainees and an increase in the number of trainers. This co-operation in industry between education and the Ministry of Labour has long been desirable and this work is being brought to fruition by the advancement of the boards.
There is, of course, the danger that when setting up organisations of this sort one may create a bureaucracy. The fact that the boards are independent—although they receive a certain amount of Government assistance and nudging occasionally —should lead the industries concerned to watch this bureaucracy. Each board should be kept under scrutiny by industry; industry would be right to complain if it is felt that an over-bureaucratic organisation, containing too many administrators doing work unconnected with training, is being set up. It is always difficult, when dealing with an industry which is a mixture of large and small firms, to ensure that this does not happen. Industry, must be sure that it does not occur and. firms must not just pay the levy and opt Init.. They must take a keen in
268
terest in what the boards are doing by way of training.
Apart from the need to avoid bureaucracy, two other rules must be considered by industry and the boards. First, each board must recognise that it needs its own pattern. While it can learn from boards which are already operating in different industries, it must create its own pattern and be distinct. What is done by one board applying to one industry need not necessarily, and probably will not, apply to another.
Secondly, once a board is set up it must have the right sort of chairman. We had a considerable discussion in Committee about whether the chairmen of boards should be full-time or part-time. I am convinced that the chairmen of larger boards should be full-time. Such a job could not be undertaken on a part-time basis, particularly in the early stages, if a board is to get off the ground properly. The task may become a part-time one later and, for the smaller boards, a part-time post may be adequate. Perhaps a chairman who is doing a limited amount of work elsewhere would be ideal for the smaller boards.
Having pointed out the need to prevent a bureaucracy being formed within these boards—and, to a large extent, this is a matter for the chairmen and members of boards—we must consider what went wrong with the agriculture board last week. We had two nights of interesting discussion on this topic and it seemed likely that the board had set on its journey too quickly. I believe it should take six months or so for a newly created board really to get going. The agriculture board might profitably have sat back, for perhaps a year and, instead of calling for the levy, have used the Minister's money. It should have taken time to look round. It is entitled to do so under the Act. Newly formed boards are entitled for at least a year to use money provided by the Minister. Instead of that, this board quickly having set itself up, started moving It should have used the Government's money.
Mr. Gunter: It did.
Mr. Lewis: If it used the right hon. Gentleman's money, then it was obviously using it for the wrong purposes. The board clearly was intent on creating

269
a system of industrial training in agriculture which was not acceptable to the farmers. Something might be acceptable to the N.F.U., but if it is not acceptable to the farmers as a whole it is of no value. If this is done too often the appeals machinery under the Act will be swamped and boards will never get off the ground. However, many lessons can be learned from the efforts of the agriculture board and I hope that that board has also learned some lessons from this exercise. Perhaps the path it has set can be somewhat retrieved.
Any new board should seek advice from the widest possible sphere, including the Central Training Council, the Ministry and other boards which have already had experience. Some might say, "Boards must not proceed too slowly in the matter of training", but while it is possible to proceed too slowly, it is also possible to proceed too quickly. It cannot be expected in about three years to make up the neglect—where there has been neglect; there is not neglect everywhere in British industry—of 20 to 30 years.
From the point of view of the Ministry, good communications downs the line through the boards in industry to individual firms is vital. If boards become not only bureaucratic but remote, they will run into trouble in their industries. In Committee we had an interesting discussion on the working of the engineering board and whether there should be a proliferation of inspectors. It was pointed out that one can have too many inspectors. This also applies to agriculture. If boards try to inspect every little unit every year there will be too many people involved in this and the whole system will become a nonsense. Spot checks are probably the best way of handling this matter.
The Committee was also concerned about the availability of trainers of trainers. It is important that we have an adequate number of people able to instruct instructors so that the best people go into the field to give training in the best techniques. These instructors must be efficient and, at the end of three or four years, must be able to provide the best skills that can be made available to British industry.
270
Such people are in short supply. However, many people over the age of 55 are coming out of industry through redundancy. Some of these might be the best people to put through technical colleges and crash courses and make them into trainers of trainers. A new life could be given to many of these people who are made redundant and they could pass on the benefit of their many years' experience in industry.
The Minister asked for comment on the Central Training Council. I believe that the Council should remain as it is—advisory. It has not been going long enough for a change in its functions to be made. I suggest that it be left as it is for another three to five years; then changes can be considered. If it is possible for the Council to make an impact through its reports all down the line in industry, it should not be necessary to give it executive functions. I should be surprised if industry as a whole ignored the reports presented by the Central Training Council. It is a Council which can and should influence, but it would be a mistake if it were given too much executive power.
The Report shows the value of the Training Act but it shows up one or two deficiencies which exist in the direction in which the boards are going. I am not sure that there is much impetus for management training or that we shall get it while the boards are so concerned with apprenticeship training and technical training. I wonder whether it would be a good idea to have a special board for management training. Management is common to all industries. This is something which might be considered, although I am not entirely sold on it.
Sir K. Joseph: Hear, hear.
Mr. Lewis: If we do not have a special board for management training we must have some means by which we can get moving on this work which at the moment shows very slow movement.
Mr. Hamling: I hope the hon. Member will not be discouraged by the disclaimer made from his Front Bench. B.A.C.I.E. is on his side and not on the side of the Front Bench.
Mr. Lewis: One puts up things which may be knocked down. It is more important to make suggestions than not

271
to make them in case they may be knocked down. I was glad to hear about the increase in Government training centres. I agree that much of this retraining has to be done by industry itself but it is equally important that we should see that it is in fact done. Someone has to see that industry is tackling it. Someone has to see that after chaps are retrained they are acceptable by the unions in their new jobs.
There have been some rather bad instances of lack of co-operation in this matter, although I accept that there have been a large number of men who, after being retrained, have been accepted. We shall have a big problem in the next few years when 30,000 miners become redundant and 5,000 of them will be young enough for retraining. When we add to this that other old industries are running down and the demand there will be for new industries, it will be seen that this will be a formidable operation.
We should think in terms of whether there should be shift working at training centres. Again, I am not sure that the pay is sufficient for a married man. He has to be fully covered before he goes to a training centre when he is leaving his wife and family at home. The pay has been increased, but I am not sure that it is sufficient to make him happy about going away to be retrained. I said that the Act is the basis of a training revolution and that we as a Committee were happy to have a look at it. There are those who would probably still say that in setting up training boards we are setting up further bureaucratic institutions; they will say that there is not very much wrong with British industrial training. But we should look at what has happened in the last few days over the trawlers from Hull.
I do not think there is a board for that industry. It may come under the Agriculture and Fisheries Board. It is an industry in which boys are sent to sea at the age of 15 or 16. The Minister has spoken of the need for training for a year or two off the job, but this is a case of training on the job and apparently of training immediately on the job. It has been shown that there is great risk involved and that apparently going to sea in danger is part of the early training—I think too early. This may be an
272
extreme example, but in too many facets of industrial life there is inadequate care taken in getting the right training. I think this Report was well worth while doing and I hope the House will think it well worth while looking at this whole subject.
5.25 p.m.
Sir Spencer Summers: Before coming to my main point I wish to allude to one or two matters which were raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). I endorse what he said, which has been echoed, about the need for emphasis on management training. Specialisation in management is growing, and continues to grow. One of the needs of training is to get the all-rounder to accept the proposition that certain fields in which he has thought himself to be adequate in the past are fields in which the specialist alone can make an adequate contribution. Attention should be paid to encouraging the specialist to play his part and to be accepted where he is wanted.
I also endorse what has been said about the extravagant amount of time taken in apprenticeships. Even with the reductions to which reference has been made, I cannot accept that it should take as long as has been alleged to train a fully-fledged, competent, 100 per cent. skilled worker. I have not looked into the position lately, but not long ago I discovered that there were certain rules in the trade unions which demanded that if someone was to be accepted as fully qualified and skilled he had to have completed his apprenticeship by a certain age. I believe the age was 21. If at 22 he were to go through all the training, he would not be acceptable because of union rules. I hope that someone will look into this undoubted restrictive practice which ought to have been removed long ago.
Mr. Hamling: Does the hon. Member also agree that the age of the trainer is important?
Sir S. Summers: Yes, I do. All I am anxious to do is to remove any upper age limit which might block the opportunity for those who want to embark on this training.
I am certain that agriculture cannot opt out of the whole business of increased training facilities with the aid

273
of a board, but there is one marked difference between that industry and others which, perhaps, is not always recognised. It is an industry where manpower is continually decreasing and it will continue to decrease, whereas a great many other industries are crying out for additional manpower, particularly skilled manpower. That makes a very important difference.
I come to my main point, which is the whole purpose for which training and retraining should be considered. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West said how important it was that there should be adequate thinking in advance of the purpose for which the exercise is arranged to make certain that it went in the right direction. I hope, therefore, he will support me in saying that there is a strong case for regarding training, particularly retraining, from a new point of view.
The Report brings out the fact that originally industrial training had for its motives primarily social considerations. It was thought desirable that special arrangements should be made to train the disabled and those coming out of the Forces. The second stage is perhaps best described as having the economic motive of making more efficient those in a particular industry by ensuring that they were given adequate training so that they were more effective as they grew up. To a large extent, this is still the motive underlying the work of the various boards.
There is now a new purpose which is not always given added consideration. The new purpose is the desire to make redundancy respectable and acceptable by providing places to which men who are no longer wanted in the job they have had for some time can go and acquire a fresh skill.
The Minister said in this context that retraining was especially appropriate for redundant workers. This is true, but there are tens of thousands of men who are not called redundant but who, in fact, are redundant in the jobs they are doing. This is partly the fault of management. It is partly the fault of old-fashioned ideas in trade unions. It is perfectly absurd that every skilled man should have a mate to himself. There are all sorts of demarcations and limitations which increase the amount of manpower required for a project. If common sense were to prevail and these
274
were swept away, great numbers of men in almost every factory and office could be transferred to other work. In other words, there is a vast amount of concealed employment or semi-employment which is not available at present. In view of the present unemployment figures, this is rather understandable.
In this aspect of the subject we are discussing today is to be found the key to getting Britain out of her economic troubles. This is why I want the whole. business of retraining to be given far more important consideration as an in dispensable pre-requisite to getting down to cheaper costs of production and getting down to the right numbers of men employed, because men will be more willing to be made redundant if they have genuine opportunities for learning a new skill.
The Minister told us that by 1970 there would be 13,000 places at training centres, meaning an output of more than 20,000 trained men. This is fine, but I am not sure that even this is enough. I underline very forcibly what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said about the inadequate pay of those at Government training centres. Much of the work they do may not be saleable and there has therefore been a tendency hitherto to take the view that the country cannot afford to pay more than very low rates to these trainees. The average wage is now £21 a week. As many people who would like to go to these centres have been in the habit of earning high wages. perhaps in semi-skilled employment, they just cannot contemplate dropping to the pay levels referred to in the Report. I am not sure that a man with a large family at today's unemployment pay would be much better off if he went to a Government training centre and took the pay prevailing there. It would be a very good investment substantially to increase the pay at these Government training centres so that people would be encouraged to go there.
The recent Act making available substantial redundancy pay whether or not the redundant worker got another job, the following day has undoubtedly eased the situation of those for whom transfers ought to be made. The arrangements under the Contracts of Employment Act have perhaps had the opposite effect.

275
The provision of more retraining facilities, and increasing the pay for those at Government training centres, would be two ways of making a notable contribution to bringing about the change of attitude which is indispensable if we are to make any progress towards getting the numbers down to a really efficient and economic level.
When unemployment figures were very much lower than they are now, it used to he said that one of the great handicaps in improving efficiency in British industry whilst unemployment was as low as that was that there was not adequate discipline, in that a man knew that if he lost his job he would have no difficulty in obtaining another one quickly and therefore he took little notice if somebody put the screw on, so to speak. There was a good deal of truth in that. The present high unemployment rate may have done something to improve this aspect of discipline, but it has brought its own difficulty in that people who ought to be transferred will not be transferred because there are already so many unemployed that their prospects of finding another job have become more difficult.
One of the reasons why I deplore some of the measures the Government have taken over the last six months, the consequence of which has been to increase unemployment, is that they have made it more difficult to improve efficiency in industry by arranging to transfer large numbers of men to other work.
I therefore hope that great stress will be laid on retraining and that it will be recognised that retraining large numbers of people can make a notable contribution to improving efficiency in British industry, because, until the numbers employed are brought down by deliberate acts of management, with the co-operation of the men concerned, our costs will be unduly high in comparison with other nations and we shall fail to achieve that increase in exports which is indispensable to success.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) has made a very generalised attack on one side of the problem without taking into account several of the other sides of the problem. Several
276
of the recent Government measures have resulted, not in a tremendous increase in unemployed amongst the manual classes, but in an increase in unemployed on the managerial side. That is where there has been the greatest difficulty in obtaining new employment.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman intended to stress the problems created by what he described as the old-fashioned outlook amongst trade unionists. These attitudes are gradually changing. The sooner they change, the better it will be, in the view of many of us on this side. I am sure that in the end the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we should all applaud and appreciate this process of change.
I join in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). I, too, served on the sub-Committee, which was very friendly and dedicated to its job. It had to make a detailed study in some depth in a very short time and I hope that the House will appreciate my hon. Friend's valuable work in directing our attention to certain lines.
The Report can probably be dealt with adequately under two headings: First, the Government training centres, and, second, the Industrial Training Act and the industrial training boards. It is true that the Government training centres are performing a remarkably good service. They have been doing so for a long time, and it looks as if what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said today augurs well for their future. Of course, they work under some difficulty. One thing that bothered me was not only the numbers of people in training but the long waiting lists which still exist. The figures of the numbers of people in certain trades awaiting training show that there is a very large delay. Nine months is much more usual than unusual.
Sir K. Joseph: Would the hon. Gentleman give us a couple of examples of the sort of trades where there is such a waiting list?
Mr. Dobson: The building trade is one, A training centre in one particular area is a case in point, and I believe that on the engineering side there are several long waiting lists in various parts of the country. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will

277
give us more information. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that I am not exaggerating when I say that far too many people are waiting too long for the sort of training which can be done very well in the Government training centres. Part of the problem is the physical one of buildings, but there is also the question of wage rates for instructors. Until the Pay Research Unit comes up with its own rate of pay for instructors in Government training centres, we shall always have difficulty in obtaining the people for the job.
There is a problem in selecting people to undergo training. Sometimes almost an arbitrary decision is made as to whether a person should be retrained, and I am not sure that we can always select the right people to be training officers in the Government training establishments. The choice is difficult, but sometimes we turn away people who could make a very valuable contribution.
I was very impressed by what the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said about people who are redundant at the age of about 50. It would be very useful to tap that source of workers, thus getting the best of all worlds—experience and knowledge of handling people, and giving them a sure and steady job for the rest of their working life in industry, with which most of them have probably been involved all their lives.
In our short but fairly decisive exercise on the question of whether trade unions were blocking entry into their skills by people leaving Government training centres, we found that that does occasionally happen. But when we examined our expert witnesses from the Ministry of Labour we heard of difficulty in only one area and one particular district in it; that was in engineering. I hope that that augurs well for the 40 or so trades about which we are talking. If the trade unions cannot adopt a realistic attitude—and I speak as one who has been a member of a trade union for well over 20 years—failure to do so may in turn redound on the people who block those leaving the centres, if they are not lucky. Such blocking should be deplored by most hon. Members.
If I had to specify one way in which I think that the Government training centres are possibly lacking, it would be
278
that while the 40 or so trades which they attempt to encompass are very valuable, I did not get the impression that we were looking into new skills and trades very much inside them. Experience shows that a person who did a trade or skill in the old way can encompass the new way shown to him. But I should have thought that a tendency to break with the old way of training is probably a better means of achieving results much more quickly. I hope that new thought will be given to what could be done in the training centres to see that through.
Judging from what my right hon. Friend said, he seems to have a very good record not only on the numbers of people going through the training centres and the way in which he has developed the centres but also in the way in which they have been spread throughout the country. That was a useful way to make a contribution to industrial retraining, and the new figures he gave us were very encouraging. They go a long way to meet the charges made in a recent economic debate by the Leader of the Opposition, who challenged the amount of training now being done. What my right hon. Friend said today meets that challenge.
I did not think that the method of selection for entry into the Government training establishments was particularly valuable. It is a very good thing to offer semi-skilled men training for a skilled capacity, but very often they have to be unemployed or have been declared redundant before having the opportunity to do so. I believe that many of them would have welcomed an opportunity to achieve a new skill before they lost their old job. While many people understandably want training when they have no job to go to, and it is right that they should be offered the opportunity to acquire a new skill if they are the type who can do so, it is wrong that we do not offer the same facility to semi-skilled men who genuinely desire the opportunity of training for a new skill.
I felt that the Industrial Training Act was very good, and it has proved itself in the short time that it has been in operation by the number of people who have been brought on in training. It is true that it got off to a slow start. I am not sure that the Ministry's priorities

279
are always right in setting up the Industrial Training Boards, but I accept that this was a very difficult task, and there was a pattern of difficulties that would have come up from a whole series of people. Indeed, the levy grant system certainly raised its own problems.
I did not really take the rather sanguine view of hon. Members opposite about what they termed the "growth of bureaucracy" or, rather, perhaps the lack of growth of bureaucracy in the boards. Paragraph 33 of the Report shows that, in the Engineering Training Board, out of 637 people employed no fewer than 449 were administrators and not trainers and that, in the Construction Board, out of 433 employees no fewer than 247 were administrators and not training officers. I know that it is extremely difficult to set up a board in this way and that the Engineering and Construction Boards have been the most difficult to set up and organise a levy grants scheme for, but it seems to me that there has been the wrong emphasis and I hope that boards will learn from this experience.
The chairmanship of a board is all-important and we were right in our opinion that there should be full-time chairmen for the very important boards and part-time chairmen for the smaller ones. The selection of the chairman of a board is vital to its work, as is the selection of its senior officer. It is difficult in many cases to find a chairman who has the time to give to work of this kind.
The need for management training has been mentioned, and I endorse what has been said. It is a difficult subject and I do not altogether follow the need to improve the management training pattern of a board. The boards set up should be looking to management training in their own industries. The management pattern changes inside an industry, even in the engineering industry, where there are large and small and many different types of unit. However, even in engineering there must be a large area of common expertise of management which could be obtained by a person. I do not know whether it would be a good thing for someone in engineering to have the opportunity to manage in the construction industry or the woolen jute industry if it were in a type of work remote from that
280
which he was doing before taking his training.
For example, one wonders what relevance work in the civil air transport industry would have to the training of managers in the engineering industry. However, no doubt the boards could do this if they set their minds to it, but there is the prior need to set the bottom categories of work right first rather than to look at management training, and the Report brings out strongly our feeling that there is need to look elsewhere first.
My right hon. Friend asked for comments about the Central Training Council. I still feel that its structure is not particularly good for the type of job it has to do. Professor Lady Williams said that the members of the Council were not entirely sure about this either, but that they were all new boys and girls and wanted to see how things were run. I accept that view readily but we shall need to watch the structure of the Council to see how it is able to operate.
The status of the Council also needs to be considered. I do not think that it has the correct status vis-á-vis the boards. I do not necessarily want it to have full executive power over them, for that would be going too far, but it should have more advisory control over what individual boards are doing, although I accept that this would be difficult to achieve in practice. But there should be some way of putting the Council into the position in which it can more readily influence the setting up not only of the boards themselves but the way in which they will do business—for example, the levy grant and the way it is operated, the number of people in training, the priorities of training, etc. I know that the Council does this in an advisory capacity through the Ministry, but there is need to change its status in this context.
That is evident in the way we can see training generally in industry developing. If we go on as we are, we shall merely have the C.T.C. with virtually no power to influence in some detail the sort of things going on in the Industrial Training Boards while yet being partly responsible for the way the Act is being operated. That is not a good thing either for the Council or for training in industry.
I accept my right hon. Friend's view that we should have s review in possibly

281
another year or so, and certainly before the term of office of the present membership expires, which is in three years' time from last May. The Council should remain independent of the Government but it should not be too remote from the boards themselves and should have more power over what they do and the way they do their job.
What is the future of industrial training? There are several things we should discuss in this debate. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West referred to an "army of snoopers" being employed—I thought this rather a slang term—to see the standard of training in industry. But there is a need constantly to try and raise training standards. I do not believe that one can set minimum standards yet— indeed, I hope that we never do so in that way—but we have to make qualitative assessments firm by firm and industry by industry of the training being carried on by the boards. That aspect must be developed powerfully.
Secondly, there is need to improve communication between the firms and the boards under which they work for training purposes. The evidence given to the Committee showed that if a firm was large enough or had an educational establishment beforehand, its opportunities of getting to someone on the board to talk about its problems were many. But for the firm which was too small or did not know the ropes, the chances were very much reduced. While the hoards themselves thought there was a fairly good run of information to and fro, I got the impression that there was need to improve communication between the boards and their firms.
Thirdly, I concluded that there was need even now to look to changes in the methods of training. There are many methods which could be used in industry which are still not being used. I agree on the need to reduce time of training. Both sides of industry should be persuaded of this. The Government cannot do this; it must be one of the principal jobs of the boards in future.
We must still increase the scope of training inside the boards, because I am not sure that we know the right way yet to tackle each different type. There are many areas for example, computers in
282
which there is a massive need for training and little is done except by individual firms for commercial reasons. If part of the cost can be met by the Government, they will accept it, but this needs to be considered. I do not know whether it is a job for the C.T.C. or the Minister, but it must be done because we will in future depend largely upon the new technological advances and industries. If we can do all this, industrial training will be improved to the benefit of the firms, the Government and the people.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. Philip Holland: I wholeheartedly supported the passing of the Industrial Training Act, and lost my seat in the following 1964 election, though I do not suggest that there was a connection. I then became personnel manager of an electronics company and for the next 18 months wrestled with, among others, the problems attendant on implementation of the Act. It was a sobering and thought-provoking experience. I did not change my view that the Act was right in conception and objective. I still believe that, but at that end of the scale I took an increasingly angry view of the way in which the Engineering Industries Training Board seemed to be functioning. I am glad to see that this excellent Report endorsed my view that the Board had its priorities, as well as the industry, confused.
My first-hand experience dates only to the spring and early summer of 1966, but until then it seemed that the Board was more interested in empire building than in stimulating the right kind and quality of training for the industry's future needs. We were not endeared to the Board by the long delay between the collection of the levy and the payment of our first grant, though, to be charitable, we hoped that was probably just teething trouble.
Nevertheless, far from stimulating our training programmes, which were highly sophisticated, it seemed to us that, owing to the difference between the costs of training per man and the amount of grant allowed for training per man, it was worth while to try to ascertain the optimum level of training to achieve a minimum additional cost, in other words, what would be the economic level of training to sustain the objectives of the

283
Board. The answer which we received indicated a reduction in our existing training programme and a shift of emphasis to the lower from the higher skills. Of course, we did not reduce our programmes and did not shift the emphasis because we were training the people whom we needed in the business.
Thus, the attitude towards a balance between levy and grant simply became an acceptance of the necessary expense and had no impact on training policy. This is how the idea grew up in many companies that this is a tax. Whether the balance of levy over grant was to be absorbed or passed on to the customer was outside my province, but I have no doubt that it has to be passed on ultimately if there is an extra expense.
Those who defend the Engineering Industries Training Board say that to start with a large-scale operation, to bite off more than can be digested, to start as one means to go on, shows commendable courage, but I share the view of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) that it is easy to be bold with other people's money. Not only has the Board apparently placed its own top-heavy administration higher on its list of priorities than the training needs of the industry, but there have been examples of what appear to be quite glaring inequalities in its treatment of one company as against another.
Two or three weeks ago, an East Midlands businessman told me that he had an engineering firm employing about 300 people and that between 10 and 12—currently 10—trainees were learning on the job. His first grant was just over 100 per cent. of his first levy; his second was 93 per cent. He was very pleased, but told me that a large West Midlands engineering company with which he was closely associated and which employed between 5,000 and 10,000 people, with highly sophisticated training schemes and a separate training school for training off the job—a practice which the Minister commends—received only 56 per cent. of its levy back in grant.
Although I was not speaking directly to those in the large company and therefore could not check the facts, it seemed to me that the important thing was that an industrialist working under the auspices of the Board was prepared to
284
believe this. That shows the attitude of some industrialists towards the Board and the treatment which they expect to receive from it. The fact that this was credible is the important thing, not whether it was 56 or 66 per cent.
It will not surprise the House to learn that, from my experience, I warmly endorse the second recommendation in paragraph 68, and would couple with it the seventh recommendation, dealing with the Manpower Research Unit of the Ministry—not only, as the recommendation suggests, to find where re-training can best contribute to redeployment, but, as I would like to see, to provide the individual I.T.B.s with valuable comparative information on future trends, not only in their own but in allied fields.
The Report reaches no firm conclusions about a change in the powers of the Central Training Council, but expresses doubts about its present advisory nature and reserves judgment. I am not sure that the Council's powers of persuasion are an effective substitute for some—although seldom used—permissive powers of direction. I know that the Minister has misgivings and has challenged us to explain how this would operate in its relations with the boards. It would obviously be foolish to try to give a snap answer, but problems are there to be solved and where there is a will they can be solved.
I should like to give a case in point. In September 1965, the Council published its Memorandum No. 2 entitled "Industrial Training and Training in Safety." It was an admirable little pamphlet, dealing in an understanding and enlightened way with accident prevention and the urgent need for safety training at all levels. It also stressed that safety training should be an essential part of all formal training schemes. I wonder what effect—these are questions and I am not prejudging the matter—the memorandum has had on the activities of the boards and what incentive has consequently been given to companies and colleges of further education to extend their training courses to include positive safety training, and by how much safety training in industry has increased as a result of this memorandum.
Could not more have been achieved here if the Central Training Council had

285
had the power to give instructions that these proposals should be implemented? These are serious questions and, if the direct answers are not available, I should be grateful for views on the principles involved.
On the question of management training I have somewhat mixed feelings that are not altogether in accord with the great enthusiasm shown in the House on this subject. I was responsible for a management training scheme for some 18 months recently, and in my experience the successful production of promising managerial material depends more on the initial selection than in the case of applicants for almost any other form of training. It is probably true to say that with patience on the part of the instructor and enthusiasm on the part of the student a craft can be taught, scientific facts and technologies can be taught, the tools of accountancy and methods of administration can be taught, but the qualities of leadership so necessary to success in management can not.
Whilst training can make more effective good potential managers, the only cure for poor management is not education but a pretty ruthless axe. I am not trying to suggest that management training should not be developed. I am not suggesting it is not important in its place, but we should not regard it as a panacea for all ills in management or as a substitute for the axe in the case of poor management.
On the subject of retraining, I am sure that in retraining for redeployment the Government training centres set a good example and to some extent supply a need, but they do suffer from two disadvantages. First, for some reason—I am sure we can all think of reasons why this happens—they do not appear to be able to attract enough people for retraining to take full advantage of their capacities in the areas in which they are sited. I understood the Minister to give the figures for the places, but not how many of the places were filled. Can the Minister tell us whether the proportion of people who wanted retraining is as high as one could hope for in the last 18 months? If the position has changed I am delighted.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North East (Mr. Dobson) recorded the figures given by the Minister as the number of
286
trainees being retrained, but I think he was under some misapprehension there.
The other disadvantage is that these training centres are incapable of rapid expansion when the need arises, not only for the reason of the time it takes to build buildings but the time it takes to staff them. They tend to lack flexibility for expansion according to national needs. For a long time, since the Second World War, as the Minister knows, we have had "Training Within Industry" and I should like to see this given a further shot in the arm for the period of massive redeployment on which we have already embarked. I should like to see encouragement given for development of Government-sponsored but industry-based T.W.I., not directed, as recent grants were, to the development areas specifically, nor directed at industry generally as T.W.I. was, but rather directed at the growth industries to which we want to move the redeployed people. Whether the Government end of this would be in the form of some grant or allowance or some incentive to the growth industries to expand I do not know. The form it should take is a matter for discussion and consideration.
Retraining is already carried out in many companies, but I think it requires co-ordination and concerted effort and the focussing of attention where it is needed most for the people to be redeployed and the areas into which they are to be redeployed.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say a word of congratulation to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West and his Sub-Committee on their well-reasoned and very readable Report. May I particularly congratulate the Sub-Committee on reaching conclusions which in most cases accord very closely with my own views on the matter.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Norman Haseldine: I should like to associate myself with the good wishes expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) to the Minister on the progress made with the Industrial Training Act. The Report we have read and the speech we have heard assures us of continuing progress in this field.
In my constituency we are at the centre of the Wool, Jute and Flax Training Board, and I was pleased to hear the Minister pay a tribute to the wool textile

287
industry which, before the setting up of this Act, had developed its own training within the industry. When one bears in mind that in the City of Bradford 29 per cent. of the working population are connected in one way or another with textiles that shows the foresight and anxiety of those engaged in the industry, even in earlier days, to ensure that efforts were made to help in terms of industrial training.
In the last Report published by the Board I was interested to note that, in the levy and grant system, 94 per cent. of the levy was returned to the industry in the form of grant. In matters of this kind we appreciate that a measure of flexibility is important. In terms of relief the Wool, Jute and Flax Industry Training Board in 1966–67 based its levy on two rates and the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that in the current year, after interesting discussion the levy is on five levels of rate within the industry. I believe that has already been enacted, but I think it is very important to bear in mind.
Emphasis has been laid, particularly in the Report of the Estimates Committee, on the training for trainers, and here again, speaking initially in terms of the Wool, Jute and Flax Training Board, the Report informs us that no fewer than 10 colleges have courses coming up to the board's standards. These are separated throughout the country but are particularly strong in the wool textile region of Bradford. I have had the opportunity to visit the headquarters of this Board and I was particularly impressed by the qualities of the executives and their dedication to their jobs.
As has been mentioned this afternoon one of the important considerations in the Industrial Training Act was to ensure that there was pooling of the costs and moreover that this pooling of costs would in fact avoid the poaching of trained personnel from other factories in a region. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that in my own constituency we have come across an anomaly which in fact would encourage poaching. It concerns a firm engaged in the manufacture and maintenance of textile comb pinsetting job.
The hon. Member for Carlton talked of the empire building of the Engineering
288
Board. I have not the experience to make such assertions, but, nevertheless, the Engineering Board has claimed that this organisation is within its purview.
Mr. Holland: The Board has created for itself a large top-heavy administration which the Report shows is out of proportion to the number of training staff it has acquired.
Mr. Haseldine: The hon. Gentleman will agree that one is capable of being misunderstood if one uses the wide term "empire building". I think that it would be wrong to charge the Engineering Board with empire building. It seems to me that it has a very efficient scheme for employees in engineering. The problem is that the firm is involved not with engineering, although metal is worked, but because the pin combing is part of the textile industry. The whole of its business is geared to the textile industry. The only comparable operatives in this field are those in the wool textile industry engaged in the mills in maintenance, and if the job cannot be done properly in the mill it is passed to this firm to do it.
The Parliamentary Secretary has accepted this argument. I know that he has taken a great deal of trouble to refer this matter to the Wool Textile Board so that it may look at it. However, if the Engineering Board insists on training these people, the great anomaly will arise that the employees will, in effect, be attending courses which are entirely different from their normal day-to-day occupation. We should then be training people in the firm's time to learn the full skills of engineering at the technical college and then finding that the firm paying the levy to the Engineering Board is deprived of the services of its employees because they have entered a wider field of training.
Another anomaly which I came across was this. The Engineering Board claims that because a firm which manufactured large signs was working in metal is was subject to the Board. If it is accepted by the Ministry of Labour that an anomaly exists concerning the firm with which I have been involved and which is already paying a levy to the Engineering Board, I understand that a Statutory Instrument will be necessary, which will take a considerable time. Already; time

289
has passed. It should be possible to take speedy action when anomalies arise. I know that we have periods of training to bear in mind, but I plead with the Minister to find a way of getting rid of anomalies quickly when they are discovered.
Because of my interest in the retail distributive trade, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to indicate that good progress is being made with the Board for retail distribution which is to be set up. I hope that, as in other cases, my right hon. Friend has been able to recruit people of high calibre and wide knowledge of the industry to serve on the Board. I plead for an early announcement in this connection, because it has been well said within the retail industry that once there is a training board or the industry it will do a great deal to uplift morale within retail distribution. Morale is low because one tends to look upon those in the retail industry as the left-overs. There is a tremendous career for young people in retail distribution, but there is certainly a great gap in management. I am sure that in the very near future a tremendous number of people will be involved in the two training boards for retail distribution. I hope that the Minister will indicate that the date of setting up the boards is not far distant.
6.25 p.m.
Sir Keith Joseph: I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will forgive me if, having resisted the temptation to speak after the Minister so as to hear hon. Member's contributions, I now make the sole Front Bench intervention from this side of the House.
I must introduce into this very agreeable debate a few critical remarks about the Minister's speech. However, I should like to hold those remarks until the Minister returns, which I think he courteously intended to do when he knew about the time at which I would try to speak. Certainly I would presume to make no criticism whatsoever of the very thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) or of the Report in general.
I think that one might make out a case for claiming that perhaps the investiga-
290
tion of the working of the training boards could be considered a little premature. On the other hand, although many of the problems and anomalies can be discounted as being due to teething troubles. it is not perhaps too early to identify features which could, if allowed to continue, become dangerous. That is why the emphasis of my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) and Carlton (Mr. Holland) and by the hon. Member for Bristol, North East (Mr. Dobson) on the dangers of a bureaucracy was appropriate.
We must bear in mind that it is not just the number of administrators on the boards by which we can measure bureaucracy, because each administrator probably ties down two, three or four full-time people in business and commerce if one aggregates together all the man and woman hours taken up in corresponding and arguing with the bureaucrats—I withdraw the word "bureaucrats" because it is mildly pejorative—with the staff on the training boards.
I should like to tell one story to illustrate one of the dangers of an Act of which we on this side of the House are very proud and the difficulties of a precise performance of the requirements of some of the boards. I asked a great industrialist what the experience of his firm was in administering the Act. He said:
"Imagine that there was a wedding on a beach of sand and shingle and you were required to sort the confetti from the sand and shingle into piles of identical size and colour. That is what administering the Act comes down to. My staff are spending man and woman months proving precisely how many individuals were spending how many 40-minute periods in how many classrooms on how many days to the satisfaction of, often, several different boards."
The pursuit of perfection in accuracy leads, perhaps, to an excessive administrative cost. The speeches we have heard bring out that danger, and also the danger that firms which specialise in skilful form-filling rather than the quality and quantity of actual training may gain from the grant provisions of the Act. We must remember that even though the levy percentage, or even the net cost of the levy minus grant, may appear minute in proportion to the total turnover of industry, it can be a highly dangerous proportion in terms of the margin of profit available to industry.

291
We, the authors of the Act, must bear responsibility for something that could be more expensive than it is worth, but we have absolutely no evidence to lead us to believe that it is proving anything but a useful Act, of which we can be proud and of whose fulfilment we are glad the Government are taking advantage.
The Minister having been good enough to come in, I should now like to make the sole criticism that will appear in my speech. We welcome the increase in training centres that the right hon. Gentleman announced. One of his back bench colleagues said that the increase disposed of the call made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a greatly increased scale of training and retraining, but I would rather imagine that the response of the Minister and of the Government has something, however small, to do with the series of speeches my right hon. Friend has made. Be that as it may, my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, welcome the increase in training places, but will still say, as I think the whole House will, that the Government have a considerable distance further to go. Indeed, the Minister himself gave that impression.
I was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not take the chance of this debate to put the whole Report in a rather wider context, to set industrial training and retraining against the background of education as a whole, and to spend rather more time on the relationship between manpower forecasting, the functions of the market and the duties of Government. Finally, I regret that he did not tell us more about the problem that worries many of us, which is whether we are to find in this country, as there has apparently been found in America, a growing technological redundancy of the unskilled, and of the elderly, both on the shop floor and among executives.
Having made those criticisms, I cannot cavil at the amount of detail the Minister gave us. We recognise that the Government have functions in training, but I was glad to hear that, for their part. the Government recognise that the bulk of training and retraining must always be in industry.
Before considering the progress of the Act and its administration, we must ask
292
ourselves towards what sort of economy we are working. My own view is that we are, slowly perhaps, sporadically perhaps, but definitely moving towards a service economy built on a base of a well-managed, highly co-operative and rapidly adaptable labour force in industry and commerce.
I emphasise the service nature of the economy because—as the analysis of the trend of labour in this month's issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette again proves —despite Professor Kaldor and the Selective Employment Tax, that sort of economy uses less and less labour not only in agriculture but also in manufacturing and that more and more of the manpower and womanpower of the country goes into the infrastructure, distribution, leisure activities, and the like.
I have emphasised the three features of good management, co-operation between management and worker and the rapid adaptability of the labour force. Looking abroad, this is the lesson we learn from countries like Sweden. Sweden has nothing to teach us about the central wage bargain, which is entirely nullified by wage drift. What Sweden has to teach is the benefit that comes from good management and co-operative labour achieved by good industrial relations. It is the lesson of flexibility and good management. I therefore agree with several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Woolwich, West that almost at the heart of this problem of training and retraining is management.
Not everyone can be trained into a good manager—good managers are born, not made—but management training can mature, improve and even transform promising management material whatever the age at which it —if I may for a moment refer to human beings as "it"—left school whatever the accent with which it speaks, and whatever the background from which it comes. I believe that the main stimulus to good management is the market economy, with competition and incentives. But, having said that, I still believe that institutionalised management training can do a power of good.
I wish to brag once again that I was a co-founder and the first chairman of the Foundation for Management Education, which was set up by a number of enthusiasts in 1958 and which has been

293
the chosen instrument under, first, a Tory, and now a Labour Government for spending money on the Business Schools—half the money coming from industry and half from the taxpayer.
Management education has become recognised, even fashionable, but I believe that there is a dangerous proliferation of cooks meddling in this particular broth. I hope I may be excused for claiming that the Foundation for Management Education was in at the beginning and has the right, particularly as custodian of moneys from Government and industry, still to interest itself in the subject. I note with respect that the C.B.I. has set up a committee under Mr. John Partridge, which has a very proper standing. But when we come to the Government, we find so many Ministries involved that I wonder whether there should not be some kind of sort-out.
We have the Treasury. We have the Department of Education and Science. We have the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, the Ministry of Labour. I believe that that adjunct of No. 10 Downing Street, Department of Economic Affairs, is now staking a claim in management education. The National Economic Development Council has set up a committee on the subject. It was only for this reason that I ventured to shudder when my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford suggested that we should have a management training board. There are too many bodies. I suggest that one Ministry should really grip the whole subject.
Whichever Ministry it is ought to look at the effectiveness of some of the management training that is going on. I believe that the technical colleges, which do so very much good in so many fields, do not yet have the qualified staff to undertake management training; and that the rate of drop-out is a little worrying. I am not sure of my facts here and speak with some diffidence, but I believe that with the shortage of skilled teachers as a limiting factor in management training the Government should husband the teaching resources there are and see that they are not wasted by being stretched too thin over too many institutions sponsored by too many different Ministries.
Good management—of which, as the Minister said, we have in this country a
294
very substantial share, though not, perhaps, enough—will, as we increasingly spread it, solve many of our training problems, because good management will identify skilled needs as far ahead as intelligence can predict—which is not always very far in this rapidly changing world.
Good management will recruit appropriatepeopleand carry out policies of manpower development which make training, and adaptation by retraining, welcome to the man and no burden on the economy. The better management is, therefore, the less the Government will need to do, but the Government must create, as we on this side maintain, an economic climate of competition and incentives that encourages good management
The question that the Government should try to answer, and which the Minister did not even approach this afternoon, is the relationship between education training and retraining. Certainly in the immediate future, in the short-term time scale, there is an urgent job for training boards and for industry in training and retraining.
More and more, however, as we move towards the sort of economy which, I believe, lies ahead, the answer will lie in the recommendations of the Plowden Committee. It is on the improvement of primary and then secondary education that the future adaptability of the labour force really depends. My hon. Friend the Member of Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) was quite right in stressing also the need to improve the post-school training, whether we call it apprenticeship, vocational training or career training.
What we need after boys and girls leave school surely is a broadly-based education oriented to adaptability and versatility instead of to one narrow skill. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West was so right in being shocked by the idea of a man or boy being destined for life at the age of 16 to one narrow career which may become obsolete. I was glad that the Minister emphasised that also.
The narrow training of one skill for life and the fact that this is the accepted norm for so high a proportion of our population is surely at the source of much of our inflexibility and of much of the conservatism which imposes such

295
obstacles to the growth of prosperity. I hope that we can, therefore, have open-ended post-school training so that people can respond to altered skill requirements. The Engineering Industry Training Board deserves all our congratulations for conceiving the idea of the module, as an instrument which allows for adaptation during life.
Surely, the time has come for the Government to prepare the education—that is, the Plowden operation—and the post-school training to be the base for a more modular concept of training and retraining for careers.
I should like to pass from that general argument to the obstacles to movement to which retraining is meant to be a part answer. I hope that the Government will not allow themselves to forget the importance of pension transferability. I am sure that they will not allow themselves to forget that, however much they improve training and retraining, there is still a grave housing problem which impedes mobility and which stops men who are made redundant in one career from pursuing the career which they prefer.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West, made only one grave error in his speech, and that was in talking about the inflexibility of farmers. If business and commerce as a whole had achieved anything like the growth of productivity that farmers, helped by chemists and engineers, had achieved, we would have no balance-of-payments problem. The adaptability of the farming industry has been one of our major post-war achievements.
I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate, he will comment on what I have said about the Plowden operation and about the open-ended post-school training, and will also tell us a little more about some of the obstacles, on which his right hon. Friend scarcely touched. Is there any serious blockage by district officials of employment of dilutees? We recognise that national union organisations are on the side of the angels. We know the problems in dealing with district officials. What proportion of the graduates from Government training centres are now blocked by district official recalcitrants? Obviously, we cannot expect a precise
296
reply, but can the hon. Gentleman give us a scale of magnitude to see whether there is a serious worry or merely a pinprick here?
Secondly, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us something about how the Government see the ladder of opportunity? We cannot expect very highly-paid men made redundant in one career gladly to welcome retraining for a much lower-paid career. A face-working coal miner who has earned high pay might conceivably welcome a lower-paid but safer and less irksome and unpleasant job, but, broadly, it should be easier to redeploy a relatively low-paid railway worker into a career which is marginally better paid than a higher-paid coal miner. The ladder of opportunity which we should like to see stretching right from the unskilled labourer up to the doctor is a concept which is a little academic.
Can the Government give any idea whether they are finding that one of their major difficulties is that people whose jobs are made obsolete in one career could find only less-well-paid work through the Government training centres or through industry? I hope that that is not true, but we should like to hear a comment upon it.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give a breakdown of the likely use of the training places in Government training centres that the Minister foresees in 1970 —a throughput of 23,000 a year—as between adaptation courses, courses for the disabled, upgrading courses from semi-skilled to skilled and upgrading courses from unskilled to semi-skilled? Can the hon. Gentleman spare a word to tell us how the Minister's experiment in career advice for adults, which, I believe, is on a selective basis in a few employment exchanges, is going? We should like to hear how this fits in with the general Government training centre strategy.
I now turn to manpower forecasting, on which I was glad that the Minister spent a little time. The Economist did us all a service in its admirable analysis of how Japan is tackling its economic problems. I do not know whether many hon. Members read the article on Japan's labour policy. What the Japanese do is to identify sectors in which men and

297
women are earning very little. They say to themselves, "Here is low consumption because these people are low-production workers. Let us try to transfer those people who are low paid, because they are producing relatively little, into sectors where they will be higher paid and, therefore, able to earn and consume more."
In Japan, that is done by a sort of series of pressures, by links between the banking system and industry, a sort of banking feudalism which we could not have in this country even if we wanted it. It starts, as far as one can see, at a crucial identification of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was talking about—the surplus of manpower, which, in many cases, is reflected in relatively low pay.
We all know that if we try by means of minimum wages to raise the pay of the lowest, we probably only eliminate a large number of jobs which will be mechanised. That is not the route which I am suggesting. I suggest that if we allow the market to work with a proper compassionate safety net that both sides of the House want, the market itself will to a large extent perform the function of shifting people from lower-paid jobs to higher-paid jobs.
I am not trying to hot up the politicial temperature of the debate, but I believe that, if we could abolish the bitterness of the past, which we cannot, and if the railways were in private hands, railwaymen would be fewer but much better paid and the public would be better served. I do not expect that to be accepted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is an argument for what the market will do if left to itself with the compassionate safety net.
On manpower forecasting, there are real difficulties even in a firm or industry and, therefore, in an Industrial Training Board in predicting what are the skills which will be short in the future. Some shortages are man made; that is, resistance by some trade unionists under some managements to the effective use of all the skills available. Those are man-made shortages which good management and possibly some legislation can reduce. Then, some shortages are eliminated by "deskilling" operations by management; they are by-passed. Some shortages are
298
real shortages of skills which emerge very fast with new technologies and are themselves rapidly overtaken by the speed of change in those technologies.
I doubt whether even the best equipped Industrial Training Board can look more than five or possibly eight years ahead. Therefore, unless we adopt the modular approach, we are in danger of retraining a man with an expectation of 20 years with a skill which may only last 10 years. We come back again to the modular approach. Then there are the shortages of skills such as medical and teaching which require long training and for which the normally redundant of those who are surplus, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, cannot directly be trained themselves.
We welcome the increase that the right hon. Gentleman has announced in the Government training centres. We recognise that there is a big job for the Government and for industry to do. But we agree with the Minister strongly that the statistics of job vacancies, the definition of actual jobs or the job analyses, should be greatly improved before the work of the boards or of industry in manpower forecasting can go very much further.
I come now to the other matter with which the Minister did not deal and should have done. Given the removal of all the obstacles and assuming that either in industry or in G.T.C.s there are adaptation and conversion courses, will there be left an increasing number of relatively low I.Q. people who are made redundant from firms that increase their efficiency and require more I.Q. in their employees, and who will not be able to retrain for well-paid employment? That is the experience in America, where admittedly there is a racial problem to complicate matters, but does the Parliamentary Secretary think that we face anything like that?
Perhaps we are frightening ourselves by this ambiguous word "skills". Some skills call for high I.Q. Some skills, or perhaps I should say some crafts, do not require such high I.Q. but, rather, some knowledge and pride in the job. If we are to be a service economy, a prospering economy, with more and more people having the spending power to eat out and with more tourists coming to the country, why should we not take pride in having a first-class catering industry, with men

299
and women proud to be waiters? Today, it is considered a relatively suitable form of employment for immigrants. There is nothing wrong with immigrants in this context, but I believe that there should be a skill and pride in being a waiter, that does not call for enormously high I.Q., and I wonder if the Ministry has identified other forms of employment which will expand as the country does what we hope and increases in prosperity and which will be sources of decently paid and honourable work for members of our community who are less gifted in intelligence; or are we to expect the problem which America is finding?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to spare the time to say something about the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford. The growing periods of unemployment to which the elderly, whether from the shop floor or management, are vulnerable in an era of merger and takeover, must be a source of great unhappiness to increasing scores of thousands of households. I do not have any glib answer. I wonder if the Ministry has given any attention to it.
If we become more and more a service economy based on a more productive manufacturing industrial base, we can expect enormous growth in health, education and welfare. I hope that that growth will come from private as well as from public sources. Whether it is all public, all private, or, as it probably will be, mixed, we expect there to be a great explosion in health, welfare and education services. To what extent can some of the people who change their careers in midstream and who do not have higher intelligence be found honourable places in the expanding welfare, health and education, leisure, distribution and service fronts?
To sum up my argument, we think that training and retraining has a first priority and that the steps initiated by us in the Industrial Training Act and carried forward by the present Government are the right ones and are very welcome. However, parallel with it and on the middle-term as opposed to the immediate time scale, it is vital for the future prosperity of our labour force to carry out the Plowden recommendations to improve
300
primary schools, and to improve post-school training by making a much more effective open-ended career apprenticeship to which adaptation can be added by the modular system.
6.57 p.m.
Mr. John Robertson: Like many other hon. Members, I feel that the conclusions and recommendations in the Report are perhaps a little premature in relation to the industrial training boards. I think that the Committee has done a useful interim job, and if I appeared to be a little critical of a statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) a little earlier, I am sure that he will realise that it was about his statement and not his whole speech. However, I think that that kind of statement is made too readily and easily by far too many people.
I concur in the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have said or implied that we are all inclined to knock British industry in far too ill-informed a way by large sweeping generalisations which a moment's examination would show to be patently untrue. We are all guilty of it, and I have done it myself.
Mr. Hamling: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I speak as one who trained apprentices for some years.
Mr. Robertson: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I hope that, in turn, he will accept that I was an apprentice and worked in industry for some time. I was a trade union organiser who had apprentices and apprenticeships very much in mind for a number of years. I was deeply involved in industry for a long time, and I have yet to see a situation such as he described.
However, the Industrial Training Boards have been doing a very good job of work. They have been catching up with the main deficiencies in training which were all too commonplace in pre-training board days. They will be able to catch up with the poachers and at least make them pay if they do not make them train. They have been doing a great deal of work in this connection. They have also, although not so well in the short period they have been in existence, organised group schemes whereby the small firms can give much better and more varied training.

301
It is not true that the majority of firms, even in engineering, are large firms. The majority are still small firms which, in the range of their products and work, are not able to provide very wide experience. Therefore, they require to be part of a group scheme to give decent training to an apprentice. The training boards hive been catching up in these two respects. They have also been bringing up the standard of training to a good average, and this is a good thing.
However, there have been negative sides. I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) —I am referring to the engineering training involved—who suggested that there is a trend towards bureaucracy in relation to the Engineering Training Board. I have experience of a fairly large group of employers on an industrial estate near my constituency. They wanted to open their own training school within the industrial estate. They could provide the instructors and were prepared to carry out the work, provided they got the necessary grant from the board. However, the board was more concerned with setting up a vast scheme to serve the whole of the West of Scotland. I think that it went wrong there. I should imagine that one of the first jobs of a training board is to encourage industry and groups of employers to supply their own training—not to build an establishment and go into this job if it is not needed. I still believe that unless industry provides the training, no training board can do the job.
Concerning the question of apprenticeship and the discussion about the length of training being irrelevant, I defy anyone to say that training ever stops. One never stops learning. Although one might say that training stops at three years, the young man who has undergone that training—call him what you will—will continue working and learning just as he does now. The only difference is the amount of money he receives when his training is finished. The argument about the length of apprenticeship is not whether ore needs three years or five years or two years; it is when that trained man is to be paid the full rate for the job. Under agreements in the engineering industry, one is not entitled to receive the full rate until the age of 21.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Gentleman
302
is saying. Would he also accept that when there is a long period of apprenticeship there is a tendency to waste the first year or 18 months, because it is known that an individual can be trained in three years instead of five? The argument that the hon. Gentleman is adducing on wages should be put to the employers through the unions, that it is not in their interests to continue paying apprenticeship rates at the age of 21.
Mr. Robertson: I was never able to forecast what an employer would think, and I would not even attempt to do so now. I would not like to say whether an employer, knowing he has a man for five years, would go easy in the first two years. I must have worked for a good employer, because that was never my experience. One had to work from the very first year. My complaint of prewar days was that very often an apprentice was put on piece work and he worked too darned hard in the first year, as well as the last three years. Thank goodness those days have gone and no good employer asks that today.
A very good example was given by the hon. Member who said that there is now an emphasis on training away from the strain of the job. This is the kind of trend that we want to see.
Coming back to the length of training point, the trade unions have repeatedly asked the employers to reduce the period of apprenticeship and also, at the end of his apprenticeship, that a man should be classified as skilled and receive the full rate for the job. This demand is preventing a three years' apprenticeship agreement in the engineering industry. It is like the question about the man from a Government training centre being employed in engineering. It is wrong to say that there ever was any difficulty about a man from a Government training centre being employed in engineering. There are difficulties if he wants to be a tool maker in six months or if he wants to be an inspector or a maintenance engineer. The reasons are simple. First, the definition of a skilled man in the engineering industry, according to the Scottish Engineering Employers Federation, is a mechanic who has served five years' apprenticeship. Anyone else going along to a job does not receive the fully skilled rate.
Mr. Hamling: It is a stupid definition.
Mr. Robertson: I agree that it is a stupid definition, but we cannot get the engineering employers to agree that whoever goes on a job should be paid the money for it. That will solve this problem. We have tried for the last 20 years, to my knowledge, and we cannot overcome it.
Mr. James Hamilton: I am following closely the point made by an ex-colleague of mine in the trade union world, but is it not the case that there is in existence the dilution agreement, made during the war, under which any man accepted by a trade union and management to do a job is paid the rate for the job?
Mr. Robertson: I was coming to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell has taken my point. It is a pity that he has spoilt my story. No matter, I will deal with it as I go along.
I want to deal now with the point about the skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. They are the only three categories in engineering for the purpose of wages. There are many types of skill, but only three categories of workers. The fact is that if a trade union agrees to put other than a skilled man on a particular job, the employers claim the right to pay him less than the skilled rate. Let no hon. Member tell me I am wrong, because so often we have found this to be so by bitter experience. We have agreements in engineering and I will give one example. Setters are paid a rate above that of unskilled labour because of extra responsibility. We agreed with one firm in Motherwell that setters who had served for a long time should be allowed to work a set machine. What rate did they get for the job? Only a penny above the labouring rate! The trade union would not agree to that. They will not agree to this kind of thing until we get the employers round to the idea of fixing a rate for the job. Let the job determine the rate; not whether a man has served an apprenticeship of five years, three years, or no apprenticeship, or has come straight from the coal face. That will solve the problem of the trade unions and of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Gunter: Do I understand that this is now official A.E.U. policy?
Mr. Robertson: This has always been A.E.U. policy. In 1946 we applied to the Engineering Employers Federation for a new wages structure, but nothing was achieved. Another application was made in 1950, but again without success. In 1956, yet another application was made by the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions for a rate to be established for the job. I know that my right hon. Friend has the greatest difficulty in dealing with that part of the country from which I come. We train a far greater proportion of apprentices than are trained in England and Wales, as I saw the other day in an official Scottish Office publication. This is traditional. About 65 per cent. of the people in engineering, other than labourers, are not time-served. Who defines whether their job is skilled or semi-skilled? How does one define this? Our argument is, and always has been, that these jobs call for varying degrees of skill. In engineering the term "skilled" or "semi-skilled" does not define the job. It defines the rate of pay for it, and consequently the trade unions are a bit sticky about it.
Semi-skilled people enter a training c.entre—for example, the one a Motherwell—at a fairly early age. They go through a process of training, from drilling, to working complicated machines. If, after receiving six months training at a Government training centre, a man is put on to a skilled job which a semiskilled man in the firm was hoping to get, naturally there is trouble, not from the skilled men in the firm, but from the semi-skilled man who sees that he has lost his chance of promotion.
Mr. Gunter: I do not think that my hon. Friend understands what is happening. No one would expect a Government training centre trainee, after six months' training, to do what my hon. Friend suggests. He would go back to the industry from which he came for further training.
Mr. Robertson: With respect to my right hon. Friend, I suggest that he does not know what is going on at his local training centres and his local offices. He does not understand why local trade union officials are being difficult, and sometimes unco-operative. I am in close touch with the situation in Scotland. I

305
know what is happening in my town. I know that, without consultation with the trade unions, people are being sent by the Ministry of Labour to do skilled jobs in preference to men who have been in the industry for many years, and who were hoping to get these jobs. This is happening today, and is one of the root causes of some of the problems.
Mr. Cyril Bence: Would not my hon. Friend agree that because of the different historical background in the Midlands and the south of England there is a tendency for men with only a few weeks' training to enter industry and do many jobs of what is called a semi-skilled nature, whereas in Scotland, work on capstans, milling and production lathes, and so on, is done by skilled men? This leads to complications as between Scotland and England.
Mr. Robertson: I would not agree with my hon. Friend's list, but what he is saying is true. There are differences not only between Scotland and England, but between different areas in Scotland, and, indeed, between different areas in England. In South Wales the situation is viewed differently from the way it is viewed in, say, Coventry, and on the North-East Coast there is yet another outlook. A certain flexibility of approach is required in accordance with customs, traditions, and practices in each area. All these people can be brought into engineering. There is plenty of room for them, arid nobody will object to them, provided that no attempt is made to give them the top jobs after only six months' training. If they do get these jobs there is hound to be trouble.
Another negative aspect of the boards is that if there is a training board for each industry, there is a tendency to provide a narrower type of training. If there is an iron and steel industry training board, it provides training only for that industry, whereas very often the work done by maintenance men in general engineering is similar to that done by engineers in the iron and steel industry. There should be greater flexibility in training. This problem was raised by one of my hon. Friends who talked about the wool industry. I think that it would be a greater anomaly to restrict the scope of a man's training to an industry than to
306
do what the board was trying to do in relation to the job described by my hon. Friend.
We should train engineers to work in the iron and steel industry, in shipbuilding, or in general engineering. Training should be carried out on an occupational basis, because the basic skills used by maintenance men in the iron and steel industry are similar to those used by men in shipbuilding, and in large sections of general engineering. This can be done if the boards recognise that there is a need for some interchange between them to enable men to receive a wider training than any particular board would be prepared to give.
In my day, a young man started his apprenticeship in the shipyards on Clydebank. He then went on to sea-going vessels, and on completing his training he went into general engineering, by which time he was extremely capable and experienced. This was the traditional training. He acquired a great deal of experience and knowledge, and this is still the kind of craftsman that we require today, but because of these Industrial Training Boards the experience gained by young men is narrower than has traditionally been the case.
Many arguments have been adduced about the need for skill, but in the engineering industry a great deal of the skilled manpower is under-employed. Why should a man, just because he has served an apprenticeship for five years, and has the title of a skilled man, work at a skilled job when he can earn a good deal more by working at a semiskilled job? The Prices and Incomes Board's Report on wages and earnings in engineering showed that there was no significant difference between the earnings of a semi-skilled man, such as a machinist, and a fully-skilled man. Many men who have served apprenticeships, and have a great deal of experience, work on jobs far below their capabilities because they can earn a great deal more money by doing so. This is another nonsense which must be removed from industry.
I remember, as the divisional organiser of my union, going to Greenock because I had received a complaint that engineers were being paid 4d. an hour less than an engineer's mate. This sort of thing should not happen, but it happened there.

307
We held a yard conference and a local conference but failed to agree, and a six-days' strike was necessary to get the engineer 1d. an hour above his labourer. This will happen; why would someone go into an apprenticeship if he could do better elsewhere? Therefore, while we are talking about training—
Mr. James Hamilton Mr. James Hamilton rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions prolong speeches and several other hon. Gentlemen still wish to take part in the debate.
Mr. Robertson: I agree that this has gone on a little, but many hon. Members have drawn me on. Discussions in this House on training and trade union attitudes are more noted for their lack of information than for any good they do.
7.22 p.m.
Miss Harvie Anderson: First, I thank the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) for the thoughtful way in which he presented this Report, and his Committee for its studious work. One of the strengths of a debate like this is the lack of partisan expressions of opinion and the genuine concern of both sides for a subject as important as any discussed in the House.
However, I entirely dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) who in no way fairly represented the industrial picture in that part of the world which both of us have the honour to represent. I wish to associate myself rather with the interventions of the Minister which clearly illustrated to the House and the country that there is a forward look in labour relations which has unfortunately failed to penetrate throughout the country—
Mr. John Robertson: The hon. Lady said that I do not represent the opinions of trade unions in the part of the world from which she comes, and I would agree. She comes from Stirling, I believe. However, I do represent opinion in that part of the world which she represents, since I was a full-time officer there for nearly 20 years, far longer than she has been working in the area.
Miss Harvie Anderson: Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I have cause to be only too well
308
aware of the position which the hon. Member has held for a number of years in the area which I have the honour to represent.
One subject which is of especial constituency interest to me and which illustrates the practical difficulty of working out schemes under the Industrial Training Act is referred to in the Report. This is within the scope of the Engineering Industries Training Board, which is one of the largest. In the constituency which I represent, in the Hillington area, there is a particular consciousness of the modern emphasis on adequate training. This is so because Hillington is the largest training estate in Scotland and because the Government training centre is there.
I will not refer to the placing of trainees. I think that we have all recognised in the last few minutes how this comes to be a problem, even if we had known nothing about it before. But I pay tribute to the work of the Government training centre in retraining and in training for training officers. Often with limited resources, very good work is being done.
However, not surprisingly, in that area there are no fewer than 70 engineering firms which are too small fully to fulfil their own training arrangements. Therefore, 21 joined to form the Hillington Engineering Training Group, the formation of which was encouraged by the E.I.T.B. both in London and in Glasgow. Shortly afterwards, this group was joined with two neighbouring training groups to create a viable unit. This means that the training potential and resources of no fewer than 35 firms were put together. The number of boys requiring training under this group is about 70 and a viable unit can be created from a training potential of approximately 30 apprentices. The potential throughout the Hillington area could comprise as many as 250 young people. I am talking particularly of the off-the-job training to which the Minister referred, which many of us believe of especial importance.
On the subject of costs— I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has corresponded with me about this and that he is well aware of the position—a group of this size has offered a considerable amount of money in addition to that gathered to it from the levy. The amount is about £18,000. It employs, and has

309
done from an early date, a well-trained training officer who, again with limited resources, has done very good work. But if to establish a 60-place school costs about £50,000, surely it is not impossible to imagine that, along with the levy, the voluntary contribution from this group of industries and the Government grant, it would be possible to create a separate centre for numbers such as I have described.
In addition, it is possible in the Hillington area to find a vacant factory which could be suitably equipped and which would once more reduce the cost of building a centre from scratch. Many people have referred to the bureaucratic aspect of wishing to create units entirely within the control of centres rather than making full use of the facilities which may be available in such places as a trading estates. What this group wants and has always wanted is a centre to itself over which it has control, and this seems a logical requirement.
It must also be the requirement of many such groups set up under this structure with the object of adequate and off-the-job training. It is true that there are other centres, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not fob me off with that. I shall be well content it he skips replying tonight, providing that he gives me a rather better answer in writing than I have so far received.
Thus, it is not enough to say that there will be extended places at other centres and that the numbers will be catered for in the ways which the Minister described earlier. The whole purpose of training adequate manpower is the securing of better training, and this is clearly indicated in the Report.
Adjacent to Hillington there is a substantial training centre. The Parliamentary Secretary told me that the Scottish Pipework Engineering and Allied Training Group manages this centre and has vacancies in it. This is another problem in this scheme, because the number of vacancies at this centre is greater than the number of boys who immediately require places in a training centre in the area.
The main part of my argument now can be divided into two sections. The first concerns boys requiring off-the-job training right now. In the Hillington
310
area only eight boys are getting the advantages of full training—that is, only eight of the 45. In the other two smaller groups, only four of the 20 who are available are getting full training. These are disappointing figures and provide a disappointing factor for Scotland. It is important for the future of Scottish industry that youngsters in this age group are adequately trained to the maximum possible skill.
I will not be led into discussing the question of who employs skilled labour once it is trained. Suffice it to say that in the West of Scotland we are moving towards the position when skill is recognised as being vitally necessary and that skilled manpower is probably the greatest requirement for the future of industry throughout this part of the country. It follows that there is a strong case to be made out for this training centre.
The second part of my argument is this. I accept that good training is given in certain sectors of industry. For example, in the craft and technical industries there is a common course of training in the first year between the two apprenticeship requirements. But a different attitude is adopted towards the job itself at the end of the day. It is difficult to describe this briefly. I can best sum it up by saying that my contention strikes at the very root of the policy of manpower training because, having said that the emphasis required in the West of Scotland is for skilled labour, we must go on to consider the opportunities that exist in industry and the changing pattern of that industry.
Mercifully, this pattern is changing particularly since we in the West of Scotland have suffered for far too long from an overload of heavy industry which flourished through the last century. We have also suffered from the redundancies which have inevitably occurred in this type of industry during the last 15 years. We are now looking forward to the time when we in Scotland will have a new type of industry which, of necessity, requires a new approach.
I agree that there must be flexibility in training and it may be that, in the interests of flexibility, a common form of training for a wide range of apprentices is reasonable in the first year. However, my argument is that a distinction must be drawn between the type of training

311
given in the very early stages as well as the type given later, particularly bearing in mind the heavy engineering approach to this matter and the approach which is required by modern industry.
It is in this context that we find a profound difference in attitudes. One need only look into an old industry to see how methods and conditions of work have changed. One finds many situations which we hope will fade out as different industrial patterns develop. One sees the advancement of the white coat type of industry. Here, the approach is entirely different and conditions of work are, happily, a great deal better.
Consider, however, what happens when we are training apprentices from, say, an electronics factory, the very latest type of industry with the best arrangements for both work and conditions. These apprentices find themselves in a predominantly old-fashioned engineering atmosphere while they are being trained. That first year can spoil much of the training that has already been given in these boys' own factory and the sort of attitude of mind which they are supposed to develop cannot prevail when they return to their modern factory.
Our great struggle in Scotland has been, and is, to get rid of this old atmosphere—the atmosphere created by an emphasis on heavy engineering. It must be our common duty to promote a new attitude and to move towards light engineering instrumentation and the electronics industries. Happily, this new atmosphere is developing in Scotland.
Much has been said about the need for there to be an adequate say in the management of this training. It is, after all, reasonable that a group such as I have described, skilled in engineering, should wish to have a direct say in the training of its apprentices. However, in the West of Scotland we have a substantial group, comprising the 70 firms I have mentioned, with no direct say in their apprenticeship training. This is something which the Board, which is comprised of distinguished people, cannot be expected to consider at group level—and I am deliberately concentrating on this level tonight—because this is an arrangement of work which the Board cannot be expected to look into on an individual basis. It
312
is at this point that we lean on the skill of the staffs at the various levels engaged on this work. At these levels we must find a better liaison and a more determined attitude to arrive at the right answers.
It is not unreasonable for one to want to know how one's money is being spent, wherever it is being spent. That is precisely what these people want to do. There is a proposal to have a single management committee for group training in the West of Scotland. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to it as being not in the West of Scotland but on Clydeside. This seems a practical approach. It is suggested that it be based on S.P.E.A.T., which seems reasonable. It would serve an area within a seven-mile radius, would cater for a complement of 250 first-year boys and allow for a specialisation of training which is not now possible.
This suggestion seems to meet some of the training objectives which are urgently needed in the Clydeside area and which the Engineering Training Board must have in the long term if it is to train to the standard of skill at which the Act aims. Of equal importance is co-operation and flexibility, and this must be seen to be possible so that the training groups—which are about to pay their annual subscriptions for the second year—can sustain their initial enthusiasm and know that their financial contributions, which are often in excess of their basic requirements, are being well spent.
7.39 p.m.
Mr. Bob Brown: I wish, at the outset, to compliment the Estimates Sub-Committee for providing us with an excellent Report and for giving us this opportunity to discuss what I consider to be one of the most important matters to come before the House.
The memorandum submitted by the T.U.C. General Council to the Committee was an important contribution. I wish to concentrate on the case presented in paragraphs (5) and (6) of Appendix I of the Report, which sets out the argument for a Central Training Council having its own staff to develop industrial training, rather than for this job to be left to a Government Department, as it is at present. I share the view of the

313
T.U.C. While in no way derogating from the magnificent work which the Ministry of Labour staff has done, I think there is a strong case for an independent central body.
The Estimates Sub-Committee, in Recommendation No. 4, clearly showed the need to improve the Central Training Council. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that there was a need to look at this in the review. I hope that it will be accepted that the need is for executive function and the necessary staff to carry out that function.
The Departmental observations of the Ministry published in December emphasised that the Minister does not wish to use the powers of direction given to him by the Industrial Training Act, except of course on matters of very major importance where the normal process of consultation and discussion has failed to achieve acceptable results. It appears that the Minister thinks the boards will succeed only if firms are confident that training is run from within industry. It would therefore seem that the Minister intends to give the boards as much freedom as possible to look after their own affairs. Without a strong central body with full executive powers over all the boards, improvements in industrial training are likely to be slow and marred by inefficiencies.
I do not think any hon. Member present would dispute that as a nation we need a rapid deployment of manpower. Particularly in the North-East of England we need arrangements for men from the declining industries such as coal mining, shipbuilding and heavy engineering to be trained for employment in expanding industry. I am afraid that some of the pain which has been e experienced in some parts of the country must recur in the months that lie ahead. Unless the Government introduce Goverment-expanding industry in development areas, the only source from which industry can come to those areas will be from the prosperous areas further south. In my area we badly need co-ordination of retraining facilities in view of redundancies. All these matters are badly in need of co-ordinating through and by a central body. The Ministry of Labour is not necessarily the best agency for the tasks to which I have referred.
314
In referring to the statistics in the Report I am sorry if I engender a little political heat into the debate. I cannot help but notice that in 1951, when the Labour Government lost office to hon. Members opposite, there were 80 training places in my region and 80 people in training. That was run down by the Tory Government, shamefully run down, to 12 training places in a region which badly needed it to be built up.
Mr. John Page: Will the hon. Member say to which appendix he is referring?
Mr. Brown: Page 29 of the Sub-Committee Report, Table B. This number was run down by 1959 to 12 training places and only nine were actually taken up. By 1962 hon. Members opposite realised the folly of their ways and decided that industrial training centres needed expanding. So there was the provision of 81 places. We reached precisely the position we had been in 11 years before. Compare that with the present position under this Government of 715 places, 627 of which are providing training for people who need retraining.
In the 13 years when the Government was formed from hon. Members opposite we had one industrial training centre in the Northern Region. I am pleased to say that at present there are three and we shall have two more within about a year. The T.U.C. General Council is firmly of the opinion that industry generally would respond more readily to leadership given by those within industry itself. This would apply all the more if those concerned were seen to be acting independently and had the power to support exhortation or admonition with discriminating financial inducements.
I have put down two Questions to be asked of the Minister later this month. Naturally I do not want to anticipate his Answer. The Questions refer to the closing of a colliery. Knowing that colliery closures are pending, the Ministry should be doing something now, long before a colliery closes, to determine how many men will require industrial training. I am asking the Questions in these terms about the North Wallbottle Colliery in my constituency. When it closes there will be no colliery in my constituency, where previously there were seven. So far as I can see, the Ministry of Labour

315
has done nothing to determine whether any of the men employed in that colliery will require retraining. I hope that I have been very uncharitable to the Minister and his staff and that they have in fact taken steps in this matter. I hope that in future they will give serious consideration to seeking out those who need retraining and making sure that places are available for them to be retrained.
Miss Harvie Anderson: The hon. Member has quoted the figures correctly, but in fairness he would probably agree that the figures bear some relation to the extent of retraining required and to the unemployment rate at the time to which they relate. In fairness that should be taken into consideration when any figures are quoted from these tables.
Mr. Brown: It absolutely astounds me that the hon. Lady should have the temerity to make such a suggestion about the number of training places which the Tory Government made available and their relationship to the unemployment situation. I do not forget that in my region in February, 1963, we had 7·3 per cent. overall unemployment. In 1962 there were 81 training places and we had got back to precisely the situation of 11 years previously. If that was good Tory contingency planning of which we have heard so much in recent weeks, it does not impress me.
The present programme of expansion provides for only 48 G.T.C.s, with 12,200 places and an output of 21,000 trained men annually by 1970. I certainly do not advocate a set up based on a percentage of the working population, such as Sweden has, but if the T.U.C. is even remotely near the correct figure when it suggests that 600,000 workers per year will have to change their jobs because of redundancy or for some other reason, I believe that the G.T.C.s will make a very small contribution to adult training. We have a desparately long way to go. I hope that the Government will reconsider the extent to which they intend to expand the training programme.
7.51 p.m.
Mr. Peter Hordern: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) mentioned the problems of coal miners and the redundancies caused by the closure of a mine. He rightly urged that training
316
centres should now be set up so that the displaced miners can be retrained. A further difficulty is that many of the coal mines which are in peril are in development areas. The factories which are invited to set up in places within development areas employ a large proportion of women for the very skilled kind of work which they engage in. This is one of the many problems with which the Ministry has yet to deal, but I entirely agree that the Ministry must give its full attention to establishing sufficient retraining centrse to cope with men displaced from coal mining.
I want to add my congratulations to those which have already been extended to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and his Committee on the clarity of their Report, I cannot say that I would agree with the conclusions that appear in the Report, in that that I do not think that they go far enough. The hon. Gentleman made very kind references to some of the Minister's observations. The hon. Gentleman is well known for his propensity for cooing like a dove and never allowing an angry word to pass his lips, but hospitality and friendliness can be carried a little too far.
I thought that the Minister was rather complacent about a number of matters, to which I hope to refer. If I concentrate my remarks upon the experience in other countries and on making international comparisons, this is because I have recently returned from a study of the French system and the French retraining programme and this is uppermost in my mind. It is all very well for the Minister to say that we tend to run ourselves down too much in making comparisons with other countries. I dare say that there is this tendency. It is also unwise to suggest that we are always right in everything we do and that naturally we have a better performance than any country which is competitive with us. I do not believe that this is so.
My reason for saying that I think that the Minister was a little complacent is evidenced in the Report, because Mr. Turner, Under-Secretary in charge of the training department, said this on behalf of the Ministry in the matter of foreign comparisons:
"However, I am sure that if somebody invited us to send an observer to the Training

317
Committee of the E.E.C., we would be glad to respond."
We are entitled to expect the Ministry and its officials to have a shade more initiative than that. I hope that in future a constant number of civil servants from the Ministry will be travelling about and making certain that there is nothing that they can learn from other countries. I believe that they can learn quite a lot.
Another reason for my saying that the Minister was complacent arises from something said by the hon. Member for Bristol, North East (Mr. Dobson).
Mr. Hamling: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the valuable work which is done by the Ministry of Labour through the I.L.O., in which this country has been well in the van for a generation or more.
Mr. Hordern: I was not seeking to decry that. In fact, I would go further. I think that the information is available. I used it myself when I was in Paris. The Foreign Office has an excellent Labour attaché there. I am sure that there are labour attachés in other countries, too. The advice is certainly available, but I do not believe that the Ministry uses it sufficiently.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North East expressed the view that there were many men in industry waiting to be retrained. This is evident from the Report. The Committee points out in paragraph 58 that
"the Instructor Training Colleges are having great difficulty in maintaining sufficient instructors."
In paragraph 60 the Committee says that the grants made by the Ministry and by the Boards
"may be inadequate for the purpose."
In paragraph 61 the Committee says this:
"There will obviously be a shortage of chief instructors in Government establishments if their maximum salary is over £200 less than that of their equivalent in a technical college. Immediate steps must be taken to remove this difference."
This was the Department's observation on that:
"These grant arrangements will continue to be kept under review, but they are considered to be on a satisfactory scale and further increases do not seem to be necessary at present."
318
I do not believe that that observation can be justified. I believe that the Committee would be justified if it felt that its advice and the evidence it has brought before the House has been spurned by the Minister. The Minister should be asked to look at the matter again, to examine the evidence properly, and to draw up other observations.
In dealing with the training of trainers and the inadequacy of the present arrangements, Mr. Fletcher, of International Publishing Corporation, touched on the most vital aspect of the whole Report. He said in answer to Question No. 789:
"I should have thought the Government's money could best be spent in some kind of effective wage support to see that people are transferred from dying industries to growing industries or from dying skills to growing skills."
In answer to Question No. 792 he said this:
"It seems to me that there is a gap here in the training programme of the nation."
The Committee picked up this point in the recommendation it made in paragraph 65:
"At the moment there does not seem to be the machinery for encouraging the effective retraining and redeployment of labour which is desirable. The Industrial Training Boards are not equipped to consider this problem, concerned as they are solely with training within their own industry, which in many cases like shipbuilding is a declining industry."
In paragraph 66 the Committee says:
"It does not in any case deal with the wider question of the contribution which retraining can make to effective redeployment of labour."
I regard the effective redeployment of labour as the most vital aspect of this Report and of the whole subject of training in industry.
However, having, as I think correctly, put its finger on the problem, the Committee recommended in paragraph 66
"that the Manpower Research Unit of the Ministry of Labour should carry out a comprehensive assessment of the future manpower needs of every industry with a view to establishing the way in which retraining can contribute to an effective redeployment of labour."
I find this conclusion desperately depressing. With all the evidence which is now available in this country, and which has been made available by the Report, we cannot need another inquiry now. The position is perfectly plain, that all we

319
need are more Government retraining centres on a scale that is not contemplated even now in the Government's present plans. Even with the Minister's announcement of a plan for 23,000 men a year by 1970, the figure pales before that in France, where the present capacity is well over 50,000, and where it will be 74,500 in 1970. Hon. Members have already mentioned the figures in Sweden which, on a proportionate basis, are even more remarkable.
There is no point in the Government's claiming that sufficient retraining is done through industry through the Industrial Training Boards. The difficulty is that so many of the Boards cover the older industries. What is required is an expansion of the Government training centres to take in and retrain thousands of men who will be made redundant through no fault of their own but through advances in technology. At present, technological advance is being halted to allow for a slow, regulated decline in the older industries. In some of these industries, for example, the coal industry, we find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having to keep 25 per cent. of the natural gas that will become available in 1970 under the North Sea. We force the electricity and gas industries to burn coal when oil and natural gas are cheaper, and we do all this in order that there should not be too much redundancy among miners. But the planned exodus from the mines is based solely on the Government's present plans for retraining centres. If the number they could retrain were trebled in three years' time, the level of coal production could be reduced to its economic level far more quickly. By 1975 coal production should be 100 million tons instead of the Government's projections of about 118 million tons on any economic criteria.
More retrainging centres will also be necessary for other industries like the textile and shipbuilding industries. This week we have had further evidence from the constituency of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West where A.E.I. employees have been made redundant through no fault of their own, but because of merger arrangements made over their heads.
There is another agent at work which is still in its infancy in this country—the computer. The computer and the process
320
control machinery associated with it have as their declared objective the replacement of repetitive labour. I believe that I am one of 15 hon. Gentlemen who have completed a computer course and, with other hon. Gentlemen, I have been fortunate enough to visit computers throughout the Continent, and I made a study of them throughout the United States as well.
One of the reasons for the consistently higher level of unemployment in the United States has been the rapidly accelerating use of computers and other labour-saving equipment. Some time ago Mr. William Allen wrote an article in the Sunday Times showing that for the same operation more men are required in shipbuilding and other engineering industries than to perform the same operation in other countries.
It is also true that we are behind the United States, Japan, France and Western Germany in the installation of computers. We cannot regard this position with equanimity. What is certain is that we must begin on an urgent programme of building Government training centres so that where machines are installed to replace men the men can be retrained for better activity.
In short, what we need is an active employment policy. After my recent visit to France, it seems to me that the French have one which we would do well to copy in some respects. I refer in particular to the work of their national employment fund, the object of which is first to provide security of employment—not necessarily in the same job—and, second, to allow technological advance to take place which would benefit all workers in the long run. What happens in this country, as we observe all too frequently, is that when firms are doing badly through economic decline the workers ask them to cut their working hours instead of being made redundant. That is because there are not enough retraining facilities and not enough incentive to use what there are.
In France, workers in retraining centres receive 80 per cent. of their previous wage, and can get up to 90 per cent., depending on the type of retraining they are doing, in special circumstances. I see from the Report that in this country the maximum wage is £11 for a married man with four children at a retraining

321
centre. That is not enough. The aim in France is not just to provide unemployment pay, which is, of course, available, but to find the worker a means of being retrained at a satisfactory wage, so that he can regard his training as a natural development in his career. There is an interesting passage in the French Fifth Plan, dealing with employment policy, which says:
"There is a need to reconcile growth and monetary stability with greater rigour than in the last decade. Experience has shown that the compartmentisation and sluggishness of the labour market are sources of inflationary grains and checks upon growth."
That is the position we have reached here these many years past.
Every hon. Member is pledged to a policy of full employment, yet those who have read the economic arguments of Professor Paish cannot regard them with complete disdain, nor can any hon. Member who has been, as I have, to France, Germany, and particularly Holland, where the Dutch have a really developed trade union and management relationship, and the United States, really believe that an effective incomes policy can be implemented without more or less of a balance between the number of unemployed and jobs available. If that is so—and my observation is that it is—then the unacceptable part of the Paish thesis is the number of unemployed which must rest on one side of the equation. If that number is intolerable for all hon. Members, the answer is to retrain on a massive scale those numbers of unemployed who are apparently in that position because of increasing advances in technology and the necessity to keep an economic balance in our affairs.
What is needed is the provision of no fewer than 70,000 places in 1970—not 23,000—and 100,000 shortly after. If that were done, I think that there would be a possibility of a new social contract emerging in our country. The employer's duty under it would be never again to regard the workers in his establishment as part of an economic equation but as a living entity. The State's responsibility would be to see that never again was there a pool of unemployment made to match some economic theory or as a result of developing technology properly. Above all, the responsibility and opportunity of the worker would be to take full advantage of a continuing
322
development in training which, in a real sense, he could regard as a continuing education in his life. That is the sort of contract the Government could pursue if they considerably magnified their present plans for retraining centres, which in my view are quite inadequate.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. James Hamilton: As many hon. Members have said, this has been an agreeable debate, with each of us in his own way trying to solve these serious problems. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) referred to the number of places required—quite correctly. But he must be honest with the House and point out that his own Government's figures were not comparable with the number of places provided by present Government.
It is interesting that, as Member for Bothwell, I should be taking part in the debate because an industrial rehabilitation unit is opening in my constituency today and, at the end of the year, according to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, an industrial training centre will also be opened. Bothwell is in a development area and the centre will be in the industrial estate in the heart of my constituency. I have no doubt that we shall have many applicants for the vacancies.
Most hon. Members have referred to the amount of money paid to men undergoing retraining. Under no circumstances can we get the workers or redundant workers or the unemployed to accept a situation in which, while being retrained, the amount of money provided to them is totally inadequate to keep them and their families in respectable conditions. Much as they are endeavouring and considering doing something about this, the Government must deal with the problem seriously. They must do something about it immediately.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) referred to education, and I am with him 100 percent. in his expression of opinion on that aspect. I do not believe that we place enough emphasis on day release for apprentices. At the same time, if we on this side who put forward forcefully the view that day release should be compulsory make an honest appreciation of the situation, we discover that many of the boys now going to these classes

323
could not care less as to whether they go or not. Therefore, we who are members of trade unions have a responsibility to inculcate into the minds of these apprentices the fact that, when they go to day-release classes, they go there to work and to try to assimilate the education given to them.
The employers also have their responsibilities, and I speak here from experience. I was the convener of a technical college before coming here and I went to the college often. I looked at the marks that some of the lads received for examinations and wanted to know what sort of performances they were giving in the various trades. I found, for example, that in the distributive trades we could not get anyone to come at all to take part in day release classes and I regret that, in some instances, the co-operative societies, of which I am a keen supporter, were equal with private enterprise in not sending apprentices to day release classes.
The employers must ensure that sufficient incentives are given to the boys, who are paid a day time wage when they go to day release. All of us have been teenagers and some of us were apprentices, so we must recognise that, in industry, the workers are generally on a bonus and piece time basis and therefore make money in excess of what they would earn on the time rate. Consequently, when the apprentices go to day release classes, they drop the bonus or the potential piece work for which they would be paid and this, of course, acts as a disincentive to them.
One aspect not mentioned so far is prevocational training. I have discovered that many of the boys reputed not to be apprentice material in some circumstances go into the highways and byways and are lost to industry in general. My own local authority has one of these prevocational schools and only last week the superintendent told me that, since it opened about four years ago, 70 per cent. of the lads attending had been placed in apprenticeship training.
This pre-vocational school is operated on a factory basis—and this may be in line with what the hon. Member for Horsham referred to as the tactics or training taking place on the Continent. The boys thereby get factory experience.
324
They get the live feel of what will happen to them when they go into industry and this serves a very useful purpose.
It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) is not here, but he explained that he would have to attend another important meeting, which, incidentally, I should also have been attending. I am at cross-purposes with him about the trade unions in this context. In an excellent report, which I commend many hon. Members opposite to read, the T.U.C. made special reference to industrial training and the Report itself tells us that the T.U.C. stated that there were no difficulties in placing trained or retrained men generally and that difficulty was met with only in one particular area.
Why is there this difficulty on the placement of these men? The simple fact is that, in development areas, because the men have been so used to unemployment, because they are scared of losing their jobs—indeed, because, in many instances, there are no jobs for them—there is a reluctance among craftsmen to allow these retrained men to come into their industry. However, in areas where there are vacancies—and this has been the experience of my union—there is no reticence among the workers in any particular factory to take in these men. As I said in an intervention, the dilution agreement made in the war is still in operation and adequate coverage is given to the workers in safeguarding their jobs.
In industry, a great deal of flexibility is taking place with the acquiescence of both managements and unions. Only a few short years ago, welders, who are very jealous of their craft—and this, too, is based on my own experience—faced the problem that employers in the engineering industry have not as yet recognised welding as a trade. At the same time, because there was a serious shortage and because of the new techniques and technological developments in industry in general, welders were at a premium and of course still are.
They are now being accepted into industry from these training centres. Flexibility is growing within the engineering industry, because welders now realise that unless they are prepared to be cooperative and work with the craftsmen —the five-year time served craftsmen—

325
there will be difficulties. They now allow craftsmen to do tack welding. This was not permitted a few years ago, and it is a move in the right direction.
We also speak of terms of apprenticeship training, and the number of years that an apprentice has to serve before becoming a craftsman. I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) when he said that the first 12 months of an apprentice's training is, under all circumstances, a period when the boy is running messages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said that an apprenticeship period of 12 months would be sufficient in the construction industry. I would suggest that he had better not say that to the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives because it would not accept that, and they have worldwide knowledge of the construction industry. In fairness to the construction industry it is now possible for a boy to start at 17. He is allowed to go to a technical college for the first 12 months and does four years in the factory or site then becoming a skilled craftsman.
Let us have no illusions about development areas. The only way in which we can get a proper solution to the problem is by being honest with ourselves. It is not a shortage of places in the training centres in these areas that is the problem, but a very serious shortage of jobs. In many cases there are no jobs for the men who have been trained to play a proper part in industry. To be fair to the Government, with all the inducements that they are giving to industrialists, if the industrialists rally to the call and move to the development areas, then the good work done in the training centres will be of great importance.
I want to refer to the much maligned American firms. Many of these firms are operating throughout this country and we once criticised the techniques they adopted. They were not prepared to allow boys to be trained in the factories. There has now been a complete departure from that attitude and boys are being trained in the factory. Men are being retrained and at the end of the day, whether we like it or not, we have derived a great deal of benefit from these firms.
Finally, I want to compliment the hon. Member for Woolwich, West and his
326
Committee. He should not apologise to the House for being premature with the survey carried out. He and his Committee should be complimented by each and every one of us for bringing to the Floor of the House something which concerns the well being of the country, economically and something which has a direct bearing upon the manpower situation, so closely related to our economy.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Peter Emery: There can be little doubt that today's debate has reflected, in a particular way, great credit upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) who was responsible, in the main, for conducting the Industrial Training Bill through the House and ensuring that it became an Act. I wish to pay credit to him, because without him, none of this debate could have taken place. I wish to deal with the aspects of training and development of managers. During a sabbatical absence of one year the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour saw fit to appoint me to this Sub-Committee and I believe that at the moment I am the only Member of Parliament taking any part in the activities of the Central Training Council or its sub-committee.
Industry quite definitely wishes to keep industrial training out of politics, and this is right and proper. The only political thing that I will say this evening I will get off my chest at once. I was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, announcing his increases in Government training centres, could not have announced one in the South-West. We are not doing awfully well there but perhaps he will bear that in mind the next time round.
There were a number of problems to do with management training that were not entirely brought out by the Committee and which will need consideration. We have a three-pronged exercise in management training. There are the universities, 21 now giving a business degree, and two business schools, in London and Manchester, which have started from scratch and worked up to a state of considerable efficiency, doing an extremely good job.
In the middle are the old professional management institutes. I am sorry that the Estimates Committee did not take any

327
evidence from these bodies, because they are attempting to do a considerable amount of work in training managers. These were the bodies, and I speak with some authority, as the Director of the Institute of Purchasing and Supply, that for years and years have carried the educational banner for management in a specific function within management itself.
These bodies have attempted at all times to keep up to date with their profession. They have worked up a nucleus of the management knowledge in their own specific function and produced most of the textbooks to deal with the functional aspects of management. They have set their own standards of examination which today are accepted throughout industry. They have had no subsidy, living entirely on their own members' subscriptions.
In an attempt to keep up to date, 18 months ago they came together forming the Consultative Council of Professional Management Organisations to deal with some of the aspects covered by the Central Training Council. I would say to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) that I was sorry there was no mention in his Committee's Report of their work, or indeed of the need for I.T.B.S. to co-operate with this existing body of knowledge in management training.
Mr. Hamling: I ought to say also that there is no mention of the very valuable work done by my own college in respect of management.
Mr. Emery: The work of these professional bodies—the hon. Gentleman has probably realised exactly what I was going to say—has been often tied up with the ability of technical colleges. It worries me that within the work of the industrial training boards too frequently their criteria of standards have not been set in co-operation with the professional institutes. The institutes which have done so much of the standard bearing in the past. Also I would suggest that some of the work of the industrial training boards has not been carried out with as much of the co-operation of the technical colleges as I would like to have seen. This is a great weakness which needs to be examined carefully.
328
Turning from the old-established aspects of training we come to the industrial training boards themselves. They have very great power. They have the power to levy money from industry and their authority and influence over industry. Their effect on the structure of industry in the future I believe has been underestimated by many people, because for industry to be able to obtain any rebate on their grant they have to meet the requirements set by the industrial training boards. This means that the industrial training boards are able to set their own standards with no relationship to those institutes who have set the standards accepted previously.
This perturbs me, and in a Report by the Management Training and Development Committee there is a paragraph which illustrates this:
"Many firms may feel the need of advice about the availability and purpose of appropriate external courses, and they should be encouraged to consult their boards or other sources of information, such as the Management Education Information Unit of the British Institute of Management and other professional organisations which will give advice within their specialist field. Wherever possible, contact should be made with those providing courses to ensure the appropriateness of the course for the purpose in view."
It has been brought to my attention in the last three weeks that certain courses dealing with the training of instructors run by the Institute of Personnel Management, the leading body in personnel management in this country, are not approved for grant purposes by one of the industrial training boards. This means that the industrial training board is saying that what the Institute of Personnel Management is doing is not adequate. That seems to me a very strange way of doing things. They have not consulted the Institute of Personnel Management about this. A set requirement has been established. This is nonsense in my view and is something we must watch very carefully. This indicates the power the industrial training boards have in setting standards. Sometimes it is dictatorial; often it is unco-ordinated between boards. I could provide a number of instances where one board wishes to do one thing and another board something different. On the same sort of management training. They are setting two standards, and have not at any time consulted with, in this particular instance, the Institute of Office Management.

329
Too many of the industrial training boards have been staffed by pure educationists, people who have not had as much experience of industry as might have been hoped. It is important that we should consider the staffing position to try to ensure that the practical aspect is fully considered.
Recommendation No. 5 of the Report states:
"The Ministry of Labour should take steps to see that the recommendations of the Management Training and Development Committee of the Central Training Council are put into effect…"
I am delighted to see that as I helped with the Report, but I am a little worried about whether more Government money should be used in making grants to put the recommendations into effect. My reading of the Act is that this money should come out of the industrial levies and that there should be enough from the levy for this purpose. While I appreciate the feeling behind the recommendation of the Committee, I should have hoped that it could be achieved by using the levy and not by way of grant from the Ministry.
I turn to what I feel is the most serious criticism which can be made on the management side of industrial training, and that is the lack of co-ordination among the vast number of bodies which have a small or large finger in the pie. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) gave some illustrations, but I should like to go further than he went. Not only the Ministry of Labour but the Department of Education and Science is concerned in management training. The Department of Economic Affairs is concerned. I have been called to the Department to discuss management training problems with it. The Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology are concerned. All these Departments have a slight say and influence in management training. This is far too many.
We have had the appointment of the new Neddy and the Management Education Training Committee. If we look at the list of names of people asked to serve on the Committee, we see some of major leaders of British industry. Is not this yet another duplication of committee work? I wonder how essential it is. We have the Foundation for Management
330
Education, the Council of Industry on Management Education and the committees of the Consultative Council of the Professional Management Organisations. We seem to be setting up more and more committees to do exactly the same thing. What happens in the long run is that the best brains are not willing to contribute their time because they see so many different bodies dealing with the same matter.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I suggested that there might be a board for management training, and I was very doubtful about it, but, having heard about all the bodies involved, I am coming to the conclusion that it might be better to have one board.
Mr. Emery: Perhaps not a new I.T.B. but there should be some co-ordination. Surely no one can suggest that that is wrong.
I hoped that the Government might accept some of the management principles which we are trying to lay down for industry and begin co-ordinating their own Ministries and all the committees and bodies looking into management education. They have the power let them use it.
Mr. Hamling: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the purpose of the report of the Central Training Council?
Mr. Emery: Which report?
Mr. Hamling: That on management.
Mr. Emery: Certainly, but it has not yet been acted on.
Mr. Hamling: It has just been published.
Mr. Emery: Would not the hon. Member agree that any well-managed organisation should act on it as soon as is humanly possible? I am sure that he would be the first to propound that view, and I am surprised that he is willing to accept the delay.
The major use of the knowledge and of the bodies available to assist in management education must be properly coordinated, and we must try to ensure that the power of the Central Training Council to help in this co-ordination is not just advisory.

331
That being so, I turn to the major developments that I should like to see brought about. I believe that the grant factors established under the industrial training boards should not just by right be available to Government bodies, as they are, but that the co-ordination of grant facilities should be sponsored by the Central Training Council to ensure that each industrial training board has the same sort of criteria. The criteria cannot be absolutely the same, but they should be the same sort of criteria. What worries me is that that is not happening.
It is also important that we should deplore the duplication of effort now going on in management education and training, and try to get the Government to do what they can to bring all these efforts together. If one outcome of the debate were the use of all the present established educational facilities, this would be a good day not only for management education, but for industry.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I want to speak, on a rather more controversial note than has so far been sounded, as one representing a West Midlands constituency and what is supposed to be a prosperous area. If most contributions in the debate have had one common link, it is that most hon. Members have represented areas which have either some particular unemployment problem at the moment or are in development areas.
My constituency has a present unemployment level of over 5 per cent., which is, I suggest. more than double the general level prevailing in the West Midlands. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary represents a Birmingham constituency, and, since I lived in it for some time, I can assure him that the unemployment percentages in his constituency are rather different from those in the Nuneaton and Coventry region. I make those remarks by way of preface.
I do not think that the many excellent contributions we have had from my hon. Friends or the excellent Report, have questioned the fundamental division which has been made in the provision for on-the-job training and off-the-job training. I want to do that first of all, because it appears to me that in concentrating perhaps 75 per cent. of our efforts on off-the-job training—particularly in
332
Government training centres—and perhaps only 25 per cent. on on-the-job training in industry, we have got things slightly the wrong way round.
I say that particularly with reference to the vast changes in industry, not only in structure, but also in techniques, which are being made today. We have had recently the merger of British Motor Holdings and the Leyland Group. Before that we had the merger of A.E.I. and G.E.C. These, I would have thought, would have paved the way for the introduction of completely new and different skills from those which we have hitherto associated with Government training centres.
We are still concentrating in Government training centres throughout the country on the rather older, traditional craft skills. We are still turning out centre-lathe turners, carpenters and welders. I deferentially suggest to the Government Front Bench that those are skills on which the battle was fought and very often lost more than five years ago. They certainly will not be the skills which the kind of industry to which I have just referred will need predominantly in five years' time. That is why I basically suggest a change of emphasis and a division between on-the-job and off-the-job training, because industry itself has a far better idea of the kind of more specific rather than craft skills which will be needed in, say, five or 10 years' time.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the modules introduced by the Engineering Industry Training Board have made significant progress in that direction. The trouble is, however, that very few of those modules even include such things as numerically controlled machine tools, which many firms in Birmingham, for instance, had almost finished with five years ago. Therefore, if there is reference to the growth of new techniques which is already being made by the training boards and the Government training centres, I suggest that they are already outdated.
I suggest again that by transferring the emphasis to industry, which knows what it wants but in many cases is not getting what it wants from the Government training centres, we would be putting the emphasis in a far more appropriate direction.
There have been many references today to the comparative ease of placement in

333
jobs after completion of a Government raining centre course. I do not know whether my constituency or the Coventry sub-region is rather different from the various regions which have been referred to, but at every "surgery" which I have held for advice and interviews in my constituency over the past three or four months, I have had someone who has been to a Government training centre and completed the course but cannot get a job.
In saying that people cannot get a job, I am referring to those who, very often, have been literally trotted all the way round the West Midlands by the regional training officer, Mr. Lyon, who is doing a very good job in trying to find placement for those people. Constituents have been to see me who have been to Leicester, Long Eaton, Birmingham, Llannelly and, presumably, the new Coventry centre at Torrington Road.
Despite the fact that they have completed their course, those people cannot find jobs. Many have had to accept jobs in conditions and skills for which they had no training while they were at the Government training centre. Difficulties of that kind could, I suggest, be overcome by transferring the emphasis from the Government training centres to industry and letting industry do the training.
In certain parts of the West Midlands I am afraid that "retraining" is in danger of becoming a dirty word from the point of view of the trade unions, who cannot be blamed, because they are trying to defend their places in the traditional craft industries and skills which the Government training centres are still turning cut, and from the point of view of managements, because they are looking for people who have acquired the skill and the experience which they will not obtain in a Government training centre in six months. Both from the trade union and the management point of view a great deal of false emotional connotations are associated with the term "retraining", and certainly with the Government training centres.
Sir K. Joseph: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the people to whom he refers are unable to find employment because there are no vacancies in the right skills or because, while vacancies exist, there are obstacles to these dilutees filling them?
Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The cases are split, about 75 per cent. because there are no jobs available and about 25 per cent. because there may be some obstacle. It is difficult to break them down into individual cases, but that is the rough split.
All this experience comes from a supposedly prosperous region where there are said to be plenty of jobs. It comes from a region which is certainly not a development area, and, if the answer which I received from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade last Tuesday is any indication, it will not be classified even as a "grey" area. All the experience is based on an area which is not classified in any special way by the Government.
I suggest that, from time to time, the Ministry of Labour does not listen to the right people. I can name Eric Thorne, of the Institute of Supervisory Management, and John Wellens, who frequently contributes to Industrial Training International. Those are the sort of people to whom the Ministry ought to pay far more heed. It could gain from the experiences which those contributors and many more have already provided.
The other point which I would like to make is about the training of training officers. Again I suggest that still there is not one decent training course for them. Before I came to this House, I had a long and not altogether profitable experience of further education. It was my experience that when this type of course was sent along to the local college of further education, it was accredited with the kind of lecturers and staff whose timetables were not made up to their 18 hours a week and who were put on the Ministry of Labour training officers' course. All too often that happens with the so-called "crash" courses which the Department has been sponsoring.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that his Department is not accrediting sufficient importance to some of the staff which it is recruiting. Recently, it has advertised for an adviser who will also act in a kind of consultant capacity, at a salary of about £3,000. To most hon. Members, that is quite a reasonable sum of money. The trouble is that, after he has been recruited, the gentleman will have to go

335
round the country and talk to the personnel and training officers of firms who probably earn double, if not treble, that kind of salary. Though I appreciate that there are serious difficulties in making comparisons between Government Departments and appointments on this basis, that is the kind of situation in which the adviser and consultant from the Ministry of Labour will find himself.
Like many other hon. Members, I have been a little concerned about some of the appointments made to the staff of the industrial training boards. I do not want to make any particularly pertinent or personal accusations, but it is rather disturbing that a great many of the upper echelons of the staff of the new industrial training boards seem to be coming either from where a Government Department does not want them or from where a Government Department, a nationalised industry board or even private industry does not know what to do with them. I suggest that more important attention is given to the selection of some of the people who are now holding very important and, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has said, powerful positions in industry training boards.
The hon. Member for Honiton has made specific reference to some of the professional institutes' courses which have been conducted at colleges of further education and technical colleges round the country. I can speak with a certain amount of experience on this, because for about four years it was my job to lecture on certain of these courses. I will not refer to the particular institute concerned and I will not say that this is a complete answer to the point made by the hon. Gentleman but my experience on a certain course— this may be a reflection on my lecturing as well—was that, after taking a particular group through the whole year, the person whom I and everybody else thought would come top of the class failed the examination set and marked by the institute concerned. On the other hand, the person whom I and everybody else thought would come bottom of the class, because he never came along to any lectures and simply went down to Cornwall for a fortnight to "mug" it all up, passed.
336
I will not say that this is typical or that it answers the hon. Gentleman's point—I would not dare to pretend that—but I suggest that there are many different standards and ideas on what courses should be included and, above all, many different approaches which are being made by colleges of further education and some of the professional institutes. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that some of these do not quite mesh, especially from the point of view of the professional institutes.
Mr. Emery: I am delighted to hear of the hon. Gentleman's great success in his lecturing with these particular people. But no one is claiming that any of the educational schemes by the professional bodies are absolutely perfect. I would be the first in my own institute to say that there is a great need for improvement. But with every year that passes active steps are being taken, first, to bring them up to date and, secondly, to make the information in the lecture notes between the lecturer and the institute more easily available to ensure that a common standard can be obtained. I am certain that is what the hon. Gentleman would want.
Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am afraid it does not correspond with my experience. During my four years part-time and full-time lecturing at the Birmingham City College of Commerce, I was asked on many occasions to make comments on particular courses which the professional institutes were running. In no case which comes to my mind was any notice taken of the advice that I gave. That, again, may be a reflection on the quality of my advice, but this was based upon my experience in lecturing and administering the courses concerned.
I can make a whole series of general comments, mainly from my position as a member of the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions, but I will not weary the House with them tonight.
Another very important question, to which reference has not been made this evening, is the training of shop stewards. There have been many references to supervisory management, and there has been some talk about charge hands, foremen, and such ranks, but there has been

337
no reference to the important question or training shop stewards. I do not mean training them to be "tame" shop stewards. but to be more effective. There has been no reference to fitting shop stewards into the industrial pattern, nor has there been any reference to the fundamental issue of industrial democracy and its future, a matter which has been raised on several occasions by both sides of the House.
I would have liked to have seen in this otherwise excellent Report some reference to some of these questions. In particular, I would have liked to have seen some reference to future role of participation by both sides of industry, and some mention of future developments in industrial democracy.
Mr. Dobson: Would not my hon. Friend be asking too much to expect trade unions generally to accept that there should be industrial training boards to train shop stewards and people who represent workers? Is it not true to say that the Government cannot do this either?
Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it helps to underline the point that I was going to make. I am not asking the Government to train shop stewards. I am suggesting that there are certain basic things about industry which should be commonly given, on a common basis, to both sides. I do not think that the education of shop stewards, not in techniques of bargaining, but in general industrial background, would come amiss.
Mr. Bob Brown: Does my hon. Friend realise that my union, the General and Municipal Workers', has a residential college—" Woodstock ", near Claygate in Surrey—which provides 40 places for people to be trained as shop stewards? It costs £100 to train a shop steward, and 40 are trained per week over the }ear. This is the type of work which the trade unions should do.
Mr. Huekfield: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, and I pay a tribute to the Transport and General Workers Union, and the Amalgamated Engineering Union, for the work they do in this respect.
I conclude on a rather more parochial and constituency level. I represent a constituency, 17 per cent. of whose in-
338
sured labour population is in mining or quarrying, particularly the former. One hon. Gentleman said that the rundown in the coal mining industry seemed to be geared to the provision of places at Government training centres. This is not the case in Warwickshire. When Arley Colliery, just outside my constituency, closes on 28th March, 1,200 men will become redundant. I cannot see any scope for them to be retrained at the Government training centres at Coventry, Long Eaton, Birmingham, and various other places in the West Midlands. If it is suggested that at the moment there is some kind of co-ordination between the level of pit closures and the provision of training places at Government training centres, I must positively and wholeheartedly refute the suggestion, because it is not borne out by what is happening in my constituency.
I compliment the industrial editor of the Coventry Evening Telegraph,Mr. John Cross, on producing a series of excellent articles on future employment prospects in the Coventry sub-region, and particularly in North Warwickshire. He has made the point better than I can that an area like Coventry, and particularly an area close to the Warwickshire coal field, which still employs about 8,000 men over whose future there are several question marks, needs far more attention paid to it than has hitherto been the case with regard to the provision of retraining facilities.
Despite the excellent efforts being made by the manager of my local employment exchange in Nuneaton, Mr. Halstead, and by regional Ministry of Labour people, the existing machinery of the Ministry of Social Security, Ministry of Labour Government training centres, and industrial rehabilitation units, is far from sufficient to cope with even one colliery closure in Warwickshire. Before there are any more, I hope that there will at least be some co-ordination of training redundancy provisions and a far closer link between the various services than hitherto. I hope that there will be no closures in future where training places do not exist and no co-ordination has been done in the past.
There are bound to be many teething troubles for the industrial training boards, especially in an industry like road haulage, in which I have had some

339
experience. It comprises many small firms, many of whom are paying £90 or £100 for the levy and cannot see what they are getting for it. There are bound to be difficulties in getting the kind of training to which we have committed ourselves in the grant. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister on the great strides which have been made over the past three years, bearing in mind, however, that the first Government retraining centre dates from 1935 and not from 1964. However, I suggest deferentially that they have so far put the emphasis on the wrong side of the fence, on on-the-job rather than off-the-job training.
Finally, on a constituency point, where colliery closures are involved and where there are such closures as perhaps there are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), there must be far more coordination than hitherto.
9.7 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Scott: I am sorry that it was necessary for me to leave the Chamber for a period before the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). The hon. Member, the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) all mentioned the difficulties which some graduates of Government training centres have found in obtaining employment and we will want to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary the extent to which is is due to trade union resistance.
The Committee's Report does not mention this, but in the evidence given to it on page 64, the witness answering on behalf of the Minister of Labour said:
"…when we discussed with the Engineering Training Board whether training could not be developed by the industry with help from the Board and with the Government grant, the trade unions made it very clear they would not agree for one moment unless it was made quite obvious it was training at semi-skilled level and not craft level…. We have over many years, in spite of a great deal of suspicion, got a kind of slightly grudging agreement from the unions to our doing this type of skilled training. I think if you want the employer to do it direct, the first thing you have to do is to find out whether the unions are prepared to allow it. There is very little evidence that they will."
340
Since that evidence was given, there have been some signs of an improvement in the situation, but, in answer to Questions before the Christmas Recess, the Minister said that there were still points of resistance and difficulty in gaining acceptance of the graduates of Government training centres.
Many of our shortages are at the skilled level, and we will want to know what sort of progress has been made in eliminating these points of resistance. There have been some rather nasty rumours about the rate of progress of the engineering course at the Manchester Government Training Centre having been halted because of resistance from the trade unions concerned. Some illumination from the Minister on this point would be welcome.
Many hon. Members have emphasised the importance of training, retraining and the work covered by the Committee in its Report. I should like to see us moving towards the use of the word "training" rather than "retraining" right across the board. Retraining has the implication that, somehow, one is throwing away one's past skills and is starting completely afresh. Particularly for people at the craft level, this term has an unfortunate connotation and I therefore suggest that the use of the word "training" would prove beneficial all round.
It has been pointed out that training must be pursued at all levels, from the unskilled to the semi-skilled and from the semi-skilled to the skilled and management levels. Without wishing to introduce a partisan note into the debate, it is interesting to remember that the extra measures on training matters announced at the Labour Party conference by the right hon. Gentleman were all aimed at manual workers and for upgrading them to the semi-skilled level. My suspicion, which was reflected elsewhere at that time, was that that was a reaction to the threat of high unemployment during the winter, rather than to an absolute belief in the need for extra training.
Training of course has a role to play in countering the effects of redundancy; and when an industry is threatened with run-down and movement is necessary, it is vital. However, training has a

341
continuing, positive role to play in improving the level of skill—the fund of skills available to us within the economy.
I therefore add my voice to those who have asked for the Government to think of making a course of training available which is not simply marginally more attractive than being unemployed but which is positively attractive to those who are already in employment and face no immediate prospect of losing their jobs. That would mean more adequate pay and allowances for those undergoing training. It would also possibly mean offering some sort of scholarship at an even higher level, with a lump sum, to those who are prepared to take part-time courses, perhaps at evening classes, to fit them for a course of full training. By showing themselves in this way to be fit for a scholarship or bursary, they could go on to undertake a further course of training. This type of system operates elsewhere, notably in the United States, and I hope that it will be considered here.
Much has been said about manpower forecasts. We are hampered by the shortage and poor quality of statistics. Many companies, when asked to project their manpower needs, simply use the existing mix and project it ahead to what they consider to be tomorrow's work load, without taking into account the changes in that work load that are likely to take place. The margin of error in these forecasts must be gigantic. We therefore do not need merely to identify the areas of shortages and surpluses of manpower but the nature of those shortages and surpluses. An immense amount of work must be done in this sphere and I am glad to hear that a high priority is being accorded to it.
I wish to refer to the recommendation to establish an Industrial Training Board for the printing and publishing industry, Since I earn my living in that industry I must declare an interest. I was sorry that the Minister could not announce today the formation of such a board. As the Estimates Committee said, there is a growing need for such a board. The British Federation of Master Printers, in its report prepared by the Industrial Training Service, made clear the tremendous amount of work there is to be done.
342
Computer typesetting is an extremely important development in this industry. The growth of computer typesetting makes the preparatory work tremendously important yet the only reference book on this subject was published nine years ago, before computer typesetting was used by the bulk of printers in this country. There is an immense gap in the industry which needs to be filled as quickly as possible by an Industrial Training Board.
It is too early to be dogmatic on the question of the levy grant system to which many hon. Members have referred. A high level is desirable, for otherwise employers will pay the levy simply as another tax and not bother about trying to earn the grant by developing grant attracting courses. The levy is based either on the numbers of employees or the total payroll cost of a particular firm. Training needs, of course, relate to very different criteria —whether the firm is expanding or contracting, what sort of turnover it has among its skilled men and the particular mix of skill in an individual firm. Particularly in the Engineering Training Board, which covers a wide range, we need either a much more flexible system or a breakdown of the industry into smaller units. I should like to have the reaction of the Parliamentary Secretary to that.
I add my word to what has been said about apprenticeship. In my industry and in others the system is astronomically wasteful of talent, money and skill. It creates a built-in resistance at the start of a man's working life to subsequent changes and further courses of training. We want initial training mainly off the job, followed by on the job training, and then followed during the man's working life by regular training periods progressing through his career. The concept of intermittent training came before the Committee. This would be more economical and satisfying to the individual and much more in accord with the needs of our economy.
Because I promised to conclude my speech by twenty-past nine, I have not mentioned management training.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East that transferability of pensions has an important part to play in mobility. I hope to hear something from the Parliamentary

343
Secretary in reply to the point made by my right hon. Friend.
We are all conscious that it is too early to judge the performance of individual training boards in detail, but we are sure that there has been an increase in the quantity of training. We hope that there has been an increase in the quality. We look forward to hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary what further plans the Government have for improving it still further.
9.19 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Bence: I hope the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) will forgive me for not commenting on his remarks. because I promised to speak for only a few moments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who served on the Estimates Committee, intended to speak in this debate. He had prepared an excellent speech, but he has had to go home because of the illness of his wife. My main purpose in being present during the debate and speaking now is to assure the House that there was no discourtesy on the part of my hon. Friend in not attending for the debate. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we have a great admiration and respect for him and we are sorry about the reason for his absence.
I believe that there are far too many men in industry with high potential to acquire technical knowledge but who are not being given the opportunity. Modern industry does not require the old traditional skills. It requires technical knowledge and a modicum of skills, because skills give discipline. By learning skills in engineering a man learns the disciplines which are essential to any skill.
I ask the Government to do all that they can in industry to break down the resistance, on the part of both management and trade unions, to the further technical education of men who have shown a high discipline in their skills. I myself was a tool maker. Men have been promoted as foremen and charge-hands who should have been sent to technical colleges or universities to be trained in a higher skill. Men should have been brought in from training cen-
344
tres to do jobs which 20 years ago were skilled but which are no longer skilled jobs because of the application of technology.
I hope that the Government and all those in industry will realise that the country's future now depends to a much greater degree than it did in the early part of the nineteenth century on the success we can make of training men for the new technology—in schools, in industries, in technical colleges. I do not agree that men who are trained in the basic skills in older industries are not suitable for training in modern engineering techniques.
At the outbreak of the war some of the finest skilled men at work in the Midlands had been drawn from the ship building industry and the heavy engineering industry in the North-East and Scotland. I worked with them. In the early part of the war I was in charge of a tool room. I had many of these men with me, so I know exactly what they were like. Men trained in the old disciplines are very able and competent in the new industries.
One of the greatest shocks I received in the last few years was when I met four young men who, independently of each other, had done their National Service and had entered industry as trainees. All had had a first-class education and were of excellent character. I asked them what aspect of their training, either at school or in industry, had made the greatest contribution to their capacity as managers or executives in industry. I was very surprised that all four men said that the best training they had received was that at the Mons Officer Cadet School at Aldershot. This came as a great surprise to one who does not like the idea of military training. If the Mons Officer Cadet School is such a wonderful establishment for training men in leadership for the Army, and if that leadership is later found to be beneficial in industry, perhaps the Officer Cadet School should be consulted with a view to its techniques being used in training men for leadershp in industry.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: During the course of the past 25 years there has been a remarkable pattern of lost opportunities in industrial training.

345
Comparing this period with the period before the war, there is again remarkable pattern of hope, of lost opportunity, of budding up a service, and eventually finding that it has been dissipated for reasons that the country cannot understand.
The odd thing about the Government training centre system is that even at this stage, bearing in mind the remarkable improvement since 1964, we have fewer such centres than we had in 1947, although in the past year we are training in our general industrial training programme twice as many students as in 1954. Twice as many students completed a course of training in the Government training centres in the year ending last month as compared with the year ending January, 1964, and more than twice the amount of money has been spent on operating those centres in the past three years. When one considers that in 1964 only £4½ million was spent on their operation, against £9½ million today, one sees that there is a tremendous improvement, but there is also a falling off of the general impact of the service on the country's economy as a whole, at least as we should like to see it in the years ahead.
There is a great challenge for my right hon. Friend here. He has done more thin any other Minister since the war in this respect, but he has had to do it against the background of a falling-off in this provision since the immediate post-war years. We had 70 Government training centres in 1947 arising from all the opportunities for the State that existed during the war years and the need to provide this kind of facility. That number fell during all the years of Conservative Government to 13 by 1962. That is a measure of the tremendous task that Governments since then, and the present Government in particular, have had to meet.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that in 1947 there was a special job to do and a great expansion of the training centres because of men returning from the war who needed to be retrained for industry? I am not suggesting that we now have an adequate number of centres, but there was a special reason for that high figure.
Mr. Leadbitter: I accept that. There was a special job to do but the whole
346
infrastructure of this training for industry was lost for the other job we had to do, to meet the country's economic requirements.
I apologise for having to be disjointed because those of us who have entered the latter part of the debate have been very much restricted in time. I have been particularly concerned, and was rather pleased that my concern has been shared by the Minister, that he should address himself as a matter of urgency to the need to provide more training facilities and the opportunities to have them for those who are over the age of 40. This is a vitally important matter, and I make a very special plea about it. If we attracted sufficient public support to the need to deal with the problem the country would be grateful. This is a very important section of the community which has suffered for far too long from the point of view of employment opportunities.
9.29 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With one or two minor exceptions, the debate has been conducted outside party lines. Even if it were within my capacity, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to try to end the debate by a bravura performance, rallying my hon. Friends to the party cause.
Instead, I shall try to answer some questions put to me unremittingly for the past 4½ hours. Hon. Members will understand that it will not be possible for me to deal with them all. I shall try to deal with those which appear to my subjective and, no doubt, inadequate judgment to be the most important. I apologise for the omissions and my inability always to refer to the hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady who asked the question. I shall do my best to answer their questions, even though that recognition will not always be possible.
I begin by talking of vocational training in Government training centres and I will deal at once with the techniques and processes by which trainees are selected and which, it has been suggested, may in some ways be inadequate because of the drop-outs which occur during the period of training. Selection for Government training centres is methodical and tough—so tough that, in some areas on

347
some occasions, we are accused of being too exacting.
But I believe that we are right to be exacting because, as my right hon. Friend said, it is a savagely unpleasant thing if a man begins training and then finds that either there is no job available for him or he is incapable of completing that course. Even so, even having made allowances for the interview conducted by an officer of my Department, an employer and a trade unionist, and for an occasional written test that qualifies men to become members of a centre, it is essential that, after that period, if there is any doubt, marginal cases are given the chance to appear in a centre in order to demonstrate their ability to do the job.
Many of the men we attract into these centres and whom we need to attract are men who, by their nature, are not capable of showing up to the best advantage in any form of examination. Therefore, there must be an initial assessment of two or three weeks and, therefore, occasionally there must be some men who leave the centres during that period.
Those who get to the end of the course —and 95 per cent. of the entrants do so —obtain a job in the trade for which they have been trained. I remind the House what the increase in the figure for unplaced trainees really means. It does not mean that there is an increased number of men who have not got and will never get employment within their training trade. The increase in the figure in the last six months is a statistical demonstration of the fact that there is a longer waiting period between leaving a centre and actually being employed. The total figure of unplaced trainees is twice as great if everyone waits a fortnight as it would be if everyone waits a week. The peak of 500 unplaced trainees which we reached some months ago was a reflection of a longer waiting period rather than of absence of opportunity to be employed in the training trades concerned.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) that, at the time when the prospects were at their most gloomy there were only 44 unplaced men in their training trades both in the East and West Midlands. He said that he knew dozens of such men. He must have known them
348
all—and in Nottingham, Birmingham and cities in between. Notwithstanding that, this is still clearly a figure which we regard as high and undesirable.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: In HANSARD to-morrow, my hon. Friend will see that I did not refer to "dozens". I merely said that the occasions when men attended my surgery who could not find a job after coming from a centre were all too frequent.
Mr. Hattersley: Let us both rejoice in the fact that there were only 44 in the East and West Midlands. But, of course, none of us rejoiced when the overall figure rose to a peak of 500, for that was unsatisfactory. But it has been gradually reducing over the last few months, and when we compare the total of 500 unplaced men at one time with the figure of 10,600 trained during a year, the figures fall into perspective.
My right hon. Friend reminded the House of the vast increases in the capacity of the centres taking place over the next few years, and which began in 1964. It is natural to ask whether that increase could not be doubled or even trebled if shift work were introduced in the centres.
When I first went to the Ministry of Labour, this seemed to be a bright innovation that I should examine but I was partially dampened in my enthusiasm by the knowledge that my predecessor, now the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, had also thought of this as a bright innovation which she should examine.
I am told by her that her enthusiasm was partly dampened by the discovery that her predecessor, now the Minister of Power, had thought of this bright innovation. We all examined it independently and all came to the absolute conclusion that the problems of working training machinery continually or indeed on two shifts, the problems regarding instructors prepared to work on shifts, the problems of men travelling some distance to train and working shifts from 2 till 10 or 10 till 6 made it an absolute impossibility.
We came to the conclusion that the real answer was to expand existing facilities, and run them on a single shift basis. We have heard several hon. Gentlemen suggest that the grants paid to G.T.C. trainees are totally inadequate.

349
Again we ought to put this in perspective in terms of supply and demand. One hon. Gentleman said that there was a need for greater encouragement. Another said that they were unable to find suitable candidates. Neither of those two statements is at all true in terms of the supply and demand equation.
Certainly there are very many people who want to come to Government training centres who are not deterred by the level of allowance, who find that they have to wait before they can get a place. Or 1st January this year, there were 8,000 G.T.C. places. There were 4,000 men on the waiting list for those places—a figure which I hope and believe will fall during the coming months, but a figure which can never go down to zero. Clearly the administrative requirements of getting men into places, of informing them of the vacancy and of them giving their notices at existing jobs, and sometimes making domestic preparations to leave home and live in lodgings, means that there will invariably be a hiatus between one man leaving and another filling his place. Therefore, while 4,000 on the waiting list is certainly not a satisfactory figure, it is certainly not a figure which we can hope to see evaporate altogether, even during the most advantageous circumstances.
Certainly, 4,000 men on 1st January, 1968, were not deterred by the level of allowance that we pay from applying for Government training. If one puts this in perspective, one sees why they were not deterred. The Report which we are debating talks about a basic allowance of £10, but on top of that there is now a graded allowance, partly dependent on what the man was earning before he went into training and partly on his family commitments, which in an extreme case at this moment means that a man who came from a well-paid job and has a large family can be taking home £18 in Government training allowances. In addition, he is paying no National Insurance, getting his meals and travel free. If that should still sound inadequate to the House let me go on to say that from 1st April that maximum will be increased by £1 10s., and from that date £19 10s. will be the possible maximum that the G.T.C. trainee can take home.
Mr. James Hamilton: Does that include his earnings related supplement,
350
and can my hon. Friend say how many children are envisaged in the example that he has given?
Mr. Hattersley: I make it absolutely clear that this is the maximum figure. I am not suggesting that every G.T.C. trainee will take that sum home. That is the top scale. This is the figure that a man with many dependants will receive. Certainly when people talk, as they have this afternoon, about a man leaving a well-paid job, this is the figure that the man will receive.
The right hon. Gentleman asked if there was any assurance that the men attracted to training or going into training would not find, once retrained, that they were going into a less well-paid job than that which they had before the training.
There are two things to be said about that. First, a man will certainly be more secure than he was before his training period, and he might well be better off. Clearly no rules can be laid down, but when one considers the nature of the courses available, and particularly the new courses which will be available in the spring and summer as a result of the expanding of the G.T.C. syllabus—to take two examples, electronic wiring and circuit testing and machine tool reconditioning—when one sees the new level and new scope of the G.T.C. courses, one realises that they are courses which can result in a very profitable occupation as well as a very secure one.
It is not possible to make any predictions about the patterns of G.T.C. trainees over the next five or 10 years. It is possible to say—and this, I think, is in direct reply to one question—that 50 per cent. of all men going into the Government training centres are coming directly from employment. Only 50 per cent. of trainees were unemployed immediately before they came into the centre. Whether that figure will remain constant I cannot say. Whilst we cannot give proportions of the mix, we can say that the three basic ingredients will be preserved—conversion training, upgrading training and accelerated training —to provide men with skills for new industries.
It is possible to predict, despite this massive extension outlined by my right hon. Friend, that Government training

351
centres must continue to be a small part of the total Government training programme. Of the total training programme at the moment, they are about 5 per cent. It seems to me inconceivable that they can ever become the major factor in our training programme. My right hon. Friend said it, the right hon. Gentleman said it, and it bears saying again, since so many times during the afternoon we have been told that the industrial training programme is inadequate because of the size of the total intake into the G.T.C.s This can only be a small part of what we try to do, and it must be a small part of the effort which is basically the responsibility of industry and run by training boards.
It is a method which is expanding fast, and if it is to continue to expand adequately we must make sure that it is organised and staffed efficiently. It is entirely proper that the Report should draw attention to, and the House should raise again, the question of the recruitment and quality of instructors. The Report puts on record that at the time the evidence was taken there was a net shortage of instructors. The House will be pleased to know that this is no longer the case. Since that time the method of recruiting instructors has changed. We now mount campaigns of national advertising as a result of which we had no fewer than 15,000 inquiries and 4,500 firm applications; 3,000 men were interviewed and tested; 600 were found suitable; half that number were appointed and half are in reserve for the expansion programme.
This state of affairs does not lead us to believe that we can be complacent about the status of the instructor or that we are in a buyers' market. Our comments on the Select Committee's recommendations make it clear that instructor pay is subject to a research unit survey, and on receipt of the report of that survey negotiations with the appropriate unions will begin. We hope the negotiations will be completed by the middle of this year and we hope the new agreement, subject to income policy, will contain some areas of retrospection.
We have been asked many times during the afternoon, despite the reference to the subject by my right hon. Friend, about the attitude of trade unions and
352
trade unionists to men who have been retrained and upgraded in the Government training centres. My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the growing acceptance of this process, but many hon. Members have referred to pockets of local resistance. The Government's attitude to both these things has been made clear and I am delighted to make it clear again. Before I do this I believe it would be unreasonable if the House were not to acknowledge two things: first, the pressure on trade unions who have time-served members out of work; the second is to pay tribute to the wisdom of national union leaders who resist those pressures.
A great deal has been said from time to time about the T.U.C. Economic Report for 1968. Paragraph 78, which says that
"there is no justification for any general ban on the acceptance of adult trainees in any part of the country ".
has been quoted frequently. That is official T.U.C. policy. With all the stresses and pressures which it faces, it is to be congratulated on adopting that policy.
But there are areas where problems exist. They exist normally, not because of district committees or district officials, but because of pressure on the shop floor. The pressure varies from area to area, and in those areas it varies from trade to trade, but exist it certainly does. As I have said, the Government have made their attitude very clear on many occasions. Let me do so again tonight.
We believe that the adult trainee must be accepted for what he is—a man who has received training which is nontraditional but certainly not inferior and that he will be and must be a vital addition to our skilled labour force. We insist on that for two reasons. The first is because the addition to the labour force which is recruited and produced in this way is vital to our national interest. The second is that his recruitment and training are in no small measure vital to the interests even of the unemployed time-served union member who occasionally resists his recruitment at specific factories. I say that because one of the things which are most in the interests of the unemployed time-served union member is that more and more industry should be encouraged to go into the areas of mass unemployment.
Mr. Charles Doughty: I have recently returned from Australia. The hon. Gentleman has talked about training people. He has not mentioned a word about people going to Australia and countries like that where they are given very good wages after having been properly trained here.
Mr. Hattersley: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has just got back from Australia. If not, he might have taken a greater part in the debate. I do not intend to deal with that point, which is irrelevant to what we have all been discussing.
What is relevant is the attitude of unemployed trade unionists in the development areas.— We know—and we are conducting two surveys to give documentation and details of this—that there are some companies which, despite the massive incentives available to firms which want to move into development areas, are loath to do so because they feel that if they do they will be subject to problems resulting from a return to a chronic shortage of skilled labour. The fear that skilled labour is short in the development areas prevents the creation of new jobs and additional job opportunities in the North East, Scotland and every other development area. Therefore, to press on with our programme of adult retraining is something which will not impair employment opportunities but will improve them.
I turn to the Industrial Training Boards. May I say in passing that I do not regard this speech as being divided into two parts. There is no automatic dichotomy between those services provided directly by the Government and these provided by the boards. The two must work increasingly together and hand- in-hand.
I am loath to do so, but I must remind the House of the objects of the 1964 Act. The intention was to increase the quantity and quality of industrial training and to share more fairly the costs of it. If the House accepts that that was the intention of the Act, it must also accept that a number of consequences logically and inevitably flow from it. The first is the grant and levy system, which is the instrument by which those three objects are achieved. Sensible, prudent,
354
far-sighted management accepts that training to improve efficiency and productivity is a worth while operation in itself, even without receiving grant.
But for those managements who find such a process slightly intangible—and there are some—the grant and levy system must be an inducement. If there is a grant and levy system, it is essential that it should be backed up by some form of inspection. I am afraid that there must be somebody to make sure that there is the right amount of confetti on the beach, and that the confetti is of the right colour. If training boards are more and more to pay grant only for training of adequate standard it implies more and more inspection and supervision.
That inspection and supervision may be in the form of visits, or in the form of questionnaires, or in the form of demonstrations as to the equipment available for training. But, somehow, a system has to be devised which determines which firms are eligible for grant and which are not. Certainly, if one is to have a gigantic organisation like the Engineering Industry Training Board distributing each year something like £80 million of grant, it is less than reasonable to assume that it will not have a substantial administrative set-up to back its grant system, to help with organisational training and support that training with men actually in the field.
In any case, I believe that many false distinctions have been drawn between administration and training. We had the falsest distinction of all in last week's agricultural debate, when it was asked: "Why is this board spending so much on administration—for instance, on the salaries of 47 regional training officers?" That sort of distinction seems to me to be nonsensical. It is equally nonsensical to try to distinguish between the training officer who recommends how the training shall be done and the accounting officer who is responsible for arranging the grant for the training that has been recommended.
That leads me inevitably to the Engineering Industry Training Board, about which hard things have, as always, been said. The board was accused of being bold with other people's money, and of empire building. My views about the

355
board are simple and precise. Had it not done what it did, not only would the spectacular improvements in that industry have been prevented, but many other industries which have been emboldened by the example would not have had the improvements that have come about from about 20 other training boards.
There was a distinction drawn between two Victorian poetesses. It was said that Christina Rossetti feared to leap but that Elizabeth Browning missed her footing. The problem, if it is a problem of the Engineering Industry Training Board is that it occasionally missed its footing. But it never feared to leap. Now that it is firmly established, it has made the foothold secure and made the leap a good deal more safe for the boards coming after. That board is owed the gratitude of many who have profited from its example and courage.
My right hon. Friend was asked two specific questions on individual responsibility in management training. The industrial boards have total responsibility for management training in industry. That means that my right hon. Friend is responsible for that aspect of the job. Equally clearly, the Department for Education and Science has its usual further education responsibility. But, putting aside those two responsible Ministers and excluding them from the strictures, the fact remains that there are too many cooks, and no one would argue about that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) used that phrase, my right hon. Friend agreed with it, and I now endorse it.
To avoid the problems that stem from having too many cooks was the objective of the Central Training Council's report on management training. The preface to that report says quite clearly that it is not new thinking on management training but a distillation of the best existing thinking. It is a codification of what exists at the moment and can only be found from many sources.
That seems to be the sort of thing that the Central Training Council should be doing. That seems to be one of the basic objects of its existence, and the sort of job it does best.
356
Because of the way it did the job, there are now 16 boards claiming grant for management training, and those boards that are not at present doing so are preparing their recommendations to make sure that the grant levy incentive is available here too. That is why I believe that the evidence in paragraph 52 referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) is altogether too pessimistic; and that management training is being increasingly accepted. It will be accepted more and more as the years go by.
We were specifically asked about recommendations for grants for management trainees going to external courses. I suspect that the hon. Member who asked the question knows very well that the Report urges that such grants should be paid. My information is that more and more boards accept the principle, recognise the reputable external course and pay a grant towards it. Our endorsement of the Report's conclusion means that we hope that the process will be extended and continued.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about forecasting in the long-term sense of deciding, determining and stating what were the industrial needs. I will pass lightly over the slight conflict between demanding better forecasts and advocating free play of the market. I accept entirely that many of our industrial forecasts are inadequate. My right hon. Friend said, and I reiterate—
Sir K. Joseph: I acknowledged that for the best management in industry it is an extremely difficult job. I asked about job analyses and statistics.
Mr. Hattersley: I concede that. I was saying, and my right hon. Friend has agreed, that there are many inadequate aspects of Government statistics. Some Boards are trying to make up for those omissions. The Iron and Steel and the Engineering Industry Training Boards are mounting their own surveys. The Manpower Research Unit is doing what it can, as our comments on the Report show. The figures in general are, however, inadequate. We undertake that the Government's agencies in general will do what they can to improve our statistical services.
It is important to understand the nature of today's debate in terms of the meaning, purpose and objects of the Industrial

357
Training Act. Underlying much of the debate, and certainly underlying many sections of the Select Committee's Report, are judgments about what is, and what should be, the appropriate relationships between the Government and industrial training hoards. Where the Report asks for the Government to
"direct the attention of boards to the recruitment of training staff,"
it not only expresses concern about that area of activity but it expresses an opinion about what authority the Government have, and should have, over industrial training boards.
The Government's attitude is very plain. It is the attitude which, I believe, our predecessors intended to create when they prepared the Industrial Training Bill and presented it to the House. Boards have, and must continue to have, a substantial level of individual autonomy. The intention of the Act is that within broad guidelines, industry should run its own training. Certainly, industry already finances its own training. I do not believe that the £130 million which has been levied from firms by Industrial Training Boards would have been paid as readily or as willingly had it been levied by the Government and used in training schemes that were devised and supervised by Whitehall.
The essential feature of the Act is that the boards are industry running training for industry. The boards are staffed by people who are recruited from each side of the individual industry. Their reputation is known and their judgment is respected in the industry. They are not feared as people with airy-fairy views on the theories of education, but are practical men concerned with increased wages, increased profits, greater efficiency and higher levels of productivity. It is essential that that sort of relationship between boards and industry should be preserved.
I have no strong doctrinal views about what should or should not be an appropriate level of Government intervention in industry. The only principle which I hold on the subject is the conviction that the Government should never fear to intervene when intervention seems necessary and appropriate.
On this occasion, however, I believe that intervention by the Government into industrial training would be positively
358
harmful. Industrial training has grown over the last three years in no small measure because industry knew very well that within the broad guidelines set down by my right hon. Friend, and within the occasional direct intervention on occasions like the presentation of the annual levy order, industry would be allowed to get on with promoting its own efficiency, productivity and profitability.
If my Ministry should seem to be constantly intervening in those decisions, faith in the boards would be undermined and the work which they now do so successfully would be substantially prejudiced. I am strongly in favour of letting the boards get on with it because they seem more likely to do it well than anybody else. They deserve a substantial measure of the credit for what has been achieved in the last three years, and I think that my right hon. Friend is right to let them get on with it in the way that they have done so well since 1964.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Ninth Report from the Estimates Committee in the last Session of Parliament and of the Second Special Report from the Estimates Committee relating to Manpower Training for Industry.

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY POLICE (PAY)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr.Fitch.]
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Charles Doughty: As a consultant in an honorary capacity to the Port of London Authority Police Federation, I wish to draw attention to the refusal of the Government to approve the back dating of pay increases to the Port of London Authority Police to bring them into line with the Metropolitan Police, and perhaps I may explain a little more fully the present position in the matter.
The Port of London Authority Police are paid and administered by the Port of London Authority under statutory authority. Their strength is approximately 580, which include both uniformed police and a C.I.D. They have vans, cars, motor cycles, wireless and all the equipment

359
ordinarily associated with an efficient police force. They have the same standard of training as the Metropolitan Police and theirs is a police force in every sense of the word. It is well known that they carry warrant cards which describe them as police. Certainly they are well known to the criminals whom they apprehend and prosecute, and they are known to the judiciary who have to try the cases which they bring before them.
They have many duties to perform, apart from that of apprehending criminals. They protect the property of the Port of London Authority Docks, and those are large enough. They have to maintain order and to perform other duties which are carried out by the police. They have a very high detection rate of the crimes and other matters which occur in and around the London Docks. They carry out their duties in the Port of London Authority docks and in the neighbourhood of those docks.
For the last quarter of a century, they have enjoyed the same terms and conditions of service, including hours of work and pay, as those enjoyed by the Metropolitan Police. That has been clearly understood by members of the force and by the Port of London Authority. One of the inducements for obtaining people to serve in the force is that they will enjoy those same conditions. Therefore, when it became known in about 1966 that the Metropolitan Police were seeking and likely to obtain pay increases, an application was naturally made for pay increases by the Port of London Authority Police Force.
I will not trouble the House with details of those negotiations. They were conducted in a perfectly friendly manner, as negotiations with the Port of London authority have always been, because the relationship between the force and its employing body have always been upon the friendliest basis. At the end of the negotiations, the Port of London Authority agreed to the same terms of increase as the Metropolitan Police had been promised. However, because these were the days of prices and incomes standstill, the words
"subject to the approval of the Minister of Labour "
had to be inserted in the agreement.
360
In the meantime, discussions with the Metropolitan Police had been continuing and, on 22nd November, 1966, the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs said:
"The Government consider that the police, whose next pay review was originally due to take effect from September, 1966, are in a special position because of their importance in combating crime. My right hon. Friends the Home and Scottish Secretaries are, therefore, prepared to discuss in the Police Council an increase payable in July, 1967, etrospective to March, 1967."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 1151.]
That is in fact what happened. The Metropolitan Police received a pay increase from July, 1967, retrospective to March, 1967. To the astonishment of all concerned, when the Port of London Authority, the body which has to pay the increase, not the Government, filed what might be thought to be a formal application to the Minister of Labour for sanction for this increase which had been agreed between itself and the Port of London Authority Police Federation, it was refused. The Port of London Authority then said to the Port of London Authority Police Federation, "We are very sorry. We should be pleased to pay you —the amount involved is not large—but the Government have said no".
The Port of London Authority Police Federation then took up the matter with the Minister of Labour, but again met with a refusal. A most unfortunately worded letter was sent to the Port of London Authority Police Federation, because it pointed out that the Metropolitan Police were in a special position by reason of their duties in combating crime. Although the good lady who wrote that letter was probably copying the words of the Secretary of State in the House, it did not improve the feelings of the Port of London Authority Police Federation, which was already angry at the refusal it had met, to have the suggestion made that the Metropolitan Police had to combat crime and it did not. I would point out that the Port of London Authority Police have a very heavy duty in combating crime and they looked upon the answer that they got from the Ministry as one which, to put it mildly, added fuel to the fire. Not only did it cause bitter resentment because they had lost the pay increase for four months—I will not refer to the weekly figures concerned because, although from the wrong date, they

361
have received the proper increases—but, what is much more important, the principle which has been established and maintained for 25 years has been ruthlessly broken by the Government. That affects both the morale of, and the recruiting for, this very important police force.
It must cause a great deal of uncertainty amongst the members of that force, many of whom have served for many years, in other matters, particularly at a time when the Port of London Authority is being abolished and a nationalised board is coming in. I would be hopelessly out of order if I were to refer to the merits and demerits of that. But if this Government can do that upon an important matter like pay and conditions, what will they do when the nationalised board takes over from the Port of London Authority with which we have dealt on such friendly terms for so many years?
As a result of this complete rebuff from the Minister of Labour the Port of London Authority Police Federation has approached me and I wrote to the Minister, but I received a refusal. I then saw the Parliamentary Secretary on 10th November last year. I put forward the reasons which seemed to me conclusive —I have referred to some; by reason of tine I will not refer to others—for reversing the decision which had been arrived at. I hoped that when I had the opportunity of pointing it out to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who would have consulted the Minister of Labour, he would see the force of this argument. I am grateful to him, and thank him, for listening courteously to me on that occasion, but I cannot thank hint for the blunt refusal which I received to iv request, supported as it was by the many patently unanswerable matters which I raised with him. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reverse the decision which was made originally by his Ministry, which was affirmed in the correspondence with me, and which was finally affirmed in the letter which the hon. Gentleman wrote to me after the interview to which I have referred.
I hope that this evening the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not refer to other forces, such as the railway police, or the airport police, because their terms and conditions are different. It is clear that the Port of London Authority Police have always, within living mem-
362
ory, had the same terms and conditions as the Metropolitan Police. Let us this evening stick to the question, and not try to bring in other forces which are irrelevant to the question which I have brought before the House.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal seriously with this question. Earlier this evening when he was winding up the previous debate I intervened, and received a dusty answer. It did not matter to me in the least, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman realises the harm which that answer will do 12,000 miles away overseas where it will undoubtedly be reported.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go back to the previous debate.
Mr. Doughty: I am only comparing that answer with the answer which I may receive tonight. The earlier answer does not matter to me, but it will do immense and incalculable harm. If the hon. Gentleman gives me the same kind of answer in reply to this debate that he gave earlier, perhaps thinking that he was doing something rather clever, he will do a fine force, a fine body of men, the same sort of harm that he will do by his previous answer.
It is not too late to reverse the decision. 1 believe that the principle can be re-established by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tonight. There is no reason why this pay should not be back-dated to March, 1967. The figure involved is so trifling that I shall not mention it, though I know what it is. The amount that it would cost the Government is exactly nil, because the payment would be made by the Port of London Authority which is willing, prepared, and anxious to pay. It is only the stubbornness of the Government, their wilful refusal, their total lack of the feelings of people in the force, their ignorance of dealing with human beings for whom I am appealing for justice, that has maintained them in this refusal. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reverse that refusal tonight.
10.13 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): There is not a single historical fact as outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) with which I disagree. As one would expect. he has stated the case accurately and

363
clearly, but I hope he will forgive me if I go over a little of the ground again, because explaining the case as I see it requires me to say many of the things that he said, but in a slightly different way.
As regards the incomes policy—and it is basically incomes policy that we are debating— the story began on 22nd November, 1966, when my right hon. Friend the First Secretary made a statement to the House outlining the content of the Government's White Paper which covered the period of severe restraint. He said:
"The Government consider that the police, whose next pay review was originally due to take effect from September, 1966, are in a special position because of their importance in combating crime."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 1151.]
Subsequently, an increase of 9 per cent. was agreed for the police.
Subsequently, as the statement said, it was applied retrospectively to March of that year, seven months after the original date of intended implementation. Half of it was paid in July, 1967, half in November, 1967, but irrespective of whether the increase was the initial 4½ per cent. or the eventual 9 per cent., on both occasions the full amount of backdating was paid to the civil police. I concede entirely that that decision was a breach of the prices and incomes policy, and a breach of the criteria laid down by my right hon. Friend in this House. Of course, it was.
That is why as part of a major statement on prices and incomes policy, my right hon. Friend chose to tell the House that this breach was to be made and that this breach was regarded by him as being justifiable. For those who are conversant with the details of prices and incomes policy, the police award was treated as if September, 1966 was not a commitment to review, but a commitment to pay, a commitment which had been decided in terms both of date and amount before that time, and was a firm commitment. The police commitment was, therefore, treated in a way of which I gladly concede was outside the specific and precise terms of prices and incomes policy.
I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want me to justify why
364
the police were so treated. I am sure that he agrees that we were right on this occasion to make this exception. I am sure that it is in no way part of his case to argue that what we should have done was to be completely consistent in prices and incomes policy and paid no one. We are in total agreement that my right hon. Friend's decision to make this exception was an appropriate and justified decision, welcomed in the House and the country. It is one of the problems of exceptions to policies as tight and precise as the prices and incomes policy, that once an exception is made a decision has to be taken as to how far that exception has to go. In short, the line has to be drawn somewhere. My right hon. Friend felt that the appropriate place at which the line should and must be drawn was at the civil police, and no one but the civil police.
The hon. Gentleman has warned me not to refer to consequential increases which might accrue, which might have accrued, or might be expected to accrue to people like the British Transport Police, the British Airports Authority Police, and various other Departmental police. I must say that my advice—and on these matters I take the advice of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—is that while the force to which he refers is directly and specifically related to the Metropolitan Police, all those other forces are directly and specifically related to police pay in general, and the logic of his case would be that if the full 9 per cent. were paid in just the same way to the docks and port authority police, it would only be reasonable that it should be paid to those other bodies, too.
I have no doubt, and neither does my right hon. Friend, that if we had taken this a stage further, not only would it have been those other bodies, but many other people who would have been able to claim almost identical things. With the use of the phrase "almost identical things" let me make one point more than clear. There is no intention whatever on the part of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who was then Home Secretary, or on the part of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour or my Department, to draw any distinction between the duties, value and importance

365
of the different forces. No one is suggesting for a moment that the civil police had more important duties or obligations which were so much greater that retrospection was justified for them.
As the hon. Gentleman has fairly said, we are now in a position where those forces are being paid the same annual rate of pay. The parity has been totally restored, and we are arguing, if that is the right word, about the element of retrospection which was allowed for the civil police and not allowed for the docks police. They are in parity of pay because it is our absolute belief that no distinction can be drawn between the importance of their services and their importance to the community as a whole. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not do it and does not wish it to be done, but he will join with me in hoping that nobody will say or imply, within the ports police services, that the Government have drawn a distinction between them and the civil police because the Government feel that they are less important. That is certainly not the case and it is certainly not the sort of principle on which we operate.
What we did—and I say this with all the inadequacies that the statement implies—was to decide that the exception had to be strictly, firmly and precisely limited. I concede that any prices and incomes policy will invariably be arbitrary and occasionally unfair and that it will appear particularly arbitrary and unfair to groups of people who fall on just: the wrong side of the line. I understand how the police forces which were excluded from the element of retrospection felt about our decision, but we were really faced with three possible alternatives.
The first was to allow no special concession to the police force at all. That, I think, would have been universally condermned as irresponsible. The second was to allow the concession to spread not only to the police forces which are rightly related to the civil police forces but to many other bodies, which would claim some sort of comparability and insist on equal treatment. That would have resulted in our discarding the prices and incomes policy and in the breakdown of that policy as we knew it. The third alternative was to draw a line somewhere in between.
366
We took the view that our obligation—our obligation to the prices and incomes policy and, through it, to the economy of the country—was to draw the line as tight as possible; and the tightest line was simply around the civil police forces. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that was always our intention. My right hon. Friend said in his statement of 22nd November:
"My right hon. Friends the Home and Scottish Secretaries are prepared to discuss in the Police Council an increase payable in July, 1967, retrospective to March, 1967."
His reference to those two right hon. Friends and to the Police Council made it absolutely clear that the people he had in mind were the civil forces and only the civil forces.
I say again that I understand fully the feelings which many of the men who were excluded must have. I hope they will accept our assurance that this was in no way a judgment of their importance, of the difficulty of their job or the nature of their responsibilities. It was the sort of arbitrary decision that springs from a prices and incomes policy and it was taken with the intention of preserving the policy as we knew it, as well as with the intention of allowing the police force in its civil form to have an increase and still make sure that the policy criteria were, in general, applied.
I hope that the force will accept it in those terms. I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not because his job, and I commend him for it, is to press the case and the cause as hard as he can. However, I reiterate that, in our belief, the interests of the prices and incomes policy and of the police force could he mutually served only by a line being drawn somewhere. In all conscience, the line which excluded everyone except the civil police authorities seemed to be the fairest, clearest and best one to draw.
Now that the civil forces and the quasi-civil forces are back on the same rate of pay, I hope that we can return to the situation in which it is generally accepted and agreed that they are both doing jobs which, if not identical, are almost identical, and that they are both doing jobs for which the rates of pay should go hand in-hand. I understand that the discrepancy which occurred over a few months back dating is bound to be an irritant.

367
However, it was done in terms of preserving the prices and incomes policy and without making judgments about the merits of the rival forces.
Mr. Doughty Mr. Doughty rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak, but he may intervene before the Parliamentary Secretary sits down.
Mr. Doughty: With your permission and that of the House, in the few minutes remaining, I should like to say a few words in reply to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. I thank him for his kind remarks about the Port of London Authority Police but when referring to the civil police he included in that bracket the Port of London Authority Police. That is where the basis of his argument breaks down.
It is not only a question of quantity and the amount of money but of principle. I did not attack the prices and incomes policy. We have debated that often enough. I have accepted that for the purpose of this argument and the decision arrived at for the Metropolitan Police. Whatever decision was arrived at, whether it was right or wrong. it was one which the Port of London Authority Police should be able to follow as they have done for 25 years. To breach that principle and say that this is the
368
exception means that the position should be the same for the civil police.
When the Parliamentary Secretary leaves the Chamber and talks to his Minister tomorrow and reports this debate, I ask him to say to the Minister "I had an awfully difficult debate in dealing with this matter"—not because it was a difficult House for there are only two hon. Members present besides the Parliamentary Secretary. I think his arguments were quite wrong. It is the argument of a weak man to say that a thing is wrong but that he is not going to change it. All I say to the Parliamentary Secretary is, please look at this again. Please see that the Port of London Authority Police has here a genuine and proper grievance. I am not asking for any different treatment for them from that given to the Metropolitan Police but that he should stick to what has happened for the last 25 years. It would not cost the Government any money. I hope the hon. Gentleman will send the letter to me in a very few days saying that he has been persuaded by argument and is going to change this decision.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been most irregular.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

MINISTRY OF POWER
  European Coal and Steel Community
  European Coal and Steel Community
  Steel Prices
  Steel Prices
  British Steel Corporation (Appointments)
  British Steel Corporation (Appointments)
  National Fuel Policy
  National Fuel Policy
  Heavy Fuel Oil (Bulk Users)
  Heavy Fuel Oil (Bulk Users)
  Electricity and Gas Industries (Conditions of Employment)
  Electricity and Gas Industries (Conditions of Employment)
  N.C.B. and British Steel Corporation (Talks)
  N.C.B. and British Steel Corporation (Talks)
  Oil and Oil Products
  Oil and Oil Products
ELECTRICITY
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Aluminium Smelters
  Aluminium Smelters
  Block Tariffs
  Block Tariffs
  Abnormal Vehicular Loads Tax
  Abnormal Vehicular Loads Tax
COAL
  Pit Ponies
  Pit Ponies
  Industrial Coal Contracts
  Industrial Coal Contracts
  Distributed and Undistributed Stocks
  Distributed and Undistributed Stocks
  Coal Depots (Concentration)
  Coal Depots (Concentration)
  Coal Derivatives (Research)
  Coal Derivatives (Research)
HOSPITALS
  Disused Medical Instruments and Human Remains (Disposal)
  Disused Medical Instruments and Human Remains (Disposal)
  Hospital Land (Sale)
  Hospital Land (Sale)
  Hospital Beds (Wales)
  Hospital Beds (Wales)
  Waiting Lists (Wales)
  Waiting Lists (Wales)
  Non-Teaching Hospitals
  Non-Teaching Hospitals
  St. Mary's Maternity Hospital, Manchester (Tiles)
  St. Mary's Maternity Hospital, Manchester (Tiles)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Dental Technicians (Selective Employment Tax)
  Dental Technicians (Selective Employment Tax)
  Immigrants (Medical Tests)
  Immigrants (Medical Tests)
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Drugs (Proprietary Equivalents)
  Drugs (Proprietary Equivalents)
  Cardiac Emergency Service
  Cardiac Emergency Service
  Cervical Cancer (Screening)
  Cervical Cancer (Screening)
  Sainsbury Committee (Report)
  Sainsbury Committee (Report)
  Pharmaceutical Products (Price Reductions)
  Pharmaceutical Products (Price Reductions)
  Local Authority Health Services
  Local Authority Health Services
  Measles (Vaccination)
  Measles (Vaccination)
  Medicines (Naming)
  Medicines (Naming)
  Local Authority Building Programmes
  Local Authority Building Programmes
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Green Belt (Birmingham)
  Green Belt (Birmingham)
  Rate Equalisation (Report)
  Rate Equalisation (Report)
  Services (Expenditure Cut)
  Services (Expenditure Cut)
  Drill Halls (Sports Centres)
  Drill Halls (Sports Centres)
  Land Clearance and Reclamation (Northern Region)
  Land Clearance and Reclamation (Northern Region)
  Water Charges (Halesworth, Beccles and Southwold)
  Water Charges (Halesworth, Beccles and Southwold)
  Planning Blight
  Planning Blight
  Ipswich (New Town Designation Order)
  Ipswich (New Town Designation Order)
HOUSING
  Council Houses, Huddersfield (Rent Increases)
  Council Houses, Huddersfield (Rent Increases)
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Priority Areas
  Priority Areas
  Gateshead
  Gateshead
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Public Expenditure (Examining Committee)
  Public Expenditure (Examining Committee)
  Overseas Payments
  Overseas Payments
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Overseas Investments
  Overseas Investments
  Economy (Regulating Methods)
  Economy (Regulating Methods)
  Devaluation
  Devaluation
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  Incomes (Increase Norm)
  Incomes (Increase Norm)
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest)
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest)
  Duty-Free Shops (Aircrews)
  Duty-Free Shops (Aircrews)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Malta
  Malta
  Singapore (Defence Agreement)
  Singapore (Defence Agreement)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Zambia
  Zambia
TECHNOLOGY
  Nuclear Reactor Programme (Report)
  Nuclear Reactor Programme (Report)
  Short Brothers and Harland
  Short Brothers and Harland
  R.A.E., Llanbedr
  R.A.E., Llanbedr
  Departmental Work (Royal Navy)
  Departmental Work (Royal Navy)
  National Gas Turbine Establishment (Naval Wing)
  National Gas Turbine Establishment (Naval Wing)
  Hearing Aid Batteries (Price Increase)
  Hearing Aid Batteries (Price Increase)
  Computers
  Computers
WALES
  Prince of Wales (Investiture Expenditure)
  Prince of Wales (Investiture Expenditure)
  ECONOMIC SITUATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT (DISCUSSIONS WITH T.U.C.)
  ECONOMIC SITUATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT (DISCUSSIONS WITH T.U.C.)
  LEASEHOLD REFORM PUBLICITY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  LEASEHOLD REFORM PUBLICITY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS OVERSEAS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS OVERSEAS)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  Exploitation of the Seabed (Review)
  Exploitation of the Seabed (Review)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Industry (Transport Bill)
  Agricultural Industry (Transport Bill)
  Meat and Meat Products (Import Ban)
  Meat and Meat Products (Import Ban)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Ayrshire Yeomanry
  Ayrshire Yeomanry
  Hull Trawlers (Search Cost)
  Hull Trawlers (Search Cost)
  Servicemen's Families (Resettlement Advice)
  Servicemen's Families (Resettlement Advice)
  Slaves Island (Dumped Equipment)
  Slaves Island (Dumped Equipment)
  Recruiting and Re-Engagements
  Recruiting and Re-Engagements
  Release Applications
  Release Applications
  Neutron Generators Research (Radiotherapy)
  Neutron Generators Research (Radiotherapy)
  Royal Navy Research Establishment, Dounreay (Cost)
  Royal Navy Research Establishment, Dounreay (Cost)
  Ship-borne Inertial Navigation Systems (Costs)
  Ship-borne Inertial Navigation Systems (Costs)
  Microbiological Research Establishment, Porton (Civil Interests)
  Microbiological Research Establishment, Porton (Civil Interests)
  Defence Research Programme
  Defence Research Programme
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Welsh Arts Council (Grant)
  Welsh Arts Council (Grant)
  Secondary School Pupils, Wales
  Secondary School Pupils, Wales
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Classes)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Classes)
  Foot-and-mouth Disease
  Foot-and-mouth Disease
  Insect Pests (Control Projects)
  Insect Pests (Control Projects)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Government Training Centres, Wales
  Government Training Centres, Wales
  UNITED NATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTIONS)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Exchange Site (St., Peter's Church, W.C.1)
  Exchange Site (St., Peter's Church, W.C.1)
POST OFFICE
  Building Schemes
  Building Schemes
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Government Offices (Capital Value)
  Government Offices (Capital Value)
  Agrément Board and Building Research Station (Cost)
  Agrément Board and Building Research Station (Cost)
  National Building Agency, Agrément Board and Building Research Station (Staffs)
  National Building Agency, Agrément Board and Building Research Station (Staffs)
  Government Car Service
  Government Car Service
SCOTLAND
  Late School Leavers
  Late School Leavers
  British Standard Time (Consultations)
  British Standard Time (Consultations)
  Land Commission (Land Disposal)
  Land Commission (Land Disposal)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Places)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Places)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Widows and Children (Review)
  Widows and Children (Review)
SHIPPING
  Fishing Industry (Safety Report)
  Fishing Industry (Safety Report)
  Road Research Laboratory (Safety Fences)
  Road Research Laboratory (Safety Fences)
  D Ring Road
  D Ring Road
ROADS
  Al (Traffic Flows)
  Al (Traffic Flows)
  New Road (Stamshaw and Rudmor)
  New Road (Stamshaw and Rudmor)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Derby):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Congleton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

RHODESIA: SANCTIONS AND PLOUGHING COMPETITION
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their refusal to allow British competitors in the world ploughing competitions to take their ploughs with them to Rhodesia where, in pursuance of arrangements made five years ago, the world ploughing championships will be taking place in April, 1968.]
LORD BESWICK: No. my Lords. Exports of agricultural machinery to Rhodesia from this country have been prohibited since February, 1966, because of the declaration of illegal independence. This policy has been agreed by both Houses of Parliament and it would be wrong to make exceptions.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that this high moral line on this quite small issue shows a complete lack of understanding; that this is not a question of agricultural exports, but a question of two ploughs being taken to Rhodesia in the interests of this country and brought out again after something like 48 hours? Does he not appreciate that this world ploughing competition is something quite different from international football matches, where large crowds are attracted and there is wide Press publicity, and that nothing but good will can flow from furthering competitions of this kind? Surely the noble Lord cannot
1040
say that there is a surplus of good will in the world to-day.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has expressed an opinion, but it is not one that is shared by others. The fact is that other organisations and other people have accepted the advice of Her Majesty's Government not to go to Rhodesia for these international events in order to enable themselves to be exploited by the Rhodesians for propaganda purposes, and I see no reason why an exception should be made in this case.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, does the noble Lord's reply confirm a rumour that I have heard: that Her Majesty's Government have been in contact with other countries trying to wreck this competition?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. What the noble Lord has possibly heard is that Her Majesty's Government themselves honour their obligations in this matter, and have asked that other countries do the same.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, because of the immense benefit that would result to the native population of 400 million Africans, in whom we all take the greatest interest, in seeing modern methods of agriculture, has the noble Lord never heard of the old saying about "beating swords into ploughshares"?
LORD BESWICK: Yes; I do happen to have heard of this saying. It is a pity that Mr. Smith has not heard of it.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Rhodesia was chosen as the venue for the ploughing competition five years ago, before the present issues arose between us and them? I support the Government in its Rhodesian policy, but are we not carrying it too far now in stopping two ploughs from going in for an international competition that will result, if we win, in giving Britain the exports which, since devaluation we particularly need?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. The prohibition is on the export of agricultural machinery. If an exception is made in this case, there is no doubt at ail that the Smith régime will exploit it for propaganda purposes.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the original reply, I would ask: Do Her Majesty's Government not realise that this competition has a considerable amount of importance in international agricultural circles, and that the winning of it will greatly add to the prestige of Britain? Do they further realise that Scottish and English competitors taking part will be gravely handicapped if they have to use ploughs to which they are not accustomed? Surely, as has already been pointed out, this is not an export question at all? These machines are in for but a few hours. Surely the Government will not persist in harming our own competitors' chances, and still further damage our Rhodesian relations, by insistence upon this childish spite?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can understand the feeling of some noble Lords. I myself should like to see British people going there with British ploughs and taking part in a competition of this kind. But the way to enable that sort of thing to take place is for the Rhodesian régime to return to constitutional rule.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in order to justify their embargo on the use of a British plough, and to see that British interests are not prejudiced by other competitors taking part, the Board of Trade have in fact written to Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, the United States and Canada, asking them also to boycott this international competition?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have already stated that Her Majesty's Government take seriously this question of effectively implementing their undertaking to apply sanctions to Rhodesia.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, is it not the view of the Government that they ought to do what Parliament has bidden them to do, and not the opposite?
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether all the ability in the Government cannot think of some means by which, for 48 hours, these two ploughs can be looked after and be brought back, so that they do not count as exports?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as a matter of fact, it is not a question of two ploughs; there are more than two ploughs A number of the other countries are intending to use British ploughs. They have been told, and they have agreed, that it would be wrong in this case to break the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which is to prohibit the export of agricultural machinery to Rhodesia.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, why do the Government wish to make it more difficult for British competitors to win this ploughing championship? And does it not make a nonsense of their assuming to back the "Back Britain" campaign?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what I think makes a nonsense is for the noble Lord and other noble Lords to get up in this House, having agreed, as this House has done, to apply sanctions to Rhodesia, and to make fun of any attempt to apply them.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, from the Minister's earlier answer, did I not correctly understand him to say that the object of this was to prevent this ploughing competition from taking place in Rhodesia, but is it not a fact that it does not have that effect at all? There is nothing to stop these British competitors from lawfully going there to compete. The only question is with what machine they compete. Is that not the point?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is perfectly true; and if a competitor went to Rhodesia and had a British plough which he found in Rhodesia, and used it there, it would be perfectly lawful. What would not be lawful would be for anybody to export agricultural machinery to Rhodesia.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that this decision is causing considerable resentment in rural Scotland, where many relatives of the rural Scottish in Rhodesia exercise a moderate influence on that Government?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have no doubt that this decision does cause some resentment in some parts of rural Scotland. Equally, I have no doubt that a decision to reverse our policy would

1043
cause a good deal of resentment in many parts of Africa.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while, of course, the embargo is on exports, how can one of these ploughs possibly be classified as an export when it is going to be brought back again?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl has more information than I have on this. As a matter of fact, an application has been made for an export licence which has been refused.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, if I may intervene at this stage, I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who for a long time has, I know, been trying to ask a question, would have a chance. I am rather conscious of the thermal discharge from the television lights and it seems to have been added to here. I do not know whether your Lordships wish to go on pursuing this matter, but my view is that perhaps we might go on to the next Question, which the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is going to ask.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Leader of the House. If one question from the Liberal Benches would be permitted, may I just ask whether if a British violinist proposed to go to Rhodesia to give a recital in Salisbury, this would be banned as being an export of violins to Rhodesia?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord possibly thinks that is funny. It is always easy to poke fun at anybody trying to apply a principle. What the noble Lord should do is to consult the remainder of his colleagues on the Liberal Benches and ask whether or not they are in favour of keeping up these sanctions against the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that our policy on this matter is absolutely clear?

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT AND B.B.C. BROADCAST
2.40 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what justification, if any, there may be for the uncertainties alleged on January 6 regarding the Concorde aircraft; in particular regarding its length, wing span, take-off weight, operating speed and operating potential as calculated, and to comment on the forecast that it would meet the same fate as the R101 Airship.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, Concorde will be 193 ft. long, with a wing span of 84 ft. Its maximum design takeoff weight is 376,000 lb. Its maximum speed will be Mach 2·2 with a fatigue life bonus if this is reduced to just above Mach 2·0. As regards its operating costs, the 74 delivery positions reserved by 16 airlines are indicative of their expectation that it will be a commercial proposition. The suggestion on the B.B.C. programme of January 6 that the Concorde will meet the same fate as the R101 seems to me both irresponsible and in deplorable taste.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think that form requires me to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the great satisfaction which his direct and unequivocal reply will have given both to me and to all those who admire this splendid Anglo-French project. He used the word "deplorable". Does he not think in a wider sense that it is intolerable that when facts are known, as they have been known, even to me, they are not investigated and that they are not inquired into by the B.B.C. for such a programme, and that the whole vernacular of comment on this very important project should be couched in terms more suitable for schoolboy slapstick? May I also ask him a specific question on a matter to which he did not refer? Is it true that the B.B.C. programme referred to the fuel trim of the Concorde aircraft as being similar to that used in two American aircraft which had crashed? Would the noble Lord comment on that?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords; it is true that the B.B.C. made a reference to this fuel trim system. The fact is that the Concorde uses a system which is not used in any American bomber. As for the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I would add that I understand that the British Aircraft Corporation have protested to the B.B.C. about their statements on the "Eleventh Hour" programme, and the justification given by the B.B.C. is that because in the past there has been uncertainty about advanced technological projects, they were justified in allowing this kind of "sick" humour to take place.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the fact that public money is concerned in the construction of this aircraft, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government, in one Department or another, have not thought it right to make a protest to the B.B.C. about such an irresponsible, harmful, damaging and, indeed, cruel inference as was contained in their programme?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I have said, the British Aircraft Corporation themselves have protested. The possibility of following up this protest by some representation from Her Majesty's Government will, I assure the noble Lord, be considered.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say when the first trial flight of the Concorde is to take place? Is it to be on February 25, or has it been delayed: and, if so, why?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there has been a deferment, but the first flight in France will take place later in the spring.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, could my noble friend be a little more specific about representations by Her Majesty's Government to the B.B.C.? In these circumstances it seems important that the Government themselves should make these representations rather than leave it to the Company.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I have said already, I will certainly have this matter considered.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the B.B.C. were able to explain, if their object was
1046
to settle the supposed uncertainty regarding this aircraft, how they could help that uncertainty by deliberately adding to it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I doubt whether I can give a satisfactory answer to that question, any more than I can satisfactorily answer the fact that so much British money given to the B.B.C. should be used for decrying British products.

AUXILIARY FIRE SERVICE AND ECONOMIC CUTS
2.45 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received front numerous Auxiliary Fire Service groups offers to continue voluntarily and without any personal remuneration to perform their duties; and whether, if this is so, the interest of the community, which would benefit without cost, would not be best served by the acceptance of these offers.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the payments for which members of the Auxiliary Fire Service can qualify are a bounty, which for firemen is £10 a year, and an allowance to cover out-of-pocket expenses when training. My right honourable friend has received a number of offers from groups and individual members of the Auxiliary Fire Service to forgo payment, in whole or in part, if they are allowed to continue to serve The Government are deeply appreciative of the spirit which underlies these offers; but bounty and subsistence payments to all members amount to 8½ per cent. of the cost of maintaining the Auxiliary Fire Service and savings of this order would be only a fraction of the reduction in expenditure on emergency services which the Government have decided must be made to meet the economic situation.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I did not catch the amounts of money involved. Supposing the offer were accepted, could my noble friend tell me how much would still remain as a cost in the

1047
maintenance of the Auxiliary Fire Service?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Auxiliary Fire Service would have cost about £1,300,000 in the coming financial year; the bounty and expenses are estimated at £110,000.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, will the Minister of State represent to his colleagues in the Government that the country is not at present in a position to damp down voluntary effort?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the original reply and Lord Brooke's supplementary, are Her Majesty's Government aware that not only members of the Auxiliary Fire Service but also other Civil Defence bodies, and that section of the Territorial Army which it is proposed to disband, have also offered to continue their services on a voluntary basis? In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said, will the Government not reconsider the whole position, and not pour cold water on the patriotism of those who are endeavouring to back Britain?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is not a question of pouring cold water, nor is it a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke seemed to think, of unawareness on the part of the Government of the tremendous service rendered by these people and the impossibility, as it were, of damping down voluntary enthusiasm. It is the case of a choice between disbanding this particular Service or continuing it, and it is purely a question whether or not we can pay for it. With regard to other considerations, particularly those put by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I shall be answering tomorrow a Question on Civil Defence from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I hope then he will address to me questions on that subject.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that the cost of implementing the Trade Descriptions Bill, which was sent to another place from this House yesterday, would be more than sufficient to cover the Auxiliary Fire Service, the Territorial Force and everything else?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should have thought that that compari-
1048
son was scarcely relevant. It is equally obvious to every one of us that every single reduction proposed in the Government's plans is capable of having a convincing case built up against it, if one concentrates on one case. But, taken collectively, the Government are making those economies which are regarded as essential in the country's economic interests.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the figures relating to the losses by fire in this country? These are colossal, and I believe it is false economy—and I would ask the Government to consider this matter—that the Fire Services should be understaffed and that these people should be unable to do the work for which they have joined. They are now offering to do the work for nothing, and I suggest to the noble Lord that this is a question of the encouragement of public spirit which is, in itself, valuable, particularly in connection with protection from fire.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, of course I am aware that the fire losses are appalling—something of the order of £80 million a year. But I should have thought that my noble friend, who has such long experience of the Fire Services, would have been aware that the relationship of the Auxiliary Fire Service to these losses just does not exist, because the Auxiliary Fire Service have no peacetime fire duties at all. Indeed, by agreement of the Fire Brigades Union and the local authorities with the Home Office, the Auxiliary Fire Service are precluded from taking part in fire fighting of this kind. Deeply as I am concerned about this matter, it is quite wrong to introduce irrelevancies and misunderstandings of that kind.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answer. I am wondering whether these men will be permitted to retain their uniforms when they have disbanded.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is one of the many things which are to be discussed with local authorities when they are met by officials of my Department on February 14. But it is the case with uniforms and many other things that the local authorities pay 25 per cent. of the cost and the Home Office pays 75 per cent. of the cost. So far as the

1049
Government are concerned, and subject to the agreement of the local authorities, they would be very willing for volunteers to retain their uniforms.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to consolidate, without amendment, financial provisions contained in the Housing (Scotland) Acts 1950 to 1965, the Housing (Financial Provisions, Etc.) (Scotland) Act 1967, and certain other enactments relating to housing in Scotland. This being a Consolidation Bill, if your Lordships give it a Second Reading it will go in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL
2.52 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will be familiar with the Trustee Savings Banks movement, and I am sure will be disposed to help it and all the devoted people who serve it. This Bill should enable the banks to make still greater progress in the years to come. The Bill makes two main changes. In the first place, it raises the maximum rate of interest which the banks receive from the National Debt Commissioners on deposits in the banks' ordinary departments; secondly, it introduces a new way for the banks to be provided with capital finance. Every bank has an ordinary department. The capital and interest and all deposits in these departments are guaranteed by the Government. Deposits earn 2½ per cent.—this rate is fixed by Statute and unaffected by the present Bill—and since 1954 the first £15 interest has been free of income tax, but not of surtax, so the
1050
return to the standard rate taxpayer is equivalent to 4¼ per cent. gross.
The banks pay all deposits received in the ordinary departments into the Fund kept by the National Debt Commissioners. The National Debt Commissioners invest the Fund's monies in Government guaranteed stock, and from the income pay the banks a rate of interest on the deposits to cover the 2½ per cent. interest which the banks in turn pay depositors, plus the banks' own management expenses. This overall rate of interest which the National Debt Commissioners pay to the banks is at present subject to a statutory limit of £3 2s. 6d. per cent. The banks have received this maximum since November, 1965, and changes which have taken place since then have now made it difficult for many banks to cover their expenses.
Clause 1 of the Bill therefore increases this statutory limit to £3 13s. per cent. The actual rate which the banks receive will continue to be fixed by Order. The exact figure for the new rate, which will be based on the banks' expenses for the financial year ending November, 1967, is not yet known, but is expected to be in the region of £3 10s. per cent. This will mean that there is a margin of something like 3s. per cent. which, on the basis of past experience, should be enough to cover any further increases likely to be needed in the next few years.
The second important provision in the Bill is found in Clause 2. This clause empowers the National Debt Commissioners to make loans of up to £10 million for approved capital purposes. The figure of £10 million is a round figure, based partly on what the banks are known to need for what might be called traditional capital expenditure, that is expenditure on land and buildings and partly on preliminary estimates of the likely needs for mechanisation in the next few years. The loans which will be made from the Fund for the Bank for Savings will earn a market rate of interest and will be repayable. There will therefore be no direct burden of net costs falling on the Exchequer.
The reason for this provision is that the existing methods of supplying the banks with capital are inadequate to meet the demands made by mechanisation. Some trustee savings banks have already installed computers. Others are working

1051
on schemes to be introduced within the next few years. In the long run these schemes will save money, but in the short term they demand a large outlay of capital expenditure which could not be met satisfactorily within the present statutory framework. The new scheme, and indeed all the other proposals in the Bill, have been discussed and drawn up with the full agreement of the banks themselves.
The rest of the provisions are, I think, self-explanatory. Clause 5 simplifies the accounting procedures and provides that the accounts, which are at present prepared and laid before the House at different times in the year, will be presented to the Comptroller and Auditor General before May 31 each year and that he shall then lay them before the House with his report. I trust that the whole House will join with me in welcoming these measures to keep the trustee savings banks in the forefront of the savings field, and I therefore have great pleasure in inviting your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
2.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this is just a small Bill, which amends in only two respects the previous Acts of 1954, 1958 and 1964, and it would not be appropriate to try to use this Bill as an occasion for greatly and more fundamentally amending the whole machinery of our trustee savings banks. But I should just like to take the opportunity of saying this on the Second Reading of the Bill. For 150 years the trustee savings banks have performed a very great voluntary service to this country. The people who have organised them have not been paid anything. They have done their work entirely gratuitously. The banks have helped vast numbers of small investors, who might not otherwise have been able to save anything, to get their money nut into a safe investment; and for that they deserve our gratitude. But I think most of us would agree that the machinery of the trustee savings banks, great public service as it is, is becoming a little out of date, and it would be a good thing if the Government were to undertake a review of the whole functions of these trustee savings banks.
1052
The first thing your Lordships will have noticed about this Bill is that it increases the amount which the National Debt Commissioners may pay to the trustee savings banks from £3 2s. 6d. to £3 13s. per cent. What delightfully small sums of interest in these days! All that the ordinary depositor is allowed to get in interest on his deposits, as distinct from the special investment depositor, is 2½ per cent. on the money which he agrees to save. I should like to make it plain that I am very much in favour of low interest rates, and I always have been. I did not like what I thought were the very high, but which are now, I suppose regarded as rather moderate, rates of interest which prevailed in the last two or three years of the Conservative Government. When the other side won, in the autumn of 1964, I was not generally very pleased, of course, but I thought: "At least there is one consolation—interest rates will now go down", because it was one of the chief planks of the Labour Party programme to have lower interest rates. My Lords, I know that one of my great faults is that I am much too apt to believe what I am told, and I have often suffered from it; but I suppose one ought always to keep on hoping.
Let us see what the position is now. We now have a bank rate of 8 per cent. What does that mean? It means that an ordinary, small farmer or tradesman who is overdrawn has to pay a good deal more interest than that. In Scotland, it is 2 per cent. over bank rate, and I think that in England it is nearly as much. In Scotland, you have to pay 10 per cent. on your overdraft. Let us take a farmer with a small or moderate-sized farm. One year he may have a bit of luck; he may have a very good harvest, and he may find that he is £500 to the good. If he puts it into a trustee savings bank, what interest does he get on that £500? He gets £12 10s. a year, that is all. But suppose his luck goes the other way, and he has to overdraw another £500 from his bank. At the present time, he has to pay £50 a year in overdraft interest. My Lords, I do not think that is really fair. I do not think that is in accordance with social justice. On the one hand, if these small investors have to overdraw they find that their creditor is a Shylock who charges 10 per cent. On the other hand, if they happen to be

1053
lucky and are able to lend money, they find that their debtor is a Scrooge who will pay only 2½ per cent. They get the worst of it both ways.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, can tell me what the National Debt Commissioners do with this money when they get it. They have to pay £3 2s. per cent.—it is now being raised to £3 13s. per cent.—and the depositor gets £2 10s. of that. That is quite reasonable, because you have to allow for all the overhead expenses of the trustee savings banks. But do the National Debt Commissioners re-invest this money at more than £3 13s. per cent.; and, if so, at how much more? Do they use it to buy up Government stock? If so, then surely at present prices they must make a very large profit out of these small investors who are lending their money at 2½ per cent.
My Lords, a hundred years ago it was quite easy to understand the case for this. People were asked to put their money into these savings banks at 2½ per cent. because by law it could be put only into investments which were guaranteed by the Government and there was absolutely no chance of the value of their money going down or of their investment being lost, which might have happened if they had put it into some less gilt-edged kind of undertaking. A great many people in all classes were content to invest at 2½ per cent. knowing that the value of their money was entirely and unquestionably safe.
But what is the position now? For the last twenty or thirty years, every year the value of money has got less, and on three occasions—in 1931, 1949 and 1967 —the whole value of money in this country has been reduced by devaluation. It has gone down and down and down, from 4·80 dollars to the pound, first to 4·00, then to 2·80 and now to 2·40. It is not really fair, just because it is guaranteed by the Government, to expect people to invest a large amount of money in a thing which the Government almost guarantee to devalue. If it goes on at the present rate, in the year 2000 it will be worth only about half what it is now. What is the good of investing money at 2½ per cent.? It is no wonder that our National Savings are not coming along in such large quantities as we should like.
1054
My Lords, in the investment section, it is true that the trustee savings bank s, subject to the very strict conditions, are able to put their depositors' money into some kind of investment which brings in a larger annual return, provided they inform their depositors that this is not guaranteed by the Government. I should have thought that it was rather an advantage nowadays for an investment not to be guaranteed by the Government; but anyhow, the conditions with which they have to comply are very strict. Would it not be possible to assimilate or merge the ordinary deposits with the investment section in these savings banks? I do not think it is in keeping with the times that people should be asked to invest their small savings at such a very meagre rate of interest when the capital is almost certain to be devalued, and when the same organisation might, with great advantage to everybody, organise some plan to make a unit trust, so that the investors could get a rate of interest which would be comparable with what industry is earning and which might be a much better protection against deflation.
I have already paid tribute to the work which has been done by the directors of the trustee savings banks—all for nothing—but in these times, with high taxation and high travelling costs, I do not think we can expect people to give so much of their time and their money, too (because they have to travel about and pay expenses), for no remuneration at all, any more than we can expect Members of Parliament, in the late 20th century, to do the work which many were proud and glad to do for nothing in the 19th century; because our present fiscal system makes it impossible to get the same service. I would therefore suggest that the Government should consider authorising payments to be made to the directors of savings banks.
I would also suggest that trustee savings banks should be given more powers or more facilities to advertise, because theirs is really a great social service. It ought to be well advertised and well known. If people see gambling institutes and football pools advertised, it catches their attention and they may feel it is a good thing to use their money for that purpose. But people ought to be given an equal chance of seeing thrift advertised, with the advantages of it prominently displayed. This,

1055
in my view, is a social service which is costing the country very little, or nothing, and we are making a great deal out of it. I think we ought to be prepared to pay a little to enlarge it, and to make it more efficient and more modern.
My Lords, I do not go into any detail of this because my noble friend Lord Lambert is to follow me. He has been a director of a trustee savings bank for a very long time, and he will be able to put to your Lordships the proposals which I have outlined only very vaguely with far more knowledge, more experience and more authority than I can bring to bear. All I would say is that our social services in this country, so far as they are concerned with relieving want, on the whole have advanced with the times. But this equally important service of encouraging thrift, which is a very high form of social service, has lagged behind very much. I think it is time that it was brought up to date.
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT LAMBERT: My Lords, it is unnecessary for me to declare my interest in savings banks because my noble friend Lord Dundee has done it for me. But I am, and have been for a considerable time, chairman of the Devon and Exeter Savings Bank, and I am a member of the Savings Bank Executive Committee. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the very deserved tribute he has paid to the work of the savings banks over the years. I should also like to congratulate him on explaining so clearly and concisely the purposes of the Bill.
I have been looking into the costs of running savings banks. During the past twenty years, the costs have risen to a most alarming extent. In 1947, the total overhead costs of the savings banks were £1,750,000, of which approximately £1½ million was contributed from the ordinary department, and £270,000 from the special investment department. For the last year for which I have the figures, the year ended November 30, 1966, the overhead costs had risen to no less than £12 million, of which £6,250,000 came from the ordinary department and £5,750,000 from the special investment department. From these figures, it becomes quite plain why there is for the Treasury the necessity to increase the rate
1056
of interest payable on the deposits in the ordinary department by 10s. 6d. per cent. If my calculations are correct and if the maximum is paid, I understand that it will mean an increase to the savings bank of about £5 million a year.
One of the reasons for the large increase in overheads is the fact that the savings banks have expanded so enormously during the past twenty years. In 1947 there were 870 branches; by November 30, 1966, the number had risen to 1,405. This expansion was made possible by a far-sighted scheme thought out and put into effect by the then-chairman of the Association, Sir Kenneth Stewart. Under his scheme the richer banks had to help the poorer banks; and the richer banks during the past twenty years have contributed no less than £4 million to the poorer ones. My own bank, which is a medium-sized bank, with deposits of £35 million, has given no less than £140,000 under this mutual assistance scheme. The result is that all the banks, the smaller banks, and the comparatively well-off banks, are short of capital. This is the reason why I am so delighted that under the Bill £10 million is to be made available for the banks for capital expenditure.
During the last twenty years, also the deposits attracted by the banks have risen to an amazing extent. In 1947, the total deposits were £700 million; in 1966 they were £2,150 million, and I gather that to-day they have gone up by a further £200 million. In other words, there has been a threefold increase in deposits during this period. It is only fair to point out, however, that the biggest increase took place in the special investment department. In that department in 1947, there was only £100 million. By 1966, the total had increased elevenfold, to £1,100 million. During that period the ordinary department increased by only about £400 million. The increase in the special department was due in large measure to the fact that from 1952 onwards the banks were able to pay an increased rate of interest in that department. To-day, some banks are paying as much as 6 per cent., and until recently the Post Office had been able to pay only 2½ per cent. on deposits. But I think it right to point out that the staff of the savings banks are much less impersonal than clerks in the post offices

1057
when people come to deposit their money with them.
One thing that is certain is that to-day, both from the national point of view and from the individual point of view, savings are more than ever necessary. I feel it is now time to take stock to see whether the savings banks, which have grown so enormously, are able adequately to fill their role in the community. I should like to inquire whether they are properly equipped to encourage thrift and whether the voluntary principle—a relic of Victorian times—is outmoded. I personally think that there must be great changes. I would urge the Government to set up a special committee of investigation, on the lines of that set up in 1926 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Winston Churchill, under Lord Bradbury.
My Lords, to make my case it is my unpleasant task to highlight the various weaknesses in the Savings Bank Movement. Whilst it is a movement for which I have every loyalty, I feel it is my duty so to do. There are 77 or 78 separate savings banks. The smallest bank, in Scotland, has 911 depositors and £182,000 in deposits. The largest bank, another Scottish one, has 611,000 depositors and £148 million in deposits. The remarkable thing with both banks is the very large proportion of the population which they serve that has accounts with them. In the smaller bank no less than 40 per cent. of the population have accounts, and in the larger 30 per cent.
I am not competent to judge whether or not the smaller banks should be amalgamated, but I would say this. The small bank enjoys a tremendous good will and loyalty among the people it serves. Each of the banks, my Lords, has a chairman and trustees, or managers (the term is synonymous), all of whom give their services voluntarily. In addition, they have a chief executive or general manager. The trustee savings banks issue a Year Book and in it they give "potted biographies" of the chairmen of the various banks. I have been looking at this Year Book, and I find that no less than 25 per cent. of the chairmen are a little coy about their age; it is not given. Of the remainder, no less than 15 per cent. are over 80 years of age.
1058
It is not for me to say anything about old age. When I was young one used to believe in the Seven Ages of Man. Today I understand that there are only three— "Youth"; "Middle-age", and "My God! You're looking well". I aria afraid that I belong to the latter cute-gory, and I only hope that I am looking well. My view is that chairmen should now be paid, and this view was reinforced by a very senior actuary who told me that he was a little diffident about asking his chairman to undertake too many tasks. I spend about thirty half-days a year in the service of my hank—quite a considerable time. Quite frankly, if chairmen are paid it will not affect me, because I have announced my decision to retire in two years' time, when I am 60.
I also feel that the geographical areas of banks should be looked into. They have grown up in a haphazard kind of way. A large proportion of banks serve an area within in what I might call a ring fence. But there are glaring exceptions. I know only the southern area to which my bank belongs, but the London Trustee Savings Bank seems to have a very unwieldy area. It serves a part of the country which has the highest population density, yet it extends from Bedford, in the North, to Southampton, in the South, and from Andover, in the West, to Southend, in the East. Many banks have branches in the intervening areas. The London Bank area, it would appear to me, is too large and unwieldy, and I am reinforced in my view by the fact that only 7·3 per cent. of the nearly 9 million people in the London Bank's area have accounts with that Bank, corn-pared with 30 per cent. which has accounts with the largest bank in Scotland. Therefore I should have thought, the areas served by the banks should be rationalised.
So far as administration is concerned, the country is divided into five areas. I have an intimate knowledge only of the southern area. The chairmen and actuaries of each of the banks in the southern area meet twice a year, and they are entitled to elect four representatives to the Executive. The Executive meets five times a year, and one would have thought that if there is to be proper consultation between the banks and their area executives, the areas should meet a week or two before the Executive meet;

1059
not twice, but five times a year. The area can select either a chairman or an actuary as a representative on the Executive Committee. If a chairman is selected, he is accompanied by his actuary, and therefore the Executive Committee is too large and unwieldy. If all chairmen are selected, there could be no fewer than 41 members of the committee, which I should have thought was too many for the committee to be efficient. I would much sooner see an Executive consisting of not more than ten or twelve people.
My Lords, the Executive Committee has five standing committees, one on legislation, another on mutual assistance, a clearing centre committee, a Parliamentary committee and even an international committee. But there is no policy committee. The result is that new ideas put forward can originate only from the banks, and it takes a very long time for them to be put into effect. I have had a certain amount to do with the unit trust which the savings banks have set up, and I should like to express my gratitude to Mr. Callaghan, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, for giving permission to the banks to start this new and latest facility. I would point out, however, that while it took the Chancellor four months to make up his mind—and the Treasury is meant to be slow—it took the savings banks four years to make up their minds to ask for a unit trust. The trust was set up, and we wanted it to provide unsophisticated investors with a "hedge" against inflation.
Since it has been set up two extraordinary anomalies have arisen. The savings banks set up a management committee of six members, I think, though only five have so far been appointed. By law they cannot be paid, yet they are responsible for setting up and running the unit trust. They are advised about investments by an investment advisory committee, and there was considerable discussion about whether one could get the most able people in the City—able so far as investment knowledge was concerned—to give their services for nothing. It was decided that you get only what you pay for, and they are paid. But the two representatives of the savings banks on the management committee who attend the investment committee—in fact
1060
one is the chairman—are not paid. To me this seems quite ridiculous.
The other anomaly is that only depositors with £50 in their ordinary accounts may put money into the special investment department. Yet anyone can buy unit trust units, whether or not he is a depositor, or whether or not he has money in the ordinary department. Even agents, such as accountants and solicitors, can sell these units. One wonders, and I am worried about it, whether they will point out—particularly the agents—that the unit trust carries no Government guarantee whatever. If they do not, and the value of the units goes down, the good name of the savings banks will be jeopardised; and savings banks can be successful only if they have the complete confidence of the people they serve.
I am afraid that I have spoken for too long, but I have endeavoured to show that the savings banks, in spite of their success during the past twenty years, should be reorganised. An attempt was made some five or six years ago to introduce a very small reorganisation. It produced little or no result. Therefore I would ask the Government to set up a strong Committee to go into the whole matter and make recommendations. I am sure that if that is done, the savings banks will be able to do as much for the good of the country and the poorest sections of the community during the next 150 years as they have done in the past.
3.31 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, described this Bill as a small Bill. It is; but without question it is one that will bring a tremendous amount of assistance to a great social movement. Unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, who not only looked well but spoke well and convincingly, I cannot claim a direct association with the trustee savings banks. But my memory goes back forty years ago when in my teens I submitted a thesis successfuly on the history and future of the trustee savings bank. During the past weekend I have been trying to root it out, but unsuccessfully, because I wanted to know whether I had won the prize for my prognostications or for my literary ability. But I can say, without any shadow of doubt, that, no matter how optimistic I may have been in that essay, that optimism

1061
has been justified by the degree of progress that has been made over the past forty years.
We have heard so far some criticism, justifiable criticism, of the trustee savings banks, and I believe that a great deal of good will flow out of this debate. I do not want to speak on the various aspects of the Bill, with which my noble friend Lord Beswick has dealt very adequately. I want to concern myself with only one part of the Bill: that dealing with the power of the National Debt Commissioners to make loans for capital purposes. I think that this is the most significant part of the Bill, which offers an opportunity to the trustee savings banks to facilitate expansion and development.
Reference has already been made to their considerable contribution to the encouragement of thrift over the years, but I believe that the need for savings banks is greater to-day than it has been in the past. It began as a social movement, but now it has a significant function in the nation's economics in encouraging small savings, along with the National Savings movement, the building societies and cooperative savings. Never was there a time when there was greater necessity for encouraging personal savings than now. In the present economic climate there is no doubt that personal consumption is too high and savings are too low, and that has been a long-term tendency. Of the 14 leading countries in the world, in 1966 Britain had the lowest savings ratio to national income, of 18·1 per cent., while 7 of the 14 nations had savings ratios of 25 to 33 per cent. The same applies to individual householders, where again the United Kingdom had the lowest savings ratio of 5·1 per cent. It is perfectly obvious that this is reflected in the low level of national investment, which represents nearly 14 per cent. of our national income compared with an average of 20 per cent. elsewhere. I mention these figures to justify my plea for greater activity on the part of the trustee savings banks, and I join with other noble Lords who have asked for much more to be done to encourage greater personal savings.
Basically this is a voluntary movement, and long may it remain so, but along with the noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, I believe that the trustee savings banks
1062
should themselves move towards a great rationalisation of their organisation. We cannot destroy local associations, but in these days of computers and sophisticated techniques there are greater opportunities, and I believe that the possibility of securing assistance in the form of loans should give a great impetus towards development along these lines. The trustee savings banks, individually and collectively, will be making a great mistake if they do not take full advantage of the opportunity that is presented to them.
The trustee savings banks were first regulated by Act of Parliament in 1870 and then, according to their records, there were 78 banks. There are still 78 banks in existence. Over the years the character of the banks and the area they have covered have changed, but the number remains the same. The noble Viscount made powerful reference to the great variation in size of the banks and mentioned the two largest. His figures were most interesting. He indicated the variation in the rate of development—the London area, with a low development, and Glasgow, with a much higher one. But I should like to mention that there are other cities with a very high development. In my own city of Hull, 48 per cent. of the population have accounts with their trustee savings banks, with an average balance per head of population of £79, which is higher than that of any other English town.
I feel that I cannot refer to the town in which I live, because it adds weight to my argument, without making reference to the appalling tragedy that has afflicted that city. I am sure that the House and, indeed, the nation will feel the deepest sympathy towards those who are bereaved. For generations trawler-men have lived with danger and their families with unending anxiety. Hull to-day is a stricken city. In paying tribute to the courage of these men and in expressing sympathy. I would say that this is not enough. There is a need to do something to reduce the risk of this toll in human life.
Perhaps I should go on to say that the figures of savings which I have quoted reflect the fact that the people of Hull have for so long lived so close to adversity. The character of the people is reflected in their voluntary organisations

1063
—in the trustee savings banks, in particular. And I believe that every voluntary organisation reflects the character of the people it serves. In the trustee savings banks we have a social movement which has done an enormous amount of good. When one examines—and I invite your Lordships to do so—the degree of development in large areas of the country, it adds enormous weight to the arguments which have been advanced by noble Lords opposite, and which indicate the necessity for some degree of rationalisation and co-ordination.
The noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, made reference to the new unit trust, and I think that is the most significant step forward the trustee savings banks have made in 150 years. I was pleased to be associated with him in making these approaches to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. But I think one should note, as the noble Lord hinted, that the drive and initiative within the trustee savings banks movement comes from individuals and individual banks, and not from the collective associations. That is a great pity. I believe, quite frankly, that out of this debate and the discussions that have taken place in both Houses of Parliament the trustee savings banks can find some inspiration, and re-order their house in such a manner as to make them more effective in the next 150 years than they have been in the first 150 years.
Reference was made to the Report of the Bradbury Committee, which I believe reported about forty years ago this month. A copy of the Report came into my hands recently, and I should like to quote part of one paragraph in which it makes reference to the trustee savings banks. It says:
"The financial basis of the trustee savings banks is so sound, and they are so firmly established and have in the course of their long history come to inspire such great confidence and indeed affection in the minds of many depositors, that we think it desirable that their activities should be more widely extended, their facilities better advertised and their popularity made even greater than at present."
That was written in a Report forty years ago, and it is just as applicable to-day. I hope that out of all the attention that has been devoted to the trustee savings banks, and indeed the justifiable compliments that have been paid to them, they
1064
will find inspiration to allow them to make an even greater contribution to social welfare.
3.43 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for having introduced this Bill this afternoon. I should like at the outset to declare my interest, as I, too, am a trustee of a trustee savings bank, although, as has been pointed out before, this is not a position of financial reward. This is a welcome Bill, as it arises largely out of the wishes of the savings bank movement. It really arises out of a desire for a change in some of the practices, and notably one.
The system of apportioning the expenses of running trustee savings banks as between the ordinary department, on the one hand, and the special investment department, on the other, has been based on the balance due to the depositors. This has been manifestly irrational, as the expenses of a bank are in relation, not to the size of its funds, but to the transactions which are carried out by it; and it stands to reason that the ordinary department, which is akin to a current account, has many more transactions than the special investment department, which consists of money that people put on deposit, and which, in effect, they do not wish to touch for a period of time. Hence, in the past it has not been possible for the special investment department to accumulate reserves as fast as it should, or, alternatively, to pay as high an interest as it could, because it has been subsidising the management expenses of the ordinary department. This Bill alters this, and the change is welcomed by the savings banks.
But although the Bill raises the interest which the Treasury may pay to the savings banks on funds deposited with them from £3 2s. 6d., as it is at the moment, to £3 13s., two points arise. First, it is highly unlikely that the Treasury will pay to the trustee savings banks, at least at present, the full £3 13s. allowed under the Bill. I assume that a lesser figure will be the starting point, and that later it will be increased by Statutory Instrument. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, when he comes to reply, will be able to say what sum is intended to be paid to the trustee savings banks, and on what date this new payment will be operated.

1065
Secondly, although the Treasury pay to the savings banks £3 2s. 6d., or the new increased amount, the banks may still by Statute pay to their depositors only 2½ per cent., the difference being taken up by the management expenses of the banks. My noble friend Lord Dundee referred to this, and I am bound to say that I feel very much in agreement with him, because I believe that the time is corning when the Government will have to raise above the present limit of 2½ per cent. the interest which the trustee savings banks can pay to depositors.
It is, I always feel, one of the anomalies of our times that the trustee savings banks, which one might feel arose from and belonged to, an earlier more frugal and less affluent era, in fact play an increasing part in our national life, and secure bigger deposits each year. To give a measure of this—and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Lambert gave some extremely interesting figures—my own bank, the East Anglia Trustee Savings Bank, has doubled the balance due to depositors, from £39 million in 1961 to £82 million in 1967. This was over a period of six years. Yet the interest paid to depositors on the ordinary department is restricted to a paltry 2½ per cent.
In what I am about to say I am expressing my own views; they are not intended to represent the views either of the bank or of my colleagues in the bank. But I think the noble Lord will find that the figure of 2½ per cent. was fixed in 1888, or possibly even before that, and it has remained as such ever since. I do not think I could be accused of being an extremist if I said that at least there is an argument that this rate should be increased. I know it can be argued, and with some force, that the money deposited in savings banks is guaranteed by the Government, and that savings banks have continued to pay out the sum of 2½ per cent. even when bank rate was below 2½ per cent. Indeed, in support of that, one can recall the fact that between 1932 and 1951—as recently as that—bank rate did not rise above 2 per cent. except for a period of two months. But times have changed; we are now living in an era of high interest, and even the most optimistic would not anticipate an early return to a 2 per cent. bank rate era.
1066
Trustee savings banks have to live and operate in a commercial world, and they have to compete for depositors in a commercial market. If the success which they have had in the past is to be sustained, and if savings are to be encouraged—as, indeed, they are, and as, indeed, the Government always say they are—then consideration must be given to allowing trustee savings banks to offer a more realistic rate on deposits in the ordinary department. I could imagine that such a suggestion would not find ready acceptance with the Treasury, who are not noted for their readiness to display the characteristics of Lady Bountiful, but I am bound to say I believe they will have to face this fact.
In support of this, I would merely underline the fact, as I have said, that the trustee savings banks have to live in a commercial world. Here in this in Clause 2, we have the Government setting aside £10 million for the trustee savings banks to use in a capital way for the purchase of land and buildings, equipment and computers. The money can be borrowed from the Treasury, but et a commercial rate of 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. It seems hardly logical for the Treasury, on the one hand, to pay £3 13s. 0d. per cent. on money it obtains from the banks and yet, on the other, to require interest of 7 or 8 per cent. on money which the banks obtain from the Treasury.
I believe that this Bill, with this one reservation of the rate of interest chargeable on the capital sum of £10 million, is a welcome Bill. But I beg the Government not to feel that, once this Bill is on the Statute Book, the savings banks problems has been dealt with for another ten years. My noble friend Lord Lambert called for an inquiry into the whole of the savings bank movement, and produced some very sound arguments for it. I believe he was right. I would support him in it, for we all want to see the trustee savings bank movement organised in the future in such a way as to enable it to serve the public in the best possible manner and to encourage savings.
3.53 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I hope that, after the wide-ranging discussion We have had this afternoon, I may say just a few words. First, I should like to

1067
express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the manner in which the Bill was presented to your Lordships; and secondly, so far as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is concerned, I would acknowledge his appreciation of and the credit he gave to the trustee savings banks. I wondered how many times he used the words "2½ per cent." in his speech. He seemed to be obsessed with that figure. I suppose it is because it goes back to Victorian times. But it ought to be mentioned that the first £15 is now free of income tax, and that is itself some considerable benefit, and, secondly, the moneys can be moved by a depositor from the ordinary department to the special investment department and will carry more that 2½ per cent. So far as the noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, is concerned, all I can say is that I have heard some of those arguments before, and probably shall hear them again, because there is another platform upon which I am sure the noble Viscount's views will get an opportunity of being voiced at the appropriate time. So I do not think it would be a bad thing if for a few moments we got back to the Bill and what it hopes to achieve.
The Bill sets out to achieve two major objects: first, to place the special investment department of the trustee savings bank and the investment department of the Post Office Savings Bank on the same footing. That is the first object. The second is to introduce a new source of capital moneys required by the trustee savings banks for the provision of bank office accommodation and of office equipment or machinery—in particular, computer installations. Dealing with the first of these major objects, it should be explained that up to the present time the special investment department of the trustee savings bank—I am speaking broadly, of course—has subsidised the ordinary department. That situation has arisen from the fact that the management expenses of the banks are apportioned between the ordinary and the special investment departments on the basis of the deposits held by the two departments, which is, broadly speaking, on a one-for-one ratio. This means that the S.I.D., with one-twentieth of the transactions of the O.D.—that is, one-twentieth of the work
1068
involved—is meeting about one-half of the total management expenses. In the case of the Post Office Savings Bank, however, the investment department is costed separately and does not, to any appreciable extent, subsidise the ordinary savings account section. The immediate result of this difference in procedure is that the Post Office Savings Bank is better able to pay a higher rate of interest to depositors on investment accounts.
It is accepted that it was never the intention of the Government that the Post Office Savings Bank should be in a more favourable position than the Trustee Savings Bank with regard to their respective investment departments, and therefore the National Debt Commissioners are desirous of being in a position to authorise the trustee savings banks to apportion management expenses between the two departments on a more equitable basis—that is, the work involved in administering the two departments rather than in accordance with the ratio of deposits—and this necessary change is provided for in Clause 6.
Before the Commissioners can authorise any new apportionment to the benefit of the special investment department, it will be necessary for the ordinary department to be in a position to meet an increased proportion of the banks' management expenses. Hence, Clause 1 of the Bill provides for an increase in the maximum rate of interest payable to the banks of 10s. 6d.; that is to say, the maximum rate of interest is to be raised from £3 2s. 6d. per cent. to £3 13s. 0d. per cent. When the maximum becomes law, the Commissioners will be able to increase the rate of interest paid to the banks—now, of course £3 2s. 6d. per cent.—to, say, £3 10s. 0d. per cent. This in turn will enable the banks to switch management expenses at present borne by the special investment department to the ordinary department to the extent of about 5s. or 6s. per cent., thus placing the trustee savings banks in a better position to match the rate of interest paid on special investment deposits with that paid by the Post Office Savings Bank on its I.D. deposits. Some part of the increased rate of interest to be paid on O.D. moneys invested with the Commissioners will serve to cover the rising costs of the trustee savings banks and assist them to meet some of their capital expenditure.

1069
Another factor relating to the attainment of the desired parity with the Post Office Savings Bank investment department is the provision of identical powers of investment in respect of special investment department deposits. This will be achieved by Clause 3 of the Bill, which affords the trustee savings banks the same powers of investment as those enjoyed by the Post Office Savings Bank.
The second main object, the provision of a new source of capital moneys, will be achieved by Clause 2 of the Bill, which will enable the Commissioners to make loans from the Fund for the Bank for Savings to meet capital expenditure in respect of land, buildings and office equipment or machinery. This provision is of particular importance, as the trustees savings banks are faced with a continuing necessity to improve and enlarge, and at times to rehouse, existing offices, and also to open new offices in localities not previously served by the Trustee Savings Bank.
At the same time the trustee savings banks are on the threshold of the computer age, and within the next few years it is expected that many savings bank offices will operate computer systems for the recording of depositors' accounts. This will necessitate capital outlay for the provision of computers on a regional basis to serve fairly substantial numbers of offices, and without the capital assistance envisaged in this clause the introduction of computers would possibly be delayed for several years.
I have only one or two minor things to mention in addition. Clauses 4 and 5 are in the nature of "tidying-up" clauses which will facilitate transactions between the Commissioners and the trustee savings banks and provide for the revision of the arrangements necessary for the submission of accounts by the Commissioners. Clause 7 extends the transferability of pensionable savings banks service to include service with the Savings Banks Institute as well as with the trustee savings banks, the Trustee Savings Banks Association and the Trustee Savings Banks Inspection Committee. It is expected, too, that with the introduction of decimal currency the one penny which is in the rules at present as the charge for supplying a copy of the annual accounts will no longer be valid, and therefore the penny charge is being
1070
wiped out. I think most people are not aware of the penny charge for the accounts, incidentally, and they are in any case supplied free. Finally, Clause 9 of the Bill provides for the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in charges to that Fund which may be attributable to the Bill as a result of the introduction of the foregoing changes. In another place it was not anticipated that there would be any charge on the Consolidated Fund.
My Lords, this Bill received a cordial welcome in another place, both in the. House on Second Reading and at the: Committee stage. At the Committee stage I believe there were just two Amendments, widening the scope of a clause to cover machinery as well as office furniture. The Report stage and Third Reading passed without comment, but there was general approval on all sides of the House of the provisions of the Bill I commend it to your Lordships, despite the pessimistic note which has beer sounded by one or two of your Lordships. I am convinced that this Bill, humble in its way, will be another stet forward in the march of progress of the trustee savings banks.
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, wish to detain the House for only one minute in order to make two points. The first is that I think we ought to do nothing to undermine confidence in our in moneys If one looks at what is going on to-day or the Stock Exchange, at Sotheby's or Christie's, it can be seen that the British people are beginning to prefer things to money. This is very serious, and therefore I hope we shall have real regard to those, who represent £2,000 million, who have confidence in our money. I do not like to see an institution which has Government backing in other respects building into it something like a unit trust in ordinary shares. If people are-advised to get out of Government securities and to buy ordinary shares they are being advised to lose confidence in the pound. It is essential that we should do nothing of that kind to-day, because if we cannot restore confidence in our money we shall have very little chance of restoring confidence in our economy.
My second point is that I do not like the idea of eating into a voluntary system. Of course there are many more

1071
people to-day who have time to spare, and it would be a good thing if voluntary service could be extended even more than it has been in the past. But the idea that out of the rates and taxes we should now pay people who in the past have served us so well because they believed in their neighbourhood and in the community, is to me most distressing. I hope that great care will be taken before the voluntary principle in any respect, and certainly in respect of this great movement which has gone on for 150 years, is sacrificed for the sake of paying professionals.
VISCOUNT LAMBERT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount how the payment of chairmen would be a cost on the rates and taxes?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I understand that the Government are putting up money, in the sum of £10 million, for the building of the savings banks. If the savings banks' current expenses increase, it means that they will not have the money to pay for the buildings themselves.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to say just one thing. Surely this is a matter which concerns the movement as a whole, and it will have to make up its mind and then go to the Government. It is surely not a thing which can be decided off hand. The voluntary principle has built up a great movement, and like the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I think it would be a tragedy if that voluntary spirit were to be shattered on the altar of payment.
4.9 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to express gratitude for the general welcome which has been afforded to this Bill. I am particularly grateful for the tributes paid to the voluntary workers by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, my noble friend Lord Peddle and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I trust that the noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will feel that a measure of those tributes was directed to them, because they have indeed served this movement well. I was particularly interested to hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, had to say because, before I came into the Chamber, I had been reading the report of the annual
1072
general meeting of the Devon and Exeter Savings Bank, and I was greatly impressed by the successful year's work which was reported to that meeting; and, if I may say so, I was also impressed by the two very constructive speeches made on that occasion.
I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that he was somewhat unduly perturbed about the use to which Government money was to be put in this connection. It is not proposed that the £10 million should be used for the payment of chairmen, unless they come under the general category of "mechanisation", and I do not think this would be the case. The noble Earl asked me whether I could tell him what the National Debt Commissioners did with the money from the ordinary savings department entrusted to them. I confirm to him what I suspect he already knows: that the National Debt Commissioners in turn invest this money in Government securities. The special investment department deposits, of course, are invested by the banks in a wider range of securities. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, asked about the new rate of interest. As I think I said in opening, it is expected that the rate will be around £3 10s. per cent. and it will become payable (and I did not say this in opening) from May 21.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, went on to tell us of his objection to the present high rate of interest, and I must say that I share with him, although I am surprised to find I do, his objection to usury. I, too, should like to look forward to the days when we can think again in terms of 2½ per cent. bank rate, or even, as the noble Viscount said, as once was the case, 2 per cent. bank rate.
The noble Earl went on to suggest that possibly the right thing here was to merge the ordinary branch with the special investment department. I think that possibly he has not quite understood that there are really two different functions here. It is not simply that two different rates of interest are paid. I quite agree that the ordinary branch, in paying 2½ per cent. interest, is paying a rate which is low, and it is a fact that it is the rate which was originally fixed in 1888. It is fair to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said, that the tax exemption, up to the first £15 of interest,

1073
does make a difference to the standard-rate taxpayer. Nevertheless, it is a low rate of interest at the present time. But research has suggested that deposits with the ordinary branch are not affected unduly by changes of other rates, either up or down. At one time, 2½ per cent. was considered generous. It is now very low, but the deposits in the ordinary branch remain roughly the same.
I emphasise the fact that there are really two different functions served by these two different departments. The depositors in the ordinary department are mainly concerned with the ready encashment facilities, ready access and convenient opening hours; and to a large extent many of them use the ordinary department as a current account.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? He says that interest rate paid remains the same. But as our economy grows, ought it not to be very much increasing? If the National Debt Commissioners are using this money to buy Government stocks, surely they are getting a return of 5 per cent. or 5½ per cent. on that. If that is so, could they not afford to pay a little more than 2½ per cent. to ordinary depositors?
LORD BESWICK: This is a point of view, but again I stress that the facilities which are available at the ordinary branch are an attraction, and possibly as great an attraction to the depositors there as higher interest rate. Certainly if the rate was increased it would be necessary to look at this tax exemption limit, and unless one put it up very high the advantage would be lost. I think that, on reflection, the noble Earl might agree that there is an advantage in having a known and unfluctuating rate over the years.
He also suggested, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that there should be a general review of the work of the
1074
trustee savings banks. I was greatly interested in the points that were put very cogently by the noble Viscount, and it may well be that there is substance in them. I understand that he put them forward as his own personal point of view, and this leaves me in some little difficulty in replying to him. As he will appreciate, if the Government were to discuss matters of this kind the proposals should themselves come from the Trustee Savings Banks Association. They are jealous of their independence, and I believe they are somewhat sensitive to any hint of further Government control. I should not like them to think that we were in any way short-circuiting any correspondence that we have with them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, pointed out that the areas for which the banks are responsible are now in some respects unwieldy or anomalous. There are anomalies and they have arisen from historical factors, but I think that the development of computerisation, and co-operation in the use of computers, may have some effect in the future in rationalising the boundaries within which the separate independent banks operate. As for the rest, I would simply say that if there is an initiative from the Trustee Savings Banks Association, if they express a desire to consult with the Government, then I can assure him there will be no reluctance on the part of the Government to discuss constructively with them the kind of points which the noble Viscount and others have raised. With that, I trust that this Bill will be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ERSKINE BRIDGE TOLLS BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL
4.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I rather thought the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was going to raise the question of admissibility of Amendments. This would now be the moment, following the precedent of the last occasion.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I understand it would be a convenient moment for me to raise the question that has, if I may say so, with great courtesy and very properly, been brought to my notice by the Officers of the House, which is the admissibility according to the present Rules of the House of the Amendments down in my name on the Order Paper. The Amendments are suggested to be out of order, I understand on the ground of relevance. I believe the procedure of this House to be not a very rigid one, nevertheless to be one which is enforced in relation to certain matters, with very proper regard to considerations of relevance. It would be quite wrong if I were to seek to impose on the House a debate on any matter which it regarded as being irrelevant to the clause or the Bill, and I would not seek to do it. In a self disciplining body it is particularly important that no Member of the House—I am very conscious of this in relation to myself—should indulge himself by seeking to hold a debate on a matter which is not regarded as appropriate for debate.
That, however, does not detract from my present feeling that this Amendment is relevant. It is not a matter on which I am being egotistical enough to rely on my own judgment. I have sought advice from distinguished Parliamentarians, all of whom take the view—I have not heard a dissenting voice from the advisers I have sought outside this Chamber—that these particular Amendments are not irrelevant. The matter seems to me to be comprised within a very short argument indeed. The Bill provides for an
1076
increase in the total number of Her Majesty's judges, and my Amendment provides for increasing the pool from which that total number is to be drawn. It is as simple as that. It appears to me to be almost unarguably relevant in relation to the Bill.
With the greatest respect to those who take the contrary view, I am tempted to think that possibly what may have induced their viewpoint is the fact that undoubtedly this Amendment, although relevant, will introduce material, important considerations that may well not have been in the minds of the persons introducing the Bill when they brought it in. That is a quite different consideration. An Amendment may nevertheless be relevant, though its effect is quite far-reaching. The effect of it may or may not be considered to be far-reaching, but that is not a point which touches on the relevance. The question of relevance is whether it is cognate to the matter we are discussing; namely, how many judges we are to have at any given moment of time. Where they are to come from, I venture to submit to the House, is cognate.
What to do about it? If I may add a word, certainly it would not be appropriate for me to press this matter to a Division; but I should like to sense the feeling of the House on the matter. If the House feels that these Amendments are not relevant, then I shall immediately withdraw them and seek to find some other opportunity of raising a matter which I regard as of considerable public importance. I should like to hear the views of other Members of the House, if they are so minded, on this matter, because it is strongly my view, and the view of those whose advice I have sought, that these are relevant Amendments and are properly introduced for discussion on the Committee stage.
4.23 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has put this problem fairly and squarely in front of your Lordships, and it is, of course, for your Lordships' House to decide. As he himself indicated, we discipline ourselves. He has taken advice; I have taken advice. The Leader of your Lordships' House is always in a slightly equivocal position on these occasions. I can only advise the House. I have none of the

1077
authority that the Speaker in another place has in these matters, where his decisions are virtually unchallengeable. Therefore, it may be of help to your Lordships if I express the views to which I have myself come, on the basis of the advice I have received; and I will attempt to meet the noble Lord's points on the question of whether "relevance" in this sense means that it is cognate to the subject generally.
It might be worth while reminding your Lordships of the principle by reading an extract from a Minute of January, 1931, by Counsel to the Chairman of Committees. If my memory is right, the then noble Earl, Lord Home, also referred to this on the last occasion when there was a discussion of this kind, on the Peerage Bill in 1957.
This is what is fundamental to our consideration:
"There are no Standing Orders regulating the admissibility of Amendments in the House of Lords. The House is master of its own procedure and, unlike the House of Commons, is not subject to ruling on points of order. The test usually applied in practice to the admissibility of an Amendment is whether or not it is relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. But the decision upon this House, and the action taken on that decision, can only be made by the House itself".
It is, of course, perfectly relevant for your Lordships to take into account the advice that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has himself given your Lordships on this matter.
If I may now refer to Erskine May, page 500 of the 17th Edition states:
"Amendments must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and of the clause to which they are proposed; and they must not be inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee on the same question. The admissibility of an Amendment, however, can only be decided by the House … there being no authority which can in advance rule an Amendment out of order. The Officers of the House would draw attention to an Amendment which appears to contravene the accepted principles of admissibility and the matter would be discussed in the Committee".
Procedure seems to have developed a little, because on the occasion in 1957 the then Leader of the House raised the matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, did, before the House actually went into Committee.
I have looked most carefully at the Amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the noble
1078
Lord, Lord Ilford. Of course I express no opinion on the merits of what they seek to do, beyond appreciating that this is a subject of importance and one which has been raised on other occasions. But on the application of previous procedure and rulings to relevance, I would say that these particular Amendments are outside the scope of the Bill, and are therefore irrelevant, because, I take it, the Bill is designed solely and exclusively to making provision with respect to the maximum number of judges. Where the judges come from is, I agree, an important subject. But the noble Lord who is responsible for presenting this Bill to your Lordships' House has not seen fit to include this subject for consideration with the Bill. It would of course have been possible for a Bill to be introduced in a form which made the Amendments which the noble Lord would like to see made to the 1959 County Courts Act. It is to this point that the noble Lord directs our attention.
An admissible Amendment would be one which sought to vary the maximum number of judges; but the eligibility of judges, I would submit, and am so advised, is altogether another matter. This could be the subject of a separate Bill, which the noble Lord might himself wish to introduce. It could also be the subject of a Motion for Papers. But, as I said, it is not relevant to the Bill as it is before us now, because it is outside the scope of the Bill as it is before us.
In this matter I think we are bound to pay careful attention to the advice which the officials of the House give us. Although we all find it difficult to refer to officials, this is a matter in which I think it is appropriate to say that they are unanimious in the advice they have given to us. Neither I nor your Lordships' House is concerned with whether what the noble Lord wishes to do is reasonable or right, or whether this is just an opportunity: it is entirely a question as to whether by discussing the Amendments we should be breaching our own custom in this matter. We are bound by custom, and I am sure your Lordships generally would feel that all of us have a responsibility in this matter.
Therefore, with the greatest feeling of sympathy, I hope that your Lordships will agree with the advice I have given, bearing in mind that, as I repeat, I am not a Speaker; and I carry no more

1079
authority than any other Member of your Lordships' House.
4.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I have listened most carefully to what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said. I cannot claim, as he can and as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, can, to have received any advice on this question. None the less, if I may express my own opinion, if one applies the test of whether these Amendments are or are not within the scope of the Bill I would say without any hesitation that, whether or not what is proposed is desirable, they are clearly not within the scope of this Bill, which has the object merely of increasing the number of judges. The Amendments introduce something which is right outside the scope of this House in this matter to consider, though it is something which one of these days the House might well consider; namely, what will make persons eligible for appointment to the Judiciary.
We in this House use the word "relevance" which perhaps is not so precise as the word "scope" which is more usually referred to in another place, but I believe that the same test applies. In the sense in which the word is used in this connection, it cannot be said to be relevant to this Bill, which deals merely with the increase of numbers, to consider the qualifications for the Judiciary. Therefore, while I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, put his argument very persuasively, I would say without any doubt that these Amendments to which reference has been made are not relevant.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, as a newcomer to this House, I am reluctant to enter into a discussion of the practice and customs of your Lordships' House; but as an old Parliamentarian I could not let this occasion pass without challenging the statements which were made by the Leader of the House. He first asserted, as I think is quite correct, that this House is the judge of its own procedure. He then proceeded to introduce as evidence the opinions of the officials of the House. He cannot have it both ways. The House is master of its own procedure free and unfettered to take those opinions on the basis of the issues before it. Of course, all of us can and do take the advice of many people, parti-
1080
cularly when we are in doubt, but all of us must take the responsibility for what we say and for decisions we advise others to take in this Chamber. The noble Lord the Leader of the House went on to say that we were bound by custom. Again, he cannot have it both ways. Either we are bound to examine issues which come before us and play it as the issues present themselves, or we are bound by the decisions of those who went before us.
I should have thought that this was a marginal case, and that if the Amendments in the name of the two noble Lords stood on their own, applying the test of a place from which I recently came, they would unquestionably be out of order. But as in this case your Lordships seek to amend the Long Title, then I should have thought that marginally if your Lordships took a decision on whether the Amendments to the Long Title should be accepted, it is just possible that the discussions which clearly your Lordships would wish to have could in fact take place. I would not wish to pontificate upon this issue, but I should be failing in what I conceive to be my duty to your Lordships' House if I did not stand four-square behind the practice that your Lordships must be, and always be, masters of your own procedure, free and unfettered from advice from any other quarter, except that which noble Lords in their individual capacity may wish to take.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should not intervene but for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I do not think that there was any such contradiction as he supposed in the speech delivered by the Leader of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is perfectly right that this is a matter which, if necessary, could be determined by the vote of this House. But that was precisely what the Leader of the House said. With great respect, I thought that the Leader of the House made a model speech as Leader of the House in calling attention to where the power lay, but nevertheless telling us what he thought the precedents were. I go further, however, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will not quarrel with what I say. If the long custom of this House has been that described by the Leader of the House—and in that he has

1081
been supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne—then the probability is that it has been a very useful practice and custom, and we are wise to pay some attention to that custom precisely because we have not the very strict rules that exist in another place.
I speak with some 12 or 13 years' experience in this House, and when the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, first raised this question on Second Reading, I had no doubt whatever that, if he put down such an Amendment it would, under our existing practice and on the precedents, be considered irrelevant. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that, if the word "relevant" were used in more common parlance, one might have come to a different conclusion, but using the word "relevance" as we use it in this House in considering the nature of an Amendment, I have little doubt that these Amendments are irrelevant. I felt this so strongly that I actually misheard the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his Second Reading speech, and in my own speech congratulated him on not proposing to put down an Amendment on the ground that I thought it would be irrelevant; but I fond that in that matter I misheard him. I am bound to say that, if he wished to raise this sort of matter, the noble Lord was absolutely right in using the opportunity of the Second Reading, and that he would be acting in fact against the common practice of this House, which I think has proved useful to us all, if he did not accept the view taken by the Leader of the House on this occasion.
One other matter arises and what I say may appear to contradict something said by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, but I do not think he will disagree with me. We are all most grateful to the Officers of the House for drawing our attention to these matters whenever they arise; we are very dependent on them; their advice to us on these occasions is very useful. I very much hope that the advice of the Leader of the House will be accepted, and that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will not see fit to challenge it on this occasion.
4.38 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to say a few words, because if this Amendment had been capable of being
1082
discussed I should have spoken very strongly in favour of it. But that is not the issue at the moment. The question is whether this kind of Amendment is relevant to the Bill. I am bound to say that I have come to the conclusion that it is not. It is quite true that we can make our own Standing Orders as we go along, and that it is for this House to decide. But, after all, we have to run this House with some kind of sense of order. Whether these Standing Orders are written or not, we have to have in our own minds the fact that there are certain limits to discussions which we have to impose. I cannot conceive that the Bill, designed merely to increase the number of judges is one in which one can raise a very big question of principle; namely, whether solicitors or barristers, or both, should be qualified to become judges. That is surely quite a different matter from what is set out in this Bill.
If the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will take my advice—which I am sure he will not—I suggest that we get together and raise this question, which is a very important question, in a more formal and orderly way. It is one which this House ought to be in a position to deal with, but to deal with it at the beginning in the atmosphere of a House which is divided as to whether or not the Amendment is relevant—even if the House decided by a majority of five that it was relevant—would not be quite the right basis from which we could then proceed to discuss the merits of the Amendment.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, having ventilated this question effectively, as he did on Second Reading, will let it rest at that and will not divide the House. I shall then be very happy to get together with him and confer as to what is the most effective way of carrying this matter a stage further.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have felt, like certain noble Lords, a certain schizophrenia in considering this issue. As to substance, I must confess to considerable sympathy for the points made by the noble Lords in their Amendments. As a layman, one who only par; the lawyers' fees, I have always felt the caste divisions between the two branches of this illustrious and expensive profession to be rather artificial.

1083
Nevertheless, as to procedure, I must say that I was personally very much impressed by the views expressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and the Amendments—certainly, at least, to me—seem to fall beyond the scope of the Bill. I should like to add my voice to those of other noble Lords who have spoken, in urging the noble Lords who have put down these two Amendments to pursue them if they wish, but I hope that they will pursue this issue by way of a separate Motion or Bill.
This may be a marginal issue—I would grant that. But if that is so, and since we have no Rules of Procedure, I hope your Lordships will feel that you should be particularly careful and scrupulous when you navigate in these procedural waters. If we are to err, let us err rather on the side of austerity. Let us follow precedent in so far as we can. I should have thought it was also useful for us to listen to the advice of the Officers of your Lordships' House. This is, of course, a matter for your Lordships to decide upon. The noble Lord the Leader of the House has said that he has not advised your Lordships, but at least he has intimated the direction in which his advice might fall if he were to do so. It is certainly not for me to advise your Lordships but, in so far as I am doing so, my advice would chime with the intimation which your Lordships have received from the Leader of the House.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments, more especially as I am not an expert on the procedure of this House. I would just say that we on these Benches have listened with the greatest attention to the argument developed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I think to some extent supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, regarding the relevance of his Amendment and the desirability of its being discussed in Committee. I must say that we on these Benches, at any rate, find ourselves completely convinced by the arguments deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and others, to the effect that these Amendments are not relevant in the normally accepted sense of the term and are certainly not, as we see it, within the scope of the Bill—a very good phrase introduced by the noble and
1084
learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. It is very difficult to maintain that they are within the scope of this very simple Bill which, after all, provides for an immediate and urgent necessity upon which I think everyone is agreed in principle, and which could therefore go through with very little discussion.
But apart from anything else, if we were to allow this Amendment, which may be a very good one (and we on these Benches reserve ourselves entirely as to the nature of the Amendment) to be introduced and discussed, it would without doubt be to some extent contentious. I doubt whether all the members of the legal profession would be in favour of this Amendment, and that might in itself hold up the passing of this very necessary little Bill. Therefore, apart from anything else, I regard that as a strong argument in favour of asking the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to be so good as to withdraw his Amendment.
One reason for confusion may be—I do not know enough about it to say with certainty—that the back of this Bill is labelled "Administration of Justice", and then the Long Title is given. But on the front it is referred to as the "Administration of Justice Bill", which is followed by an Explanatory Memorandum. It is surely not an Administration of Justice Bill; it is a Bill simply to increase the number of judges. Why, therefore, should it not be called "Increase in the Number of Judges Bill"? I put that down only as a way by which we might get round the difficulty of procedure; and it might even be considered in Committee. I do not know whether or not that would be possible, but it seems to me that there is a certain amount of confusion. Anyhow, so far as we are concerned, we would ask the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to be so good as to consider withdrawing his Amendment.
4.47 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, the House will forgive me for an abortive use of its time, if it has the feeling that the discussion we have had has not been without value in quite a number of directions. I made it clear when I spoke initially that I had no intention of forcing this matter to a Division. I hope your Lordships will indulge me if I say just a word or two as to my reasons. First

1085
and foremost, I think it would be wrong to seek to force my opinion against the weight of opinions which have been expressed in the House on this subject, and the view I may hold or continue to hold in that regard is irrelevant. Secondly, I entirely agree with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we should be discussing the Amendment in the wrong atmosphere, because what we have been discussing is not the merits or demerits of these Amendments but solely the question of relevance. It would be wrong to seek to introduce a discussion that was vitiated by considerations of the relevance of the whole matter, so on that score, also, I think it would be wrong to press the matter to a Division.
I should like to say that much use has been made by the noble Lords who have spoken of the specialised interpretation of the word "relevance" in this House. But the one thing that has not emerged is any illustration of its specialised use in this House. It would be of great use in the future if we could find somewhere some guidance on this subject, because it appears that House of Lords "relevance" is rather like Alice in Wonderland, where the words employed have a usage and an interpretation that are different from the ordinary sense. There has been no indication, either in the discussion or in any precedents, of how that word is to be interpreted. I think that for newcomers to the House it would certainly be of value to know how House of Lords "relevance" differs from ordinary "relevance".
Having made that observation, I should like to conclude by saying that nobody would be so foolhardy or so foolish as to reject an offer of such terrifying strength of alliance as came from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin; and that I welcome indeed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps, with leave, I may just say that I am sure the House will appreciate the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I do not think it is any good his asking me, or indeed any other noble Lord, precisely what the interpretation of "relevance" is. It has a Parliamentary sense—sorne people might even say a Pickwickian sense—and this, as my noble friend Lord Wigg will agree, also applies in another place. In those circumstances,
1086
this is undoubtedly a matter which the Committee on Procedure could consider further.
There have been previous examples which could be examined. There was one very appropriate one—the Betting Inducements Bill of 1913—and on that occasion Lord Salisbury attempted to move, That the Amendment be not considered, and the House became rather nervous at that point. I think we should certainly very much regret having to, move a Motion of that kind. Therefore, without prolonging this discussion any further, I hope that the noble Lord Lord Goodman, and the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, will now decide—because we are still in a sort of limbo state, as we have not yet reached the Committee stage—not to proceed with their Amendments. Perhaps before we leave this, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is certainly a much greater lawyer than I am, might have something to say on this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should very much prefer to leave the matter to the House.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I ought first to apologise to your Lordships for my absence when the Committee stage was called. It is abundantly clear, I think, that the view which your Lordships have indicated in relation to the two Amendments set down by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, applies with equal force to the Amendments which stand in my name. I must confess that when I put these Amendments down I myself fell some doubt as to their relevance; although, of course, your Lordships might have come to a different conclusion on the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. All that it remains for me to do is to indicate to your Lordships that I do not propose to move either of the Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

WINTER SPORTS IN SCOTLAND: CAIRNGORM REPORT
4.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any decisions have been taken following the Cairngorm Report with a view to assisting and encouraging the development of winter sports. The noble Earl said: My Lords, when I put this Question down about three months ago I certainly did not think that this would be such a remarkable and possibly auspicious occasion. Whether, indeed, it will prove as notable an advance in our constitutional methods of reporting Parliament as the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, I beg leave to doubt; but at least I am not sorry that one facet of Scottish affairs should be discussed at this time.
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is unwell, and I hope he will very soon be restored to health. Particularly am I sorry that he is not here to-day because he takes a very real interest in the subject-matter of this Question. But I am very honoured that the Leader of the House should have thought fit to reply to it. It is a subject in which I know he is well interested, as indeed one would expect of the distinguished son of a very famous father. And I know that the noble Lord quite recently organised a Services expedition to Ellesmere Island, where the climatic conditions are even more exacting.
The third reason why this is an interesting day is that it is the opening day of the Winter Olympic Games in Grenoble. We may or may not have reasonable chances of winning medals in bobbing, skating and possibly even ladies' ski-ing; but I think it is right to remember the part which British subjects have played in the evolution of ski-ing as a sport. Notably, of course, the name occurs of Sir Arnold Lunn, who in fact invented the slalom race, which now receives such very wide interest throughout the world.
In the spring of last year there was published a Report on the Cairngorm area. It is an extremely fascinating and interesting Report—probably one of the most thorough reports on any of the rural areas in this country—dealing with the geology, the biology, the meteorology,
1088
and indeed to some extent the anthropology. When that Report came out, the Secretary of State made the comment that he commended it for study. I am merely asking the Government: what has been the result of their studies? The picture which it gives, if I may say so, is the picture of probably the biggest open area in the country to-day, probably five times the size of Dartmoor. It has a declining population, and there is no likelihood that agriculture will replace the decline in population which is taking place.
Any development in this area necessarily presents conflicts. These are conflicts between those who want to bring in new ideas and those who want to conserve. I would say that on the whole, though there are many ways in which it can be argued, the Report deals with this matter very fairly. For instance, it says that Braeriach is an area which should be conserved. This Report also suggests a wide variety of activities of a tourist character—it mentions some 15 to 20 of them. What I think stands out is that these activities dovetail together, whether they be in the summer or in the winter; and if any development is to take place it is necessary that both seasons should receive full attention. Indeed, it is right that the winter activities should complement the already existing ones in the summer. The next point is that there is no overall control of the whole of this area—indeed, part of it is outside the Highland Development Board altogether—and, of course, it is a point for consideration whether there should be a degree of co-ordination. I certainly would not suggest that there should be control, but there should be some point at which the varying interests can come together and express their views and, if I may say so, get some encouragement from the Government.
The Report recommends that various steps be taken, and the sum involved in those steps amounts to £35 million. I have very little doubt that the Government will boggle at that figure. All I am hoping is that boggling will not be the only response which we shall get from the Government, and that something will be possible other than saying that it is too big a thing altogether and no action can be taken. The importance of this is that any form of land development takes time, and I am trying to look

1089
ahead, perhaps five or ten years, to the sort of thing which might take place.
May I give just one or two reasons why I think this kind of development is important? First of all, the proposals basically deal with outdoor activity, and with the increasing congestion of our large towns this will be ever more important for the young people of this country. There are few things better than exercising one's skill against the natural features of the world or of the country. It is in pitting oneself against the severities and problems which nature provides that one learns self-confidence.
The second reason is that this is a regional development. All Governments are interested in regional development, and this Government have laid great emphasis on the importance which they attach to it; that is to say, that there should be no area in the country which lags well behind the rest in social and economic life, and that where we can prevent any form of stagnation we should do so. But there is a third facet, and that is the part which this development plays in contributing towards the invisible trade of our country. I cannot say that our Government have been notable in emphasising their interest in invisible trade as an element in our economy. It was not mentioned at all in the Prime Minister's speech on the economy of the country a week or so back; and so far as I know it was not mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night when he was speaking to the bankers in the City. This is strange; because it has recently been revealed, in an extremely carefully worked-out Report by a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Thomas Bland, that for 140 years our visible trade has never been in balance, except for two years. Those two years, strangely enough, were during the so-called "wasted years" of Tory Government, between 1956 and 1958. In fact, our balance has always depended on a positive invisible trade. Moreover, our invisible trade to-day is growing much more quickly than our visible trade.
One of the most rapidly growing forms of invisible trade is tourism. During the twelve years up to 1964 tourism, as an element of invisible world trade, has multiplied four times; but this country has not benefited by tourism; indeed, we are in deficit in this aspect of invisible trade.
1090
It is therefore, I think, only to be expected that the Committee, which, so far as I know, contained no hoteliers, recommended that the Government should pay more attention to the hotel industry, and all that goes with it, than they do at the present time. It is curious that the economists have not paid more attention to tourism as such. I believe that the first book on tourism was written 25 years ago by Professor Ogilvie who had the Chair of Political Economy at Edinburgh University and subsequently became Director-General of the B.B.C.
How important is this development likely to be? It is not very easy to say. I am told that there are probably about, 200,000 people who put on skis in Great Britain. This figure, of course, is a matter of some guesswork. What is more certain is that a check by the Scottish Tourist Board has shown a development which has doubled in a period of four years. That, progressively, is pretty rapid, and I think it is likely to continue; and I. can give other positive examples of development which are likely to take place. The number of artificial ski slopes existing in the country to-day is already 24, and the number is going up. There are important slopes at Torquay, the Crystal Palace and another in Wales whose name I will not venture to pronounce. The most important is in Edinburgh at Hillend, where there is a slope of 450 yards which can take a 50-gate slalom. Those who can ski on artificial slopes will inevitably at some time want to ski on the snow.
A further point concerns the development in the schools. There is a new interest in schools and in school parties going on mountain expeditions of some character or other. The National Ski Federation of Great Britain, of which I have the honour to be President, called a conference of the directors of education and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who regrets that he is not able to be here, was chairman of the conference. Seventy of the directors of education regarded ski-ing as one of the most worth while activities available to individuals. I have no doubt that as young children find this sport available, more and more will want to take part. I should perhaps, finally, refer to the growing interest in ski-ing which is taking place in the Armed Forces, and particularly in the Army,

1091
where there have been great developments since the War.
My Lords, what I am concerned about is whether the Government are looking far enough ahead to see the sort of developments which may well take place. In our lifetime ski-ing as a sport has probably developed more rapidly than almost any other sport that exists to-day. I am told that there are probably more participators in ski-ing than in any other one sport, with the possible exception of bowls. The Scottish Ski Club, it is true, was formed about sixty years ago, but I think it was only in the 'thirties that its numbers became significant. To-day, although we do not know the exact number, something like 200,000 or 300,000 people go abroad every year to take part in ski-ing.
I was very interested to read in the Annual Report of the Highland Development Board of the interest they are taking, particularly in the Cairngorm area. They have already invested some £25,000 in Cairngorm Sports Development Limited, and I believe the chairman of the board is a member of Cairngorm Sports Development Limited. What they say is this:
"We are anxious to do as much as possible to ensure that progress of such a major development should proceed on a planned basis."
I agree entirely with those words, and this is what I have in mind. They go on to say that this is a matter on which "individual initiative alone will not suffice".
This, my Lords, is where I think a measure of encouragement and co-ordination is required of the Government if for no other reason than that so many interests are involved. It is no good the Government saying that they have no responsibility; because S.E.T. is a direct burden on services of this character. So from a purely financial point of view, the Government have a responsibility. I am told that the effect of S.E.T. in the Glencoe area, a very promising development, has been to bring the activities there very nearly to a standstill. This is very regrettable indeed, because it had considerable possibilities.
Much the most important development has been at Aviemore. A great many organisations have played a part there:
1092
the Highland Development Board, the Inverness County Council, the Rank Organisation, the Fraser Organisation, the Scottish Ski Federation, Cairngorm Sports Development Limited and many others. This has made a great difference to the area. Tourism has become part and parcel of the whole area and has made the development very important indeed. I am told that some of the smaller hotels have been adversely affected by the larger hotels which are being built. I think it is difficult to keep the size of the hotels in line with the demand, but I have no doubt that demand will build up for the hotel accommodation which is available. I think that the development of a road from Nethy Bridge to Glenmore would do a great deal to bring a greater balance into this area.
The point I would bring to the attention of the noble Lord is this. The Report brought out very clearly that development could take place elsewhere. If it is to take place elsewhere, then we must cast our minds ahead to see what preliminary steps can be taken to enable those developments to take place. I do not pretend that big developments can take place immediately. Of course they cannot. What I say is this. Unless one casts one's mind ahead, no development will take place in ten or twenty years' time. An area reported upon favourably in the Report is Beinn a' Bhuird in the Upper Dee Valley. At present this area is not easy of access. It is spoken of extremely highly, but I have not seen it myself. I would ask the Government whether they are seriously considering the implications of this development. I am confident that in five or ten years' time, Aviemore will be unable to compete with the numbers who will then wish to take part.
We are dealing with what I consider to be an expanding industry. Some countries, when activities of this sort have expanded have given what is called a tax relief for the period. There are certain signs of what I would call shortsighted pinpricks taking place at the present time. I believe this problem can be overcome; but at one point I believe the Forestry Commission tried to charge rents to people ski-ing on top of the Cairngorms. I think that has been done away with: but it is the sort of thing

1093
which would stifle development at an early stage. There are other points, such as high rating valuation for ski-lifts; and I believe that a café on top of a hill had an annual rating of £5,000 a year. This sort of thing will check an incipient growth which is of value. There are also high car park charges.
My Lords, a great many recommendations are made in the Report. I do not wish to enlarge on them, but I should like to hear something of the view which the Government take of the Benavoir development and whether it can take place in, say, ten years' time. It will take a considerable time to develop. I am not asking for new roads, but I will ask whether the essential access roads now existing may be brought up to what would be called normal development. I refer, first, to the A.9, which is mentioned in paragraph 715, over the Spittle of Glenshee. This road is essential for development and contact between the Dee and Perth. The other road is the A.90 the Perth-Inverness road, particularly in the area of Drumochter and Pitlochry; and there are other places, like the road from the Sugar Bowl to Coire-Na-Ciste. All this would take time, but I believe it would be well worth while. I want to know whether the Government are prepared to encourage development on these lines in a practical way. As I am not allowed to speak again may I say that I am grateful to any other noble Lords who thought it worth while to show an interest in this subject.
5.12 p.m.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, though it is some time since the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, shoved in the Balliol scrum he is still concerned with the best interests of sport; and so, for that matter, is his family—I mean the Douglas Hamilton family. I thank the noble Earl for having raised this matter to-day, but I am afraid that his advocacy of extra encouragement for tourism, be it in the winter or in the summer, in this 1,500 square miles of the Cairngorm area will be of little avail. For we have a Government which on the one hand sponsors this very professional and glossy Report but, on the other, cripples the potential of the area, and in fact of the whole Highland area, by the imposition of the selective employ-
1094
ment tax and by closing railway lines and stations. In the offing is the worst threat of all: the Transport Bill, which, if it becomes law in its present form will prove a real knockout blow for this area of the Cairngorms and for the rest of the Highlands.
It seems to me, my Lords, that politics is not, as is said, the art of the possible, but the art of misrepresentation. How else can destruction be represented as construction by the Government in so many spheres? For example, this Report rightly stresses that without people living and working in the area its full potential will not be achieved. But, if a Report may be said to have its tongue in its cheek, this one has in this regard. It says that there is no potential for agriculture, yet it is still the most important livelihood—so says the Report—with 626 farming units in the area. When we know that we can save far more millions in food imports by expanding agriculture in this country than even by encouraging the tourist trade, the policy of the Government towards our agriculture industry should be a policy of expansion and not of restriction.
I note that no crofter or crofter body is listed in the Report as having been asked for advice. Yet in the Spey Valley alone, which is within the area we are discussing, there are thousands of acres of what was once alluvial pasture land but which is now covered by bog and rushes. These acres were once farmed by splendid independent men and women, who reared healthy and intelligent families. But finally they had to go as the land became more and more waterlogged by the overflowing River Spey. There is no mention in this Report of arterial drainage schemes which might enable new families to come back and farm the reclaimed land, so reversing the depopulation trend that is a feature of the area.
It is suggested that 220,000 acres should be planted as forest, but the Report says that this would encroach on existing sheep areas and suggests restricting forestry to 100,000 acres. What happens in this enormous area at the moment? The Report does not tell us As a Forestry Commissioner for a period of years I would propose that this question be resolved by survey as in the Strathoikell and other surveys in the past. As a lifelong sheep farmer I have a strong

1095
objection to land being planted if it is suitable for sheep or agriculture. Up to date, this has caused considerable ill-feeling between farmers and foresters. Forestry should be taken to be, and should be expected to be, the helpmeet of agriculture; not the boss, or even a rival.
If it were possible for your Lordships to wave a magic wand over this area and to determine priorities, I would say, first, let there be extra folk and food produced. By "food" I mean cattle and sheep, and some cereals. Secondly, I would say, let there be trees in suitable places, and shelter belts wherever agriculture needs them. That could be discovered by survey. Thirdly, let there be grouse on sheep areas, for what helps sheep helps grouse—for example, draining and moor burning. Let there be deer only on the tops of the hills, and nowhere in competition with cattle and sheep. Having lost their wintering grounds because of forestry development in the past, deer must now be fed in the winter, if they are to be a sporting or a commercial concern. Agriculture and sheep should not be penalised, as suggested in the Report, to provide new areas for deer.
Finally, my Lords, let there be tourists at low levels in hotels built by private enterprise and not with the taxpayers' money. Let us save the taxpayers' money for reclamation of land to be used to promote a numerous and all-the-year-round-residence contented people. Give this Cairngorm area a human as well as a scenic beauty, and tourism in my opinion, will then be added unto it as an additional dividend.
5.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for raising this question. As he said, it is not entirely a local matter. It is one which has a bearing on the whole development of the Highlands and, in a much wider context, on the whole question of our balance of payments; and my noble friend rightly brought out these points. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, for his observations, and particularly for his comment that grouse and sheep are complementary to each other in the Highland economy. That is something which is sometimes overlooked, or not mentioned, by those who advise the Government.
1096
I shall not deal with that matter, or with forestry, which the noble Lord also mentioned, because my noble friend's Motion refers only to winter sports. As he said, hundreds of thousands of people who go abroad for winter sports could get as much pleasure, and some of them more, if they went to the Scottish Highlands. We do not always get sun in Switzerland and it is not always dull in the Highlands; though it is true that we do get more sun in Switzerland and a little less in the Highlands. But those who are more concerned with the sports than with the sun need not be deterred.
There are two areas in the Cairngorm region where there are winter sports—Glenshee and the Cairngorms. Glenshee has not yet been so much developed, although there is very good ski-ing there. The Report points out that one of the reasons why there is not so much hotel development there is that Glenshee is within easier reach of some of the big cities, like Dundee, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, so that people can go there for the day without having to stay overnight. But undoubtedly it is capable of enormous further development if hotels could be built there.
As my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said—and I hope that the Government will take note of it—the main thing is the radical improvement of the road A.93. This is clearly brought out in paragraph 5.88, on page 54 of the Report, which says:
"It is clear that … the comprehensive improvement of road A.93 … in the section Spittal of Glenshee to the Cairnwell which includes the Devil's Elbow is of paramount importance to ensure that this major access copes adequately with present winter traffic and the considerable increase which seems certain. … Without such effective access from the south, the east side of the Area cannot be fully exploited for ski-ing and winter sports."
I confess that I should have some feelings of nostalgia if the Devil's Elbow were to be removed. Probably some of your Lordships have been there. The road at this point goes up round a double bend, at a gradient of something like one in two. The first time I ever went over it I had a companion who was rather fond of telling the driver what to do. I thought I would manage it in second gear, but he said that I must come down to first—and I got so flummoxed that I went into reverse. Fortunately there was nothing behind me, so all was well. But

1097
the main thing the Government must do about this area is to give greater priority to the improvement of this road.
As for the other area in the Cairngorms, at Aviemore, there has been tremendous development in which everybody in the area has helped. My noble friend mentioned the companies of the noble Lords, Lord Rank and Lord Fraser of Allander, who have put so many millions of pounds into the new hotel industry. The amount of money which has been put into the hotel development here exceeds anything that has ever been done, or is likely to be done, by any public body. There has been the greatest cooperation from landowners in the district. Naturally, that applies more to summer sports than to winter sports, because they range over a wider area. The local landowners have taken a leading part in the ordered enjoyment of the beautiful scenery in the whole district.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Selkirk that this is an admirable Report. I think it is one of the best public Reports that has ever been written. But there is one point on which I must make a reservation. In paragraph 78.7, on page 77, the Report states:
"The virtual doubling of the length of the holiday and recreational season through the development of winter sports at the Cairn Gorm has already attracted to Aviemore the biggest investment in rural hotel accommodation in Scotland of the century, but this has now reached a stage at which the limit of this development can be foreseen."
I rather think that that last remark may be a little out of date. Perhaps a clue may be found in paragraph 5.14 of the Report, which reads:
"Both the Highland Tourist (Cairngorm) Development Ltd. project at Aviemore, due to open late in 1966, and the Rank Organisation's Coylumbridge Hotel which was opened in November, 1965.…"
and so on. From that one must conclude that this Report although it was published in 1967, was written a little after November, 1965—perhaps at the beginning of 1966. If it had been written now, the authors might perhaps not have thought that the development of hotel accommodation for winter sports had reached the stage at which its end can be foreseen.
My Lords, if we succeed, as we hope to do, in attracting many tourists who have been accustomed to going else-
1098
where for their winter sports, this will save currency; and if we attract people from abroad to our winter sports in the Cairngorms, that will be a gain of foreign currency. There is still scope for enormous development in this Cairngorm area. There is no doubt that this is one of the best ski-ing areas in Europe. I went there with my family for a few day; last month. I enjoyed it immensely, though I do not myself ski. My family, who do, also enjoyed themselves, though one morning they were caught in a blizzard. Fortunately, they had a Swiss guide, who wisely advised them not to go home by means of the ski-lift. The ski-lift got stuck in the blizzard and its inmates were suspended, in some discomfort and growing hunger, for an hour and a half, whereas those who were wise enough to find their own way down got back an hour sooner in time for an enormous lunch.
The capacity for further development here is, I think, one whose limit cannot be foreseen, and it should be pursued all out, not only by private enterprise but by every public authority. My noble friend said that the expenditure contemplated by this Report, by the Government, would amount to £35 million. Of course, a great part of that would be on roads, and the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, thought it very unlikely that the Government would do anything.
I must apologise to your Lordships, because I think I have mentioned the selective employment tax and the Transport Bill in every speech that I have made this Session. It just happens that I have been given the duty of speaking on subjects where one does not seem able to avoid mentioning these two things, both of which were referred by the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, and by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I am not going on nagging again about this selective employment tax, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman said, it is undoubtedly one of the greatest impediments to the development of tourism in the Highlands; and my noble friend Lord Selkirk said it has stopped desirable developments in the Glencoe area. That, of course, does not come into the Report we are discussing, but it is, nevertheless, a regrettable thing.
If the Government are determined to pursue their policy by means of taxation, as they seem to be, I should like to make

1099
one suggestion of another tax. It might be a good one, and might be substituted for the selective employment tax, which I should like to see abolished. It is on the model of the foreign tax known as the kur-tax. That is not a tax for general revenue purposes, but for a fund more like the old Road Fund, which the late Sir Winston Churchill abolished in 1925. Your Lordships who have stayed in hotels in Switzerland and elsewhere will probably have noticed on the hotel bill that so much is paid as tax. That tax is not an imposition which goes to the general needs of the country in which you are staying, but is a special tax that goes into a special fund for the development of the tourist trade. Out of that tax over the last hundred years, a great deal of the tourist industry in Switzerland and Italy has been built up.
The former Secretary of State for Scotland in the last Government tried to get the Scottish hotel-keepers to agree to a tax of this kind. At one moment we thought they had agreed, but they went back on it afterwards, which I thought was a great pity. If we could have a tax of this kind, which is specifically devoted, not to general revenue purposes, but to the development of the tourist industry, we should have much more public money to spend on these things which are appropriate for the Government to perform in developing our tourist industry, and particularly our winter sports industry, in the Highlands. While agreeing strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, that we must drop the Transport Bill, which I think is a tax on pretty well everything in the Highlands, and the selective employment tax, I think we might substitute this specific tax, the kur-tax, to be paid by tourists as part of their hotel bill, and devote it exclusively to the development of the Highlands tourist industry.
5.35 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, I am one who is glad to support the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in this Motion, which calls on the Government to state what they intend to do with regard to the Cairngorm Report. The noble Earl's great interest in winter sports and in ski-ing is well known, and I am glad to be able to give him all the
1100
support I can. One usually hesitates to intervene in a Scottish debate, but this is not quite a Scottish debate, as it affects all those who are interested in winter sports and, in particular, in ski-ing. I suppose we could have debated this in the Sports Council debate to-morrow, but as the Report says that on Scottish skiing they have spent a sum of £3,224, and that their donation to the Scottish Ski-ing Council is £800 out of a total of £112,000 spent on Scottish sport, it is probably rather better for us to debate it to-day.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about this Report. It is one of the most magnificent Reports that I have ever read, and I certainly hope that it will be greatly read. It is beautifully written, well produced, full of facts and a mine of information for those who seek it. If anyone doubts the possibilities of the development of the Cairngorm area, this Report should completely convince him.
As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, this is perhaps fundamentally a problem of approach roads, and the Report suggests, in a long-term scheme or tour of more than £30 million, that something like £14 million shall be spent on roads. These roads, of course, will serve both in summer and in winter. Somebody suggested that one way of raising money for this purpose might be a Scottish national lottery; but whether that would be acceptable I do not know. As the Report indicates, roads are the key to the development of this area, particularly, I should imagine, at this time of the year, in the winter sports time, when snow clearance to assist the coaches and cars that want to approach various winter sports centres must be a considerable problem. I do not know whether the Highlands are at a disadvantage compared to the Swiss centres, but the Swiss have their mountain railways which go up from the main lines whatever the weather, and can always get the tourists to the winter sports resorts.
I hope that we are not going to be too pessimistic in our attitude to this problem. I think that we started Switzerland off on their winter sports; and I am not sure that it was not a Scottish engineer who started the electrification of their railways. It was certainly Arnold Lunn who got their ski-ing industry started; and it was

1101
British tourists—the Swiss Government acknowledge this—who built up their lower resorts, which compare with the Cairngorms, and who use the lower resorts more than the higher resorts. The whole of their revenue from tourism is based on the greater amount coming from the lower resorts, started by tourists from this country, and ski-ing in the old days.
I do not think it is entirely the snow in Switzerland which is too competitive for Scottish ski-ing. There is not a great deal of difference between the two. Nor do I think there is a great deal of difference in the weather. You can go to Switzerland in January and in February and not see the sun, although you can be sure of it at Easter. But you can go to the Highlands and probably get sun in December. I notice in the various pamphlets dealing with ski-ing in Scotland that they emphasise that the sunshine they get there compares well with the sunshine they get elsewhere in Scotland. I think the reason why the Swiss have developed ski-ing is that they treat the whole thing as a major export earner; and we have helped them to do it. These resorts in the Cairngorms have all the facilities: they have lifts, hotels, ski-tows, 30-metre jumps. They have almost everything—huts, restaurants, ski-huts—except the right number or adequate number of approach roads to the resorts. And I would emphasise that it is on these approach roads that the future will depend in the next year or so, because the schemes that have been outlined here are very much long-term schemes.
Again, the competitors, such as Austria and Switzerland, have their Kuverien sports tax, which helps them maintain the roads in the ski villages and so on; but basic roads are the capital requirements at the start. If the various bodies in their co-ordinated report could tackle these approach roads, I think it would be the best thing they could do at the present time. Perhaps B.E.A. could survey to see whether they could put in some landing strips there, to encourage tourist flights from London. It takes about four hours, I think, from Edinburgh and Glasgow to the ski resorts in the Cairngorms. If one could get in a 'plane at Heathrow and get out within a few miles of one of those resorts, I think it would certainly attract more skiers and more tourists.
1102
The Government have a fine record in National Parks. The late Mr. Hugh Dalton played a great part in this, and over the years this has been their policy, and I certainly hope that in this regard they will look favourably towards the Cotswolds. We have plenty of snow at the present time; we should almost qualify as a ski resort. The noble Lord suggested that perhaps we are greatly indebted to the Army for using these areas for training courses. I think industry could use them also for Outward Bound and sandwich courses more than they do, and perhaps the industrialists and industrial councils would consider this. I know there was a newspaper report that the Parliamentary Ski Club were disappointed because they could not fully reciprocate the hospitality of their Continental colleagues on their annual competition this year at Davos. There was an avalanche at Davos. But why not the Cairngorms? Why should not the Parliamentary Ski Club next year invite their Continental colleagues, their opposite numbers, to come and visit the Cairngorms?
I believe we are fortunate in that we have Ministers in the Treasury who are winter sports enthusiasts, if not ski-ing enthusiasts, and maybe they will look at this Report in a favourable light. I am sure that in my noble friend the Leader of the House we could find nobody more sympathetic, and no one who understands this matter better than he does; and I certainly look forward very much to hearing what he is going to say on behalf of the Government and what they are prepared to do to implement this very fine Report, even though it may be a long-term policy.
Our young skiers to-day are doing extraordinarily well on the Continent. They cannot get the training—even the young Army skiers cannot; but they could certainly get preliminary training in the Cairngorms over here. They are doing extraordinarily well. Of course, they find it difficult to compete with some of the Continental nations. We cannot hope to do anything such as has been done at Grenoble at the preseent time, with all the money that has been spent there. But I say that this Report is a good Report. It is well worth looking at, and it is well worth the Government's taking a bold step forward in this matter. After all, we

1103
all live in overcrowded compounds of civilisation to-day, and if we do not preserve these great beauty spots and tourist centres and recreation and health resorts, it will be a very poor look out for us. I hope that all those who back sport in Britain will back ski-ing in the Cairngorms.
5.45 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords in this House who come from North of the Border must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, for his complimentary remarks about the developments in the Cairngorm area, and especially for his praise of the Cairngorm Report which we are discussing. I think we can all rather feel that our backs are being nicely stroked, because if there is any development that has taken place in Scotland in recent years that is purely and absolutely Scottish, it is this. It has been done entirely from the resources of Scotland itself.
To look back a bit, it was known as a tourist centre for the upper classes a long time ago, but the developments really started after the last war, and I think it is only right that we should remember at this time that the man who really got going the Glenmore development was the brother of the noble Earl who has raised this Question today. It was Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton, who scrounged this and that from the Royal Air Force and got going in 1946 at Glenmore a winter course, or courses. It was very largely students—young persons but very largely students—who went on those early courses. For instance, from Edinburgh University every year a detachment, numbering between thirty and fifty, has gone up there for a week or a fortnight at Christmas time. That was started and comes straight from the development by the late Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton.
Developing from that initiative came, fairly quickly, the Council of Physical Recreation, and it was strongly supported by the Scottish Education Department. Located in the original Glenmore Lodge, it then moved to its present somewhat more palatial installation. But I think that, above all, the name that will be associated with those developments
1104
around Aviemore is, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, the name of Lord Fraser of Allander. He served in your Lordships' House for only a short time, and seldom spoke, but he was a man given to deeds rather than to words. Many years ago, in the early 'fifties, he was seized with the idea of developing the Spey Valley, and he had the brilliant idea that the initial way to develop the Spey Valley for the tourist trade was to give it a "face lift". He made the initial step of providing paint at very cheap rates for the people who had hotels and lodging houses on the road, and the whole of the Spey Valley came away with a 'face lift" and was in that way marked out above all the other tourist centres in Scotland. Those developments, and others which went with them, such as somewhat better sewerage, water facilities, and so on, were largely paid for out of a fund of £100,000, and so far as we can make out the greater part of that fund must have come from Lord Fraser's private purse. It got things going in the 'fifties and of course the more recent developments at Aviemore. Literally millions of pounds have been put into the Aviemore centre, and its curling, skating rinks and swimming pools, as well as hotels, chalets and ski runs, are quite a remarkable development for this country.
As some noble Lords have said, one must not forget the work of the landowners, but as regards the Aviemore development one must remember that we were extremely fortunate in that Colonel Ian Grant of Rothiemurchus owned the really tricky, essential ground and made it possible. One would wish that some other landowners, not all of them Scotsmen, had been as co-operative as Colonel Ian Grant of Rothiemurchus.
We must also recognise that these developments owe a great deal to the Inverness County Council under their convener, Sir Francis Walker. If it had not been for the county council the road from Glenmore to the present ski-lift would not have been built. It took a great deal of drive and energy to get that going, and without that essential link the ski-lifts would not have developed as they have. The actual ski-lifts, as well as the ski-slopes, have all been developed by native genius. There was a gift of £20,000 by an Edinburgh man to the initial ski-lift at the White Lady Coire.

1105
That was further developed by private donations, several of over £1,000 each. Similarly, the artificial ski-slope at Edinburgh, about which the noble Lord spoke, was activated by a private gift; and the other slopes in Scotland are organised in much the same way.
My Lords, what I should like to point out, with my tongue in my cheek, is that all these developments—which are remarkable developments for the United Kingdom—have been achieved without the help of a Parliament in Edinburgh. If there had been a Parliament in Edinburgh at this time, think of the praise and credit it would have taken for the production of this Report.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether a Parliament in Edinburgh would not have built sooner the access roads to this area, not for tourism but for the people resident there the whole year round.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, there was no point in building the road until one knew one had the money to build the ski-lift. The ski-lift was built and the road followed immediately, no time being lost by the Inverness County Council in the building of that road. I can remember the decisions being taken in 1955 and 1956.
There are one or two other points in the Report which are of interest, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take up some more of your time. I do not want to cross swords too frequently with the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, but on his point in regard to agriculture I must say that as a farmer I honestly cannot see major developments in agriculture taking place in the Cairngorm area. There is some extraordinarily good farming going on in that area already, and also in the lower Speyside down in the Cromdale area where some of the best herds of Aberdeen Angus are being bred on quite small farms. That land is ideally suited for the maintenance of these small herds of some of the best cattle in the whole wide world.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred to this being a remarkable day—the first day of the Olympic Winter Sports. But I would tell your Lordships that this is an important day because it is the day
1106
of the Perth sales of Aberdeen Angus That is just as important as the first day of the Olympic Winter Sports. While one hopes that nothing will be done to harm the important and lucrative establishment of cattle breeding in those parts on the fringes of the Cairngorm area, I do not think we can look to agriculture as the ultimate development of it.
There is one point in the Cairngorm Report to which I think it is only right to draw your Lordships' particular attention: that is, in connection with the value of the distilleries upon the fringe of the area. Those distilleries, although they are small in the numbers they employ, give continuity to the small villages which are near them and maintain a community which might otherwise tend to fall away. So there are other advantages than merely the refreshment that the whisky provides.
Roads are very important. I should like to submit to Her Majesty's Government that they should consider the Glen Feschie road, even though the cost is £2 million. It would cut right across the Cairngorm area, but I think we have to accept that, in view of its tremendous value in getting the timber from the Aberdeenshire area right down to the pulp mill at Fort William. It would also open up the Cairngorms and probably enable one to develop a new set of skislopes. However, I am rather apprehensive of over-developing the roads. I would regret very much—and I know the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl would regret it also—a road up Glen Tilt. I think Glen Tilt, which is an historic place, should be kept for walkers. As the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, has said, there should be more access roads, and I would press immediately for a road from the existing Glenmore road to go off from White Lady to Coire na Ciste. If we get that, then we shall get a whole range of ski-slopes just as we have now in the White Lady. Otherwise, I think we must make people walk, especially in the summer time, to get the full enjoyment of the Cairngorms. That emphasises the importance of shelter bothies. I have personally been concerned with the construction of one of the shelter bothies up there, and I know it has been of considerable use and value and has saved lives. There are three or four more shelter bothies which should

1107
be located in the Cairngorm area, simple things and indestructible things, but a place where shelter can be obtained from the storm.
Likewise there are the youth hostels; and here I would like to say how much we owe to the help of Government in financing the youth hostels, usually giving about two-thirds of the construction costs. This was the case with the new youth hostel built at Aviemore. I think that this help could be expanded, and I wonder whether the Government could give a maintenance grant to the youth hostels in some of these recreational areas. They are costly to maintain, because youth can use them in numbers only at the week-ends, when they are fully booked up. Anyone who has tried to run a hotel and can fill it only at week-ends knows that it is necessary to charge very high prices to make it pay, and if that were done in the case of youth hostels it would negative their value. Similarly, the camping and caravan sites, as well as car parking facilities, should be increased.
It is more than half a century since I first ventured on these paths and these hills, and I did it, as the son of a professor from a university, by bicycle and wagonette. I could do it because my father was a professional man, but no other boys in Glasgow, other than those of our class, could do it in those days. All this has now changed: young people are able to get up to the Cairngorms for the week-end. They are encouraged by grants from local authorities to go up there. The Glasgow education authority has for many years been stimulating the youth to go to the Glenmore Lodge Centre. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, it develops the self-confidence of these young persons, and I think this is of tremendous importance. I am looking forward very much to hearing the Leader of the House reply, for not only has he in his own right so much personal experience along these lines but we know that he has had a close association with Scotland.
6.4 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but having listened to what has been said, and in particular to the intervention by the noble Lord,
1108
Lord Granville, from the Government Back Benches, I felt it only right and proper that somebody South of the Border should make a short intervention from the Opposition Back Benches. I am privileged to be President of the Ski Club of Great Britain, which quite recently fathered the Ski Federation, of which my noble friend Lord Selkirk is President. I believe that the work, under his leadership, which that Federation has done in promoting ski-ing throughout the United Kingdom has been quite splendid. The work of his Federation here in the United Kingdom is complemented and supplemented by that of the Ski Club, which in particular renders great service to ski-ers from the British Isles when they go ski-ing in the Alps.
My noble friend in initiating this debate described how ski-ing was probably the most widespread sport in the world today, with the possible exception of bowls. I think there is one other sport which is more widespread, and that is swimming. Both sports have this common factor; that you can swim and you can ski from very young to very old; and, what is more, all members of the family can enjoy the sport of swimming and ski-ing together at the same time. And this is something which is well worthy of greater encouragement. I understand that Scotland is one of the few places in the world where you can ski in the morning and bathe in the sea in the afternoon. It struck me as being a little chilly, but I spoke to somebody who did it, and he said that the Gulf Stream impinges itself on the western coast of Scotland and that the water is not particularly cold. A couple of years ago I was ski-ing at Auron, in the Alpes Maritimes, in the morning, and I bathed in the Mediterranean in the afternoon. That was at the beginning of April, and I certainly found it pretty chilly. I do not know how they find it in Scotland.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, spoke about the weather and the sun in Switzerland. Anybody who has been ski-ing there in recent weeks has not had just the sun: it has been snow and blizzard all the time. I think that anything that can be done to make it clear that the sun does appear in Scotland, particularly at the time of the year, in March and April, when it is possible to get some wonderful ski-ing there, is to

1109
be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Granville, talked about approach roads. I would remind your Lordships that one thing which helped Austria after the war to get on her feet was the giving of Marshall Aid, and the fact that it was spent on approach roads for ski-ing. Those approach roads and facilities going up the hills helped Austria more than anything else to get on her feet.
I should therefore like to give such support as I am able to the plea which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has made for help in developing this area in Scotland. It is not just for Scottish interests or local interests. We have to remember that there is a very large population in the North of England that finds it quite a long distance, and expensive, to go to the Alps. That population can quite easily go across, the Border into Scotland, and they are doing so more and more at the present time. So I say that anything that can be done to further this activity in Scotland will certainly be greatly appreciated by people in England as well.
The noble Earl made it clear that expenditure on artificial ski slopes meant that more and more people were becoming interested in this sport. I believe that such events as the Olympic Games, seen on television, do fire the imagination of young people and make them want to go ski-ing; and that surely is something that we want to see happen. Not only is it useful to have their imagination fired, but there must be also the conveniences and opportunities to carry out this sporting activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Granville, mentioned the Parliamentary race. I was there this year, but unfortunately could not race because I had pulled a muscle a few days before high up in the mountain during a blizzard. But his suggestion has been considered, and might well be followed up. I see no reason at all why our most enjoyable annual races with the Swiss Parliament should not take place in Scotland. It would be a new place for two of their members recently elected, who are international ski-ers. I do not think they have raced in Scotland, and it would be a good education for them to try that as well as the Alpine resorts. This has been an extremely interesting debate, and, if I may say so, a very useful forerunner to our debate to-morrow, which is a wide
1110
debate. It is only right and proper that at this time of the year this particular sport, which is being encouraged and developed in Scotland, should have some time made available in your Lordships' House for discussion and consideration.
May I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said about Lord Malcolm Douglas Hamilton. I remember again and again in the Lobby in another place, twenty years ago now, talking with Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton about his plans for developing this part of the world. It is a wonderful thing to see that development now taking place. It cannot be other than for the benefit of people, not only in Scotland but in our great industrial areas, to get away from the factory or the office, not just in summer but in the middle of winter also, to enjoy themselves on the snow in this part of Scotland. I hope that, however stringent the financial conditions may be, we may find it possible to give such help as is available to encourage this and other sports, and to speed up development in that area.
6.11 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I cannot claim to be a Scot, but I do claim to be an enthusiastic skier, and I should like warmly to support the noble Lord who has just sat down. I am glad that the Ski Club of Great Britain should be supporting the development of ski-ing in Great Britain, and I should like to draw attention to the fact that whereas; the richer members of our community, even now with their £50 allowance, can fairly easily go to Switzerland, Austria, Italy and other places, there are a great many people who are rapidly taking to ski-ing but who need facilities much nearer home. Having lived and served in countries where it is possible to ski every weekend, I should like to say what a great advantage it has, as compared with the frantic fortnight which most of the working community have to undertake.
It is some years since I actually skied in the Cairngorms, and I admit that last week I was ski-ing in Italy. But this is a fine area in the Cairngorms and it deserves to be rapidly developed. I should like to support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and by others in this debate. It seems to me that it is for the public authorities and the Government to provide the necessary

1111
infrastructure in the form of roads and communications, without which the travellers just cannot get to these areas and without which the ski-tows and other facilities cannot be usefully used. When that is done it would be most desirable that some encouragement should be given to private enterprise.
I am sorry to appear less enthusiatic than I ought to be about Scotland, but one of the difficulties in the Cairngorms is the high and rather cold wind which often afflicts the area. It is necessary, I think, to recognise that the ski facilities ought to be such that they provide some protection against these winds. I should like to draw attention to the system which exists in North-West Italy, where they use chair-lifts, each chair of which is protected by a sort of eggshell. You get into the eggshell and are pushed on to the tow line, and you get out at the top with your feet relatively warm, which is certainly good for one's morale in going down the piste. Any emphasis should be laid on the chair-lift rather than the ski-tow. It would be useful for tourism in summer, because it is equally applicable at all seasons. So I would suggest that some consideration should be given to what is done abroad by those who are seriously studying this matter.
The second effect of the high wind in Scotland is that it tends to spoil the snow. It so happens that last week I was ski-ing in an area of Italy where the winds are very high, and it was interesting to see how the Italians have settled the matter. They have most ingeniously invented a sort of ski-"cat", two of which are coupled together and are run up and down the slopes which have to be skied on, so that the wind crust and, initially, the sun crust is beaten flat and the snow is consolidated, and is neither spoiled nor blown away. This, I believe, in the Cairgorms would provide for a high standard of ski-ing. I am quite sure that this is an area which ought to be developed, both for the social effects and for the economic advantage to our balance of payments, in being able to offer facilities for our people at home.
There is one other interesting point in this Report about ski-ing, and that is the attention it draws to the possibility of developing ski-ing which is relatively
1112
flat and not necessarily much downhill, a system which is greatly favoured in Scandinavia. It is necessary to have light skis, and not those you use for downhill ski-ing in Switzerland. It can be extremely pleasurable. I should like to say that whereas I have satisfied myself that Scotland is eminently suitable for this, it is necessary to have the trails marked. Somebody has to put in a stake every 25 or 30 yards, otherwise, as I can personally certify, it is quite easy to get lost at the top of the Cairngorms and difficult to find the right way down.
I should like to draw attention to one other point. We have the most difficult licensing laws in this country, so far as the sporting community is concerned. It is extremely comforting when you go about the country that you should be able to stop at a small café and, if you do not want to have coffee or tea, to be able to get an alcoholic drink. There is a certain rigidity about our laws which seems to me to make it difficult to offer facilities in Scotland such as are currently offered to anybody going to any part of the Alps. I hope that one day we shall modify our system slightly so that we shall adopt a less spoilsport attitude. I say this with some hesitation, because I know that the abstainers in Scotland are remarkably strong and often resentful of how other people want to behave. I should like warmly to support the noble Earl who put down this Unstarred Question, and to express the hope that the Government will find the means of supporting this development, which I am sure is worthy of their encouragement.
6.18 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, as the only noble Lord here who lives in the area covered by this Report, I hope it will not be taken amiss if I say just a few words. I promise that I shall say nothing about the precise area where I live, in case I may be thought to show bias. I think the Aviemore centre is a wonderful development. Many of my friends who have been up there for their holidays say that it is the best family holiday you can have. You can forget your children, as there are usually 30 or 40 other children there, and they all play quite happily together, leaving mother and father time to go ski-ing or do whatever they want to do. The reason it is so good is because it has indoor facilities.

1113
This is what I think all the other Scottish developments lack. I know it would not be so easy in Glenshee, because there is no village immediately available, or in Glencairn. But I am convinced that Glenshee will never be as popular as Aviemore so long as it does not have the same indoor facilities.
The only snag of Aviemore is the fact that the chair-lift is often affected by the wind. I do not know if it is possible to do anything about this; I gather it is a technical question. But I was wondering whether the Government might not sponsor a little research into whether the chair-lift could be re-aligned, so that it would be affected by the wind on fewer days during the course of the year. It is very frustrating if you drive the whole way there only to discover that the main chair-lift is not working because a wind which you thought was negligible when you left home, which in my case is about forty miles from Aviemore, is quite strong when you get up there.
My noble friend Lord Dundee was a little unfair to the hoteliers about the kur-tax. I would support any taxes which got rid of S.E.T., and to that extent I would support everything both he and the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, said about S.E.T. and the Transport Bill. The reason why the kur-tax was rejected, I regret to say, was the fact that the Scottish Tourist Board, of which I had the honour to be a member at the time, would not approve of it. I said then, and I still believe, that this was a wrong decision and that we should have recommended it, and it was a great pity that we did not. But there was a strong feeling among the commercial hoteliers, particularly in the industrial towns, that they would pay money and not get anything back in return, but I am sure that the kur-tax would be a great help and would enable us to provide facilities in Scotland which are much needed and which at the moment are lacking.
I should like to say a word or two about roads, since I probably use these roads more often than any other Member of your Lordships' House. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Balerno about the Glen Feshie road. It is essentially a place which should be left to the rambler. We must leave some parts of the world to ramblers, and I believe that this is one of the few entirely unspoilt
1114
walks left, though I cannot say that I have walked it myself. Ramblers feel very strongly about this, and they would not welcome a road through Glen Feshie. It may be that we should have to build an access road to be able to make available more of the very good snow which lies to the North-East of Glen Feshie.
I consider it essential that the A.9 from Pitlochry to Perth and the A.93 should be improved so that skiers could more easily get to the ski-slopes. It is a great pity that this was not done years ago. The A.93 is a disgrace for a main trunk road. But even more important, and even less expensive, is that, what pass for roads at the moment should be kept open. Last Sunday there were sponsored ski races at Glenshee which were of national importance and which could not take place because no one had bothered to put a snow plough on the road as it was Sunday. Sunday is without doubt the most popular ski-ing day in Scotland; and although one may feel that the Sabbath should not be desecrated in this way, I am afraid it has come and there is nothing we can do about it. Efforts should be made to keep the A.93, the Perth-Braemar road, open even on a Sunday. I might say that the A.9 is usually swept even on a Sunday, although last Sunday it did not appear to have been done, but it was still passable. With those few words, I would support almost everything which was said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and my noble friend Lord Dundee. I hope that this debate has given the Government some food for thought.
6.25 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I very much regret that, in the absence or my noble friend Lord Hughes, I again have to take the part of a Minister for Scottish Affairs in your Lordships' House. I must say that Lord Hughes's disappointment is very much my gain. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, can be well pleased with the results of his initiative in this matter. It is only three weeks ago—and I did not know that I was going to take part in this debate—that I was reconnoitring a ski-slope at the end of his garden. It is actually part of the Broad-stone Golf Course, where I thought there was a promising nursery slope if ever we got any snow in Dorset—maybe we have got it there now.

1115
This is a really exciting subject, and all I have listened to in this debate has made me more and more interested and more anxious to visit the Cairngorms myself and, I hope, perhaps to ski there. I would echo the tributes which have been paid. These tributes include the noble Earl himself, but I am sure that he was moved to hear the tribute to his brother, Malcolm. I first climbed Lochnagar I think in the company of Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton. We were both staying up at King's Camp at that time, over thirty years ago. There are a number of names of people whom we ought to recognise, some of whom have been mentioned, but I am sure your Lordships would wish to express your pleasure that Mr. Boyd Anderson got an M.B.E. in the Honours List this year. He is well known as a benefactor of Scottish skiing in general. One must give credit to the fidelity of the Scottish Ski Club, that they have gone on all these years making very little progress, suddenly to find the promised land blossoming out in front of them sixty years after they were founded.
The debates which we have been having recently on Unstarred Questions tend to get wider and wider, but generally to-day we have kept pretty well on the subject. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, in what he said—and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, recognises that Lord Bannerman is competing very hard with Scottish Nationalists—but I thought he was a little unfair.
It is easy to be rude about all Governments. Here is an initiative which the Government and the previous Government have encouraged. It may be that we have not done as much as we should like to do. No Government ever does. But I think that the noble Lord was ungracious about the Report itself. I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Granville and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on the fact that this is an outstanding Report. It is exciting to read, the style is excellent, and I think that congratulations are due to Mr. Evans. It is interesting to find a group mainly of planning officials producing such an excellent, well-balanced Report, not disdaining to quote writers like Mr. Murray,
1116
and at the same time being very hard and factual. I think that many congratulations are due to them. It provides a most valuable blueprint, and one which has taken a number of people by surprise. I do not think they had expected anything quite as impressive to come out of this inquiry, or that it would give such a stimulus to and a focus upon activities in this area.
I have a few general remarks to make. I do not propose to follow noble Lords who have talked about S.E.T. and the Transport Bill. I am not surprised they said what they did. It may be they have something to say which is relevant to this subject, but I do not propose to delay the discussion in order to give answers which the Government have given on other occasions and which, I fully acknowledge, do not satisfy noble Lords opposite. It is worth noting that in the last two years upwards of 500 new jobs have been created in the Aviemore area as a direct result of the new developments there. This strikes me as a very remarkable achievement, which has been brought about by a great deal of individual initiative, courageous private enterprise, good support from local authorities and, I believe, very real encouragement from St. Andrew's House as well.
I shall not quote what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had to say in the introduction. Clearly, no Government can go right overboard on a Report of this kind, especially when so much of the responsibility for action does not lie directly on Government. But I shall come on to the very important point which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made with regard to coordination. The Secretary of State made it clear in his foreword that any expansion of facilities cannot take place without expenditure, inevitably over a period, both of money and of effort by public bodies, voluntary associations and private enterprise.
This is very much a field of joint endeavour in which one would expect to see a great deal of the initiative being taken locally, as has been so strikingly done by those who built up the Aviemore centre. It is truly one of the most exciting tourist developments in recent years, not just in Scotland, but in Great Britain as a whole. The value of the

1117
Cairngorm Report is that it produces an authoritative background against which we can see the development of the area, whether by those in St. Andrew's House, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the local authorities, the Scottish Tourist Board or the Youth Hostels Association. There are so many.
Incidentally, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who referred to the Youth Hostels Association. Here I have to be a little careful, because I am a Vice-President of that body. But I have nothing to do with the fact that a grant of up to £5,000 is allowed annually by the Scottish Education Department to the Scottish Youth Hostels Association towards the cost of hostel acquisitions and improvements, such as are now proposed for the Aviemore hostel. Clearly, none of my colleagues in the Government is going to be very pleased if I start making any promises of increased aid, and since my prejudice in favour of this admirable organisation is so strong I shall not go any further. But here again there are indications of a particular improvement which they are making in this area.
I hope also that, in addition to St. Andrew's House, the noble Lord, Lord Granville, and his other colleagues who are Parliamentary ski-ers will read the suggestions which have been made about a meet of the Parliamentary Ski-ing Association. I am sure that with two such powerful characters as the President of the British Ski Club, himself a former Member of another place (who I remember used to ski above Kendal: I think he had a tractor which he got up to the top of the hill, and used it as an improvised ski-tow), and the President of the National Federation, some stimulus can be produced.
I have no doubt that the Report will be carefully studied by the Countryside Commission for Scotland. As your Lordships know, this is to be set up under the provisions of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, which we dealt with in the last Session. I think we need to bear in mind the really important role that is expected of this Commission, both in stimulating the provision and development of recreational facilities, and in conserving natural beauty and amenity. Of course, this also means conserving areas mentioned by the Nature Conservancy,
1118
such as Braeriach and places like that. The Cairngorms area is clearly one where we may expect to see them take an active interest, and where they should be able to use their considerable powers to initiate and co-ordinate future plans and development. I believe, and so I am advised, that this is really going to provide the essential machinery for co-ordination.
When we look at all this multiplicity of bodies, I think we begin to wonder how they manage not to overlap with one another. But this is the sort of balanced piece of machinery which is essential and which will help to provide that particular additional emphasis of Government in the right sort of way. Whatever happens, this must be a partnership; nobody wants the Government to take over.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I think we must give great credit to the Scottish Development Department for the fact that there has been so much co-ordination and so little friction in the various developments in the Aviernore area.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I entirely agree. I very much welcome the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and I am sure that the Scottish Development Department, who sometimes labour under criticism that they never do anything for Scotland, really deserve the credit which the noble Lord has given to them.
May I turn again now to the Aviemore centre? It is worth noting that, in addition to attracting very large numbers of visitors, it won the British Travel Association's "Come to Britain" trophy last year, for the best new tourist service or amenity in Britain. It has certainly given a really new and exciting look to Scottish tourism. The interesting thing is that the fears of established hoteliers and others in the area that it would reduce their trade have not, so I am advised, proved to be well-founded. Indeed, the reverse is reported to be true. Aviemore seems to flourish despite the S.E.T., even if the S.E.T. may be alleged to be a serious marginal factor in relation to Glencoe. But I am sure that there are other areas of Scotland where one would like to see the development of a Mark 2 Aviemore development, because there is that extraordinary range of beauty in Scotland which, whenever I go

1119
there, I wish so many more people could see, though not so many as to ruin it for the few who do go.
That is why I am interested in the point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl. The question of roads is a delicate one. I know of areas in the West of Scotland, East of Loch Maree, where it is possible to walk for miles and miles—indeed that is the only way of getting about. This is where careful thinking and planning will provide the right sort of balance. On the whole, I should have thought there was much to be said for the Glen Feschie road, but I am afraid that there is not so much of encouragement that I can say to your Lordships at the moment. It will certainly be a very expensive road. The Highlands and Islands Development Board have been asked for their views, but I believe the present thinking of the Secretary of State is that this road would not have very high priority in the Scottish road programme as a whole. But we will listen, and my right honourable friend will listen, to the advice given to him by the Highlands Transport Board, and will take note of the particular point they made, that no further new roads should be built in the Highlands and Islands until existing main roads there have been improved to modern standards. That is a point which a number of noble Lords have mentioned.
I do not know how far we shall be able to improve the chair-lift in high winds, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Athol] wanted. I am sorry to switch so quickly from roads to the chair-lift, but I know the noble Duke referred to that. The Scottish Tourist Board have been sponsoring studies to see how the difficulties might be overcome. It may be that the egg of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, will make it more comfortable, but, as he said, this is a windy part of the world. Curiously enough, I am told that the Australian Alps, which is one of the biggest snowfields in the world—and this is surprising to those of us who do not know Australia—suffers from the same sort of rather violent weather and wind that, on occasions, occur in the Cairngorm area. But this is a technical problem, and I cannot give any indication whether anyone will succeed in solving it quickly.
1120
The centre at Aviemore provides a very wide range of recreations. I will not detail what they are, because I am sure your Lordships know; but it is interesting that the extra facilities that they have provided, which have not been solely facilities related directly to enjoying the neighbourhood—whether it is warm swimming pools or bowling alleys—have been very much used. One of the main factors contributing to the viability of the Aviemore Centre is the very long holiday season which it is possible to exploit in the Spey Valley, where there are so many charms in different seasons of the year; and, of course, winter sports have provided the sort of complementary activity which will in due course bring it, I hope, well beyond the area of marginal economy.
The Cairngorm Sports Development Limited, formed in March, 1966, as an operating company by the Cairngorm Winter Sports Development Board, have been doing a very good job effecting a steady improvement in the chair-lift, the ski-tow and the restaurant facilities which they offer on Cairngorm; and they have been assisted here by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. They now have a two-stage chair-lift and five tows on the mountain, and just before Christmas there was an extension to the White Lady Shieling at the intermediate stage of the chair-lift. I am also told that at the moment they are actively considering further developments, including what I see is called a Hilltop Restaurant. I imagine that this is the sort of restaurant in which, in Switzerland, where there are no licensing laws, you buy your Gliihwein—when I say, "buy your Glühwein", I mean whenever you want to buy it—and this seems to me to be a very desirable thing. I think the idea of a mountain-top restaurant where you take your skis off and have your cup of coffee and your Glühwein is one of the most attractive aspects, provided the sun is there, in winter sports. Again, all these proposals are in line with the Cairngorm Report.
Now I should like to turn again to this problem of roads. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, as did the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, raised the question of road improvements, and I find that my noble friend Lord Hughes dealt with it in the debate in your Lordships' House

1121
on April 5. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I think it was, then spoke about the road situation in the Cairngorm area, and made the very fair point that it is no use having snow on the ski-slopes if people cannot get there. My noble friend gave a very full statement at the time, and I do not want to go over all the details again, but I would just say that since that debate the planned improvements over the whole length of the road from Coylumbridge to Coire Cas have been completed at a total cost of nearly a quarter of a million pounds, and constructional work will soon be started on a £332,000 scheme for the improvement of the stretch from Aviemore to Coylumbridge which will include a much improved junction with the A.9. These are formidable schemes by any standard, and are impressive proof of the support which the Inverness County Council and the Government are giving to the recreational needs of the area.
On the Perth-Pitlochry section of the A.9 further South, various improvements are already in hand or are being planned, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering what general improvement can be included in the road programme for the 1970's. On the A.93, the Perth County Council have plans for widening and realigning the road between the Devil's Elbow and the county boundary. Whether this will be enough to obviate any disasters produced by the noble Earl going into reverse at a crucial moment I cannot say, but at least the risks will be less.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is true that the plans of the Perth County Council for the A.93 road have actually been put on paper?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will read this again very carefully. I was in the middle of it when I was diverted by my recollection of the noble Earl's agonising situation on an earlier occasion. The Perth County Council have plans for widening and realigning the road between the Devil's Elbow and the county boundary with Aberdeenshire, but the question of timing must of course depend partly on the overall funds available to grant-aid the Scottish principal road improvement programme during the next few years—and this, I would submit, is
1122
in turn bound up with the restraints imposed by the national economic situation—and partly on the county council's own view on priorities. So I am not sure whether in saying that they have plans it means that there are plans available to be seen, but it may be that I shall be able to let the noble Earl know this.
Looking at the wider scene, your Lordships will appreciate that all the local planning authorities in the area covered by the Cairngorm Report were represented on the Technical Group, and this can be expected to bear fruit in their development plans. Indeed, almost simultaneously with the publication of the Report, Inverness County Council submitted an amendment to their development plan for the area which makes it quite clear that the county council accept the main lines of the Report and are willing to play a full part in implementing it. More recently, too, in December, Banff County Council submitted a development plan which designates the whole of the Cairngorm area falling within their district as being an area of great landscape value. They have also indicated that it is their policy to encourage the development of tourism as an integral part of the county's economic structure, and that as one means of doing so they intend in the main to adopt the recommendations in the Report. And, of course, the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 will considerably improve their ability co do this because of the additional powers and financial assistance which it makes available.
My Lords, the Scottish Tourist Board has been paying close attention to the potentialities of the area. The Eastern Cairngorms is the subject of one of the regional studies which the Board has commissioned. This study is being undertaken by Professor Walton of Aberdeen University. The North-East Consultative Group of the Scottish Economic Planning Council has also been taking an interest in the study, and a local liaison committee has been formed. The study will be able to draw on the results of previous surveys of visitors to the area and its skiing facilities which the Board has undertaken, and in particular a study undertaken in the 1966–67 winter season of the

1123
Beinn a'Bhuird snowfields, the possibilities of which the Cairngorm Report identified and to which several noble Lords have referred to-day. But here again this will mean new road facilities, and it is probably here, as the Cairngorm Report suggests, that the next really big new development is likely to take place.
It is not possible for me to say how soon this will be, whether there will be another Fraser, another group of people who will in fact be able to help with facilities in that area when the roads are available. I do not know how far it is from the railway lines, but it is obviously not going to be so convenient as Aviemore, and it is difficult to see when these developments will come. The Tourist Board has also joined with the Highlands and Islands Development Board in a study of Upper Strathspey. I am very glad that the two Boards are working together on this because tourist development is a matter—we must all accept this—of major importance in this area. But the development which has taken place at Aviemore has a wider significance and one of the main purposes which the Boards have in mind in studying it is to see what lessons they can learn with the object of stimulating larger scale concentrations of wet-weather and evening entertainment facilities elsewhere in Scotland.
One thing I should have liked to ask noble Lords who have ski-ed in that area is this. How far are local guides and ski instructors being recruited from the people of the district? After all, this has become a main source of wealth and an occupation to the people of Austria and Switzerland. I hope, when we are asked to one of these Scottish centres, that we shall hear the instructors speaking in Scottish accents worthy of the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can assure the noble Lord that it is already the case, quite extensively.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am delighted to hear that. The noble Earl has the advantage. He has been there, and I have not so far.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, there is a very efficient local mountain rescue team which operates from Aviemore. It is entirely local.
LORD SHACKLETON: I know of their admirable mountain rescue facilities. In this connection the R.A.F. have not been backward on occasions in lending a hand in mountain rescues.
My Lords, I think we must all be grateful to the noble Earl for giving us this useful and, to me, fascinating debate. We are all agreed, as the Secretary of State said in his foreward to the Report, that no other area in Britain can offer more dramatic opportunities for all-the-year-round outdoor recreation than the Cairngorms. The Aviemore Centre has had a variety of amusements, a blend of indoor and outside. A notable beginning has been made, and the Report clearly points out the directions that developments might take. How soon they will be achieved will depend to a great extent on the availability of money. At this moment, when severe restraints are necessary, it is no good my promising noble Lords anything that looks very hopeful. But it is under way; it is moving; expenditure is continuing; and I will certainly see that not only my right honourable friend (who I know never ceases to fight hard for Scotland) but other of my colleagues in Government are made aware of the importance of this development, not merely in terms—
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I would ask whether the Government consider this Report to be a tourism report, or whether it applies to 1,500 square miles of endeavour by indigenous industries to bring themselves up and develop themselves. Does the noble Lord not consider that the Council who produce this Report have been unjust to the people of the area, in so far as they have dismissed their potential in a few paragraphs?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I was, of course, addressing my remarks mainly to the Question on the Order Paper, which was related to winter sports. This is the matter we are debating to-day. None the less, the debate has rightly gone wide. You cannot discuss an area like the Cairngorms without covering the whole subject. I must confess that I would rather leave it to my noble friend Lord Hughes, since the noble Lord is raising an aspect of the Report that is not covered by the

1125
Question. In any case, I do not know the answer. It would be unfair to the noble Lord and to the House, as well as dangerous for me, to give an answer off the cuff.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, I was referring merely to what the Report has said: that tourism cannot prosper in its full potential unless care is given to the development of the basic indigenous industries of the area, particularly of agriculture. When I refer to that I am still within the ambit of the discussion to-day, which is tourism, and which cannot prosper unless the rest of the issues within this great area are also looked at and discussed.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sure that we shall hear from the noble Lord on other occasions. I am not competent to deal with this aspect. I would not suggest for one moment that anything he said was not relevant to the debate and I am sure that the principles he has enunciated are generally sound in relation to any community activity. You
1126
cannot just think in terms of a single strand of development where great vulnerability may arise. None the less, it appears that in this field of tourism, and in the development of winter sports and summer sports in this area, there lies a really exciting thing, not merely for the people of that area—and it is of great importance to them—but as a real national asset.
I hope that the noble Earl will be gratified by the response to this debate and that the people who are working in this area (so many of them with such selfless faith all these years), will feel encouraged.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his telling us so fully what is in the Government's mind?
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord for his reply to me?
House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.