Sitting of 23 January 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Privately-owned Equipment
    Mr. Loveysasked the Postmaster-General whether he will publish a list of telephones which are sold in this country but which Post Office engineers are instructed not to connect.
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Postmaster-General what discussions he has had, and with whom, with regard to private suppliers or users of subscriber apparatus being authorised, to connect their equipment to the telephone system; what consultations he had had and with whom, with regard to the protection of the system in such circumstances; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): Post Office engineers may only connect: to the public system telephones supplied through the Post Office. I do not keep lists of other telephones on sale in this country. Discussions on the connection of privately-owned equipment to the Post Office system have been held with the Telecommunications Engineering and Manufacturing Association, the Institute of Office Management, the Post Office Users' Council, the Confederation of British Industry and representatives of individual manufacturing and user companies, and have included the subject of protection of the Post Office system. I am considering carefully the advice that has been offered from these quarters.
    Mr. Loveys: May I press the Minister to look again at the regulations bearing
    630
    on this, since many such telephones have been connected, are working perfectly satisfactorily and are quite up to the specifications and standards of the G.P.O. telephones? Is there any justifiable reason why one cannot have a telephone of one's own choice in one's own home, as is the case in most free countries of the world?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I have noticed in the Press that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about an antique telephone that had been given to him as a birthday present. I believe that antique telephones are on sale, but it would not be appropriate for these to be connected with the Post Office system because they are substandard in some respects, and it is important that the Post Office should have controls on the equipment that is connected to the system in order to ensure that the system works efficiently.
    Mr. Loveys: On a point of order. The Minister is quite misinformed about the type of telephone—
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Postmaster-General recall what was said by the Assistant Postmaster-General on the Second Reading of the Post Office Bill, namely, that no monopoly exists for the supply of subscriber apparatus? Does he intend to make this Government policy and allow subscribers virtually to order their own apparatus direct from suppliers?
    Mr. Stonehouse: As I said in my reply, we are considering the position, and I hope to make a statement in due course.
    Mr. Dobson: Does my right hon. Friend recollect the letter on this subject which he wrote to me stating that an internal examination was taking place, and will he not accept that, although he has made outside approaches, he has not approached the trade union particularly concerned, the Post Office Engineering Union? Will he undertake to do so before reaching any conclusions?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I will do that, certainly.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what progress has been

    631
    made in altering the Post Office specification to bring it more into line with overseas specifications so as to help our manufacturers in the export market?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I have been in close discussion with the suppliers to the Post Office with a view to improving our procurement procedure to assist in the export drive.
    Mr. Loveys: I beg leave to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Whitburn and Philpstoun
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to speed up the provision of private telephones in the Whitburn and Philpstoun areas of West Lothian.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): We shall be putting in a mobile exchange at Whitburn at about the end of April. At Philpstoun the difficulty has been getting a site for a new exchange. We are now examining some possible alternative ways of giving service in the meantime, and I will write to my hon. Friend when we have done so.
    Mr. Dalyell: Granted the explosion of demand for telephones in Central Scotland, what is being done to get to the root of the problem, namely, the schedules of suppliers?
    Mr. Slater: This is true to some extent, but there has been a substantial increase in the equipment brought into service. We expect this trend to continue.

    Telephone Faults (Survey)
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Postmaster-General whether all the general knowledge questions, put to the public in the course of tracing telephone faults and in other General Post Office Services, have now been discontinued.
    Mr. Stonehouse: At no time have general knowledge questions been put to the public in the course of tracing faults on telephone lines. As I told the hon. Gentleman on the 21st November, the survey which contained a few general knowledge questions has been discontinued.—[Vol. 773, c. 1516.]
    Mr. Campbell: Good. Why was it ever started?
    Mr. Stonehouse: For the reasons that I explained on that occasion.

    Waiting List
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Postmaster-General what progress he has made in meeting his undertaking to reduce within 18 months the waiting list for telephones which stood at 140,000 in the summer.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am very glad to inform the House that the waiting list has already been reduced by 37,000; that is from 138,000 to 101,000 between 1st April and the end of December 1968. A further 14,000 reduction is expected by 31st March. This will be the largest reduction in the waiting list in any one year since 1957–58.
    Mr. Baker: Though that answer is unsatisfactory, I will not seek to raise it on the Adjournment. But does the right hon. Gentleman never feel a little dissatisfied about making his forecast last September that the waiting list would be substantially reduced and virtually eliminated within 18 months when he knew at the time that this was wildly optimistic?
    Mr. Stonehouse: No. I said at that time that we would meet this objective provided the manufacturers were on time in the supply of equipment. I stick by that.
    Mr. James Hamilton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reply. But will he pay attention to the letter which he received from the hon. Member for Bothwell putting forward the suggestion that we should, as it were, manufacture our own equipment, with particular emphasis on the Bothwell constituency? This is a recurring sore throughout the whole country. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend now take my advice?
    Mr. Stonehouse: This matter is being discussed in the Committee stage of the Bill and it would not be right for me to refer to it.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the overseas orders that manufacturers receive have penalty clauses for non-delivery? I do not think that the G.P.O. orders have

    633
    such a clause. Does the G.P.O. suffer from this omission?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I should like to look at that and see whether we could not include such a provision in future, but we have had very good co-operation from many of our suppliers, who have had to increase their capacity by a factor of 2 or 3, and in some cases 4, to meet the additional demand that the Post Office, encouraged by the present Administration, has put on it, so making up for the neglect that prevailed during the thirteen consecutive years of Conservative Government.

    Trunk Calls (Charges)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Postmaster-General whether he will reduce trunk telephone charges, in view of the fact that a £59 million profit was made in 1967–68 on this service.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Telephone tariffs were revised last year following the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on Post Office Charges. I have no further proposals to make at present.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Does not this show that it would be far better to separate the postal services from the telephone services, as is done in the United States with vast benefit to the consumer? If, as is unlikely, the Postmaster-General will do this, will not he refer the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board?
    Mr. Stonehouse: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the telecommunications business should be sold out to private enterprise, he is on very shaky ground indeed.

    Priorities (Councillors)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Postmaster-General what degree of priority is given in Scotland to the installation of telephones in the houses of elected members of local authorities whom their constituents wish to contact urgently.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: A high degree of priority is given to provosts and chairmen of councils, but no special priority is given to other elected members.
    Mr. Eadie: Does not my hon. Friend think that it is in the public interest that councillors should have some form of
    634
    priority in connection with the installation of telephones?
    Mr. Slater: I appreciate their need, but we also have many claims, and receive much correspondence, from Members of Parliament and other people with equally strong grounds for priority. We cannot accept them all as being essential. We must draw a line somewhere.

    Place Names (Digital System)
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce a cost-benefit analysis on the use of digits as opposed to place names in the telephone service.
    Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir.
    Mr. Moonman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the feeling of many people is that the digital system is clumsy, costly and becoming chaotic? If he is not able to afford a research project, will he not consider sharing the cost with the E.I.U. or the P.E.P.?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's expression of opinion. The system which has been introduced is becoming generally acceptable. It is very convenient and I believe that in years to come it will be valued for what it is—a very efficient system. There were overwhelming operational reasons for its introduction.

    British Standard Time
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement about the effect of the introduction of British Standard Time on the volume and timing of telephone calls to the Continent.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 5th December to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro).—[Vol. 774, c. 546.]
    Mr. Goodhart: As one of the main arguments for introducing British Standard Time was the improvement which this would be for Continental telephone users, can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether, for the Post Office, it has been worth all the bother?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The information which we have is that the calls are being

    635
    spread more evenly, with the result that the equipment is being used more efficiently.

  POST OFFICE

    Two-tier Postal System
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Postmaster-General what percentage of mails is now first class; what progress he is making in inducing more people to use first-class mails; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Postmaster-General what study he has now made of the advantages and disadvantages of the first and second-class mail system in the light of experience.
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Postmaster-General what is his estimate of the increase in revenue due to the introduction of first-class mail, and a 5d. postal rate.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Postmaster-General what percentage of first-class mail is now arriving the day after posting.
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Postmaster-General why, after increasing postal charges and introducing two-tier post, he is now proposing to reduce staff and further curtail the service;
    (2) if he will publish details of the additional revenues obtained by the Post Office as a result of the introduction of the two-tier system.
    Mr. Stonehouse: 33 per cent. of mail is now sent first class compared to 25 per cent. when the new service started. 94 per cent. of first-class envelopes are delivered by the day after posting, including some delivered the same day. I expect total revenue to increase by £21 million a year: about half of this increase comes from first-class mail.
    As I told the House on 4th November, a full survey into the operation of the two-tier service is being undertaken and this report will be made public. Meanwhile, I have no intention of curtailing the postal services; but we must continue with our normal prudent policy of adjusting staff and other costs to traffic.—[Vol. 772, c. 558–618.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance now, as we are on the point of changing over to decimal currency, that first-class mails will cost four new pennies, equal to 4·8 old pennies, and that he will not take conversion to decimal currency as an opportunity to raise the cost to five new pennies, equal to sixpence at present?
    Mr. Stonehouse: There are many factors which come into the fixing of postal tariffs, and it is too early to say exactly what those tariffs will be in two or three years' time.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, after some understandable teething troubles, many of us in Scotland now regard the system as an increasing success, and this reflects great credit on those who work in the Post Office?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am very grateful for that expression of view, and certainly it corresponds with a great many expressions of opinion that we have had from consumers who are very appreciative of the fact that they now have an opportunity of choosing a first-class or second-class service, knowing that the first-class service provides a very good reliability.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Should not the right hon. Gentleman give more study to the law of diminishing returns? Why was he £4 million wrong in his estimate, and how does his revised estimate of £21 million in increased revenue compare with that of a year ago?
    Mr. Stonehouse: We were expecting an increase of £25 million, and certainly the amount of traffic which the two-tier system has attracted is less than we anticipated. But it is only a marginal decrease. What we did not anticipate was that people would be able to take such good advantage of the new rates that we introduced, especially the increases in weight allowances.
    Mr. Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the knockers on the benches opposite and their friends in business, the system is working very well in the Midlands, but that there is a problem in central London? Can he say what study he is making of this aspect of the postal service?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The Regional Director whom I have appointed to conduct

    637
    a study into the two-tier system will take this point on board. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observation that the system is working successfully in the Midlands. That has been the view expressed to me on my numerous visits there.
    Mr. Bryan: If the total traffic has gone down, how can it be a marked success?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The success is in relation to the reliability of service and the fact that the split of traffic anticipated by the Post Office planners has been achieved. We are providing a next-day delivery of first-class mail in 94 cases out of 100. This really is an exceptional performance, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will want to give credit where it is due. Certainly it is due in this case.

    Single-Channel Communication Systems
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Postmaster-General what research his Department is carrying out into the development of single-channel communication systems which could pipe radio, television, and telephones into every home, and at the same time read the gas and electricity meters; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: We are studying the technical and other problems involved in such a scheme with a view to developing a system if it proves to be viable.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend not agree that this single channel system is already in an advanced stage of development in several other countries? Is not the natural long-term development of Giro for the individual to be able to supply data for the computer from his home and ultimately receive computerised data in return?
    Mr. Slater: There may be a lot in what my hon. Friend says, and I do not disagree with him. But I must add that, at the moment, while we are engaged on research, we must await the conclusion of these studies.

    Mail Deliveries (Post Boxes)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Postmaster-General what investigations
    638
    have been carried out by his Department into the percentage productivity increases to be achieved in postal delivery without serious reduction in the quality of the service by the general introduction of garden gate boxes in homes with gardens, and extending delivery boxes in blocks of flats, for receiving mail.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The widest possible provision of these boxes would produce an improvement in postal productivity of about 0·75 per cent. As to quality the time of delivery would be worsened for some and improved for others.
    Mr. Roberts: Will my hon. Friend accept that I find that numerical Answer quite incredible? Does he not agree that there is an urgent need to improve the lot of the postman to avoid his having to walk up garden paths and climb the stairs of 16-storey blocks of flats when lifts are not working? Why was no legal action taken on this in the Post Office Bill?
    Mr. Slater: As my hon. Friend knows, we try to do things by persuasion. We try to improve the lot of our people who are faced with long walks when seeking to deliver mail on behalf of the Post Office. My hon. Friend referred to the Post Office Bill. He will remember that, on Second Reading, the Government considered that it would be better for the Corporation to take over the responsibilities of the Post Office's monopoly as well as its privileges.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that, if the postman does not walk up the garden path, the householder has to walk down it? There must, therefore, be a decline in the quality of the service, and it must not be forgotten that not all householders are young and able-bodied.
    Mr. Slater: Nor are many of our employees young and able-bodied. Some of our people have given service to the Post Office for many years. On the other hand, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that a good deal of a postman's time can be spent in walking up and down long paths and, in coal mining areas in the North-East, for example, in many instances the postman acts as a caller-up.

    Postmen (Overtime)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Postmaster-General what has been the weekly average of overtime hours worked by postmen since the introduction of the two-tier postal system for letters; and what was the average in the same period in the previous year.
    Mr. Stonehouse: During October and November the average weekly overtime worked by postmen totalled 751,000 and 749,000 hours, respectively. The corresponding figures in 1967 were 729,000 and 716,000.
    Mr. Taylor: Does not this show that, despite quite a substantial reduction in mail, there has been an increase in overtime hours worked and, therefore, the system is not working perhaps as well in the public interest as the right hon. Gentleman thinks?
    Mr. Stonehouse: At the beginning of the two-tier system we had a lot of extra overtime worked to ensure that it got off successfully. Since then a lot of the overtime has been reduced and we are now beginning to get it in the right proportion to the amount of traffic with which we have to deal.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members are receiving constant complaints about the two-tier system and that there is an element in the overtime arising from sorting out because of the system? Would it not be more honest to the general public to have one price for the postage and explain what the expenditure is for? The public will certainly complain, but it will understand that it is not being absolutely bedevilled with excuses which have no logical background whatsoever.
    Mr. Stonehouse: If my hon. Friend had attended the debates on the two-tier system he would remember that the key problem was to deal with the peak load of traffic and to ensure that the Post Office gave priority to first-class mail. That we are doing through the two-tier system, and I do not think that it will be wise to change it.
    Mr. Bryan: One of the proposed advantages of the two-tier system was
    640
    that there would be less overtime. I appreciate that some overtime might be necessary in the opening phases, but can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an estimate of how things will go in future?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The overtime being worked is being progressively reduced. I am sure that the original intention of the two-tier system, which was to make the service generally more efficient, will be achieved.

    Christmas Stamps (Design)
    Mr. Laneasked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received about the designs of the Christmas 1968 postage stamps; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: We have had a number of letters, including some from Members of this House. A few letters commented, in general favourably, on the artistic quality of the stamps; but many regretted that the designs lacked a religious theme.
    Mr. Lane: Will the hon. Gentleman take these representations seriously? Many people were distressed by the wholly materialistic nature of those designs. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that any special designs in 1969 do not fail to bring out the religious significance of Christmas?
    Mr. Slater: The 1969 stamps, like those of 1967, will have a religious theme. I wish to be fair to the House, but my personal view is that the stamps showing children with their toys did not offend against the spirit of Christmas, which is traditionally a time for giving gifts to children.
    Mr. Paget: Can we not be a little more selective about these stamps turning up? For instance, is the appearance of the R.M.S. "Queen Elizabeth 2" stamp at this very moment very fortunate?
    Mr. Slater: One of the most difficult tasks that beset my right hon. Friend is deciding what stamps ought to be put out. He gives much serious consideration and examination before deciding which stamps are put on the market.

    Mail Delays (Losses)
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Postmaster-General (1) what is his policy regarding compensation to ratepayers who have not qualified for discounts on their rates for the sole reason that the letters forwarding their rate payments have been delayed or lost while in Post Office hands;
    (2) whether he is aware that a sack of mail addressed to the City Treasurer of Liverpool was lost in the Post Office from mid-October to mid-November, 1968; and what action he proposes to take to compensate the city of Liverpool and various citizens of Liverpool for the financial losses they have thereby incurred.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Unfortunately a number of letters for the City Treasurer were sorted to the wrong address. Through oversight the recipient did not return them to the post for more than three weeks. Much as we regret the delay, we cannot make ex gratia payments as compensation.
    Mr. Fortescue: Did not this incident take place at the hight of a campaign which assured the public that a letter with a 5d. stamp would reach anywhere in the country the morning after it was posted? These letters had to go from the outskirts of Liverpool to the centre of Liverpool. In view of the Government's insistence on, and almost obsession with, truthfulness in advertising and also in view of the fact that if this were a private enterprise a prosecution would undoubtedly lie under the Trade Descriptions Act for deceiving the public, will not the Minister reconsider his Answer?
    Mr. Slater: The hon. Member is receiving the cheers of his hon. Friends, but I would remind the House that the Post Office handles about 35 million letters a day. Although only a small percentage is mishandled, we could not pay compensation for every unregistered letter which was delayed. To make an ex gratia payment in this case would open the door to an unlimited liability which the Post Office could not possibly take on.
    Mr. Fortescue: In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg
    642
    to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Postmen (Attacks)
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Postmaster-General (1) how many postmen have been violently attacked in the course of their duty since 1st October, 1968; and in how many of these attacks ammonia or other chemical substances were used;
    (2) what proportion of registered or other valuable packages is delivered on the first postal delivery; what proportion of violent attacks on postmen occur in the course of the first delivery; and what change has taken place in the number of such attacks since the introduction of British Standard Time, in comparison with previous years.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Five postmen have been attacked: in one attack a chemical substance was used. One of these attacks was on a first delivery postman. There was none in the corresponding periods of 1966 and 1967.
    Mr. Bell: Does the hon. Member realise that there is widespread feeling among postmen that this is a consequence of British Standard Time and the consequently darker mornings in which these deliveries are made? Has he received representations to that effect, and what representations is he making to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department?
    Mr. Slater: As the hon. Member will be aware, the question of British Summer Time is not one for my Department. Up to the moment we have had no representations on the matter as far as I know. I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the comments and observations made by the hon. and learned Member.

    Envelopes (Size)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a further statement on the proposed extra charge for letters not conforming to the Post Office preferred range of sizes.
    Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the good progress made in the use of Post Office preferred sizes, I have decided to continue to rely for the time being upon the co-operation of our customers and of the

    643
    stationery manufacturers and not to impose an extra charge for the use of non-preferred sizes.
    Mr. Jenkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. If he looks at this matter again will he consider the possibility of instituting a two-tier system based upon preferred and non-preferred sizes as an alternative to the present two-tier system?
    Mr. Stonehouse: This is an interesting idea but I do not think that we could work it. What we are concerned with is to provide, as far as P.O.P. sizes are concerned, sizes of envelopes which will be usable in the machines that are progressively being produced.

    Christmas Mail Delays (Bromley)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Postmaster-General what investigation he is making of the loss of mailbags containing Christmas post for residents of the Greater London Borough of Bromley.
    Mr. Huntasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on the discovery in a railway van at Sittingbourne of 71 sacks of mail, including many Christmas cards, destined for the Bromley area.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Some mailbags were seriously delayed in transit and we are seeking an explanation from our contractors.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following the strains imposed by the introduction of the two-tier system, this further delay to a substantial body of mail has caused widespread local fury? Will he ensure that the inquiry's report is made public?
    Mr. Slater: I do not dissent from the hon. Member's observations, but we should carry out our inquiry first.
    Mr. Hunt: When the hon. Gentleman refers to contractors, does he mean British Rail, and, if so, will he obtain an undertaking from British Rail that this sort of carelessness and inefficiency will not recur?
    Mr. Slater: The hon. Member should be satisfied with the Answer which I have given. The inquiry is to be made. Let
    644
    us conduct the inquiry and find out the facts.
    Mr. Lubbock: Why is it that when delays of this serious nature take place it is nearly always impossible for the Post Office to discover the reasons for them? While the investigation is being completed, does the hon. Gentleman not at least think that, on behalf of the Post Office, he should extend an abject apology to people whose mail has been delayed by a whole month?
    Mr. Slater: This is something which we are always doing—[Laughter.] That laughter, led by the Leader of the Opposition, at my remark does not deter me from saying what I was going to say. Like my right hon. Friend, I receive many letters from hon. Members always seeking to get something done for their constituents, and we give due care and consideration to the applications made to us. We will constantly face up to the responsibilities which are placed upon us, as we have endeavoured to do over the last four years.

    3d. Postcards
    Dr. Grayasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the financial results of the two-tier service, he will now reintroduce the 3d. postcard.
    Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir. The 3d. postcard service lost £1·3 million on an income of £4·5 million in the last financial year and I would not be justified in reintroducing it.
    Dr. Gray: In view of the financial loss on Christmas cards and the importance of the seaside holiday card trade, would my right hon. Friend think again about this and reintroduce the 3d. post for holiday postcards?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I could not reconsider it, because of the tremendous loss which would be involved. There was not a loss on Christmas cards, in fact, but a reduction in the number of postings.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Licence Fees
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Postmaster-General when and by how much the combined television-radio licence will increase; how much will be the total

    645
    revenue in 1969 from all television and radio licences; what increase this represents over 1968; by how much he expects to reduce evasion; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: The combined television-sound licence fees were increased by £1 on 1st January; I have no further increases in mind. I estimate the total revenue from broadcast receiving licences in the financial year 1969–70 at about £101 million, an increase of some £15 million over the expected revenue for the year 1968–69. I expect some decrease in evasion but so many factors are involved that I do not think I should try to set a figure to it.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the Postmaster-General bear in mind that the last figure which he gave us for evasion was in excess of £10 million in a full year, and that was at lower licence rates? As that figure represents about 10 per cent. of all revenue from licences, ought he not to redouble his efforts to catch evaders and prevent this obnoxious practice developing further?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. We are using a number of measures to reduce evasion, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to it.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will any concession in respect of this increase be made to old-age pensioners and people who cannot pay—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a later Question on that subject. The hon. Gentleman cannot anticipate a Question.

    Elderly People
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Postmaster-General if he has now completed his consideration of the possibility of conceding reduced television licence charges for elderly people living alone.
    Mr. Alisonasked the Postmaster-General whether he has now reached a decision on his consideration of the proposal to extend to all old-age pensioners the right to acquire individual radio or television licences at the concessionary 10s. rate, which is now accorded to those who live in their own separate flats or bungalows with qualifying communal facilities.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has now made to extend reduced television licence fees to all retired people.
    Mr. Stonehouse: As regards retirement pensioners generally my view remains that it would be wrong to discriminate against others no less deserving, and in particular against elderly people who have no sets, and whose need might well be greater. I have gone most carefully into the position of those, who, for whatever reason, are most in need, but I understand that the index of retail prices, which takes into account the cost of the licence fee is one of the factors determining supplementary benefit rates.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this will be very disappointing news to the many organisations who have watched carefully the Minister's deliberations over a number of months? Is he aware of the hardship imposed by the increased postal charges, telephone fees and television licence fees? Is he not prepared to keep his mind open on the question, in view of the great burden caused by increased charges? Finally, is he aware that a number of pensioners in my constituency recently were offered free television sets, and not a single taker could be found—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am not aware of undue hardship arising from the tariff increases. The House should get this into perspective. The licence fee is about the lowest in Europe. For that fee, a very good service is provided. We must avoid getting bogged down in this concept of concessions in kind, which is a very dangerous one.
    Mr. Alison: Is not the Postmaster-General aware that he is making precisely a concession in kind by what he has introduced? Has he pondered the full implications of the anomaly created by this virtual exemption from T.V. licence fees which he accords to certain old-age pensioners who are no different from others except that they already enjoy subsidised advantages? Why help them further in a discriminatory way?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am surprised that there is any objection to this concession,

    647
    which is a reasonable one, bearing in mind that the old-age pensioners concerned live together in a home. I believe that it is a concession which makes sense.
    Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the concession for which he is now attacked is far more than the Conservatives did when they were in power, but that it has led to some misunderstanding amongst elderly people? Now that he has had some experience of the two-tier system, is it not possible to include T.V. licences for people in these categories and, if necessary, recoup the money by allowing Radio One advertising? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
    Mr. Stonehouse: On the last point, I would not want to anticipate a review which is being conducted and about which I hope to make announcement in July. But the House must be aware that, in addition to old-age pensioners, many other groups within the community may be in greater need of concessions.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Can the Postmaster-General say how much has been paid in television licence fees by pensioners.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I could not give that detail off the cuff, but I will obtain the information and write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Taylor: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    B.B.C. (Television Announcements)
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Postmaster-General if he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from broadcasting announcements on television, in areas which cannot receive B.B.C.2, that for the £6 licence fee, viewers have a choice of B.B.C.1 or B.B.C.2.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The Government does not intervene in matters of programme content; but I am assured by the B.B.C. that it is not their practice to make such announcements.
    Mr. Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been many complaints about such statements, which may
    648
    have been off the cuff and unintentional, but which, none the less, are a cause of great irritation?
    Mr. Slater: I cannot see why the B.B.C. should have to take some line of action because someone makes a comment off the cuff. If these people are so concerned about something that the B.B.C. is doing, knowing full well that the B.B.C. is responsible for the day-to-day running of that organisation, it would be as well for them to contact the B.B.C.
    Mr. Campbell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Films
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Postmaster-General if he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority to refrain from broadcasting programmes of films which have received X-certificates from the British Board of Film Censors, and to refrain from broadcasting any films which have not been seen by the British Board of Film Censors.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: No, Sir. Responsibility for the content of broadcast programmes rests with the Chairman and Governors of the B.B.C. and the Chairman and Members of the I.T.A.; and the Government does not intervene.
    Mr. Tuck: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very detrimental effects that certain films—notably sex and horror films—have on the mentality, outlook and conduct of our young? What is the sense in stopping a child seeing a film classified as "X" at the cinema when he can go home and see on television either the same film—for example, "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane"—or something a great deal worse?
    Mr. Slater: I can only repeat that responsibility for the content of broadcast programmes rests with the Chairman and Governors of the B.B.C. I am told that it remains the general policy of the B.B.C. not to show before nine o'clock material unsuitable for children. I am sure that the Corporation will take note of my hon. Friend's observations.
    Mr. Tuck: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give

    649
    notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Programme Company Directors (Broadcasts)
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Postmaster-General if he will now seek to amend the Television Act so as to enable members of the boards of contracting television companies to broadcast in television programmes other than those transmitted, produced or initiated by their own companies.
    Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir. The Television Act does not prohibit directors of programme companies from appearing on television so long as they do not express opinions on matters of political or industrial controversy.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the Postmaster-General aware that that statement represents a major departure from previous Government policy in this matter?
    Mr. Stonehouse: It does not. It is fully in line with Section 3(2) of the Television Act, 1964.

    The Highlands
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Postmaster-General what steps he will take to improve and extend the reception of television in the Highland area; and if he has now approved the timetable for the introduction there of BBC2.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The improvement and extension of their services is primarily the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities. The B.B.C. has no plan to build more V.H.F. 405-line stations. The I.T.A. is building one more V.H.F. station at Aviemore.
    The first transmitter for B.B.C.2 should open in 1970. Approval has been given for 44 U.H.F. stations in a construction programme up to 1974.
    Mr. Maclennan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he accept that there is indignation in the Highland area because licences are being increased whereas the service is not being improved? Will he acknowledge that there are few areas of the country where the provision of adequate television service is more needed, and where it would be more welcomed?
    Mr. Slater: I have much sympathy with the observations of the hon. Gentleman, but the existing services on the very high frequencies have been extended as far as is technically and economically possible in mountainous areas such as the Highlands. I wish that more could be done.

    Scotland (Representations)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Postmaster-General how many representations he has received from Scotland for a reduction in television licensing fees; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Eleven Members for Scottish constituencies have written to me. Four of them forwarded petitions containing a total of 166 signatures. I cannot give a precise figure for the total number of representations from Scotland.
    Mr. Eadie: My right hon. Friend Will no doubt agree that there is a body of opinion which exists on this matter in certain constituencies. I wrote to him and I thank him sincerely for the reply he gave me on behalf of my constituents. Is he convinced that there cannot be some examination of certain categories with a view to eliminating hardship where it exists?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I have already indicated that we have had an examination of this matter and we feel that it would be unwise to be drawn further into the concept of concessions in kind.

    Children's Hospitals Association (Rental Charges)
    Mr. Alisonasked the Postmaster-General if he will rescind the 65 per cent. increase in charges for the rental of land lines used by the Children's Broadcasting Association for Hospitals.
    Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir. I recognise the value of the Association's work, but I cannot vary charges according to the type of services provided by customers. The recent increases were necessary to reduce the loss on this service.
    Mr. Alison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware what an extremely unsatisfactory answer that is? Does he recall that he has already given some concessions, for example, to old-age pensioners in old people's homes, for television licences? Why cannot he temper

    651
    the wind to this most needy of groups and come more into line with the prices and incomes policy?
    Mr. Storehouse: I ask the hon. Member to realise that if the Post Office gives concessionary charges on welfare grounds it receives no subsidy for doing so, and other Post Office users have to pay the charge, and that is unfair.

    Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles
    Mr. David Steelasked the Postmaster-General when B.B.C.2 services will be available to licence holders in the counties of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The B.B.C., which is primarily responsible for the provision of their services, tells me that B.B.C.2 will be available to about 40,000 people in these counties when its station at Selkirk opens in 1972.
    Mr. Steel: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the meantime, my constitutents will continue to pay the increased licence fee for a service which they do not receive? Does he know that there is a B.B.C.2 programme called "The Borderers", which the present-day Borderers are unable to see?
    Mr. Slater: The hon. Member's observation applies to everyone who cannot receive B.B.C.2. This can happen in my own area. But people have still to meet the licence fee. I would hope that it is possible to bring this in much earlier than the B.B.C. have said, but they do say 1972.

    North-East
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has to expand the availability of British Broadcasting Corporation television services in the North-East for black and white and colour television.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Postmaster-General what arrangements are being made to extend the transmission facilities at Newcastle-upon-Tyne for television broadcasting from the North-East of England.
    Mr. Woofasked the Postmaster-General what representations have been
    652
    made to him on the future availability of British Broadcasting Corporation television services in the North-East; and what reply he has given.
    Mr. Stonehouse: The extent to which studios at Newcastle-upon-Tyne should provide local production of television programmes is a matter for the B.B.C. No representations, other than these Questions, have been made to me.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although it is accepted that this is a matter for the B.B.C, he has a considerable responsibility and influence here, since the Newcastle local authority is about to make a compulsory purchase order involving the taking over of the property in which the studios are now operating? Is this not a remarkably useful opportunity for the B.B.C. to think in terms of expanding its service there in a new building, with new equipment, and certainly decentralising the research work on colour television?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that the B.B.C. will take note of those points.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: As a matter of policy, will my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a great demand for increased facilities from this station, in view of the large area which it covers and the importance of the programmes?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Sir, I am sure that the B.B.C. is aware of its responsibilities in the North-East and that it will take note of the points being raised.
    Sir D. Glover: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this complaint applies not only to the North-East but to the North-West, and that there is great feeling that the B.B.C. do not devote enough time to regional programmes?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I take note of that point.

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to Questions by the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), Haltem-price (Mr. Wall) and Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) on 21st of January.—[Vol. 776, c. 245–9.]
    Mr. Winnick: What observations are being made by the British Government about the proceedings against the Reverend Sithole, in view of the fact that the courts and the régime of course in Salisbury are illegal? Would any new exchanges between Britain and Salisbury begin while those proceedings are still outstanding?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anything can usefully be done at this stage on that. We have no information about the charges or the conduct of those proceedings.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Despite all the ideological huffing and puffing, do not race relations remain good in Rhodesia, from which country no Asians have felt it necessary to seek entry here? Will the right hon. Gentleman give constructive consideration to Mr. Smith's new proposals, when received?
    The Prime Minister: If there are any proposals from Mr. Smith in response to our leaving the "Fearless" terms on the table, of course they will be considered. I do not think that it is possible to judge the state of race relations in Rhodesia, in so far as all relations there are based on repression.

    PRESIDENT NIXON
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to visit the President of the United States of America.
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Prime Minister when he plans to visit the President of the United States.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer to the Answer I gave on Tuesday to a Question by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G Nabarro).—[Vol. 776, c. 83.]
    Mr. Marten: Did the right hon. Gentleman notice that, in President Nixon's Inaugural Address, he spoke of a desire
    654
    to seek a world open to the exchange of e goods? Is he aware that the Nixon. Administration, before it came to power, had done a detailed study of the proposed Atlantic Free Trade Area? Will he discuss this with the President when he gets there and, in the meantime, carry out an up-to-date—I repeat, up-to-date—study here?
    The Prime Minister: I greatly welcomed the statement of the President to t which the hon. Member refers, and I am a sure that the whole House did. With regard to any studies made by members y of the Administration before inauguration, no doubt we shall have full details of any conclusions which they have reached, and we shall be ready to discuss their conclusions on any issue which they wish to discuss with us.
    Mr. Hastings: Is it not true that the reason that the Prime Minister did not visit Washington last year is that he knew "that President Johnson considered that he had defaulted over the Far East? When he does visit President Nixon, will he ensure that there is adequate discussion of alternative arrangements for the defence of the free world's interests in South-East Asia?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member's conclusion rather loses its force J due to the fact that I did visit President Johnson last year—
    Mr. Hastings: In 1968?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, 1968 was last year, in my recollection. If the hon. Gentleman will further wake up and recall what I said about that in the House after I came back, he would also find that the only reference made in the White House to the question of withdrawal from the Far East was rendered by a baritone from the Metropolitan Opera, who sang "The Road to Mandalay", from which we withdrew 20 years ago.
    Mr. Hastings—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Wyatt.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is there not something unseemly in this scramble to be first in the queue to see President Nixon, as though we had some special influence in Washington, which we do not possess? Does not the Prime Minister realise that

    655
    when President Nixon really wants to see him, he will send for him?
    The Prime Minister: On two counts my hon. Friend's formulation shows that he does not have the slightest appreciation of the relations between this country and the United States. To answer his point about there being a scramble to be first in the queue, I know of no such scramble. I said publicly the other evening, and I said this in the House, that we of course had to wait until the inauguration before there could be discussions. There will now be discussions, but I have not the remotest idea of who will be first in the queue.

    PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (BUILDING AND ENGINEERING WORKS)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister if he will define the responsibilities of the Minister of Public Building and Works for building and engineering work done in the Palace of Westminster.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement I made on 23rd March, 1965, on the Control and Custody of the Palace of Westminster.—[Vol. 709, c. 328–33.]
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does it follow from that Answer that his right hon. Friend remains Ministerially responsible for the cost of work done on this Palace and that, therefore, he should answer Questions about it?
    The Prime Minister: There may have been some misunderstanding about this. My right hon. Friend is, of course, responsible for the Estimates relating to this matter. He is responsible to Parliament. He is responsible for carrying out the Vote of this House following the report of the Select Committee. This does not mean that he would in all circumstances have to spend whatever money the Select Committee felt he should spend. In this particular case the number of annunciators—I think that this is the point the right hon. Gentleman has in mind—was quite large. He carried out what the Select Committee said should be done, but nevertheless there was a very big net saving
    656
    compared with going on with the old system of annunciators, which would have cost about four times as much per annum.
    Mr. William Price: Does my right hon. Friend recall his maiden speech to the House in which he dealt with the very difficult working conditions of hon. Members? Is he aware that 23 years later some of us are still left with nothing more than a peg on which to hang our sword and a locker?
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware of this problem. I confess that I remember that speech, which was made on what was for me a highly nervous occasion. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that while we still have a long way to go to improve working conditions here, there have been some significant improvements in the last four or five years.

    INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS
    Mr. Biffenasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has to initiate, with the President of the United States of America, a conference to establish new arrangements for settling international payments.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the Prime Minister aware that recent events have clearly demonstrated that the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates is in need of substantial revision? Will he take this opportunity of expressing at least sympathy with those in this House who have been calling for a system of more flexible exchange rates?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I have anything to add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on this matter last November. Of course, after 20 years, as he said, Bretton Woods, which has served the world quite well, requires continuous amendment; and this has been going on through the proper mechanism of the I.M.F. and in other ways.
    I do not think that it would be helpful to have a great world conference, itself creating instability, uncertainty and speculation, unless there was some certainty, as a result of previous preparation,

    657
    about what that conference would decide. These things are better done through the established channels. This is not to be complacent about the present situation. Of course it needs modernisation; and this Government and our predecessors took the lead in trying to get some modernisation introduced into many of these questions.
    Sir G. Nabarro: When discussing trade matters with the President, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any matter of international settlements must be linked with a further liberalisation of international trade? Will he press on the new President the fact that we desire—I think this is true of hon. Members in all parts of the House—a Nixon Round to follow the earlier and most successful Kennedy Round of tariff reductions?
    The Prime Minister: That is a novel and helpful way of putting a thought that is, I am sure, in the minds of most hon. Members. We pressed the previous Administration in America to go further and faster in this matter and, indeed, to implement as fully as possible through Congress the agreements of the last Kennedy Round, many of which yet need to be implemented. I think that that should be the first priority.

    PRIME MINISTER OF NORTHERN IRELAND
    Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to have further discussions with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing at present to add to what I said in reply to Questions from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) on 12th December and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) on 19th December.—[Vol. 775, c. 579–82, c. 1557–8.]
    Mr. Molloy: Should my right hon. Friend have occasion to meet the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, will he convey to him the appreciation of many of those on this side of the House who have been concerned with the problems
    658
    there and the remarkable courage which Captain O'Neill has shown? Would he also say, in so far as many of the projects which have been initiated by people who felt they had a just cause have been resolved, that if Captain O'Neill carries on listening to the many complaints and resolving them he will receive appreciation from the people of all parts of the British Isles?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I think that Captain O'Neill is well aware of the appreciation that is felt, not only by my hon. Friends but in all parts of the House, for the courage and skill which he has shown during this very difficult period. I confirm that he and his Cabinet have carried forward a number of valuable and important reforms in the sphere of human rights. The fact that they have not gone the whole way that many of us would have wanted them to go is a matter of which he is fully aware, as we are fully aware of his difficulties.
    I welcome the fact that on his own initiative he and his Cabinet have set up this Commission to inquire into all the human rights issues as well as other issues which have been raised by recent rioting, marches, demonstrations and so on in Northern Ireland. I believe that the best thing that we can do now is to wait for the report of that Commission before proceeding further in this matter.
    Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House also welcome the establishment by the Government of Northern Ireland of this independent Commission? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that what is required in Northern Ireland is a period of reasonable quiet and stability in which the Government can carry through the reforms on which they have embarked, while awaiting the report of the Commission?
    The Prime Minister: That about sums up the position as we see it.
    Captain Orr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we appreciate the tone of what has been said today and the tone of the supplementary question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy)? Would he perhaps go a little further and say that he endorses Captain O'Neill's appeal for an end to

    659
    demonstration and counter demonstration during the work of this Commission of inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: This is a matter not only for the Government but for the people of Northern Ireland. It is not for me to start laying down or suggesting what should be the behaviour in terms of peaceful demonstrations of people in Northern Ireland. There is great feeling there about human rights. Human rights have been endangered by reactionary counter-measures—I am not referring to the police but to other citizens—and I think that the appeal for the utmost restraint and for peaceful methods of demonstrating should certainly be endorsed.
    Mr. Heffer: While paying tribute to Captain O'Neill and the fact that a Commission has been set up in Ireland, would my right hon. Friend agree that a very simple answer to the whole question of demonstration, counter-demonstration, violence and everything else that has taken place in Northern Ireland would be to give the people of Northern Ireland one man, one vote, with genuine civil liberties for all the people there at the earliest possible moment?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows, from the Answers that I have previously given on this question, that while we have greatly welcomed the response to a considerable number of things that we have put to Captain O'Neill and his colleagues, the issue of one man, one vote, in local government was the outstanding issue. Obviously we want to see that proceeded with as soon as it can be but in saying that, one should not underrate what has so far been done.
    Mr. Lubbock: While also paying tribute to Captain O'Neill and while endorsing, with qualifications, his request to people not to take part in demonstrations, may I ask the Prime Minister to realise that this would not have been necessary in the first place if a programme of civil rights had been embarked upon by the Northern Irish Government? Will he make it absolutely clear to Captain O'Neill that the continued support of the British people for his efforts is dependent on getting on with these reforms at the earliest possible moment?
    The Prime Minister: I think that many of us have said in different words, as I said last October, that social grievances require social solutions and political grievances require political solutions. The denial of these particular rights has led to human rights demonstrations. One of the ugliest features is the response to those demonstrations by bigoted-minded people using violence for its own sake. All these things are to be inquired into by the Commission.
    Sir D. Renton: Does the Prime Minister recollect that on television last week he indicated that in certain circumstances Her Majesty's Government of Great Britain might intervene in Northern Ireland? Will he make it abundantly plain that he has no intention whatever of doing so?
    The Prime Minister: I answered the question put to me, which was: if certain circumstances were to arise, would we do it? I said: of course, if that was our duty, we would do it; we would not shrink from it. But I made it clear that this was entirely hypothetical. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will study what I said, he will find that the rest of my answer was entirely in terms of a tribute to Captain O'Neill for the progress made in dealing with these problems and in seeking, through his Commission and through other ways, to avert the situation that might lead to the last thing any of us want—a constitutional crisis.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Was not the principle of one man, one vote, established in this country only by forms of political demonstrations in the streets? Therefore, it is not so surprising that this has occurred in Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend confirm, in response to the question just asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), that the House of Commons has the most intimate concern in establishing that principle throughout the whole of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I said on Monday, having had to deal with this very phrase in the Commonwealth Conference, that we have the most intimate concern to see it carried out in all possible areas. I said that we have a very special

    661
    responsibility, because we have the responsibility for external relations for the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What I feel is satisfactory is that many of the things that my right hon. Friend and I were pressing for only two or three months ago have now been conceded—they have now been introduced or are in process of movement. The establishment of one man, one vote, in local government is the next one. This is vital. But do not let us under-rate what has been done on the road to it.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.

CANNABIS (ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Sir J. LANGFORD-HOLT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the conclusions reached in paragraph 70 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence that cannabis is a dangerous drug the implications of the mental effect of which are not yet clear, whether he will give an assurance that he does not accept the recommendation of the same Committee that the present maximum penalties for possession and supply of the drug are altogether too high.
Mr. BLENKINSOP: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the Report on Cannabis of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, now answer Questions Nos. 56 and 57.
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have carefully studied the Report on cannabis, submitted by the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, and wish to thank Sir Edward Wayne, Baroness Wootton and their colleagues for their painstaking examination of this social problem.
The Sub-Committee of which Lady Wootton was Chairman recommended
662
that the penalties for possession, sale or supply of cannabis should be substantially reduced. It also recommended studies of the use of police powers, of the exclusion of strict liability, and of redefinition of the offence of unauthorised possession. It recommended that the general law on drugs should be recast.
My right hon. Friends and I fully accept that more comprehensive and flexible powers of control are needed to check drug abuse, and I hope to be in a position to announce proposals in due course. We also accept that there is a need for wider research and we are bringing this to the notice of the Research Council and others.
As regards a review of police powers of search and arrest, the Advisory Committee has set up a Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) to review these powers in relation to drug offences, and this inquiry is proceeding. I am in sympathy with the view that the scope of strict liability in relation to drug offences should be restricted, and I shall continue consultations with the Law Commission to that end.
On the other hand, I cannot reconcile the view expressed by the main Committee that the wider use of cannabis should not be encouraged with the proposal that legislation should be brought in to reduce the existing penalties for use. Nor has the Advisory Committee made any forecast of the consequences of such legislation. But, in our opinion, to reduce the penalties for possession, sale or supply of cannabis would be bound to lead people to think that the Government take a less than serious view of the effects of drug-taking.
That is not so. It would be entirely contrary to Government policy to allow this impression to spread, nor would such a view accord with the resolution of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which the Government accepted last year, recommending
"that all countries concerned increase their efforts to eradicate the abuse and illicit traffic in cannabis".
Accordingly, it is not the Government's intention to legislate to reduce existing penalties.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the Secretary of State be assured that he has the

663
support of the vast majority of the House in the statement that he has just made? Will he make it clear that what we are discussing are the maximum penalties and not in any sense a minimum penalty, which is a matter for the courts, and that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves—namely, that there is no certainty or even knowledge of the physical as well as the social effects of this drug—this would be a particularly appropriate time to take any action in the direction which is recommended by the Report?
Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. We are discussing maximum penalties, and it is for the courts to judge the seriousness of each offence. As we have a number of social evils in Britain at present, I am certain that it would be sheer masochism to add to our evils by legislating to make it more easy for people to introduce yet another one.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I understand my right hon. Friend's reply and his unwillingness to legislate in the way proposed, but does he not agree that it is very important that Members and others should read the Report and the very logical and careful argument in it before rushing to conclusions on specific items in it? Further, will he note the recommendations—and, indeed, the views—of Dr. Cameron, of the World Health Organisation, on specific points of penalties? In his view, there is no reason in logic for having the same penalty for cannabis as for narcotic drugs.
Mr. Callaghan: I certainly recommend that the Report be read. It contains, as I said, much useful material, some of which my right hon. Friends and I would hope to adopt. I find it very difficult to reconcile the Committee's conclusions on the question of penalties, but that does not in any way mitigate the appreciation I feel for the rest of the work which was done by the Committee, including my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Ashford.
As to medical and other views about the effects of the drug, much more research is needed before the State moves in to reduce penalties. It would be quite wrong for me at this stage to take such action. I believe that on reviewing this subject, because of the growth of new drugs and the fact that new problems
664
are likely to come upon us, there is probably a case for more legislation on this subject; but the legislation that I would propose to the House when I finish my review would be to strengthen the Government's power and not to weaken it, to make it more flexible so that we can react to new situations as they arise.
Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as I hope, be pleased and not unduly embarrassed when he learns that the judgment of those on this Bench is almost exactly the same on this matter as that of the Government? Will he take note that we wish to debate this matter in our time next Monday and, therefore, do not wish to ask him further questions at present?
Mr. Callaghan: I am very relieved to hear that there will be no more questions this afternoon. I guessed what the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say, because I listened with appreciation to him on "The World at One", where he is a constant and regular attender. May I suggest to him that when he is on tomorrow, if he is asked again why both parties have the habit of setting up commissions and then ignoring their reports, instead of giving the answer he did he should say that the Government did not specifically set up this Committee with a view to inquiring into this subject.
Dr. Winstanley: As a member of a party which has not yet had its opportunity of ventilating its views on "The World at One"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—on this question—may I say that, broadly speaking, I welcome the statement the Home Secretary has made, in particular his remarks on the need for further research. Will he accept that the best way to stop people becoming addicted to drugs is to stop the drugs concerned being available to them? Will he concentrate more effort on the question of availability of the drugs, from which he will perhaps get a better return than the mere matter of penal sanctions?
Mr. Callaghan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The question of availability is important. That is why in some ways those who push cannabis are also likely to push other drugs, too. We should be very careful before we isolate the treatment of one from the other.
As regards appearing on "The World at One", I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has a complaint. Now that he has

665
made it, perhaps he will do better if he can settle it with his right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who always seems to be on as much as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).
Dr. Gray: If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept all the recommendations of the Committee—I am in complete agreement with them—will he consider separating supply and possession, and reduce the maximum penalties for possession even though he does not do so for supply?
Mr. Callaghan: These are maximum penalties, and I have no intention to legislate to reduce them in isolation at present. When I have reviewed the drugs law as a whole—I ask the House to look at it as a whole and consider the various drugs which are affected—there may be changes in penalties which I should wish to propose to the House; but we must look at this as a connected whole, not considering cannabis in isolation.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Committee said that cannabis was less dangerous than alcohol? Is he expecting from the Opposition a demand that we should have a day to discuss the effects of alcohol?
Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir; I doubt that we shall have that. In reply to the point behind what my hon. Friend says, I should say that, although society has enjoyed and, possibly, abused itself with alcohol for many hundreds of years and, perhaps, developed the social response which is necessary, it is a fallacy in logic to assume that one should then introduce a further evil to which society would once again need to adjust itself over a long and painful period.
Mr. C. Pannell: I hope that no impression will go out from the House, based on my right hon. Friend's last remark, that the country has yet developed a sense of social responsibility towards alcohol, since human reactions in traffic and in other ways all tend to disprove that. I do not think that my right hon. Friend quite meant that, and I should not like him to be quoted out of context.
Mr. Callaghan Mr. Callaghan I hope that nothing will be quoted out of context.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 27TH JANUARY—Supply [6th Allotted Day]:
Until 7 p.m. there will be a debate on the Wootton Report, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, followed by a debate on the Post Office, on an Opposition Motion.
TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Pensions (Increase) Bill and of the Horserace Betting Levy Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 29TH JANUARY—Supply [7th Allotted Day]:
Debate on the Universities.
At Ten o'clock the Question will be put from the Chair on all outstanding Winter Supplementary Estimates.
Motion on the Salmon and Migratory Trout Order—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Peart: —an important matter for Scotland.
THURSDAY, 30TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Redundancy Rebates Bill and of the Decimal Currency Bill.
FRIDAY, 31ST JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 3RD FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.
Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that the House will undoubtedly wish to discuss the Government's White Paper on industrial relations at an early date? Will he say what his plans are in this respect, particularly as we shall soon be entering the period when we have our series of defence debates and it will, therefore, be difficult to fit in a debate of that kind? We should like to have one at a very early date.
Mr. Peart: I appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman makes,

667
which is important. I feel that we should allow time for hon. Members on both sides to have discussions on it, but I agree that there is urgency here. I have no precise date to announce at the moment.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Motion No. 109, on contributions by companies to organisations with political objects?
[That this House believes that it should be an offence for any company to use any part of its income or profits to make contributions to organisations with political objects unless there is contained in the articles of association or other deed of establishment of the company a clause specifically permitting such contributions; further believes such clause or clauses should be required to provide that such contributions may be made only out of a fund especially established for the purpose and shall further provide that any shareholder may opt out of such contributions and require his shares in the company to be unaffected by such payments both as to capital and dividends and in all other respects; and calls upon the Government to prepare legislation to this end.]
My right hon. Friend has not provided time next week to debate the matter. Will he draw it to the attention of his right hon. Friends, particularly having regard to the development of the unit trust movement and of the trade union unit trust, with the possibility that the trade union movement could be indirectly contributing to the funds of the Conservative Party?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the Motion in my hon. Friend's name. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, made a statement on 10th July last. I am not commenting on that, but I cannot add to it, and I cannot find time just yet.
Sir D. Renton: On Tuesday, will not the debate on the Second Reading of the Pensions (Increase) Bill run until 10 o'clock, so that the Second Reading debate on the Horserace Betting Levy Bill will start at a late stage of the evening? Is that not somewhat unsatisfactory, bearing in mind that the second Bill contains a number of controversial provisions?
Mr. Peart: I understand the point. The rule will be suspended for the Horserace Betting Levy Bill.
Mr. Strauss: Can my right hon. Friend now tell us when we are likely to have a debate on the Report of the Committee of Privileges, which was published more than a year ago and which recommended a complete revision of the whole concept of Parliamentary privilege, with drastic changes in the procedure and penalties when breaches of privilege are alleged? Does my right hon. Friend realise that, without such a comprehensive discussion, consideration of the five minor points which he put on the Order Paper last week is comparatively useless and unimportant?
Mr. Peart: I do not accept that last comment. However, I have decided, because of representations made to me, that we should try to settle on a Motion which is widely acceptable to the House and to the Press and others affected by it. For this reason, in view of representations, I am reconsidering the matter.
I cannot be specific about a time for a major debate on the Report. It is an important matter. I should not want to rush conclusions which would be unsatisfactory from the point of view of the House.
Mr. Thorpe: May I ask the Leader of the House about business tomorrow, when there is to be a debate on a Private Member's Bill, the Matrimonial Property Bill? Is it not a fact—will he confirm it—that, traditionally, Private Members' Bills are entirely a matter for a free vote? Will he also confirm that a Whip has been sent out at least to Ministers? Would it not be better, in the light of our exchanges on an earlier occasion about Northern Ireland, to have one Minister, one free vote, so that there can be a genuine debate in the House?
Mr. Peart: I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have made my statement on next week's business, not tomorrow's business.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time next week for Motion No. 123, calling for information on railway line closures?

669
[That this House, bearing in mind the importance of a railway network adequate to the social and economic needs of the country, calls on Her Majesty's Government to make public the financial formulae used by the Minister of Transport to justify the closure of railway lines and to evaluate social subsidies where granted.]
Mr. Peart: I have seen the Motion in the names of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. I shall convey his views to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but I cannot find time for a debate next week.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the Leader of the House aware that on 5th November the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government told the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) and myself that he would as soon as possible introduce legislation to reform Section 39 of the Leasehold Reform Act? In the midst of all the important business for next week, dealing with trout, and so on, could he find time for this essential matter?
Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not denigrate the Order dealing with salmon or other matters affecting Scotland. It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary replied in those terms. I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I shall have discussions.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: With reference to business for Friday of next week, in view of the growing practice of the Government in issuing three-line Whips on matters on which we have had Ballots for private Members' business, and on which we go through the farce of introducing Private Members' Bills, may we have an assurance that no three-line Whips will be issued for next week, as against this week?
Mr. Peart: The issuing of Whips is not my responsibility.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the announcement about the business for Monday week mean that the Government intend to allot only one day for the Second Reading of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill? Do not all the precedents point to giving at least two days to a major, controversial Measure of constitutional significance?
Mr. Peart: I should have thought that one day would be adequate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We shall have had two days; we have had the White Paper debate. I believe that this is reasonable.
Mr. Thomas Steele: Will my right bon. Friend consider Motion No. 18?
[That this House welcomes the increase in pension being made to retired public service personnel but notes, with regret, that no provision is being made to give parity of treatment to railway superannuitants where there is even greater hardship, especially among older pensioners; and therefore urges Her Majesty's Government to make special provisions to improve their pensions.]
As we are having a debate on public service pensions on Tuesday, could the Motion be debated then?
Mr. Peart: That is a very good point, but it is a matter for Mr. Speaker, who, I hope, will note what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Can the House be informed about the membership of the proposed Constitutional Commission? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling in Wales that because the main purpose of the Commission will be to examine the national future of Wales and Scotland the majority of its members should be Scottish and Welsh, and that the chairman should be independent, impartial and quite unprejudiced in the matter, approaching it with an open mind?
Mr. Peart: I have always understood the nationalistic views of the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will not be a jingoist on this matter. There is a big difference. When the Government have decided on the composition of the Commission, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will inform the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. On a matter of order, may I make it clear, in view of what the Leader of the House said just now, that whether a Motion is taken in conjunction with the debate on the Pensions (Increase) Bill is a matter not for the Chair, but for the Government.
Mr. Thomas Steele: On a point of order. In view of what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, will my right hon. Friend now

671
answer my original question, whether the two can be taken together?
Mr. Peart: I tried to suggest to my hon. Friend that he could perhaps raise that issue during that debate, whether or not the Motion was put down or accepted.
Mr. Shinwell: Does not my right hon. Friend regard the Parliament (No. 2) Bill as involving a major constitutional issue? If he does, is not it appropriate that we should have more than one day to debate it on Second Reading?
Mr. Peart: I accept that this is a very important matter. If there is an overwhelming demand for two days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I shall consider it. But I have also had representations the other way. One has to balance these. Let us talk through the usual channels.
Mr. Peyton: While I am sure that the whole House was gratified to hear that the right hon. Gentleman understood my right hon. Friend's question about the Horserace Betting Levy Bill, would not he agree, on reflection, that it is a shabby manoeuvre to stuff a controversial Bill under the carpet late at night, and that he should give the House a full opportunity to debate it?
Mr. Peart: I have given the opportunity. There is no attempt on my part to deceive or to behave in a shabby way. I thought that this was for the convenience of hon. Members.
Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Parliament (No. 2) Bill is one of the greatest constitutional Measures of our time? It would be shameful if it were not properly discussed here. Will he reconsider his decision not to give two days to it?
Mr. Peart: I have noted what my hon. Friends have said on this, and will convey their views to my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Crouch: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Motion No. 81?
[That this House considers that the inordinate delay in setting up the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, in contravention of undertakings given last
672
Session by the then Leader of the House, casts grave doubt on the Government's good faith in dealing with Select and Specialist Committees and with the House as a whole.]
It is almost six months to the day since the Select Committee sat. What are the Government trying to hide? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall see the Select Committee established again?
Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why there has been delay. There is no secret about this. I have had discussions with the Chairman, and I am anxious to get the Committee set up. There have been difficulties about terms of reference.
Mrs. Ewing: When will the Leader of the House be able to disclose the composition of the Constitutional Commissions? Does he remember that I asked this question in December, when I received a rather encouraging reply? Will he ensure that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and I, or official representatives of our parties, will be invited, and also assure the House that the terms of reference will not preclude the consideration of Commonwealth status for Wales and Scotland?
Mr. Peart: I am not sure what the hon. Lady is asking for. She will always be at liberty to put forward evidence to the Commission. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is ready, he will make a statement to the House.
Mr. Jennings: If the right hon. Gentleman is to reconsider allocating another day to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, will he give us an assurance that he will not sacrifice the debate on public service pensions on Tuesday and that it will still be included in next week's business?
Mr. Peart: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. It is very important, and he has pressed me on it before. He has asked me to stand by the programme that I have announced, but hon. Members on both sides have made representations about another matter, and I will consider them. After all, I am not only a member of the Government, but must serve the House.
Mr. Jennings: On a point of order. This debate has been promised for a long time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Mr. Lawson: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that were he to put a Scottish or Welsh Nationalist on the Constitutional Commission it might be an excellent means of educating that person? Will he consider it from that point of view?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the point made.
Mr. Ronald Bell: The Leader of the House has again made no provision next week for a debate on British Standard Time. Will he provide Government time in which the British Standard Time Act (Repeal) Bill may at last be debated?
Mr. Peart: I know the hon. and learned Gentleman's views. He presses them very effectively, but I cannot find time for the Bill.
Mr. Jennings: On a point of order. I was under a misapprehension, but so was the Leader of the House. We both made the mistake of thinking that the debate on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill was to be next Monday. I gather that it is to be the following Monday, and, therefore, my point does not arise. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Speaker: That is a real point of order.
Mr. Pardoe: Now that the Government have published their reply, in the form of a White Paper, to the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on oil pollution, which has been
674
out for some time, may we have an indication that he regards it as a matter for urgent consideration? Will he arrange an early debate?
Mr. Peart: It is important. I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot do so next week.
Sir Knox Cunningham: In view of the major constitutional issue and the volume of support from hon. Members on both sides for more time for the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Deputy Leader of the House and come to an understanding to give an extra day?
Mr. Peart: I have stated my views, and I cannot indulge in too much repetition.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Does my right hon. Friend understand that the misgivings of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) about the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries are very much shared on this side of the House? Will he convey to his colleagues the deep sense of frustration and annoyance that many of us feel about the Government's action in the matter?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the position, and I explained why there has been the delay. I have been in touch continually with the Chairman of the Committee. I am anxious to get this settled.
Sir D. Glover: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not convey to his right hon. Friend the views of the two nationalist hon. Members because I think the view of the bulk of the House is that we should have a very broadly based constitutional Commission to deal with the whole problem of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Peart: I certainly accept the views of the hon. Member.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.1 p.m.
  The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a short Bill—only one page—but one of great importance to our shipbuilding industry and to a lesser extent to the shipping industry and the industries which supply shipyards with marine equipment and materials. Its effect, broadly speaking, is to raise from £200 million to £400 million the statutory ceiling on the guarantees I can give to facilitate the financing of orders for ships placed by British owners with British shipbuilders.
  It was Section 7 of the Shipbuilding Industry Act, 1967 which enabled me to give these guarantees. As I explained to the House at the time, the Government had two objectives in introducing that provision which went somewhat beyond the Geddes Report's recommendations on which the rest of the Act was based.
  In the first place, its aim was to prevent British shipowners being forced to place their orders for ships abroad solely to obtain better credit terms. At that time British owners were not, of course, eligible for British export credit facilities. If they were to get similar terms they could do so only by ordering from a yard in another country where similar credit facilities were available.
  Moreover, our shipbuilding industry enjoys no natural protection, and the nature of shipping operations makes it virtually impracticable, while the intense international competition in shipping makes it undesirable, to impose a tariff on the purchase of ships abroad.
  So, in the absence of a home credit scheme matching those to which British shipowners had access when ordering abroad, the British shipbuilder was fighting an almost inevitably losing battle for the custom of the British owner who had no commercial alternative in many cases but to buy abroad.
  676
  The way in which Section 7 of the 1967 Act operated was that it enabled the Minister to guarantee a loan towards the cost of a ship ordered by a British owner from a British yard. The clearing banks, Scottish as well as those in England and Wales, agreed to provide money under such a guarantee on similar terms to those applied under E.C.G.D. financial guarantees. The shipowner pays fees to cover the legal and administrative costs of the scheme and no cost falls on the Exchequer unless there is a default by the shipowner and the security proves insufficient to cover the loan.
  The determination of the security requirements in each case is, therefore, important, and on these matters I am assisted by an Advisory Committee set up by the Ship Mortgage Finance Company Limited, which acts as the Minister's agents in negotiations with the shipowner. I am very glad to be able to say that the banks have agreed to continue these arrangements should Parliament pass this Bill and that the Ship Mortgage Finance Company has also agreed to continue to act as the Minister's agents.
  Some hon. Members may wonder why, having provided the £200 million limit in the 1967 Act, which as a whole was intended to cover the reorganisation period in the industry up to 1970, the Government now seek to double the ceiling. There is a simple answer. Guarantees, involving a liability of £86 million, have been issued and other guarantees which will bring the outstanding liability up to £200 million are either under negotiation or approved in principle or in the hands of solicitors for the necessary legal documentation. Indeed, without in any way presuming to anticipate the passing of this legislation I can tell the House—this is why the Bill is urgent—that further cases are under discussion with shipowners of the order of £87 million in total.
  It may be asked—a perfectly fair question—why this demand for guarantees was not foreseen. I must admit that we did fail to forecast this development and I will try to give the reasons. There have been a number of minor factors which it was difficult to foresee at the time. The first was quite a lot of pent-up business which needed covering when the Act was passed in June, 1967. Another minor factor—I do not want to make

  677
  too much of this—was the development of new types of drilling rigs for use in the North Sea which took the form of ships.
  But there were two major factors. One was the continuance of the high level, indeed the: increase, of world demand for merchant tonnage. I shall give the figures. We discussed this two years ago when we were all rather anxious—indeed, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and I were warning the industry not to expect the rise in world orders to continue. In 1966, world new orders came to 18 million tons; in 1967, to nearly 22 million; in 1968, to about 25·5 million. Even more important has been the increase in British orders particularly since devaluation. When the 1967 Act was passed we all knew that: in 1966, British shipbuilding had booked orders for only 0·38 million gross tons, 2·1 per cent. of world merchant ship orders. In 1967, the figures were 1·04 million tons and 4·7 per cent. In 1968, new orders amounted to 2·56 million gross tons, representing 10 per cent. of new world orders.
  This pressure of demand has meant that our yards have been taking orders for delivery further ahead than seemed possible in the winter of 1966–67. This applied to both export and home orders. Net home orders, which amounted to just over 250,000 tons in 1966, reached nearly 1 million tans in 1967 and 1½ million in 1968. This was a substantial increase in home orders. This is not only good news for those who will build the ships. It is equally good for the balance of payments, because this is import-saving business for British industry. This without doubt justifies our decision to have the guarantee system in 1967. Although I must come in a white sheet to the House and confess that the forecast I made has proved to be a pessimistic one, it is the sort of white sheet that I am happy to wear and which many Ministers would enjoy wearing.
  Earlier, I referred to there being two objectives of Section 7 whose effective operation is prolonged by the Bill. The second was to reinforce the remaining provisions of the 1967 Act which established a Shipbuilding Industry Board to assist the reorganisation of the industry with grants and loans. We not only saw it as a way to meet our Parliamentary objective, but of giving the British shipbuilder
  678
  a chance of competing fairly and also helping reorganisation of the industry.
  The Act required that before the Minister gave a guarantee in support of a particular order the Board should recommend this taking into account what the shipbuilder was doing about the reorganisation of the yard's resources and the contribution which the order in question would make to their fuller employment. This was to that extent a selective scheme. I said at the time, when we discussed this in Committee, that we had to recognise that this put great power into the hands of the Board and I argued that it would use them widely and sensibly. Looking back, rather less than two years later, events have proved this to be right.
  On the one hand, the existence of these powers of recommendation by the Board as a sanction of last resort, as it were, has helped to encourage action on the detailed reorganisation requirements. When a shipbuilder seeks the Board's recommendation for a particular case, he is required to complete quite a lengthy questionnaire covering changes in his organisation, investment plans, expected profitability, industrial relations, consultation, and so on. This is not just a piece of bureaucracy. Nor is it intended as such. Nor is it having that effect. But it provides the Board with a regular check on the progress of reorganisation and the shipyard managements with a check list on progress and points to the things which need attention.
  Since we never intended the guarantee scheme to be a featherbedding for the industry, and since we have never believed at any stage that mergers by themselves would guarantee the efficiency of this or any other industry, the fact that the guarantees have been handled selectively gives an opportunity for the Board to see how the national objectives are being met.
  Mr. John Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether, when the Board gave an interest-free loan of £7·5 million to Clydebank, it followed the course that he has outlined?
  Mr. Benn: I am dealing at this point with the work of the Board as a whole. I shall come to that case, which is relevant to the Bill. I am talking now only

  679
  about guarantees for home orders which are being covered in this way.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The Board has the responsibility to report to the right hon. Gentleman and he is responsible for reporting the findings to the Comptroller and Auditor General and for laying copies before the House. Is he able to make the information available to the House? It is difficult to get the information from the Library. I wonder whether these reports have been made.
  Mr. Benn: It is always pleasant when an hon. Member intervenes to put a point which anticipates something one will say later in one's speech, because it means that one is meeting the need of the House. This is the first report of the Board and, naturally, I shall say something about it.
  I come now to the powers of the Board to recommend. There has been only one case in which the Board has refused a recommendation and in that case the Board subsequently decided to make a recommendation after consultation with the shipbuilders. In consideration of the Bill, I have obviously taken account of the views of the Board that its power to withhold the recommendation for a guarantee will continue to serve a useful purpose in its continuing efforts to promote the competitiveness of the industry in world markets, which is the basic objective the Act assigns to it.
  It may be appropriate against that background to refer to the progress made along the lines of the Geddes proposals. I shall here make reference to the Clyde reorganisation. The first steps required of the industry were in 1967, obviously to obtain sufficient orders and to bring about groupings. The difficulty was that if we did not have groupings we could not get orders, and if we did not have orders there was not the confidence to get groupings going.
  The immediate problem of short order books was not wholly within the control of the industry and even less of the Board, although, of course, the availability of credits and, subsequently, devaluation have both proved key factors and the position now is incomparably better than when the 1967 Act was being debated. As to grouping, there are now
  680
  groups within the meaning of the Act in the North-East, on the Upper Clyde and the Lower Clyde, in East Scotland and on the Wear and, although formed before the Act came into force, others on the Wear and the South Coast.
  Of course, they are not all according to the Geddes Report model. One, led by Swan Hunter and based on the Tyne, is clearly beginning to measure up to the Geddes target—indeed, exceeds it in some respects—and the Upper Clyde is also larger in terms of size of labour force. Other groups vary in size down to small two-yard groups.
  At Belfast, the great Harland and Wolff shipbuilding organisation has undoubtedly been given a new sense of direction by the construction of a new building dock which can produce giant tankers of up to 1 million deadweight tons—all in one piece without the necessity of having to make separate parts and weld them together later.
  As to big marine engine production, there have been few obvious structural changes, largely because engine building is often carried on in works which are largely engaged on other marine and non-marine work. The main recommendation of the Geddes Report on this section was the concentration of production, and considerable progress has been made on that. Big marine turbine production for merchant ships is henceforward likely to take place in only two works, which also cover industrial and power industry turbine requirements. The bulk of current production of big slow-speed diesels is in four plants—two in the North-East, one on the Clyde and one at Belfast.
  Although we must expect certain further structural changes, the emphasis at this stage of the operation will inevitably be on acceleration of the reorganisation of resources—in the words of the 1967 Act—whether in grouped or single yard enterprises. We have always recognised that size and grouping is not of itself enough, but is only a means to the kind of reorganisation, investment and yard specialisation which would make the industry competitive. Indeed, in some cases, efforts to plan reorganisation and invest in the improvement of the smaller concerns may itself lead to the realisation that it would be more economic if conducted within a larger framework.

  681
  The Board is accordingly now taking a new initiative with the industry to provide help in this field not limited to the provision of grants and loans. This is a new and very interesting development. It has formed a committee of shipbuilding finance directors who are examining accounting methods, for, as anyone who has been even remotely involved in the industry's financial problems will know, adequate costing and cost control can be vital for the survival of the industry—indeed, of most other industries.
  That is one aspect of the Board's work. I turn now to marketing. The Shipbuilders and Repairers' National Association has, with the Board's support, set up a central market research unit for the industry to provide the background research and intelligence which will obviously be more important to back up the sales efforts of individual concerns. The Board has also arranged for a consultant to study the marketing problems of the industry so that he can recommend improvements in the organisation of marketing.
  The Board is also considering the need for other initiatives in such areas, for example, as industrial relations, which used to be the subject of major comment in the old pre-Geddes days, and training, research and development, and it is working with the Department of Employment and Productivity and with the Shipbuilding Industry Training Board. The object in each case will be to see how far it can help forward action in the firms to apply the best practices to the special circumstances of the industry.
  Of course, all this is ancillary to the Board's exercise of its main statutory powers to provide grants and loans under Sections 3 and 4. Here I come to the Board's Report and accounts for the last financial year, which will very shortly be available to the House. On the latest information available to me, the Board has promised or has made grants totalling nearly £6 million and loans totalling over £14 million and, of course, further applications are coming up for consideration. All this is relevant to the credit guarantees with which the Bill deals, since this is the background against which the Board will be making its recommendations in respect of guarantees.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Can my right hon. Friend explain why there has been so much delay in the presentation of the Report which, according to the Library, was laid officially in July, but, in fact, only in dummy? Why do we still not have the information?
  Mr. Benn: Since this was the first Report of the Board and a precedent, the Comptroller and Auditor General became involved and it therefore had to go through this procedure. As far as the Board and my Department are concerned, there has been no undue delay, but I fully understand the anxiety of the House to see this Report, and it will be available shortly.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Section 8(5) of the Act says:
  "The Minister shall not later than the end of November in any year send the statement of accounts of the Board for the financial year last ended to the Comptroller and Auditor General who shall examine, certify and report on the statement of accounts and lay copies of it together with his report before each House of Parliament."
  The Report was made correctly by the Board to the Minister in July, four months after the end of the previous financial year, but there is also the case of the November Report, of which we have also heard nothing, although we are now half-way through January.
  Mr. Benn: This is a stage in the operation which carries it beyond my responsibility, but I am advised that the Board made its Report within the time specified. For that reason, and the reason which I gave in answer to a question a moment ago, the House ordered that it be printed and presented together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in view of the fact that it was the first report of its kind. I say this subject to further examination, but I do not believe that any delay which may have occurred was attributable to the Board or to failure to fulfil its statutory requirements.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I hope to develop the point later, but would it not have been much more helpful if we could have had Second Reading of the Bill after publication of the Report instead of shortly before it?
  Mr. Benn: I agree. It would have been more convenient, candidly, had we

  683
  been able to consider them together. The plain truth was that as the guarantees were being exhausted and there was urgent need to seek Parliamentary authority, and in view of my own reluctance, which I must confess, to proceed in anticipation of statutory authority, a practice which I very much deplore, I thought it proper to bring the Bill forward at the earliest possible moment. It is unfortunate that my need to bring it forward early, coupled with the desire of the House to look in detail at the first Report of the Board, has meant that we are debating them, in a sense, without the background which the House would like to have. I am sorry that it should have been like this, because it would obviously have been better if we could have avoided it.
  Before I leave the industry and its progress with reorganisation, I think I should say something about the QE2, which is by far the biggest and most important project upon which the industry is engaged. The QE2 was not financed under a Section 7 guarantee, but by a loan to Cunard which was originally to be made under the Shipbuilding Credit Act, 1964, but is now being made by the President of the Board of Trade under a special provision of the Industrial Expansion Act.
  This ship was the subject of ordinary commercial contracts between the ship-owner, shipbuilder and suppliers. The Government did not intervene in or control in any way its design, construction or equipment any more than they would in the case of any other ship, whether or not the contracts were effected under Section 7. It is true that the National Physical Laboratory provided tank test facilities and similar services and that the Board of Trade applied the usual regulations, but that was the limit of direct involvement in the ship.
  The House would not, however, want me, for those legalistic reasons, to regard the ship as being just another ship, because it is not just another ship. It is a very fine ship, as the Government technical experts who have had the opportunity of seeing it will confirm.
  I have obviously discussed, because I am sure that the House would want me to do this, and I would myself, the recent misfortunes with both the Chairman of
  684
  Cunard and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited. I have also consulted Sir William Swallow, who has been looking into the possible effects of this on the shipbuilding industry. Having a distinguished industrialist able to look at this complicated problem from the point of view of independence has been of great value to me.
  The present position on both the completion of the accommodation and the engine failures has been widely reported in the Press and I do not have anything to add to what has been reported. Certainly, no one would wish to avoid criticism by saying, as could be said, that it is quite common, here or abroad, for a ship to be late, for its accommodation not to be completed or anything of that kind. Similarly, it would be wrong to say that ships with even less complex turbines than the QE2 have run into trouble with them. There obviously have been failures in this case. Having said that, however, I do not believe that a public inquiry or an attempt to pin the responsibility or blame on a particular individual would be of value at this time. I was asked a Question about this in the House and I gave that as my view.
  Some of the comment has, candidly, been rather extreme. This is not a national disaster. It is a very damaging blow to our national pride, but it is only a temporary one. The indications are that in due course this ship will be a very great source of pride to those who built it and to the country as a whole. I for my part have little doubt that the lessons which can be learned from this have been brought home.
  The main aim now is to get the trouble right as quickly as possible so that the ship can go into service and start earning money for its owners and for the country. I think that a post mortem would hinder this rather than help.
  I am much encouraged in the talks I have had to find that this general approach commands wide assent among those actually engaged in the very difficult job, on the one hand, of competing the technical work and, on the other, of trying to get the ship into service as quickly as possible.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: I put a Question on the Order Paper to which my right hon. Friend has replied by

  685
  Written Answer. My purpose in asking for an inquiry was in no sense an attempt to denigrate either the Cunard Line or the firm responsible for building the ship, but an attempt to clarify the position precisely because of ill-founded and exaggerated reports in the Press. That was my purpose. Perhaps it might be possible to develop the theme at a later stage.
  Mr. Rankin: I, too, had a Question on the Order Paper today. I am grateful to hear the statement which my right hon. Friend has just made, because it fully justifies everything I know in connection with the QE2. I hope that I may have a chance of speaking in the debate.
  Mr. Benn: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have said. I well understood the reasons why they tabled their Questions. I hope that they did not read into my reply any rebuke to them. Some of the comments which have been made were, however, as my right hon. and hon. Friends know, of a very extreme character. In addition to such technical and other difficulties as we have to contend with, there is no point in taking on extra burdens which arise from comment of that kind.
  Mr. Austen Albu: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, when the previous Government made the original arrangement for the guarantee to Cunard for the ship to be built by John Brown, there was any condition about the improvement of the management of the John Brown shipyard in the way which is now being done with loans or grants made by the present Government?
  Mr. Benn: I do not think that it would be right to comment on the previous arrangements. Special arrangements were made for the "Queen Elizabeth 2", special arrangements for credit schemes. The unique quality of the Geddes Report, and what has followed, is that we linked the money to the reorganisation of management and resources, and since this was broadly accepted in the House we can all take credit for the fact that we have approached the industry in this way. That there have been failings—some of them may be evident today and others may appear in future—confirms me in
  686
  my judgment that we were right to look at it in this way.
  Captain Walter Elliot: Can the Minister give an assurance that in due course we will know what went wrong and who, if anyone, was responsible?
  Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether, in the event, we shall know more about what happened, I suppose that the answer is, "Yes". If he is saying to me will an inquiry be set up later to look into this, my answer would be, I think, "No." I have little doubt that there will be many versions and stories circulating about what went wrong, and I hope that everyone who writes about it will keep a sense of proportion.
  Taking the industry as a whole, British shipbuilding, while not yet fully reorganised, has much better prospects than when the Shipbuilding Industry Act was passed in 1967. To have carried out this restructuring to the present point and to have booked 10 per cent. of the very high level of new world orders last year are no mean achievements; and I want to pay tribute to those in the industry who have made them possible.
  On the other hand, United Kingdom completions last year still amounted to only 6·2 per cent. of the world output in tonnage terms. The years 1969–70 will be a testing time during which our shipbuilders must make reorganisation more fully effective at yard level and secure a higher output. This will, in turn, increase their hunger for orders. At the end of last year our order books stood at 7·3 per cent. of the world order book for merchant tonnage. I would not wish now, any more than in the past, and certainly not after my experience as a prophet, to forecast the flow of world shipping orders. One view is that the present high level of orders is likely to fall off. It is also possible that technical and economic changes in shipping could maintain the demand at a high level.
  Clearly, higher and more efficient output in British yards, and their resulting need for new orders are vital factors, whichever way world markets go. The Bill is designed to enable the industry to make the necessary effort to increase output, to continue to seek new business,

  687
  including home orders, knowing that the credit terms available to British purchasers who order ships from home yards will enable them to compete on level terms over credit. Now that the Bill is launched, I hope that the House will soon fit it out with stautory authority and send it out to do its work.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. David Price: This is a very simple Bill. It is a consequence of the success of the arrangements made under Section 7 of the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1967, and the object is not the least bit difficult to understand. It is simply to increase the amount of preferential credit made available to British shipowners who place orders for new ships in British yards, from the sum of £200 million to £400 million, for which the public purse, and this is the important point, accepts liability as guarantor of repayments.
  It should be made absolutely clear, if anyone doubts this, that the £400 million credit is not to be found from the public purse, but from the private banking system. All that the Bill requires of the public purse is that it be the guarantor of the repayment of £400 million, in precisely the same manner as it was the guarantor of the original £200 million under Section 7 of the principal Act. The experience of the operation of the provisions of Section 7 encourages us to take the view that the risks of liability to the public purse involved in giving the Bill a Second Reading are slight.
  It was evident at the time of the Second Reading of the original Bill, 22 months ago, that if the shipbuilding industry was then to achieve anything approaching the Geddes target of 2¼ million tons a year output consistently then a ceiling of £200 million was too low a figure for the credit scheme.
  The House will appreciate that in any credit scheme of this nature a peak figure is reached at the end of the early years before repayments flow in. This peak figure is inevitably higher than the average figure of outstanding credits at which the scheme will settle down after it has been running successfully for a number of years. I would remind the House that loans under this scheme are repayable by equal half-yearly instalments,
  688
  normally over a maximum period of eight years. The full figures on how the scheme is working are not available to me, but I would hazard a guess that the peak would be reached somewhere round the year 1971–72. I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could confirm that.
  We have to make provision for a higher figure of outstanding credit at the peak moment than will be the average figure during the currency of the scheme. The House will recall that at the time of the Second Reading of the original Bill I expressed my doubts as to the accuracy of the figure of £200 million, if the scheme were to prove successful. I accept entirely the right hon. Gentleman's comments about this. Possibly I had more confidence in the success of the scheme than he did.
  I want to turn very briefly to the basic principle underlying the Bill. A credit scheme of this nature redresses the balance of disadvantage, which has hitherto made it more expensive for a British shipowner to place an order in a British yard than in a foreign yard. It gives him no preference, but restores the balance of disadvantage. Unless hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have changed their views, we agreed, last time we discussed these matters, that preferential credit for one industry is in principle wrong. Nevertheless, we were faced then, and we are faced again today, with preferential credit from all the competing shipbuilding countries of the world, which leaves us with only three alternatives.
  Either we run a similar system of preferential credit, or we accept, for this reason alone, that the order books of British shipbuilding are bound to decline, or, thirdly, we place a protective tariff on the purchase of foreign-built ships by British owners. We rapidly rejected the third alternative, for the reasons stated in the Geddes Report. I would like to quote one sentence from that Report which says:
  "The concept of a home marke is difficult to apply at all because ships sold to home owners may spend their life competing for international trade, seldom or never touching a home port."
  Let us remember throughout the debate—and there may be criticisms from hon. Members who do not know the

  689
  industry, and think that it is being cosseted and protected—that British shipbuilding competes for orders in the world without any protective tariff at all, and that in this it differs from most manufacturing industries.
  As to the second alternative, this House has already accepted the Geddes proposition that shipbuilding is an activity in which Britain should succeed. The whole of the Geddes Report, and subsequent measures, have been directed to the proposition of assisting the industry to become more competitive. It would be quite wrong to abandon that proposition now. Therefore, we are left with the first alternative, and that is the reason for the Bill.
  There is no doubt in my mind, as there was no doubt in the mind of Geddes, that one of the determining factors in the placing of an order for a new ship with a particular shipbuilder are the credit terms which could be offered to the shipowner. Many will say that at present it is the determining factor, more important even than price and delivery date. It is not for me to say whether it is the most important. Let us say that it is a very important factor.
  We must give a moment's thought to the question of the long-term effect of these sorts of preferential credit schemes. Most international conferences that have discussed them have agreed that in global terms they are economic nonsense. Have the Government made any progress in persuading other countries to abandon these schemes? Let me make it clear that I should be the last person to press our Government to abandon our own credit schemes until other nations agree to abandon theirs. I do not want to see Britain being the only nation playing to some Queensberry rules under G.A.T.T. If other nations play to other rules, we must play to their rules to survive. As an old back row forward, I have learned to play just as dirty as my opponents, neither less nor more. I have no doubt at all that for straight pragmatic, reasons it is right that we should have these arrangements, although in economic and international principle I do not like them.
  One further point about the source of credit. The credit comes from the private banking system, that is to say, from the gnomes of Lombard Street and their shareholders and depositors. They are
  690
  being asked to double the quantum of credit which they make available to British shipowners on terms of up to eight years at fixed rates which are well below current commercial rates. In the light of the continuing credit restrictions, and the oppressive effect which that squeeze has upon normal commercial relations between banker and client, it is evidence of the banks' high sense of national duty, as determined by the Government of the day incidentally, and not by them, that they have agreed to double the quantum of credit.
  During the Report stage of the principal Bill, in May, 1967, the Chief Secretary, whom I am glad to see with us today, said:
  "I should like to say that the Government are grateful to the banks for agreeing to co-operate in these arrangements. The banks regard their primary lending functions as being to meet the normal requirements of industry and commerce for short-term finance and do not want their capacity to discharge that function to be inhibited by too great a volume of longer-term commitments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1792.]
  That statement is even truer today when the quantum which they are asked to provide is doubled.
  When the previous Government first asked the banks to agree to offer fixed lending rates for export—and it is to the export rate that the shipping credit rates are linked—Bank Rate was not as high as it has been under the present Government. The object then was to iron out the peaks and troughs of the going credit rate rather than to give a substantial preference. But today a fixed rate of 5½ per cent. is well below the mean average of the going rate under the present Government. The consequence is that the preferencial element in the scheme has grown and is carried by the banks to the extent that the fixed interest rate is below the mean average of the going rate.
  I turn to the expectation of life of these arrangements. Section 7 of the principal Act ties these arrangements to the life of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, because under subsection (3) of that Section
  "No guarantee shall be given … except on the recommendation of the Board …".
  Yet Section 9 of the same Act determines that
  "the Board shall cease to exist at the end of 1970."

  691
  There is power by Order to extend it by one year, but not beyond 1971. This means that there is an absolute maximum of three years, and yet we are asked to approve a scheme today, with credit available up to eight years, which is expected to have a longer life than three years. Yet the screening authority, which is the link in the chain of events by which credit is given, has a maximum life of three years.
  What do the Government think will then happen? We discussed the life of the Board and the arrangements to be made during the Committee stage of the principal Act. Some of us put forward proposals which the Government rejected because they said, not entirely unfairly, that the main purpose of the S.I.B. was to bring about reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry, which was then urgent. But surely in what we are discussing today we are thinking beyond reorganisation. We cannot go on reorganising for ever. We hope that reorganisation will soon be over. However, I do not believe that the reasons for which we are doubling the figure of the credit scheme will cease to exist after 1970 or 1971.
  Do the Government propose to say that when the S.I.B. is wound up they will introduce amending legislation which will free the credit scheme from S.I.B. approval? There are alternative methods of doing it. During Second Reading of the principal Act, I suggested a possible alternative, which was some standard form of contract with penalty clauses relating to delivery and performance. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) interrupted me at that point and showed some interest. I wonder whether the Government have something like that in mind? They should have brought forward proposals to deal with the continuance of the credit scheme after the ending of the S.I.B.
  There is a final technical point on the Bill and the arrangements for the credit scheme. Under Section 7(3) of the principal Act, approval is linked to reorganisation. What is the position of yards which, for various reasons, are not involved in reorganisation? Some of those reasons can be completely respectable and agreed by the S.I.B. I suggest two: first, the smaller specialist yard which is still
  692
  very competitive within the narrower field in which it operates; and, secondly, those yards which are geographically isolated.
  There is nothing in the Bill, and there was nothing in what the Minister said, about how they will be treated, but a narrow reading of the principal Act could suggest that owners who place orders in their yards would not be eligible for this credit. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but there is doubt about the matter. I hope that it may be cleared up.
  I follow the Minister in widening the compass of our consideration by saying a word or two about the state of the British shipbuilding, because it is the beneficiary of this Bill, although the credit goes to the shipowners. There are three questions which right hon. and hon. Members will wish to ask. First, what is the current state of British shipbuilding? Secondly, what progress has been made since March 1967, when we gave a Second Reading to the Shipbuilding Industry Bill? Thirdly, what are the future prospects for the industry?
  The Minister gave us good news about the current state of the industry. What he said was a very welcome improvement. Undoubtedly, the industry has been helped by devaluation and by the prolonged closure of the Suez Canal. Nevertheless, it deserves our congratulations for the progress which it has made in the last two years. I should add my hope that all the orders have been secured at prices which will return a profit, and not a loss, because the House will appreciate that it is relatively easy to secure orders upon which no profit is made.
  Obviously, we want orders for British shipbuilding which return a profit when they are completed. This means, among other things, that costs, must not rise unduly during the currency of an order. Holding down costs is one of the biggest problems facing British shipbulding now that it has successfully improved its order book position.
  The Minister told us something about the progress made in reorganisation. He will realise that the fact that we have not yet had the first report of the Shipbuilding Industry Board means that many of us are not as well informed as we hope we shall be when we receive it. I

  693
  regret that we have not had it before us earlier, but I accept that it is in the hands of the Comptroller and Auditor General and that the document is, therefore, entirely outside the Minister's or the S.I.B.'s control.
  On the question of grouping, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us the state of play on Wearside? What is the exact position of yards lying outside the main shipbuilding areas? Do I gather that it is accepted that Harland and Wolff, with its new building dock in prospect, Will remain on its own and be regarded by the S.I.B. as potentially viable? What is the position of Cammel Laird on Merseyside, and of Vickers at Barrow? What about the small yards in other parts of the country? I mention Vosper-Thorneycroft, which is in my own area.
  I ask the Government two questions of a general nature on reorganisation. Do the Government and the S.I.B. still adhere to the main Geddes recommendation that the main strength of the industry should be reorganised into four big and compact shipbuilding groups? I suspect from what the Minister said that the answer is "No". Secondly, do they still agree with the Geddes recommendation on specialisation between yards based on the three categories: the S-yards, making sophisticated ships; the M-yards, making multi-deck mixed cargo ships; and the B-vards making bulk carriers and carriers?
  There have been further trends in world shipbuilding since we last debated these matters towards the construction of large bulk carriers in large shipbuilding docks. I spoke at some length on this matter when we were discussing Clause 9 of the Industrial Expansion Bill in Standing Committee last March, so I will not repeat my analysis today. But this is a new factor which was not sufficiently in the mind of the Geddes Committee or in our minds when we last considered the industry's problems.
  This double trend to even larger bulk carriers and the increased use of large building docks must influence the prospects and more particularly the future balance of the industry. I would have thought that that would be an important factor in determing the type of ships which the individual groups will be able to make, and I should very much like
  694
  the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with those points.
  Two other matters have a direct bearing on the industry's prospects. The first is industrial relations. This has been a continuing problem in the industry and when we discussed the matter two years age, it featured prominently in several speeches. On the evidence available to me, I think that considerable progress has been made and we all welcome the statement by the president of the Shipbuilding Industry Association, Sir John Hunter, that
  "labour relations are also improving and that we have completed a national three-year agreement on wages and holidays, as well as a number of local and district agreements which should go a long way towards increasing productivity and efficiency",
  Nevertheless, the House will agree that in some yards we have a long way to go before we can be satisfied with the state of industrial relations.
  Mr. Rankin: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of the need for good industrial relations, is he comprehending full consultation between men and management on all shipbuilding projects within the various yards?
  Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough, and I have spoken enough on these matters, to know that there is nothing between us in principle. He obviously has in mind the details of some particular arrangement in some particular yard and I am not competent to talk about individual yards which are outside my personal experience. But we can all agree on the general principle.
  We will also all agree that continued demarcation disputes in certain yards have been a matter of deep concern to all of us. If only we could transplant the best practice from the best yards into all our yards, we would make a substantial contribution to the competitiveness of the industry.
  Some concern has been voiced by one or two of the leaders of the industry about the nature of some productivity agreements. Productivity agreements are very much the height of fashion at present, but they achieve nothing except higher costs if the resultant productivity is not in fact achieved. I do not wish to develop this point further. I state it merely as a factor relevant to the industry's future competitiveness.

  695
  Another important matter is steel prices. As the Geddes Report told us, steel prices account for about 20 per cent. of merchant ship costs and must therefore be a key factor in the construction of any ship. In steel, the most important is the basic price of heavy plate. The House will recall that the Geddes Report asked for the eventual achievement of a 10 per cent. reduction at constant prices in the steel cost of British-built ships and added that it was not expecting the steel makers to subsidise that.
  I will not develop the arguments of the Geddes Report, which will be familiar to many hon. Members. However, we are finding that quite the reverse is likely to happen and the new proposal for an increase in steel prices will have the overall effect of increasing the cost of steel for shipbuilding by about 20 per cent. As the Geddes Report recommended a 10 per cent. reduction, that means an overall increase of 30 per cent. since the Geddes Committee reported.
  I hope that this is a matter which the Government and the industry will take up with the Steel Corporation independently of the inquiry into steel prices which is to be made by the Prices and Incomes Board. I cannot help feeling that the immediate reaction of the Government to many of these matters is to turn the whole thing over to Mr. Aubrey Jones, who is in danger of becoming the habitual long-stop for all the fast balls bowled at the Government.
  I want, finally, to refer to the problems of the QE2 which the Minister mentioned and to which no doubt others will wish to refer. The facts of the delay in completing the QE2 and the reasons presented in the Press have not made happy reading. The reasons given in the Press may or may not be true and the presentations may or may not have been fair. I am not in a position to know the full facts and I therefore resist the temptation to make an outsider's analysis of the causes of the delay, but of the fact of delay and of the fact of technical difficulties there can be no argument.
  Therefore, suffice it to say that public concern about the delays is perfectly legitimate. Although I share some of the Minister's views about exaggeration and about too dramatic language, I think that he went too far the other way in his recent
  696
  speech to the Institute of Patentees and Inventors when he called public comments on the delays an example of latent hostility towards invention and, indeed, technology generally. I think that he will now agree that he went too far.
  Having said that, I entirely agree with him that it would be absolutely counterproductive for the House to enter into a witch-hunt today about who may or may not have been to blame for the delays in completing the QE2 and the technical difficulties over the turbines. At this moment, the clear priority is for the QE2 to be completed successfully and speedily, and nothing should be said or done which would divert those concerned from fulfilling that purpose. I therefore agree with the Minister's Written Answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington yesterday. However, I hope that the Minister and those concerned will keep the House and the public informed of progress when that is appropriate. It is worth remembering that the British public has an investment of up to £24 million in this project. Quite apart from reasons of national prestige, there are hard cash reasons for wanting to see this project a success.
  We all hope that the difficulties will soon be overcome and that the QE2 will quickly take her place, as from a design board point of view she should, as the pride of the ocean, successful and profitable. Should the technical difficulties persist for any long period—and we do not yet know their full nature—no doubt the House would wish to return to the question whether a technical inquiry would be helpful. This is a matter for the future, however, and therefore, with that qualification, I suggest that we do not pursue the issue today, tempting though that might be, and that we leave those concerned to get on with the job unimpeded by public inquiries.
  I end on a much happier note. We hear much about the alleged delays of the completion of ships in British shipyards, but the QE2 is the exception rather than the rule. I ask anyone who doubts that to read the extremely helpful article in The Times on Monday, which quotes the success of British yards in meeting their delivery dates. I hope that the industry will build on this good record to produce the competitiveness which we all want and which the Bill will assist.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: It is a fair guess that the Bill will meet with the unanimous approval of the House. As my right hon. Friend remarked, it is a short but nevertheless important Bill. I am sorry that the importance of the topic has not attracted a larger audience. On Monday, it will be quite different; a large number of hon. Members will be present to discuss cannabis; but I do not want to raise that topic this afternoon. My only comment is that perhaps we have the higher quality, and there I leave it.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Pries), in many of his observations, if I may use a cliché, took the words right out of my mouth. I am grateful to him that he did not allow his customary political opinions to obtrude. There was nothing of a partisan nature in his remarks, nor can there be any vital political issue concerning the prospects of the shipbuilding industry of the United Kingdom.
  A great many questions need to be asked in addition to those put by the hon. Gentleman. In the matter of steel prices the hon. Gentleman was correct in what he said. If we are to assist in improving the position of the British shipbuilding industry, we must do whatever is within our power to increase its competitiveness and not make it more difficult for the industry even to survive. To fortify what I have just said, may I quote from a recent speech by Sir John Hunter, who knows a great deal about this subject. He said:
  "Unless British shipbuilders can obtain steel, which forms so large a proportion of the cost of a ship, at prices comparable to those paid by their international competitors, the industry has no prospect of a prosperous future and little chance of ultimate survival."
  Sir John went on to make a suggestion which I was surprised to hear from this source, and I am not sure that his views will be acceptable to hon. Members opposite. He is reported as saying that:
  "If the British steel industry could not make steel available at competitive prices in its nationalised form, it would have to be subsidised."
  This is unusual, but as it happens I agree with Sir John Hunter, particularly in the context of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman, who asked what is to happen in 1971. We may provide credit facilities, initiate schemes of reorganisation, seek
  698
  to promote rationalisation of the industry and endeavour to cure the evil of adverse industrial relations, but, when the peak hour has been reached, what is to follow?
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the competitive position of the shipbuilding industries in other countries, which adopt the technique of subsidies, sometimes concealed. This has been customary for many years in shipbuilding and in the shipping industry. It is questionable whether the shipping industry in many maritime countries could have survived without subsidies. It is quite different in this country. Shipping managed to survive, although many firms went into liquidation, without the need of subsidies, at any rate until the last few years, when Government assistance became essential and Governments rightly intervened.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one cannot adopt Queensberry rules in a matter concerning the survival of one of the most important of our industries, which employs craftsmen, labourers, about 70,000 men in shipyards, and probably 30,000 men who are employed by contractors, sub-contractors, and so on, with all those engaged on the ancillary trades associated with the industry, including shipping and the docks. I hazard a guess that the Bill affects not only those directly concerned in the shipbuilding industry, but, at the least, 300,000 or 400,000 workers. It is a very important matter.
  If we are concerned about the survival of this industry we must be prepared to adopt, either through Government intervention or in some other form, methods, however unusual, to enable the industry not only to survive, but to prosper. I say this particularly in view of the facts and figures presented by my right hon. Friend on the comparable position of the shipbuilding industry throughout the world.
  My right hon. Friend, quite rightly, took great pride in the fact that there had been considerable improvement in the prospects of the industry in recent years, and that the British shipbuilding industry has reached about 7 per cent. of worldwide shipbuilding. That figure, 7 per cent. is almost at the bottom of the league. Last week I obtained some figures and I gather that the Japanese

  699
  shipbuilding industry has reached 40 per cent. of the world's shipbuilding production.
  What are the reasons for this: industrial relations, delays in delivery and the like? The fact is that over the years we have been neglecting the industry. Governments have been reluctant to intervene when intervention was essential. I do not impute blame to the shipbuilders or the shipowners; they were themselves reluctant to ask for Government aid. They were individualists, independent, wanting to stand on their own legs and resenting anything in the nature of Government intervention which had become essential.
  It must be accepted, despite what was said by the hon. Gentleman about the financial arrangements provided by the banks, that without Government intervention the industry would not have reached even the 7 per cent. position. It was not entirely the concern of this Government. The previous Conservative Government initiated the credit scheme, for which we were grateful. Many times my hon. Friends and I have argued from the other side of the House in favour of Government intervention, and this led eventually to the credit facilities.
  I want to devote some of my time to the QE2. I do so because of exaggerated statements appearing in the Press, even in the quality Press. Let me deal, first, with the matter of delays. There has been a great song and dance about the delay in completing the ship. There has been quite a lot of fury and intense criticism about the turbine difficulties. One would imagine that delays never take place in the shipyards of Japan, the Scandinavian countries, West Germany, France and Italy, and that only in this country there are delays in delivery. I want to refute the allegations which have appeared in some newspapers recently about the interminable delays which are holding up the industry and threatening our prospects. There is nothing like facts to refute an allegation. I shall provide some of the facts.
  I hope that the House will not complain if I weary hon. Members with some information which may not be at their
  700
  disposal. It may be that many of my hon. Friends have the information, but that it did not occur to them to bring it with them today. They may have thought that I had not got it, and that they have it ready for their speeches later on. Anyhow, here it is.
  Let me take Japan first. We hear a lot of talk about Japan having the most efficient shipbuilding industry in the world. As a result, far too many British shipowners are ordering ships in Japan. I would rather they ordered ships in this country, but there it is. We are told that when a shipowner orders a tanker of 200,000, 300,000, or 150,000 tons, or a liner of 25,000 tons, no sooner said than done, the ship appears. It is built, just like that. It is said that Japanese workers get their coats off and roll up their sleeves, there is no trouble about management or about industrial relations: if a ship is ordered, it appears on time. Look at the poor British shipbuilding industry, they say, where quite the opposite happens.
  Let us get the facts straight. In 1968, for example, the first Japan-built freedom ship, a tramp steamer of about 15,000 tons, was at least six weeks late. The problem was a leaking stern tube, and there were machinery troubles. Another yard was late with two cargo ships for the British-owned Blue Funnel Line in 1966. The massive 200,000 ton tanker "Tokyo Maru" was delayed for several months in 1966. The most recent instance involved the two 200,000-ton tankers being built for Shell by a Japanese shipyard. During construction, delays occurred because of the need to strengthen the hull structure. One was scheduled for delivery in November, 1968, and has still not arrived. The other, scheduled for delivery in August, 1969, also looks like being late.
  There is any amount of material in this document, by no means involving only Japanese yards. In 1965, an Italian yard had troubles with a 45,000 gross ton passenger liner. She developed severe vibration on her trials. That is familiar language. On her maiden voyage, she was delayed.
  The Norwegian cargo liner, "A. P Muller", built at the Bergen yard, was information which may not be at their causing a delay of several months.

  701
  The cargo liner "Italia", due for delivery in October, 1964, was eventually delivered three years later. As a result, the yard went into liquidation.
  On the maiden voyage of the 200,000-ton Shell tanker "Marinnla", built in Denmark, the boilers burnt out and she was delayed for two months. There are similar instances of delays occurring in West German yards.
  Miss J. M. Quennell: I have not interrupted the right hon. Gentleman to congratulate him on his Japanese accent. Would he tell us the source of the document from which he is quoting? He failed to do so.
  Mr. Shinwell: I can assure the hon Lady that it was not prepared by the Labour Party. It has not the research facilities available. It was prepared by shipbuilders and shipowners in combination. There is no doubt about the source of it. I would not dare to present facts of this kind to the House without knowing about the integrity of those supplying the information.
  Why should not the House have this information, in view of the exaggerated, unfounded and sometimes malicious statements that have been made about the QE2? Nevertheless, what happened was regrettable, but there is no reason why we should allow the Press or anyone else to denigrate the British shipbuilding industry. I do not say that its record is beyond reproach; I do not think that any shipbuilding industry in the world has a spotless record in relation to deliveries. Furthermore, delays in delivery are not confined to the shipbuilding industry. Electric power stations and nuclear reactors are delayed. The Post Office today reported delays in the provision of telephonic communications. Delays are inevitable in any industry. They should be prevented or modified if possible, but delays will occur.
  People frequently ask why they occur. There are allegations about adverse industrial relations, and there have been criticisms of the workers at John Brown's. I have some association with Glasgow and the shipbuilding industry. I lived in the shipbuilding area for many years, and I represented it on the town council and the trades council. The Clyde shipyard workers are among the finest craftsmen
  702
  in the world. They absent themselves occasionally, but so do others. Executives absent themselves. Even Members of Parliament absent themselves. Ministers absent themselves, and so do Leaders of the Opposition. They may engage in all sorts of ancillary activities. I will not take it further than that, but why blame the shipyard workers?
  There is talk about pilfering, and I know something about this. In my somewhat chequered career, I was at one time national organiser for a seamen's organisation, and for services rendered to seamen, I was made an honorary life member of the Seamen's union.
  I can recall seeing one of the Anchor Line, Allen Line or White Star Line ships about to leave port. Always someone was seen coming down the gangway at the last minute carrying a large parcel or bag. I have seen an Anchor liner in port and observed a couple of fellows who had nothing to do with the ship go on board and shortly afterwards come down the gangway carrying a wardrobe
  What about pilfering in the stores? There is pilfering everywhere. There may have been a bit of pilfering, on the QE2 but I doubt whether any of the craftsmen were involved. In the shipbuilding industry, contractors, subcontractors and sub-sub-contractors are concerned. As soon as the keel is laid, all sorts of other workers come in who are not directly employed by the shipbuilders. There will always be a few black sheep among them. They see something which attracts them, and off they go with it.
  However, as a result, according to one reputable newspaper the QE2 is described as a white elephant. We could do with a few more white elephants of that kind. I would rather have white elephants of the QE2 type than the TSR2, or even some suggestions about space travel. I would rather spend the money that some hon. Members would like to spend on space travel in building up the British shipbuilding industry. But perhaps that is becoming slightly irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
  I applaud what my right hon. Friend is doing, except about marine engineering. I have a document full of information about marine engineering. I have

  703
  done a lot of research during my short absence from the House. This document should be examined. The Geddes Report suggested promoting something in the nature of rationalisation. I think that my right hon. Friend described it as concentration. Too little is being done about developing marine engineering through research. The marine engineering industry has been grossly neglected. At one time, more than 60,000 men were employed in marine engineering. No more than 40,000 are employed now.
  Many of the so-called marine engineering shops undertake operations which have nothing to do with shipbuilding. This should be corrected. I should like my right hon. Friend and his Department of Technology, with his good will, ability and drive, to be even more dynamic to ensure that the marine engineering industry is developed to a point when we shall avoid trouble about turbines and such matters.
  No doubt, the Bill will be accepted. However, we must consider the future. What will happen in 1970 and 1971 after the S.I.B. has gone, if it is to go out of existence? We must concern ourselves with that matter. This is not a partisan or political issue. It is a topic which deserves consideration in the highest possible measure from every hon. Member in the House.
  The future of the British shipbuilding industry is a matter of national concern. There may be some minor criticism about the non-submission of the S.I.B. Report and matters of that kind, but these are trivialities compared with the essential issue of how we are to ensure that the British shipbuilding industry not only survives, but prospers, and I believe the nation wants it to prosper.
  5.23 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) because, although we have had many political differences in the past. I think that we have tried to fight a joint battle in support of the shipbuilding and shipping industries on the North-East Coast. I am very glad for the opportunity of supporting this important new Bill.
  I also offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh
  704
  (Mr. David Price) on his excellent speech on the Bill, the problems arising from the shipbuilding industry, and his constructive thoughts about the future.
  I sat on the Committee dealing with the last shipbuilding Bill. The situation concerning shipbuilding has altered out of all recognition. Although I would not, as a Sassenach, dare to make observations on the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde, I am delighted to say that remarkable strides have been made in reorganisation on the Tyne and on the Wear. What has encouraged everybody living in those areas is that most of the orders that have been received lately have been achieved in the face of the most fierce competition. The work that has been done by Sir John Hunter, leading the industrialists on the Tyne, and also the achievements of the Wear, deserves full credit.
  I do not wish to say very much, but I wish to be associated with the support given for the Bill and I should like one matter to be embodied in HANSARD. During the course of our discussions in the House among Members on both sides, very little attention seems to be given to the part that shipbuilding and shipping really plays in strengthening our balance of payments. Some of my colleagues—and they are entitled to their views as I am entitled to mine—seem to think that if the shipbuilding industry or the shipping industry cannot stand on its own feet it is better to concern ourselves with the growth of ordinary manufacturing and other types of industry. Very few Members stand up for the national advantage to be gained from a flourishing shipbuilding and shipping industry. It is important that this aspect of the contribution that the Bill will make should not be overlooked.
  It is not for me to get involved in the type of speeches which have been made up and down the country by, for instance, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He certainly has very little interest in the areas such as those from which the right hon. Member for Easington and I come. It is a good thing to nip in the bud the kind of speeches that sometimes emanate from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
  Shipping makes a valuable contribution to invisible exports. Concerning the balance of payments, I think that a great

  705
  deal of success may be achieved in invisible exports. We must maintain our shipbuilding industry in areas like the North-East Coast, Clydeside, Merseyside and Harland and Wolff's. I link this with the problems that arise from mine closures. Some people seem to think that we should be able to build ships whether or not we have the facilities—rivers, coasts, or whatever it may be. Very little; attention is paid to the fact that if shipbuilding was allowed to decline, for instance, on Tyneside and Wear-side—and it looked as though it was declining—the North-East Coast could not sustain a livelihood at all.
  We knew the difficulty that both the main parties have had to contend with in trying to adjust the balances in the development areas to make up for the loss which they have suffered through the closure of mines and the reduction in shipbuilding and shipping orders. If we consider the whole of the national economy, and not only that part of it which concerns shipbuilding and shipping, we see that it is tremendously important to maintain those areas in which shipbuildirg and shipping have thrived in the past and which are experiencing great difficulties today.
  The decline in naval shipbuilding has meant that an additional difficulty has had to be faced by the industry. In the old days we used to say that we were able to maintain our competitive function in shipbuilding because there were always naval orders to sustain us. Unfortunately—at least in respect of the Tyne—the amount of naval shipbuilding is very small as compared with the position in the past, so that an ever greater responsibility rests upon those who have to maintain our great shipbuilding and ship-repairing yards.
  The House should give great credit to the shipbuilding industry and to both the Conservative Government and the present Socialist Government for the steps that they have taken to try to stabilise employment in the shipbuilding areas. I am very glad to have the opportunity of paying them credit. It has been a long haul and a very difficult one, and we are still not quite certain about the future.
  To say that I am slightly critical is putting it mildly—that is not my way of conducting my life—but I am extremely unhappy to hear hon. Members on both
  706
  sides of the House talk as if it were quite easy to extend some of our industries without thinking of those industries which are now experiencing great difficulty in competitive tendering to maintain their employment position. I am unhappy to hear hon. Members arguing that it is not important to ensure that we have a thriving shipbuilding and shipping industry.
  In the interests of our balance of payments and the national economy it is very important to maintain our old industrial contributions. Every time I hear that the Tyne has won additional orders in the face of fierce competition I feel proud of my part of the country and the work that is put in both by capital and labour—to use the old phraseology.
  I hope that hon. Members will realise that in our present position we cannot afford to neglect our shipbuilding, shipping or marine engineering. I am in some difficulty in touching on the subject of marine engineering, because very little information seems to be available to enable hon. Members to assess the position. In Committee on the Bill in respect of which we last raised the question of the development of marine engineering, it was difficult to make any headway. A man I know very well, who represented some marine engineers in the Confederation of Shipbuilding Employers, expressed to me the anxieties of the marine engine builders about the future of marine engineering.
  I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us more information than seems to be available at present on the development of marine engineering. This subject is very important to our rivers as well as to the shipbuilding and shipping industries. I should regret it if any hon. Member puts a case against the Bill on the ground that a prosperous shipbuilding industry is not vital to our national economy.
  I should like to have set out in some detail what the Government have done to keep the Furness Yard in operation. It is very disturbing to industrial relations if, for months and months, anxieties are expressed at the possibility of yards such as Furness closing down, even though they may have been developed into modern productive yards through the employment of a great deal of capital. For months we were told that there was no

  707
  possibility of saving the Furness Yard; it was not able to obtain orders, and would have to be closed down. When representations were made to the Government they always said that nothing could be done.
  In terms of the relationship between employers, craftsmen, and the ordinary men in the industry, it is most unsettling for those who have to make their lives in the industry to have all this going on. The general worker in the shipbuilding industry does not know much about Parliamentary procedure. He does not know that on many occasions we have to go on and on and on pressing a case before success is achieved. It does not help men to settle down to do the jobs they are called upon to do if they fear that their livelihoods are going to be taken from them.
  I remember conditions on the Tyne in 1931 and 1932. I shall never forget the time when, in 1932, I went on the Commissioner's launch from Newcastle to the mouth of the Tyne. There was only one sound to be heard on that journey—the sound of a dredger at work. That, in a different way, expresses the kind of situation which led to the Jarrow march. That angle of industrial life on Tyneside has never left my memory.
  The workers in the Furness Yard were told that the yard must close because nobody would do anything to save it. Then, suddenly, after many months, to everybody's great satisfaction the Government took some action. It is not clear to me, however, what the Government have done, although I am very grateful for whatever action they have taken. In what direction and sphere were they able to help this yard? Was it done through bank credits? Was it done by way of a grant to the yard? How did it fit in? Was the decision taken by the Shipbuilding Industry Board? I do not know, and we on the North-East Coast should like to know, because we are very apprehensive about the future, both because of the difficulties arising from mine closures and the problems which we must go on meeting over world shipbuilding tenders.
  I am not particularly worried that the Board will exist only until 1970 and then have its life extended for another year if Parliament thinks fit, because Parliament
  708
  can always act. But when men are considering whether to make their life in the industry and are uncertain of the future, there is unrest and anxiety, which is not satisfactory for the region. When International Formica established its factory on the West Chirton Trading Estate in my division, the personnel manager told me, when they were recruiting labour, that an enormous number of skilled shipyard workers were applying for jobs because they felt that they were likely to have much more security in future employment than was offered by shipbuilding. This is not good, either for the men themselves or for stability in the region.
  Everything which needed to be said about the Bill was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh, but I should like to add my congratulations. The House is very conscious of the part that the shipbuilding industry has played for Great Britain in the world. We are very glad that it has been possible to make this arrangement with the banks to ensure a reasonable future.
  But what is also tremendously important is the question of steel prices. It would have been more helpful in this important debate if the Minister concerned with that matter—I am not sure who he is, because things shoot around under this Government so much and one is never sure of Ministers or Departments—could have been here to tell us about the future over steel prices. The right hon. Member for Easington said that Sir John Hunter had said that steel would have to be subsidised if steel prices had to rise, but that will not help the economy. The point which I wish to stress is that we will get our economy right only if we get the balance right between all our industries. One cannot safeguard the future of shipbuilding satisfactorily unless one can ensure that steel prices will continue to allow that industry to be competitive in tendering.
  It would not help the national economy if steel prices had to be subsidised. I hope that most hon. Members would agree on this. When this difficulty arises, and when Sir John Hunter, who is very keen on the future of the industry, flies a kite—everyone seems to be flying kites and it takes 10 years to win backing—unless he can give some immediate indication about what difficulty would arise

  709
  if steel prices rose, he must use whatever weapon is available. He cannot argue about what the Steel Board will do.
  Exactly the same difficulty arises over the National Coal Board. For the future of our economy, we must get a proper balance between all our major industries. Taxation and other problems enter more into manufacturing, but in relation to our great heavy industries of the past, present and, I hope, future, the balance must be got right. They all depend on one another. It is disquieting to hear about the possibility of a rise in steel prices, although in the last few years we have made this tremendous progress. Are all those trides to be impeded because of another Department and another nationalised industry crashing into what we want to do for the future and the safeguarding of shipbuilding and shipping?
  Part of the difficulty of Parliamentary life is that not all Ministers are present at the same time. We cannot ask the Treasury for its view over steel. The Minister has to carry the whole burden on this issue, which he did very well, but it is not very satisfactory for the industry or the economy. Perhaps the Minister could let us know today about the likelihood of steel prices rising. It is no good our being too happy or satisfied if there is to be a blow shortly from a nationalised industry. I am delighted to have been able to say how glad I am that the shipbuilding industry has prospered so well. Long may it last.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I am delighted to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), because she has fought consistently for the shipbuilding industry, particularly in the North-East. Shipbuilding debates tend to be non-partisan. In the past, we used to be united against the Government and the hon. Lady had the courage on occasion to vote with me against her own Government. Now the pattern has changed and we are united in congratulating the Government.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) will agree with me particularly when I say that my right hon. Friend is the most popular Minister that we have had. We recognise the importance of what he has done. I concede that the change in the
  710
  fortunes of the industry has partly been dependent on Suez and devaluation, but substantially it has depended upon the Shipbuilding Industry Act and the speedy implementation of the Geddes Report. The important thing which this has brought is a greater sense of confidence within the industry that this is a prosperity which they will be able to maintain. I pay tribute also to the Shipbuilding Industry Board and Sir William Swallow in particular, and, most important of all, to the industry itself.
  I am not going to talk about the QE2. I mention it only to call attention again to the fact that this industry provides too much "knocking copy". It is too often the whipping boy and I am glad that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) called attention to the article in The Times recently about delivery dates. This accords very well with what my right hon. Friend said about delivery dates in some foreign yards.
  Consider what happened on the Wear in 1968. Doxfords delivered seven ships during the year, six of which were delivered within one or two days of delivery date while the seventh was three months ahead of schedule. Pickersgill's delivered five ships, four of which were between four and eight weeks ahead of delivery date. One was three weeks late because a lorry bringing machinery was involved in a road accident. At Bartram's four ships were delivered during the year and all were well ahead of schedule. On average, they were six-and-a-half weeks ahead of delivery date.
  Why cannot we have this sort of information as news? Why must we always be so gloomy and despondent? Why cannot we say that we have done a cracking good job on the Wear in the last 12 months? Why cannot we publicise the fact that if one wants a ship built on time, the order should be placed on the Wear?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: On Tyne.
  Mr. Willey: I said "on time", but I would not be upset if orders were given to the Tyne as well.
  While the outlook is good and we have a satisfactory order book—with work guaranteed for at least a couple of years ahead—I agree that we must look at the position not only absolutely but relatively. We must recognise that the

  711
  Japanese order book is six times as long as ours, that Sweden and West Germany have lengthened their order books more than we have and that France is on our heels.
  If one studies the shipbuilding league, one sees that Japan has put up another record performance and is way out ahead, that West Germany is second with the best total they have had since 1958 and that, without knowing the final figures, we may have been pipped at the post for third place by Sweden.
  It is important to consider these matters because Geddes was looking for a recovery on our part by gaining a share of the world market of 12½ per cent., giving us an output of 2¼ million gross tons. We have recovered to between 6 per cent. and 7 per cent., which means that we have a long way to go before reaching the target set by Geddes. Until we achieve it, we cannot feel secure or say that we have arrived at a satisfactory position in world shipbuilding.
  As hon. Members have said, credit plays a large part in all this. On the export side we can reasonably say that the position is satisfactory. It is when we consider the percentage of orders placed by British shipowners in British yards that we become disturbed. Only a few years ago, at the time of Geddes, 100 per cent. of Japanese home orders went to Japanese yards despite the length of that country's order book; 97 per cent. of all French orders went to French yards; 95 per cent. of all Italian orders went to Italian yards; 80 per cent. of all West German orders went to West German yards; and 70 per cent. of all Swedish orders went to Swedish yards. At that time only 27 per cent. of all British orders went to British yards.
  Since then we have recovered, and I suppose that we have got back to the point when about 40 per cent. of British orders are going to British yards. This means, of course, that today there are 1¾ million tons under construction in foreign yards for British shipowners. This is extremely important to British shipbuilding. Indeed it must be the most important factor in our minds.
  Until a few years ago the position was very different. I recall first raising the alarm in the House, pointing out that
  712
  for the first time British shipowners were placing orders abroad. As the debate on this subject has continued, the fact has emerged that the major cause of this has been the disparity in credit terms between what can be obtained in foreign yards and what can be obtained at home. Imagine the advantage to British shipbuilding if the 1¾ million tons of British orders now being built abroad were transferred to British yards. It was to redress this balance of disadvantage that Section 7 was introduced. Most people recognise that it was one of the most important provisions to be included in the Act.
  I have been laudatory in paying tribute to the Minister. I assure my right hon. Friend that he need not appear in a white sheet because Geddes only recommended a figure of £30 million, with a limit of £10 million in any period of 12 months. It was against that advice that the Government properly provided a guarantee not for £30 million but for £200 million and this will be doubled in view of our experience of the past year.
  While reference has been made to the terms of Section 7 and the fact that it was said that difficulty might arise from it, I would not press strongly for it to be amended. I was actively concerned in the only case where there has been real difficulty but everyone was satisfied. The Minister said that he anticipated that the S.I.B. would act wisely and sensibly. Certainly in this case it did. When one introduces a provision like Section 7 one must have some sanction behind it. At the end of the day it can be reasonably said that the result has not been unsatisfactory.
  Having said that, I must admit that I have received complaints about delays in the Department and I am told that difficulty has arisen on occasion because of this. I appreciate that the Department will experience difficulty with the Treasury. Nevertheless, I trust that the Department will reconsider this whole matter and ensure that decisions are made as expeditiously as possible because delays can be extremely prejudicial to the shipbuilder.
  It is because there is no prospect of a liberalisation of trade in ships, that we must ensure that our industry is not prejudiced. There is no alternative but to extend the amount of the guarantee. However, at present there may be a limit on

  713
  the period and this should be reconsidered. But if we are to extend the amount, it is proper to do what the Government have done on this occasion, which is to double it so that the industry may feel a sense of security and feel fully justified in looking to the future—a future bound to be more difficult than the immediate past—with real confidence.
  There is undoubtedly a great sense of security in the industry. We on the Wear have had vastly improving labour relations. The case about labour relations has always been exaggerated. Ours on the Wear have never been very bad, and now because we see greater security ahead we intend to make labour relations more attractive. The trouble in some cases is that the industry is contracting in its labour demands. We are providing security, but for a smaller labour force. It is all the more important, therefore, to bear in mind the target set by Geddes.
  There is a tendency for any industry to work within its limits of security, when it has security. This industry, on the other hand, must go out, be expansionist and see that it meets the target by clawing back a modest amount of the world market in shipbuilding, but this will be in the face of intense competition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington mentioned that the Japanese have 40 per cent. of the world market. At one time after the war we had 50 per cent. of it, but now we have to fight back.
  I share the two serious doubts which have been mentioned. First, there is some uncertainty about marine engineering. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister was a little too optimistic about the progress which is being made. Secondly, I share the anxiety which has been expressed about steel prices. Traditionally British shipbuilding has enjoyed, and has depended upon, an advantage in steel prices. It was only under the last Tory Government that the advantage was lost. What constitutes 20 per cent. of the price of a ship is now being threatened by the price increases.
  I know that a submission has been made to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, but this is not a matter which can be left to the Board. This matter cuts right across the question of the aid we give to the industry. It is an industry in which the nation has a great interest.
  714
  This matter should be the subject of a very different sort of inquiry from that which will be conducted by the Prices and Incomes Board. It is of vital importance to the industry. We must ensure that we do not prejudice the steps we have taken to help the industry by allowing steel prices to run against it.
  I hope that the Government will give us further and more encouraging information about marine engineering. I hope that they will resolutely face the very difficult question of steel prices. I welcome the Bill, because it is another chapter in a story of successful Government co-operation with an industry which has always been understandably reluctant to accept aid. It is now accepting aid. It is using it to reorganise and strengthen itself whilst retaining its independence and competing in world markets.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: It gives me particular pleasure to be able to comment on some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The right hon. Gentleman was obviously anxious to pay tribute to the Wear and the Tyne. I shall devote most of my comments to my own experience from Belfast relating to Harland and Wolff, which also, I am proud to report, has a good record for early delivery of vessels. It was the early delivery last year of two ships—the "Thara" and the "Skanfast"—which helped the company to win the mammoth order from Aristotle Onassis for three very large tankers worth £25 million to the United Kingdom.
  I welcome the Bill. Its predecessor brought great help to our shipyards. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), myself, and many other hon. Members who have pressed for years in the House for assistance to the industry and who debated the matter, both in the House and in Committee, will remember how in 1967 we attempted to convince the Minister of Technology that the assistance being given under that Measure was a little on the mean side. The Government now agree that we were right.
  Not only was it a little on the mean side. It also seemed to come too late. The position of Britain as a major shipbuilding nation had declined rapidly

  715
  after the last war from that of being the world's main shipbuilder to being well down in the league table in 1967. The Minister was right to point out that we have now stepped up our production again, but, as the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North, said, we are still a long way down the league table. The total volume of orders placed throughout the world has risen rapidly in that time. Orders placed in world shipbuilding yards increased from 5,251,000 tons in 1954 to 14,307,000 in 1966. The United Kingdom's share fell from 1,400,000 tons out of 5,251,000 tons in 1954 to a minimum in 1963 of 923,000 tons and to 1,084,000 tons in 1966 out of the increased world total of over 14 million tons.
  I was sorry that the Minister did not deal at greater length with some of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee; for, after all, these two Shipbuilding Industry Bills are designed to implement the Committee's recommendations. The Committee was set up to inquire into the shipbuilding industry and it made a number of proposals relating to the organisation of yards, the improvement of labour relations, and other ways in which Britain's position could be improved. As a result of the operation of the 1967 Act, we have somewhat recovered our previous position, but there is still much leeway to be made up. I should have liked some detailed attention to have been paid from the Front Bench to the progress which has been made by the Government in implementing the Geddes proposals. The Report was presented to Parliament in March, 1966. Now, nearly three years after that, we should have been able to say that we are well on the way to implementing most of the proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) referred to the pressure for mergers in the industry. What progress is being made with mergers? What is the Government's policy with respect to yards such as that of Harland and Wolff? Do the Government intend in any way to penalise yards which cannot conveniently fit into a preconceived pattern of merged groups? What attention have the Government paid to the criticisms made of some merger proposals? We all know the difficulties
  716
  of some of the yards in the Upper Clyde. Is it wise that several yards which are losing substantial sums should be merged with profitable and efficient yards? Is that for the good of the industry as a whole? If it is, can the Government justify these proposals? Is it wise that a yard which is geographically isolated, such as that of Harland and Wolff, should be forced, if it is to obtain benefits under the Bill and have moneys made available to shipowners under it, to merge with a yard from which it is geographically widely separated, when such a merger would pose enormous management problems? Is this for the greater efficiency of our industry?
  What are the Government doing about the proposed increase in the price of steel, an increase which could add about 20 per cent. to the price of steel for our shipyards and largely offset the benefits to be obtained from the measures already taken by the Government? Our yards are a major customer of the British steel industry. Is it right that they should be penalised in this way? The whole purpose of the Bill is to enable our yards to compete in an international market. In that market, should not our shipyards be free to buy steel from any source, the cheapest possible source, so that they may compete with the Japanese, the Germans and the Swedes, who are all ahead of us in the world shipbuilding league table? If, on the other hand, they are compelled to buy steel from the British steel industry, should it not be sold to them at the world steel price rather than at an increased price which could largely offset the benefits of the Bill?
  Will the Minister deal at some length with the Government's plans for 1971 and thereafter, that is, assuming that the Shipbuilding Industry Board extends its life for one year until 1971, as provided in the original Act? Obviously, the work of the Board is not yet completed.
  I have mentioned some of the factors calling for improvement in our shipyards. There is little in our shipyards, or in British industry as a whole, which could not do with a good deal of improvement. I am referring here not just to labour relations but to the whole gamut of management—more venturesome management, better management ideas,

  717
  better trained management. There is as much fault here in our shipbuilding industry as in labour relations and trade union practice.
  We have heard a good deal about trade union amalgamations. I am delighted that many of the 50 unions which operated in each yard and used to fight one another over demarcations, leading to unfortunate strikes and loss of orders, have now been amalgamated. But has this brought an end to internecine war within the trade union movement? Some of the crafts are still fighting one with another although they are amalgamated within larger unions. What are the Government doing in an effort to stop this stupid quarrelling which can do nothing but harm to our industry?
  What do the Government themselves intend to do to play their part in assisting the industry? The Minister of Technology admitted that it deserves the special attention of the Government. Are they now satisfied, or do they intend still to exercise their powers and seek further to improve our competitive position until Britain again becomes one of the leading shipbuilding nations of the world?
  I need not repeat the reasons why the Government should intervene. The shipbuilding industry is an international industry. The Geddes Committee went at length into the methods used by the Swedes, the Germans and the Japanese to assist their yards. Unless we are to opt out completely and buy subsidised ships built in other countries on long-term loans at subsidised and uneconomic rates of interest, unless we are to disband our own industry and try to redeploy the men elsewhere, we must be prepared to match the subsidies given abroad.
  What efforts have the Government made to have this rather silly and self-defeating policy of subsidy brought to an end? What negotiations have they had with other Governments to return to a more sensible footing and to drop the idea of subsidy? So long as the Government do not tackle the problem in foreign relations, or so long as they are unsuccessful in their efforts, they must be prepared to match what is done elsewhere. Otherwise, we shall face an insuperable problem in disbanding our own industry, not only in retraining and redeploying the men—which I believe to be
  718
  impossible, knowing the numbers employed—but in losing all the capital investment which we have built up and all the skill and know-how of our shipyards.
  This country must carry on while other countries subsidise, and we must match those subsidies with similar assistance to our own yards. We are a maritime nation depending upon our shipping and our shipbuilding industries. If we do not support our building industry, our shipping industry will have to buy ships from abroad, thus adding a tremendous burden to the balance of payments. In summary, those are the reasons for continuing support beyond 1971. I pay a special tribute to Sir William Swallow and the Shipbuilding Industry Board for the work which they have done already. It is almost an insult to them to suggest that they can shortly—and it is shortly—be disbanded.
  I say a word in praise, also, of the chairman of Harland and Wolff, Sir John Mallabar, as he now is. Sir John was invited to take up this position two or three years ago, taking over the yard when its future was very much in doubt, when the whole British shipbuilding industry was in a trough of depression and there were serious doubts as to whether it could survive. He has done tremendous work in Northern Ireland.
  The orders for the yard fell to nothing between 1966 and 1967. Just one big order came in in September, 1967, for the Esso tanker, taking over an order which had previously been placed by a Norwegian oil company and which had later been cancelled. That was the only relief until the beginning of January, 1968. Then Harland and Wolff was able to announce the contract with Wimpey for constructing the large new building dock in Belfast. This was a concept which had been strongly advocated by Dr. Denis Rebbeck, the managing director of the company, for many years, and it was companion to the large dry dock already planned by Harland and Wolff. This dock will take ships larger than any in the world; it will be the largest building dock there is.
  Following the announcement of the building dock, showing confidence in the viability of Harland and Wolff, orders for new ships started to come in again.

  719
  Harland and Wolff has, I think, reached a turning point. However, I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that Sir John Mallabar exercised great discretion in dealing with these inquiries. He was not prepared to accept orders at a loss although, as I have said, very few orders had been won by the yard and the order book was down to the bottom at that time. There were enough inquiries, I am told, completely to fill the modernised Musgrave yard, but it was not till May, 1968, that he accepted his first orders, first for two ships and four engines, and then, later the same month, for a 55,000-ton bulk carrier for the Bowring Steamship Company. This meant that in May about £7 million worth of work—a total of three ships and five engines—was taken by Harland and Wolff, which it had the prospect of completing at a profit. Three more engines were later ordered by Swan Hunter and three by Cammell Laird. The yard in Belfast now has sufficient orders for engines. Previous speakers have referred to engine building in this country.
  Last October three giant tankers worth £25 million were ordered from Harland and Wolff, and only last week another £1,800,000 contract was placed in the engine works for three more super, large-bore Biermeister and Wein, eight-cylinder diesel engines. This is a very valuable contract for Harland and Wolff. The engines are particularly big, and none like them are being built in this country. They are not being built for use in Belfast but have been ordered by Swan Hunter and Tyne Shipbuilders for installation in bulk carriers ordered by the Seabridge Shipping Company of London.
  Those figures show that our shipbuilding industry is well worth the support the Government are giving it. It is proving that it can earn the kind of money the country so badly needs to support its balance of payments. But this is only a start. Though the position at Harland and Wolff looks a great deal better than it did two years ago, and though it may soon be possible, if present progress continues, for our shipyards to raise money on the ordinary equity market, which I am sure the Government would welcome, the Government's job is not yet finished. In the Geddes Report there is an exhaustive list of items which need to be
  720
  attended to. I hope that the Minister will deal with some of these, and in particular say what the future is for the Shipbuilding Industry Board.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many shipbuilding areas are involved in the debate. Reasonably brief speeches will help me to call hon. Members from them all if possible.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I should like to identify myself completely with the view expressed on both sides of the House that the shipbuilding industry cannot be expected to compete for world orders if the selling price of its ships is to be in any way controlled by another industry in this country. I hope that the Minister and all those associated with him will give this matter their closest attention.
  I want to deal particularly with the two yards in my constituency. Last Thursday, I met the men in Govan and the shipbuilders and other workers at Linthouse, who form part and parcel of the wider complex called Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. There we have five yards, on opposite sides of the River Clyde, seeking to work successfully together in the building of ships.
  I discussed with the shop stewards the problems that particularly affect our area, not forgetting the wider problems. Naturally, one of the subjects was the "Queen Elizabeth 2", which they did not regard as a problem at all. At least, in their estimation, if it was a problem it had been magnified out of all proportion, and they felt that to some extent that had been done deliberately by certain influences in the British Press.
  A week later I find myself dealing with a Measure which makes £400 million available for the development of the shipbuilding industry in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have often tried to give a helping hand to that industry on the other side of the Irish Sea, in which many members of my trade union are usefully employed. We are providing this money to sustain and promote a policy of developing this great industry along co-operative lines, because the outdated methods of unnecessary competition led to redundancy and waste. Under the new dispensation we hope to secure

  721
  constancy of employment and a still bigger share of world markets.
  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and my hon. Friend will visit Upper Clyde-side very soon. They cannot go there too soon; as what I shall say later may emphasise. When I was last there I asked my friends in the unions whether things in Clydeside were working towards those ends of co-operation that we all want to see in industry today. Their answer then was undoubtedly, "Yes". That, of course, gave me great heart.
  Last Thursday, I posed to them the question which I had put before the Summer Recess. Were they still working in that way? They were very doubtful and so am I. These topics were the main material, the central core, of the long talks we had a week ago and which took up most of Thursday. Their firm belief is that more than money is required in this industry. New confidence is needed among the men. Closer consultation between men and management is urgently needed now because the men in Linthouse shipyard, as it was, are now not sure of their future and, of course, this projects my mind back to the atmosphere that was created when the Fairfield yard had almost to close and a new management under Sir Iain Stewart was brought in to take control.
  That new management was based on the idea of working together, of taking the men with the management at all times; of telling the men in public meetings and through committees created for the purpose, through the shop stewards and by every other available means, what the management was intending to do, what were its plans and what was their future.
  This system now seems to be on the wane and the men are worried. When I asked them the questions that a Member of Parliament asks his people, they had no answers to give. They are being told that joint consultation is still in operation, but the topics they are allowed to discuss are not the topics which were discussed under the previous management, which had been rejected. It is only the little twiddly bits of things that happen in the yard that are discussed—and these are intelligent, educated men. This sort of situation is forming the root of trouble which could be of a most serious kind.
  722
  The QE2 was discussed, but they regarded it very lightly. They said that it was no problem. They thought the position had been exaggerated out of all sense and proportion in the Press. They had worked on the ship and every one of them believed that it will be a vessel of which Britain and the Clyde will be proud. In their estimation, where does the trouble lie? Everyone said that it was known by the men building the ship that she should not be launched on the date proposed. Some of them said that, had it been 1st April, it would have been wiser.
  But the liner was rushed out of the yard for a purpose. Cunard was anxious to make £2 million too quickly and so pressed Clydebank and its management to get the ship out as quickly as possible. It may be a criticism—I intend none—but Clydebank tried to co-operate and paid the penalty. Cunard did not get its £2 million and Clydebank has suffered the ignominy. That view is not the view only of some but of all the men with whom I was speaking and who were working on the ship and knew her state and what was likely to happen if the demands of Cunard were acceded to.
  The shop stewards are very anxious to know what is to happen at Linthouse. Of course, we have an idea that Linthouse will not continue as a shipbuilding area. The five shipbuilding yards are to become three and Linthouse will not continue. But, at the end of June, when we had a debate. I was assured that, to retain a significant labour force at Lint-house, there would be a design scheme and also an extension or an intensification of the engineering side. These things may still be in the programme, but none of the men affected see them coming into being and, as a consequence, when I went to "Old Govan"—to Fairfield's of former days—last Thursday, I found that 4,700 men were engaged in the yard.
  When I was there in June, the number working was 2,700. Thus 2,000 more people are employed in a yard with no more ships on the stocks. That creates a terrible situation because sometimes there are four men on one job. There has been an increase of 2,000 workers, but no increase in the number of tools or in the tooling facilities. One man may say to another, "Give me a shot of the tool. You have had it all morning."

  723
  That is not the way to create confidence, to create the assurance that the men want for the future. And there is no consultation. They are not being told why this is being done. I realise we cannot have people leaving a yard and going out into the street. But if they are to be sent to another yard to ensure full wages during this period, when things are changing, then it should not be solely at the expense of the men at the other yard. They are alarmed and the men coming in are also worried.
  I hope that my hon. Friend, when he goes to Govan and the Upper Clyde, will restore to these men in the Govan and Linthouse section some of the confidence they used to have in the future of shipbuilding on Clydeside. I fully realise that creating three yards out of five is not child's play, but if that is to be the end, it must be achieved along with full employment. It can easily be attained by sacking men, but the problem is to create a new shipbuilding future on Clyde-side without creating unemployment. We must seek to return to the old way of consultation between men and management. It is essential in industry today that there should be this consultation.
  This is especially so in shipyards. Shipyards themselves are fairly widely dispersed, which is one reason why there is pilfering. But if there is pilfering in any yard in Britain, there is only one source responsible and that is the management. I agree that shipbuilding lends itself to pilfering, but it can be stopped by the management if management wins cooperation from the men. There used to be pilfering in Fairfield's, because just across the road from the entrance to the yard there were several little agencies all ready to take what the men brought to them. But that pilfering was stamped out by good management, which sought the men's co-operation and got the workers on its side.
  The men in the yards must be fully aware of management's intentions. The blame for failure, if failure ensues, rests completely with management. When cooperation has been tried, it has been justified by results and shown to be profitable. It has succeeded because the management has carried the men with them. Industrial relations are still the
  724
  problem facing us and I hope that when my right hon. and hon. Friend goes to Clydeside, they will emphasise the importance of this relationship in securing success on the Upper Clyde.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Whenever we have a debate on shipbuilding we are always exhorted to speak as briefly as possible. We all try to do so, although that is difficult as this is a subject in which we have constituency or other special interest. However, like other hon. Members, I shall try to be brief.
  Every hon. Member who has so far spoken has rightly stressed the importance of shipbuilding to Britain. About 70,000 people are directly employed by the industry and about 250,000 British families depend directly or indirectly on shipbuilding for their livelihood, which stresses the significance of the industry. As has been said, employment in the industry is concentrated in the development districts, on the Clyde and the Tyne, and in Northern Ireland, where jobs especially for men, are even more significant than they are elsewhere.
  It has been the practice in this as in other debates to talk about the old days and the new. The old days before the Shipbuilding Industry Act were not happy. There may have been too much of a tendency to blame that on the practices and managements of the old days without paying proper regard to the industry's desperate economic plight at that time. In 1963, before my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) introduced the shipbuilding credit scheme, shipbuilding was virtually unprotected against unfair foreign competition and was about the only industry in Britain which was entirely unprotected by tariffs or quotas or similar measures. Other countries, such as France, the United States, Italy and Japan, were all paying their industries heavy subsidies and offering preferential credits. The industry reached an intolerable credit position when British owners found that loans of more than 50 per cent. were difficult to obtain, even at a rate of interest at 8 per cent., whereas in Japan 100 per cent. credit was available at about 5 per cent. The situation for the industry would have become impossible without the credit scheme.

  725
  We all appreciate that the best thing for shipbuilding in Britain and elsewhere would be the end of subsidies and of this kind of preferential credit. This would end the subsidy and credit war, leaving the best yards in the world to get orders in their own right and by their own efficiency. However, so long as we have a situation in which other countries protect their internal markets and have subsidies and loans for their shipbuilding industries, it would be intolerable for our own industry to go down because of preferential rates offered elsewhere.
  Hon. Members have been referring to the prosperity of shipbuilding. The Minister rightly said that orders of more than 2½ million tons in 1968 were splendid and were well-nigh a record for recent years. While this is true, it must be remembered that the action taken since the Shipbuilding Industry Act does not guarantee the success of British yards. They have created a situation in which it is possible for unions and managements to create the conditions in which shipbuilding can survive, but already there are warning signs, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about them.
  The first: is rising costs. In shipbuilding, only about 25 per cent. of the cost is directly under the control of the yard. It has already been said that the cost of steel represents about 20 per cent. of total cost. Sub-contracting and other costs account for about 75 per cent. and any escalation of these costs would be very serious.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) spoke about the Clydeside problems, and I think that he will agree that one of the most significant arises because of our place on the river. Unlike the yards in Belfast and elsewhere, we shall never be able to think of building giant tankers of 200,000 or 300,000 tons. What worries me as a Clydeside Member is the indication that the steel price increases will not be all-round increases, straight percentage increases which will apply universally, but increases giving preference to standard sizes of plate and to the kinds of steel which are more readily used in giant vessels, in the giant ore carriers and giant tankers.
  On Clydeside, we shall have to concentrate on more sophisticated vessels, and the pricing proposals will have a particularly adverse effect on yards building
  726
  smaller or more sophisticated ships. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about this, for any such change will be dangerous for Clydeside.
  When I worked in the shipyards, before coming to this House, the level of wages varied enormously between the most highly skilled and the unskilled. Some were in an extremely strong bargaining position, such as the welders. More recently, there has been a substantial escalation in wages. While, in April, 1964, the average shipyard wage in Britain was £17 l1s. 3d., by June, 1968, it had reached £23 8s. 4d., a substantial increase.
  Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman will know that we now have productivity agreements on Clydeside whereby wages will generally rise according to productivity, rising from £19 a week to £39, which is getting nearer to what they should be.
  Mr. Taylor: I agree that productivity agreements are in the process of agreement on Clydeside. I was surprised to hear what was said about consultation, because when I was in shipbuilding we spent a great deal of time on consultation—it was my job at the time—and I thought that if we spent a little less time consulting, and a little more time building ships, many of our problems would disappear. The hon. Member for Govan will have read the U.C.S. Joint Consultation Scheme and will appreciate that on Upper Clydeside there is a formula and structure which will allow for the most highly developed form of consultation.
  The hon. Member for Govan said that wages were getting nearer what they should be. Serious concern has been expressed about wage increases. Indeed, some have said that they are going sky high. Are they being matched by increases in productivity? Are the productivity advances which have been made fully justifying the advances which are taking place in wages? Hon. Members will have read the interesting remarks of Sir John Hunter about the problems which arise when payments are made before increased productivity is agreed. These sort of problems create a serious condition in shipyards and in industry generally. This is bound to happen if there are

  727
  increased wages without other benefits accruing.
  Will the Shipbuilding Industry Board be making reports about the progress that is being made for the better utilisation of labour? The example given by the hon. Member for Govan was unfortunate in this connection. He will admit that progress has been made and that problems do arise as a result of, for example, overmanning and demarcation lines, not just between unions, but between various sections of a union.
  It would be a mistake if the impression went out from the House today that this £200 million of credit and all the splendid assistance given by legislation has created a marvellously prosperous situation in the shipbuilding industry. Certainly, all of this has created an opportunity for the shipyards to strive ahead, but we would be fooling ourselves if we gave the impression that everything is well and that the future is universally rosy.
  It would be wrong to underestimate the magnitude of the task of those who took over the management of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. They took over five yards and, by general public report, three, and possibly a fourth, were losing money at the time of take-over. Various reasons could be given for the losses, but I will not go into them now. This take-over was a terrific challenge and in the interim period a remarkable number of new orders has been obtained. I understand that about £1 million worth of orders have been obtained each week since February, 1968, when the new owners took over.
  This has been a remarkable achievement, but it is desperately important, for the viability of this organisation and for mergers of this type generally, that we be given an indication that they can be profitable. Everybody I have met recently on Clydeside—including Mr. Hepper and his colleagues, union officials and men—is anxious to succeed, and I hope that that will happen. However, co-operation is needed from all sides and, perhaps more important, I trust that the Government will provide assistance to complete the job. Much reorganisation and retooling must be done.
  Will the present assistance by way of loans for reorganisation be sufficient for
  728
  this re-equipping task, so that the yards may reach an adequate state of modernisation to face the future with confidence? It would be tragic to have spent so much money on Clydeside only to find that not sufficient cash was available to complete this once-for-all reorganisation. Many people on Clydeside are worried about this and I trust that we will be given a satisfactory assurance by the Government. This is a once-for-all exercise and adequate capital should be made available to carry out the reorganisation.
  I do not intend to speak at length about the QE2, which has been a bit of a tragedy for Clydeside, because a wonderful ship like this, which obviously attracts enormous publicity, could otherwise have been one of the most glorious pieces of publicity for the area. Unfortunately, it has received a great deal of adverse publicity.
  As hon. Members have pointed out, there has been much unfair criticism. I agree that mistakes have been made, but much of the criticism has been uninformed and unfair. We are told that trouble was experienced with the QE2's turbines. We have had many examples of this type of trouble arising elsewhere. The 23,000-ton passenger liner "Hamburg" had to return to its yard and have its trials delayed for some weeks because of turbine trouble. These troubles are not unique, although they are regrettable.
  As for remarks that have been made about the unfinished state of the QE2, it should be remembered that on a three-year contract many problems will arise. I am upset by the sort of remarks that have been made about the shipbuilding workers of the Clyde. Some of the reports that have appeared are to be deplored. In building an average ship many factors arise. Among the workers are those employed in the steel industry the finishing trades, and so on. But a passenger liner is unique because of the luxury equipment that it contains.
  This means that many ancillary workers—sub-contractors and those involved in other trades—must be employed to finish the job. In other words, one's traditional shipbuilding workers are not the only people employed on building a passenger liner, and this creates enormous problems of discipline and security.

  729
  I deplore the scurrilous things that have been unfairly said—and particularly those attributed to Clydeside workers—on the basis of the misdemeanours of a handful of men whose activities we all deplore. Hon. Members who represent Clydeside constituencies are proud of the achievements of the Clyde and of the ships that we have built there over the years. It is interesting to note that a foreigner, the managing director of a Norwegian shipowning company, recently said, when ordering two further ships from Clydeside, that his company always had confidence in Lithgow's to keep to the contract. In other words, contracts have been kept, despite difficult circumstances. We on the Clyde have had many successes and are proud of the past. I hope that this debate will bring a sense of balance to what has been an unjustified smear on the generality of Clydeside workers.
  May we have a general indication—remembering the number of splendid orders which we have and the new prosperity which they have created—of the real prosperity of the industry? This problem is affecting industry generally throughout Britain. In other words, while we cannot hope dramatically to overturn world events in shipbuilding overnight, it would be helpful if the Government would tell us whether the problems associated with profitability are being overcome.
  On the question of productivity, may we be given a summary of the real progress that has been made? Labour problems frequently bring industrial and financial problems. One yard on the East Coast of Scotland was almost paralysed for several weeks because its boiler-makers were out on strike. When they returned, its electricians went on strike. These are obviously big problems, although perhaps isolated, and they must be overcome. It is strange that in many areas where agreements have been signed to do away with restrictive practices and unofficial strikes there are still such problems.
  Looking to the future it will be desperately difficult for Clydeside, for all parts of the shipbuilding industry, if, at the end of 1970 or 1971, the Shipbuilding Industry Board is wound up and the credits disappear. Will we not be in danger of plunging back into the terrible situation
  730
  of a few years ago? Certainly, the yards will have been improved, reorganisations will have taken place; there may have been an improvement in productivity.
  But no matter how efficient our yards become, no matter how much goodwill is created, if, in 1971, British yards are competing, on the basis of credit costing them 8 or 9 per cent. and perhaps only getting 50 per cent. of it, against companies in other countries where credit is made available at 5 per cent., or 4 per cent., this will be a credit barrier which it will be impossible for the industry to overcome, no matter how efficient it is.
  We do not expect the Government to spell out their plans for the future, but they should make it clear that they are aware of what a tragedy this could be if all this splendid hard work and progress was lost. I imagine that this will not happen, and for that reason I support the Bill.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I applaud very much the fact that every speaker has welcomed Government intervention, as displayed in the Bill. I cannot go along with one of my right hon. Friends who suggested that this was a non-political Bill and a non-political debate. It is highly political. It is not contentious, but highly political, because it is dealing with a highly political issue. What is the proper way in which a Government can intervene in an industry? I am delighted that there should have been unanimous agreement that this is an effective way to do so.
  It encourages me very much because of the possibilities opened up elsewhere. I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) when she courageously and vigorously said that there must be no nonsense, no talk of Government not intervening in areas like ours, in development areas. There must be no cutting back or interfering with Government intervention which is available. None of us who live on Tyne-side and in the North-East generally can be but delighted that this Bill has proved as effective as it undoubtedly has—I quite take the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)—in providing the conditions in which the changes can be made.

  731
  I do not exaggerate and contend that we have solved all the problems. We have not. Many of them are right on our backs at the moment. However, we can face these problems with far more assurance than we could a year ago. This Measure, giving further financial backing for the guarantee scheme, enables us to go ahead with much greater confidence. Many of us on the Tyne, and the same applies elsewhere, were very pleased at the way in which orders have been secured, transforming the situation in a big way. I am delighted to say that on the Tyne, as on the Wear and in other areas, we are also transforming the delivery record. It is true that delivery date reputations of many of our yards are very good. Long may it be so.
  I am very anxious to get more information from the Board. We had some interesting indications from my right hon. Friend the Minister about the work of the Board, almost tantalisingly interesting, but we did not have the Board's Report before us. This is important, because we want to know something about the way in which it is operating. We were told that it has set up very interesting and important special groups, following up particular problems. As I understand, there are groups working specifically on the problem of industrial relations, training, research and development, and, I imagine, other subjects, too. We would all like to know more about how this is being done. If the full Report could not have been made available, it would have been helpful if the Government could have laid a White Paper, an informative document.
  Most of us are concerned to see that the advances made in greater efficiency in the yards—and this applies to management as well as to unions—are fully carried out. I am not completely happy as to whether information is really getting right down to every man in the yard. I know that efforts are being made to do this, for the agreements reached on the Clyde as well as on the Tyne, but the new and dramatic efforts being made by management and unions to break through have not fully satisfied me that we have done enough. It is patently obvious that there are many in the unions still not fully aware of the implications of the agreements being reached.
  732
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State has approved the new agreement for shipyard workers on the Tyne. It opens up further possibilities of advance for the men there. I am still anxious that we should place every emphasis that we can upon the importance of this being understood at all levels in the yards. Unless we do, the good records that we have achieved may not be fully maintained.
  I very much welcome the fact that the President of the Boilermakers' Society, which has its head office on Tyneside, recently suggested joint discussions with the management over the relationship of shop-repair work to shipbuilding, and the ways in which there might be better planning, with a better chance of obtaining orders. This has to do with the union as well as the management side. I agree with many who have argued that it is hard completely to separate problems of shipbuilding from ship repair. It could be a disaster at the moment when the prospects are so encouraging.
  On the Tyne, there are many men out of work, particularly in my constituency. This is in the repair yards, and to some extent in shipbuilding. I hope that it will be possible, either for the Board, or the Council to be set up at the same time, embracing repair as well as building, to give further special consideration to the future of ship repair in an area that desperately needs support and reorganisation just as much as the shipbuilding yards.
  I join with others in expressing anxiety about steel prices. Again, this is a question of Government intervention. I am all for Government intervention, it is others who complain. I am no believer in normal market forces operating. I want to see the Government upsetting those market forces when they do not operate in ways which I believe are socially right. I make no apology for being anxious about this matter.
  We should like to hear more about marine engine developments. We have been deeply concerned about this on the Tyne. We have suffered severely in cutbacks in employment in this field. We are glad that progress is being made and that greater clarity is being obtained about the future of marine engines and how

  733
  concentration should take place. I should be pleased to hear more about this question. If the S.I.B.'s Report will not provide us with this information, perhaps my hon. Friend could consider some other way in which it might be given to us, possibly by means of a White Paper.
  We very much welcome the steps forward which have been taken, but we are deeply anxious that the opportunity which is provided should be fully utilised.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: I hope to abide by your request, Mr. Speaker, but I fear that I shall be somewhat controversial. My rôle today is that of a skeleton at a very enjoyable feast. Every hon. Member who has spoken has given the Bill a warm welcome, twice the welcome which the 1967 Bill received. That is right because twice the amount of money is being provided.
  The Minister said that he stood before the House in a white sheet. If I have not seen a penitent before a bowl of cream before, I shall know one when I see one next time. The right hon. Gentleman said that the shipbuilding prospects of this country were a great deal better than when the Bill of two years ago was introduced and that 10 per cent. of all new orders were being booked by British yards. This is a magnificent record. It leads me to ask only one question: given the striking success of the British shipbuilding industry, is this Bill needed?
  There will always be a voracious appetite for Government assistance in industry. The more it receives, the more it becomes dependent upon it. In my opinion, all Government assistance acts in the same way as heroin. It is just as dangerous, and the withdrawal symptoms are every bit as severe. If Government assistance is to be provided, therefore, it should be provided for a specific short-term reason which has clearly defined national benefits. It should be in the nature of a shot in the arm to carry out radical changes. Its purpose should not be to strengthen the position of an already rapidly expanding industry.
  I am therefore led to ask whether in our present economic situation it is necessary to introduce the Bill. I cannot think that the economic situation justifies it. I
  734
  know that the Government's case is that there is no requirement from the Treasury unless the shipowner defaults on his payment. That is a very remote contingency, given the generous terms of the loan. But I am concerned, not with the question of liability to the Treasury, but the bad economic effect on the level of the money supply.
  Last November, it was announced that fixed rate lending under the special schemes for export and shipbuilding finance would henceforth be excluded from the calculation of credit ceilings. That means that any lending by the banks will be over and above the level permitted under the credit squeeze and cannot lead to anything but an increase in the money supply and, therefore, to inflation. We were told by the Minister today that £200 million has already been committed by the banks under the scheme and that it is likely that another £87 million will soon be required. This is a not insubstantial sum. When one remembers that the total money supply rose by £519 million in the second quarter of 1968 and by only £100 million in the whole of the third quarter, it is a significant figure.
  I therefore object to the Bill because of the bad economic effect which it will have on the money supply.
  Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman is advancing a very interesting point, but would he tell us specifically the bad economic effect? If the shipbuilders did not have the benefit of Government guarantees, would not they have to go to the banks for the purpose of buying equipment, paying wages, and so on, as they have always done, and would not the economic effect be the same?
  Mr. Hordern: The economic effect would not be quite the same, because the banks are providing this money over and above the ceiling limit which they are allowed to provide under the arrangements of last November. This sum of money, to be increased to £400 million, is over and above the amount which the banks are allowed to lend. That is the inflationary aspect.
  With a Bill of this kind, it would be wrong to labour its economic consequences, but I wish to ask one or two questions about the industry itself. Is it the case that it is now short of orders?

  735
  From all we have heard today, I do not believe that that can be claimed. It seems that at the beginning of last November the order intake stood at 1¾ million gross tons compared with over one million tons at the beginning of 1967. I understand that there are another 1¼ million gross tons in immediate prospect and that shipowners are readily placing contracts.
  Are prices uncompetitive? This is another point which has not been brought out today. It is a question, not only of credit, but of the price at which the shipbuilder can deliver his ship. We have the advantage over every other major shipbuilding country of cheaper prices because of devaluation. The Minister said during the Second Reading debate on the last Bill
  "No guarantee can be given unless the Shipbuilding Industry Board advises me that … the order is suitable and necessary for the particular yard's progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 1782.]
  I wonder whether that criterion can be applied with the industry in its present position, let alone the Geddes criteria, and particularly the third, that
  "without such credit facilities the order book of the group will be insufficient to provide the optimum flow of work during the transitional period".
  It is clear that the Government have not accepted the Geddes Report in its entirety, for there is not even the pretence of fulfilling that requirement. What is more, the Geddes Report suggested that the loan facilities given by the banks should be limited to £30 million, not £400 million.
  It is not a convincing argument to claim that because Japan has increased its production so rapidly our production represents only 6 per cent. of world production and that we must continue to give special protection. The simple fact is that British yards are busy and do not require further assistance at this time. Nor is it the case that every major shipbuilding country even operates a revolving credit scheme. The Swedes do not operate such a scheme. Their companies have to borrow on their home market and in the foreign capital markets of the world.
  The more assistance we provide while the yards are busy, the less likely they
  736
  are to carry out the necessary measures so well described in the Geddes Report. There are no incentives to carry out mergers and the inefficient yards will survive.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I understand from an article in the Economist that credit guarantees are given in Sweden and that there are other special facilities of a character similar to those available in this country.
  Mr. Hordern: I cannot find the reference I used, and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I have a reference that the Swedes do not operate a credit revolving system. I do not know whether or not the Economist is right, but my information is different.
  It is possible to make a convincing case for Government assistance to every industry. The Government ought to be taking the lead in the international dismantling of subsidies. The Minister, who believes in unilateral disarmament, should be the first to appreciate this. The O.E.C.D. was supposed to be looking at a scheme of international disarmament for these subsidies as early as last May, and I hope that in winding up the debate the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us about the progress and the results, if any, of the conference.
  Every industry would like assistance from the Government, and most of them make a good case for it. I am convinced that the shipbuilding industry has a better case than almost any other industry, but some time, somewhere, the music must stop and the piper must pack away his flute, and this is the time to do so.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Booth: As I wish to speak on the same points as the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), it is a pleasure for me to follow him, although I have reached a completely different conclusion. I do not wish to be discourteous to him, but I wonder whether he has read the 1967 Act, which clearly states the conditions which attach to loans and the tests which the Shipbuilding Industry Board must apply before making grants. Among the conditions is the effect which such a loan would have on the reorganisation of the shipyard building the new ship, and the increase of efficiency of that yard's resources. While applauding the original

  737
  Act and the degree to which the Bill supplements it, I wish to argue that there are certain other factors which should be taken into consideration before granting loans, not alternatives but additional factors.
  The factor which I have most in mind is the regional discrepancy in merchant shipbuilding tonnage which has come about in recent years. In the year ending December, 1967, 34 per cent. of the merchant shipbuilding tonnage completed was built in Scotland; 6 per cent. in Northern Ireland; 57 per cent. in the North-East—Tyne-Tees and Wear—and 1 per cent. in the North-West, other districts producing the balance of 2 per cent. In the year ending December, 1968, there was a change in the position, as could be expected from the developments which have taken place under the Act. These changes are changes which should lead us to consider whether or not, in making grants under the Act generally, and in granting loans, regard should be had to what is happening regionally in the shipbuilding industry. In the year ending December, 1968, only 21 per cent. of the merchant shipbuilding tonnage was completed in Scotland; 23 per cent. in Northern Ireland—a tremendous increase which I welcome because of the unemployment there; had there been such an increase in the North-West, I would be highly delighted—53 per cent. in the North-East; 1 per cent. in the North-West—1 per cent. being the rounded off figure, the actual figure was less than this; and 2 per cent. in other districts.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does that include naval building?
  Mr. Booth: This does not include naval shipbuilding. This is merchant shipbuilding tonnage, and this has a considerable bearing on my argument.
  In previous discussion on legislation for this industry we have taken into account that among the changes needed within the shipbuilding industry in order to increase our merchant tonnage was a transformation of facilities from naval to merchant shipbuilding, and the possibility of getting within certain of our shipyards the capacity to build merchant as well as naval ships. It is no exaggeration to say that merchant shipbuilding production in Barrow-in-Furness, one of the biggest shipbuilding yards, virtually
  738
  came to a halt because of the naval order for the Polaris submarine. The position in Cammell Laird's yards in the North-West reflects a serious dip in merchant shipbuilding production because of naval orders. This is a factor which should be taken into account in applying grants and loans.
  If we are to intervene deliberately, as intervene we should—the industry cannot be left to market forces—we must intervene intelligently in order to reorganise it. If we are about to do this, we must have regard to all these factors, our regional policy, the relationship between naval and merchant production and other factors which are already included within the 1967 Act. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend in his dealings arising from the Bill with the Shipbuilding Industry Board to urge upon them consideration of regional factors.
  I share with many hon. Members concern about our marine engineering industry. It is as much a beneficiary of the Bill as the shipbuilding industry. I will concentrate my remarks on one aspect of the industry, namely, turbine production. The remarks of my right hon. Friend in opening the debate should lead us to outright alarm at the position of marine turbine builders. He sees the future of marine turbine production as lying in those firms which have had a tradition of producing land turbines. If this is so, the outlook for those companies which were specifically marine turbine builders is very bleak.
  The Minister has an obligation to tell us how many marine engineering firms which concentrated their production facilities on marine turbines he envisages will close down, and what will happen to the labour force and production facilities of these firms. In the light of the turbine trouble on the QE2, it is also relevant to ask the Minister where he intends that marine steam turbine research should take place, in view of the closing of Pametrada, and the restricted attention of the British Shipbuilding Research Association to this subject.
  Although I welcome the improved order book position, I feel that, in the light of our production figures, we are becoming joyful far too early. Although the order book position has increased by two and a half times, we do not yet have production figures for the year 1968 and I would

  739
  be surprised if the actual tonnage produced in 1968 exceeded 1 million tons, and 1 million tons produced in a year when world order books rose to 25 million tons is not a figure we can be pleased about in a country which once produced half the world's ships. We have to set our sights very much higher, We should be thinking not in terms of 10 per cent. of the world order book but of nearer 20 or 25 per cent. as being a practicable figure at which to aim to give us a viable national shipbuilding industry.
  Section 6 of the 1967 Act makes provision for the acquisition of shares by the Shipbuilding Industry Board. I hope that we shall be told how many shares in the shipbuilding industry have been acquired. It seems to me that the people of this country have provided a considerable amount of money for the reconstruction of the industry, and that gives them a right to an interest in it. This provision in the 1967 Act was a good one, and the Minister owes us an account of the extent to which it has been used.
  I join with other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill. I hope that, by the time that these facilities have been exhausted, we shall see a bigger and more viable industry.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I am one of the few hon. Members present who have no shipbuilding concern in my constituency. However, I speak as one who has to look at priorities in terms of Government expenditure.
  I intend to confine my remarks to three subjects. The first is to ask whether we should be voting this £200 million guarantee. Secondly, I shall deal with QE2. Thirdly, I shall discuss the problems of reorganisation, touching on the work of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, and its effect on the various shipbuilding establishments.
  At the outset, I want to welcome the present position as being a good deal healthier than it was two years ago. I welcome the progress which has been made, but I accept the facts put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), that banks are lending money at advantageous rates and that there are priorities to be looked at not only in terms of direct Government expenditure but of the loans and expenditures
  740
  incurred by the banks. If the shipbuilding industry is treated well, there is the possibility that, at a time like this, others will suffer at its expense. The Government hold the public purse and, therefore, we must know what they are doing.
  I do not want to discuss such matters as the price of steel, but a dialogue has been going on between the steel manufacturers and the shipbuilding industry for many years. If the solution is to subsidise steel to the shipbuilding industry, the funds involved will be taken away from other activities in the country and given to that industry.
  I turn to my first point, and I ask, at the outset, if we should be voting this £200 million at all at this time. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham is the only speaker so far to put forward the other point of view. There is a balance which was expressed very well in a leading article in the Financial Times of 5th December last—
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that we are not voting £200 million? We are giving my right hon. Friend the right to guarantee loans of that amount.
  Mr. Osborn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction. Of course, he is right. We are dealing with a proposal to give the Minister power to guarantee loans. I apologise for trying to be too brief in describing this. He already has the right to guarantee loans, and it is proposed that he should extend this.
  The joint loan has had a degree of success and has brought orders to our shipyards. Not to continue it at this time obviously would be to limit a scheme which has been started. On the other hand, there have been various advantages to the shipbuilding industry. Devaluation has made our prices more competitive. Low order books have given the industry the advantage of being able to quote favourable delivery dates. What is essential now is that those delivery dates are implemented. The yards have benefited recently from the upsurge in shipping orders.
  Those of us who are concerned with the Government's purse are anxious that

  741
  the present position does not lead to complacency in management or to undue pressures from the trade unions on behalf of the workpeople in the industry because, if they were given in to, the shipbuilding work force would be the first to suffer. The orders would not roll in later on. Whatever else happens, we must satisfy ourselves that there is no complacency.
  Dealing with whether we should vote this money, the question which comes to one's mind is: what is our commitment? Under the Industrial Expansion Act, there is a specific commitment to Cunard. Under the Shipbuilding Industry Act, 1967, there are facilities to loan money and buy shares, which involve expenditure. Credits to shipbuilders as such are nothing new. They were started by the previous Government, and, of course, there was the 1964 Act. But it is reasonable to ask how great is our commitment, bearing in mind the subsidies and assistance given to our overseas competitors.
  We had a discussion earlier about Sweden. One of my hon. Friends referred to an article in The Times on 6th November, where it was pointed out:
  "In its report for 1967 the Swedish Shipbuilders' Association pointed out that there were a number of facilities granted to foreign yards which were not available to them. It stressed the advantages the British got from the £200 million revolving credit."
  Before speaking now, I wanted to know the extent to which we had committed ourselves, and I intervened earlier to ask the Minister whether he had complied with Section 8(3) of the 1967 Act, which provides that the Minister shall lay a copy of each report to him under the foregoing provisions of the Section before each House of Parliament together with such comment as he may think fit to make. I intervened to say that it would be more helpful for someone concerned with the national purse to know where we have got. I believe that the Minister should have taken steps to have this Report published and available before asking for this extra guarantee.
  We were given a hint from him that credits under the Act are now £6 million and loans £4 million. There was an indication from Lord Beswick in another place yesterday that they have agreed to lend £5½ million to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. But this is all piecemeal information coming to us when we are
  742
  attempting to judge whether or not to grant this extra guarantee at the present time.
  In my view, we have been asked to write a blank cheque for the shipbuilding industry. Perhaps as an act of confidence in the Shipbuilding Industry Board and in the industry itself, the Minister is asking the bankers, metaphorically and actually, to endorse his judgment. But any outside agency in private enterprise would have to put forward a better case than is presented to us today.
  That underlines the dilemma of the Government, of the House and of the country. Should we go on paying out for Government intervention and assistance, bearing in mind that the money is no longer in the "kitty" to the extent that it was a year or two ago? The House should bear in mind that the banks, independently of the Government, have an obligation to restrict their loans, especially after November. Public expenditure has to be watched very carefully.
  With those observations, I want to touch on the incidents involving the QE2—
  Mr. McMaster: I have been endeavouring to follow what my hon. Friend says. He refers to a blank cheque for the shipbuilding companies. Can he enlarge a little on it? The £200 million is being provided by the banks. The Government are merely guaranteeing it, as my hon. Friend knows. How does that affect other industries? I cannot follow his argument.
  Mr. Osborn: There is a limited fund to be loaned to industries and others involved in those activities. If there is a restriction on bank loans generally, generosity in one direction means limitation in others. I think that my hon. Friend will follow that. I accept that it is a blank cheque in terms of a guarantee only. It is right that I should be reminded of this again.
  I should now like to make a few quick observations on the QE2. The point I make is that it has had far too much publicity in our own Press. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) have mentioned other cases. I have a cutting from The Times of 17th

  743
  January pointing out that the 23,500-ton "Hamburg" has had difficulties in its trials. This is a small cutting from one of our own newspapers. It is a pity that the misfortunes of the QE2 have hit the headlines of the world. But I welcome the decision of the Minister concerning pressure for an inquiry from Members of Parliament and the support given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) that there should not be a public inquiry at this time.
  A feature of the Government is that we have commissions, reports, inquiries and witch-hunts of all descriptions. I reiterate that witch-hunts at this particular time—and I picked this word beforehand—and hunting for scapegoats is no help to the British shipbuilding industry and will not help those on the Clyde who have a very difficult task.
  But the dilemma is still there, because public guarantees and public funds are involved. Many members of the public will ultimately hope for an adequate explanation. I regret that Government intervention promotes one to ask for inquiries at times of difficulty.
  My third point concerns the shipyards. It is about 35 years since I first visited John Brown's shipyard. That is a name closely associated with Sheffield, so I have had an interest not only in the Clyde but in other shipyards. I had the privilege, with my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart, of making a few inquiries as an outsider on the progress of the Upper Clyde shipyards this week, in Glasgow. The reorganisation and managerial difficulties have been immense. Any team of Members of Parliament, whether they are aware of shipbuilding problems or are concerned with public expenditure, must welcome the strides that have been taken, not only on the Upper Clyde, but in other shipyards.
  Neutral Members of Parliament would want to assist those who are embarking on expensive reorganisation. I am the first to accept that if nothing was done on the Upper Clyde or in the other shipyards, the orders would not be coming in now. Any visitor will be given an account of the reorganisation, the employment charter, the productivity bargains, the problems of profitability and reconciling different costing systems when
  744
  five shipyards come together. They are familiar problems of amalgamation and reorganisation. These problems face many industries today. The positive side of reorganisation on the Upper Clyde I am satisfied, is going ahead, but I also recognise that there are difficulties.
  There is a new management and a new team. I fear that any inquiry at this time would distract the management and the new team from the task of making a viable and competitive shipyard on the Upper Clyde. For that reason, I welcome the decision taken by both Front Benches.
  But there are problems. The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) talked about the steam turbine, the gas turbine and the engine industry. This was dealt with briefly in the Geddes Report, at pages 66 and 67. Pametrada, as a combination, is no longer with us. Articles in the technical Press remind us that this is one of the largest engines of its type and the facilities for testing it are limited. I believe that the Shipbuilding Industry Board and the shipbuilding industry has to rationalise its engine activities as it has had to rationalise the yards. However, I accept that this takes time.
  The building of the QE2 presented a changing industry with a new set of problems. During the course of my engineering activities I have experienced many occasions when the best prepared plans have had teething troubles and difficulties. I wish those on the Upper Clyde every success and a prosperous future. The country will welcome a solution to a difficult engineering problem that has faced the manufacturers and users of the QE2.
  I come back to a point that I have already made: that this involves Government guarantees and Government money, and that the country must be satisfied that not only is it being well spent but that it continues to be well spent.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. William Small: Two hon. Members have given a tepid welcome to the Bill. I will not go into the situation in detail in terms of the economic manner of approach. I want to develop my argument in terms of the brand image of the nation as a whole. We are technically competent to

  745
  hold our own in a very competitive world with Japan, Sweden and West Germany.
  This is the Shipbuilding Industry Bill. The word "industry" has a very high content. The shipbuilding industry is not what is was. I served my time, and I speak as a fully qualified engineer—non-degree. I was brought up in an engineering environment all my life. However, when I look around and see the change in technology—and I will come to turbine technology later—I have some qualifications.
  My approach is to take the Cunard-Brown relationship on the Clyde. The names are synonymous. They are not impersonal. They are household names, as was the P. & O. and the Castle Line. The young men of my time had a pride in their craft and considered themselves the best engineers. We need this element of self-satisfaction in our craft and the knowledge that we are out for perfection.
  I ask: where were we in the days of steam? Then I take a look at the decisions that Cunard and other boards have had to make. Ten to fifteen years ago the liner traffic was the glamour traffic for shipbuilding. Japan would not have built the QE2. It will give five standard off-the-peg customer jobs. A sophisticated executive ship, to be the pride of the seas, will not be made in a Japanese yard. Standardisation has got a grip there on a commercial and competitive basis.
  Cunard made a decision to come out of passenger traffic, so out go the "Corinthia", the "Sylvania" and others, and in come the "Franconia" and the "Carmania".
  We then move on to Cunard's symbolic decision. According to Cunard's chairman, it is considering only 12 to 15 per cent. of its interest in passenger lines. The rest consists of its internationally-orientated cargo service. That is Sir Basil Smallpeice's view of Cunard today. Today's requirements are not the same as those of the past. That must be remembered. We have discovered North Sea gas. The new technology in shipping is bound up with container traffic. We must be able to compete with other nations in terms of our know-how in this respect.
  746
  I can illustrate my point by saying that in its time the Britannia aircraft represented the peak of British engineering technology. It was a very successful aircraft, but it was quickly followed by the turbo-jet and then the pure jet. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) was too much concerned with economic gain and not enough with the brand image of the nation as a whole. The content of his speech was very narrow. A former Minister of Civil Aviation once described himself to me as a kind of Public Assistance Board for the aircraft industry, with the task of seeing that it was competitive. I am asking for no less in shipping—to maintain our leadership in turbine technology.
  It was a political decision by the Government to set up the Geddes Committee, so that we did not have individual commercial judgment with various board rooms competing with each other. We must now ask ourselves whether it has been worth while. I am proud of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd. Five companies have come together. There is co-determination to make the venture a success. We cannot shift workers, houses, schools and hospitals from the riverside. There is no other geographical location for shipbuilding.
  During the period from 1959 to 1963 no fewer than 5,000 skilled workers left the Clyde. The problem that we face now is the resuscitation of confidence in the industry on the part of its workers. That confidence must be established. We hear a lot about participation in decision-taking. Fairfield's was a first-class experiment. It was a social revolution but it did not produce enough economically to justify it. Its inheritor—the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd.—has adopted almost 60 per cent. of the Fairfield principles.
  The result of the adoption of these principles is £1 million a week in new orders. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) will not disagree with me. Since 28th February, when it started, the value of the order book has grown to £57 million, with a potential of £30 million more if confidence is still there. Success has been achieved because the management carefully worked out the problems facing the company. It had an internal debate on wages to be paid with a smaller order

  747
  book, and then with a larger order book, and it struck a balance between the two.
  The Upper Clyde wage bill is such that there has been a 10 per cent. increase in wages right across the board—an increase of £1,600,000. This is the result of co-determination. This is the result of improving delivery dates and the restoration of confidence among the workers. The secret is mobility. The workers accept the principle of mobility within each yard. The Clyde is like a big building contractor. Because of its size it can go for a mix, just as a big building company can go for multi-storey flats, tenements and bungalows. Because five yards are concerned, the Upper Clyde can go for a mix in the market place. This makes a difference. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cathcart is aware that every word I am saying is true.
  The manager of this company is the only one in the whole of Europe who has given a guarantee against redundancy to his employees. No other manager has taken such a calculated risk—if we can call it that. Co-determination is the "in" word on the Clyde. That shows the credibility of the political decision taken by the Government and supported by the industry. What I have said illustrates why things are healthy on the Clyde. I say this especially because it has had a bashing about the QE2.
  The QE2 is a better ship than were the first two Queens. They could not go through the Panama Canal but the QE2 is designed to have a shallow draught. The upper cabin structure is made of aluminium. The ship has a speed of 700 miles in 24 hours. It can call at more passenger ports as a tourist vessel than any other ship. I say this having been in the "Michaelangelo" and the "Raphael".
  In the old days Bell invented the telephone—by accident—and Marconi invented wireless. Today we have turbine technology. The success of I.C.I. has come about because it has 2,000 Ph.D.s to advise it and it has a plan right through to the year 2000. It has planned for all the possible trends and changes in the chemical industry. That is the nature of the animal at which the shipbuilding industry will have to look. The leaders of the industry will have to face the fact that the reorientation that is taking place
  748
  in the industry concerns international container transportation. The Cunard company is alive to this.
  I challenge any engineer or scientist—degreed or otherwise—to give a written guarantee that there will be no turbine failures. He will not do it. He will say, "I will give you up to a 5 per cent. margin." He is just as hopeful as all of us, but it is always a 5 per cent. margin. Car engines or turbo-jets, every engine ever made has a critical point.
  I used to work in a test bed. I will not describe myself as what I am, but I know something about the instability of metal fatigue factors, molybdenum, vanadium, chromium and nobium, and there is a steel man over there. I know about manganese and the lot, internal expansion and clearances and all the rest of it, but that would be too technical and I do not want to develop any wizardry or to have a private telephone line to Heaven on the answers to this.
  I did not support a public inquiry, but there should be a technical appraisal within the industry between Cunard and the U.C.S. group and let it go at that. I do not often take up time, but only speak on something that I know about. What is happening in terms of North Sea gas and reallocation of these areas is not necessarily a trend towards liner traffic. In view of these developments, many jobs will be required and men with a different knowledge, up to the latest skills, will be needed. I could have done many things. I can still bend a plastic pipe with hot air and get a good bend, but I could not weld ultrasonically metal to earthenware. But it is being done today. All these advances will lead to a requirement for some young men in future to do this job.
  One of the problems with the QE2 was the introduction of so much aluminium and the need for the skills for harnessing and locating this metal and keeping it steady. In the Financial Times of 15th January, 1969—right up to date—speaking of whether this nation is slipping in the market place, and referring especially to John Brown Engineering (Gas Turbines), Arthur Sandles says that the industrial gas turbine market is basically healthier internationally, and that two United States companies have been looking for a partner. Great mergers are happening in this country internally in

  749
  the shipbuilding industry, and now, the Americans, with all their technical progres, are looking for a partner. And they come to John Brown Engineering on the Clyde. So they are not mugs in America if they want a working relationship with John Brown's on the future of gas turbines. The company has signed a seven-year licence which gives them entry to the American market. There is nothing to be ashamed about in that, in this modern world.
  John Brown's Clydebank yard, which is within the U.C.S. division, has successfully constructed four drilling rigs, establishing itself as the United Kingdom leader in this field. Upper Clyde Shipbuilders have secured an order for a drilling ship for the Clydebank yard, and John Brown's is negotiating another order. Drilling ships are a new development, combining the features of jacking up the drilling rig with those of a conventional ship. This is a new design study and appreciation will be required, because there have been failures at sea of drilling rigs with loss of life.
  This shows what is happening in the passenger liner traffic. It is expected that there will be early delivery of a bulk carrier to the Glasgow owners, Harrison. I do not want to make a totally constituency speech, but the Provost of Clydebank, who has more than a nodding acquaintance with the Minister of Technology, is concerned about the pending closure of Babcock and Wilcox. I have also seen what is happening in the Burntisland shipyard. Men who have devoted their lives to an engineering environment are not ready yet to give up the ghost in their techniques and skills and their wish to apply themselves to a new challenge.
  I hope that the Minister, by coming to Scotland or otherwise, can give credence to the idea that he is taking a deep interest in what concerns those who make their living in this industry. He might consider the Burntisland position and advance hope in Scotland, where we have had a lift by what has been done by the Government in terms of shipbuilding and otherwise.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. W. E. Garrett: This is the third shipbuilding debate in which I have taken part recently and I have
  750
  found this one of an exceptionally high standard. It is amazing how many hon. Members have a deep knowledge of this important industry.
  I, too, would pay tribute to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), which was excellent not only as it affects Clyde-side but the industry generally. I wish that I could say the same for the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), who more or less advocated economic anarchy. I should have liked to ask him, had he been here, whether he would advocate the withdrawal of agricultural subsidies in his constituency. I doubt whether he could have given a satisfactory answer.
  There have also been two good speeches from the Front Benches, particularly from the Minister, who made a positive contribution. But he must also answer the pertinent questions which he has been asked.
  Many references have been made to Sir John Hunter, chairman of Tyne Shipbuilders, in my constituency. I known that hon. Members have taken very good advice, and have made their protestations about the proposed increase in the price of steel. As Sir John rightly says, this can influence the whole economic structure of this industry. But no one has referred particularly to a speech which Sir John made—he makes many, since he launches many ships and uses the occasions as bases for his utterances—last week about the trade unions, which was ill-advised and did no good for relations in an industry which has been so troubled with industrial problems for many years.
  Since there is a much better climate of opinion now, he would be well advised to allow the personnel people in this industry and the local union officials to sort out their local problems. Had there been better collaboration between men and management in the Barrow yard of Vickers, the unfortunate demarcation dispute which has gone on for so long would have been resolved by now. Members of Parliament and people in the industry, both management and employees, should handle these issues very delicately. Unless we can, we shall revive some of the bitterness which has affected the industry. I would advise Sir John Hunter, again, to choose his words carefully in dealing with this sector of the industry.

  751
  Are the medium and small shipbuilding establishments fully utilising these credit facilities? Hon. Members will remember the unfortunate occurrence in your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the Burntisland Yard in Kirkcaldy, announced that it would close. The closure of yards of this kind are a major economic disaster because they represent the main, perhaps the only, sources of employment. Is it true that since the credit facilities became available little attempt has been made by management, and, I fear, by the Minister, to ascertain whether the medium and small yards are being helped to become more economic?
  We hear a lot these days about the QE2, super tankers and huge bulk carriers. Nevertheless, the medium and small yards are important because the sort of vessels which they build form a substantial proportion of the orders that are placed. I am not satisfied that we have improved the techniques of production in this sector of the industry nearly as much as we should.
  Are plans to be announced by any of the large companies forming consortia for improvements in ship-repair facilities? I fear that we are lagging behind in, for example, the provision of dry docking facilities. When we talk about producing 240,000-ton vessels we must not lose sight of the fact that dry docks must be provided for them. Capital must be found to build these docks to ensure that the work needed to be done on these ships can be done in this country.
  The Republic of Eire has recognised this fact and is building not only an oil off-loading terminal point at, for example, Bantry Bay, but is considering building large dry docking facilities. Oddly enough, there is such a large dry dock in Portugal, which has been operating for about a year. If we had thought ahead we could now be obtaining orders to clean and repair these large ships. I trust, therefore, that cash will be made available through these credit facilities for this purpose. Are any of the firms involved in consortia on Tyneside, Clyde-side and Northern Ireland thinking in this direction and, if so, will credit be extended to them?
  The shipbuilding industry has a good future. I do not share the gloom that some hon. Members have expressed and
  752
  I do not agree with those who say that there will be a gloomy prospect after 1971. There is no doubt that a vast amount of reorganisation is taking place, that the management of the industry has changed its outlook and is doing much rethinking and that the industry is quietly building up its confidence and getting the right type of new management. The fact that it has a good future should help to improve the economy of the nation.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: This has been a wide-ranging debate in which the QE2 has been mentioned together with the activities of various shipbuilding groups. There must be the impression that everything is all right in this industry. I was disturbed by the speeches of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, who suggested that because we were pleased with the progress of the industry and the length of its order books, everything in the garden was rosy. Do they really believe that there is no need for the Government to extend these credit facilities? If they do, they are adopting a dangerous course.
  While I welcome the state of the industry's order books, I cannot lose sight of the factors which have caused these orders to be placed with us. I believe that, at least in part, this trend has had nothing to do with the reorganisation of the industry. One of the main factors has been devaluation. Another has been the regional employment premium. This is particularly so in the development districts with shipbuilding yards because they have introduced a price range which has helped to make them competitive internationally.
  We must not forget the effects of past short order books. We cannot be absolutely certain, for example, that we are not getting these orders because we can deliver earlier than most of our competitors. We must examine this aspect carefully before getting too excited about the industry and suggesting that it is out of the wood. For this reason, hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken in the terms to which I referred have not studied the Bill and what it is intended to do; for while it is designed to provide extra credit up to a ceiling of £400 million, it does not remove the obligation on shipyards which apply for credit to

  753
  take further advantage of reorganisation schemes and other factors which can help them become more competitive.
  We need not look back far to realise that the industry was in a very bad way indeed only a few years ago. In 1963, it produced only 1·52 million gross registered tons. In 1964, the figure dropped to 0·36 million; and while, in 1965, it went up to 1·77 million, it slumped again in 1966 to 0·48 million gross registered tons. With the intervention of devaluation and other factors—not forgetting the short order books at the time—our order books began to lengthen.
  If we do not remain competitive I shudder to think what will happen if there is no longer a growth in world demand for shipbuilding and the industry becomes internationally highly competitive. Bearing these things in mind, I trust that hon. Members will not even start to think that the industry is out of the wood or that it does not need assistance from the Government.
  We should not forget to give credit to the S.I.B. We recall what former Administrations did, and particularly the £70 million which was handed to the industry in credit to help it over the desperate period in which it found itself only a few years ago. At that time there was no obligation on it to reorganise. The Labour Government have not only made provision for money to be granted to the industry, but are ensuring, by the Bill, that on this occasion it will not merely be helped to get over its present difficulties but will be helped to become viable. We must not lose sight of the consequences of recessions in this industry.
  Not all shipyards easily accepted the requirement to regroup. On Wearside, we had a long and protracted struggle. There were many reasons for this, which I will not go into now, and I would like to know from the Minister just what is the present position on Wearside.
  We must not forget to give credit to the trade unions in the industry, for they have co-operated well. There have, of course, been isolated problems, but there has been, and is, a great move in the right direction on the part of our colleagues in the unions, along with management, and there is a genuine desire to
  754
  make the industry viable. It is accepted that the world does not owe this industry a living and that it must remain competitive if it is to stay alive.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for enabling the Furness establishment to be retained. At one time it was said that it did not have any chance at all of surviving, the grouping on the Tyne gave confidence in the viability of Furness, with the result that the establishment was taken under the group's umbrella, and we were thereby able to save many much-needed jobs in the North-East.
  Those of us who represent constituencies in which the industry is sited are interested not only in the solution of the short-term problems, but in reorganising the industry in such a way that it will not be necessary to ask for help every 18 months or so. We want the industry to be in such a position that, whatever the state of demand for ships is in five, 10, 15 or 20 years' time, it will be viable and capable of meeting competition from wherever it comes.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: It is about two years since the House debated shipbuilding. Hon. Members have welcomed the opportunity of doing so today. Many hon. Members have special constituency interests. Many more of us have a great affection for the industry, even a sentimental one. Shipbuilding ended in West Dorset with the arrival of iron ships, because our rivers were too small to launch them into. The River Brit is not a large river.
  The debate has been well-informed, though some points have been made several times. The debate has, perhaps, been rather narrow, but a great deal of well-informed opinion has been expressed and there has been an extraordinary degree of unanimity. The conclusions reached on both sides have approximately accorded with what the Minister said in his interesting introductory speech.
  The Bill doubles the ceiling of guaranteed loans for home owners at a rather artificial rate of 5½ per cent. There was a time when the industry had strong connections with certain overseas owners, some of which unfortunately have lapsed a little. Our home owners are extremely important. I was told yesterday in a

  755
  Written Answer that the whole of the £200 million provided under Section 7 of the 1967 Act is about to be used up. True, the order book is much larger than it was. Those who remember the overfull order books of the 1950s, as I do from my time at the Admiralty, would not say that we have reached the stage where the order book has become an embarrassment. It is absolutely right that this extra money should be voted.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) rightly said that one reason why there has been this great acceleration in orders has been the attraction of the short order book and earlier deliveries. We might be premature in reaching too many conclusions about this sudden flush of orders.
  The home market is important. Many hon. Members would like to see British-owned ships British-built as well. United Kingdom tonnage is still an important factor in world trade. On the latest figures available to me, the United Kingdom registered merchant fleet amounts to no less than 21·9 million tons. We have been overtaken by Liberia, which now has over 25 million tons, and Norway's tonnage is approaching ours, but they are still very important customers for our shipbuilding industry. The Russians have increased their fleet to no less than 12 million tons, a subject more for comment in a defence debate than in this one.
  It is heartening to know that in 1968 orders were 2½ times those for 1967. I was particularly heartened by what the Minister said about the dramatic increase in the proportion of world orders which we are obtaining: that was the best news that has come out of this debate. Although the orders are good, launches and completions are still rather disappointing, but they can be explained. It is heartening, too, that the number of cancellations, which at one time was considerable, has declined.
  Therefore, tonight we can have cautious optimism about the industry's future. I say "cautious", because Japan's achievements are remarkable. Japan is mostly turning out fairly simple ships like tankers which do not have a tremendous amount of work in them. One Mitsubishi yard alone—Nagasaki—is turning out no less than 800,000 tons a year. With the output from the Yokohama yard and from
  756
  the Kobi one and, I believe, from another yard that Mitsubishi has, the total output by Mitsubishi is very great. It must make us wonder about the advantages of vertical integration as opposed to horizontal.
  This is no time to limit the amount of loan help to the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) was right to point out the tremendous balance of payments advantages that there are. She was also right to point to the handicap under which the industry has suffered in recent years due to the greatly reduced amount of naval orders, with so few ships of any size being built for the Royal Navy.
  It is a pity that the report of the Shipbuilding Industry Board could not have been ready. I accept that this is not a matter for the Minister. In Committee on the 1967 Bill we stressed the importance of the House having early information. It is a long, long time from July to January. I am sure the Minister will take any action he can to speed up the report.
  In the absence of the report, it is difficult to judge the type of work the Board has been doing. It is obviously doing a good job, though we detect certain signs of rigidity in its work. I was delighted to hear about the studies it is undertaking into market research and accounting. The Board comes to an end in 1970, although it could be extended for a year. What happens after 1970 or 1971? Although the Parliamentary Secretary obviously cannot anticipate what his opinion will be if he is still in the Government then, I should like him to tell us what is in the Government's mind.
  The Bill amends Section 7 of the original Act. At the time of the passing of the Act we had doubts about the conditions to be attached to any help in the form of loans. There were accounts that loans were being withheld in the case of the Wear, although I understand that in the end the yards concerned got the loans they required. We are all very pleased to hear about the orders that Doxford has won in the last few days. The Written Answer I received yesterday stated that no orders have been lost through the Board having refused to grant approval for loans. Although it is desirable that the Shipbuilding Industry

  757
  Board should be able to exercise a certain influence in regard to amalgamations there could be nothing worse than that it should try to use the big stick too much. There are certain areas of difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) mentioned Harland & Wolff. The Lower Clyde is another difficult area. It would be a mistake to be too rigid in our approach to amalgamations simply because of something which Geddes said or did not say.
  There has been a heartening increase in the amount of guaranteed loans outstanding. At first sight, perhaps, it is a little surprising that the banks should be willing to lend this money. I take it that the Government have no doubt that the extra £200 million will be sufficient. I suppose that, in about four years, as all loans are taken out for eight years, the maximum figure outstanding will be reached. At one time, I detected some reluctance on the part of the banks to find the money. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us why they now appear to be willing to lend it at a rate of interest much below that of the market.
  The principal case for continuing these loans depends on a number of factors, not all of which have been brought out in the debate. The first is the soaring cost of new ships to owners, coupled with the low return which, unfortunately, shipping is bringing at present, making it difficult for owners to provide fully for these greatly increased costs of replacements. Then there is the all-important need which has been stressed a good deal today, to match our competitors abroad. For a long time, the industry was able to stand on its own feet despite all the subsidies abroad of one kind and another, but foreign subsidies had an impact which it could hardly be expected to bear. It is an industry fully exposed to world competition. This must never be forgotten—a point very well brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). It should be our objective to have British-built ships for the British flag. This is an aim which will appeal not only to hon. Members particularly interested in shipbuilding but to others as well.
  There is a case against continuing an artificial rate of interest. That case was
  758
  made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), and there are others who think like him. They do not approve of an artificial rate, of two different rates of interest, and they also regard it as inflationary that the money should be found in that way. In the present state of the order book, if the advantageous rate for home owners were cut off, a lot of the slack, I am sure, would be taken up by more orders from abroad, but I have always taken the view that, in the long run, it pays us hand over fist to build our own ships.
  Special considerations apply to the shipbuilding industry. The world reputation which has been built up by British-built ships is a great asset; it has taken 100 years and more to establish it, and it is still something which is understood all over the world. There may be those in the Board of Trade and elsewhere who say that the shipbuilding industry's conversion factor is not as good as that of some other industries, but the new industries will take a long time to build up the sort of reputation which has been achieved by great shipbuilding areas like the Clyde and the North-East for British shipping, a reputation which has been, is and will be for a long time respected throughout the world.
  There is another special factor in the very concentration of the industry on certain rivers, where it plays such an important part in the national economy. In my view, that factor alone justifies special treatment for the industry.
  Inevitably today, the question of the QE2 has been in our minds and there have been many references to it. I still believe that she is a magnificent ship. She is a prestige ship, but she is a commercial venture as well, a valid commercial venture. But it is particularly unfortunate when there is criticism of something of a prestige ship. I am very sorry that some of the things that have been said and written about this setback—for setback it is—have been a little exaggerated. She is not a typical ship in any sense. It is wrong to attach to the industry as a whole any blame there may have been.
  There have been two subjects of criticism—the general delay and the turbines. The delay has not really been all that great, and it is not altogether

  759
  surprising, because she is a unique ship, technically very advanced. In particular, there is the factor of the enormous use of aluminium in the superstructure, amounting, I think, to 1,200 tons, which presented all kinds of problems. As far as I know they have been successfully overcome. At the other end of the scale, there is the question of the internal decoration. Those of us who saw those designs at the Design Centre will have felt that it was a tremendous fillip to other industries from which advantage can be derived.
  There was a rush to get the ship ready in time. Many temporary workers had to be taken on, and there was the worry of lack of following orders. But anyone who was fortunate enough to attend the launch will have no doubt of the pride that the Clyde and Scotland took in the ship and their desire to do the best for her. If a few people have let the side down, that should not be over-emphasised.
  The very fine achievements in other yards have rightly been pointed out. There was an article in The Times of 20th January, and the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) spoke about the record of Bartram and Doxford for ships delivered on time or before Therefore, it would be wrong to place too much emphasis on the late delivery of a very special ship of this kind, the last of a generation.
  What really worries all of us is the question of the machinery. When we think that steam turbines were invented and given to the world by Sir Charles Parsons, whose name remains in Pametrada, it is unfortunate that this should have happened. But we must remember that a German ship, the "Hamburg", has been delayed for three weeks in launching because of turbine trouble, and the Central Electricity Generating Board has had a great deal of trouble with its turbines. There is the question whether, since the closing of Pametrada, it was possible to test the turbines in the way they could have been tested while Pametrada was still going strong. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can say something about that. Turbine trouble occurs quite frequently, though I can understand that it is particularly disquieting for the public that
  760
  it should have happened in the case of the QE2. We all share the hope that the trouble will be rectified fairly soon. If it went on too long it would cause a good deal of public disquiet.
  There has even been some questioning of the whole concept of the QE2, but I have not much doubt about this. The smaller QE2—smaller than the Q4 would have been—seems to me a perfectly valid commercial concept, viewed both as a transport and as a cruise ship. Even with its unfortunate start, I believe that this magnificent ship can still achieve tremendous success and do a great deal for British prestige abroad, and I still feel that the loan made by Parliament for her was fully justified.
  When one looks at her from the point of view of shipbuilding, she is the last of an era and not a prototype for a new age. If the machinery trouble had been due to nuclear reactors, it might be more easily understood. The Chandos Committee mentioned the possibility that when the time came the best thing to do might be to try out nuclear machinery. But in the event that was obviously premature.
  I must say something about steel prices. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), in a typically interesting speech, mentioned them, as did the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). Steel prices are perhaps the biggest hurdle facing the industry. The Geddes Committee made no bones of the fact that this was one of the most important cornerstones of its Report. The Report has been more or less implemented with the single exception of steel. The increases in the prices of steel of the kind suggested now would, I am advised, mean an increase of 2 per cent. on all ships, and, when one comes to the "extras", the increase is very great indeed and out of all proportion.
  It may be asked why shipbuilders should not order foreign steel at a cheaper price, as our competitors can do. But if more than 20 per cent. of the components of a ship are ordered abroad, I understand that the loan is reduced. There is thus a strong disincentive to our shipbuilders to order steel abroad. And why should they buy it abroad? Why should we not be able to go on producing British steel at a price suitable for our shipbuilders?

  761
  I wonder what is the object of the idea that Lloyd's specifications do not matter all that much. Is it the object of the steel authorities to try to secure bulk orders and standard plates? I feel that a certain amount of bureaucracy crept in here, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tackle the Minister of Power about this very important matter. Now the steel industry is nationalised, I see no reason why the special needs of shipbuilding, which are very much in the national interest, should not be regarded and why this section of the Geddes Report should not be implemented. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said, we are not out of the wood, and I think that this is one of the most important ways in which we are not out of the wood. So I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take these negotiations about steel prices very seriously.
  This House should not send out to the shipbuilding industry today a message of criticism and doubt just because of one ship. We should send it a message of encouragement because it has got through lot of its difficulties and it faces many more difficulties ahead in many areas. Despite this, it is on the right road. I have no hesitation in inviting my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Bill, for these extra guaranteed loans, because I believe them to be thoroughly justified in the circumstances and because I believe that we have to compete with the shipbuilding industries in the rest of the world on level terms.
  A few years ago, I visited South Amercia, and along the Pacific coast I saw a ship which had been built on the Clyde far back in the last century, nearly a hundred years ago. There she was, for special reasons of war something of a national monument. I believe that British ships have a reputation that will long survive in the four corners of the world.
  8.45 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I was sorry to hear of the sad demise of the shipbuilding industry in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). If only it had survived until the lifetime of the present Government, we might have hoped that it would have grouped with my similarly dead coracle-building
  762
  industry at Ironbridge on Severn, when we would have had a new rival to the Clyde and the North-East.
  May I say how glad I am to see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the House for this debate? There are dark shadows across the shipbuilding industry even now. One of them is the sad news, which struck in the latter part of the last year about the Burntisland shipyard. We in the Ministry of Technology have spared no effort to find, if we can, a commercial solution to this problem to keep this yards in shipbuilding, and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) has made as strenuous an effort to save this yard, as could be expected of any constituency Member, and all credit is due to him for that, and I hope that his efforts and ours will be rewarded with success.
  I can only repeat my right hon. Friend's apology for the absence of the Report of the Shipbuilding Industry Board. It has been with the Comptroller and Auditor General for some time, but I understand that as it deals with a new type of expenditure, it has taken him some time to finalise his Report. It is a pity that hon. Members have not had the Report before today's debate, but there was little we could do about it.
  This has been a wide-ranging debate, as are all debates on shipbuilding. We always discuss not simply general questions, but also the regional and local interests of each hon. and right hon. Gentleman affected, and that makes it very difficult to reply, because one is always asked a plethora of questions not only about national matters, but about the fortunes or prospective fortunes of particular areas. I hope that hon. Members who feel that I have neglected some local issues will not hold it against me, but I do not want to detain the House too long.
  The Bill has two purposes. The first is to extend the limit of outstanding liabilities under guarantee for a further £200 million to £400 million. The second is to amend the original Section 7 of the Act so that the amount available for guarantees is limited not only by reference to the actual total of guarantees in force at any given time, but by any amount paid by the Minister of Technology on guarantees so far as they have not been recovered by him.

  763
  This was an omission from the original Act which neither side of the House spotted at the time. I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have "come clean" and that we are showing the utmost honesty and saying that we do not want to be able to sneak even one extra guarantee by means of this loophole.
  I have been asked a variety of questions, not least by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), about the guarantee scheme. The hon. Member asked me when the scheme would reach its peak and he suggested that there would be a specific peak and that the amount under guarantee would then fall away. I do not think that that is right. A revolving fund of guarantees does not rise and then fall away, unless there is some extraneous factor which leads the amount under guarantee to fall away, such as a decline in orders placed in British yards. Rather it rises to a plateau and should remain on the plateau if we continue to gain our due share of world orders.
  Mr. David Price: We can argue about this later, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that it peaks and then goes down to a plateau. If he plots it, I think that he will find on the speed at which the first £200 million has been taken up in relation to an eight-year term that while it settles down to a plateau, it still peaks to begin with.
  Mr. Fowler: At all events, while we can argue about this afterwards we are agreed that it will settle down at a plateau. I would not dissent from the hon. Member's view that it should happen soon after 1970. I cannot really be more precise than that. I would expect that repayments will begin to be made on loans which have been guaranteed in this way by the end of 1969. The initial sums repaid will not be very large.
  The hon. Gentleman also suggested, and other hon. Members have alluded to this, that preferential credit schemes are ultimately undesirable—that they are desirable in this country not least because they are prevalent internationally. He asked what we were doing about this. As he will know there has been an O.E.C.D. shipbuilding working
  764
  party considering the subsidies and other forms of assistance given to shipbuilding industries throughout the world, in a wide variety of ways. I will not detail these now, but would like to say to the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) that he need not doubt that these practices exist. This is the principal justification for operating such a guarantee scheme ourselves.
  We have to be sure that our ship-owning and shipbuilding industries enjoy the same advantages as other industries in other countries. The schemes are different in every country. The way help is given differs, but that does not mean that the result is not much the same across the board. Our aim remains to work for an international agreement to contain and reduce Government assistance to shipbuilding, which has become so permanent a feature in so many countries. Those countries were operating such schemes long before we gave any substantial assistance to our own industry. There probably is not a single shipbuilding country in which some form of special assistance is not given.
  With regard to the terms for export credits, which lie behind the level of the interest rate for the home order credit guarantee scheme, the Government are discussing the possibility of an agreement with the other members of O.E.C.D. The House will be glad to know that progress is being made and that there will be further full discussions with the industry before any final decisions are taken.
  Let me now turn to another question raised by the hon. Member, and repeatedly by other hon. Members. It was pointed out that Section 7(3) of the 1967 Act ties the grant of guarantees to the life of the Shipbuilding Industry Board. It was asked what would happen when the Board no longer existed, because the first life of the Board is limited by the Act to the end of 1970, and its resurrection cannot be for more than another year, at least by the terms of the Act.
  Hon. Members pointed out that after the death of the Board we could no longer give guarantees on the basis of reorganisation, as is done by Section 7(3). The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) suggested that the answer to this might be to extend the life of the

  765
  Board. I do not want to commit myself tonight to any particular solution. All I can do is to assure the House that we are well aware of the problem, and say that unless we can reach international agreement with sufficient scope to ensure that our industry can compete with rival industries, without any form of special assistance, then our present thinking is that we shall have to ensure that there is some credit assistance of this kind, though not necessarily of precisely the same kind. I cannot in any way anticipate the details of what may be a future Bill.
  Perhaps I should explain why, in that event, the Bill extends the amount which my right hon. Friend can guarantee by precisely £200 million and not a greater sum. I draw the attention of the House to the provisions of the Section of the original Act which require the Board, before it can recommend a guarantee, to satisfy itself that the ship on order will use resources which would otherwise shortly be unused. It is clear from the provisions of that Section that one cannot attempt to see too far into the future in making further provisions at this stage while maintaining the ultimate sanction which that Section provides for the Board.
  That sanction has been useful. If hon. Members say that the Board has threatened to use it only once and then, in the end, gave the guarantee, I recall to them the theory of the deterrent. It is commonly said that a deterrent has failed if it is used. That is the justification for that provision of the 1967 Act. We may have to reconsider the position as a whole at a later date, but it would be unwise now to anticipate precisely what might happen at that time.
  Another point raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh on Section 7(3) concerned guarantees for ships built in smaller specialist or isolated yards which cannot reorganise. I suspect that he is confusing the phrase used in Section 7 of the 1967 Act, namely, reorganisation of resources, with the crude term which we frequently use in referring to the activities of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, namely, grouping.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked whether non-merged yards would
  766
  be penalised. That is not what the Act provides. It does not provide that the S.I.B. must consider whether a yard has grouped or intends to group. It must consider whether the yard has reorganised its resources, or intends or has plans to do so. That is quite different from grouping. There cannot be a yard in this country which, even within the life of the S.I.B., has not reorganised its resources, whether physical or human, to some degree. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that this will not be an obstacle in the way of giving guarantees in respect of orders placed with isolated yards.
  I turn to the question of the order book of the industry and its production in the past year. It is clear that this lies at the root of the timing of the Bill. We have had to introduce the Bill now because the industry has received so many orders during the past year. There is a variety of reasons for that. Devaluation has been a great boost, albeit not necessarily a boost which will last for ever, to the British industry. The effect of grouping has certainly made some yards much more competitive by virtue of the strength which they derive from their fellows in the group.
  Greater efforts have been made by the industry to achieve delivery dates which are on time or before time. Many hon. Members have referred to that phenomenon. I will say no more about it save to please the hon. Member for Belfast, East by quoting that newsworthy man, Mr. Aristotle Onassis, who, when asked why he had at last placed orders in Belfast, said, "Because Harland and Wolff has shown that British yards can meet delivery dates as well as produce the best quality ships".
  Mr. Onassis has never had any doubt on the later point, but he has now been shown that they can meet delivery dates, too. Every group in the country has shown improvement. Most of them have a first-class record over the past year concerning delivery dates. This, too, has been an important factor. The credit guarantee scheme has, perhaps, been the most important factor of all.
  At all events, the situation is that when one compares the state of the order book today with what it was 18 months ago, one discovers that our share of ships on order on a worldwide basis has gone up

  767
  from 6 per cent. to approaching 8 per cent. That is a quite steep rise in 18 months. At the same time, the Japanese share has gone down from 46 per cent. to just under 37 per cent. We are, therefore, making progress and it is something of which we can be proud.
  Progress did not stop at 31st December. Hon. Members who have read their newspapers recently will have read the accounts of orders announced this month. I make it in the region of 1¼ million dead-weight—not gross—tons of shipping already ordered this year from British yards. I make, too, the value of those orders to be considerably in excess of £60 million. This is very good going. The boom in ordering from British yards has not yet come to an end.
  Orders are one thing, however, and the production of the industry, best measured by its launches, is another. Many hon. Members have suggested that we were not as well up in the world league production, measured by launchings, as we might be, and that is probably true. Nevertheless, the figures are a little misleading because of the type of ship which we build in this country.
  The hon. Member for Dorset, West rightly drew attention to the fact that the Japanese build a much higher proportion of relatively simple ships, whereas we build a much higher proportion than they do of relatively complex ships. As the hon. Member will know, to take account of this a system of compensated tonnage has been devised which irons out the crudities of measurement in gross registered tonnage.
  Looking at the 1967 figures, for example, one finds that the Japanese proportion went down from 47½ per cent. to 42 per cent. of tonnage launched. The Swedish and German proportions also went down. We find on this basis that the United Kingdom was at that point of time in 1967 running second in the world league, at 8·5 per cent., whereas Sweden and Germany were 7·2 and 7 per cent., respectively. On a crude tonnage basis, the Swedes at least were ahead of the United Kingdom. It should be remembered, therefore, that the crude figures are misleading and that because we build sophisticated ships, we are under-represented in the crude figures of gross registered tonnage launched.
  768
  This is a magnificent improvement, but it would be unwise tonight to suggest that the picture is wholly one of sunshine. There are many tasks still before us, especially—I was glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) drew attention to this—the need to increase throughput Productivity agreements are essential, but equally essential is to ensure that the productivity provided for in those agreements becomes reality. Productivity is not simply a matter of productivity agreements. It is also a matter of management methods and of the reorganisation of physical resources.
  Many factors go to make increased throughput. I would like to see industry eating up its much improved order book much more rapidly than would have been the case had it merely maintained the throughput of two years ago. If it succeeds in eating through its present order book more rapidly than past history would lead us to expect, then we must now be looking for more orders. With the order books in their present state one might be inclined on past history to say that we can begin to slacken off a bit; as most yards are pretty well provided for until the end of 1970 or well into 1971, why should we bother to look too far ahead; after all, costs might rise and it is singularly unwise to take orders too far ahead.
  If we can do the essential thing of increasing throughput, then we should be looking now for more orders, and this has a substantial bearing on why the Bill is needed now. I hope that we can increase the share of world orders that we have taken, not simply this year, last year or the year before, but that we can continue to increase it year by year for several years to come. We shall be able to do this only if we can get faster throughput in the yards.
  There are many other problems, some of which have been mentioned. Many of them I do not want to say much about; if I were to do so it would delay the House too long. I want to say a word about marine engineering, which was raised by so many hon. Members. I will not say too much about it, as it is very marginal to the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) suggested that

  769
  the industry is contracting rapidly. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) suggested that we were left in rather a fog because there was so little information of what was happening in the industry. I have a little sympathy with both points. Perhaps I can deal with the latter point by giving some information now and with the former point by saying that figures can be very misleading.
  What is the marine engineering industry? Is it merely the production of marine engines, is it the production of all other engineering products connected with shipbuilding, or, if it is neither of these, is it something in between? Whatever the definition may be, how is the number of people employed in the industry precisely determined? Many of them may be employed on engine building at one stage in their career and on other forms of marine engineering when the order book of a particular engine builder has gone down. Some engine builders even taken in jobbing engineering work. It is difficult to give a precise figure, but I doubt whether there are more than 5,000 at any one time employed in the manufacture of slow-speed marine diesels, but it would be hard to prove that assertion.
  What has happened in the marine engineering industry is that we have been having concentration. We have been getting Geddes by stealth. This is where I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth; it is by stealth; there has not been much publicity. The two works in which marine turbines for ships are concentrated are A.E.I., with orders for several of their own design, and John Brown Engineering, which has licences for popular designs of foreign origin. Vickers, of Barrow, also build turbines for certain naval vessels.
  There are now four works in which three quarters of the production of slow-speed diesels is concentrated; George Clark and N.E.M., Doxford, Kincaid and Harland and Wolff. Although other marine engineering works have also taken a few orders, it is with these four that the bulk of the orders is concentrated. It is on these four that I would expect the industry to recreate itself in the years to come. The Geddes Report recommended concentration of production whether or not that involved grouping. On the basis of this commercial development after a
  770
  period when all the works were short of orders, reorganisation of resources is necessary and is now proceeding quite well. The industry still has a long way to go, and its progress will be attended with much less publicity than the reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry itself. But it is moving rapidly in the right direction.
  Mr. Shinwell: Has the Department entered into consultations with the Shipbuilding and Engineering Federation, the trade union, on this subject of marine engineering? Has it seen a copy of the report issued by the union, and, if so, can my hon. Friend say what was the reaction of the Department?
  Mr. Fowler: When I saw my right hon. Friend waving his report I suspected that it was the report circulated to the Shipbuilding Council by the unions. We have seen it and taken it into account in our deliberations and consultations with the S.I.B. on the subject.
  Turning to the QE2, which is the other major topic that has been raised, patently it has been in the forefront of the minds of many right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. My right hon. Friend and I have kept in close touch with progress since the difficulties in the QE2 began to appear and, indeed, long before then. Our contact has been not only with the chairmen of the two companies, but with the chairman of the S.I.B. It has been most valuable and helpful to have the advice of a prominent industrialist on problems of this kind.
  All sorts of charges, justified and unjustified, wild and less wild, have been made about the QE2. I shall not go into many of them and certainly I shall not talk at length about pilfering. I think that that is essentially a matter for the mangement and the police. If there has been pilfering, it is disgraceful and deplorable. However, I think that we have developed a talent for starting hares and pursuing the "poor wee timorous beasties" over hill and dale in our righteous indignation. This hare is a nasty and unpleasant brute, but it is silly and unfair to pin much of the blame for the troubles on it. I do not think that pilfering has affected the issue substantially one way or the other, and it should not bulk large in any judgment about the QE2. There have been faults of men and

  771
  management, but the most significant fault remains that of the turbines.
  So as not to give my own judgment, all that I can do is to quote the judgment of a learned periodical. I read the other day:
  "It is only fair to say that this kind of thing can happen to any new turbine design. Turbine design is a very difficult business, as the QE2 affair has illustrated."
  That seems to be the fairest judgment. In large measure, it was bad luck.
  Nor are such technical difficulties unique to Britain, as so many hon. Members have pointed out. Many hon. Members will have read the article in the Sunday Times by the London correspondent of the New York Times. To quote one sentence of it, he says:
  "There were bound to be risks in building so technologically advanced a ship, and faults are hardly unprecedented in complex modern liners."
  He gives some examples, and concludes:
  "What seems unjustified is any national sense that Britain is worse than any other country and must therefore suffer."
  That is a very reasonable judgment.
  The hysterical treatment accorded to the difficulties of the QE2 by some reflects less credit on the nation than these difficulties themselves do. This is not an attack on the Press, even that part of the Press which dealt in sensational headlines like "Ship of Shame". The Press is but part of the nation, and it reflects what is becoming a British malaise. I mean by that the inability to resist the temptation to denigrate ourselves, and the wish to parade ourselves before the world in sackcloth and ashes and to scrutinise ourselves in public every day lest a new blemish on the body politic should have escaped our attention.
  We seem to have lost the capacity to treat our foibles with the wry humour that many of them deserve. Above all, we forget that we are, each and every one of us, part of the marketing team for British goods. Foreigners do not ignore our criticisms of ourselves.
  In the case of the QE2, over-anxiety that its commissioning and maiden voyage should be days of glory for British technology contributed in no small measure to making them the flop that they were. An excessive zeal to succeed
  772
  concealed for too long from those responsible for the ship that the target dates could not sensibly be met, and the difficulties which should have appeared on private trials were revealed in the glare of publicity which was meant to attend the ship's triumphant entry into service. I suspect that over-anxiety was at the root of it.
  When all is said and done, the QE2 is a magnificent ship. Its technology is advanced, and it is a showplace for what British industry can achieve. Some say that it is not particularly complex because people have been building passenger liners for a long time. But let me give some examples. It is claimed to be the first ship in the world with automatically lubricated rudder bearings. It probably has the most sophisticated computer system ever installed in a merchant ship, the first to combine technical, operational and commercial functions at sea. Its radar equipment, supplied by G.E.C./ A.E.I., includes the most modern automatic plotting techniques. It is probably one of the biggest break-throughs in marine radar techniques, because it is no longer necessary to hand plot the past track of other ships.
  To take a final and interesting example, many hon. Members may not know that there are three Weir Westgarth flash evaporators in the main engine room, each producing 400 tons of fresh water from the sea per day, and all done automatically. That is an advance in marine technology that springs from the collaboration of Weir with the A.E.A., a collaboration which has ensured that last year Wier secured every single desalination order placed throughout the world. We should be proud that we have incorporated these things in a new liner. It is a magnificent ship. I believe that it sets new standards in ocean comfort, enjoyment and elegance. The task now is to get this new Queen of the seas into service with maximum speed and minimum fuss.
  I pass now to the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, since it has had so much bad publicity in connection with this ship, and most of it undeserved. I was sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) stressed so much the worries of members of the work force of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. He suggested that U.C.S. must reorganise

  773
  on the basis of full employment. This is exactly what U.C.S. has been doing. This was the secret of the initial acceptance by the work force of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders of reorganisation.
  Never before has a shipbuilder of any size and substance in this country given a guarantee of employment to all its work force with over nine months' service. It was only able to do this by the early drive for orders. That early drive necessarily deferred some of the other essential reorganisation. It could not do several things at once. A great task still lies before U.C.S. But I have every confidence that if the management of U.C.S. approach these problems in the way that it has approached others in the first nine months, it will make an enormous success of the project.
  Mr. Rankin Mr. Rankin rose—
  Mr. Fowler: I ought to press on.
  I have been asked about a whole variety of other areas, in particular whether any further grouping is in mind. It is impossible to answer that question sensibly tonight, for the simple reason that the need to group may become apparent only to the management of a certain area when it faces some heavy new investment or some crisis in its fortunes. Certainly, further groupings may take place; certainly, they may take place on the Wear or in that area that we call the Irish Sea. But I would be silly if, tonight, I sought to forecast what those groupings might be. The experience of my right hon. Friend and myself indicates that it is rare, in keenly competitive business, for companies to be sure for long that their present organisation and size are ideal. I am not going to seek to look more than 18 months ahead. I merely say that I do not regard the present organisation of the industry as sacrosanct and necessarily static for ever.
  I have been asked repeatedly to say something about steel prices. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has asked me to do so. I can be brief. The matter has been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board and I do not wish to anticipate its judgment in any way. I make only one point. The Government have not shirked their responsibilities by
  774
  referring this matter to the Board. A new situation exists in terms of the price of steel for ships. Not only can the industry, through the S.R.N.A., make representations, but the S.I.B., as an independent body, not part of the industry but with considerable expertise about it, can also make representations to the Board. In this way I hope that the Board will be able to come to a reasoned judgment with the best expert advice.
  I would not wish to predict the future market for ships, whether on a world basis or at home. It is a very hazardous business. It may be that the new types of ship—the large tankers and the container ships—will have a shorter life than those to which we have become accustomed, with a rather more slowly developing industry, over the past century. It may be that the future world market will remain buoyant. On the other hand, it may not. We do not know.
  I hope, however, that whatever the size of the future world market, the United Kingdom will continue to get at least 10 per cent. of it or, better still, an increasing share every year. I hope that with greater throughput we can eat up that increased share. The industry today is healthier than it has been for a long time past. It is recovering its rightful place in the world, and the Bill is essential to enable it to maintain that place.
  I am proud to be a member of a Government who have done more for this industry—an industry which is vital to the economy in terms of its exports and import-saving as well as to the men employed in it—than any of their predecessors. They have done so with the good will of hon Members, on both sides of the House—and I pay tribute to all those hon. Members—although there have been one or two dissentient voices tonight.
  I therefore commend the Bill to the House in the hope that it will enable us to continue the good work that we have been doing.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend section 7 of the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1967, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament or into the Consolidated Fund which is attributable to any amendment of the section increasing the limit of £200 million imposed by subsecton (5) on the Minister of Technology's liabilities on guarantees given under the section, but so that the new limit shall not exceed £400 million less the amount of any sums which have been paid by the Minister to meet a liability falling within the subsection and have not been repaid to him.—[Mr. Grey.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE, &c, BILL
  Considered in Committee; Reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (DIRECT WORKS DEPARTMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Grey.]
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: We are debating this evening a matter which is causing deep and very serious public disquiet in the City of Manchester. The attempt now being made to dismantle the city's direct works department is not only demonstrably against the public interest: it is specifically calculated to benefit private interests at public expense. The attempt is freely described by ratepayers as a bid by councillors to line the pockets of their party's friends and as a matter which merits both urgent consideration by Ministers and the detailed attention of this House
  The whole future of the Manchester direct works department is now at risk,
  776
  not through any failure in its operations, but because of their success. It is a first-class public enterprise, employing about 4,000 employees, and an asset worth millions of pounds to the city's ratepayers. During the past eight years, the department has undertaken work to the value of well over £50 million. Last year alone it did work to the value of £8½ million, compared with only just over £3 million in 1961–62. This is but one of the statistics of the department's escalating success in recent years.
  The direct works department's contribution to the housing drive and the clearance of Manchester's slum areas has been enormous. Nearly 10,000 homes have been built by the department since 1961 and the average number of completions during each of the last five years is 1,330. In 1968, while the private builders working for Manchester Corporation fell short of their housing target by 9 per cent., the direct works department exceeded its target by 3 per cent.
  In terms of manpower productivity, the department's performance is equally striking. The reported national average per man dwelling is 0·93 while the Manchester direct works department's output during the past five years has been over 8 per cent. higher than this figure. On one recent contract for 79 houses—Hulme 3 contract 540, which was completed three months ahead of time—the figure was 1·14 dwellings per man, or 21 per cent. above the national average.
  Nor is this the best example of the department's efficiency. An even more superb example is its recent completion of a multi-storey block of 70 homes in 10 months against the reported national average for such projects of 14 months This is an achievement in which every Mancunian can take legitimate pride.
  But as well as houses and flats, there have been schools and a wide range of other public building projects. The Manchester Education Committee can confirm, from certified accounts, that three projects undertaken by the direct works department at St. John's College and Elizabeth Gaskell College would have cost £42,000 more if they had been built by the private contractor who submitted the lowest outside tender. Again, with the C.L.A.S.P. programme of schools and buildings—first serial—involving a cost of £1 million, the public

  777
  saving from the direct works department's successful competitive tender was nearly £100,000.
  By common consent, the work on this group of projects was completed to a high standard and in good time. Officers of the Department of Education and Science, and representatives of the C.L.A.S.P. consortium, have expressed great satisfaction with the direct works department's methods and site arrangements and with the high standard of workmanship achieved.
  Many visits and inspections of work in progress have been made by officers of the Ministry and others, including private contractors, to study the department's construction techniques in using composite teams of skilled men trained by Manchester Corporation.
  One group of private contractors came from as far away as Scotland and there can be no doubt that the department's outstanding work in this field has been, and will continue to be, an example to many other contractors in the execution of C.L.A.S.P. projects.
  In providing a high level of continuous employment for its skilled labour force, most of whom are Manchester ratepayers, the department has done much to stabilise the local employment of building workers. The department adheres to the best municipal employment policies, which are not matched by the private contracting industry at large, and also employs a good proportion of disabled workers, all of whom make a valid and important contribution to its work.
  Such is the quality of the department's labour relations that out of about 60 million working hours, time lost in disputes has averaged less than 10 minutes per employee.
  "It is a fact"
  argues the informed and independent Manchester Evening News
  "that the department is regarded throughout the country as one of the finest."
  Why, then, should it be dismantled? There can be no question of any claim by the would-be destroyers that they have the support of the senior municipal officers who are immediately concerned in the department's work. Sir Harry Page, the city treasurer—no other municipal official in the City of Manchester
  778
  has a more distinguished record of public service—recently described the department's management as "dynamic" and its central works depôt at Bessemer Street as "magnificent."
  In references to the department's capital works activities the city treasurer states:
  "If Direct Works can be shown to have 'broken even' on £16 million worth of work, subject to a slight margin either way, then on the assumption that work allocated to them on tender or by negotiation was as low or lower than the prices offered by private enterprise, the only conclusion possible is that the Direct Works Department has been successful in its capital works activities."
  Sir Harry adds:
  "The Direct Works Department will not be able to offer to the City the maximum advantages of economical building unless it is allowed to maintain a fairly stable labour force, and to keep its capital equipment and its administration in full employment."
  Yet it is now proposed to close the central works depot and to take away from the department all capital works other than housing. So far as housing is concerned, notwithstanding the superb achievements to which I have referred, it is proposed to subject the department to tests even more stringent than those which have already been agreed with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
  This is why the department's employees are now so angry and anguished. They are told that their "magnificent" central works depôt will be sold as a going concern, that where necessary jobs will be found for them by private builders, and that there is no need for them to worry. But what many local Conservative politicians and their friends in private contracting seem incapable of understanding is that the employees have a strong sense of pride in what they and their department have achieved for the city. They are as reluctant to accept the proposed surgery as a healthy and unwilling heart donor. For they are working people with a social conscience and are as concerned for the public interest as many local Conservative politicians are concerned for the private interests of the contractors who stand to benefit at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers alike.
  Moreover, the employees recall that during last year the city council's direct works committee, strongly deprecating

  779
  Press statements about the department's uncertain future, unanimously agreed to inform the Press that
  "… such statements, which are totally unfounded, are proving to be extremely harmful to the department, the department's staff and operatives, and to the City Council and should be withdrawn."
  This statement was made on behalf of the direct works committee last June and was subsequently approved by the council. If the dismantling of the department is now approved by the council, the Press will be vindicated and the council will be vilified, since the unanimous statement of six months ago would then appear not only untruthful but designed to mislead the public.
  The employees are also fully aware of what Aims of Industry has said about the department, just as they are aware of the reply made to that organisation by one of the most honourable participants in this whole disreputable affair. In its attack on
  "protected municipal monopolies, free from competition with private firms"
  Aims of Industry states, in a recent leaflet:
  "The Direct Works Department's costs for house-building have not been checked through direct competition for five years."
  The reply came from Councillor Frederick Harrison, the Conservative chairman of the direct works committee, who has been courageously at odds with his party over the department's future. Sharply dismissing Aims of Industry's leaflet, and emphasising that the department has been an important money-saver for the ratepayers, Councillor Harrison told the Press:
  "Everything we have done has been checked and double checked over many years, and to say that we have not been in competition with outside contractors for five years is nonsense."
  Nor was the local Press in any way influenced by external propaganda. My own constituency newspaper—the Wythenshawe Express—emphasised the point that
  "what will weigh more strongly with most ratepayers is the proven fact that Direct Works is saving the Corporation large sums of money by building at lower costs than private builders."
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He will come
  780
  to some Ministerial responsibility for what is happening in Manchester, I hope.
  Mr. Morris: Mr. Speaker, I have sought to explain the background of the very deep concern that there is on this matter in the City of Manchester. I shall certainly be explaining that taxpayers as well as ratepayers are very concerned in this issue.
  The city treasurer, for his part, had already pointed out that, in terms of competition, it is not the private contractor but the direct works department that competes under handicaps. To a joint subcommittee of the council's direct works and finance Committees, he reported:
  "A contractor can, if he considers it opportune, quote what is in effect a cut price for a job if he wishes to keep a labour force together and to employ his equipment to the full. The Direct Works Department must not only submit realistic estimates, but must also disclose publicly the outcome of every contract which it undertakes."
  The Aims of Industry leaflet was a shabby piece of misrepresentation, and it was wholly appropriate that it should have been answered by Councillor Harrison. But there are other and more detailed facts about competitive tenders which deserve attention in this debate.
  Thus, at a joint sub-committee meeting held on 17th December, 1968, the department's would-be destroyers put forward and carried a conclusion that the appropriate committees of the council should consider
  "… the reallocation of certain non-housing contracts (e.g. the Airport Fire Station and Wythenshawe Civic Centre) on which very little or no work has yet been done."
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the point which I made. This is not a meeting of Manchester City Council. He must come in some way to Ministerial responsibility. I understand that there is some, but he must show it.
  Mr. Morris: I am making an assumption, Mr. Speaker, and I do so to save the time of the House. The assumption is that loan sanction is required for many of these projects. For example, the Department of Education and Science has a large stake in what is being done in regard to schools.
  My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who will reply to the

  781
  debate, does not have access to documents which, in my view, are of great importance for a consideration of this matter by the House, and it is to give the background that I am speaking of what has happened up to now in committees of the city council. I have told my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that I realise that the Government, for their part, will wish to watch carefully the interests of taxpayers, and I am trying as far as I can to inform him of what has recently occurred in the City of Manchester, where this matter is regarded as a considerable public scandal.
  I come now to what the city treasurer said on 9th January this year. Perhaps I should preface my remarks from now on, Mr. Speaker, by saying that these are projects which require loan sanction and, therefore, are matters which rightly concern right hon. and hon. Members. The report of what the city treasurer said is in these terms:
  "On the Question of the withdrawal of work at the Airport Fire Station and the Wythenshawe Civic Centre, the City Treasurer suggests that the City Council should not take this step, certainly not on the Civic Centre. A considerable amount of preparatory work has been done on Wythenshawe Civic Centre. The approved estimate for this job as against the next lowest tender is as follows: Direct Works tender—£1,374,238. Next lowest—£1,524,476. Previous capital schemes of the Direct Works Department do not show grounds for doubting the genuineness of the Direct Works tender, or its likely outcome."
  The cost of building the civic centre by direct works is, therefore, £150,238 lower than the lowest tender submitted by private enterprise. This fact was known to the Conservative councillors who voted for and carried the conclusion of 17th December, 1968. But they were in no way inhibited from wanting to saddle the ratepayers with the huge extra cost of succumbing to the demands of the Conservative Party's allies in private contracting. Whether or not anything more is heard of the joint subcommittee's conclusion, it will ever be recalled by responsible opinion as the nadir of local government in the City of Manchester. It will, unfortunately, also be widely regarded as an example of local government at its sleaziest.
  My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will also wish to consider a decision taken last week by a subcommittee
  782
  of the city's education committee. Reversing a previous decision the sub-committee decided to ask the city council to spend an estimated £8,000 extra on reallocating a school-building contract to a private firm in Nottingham whose tender was higher than that of the direct works department. The Conservative chairman of the sub-committee, Councillor Harold Tucker, told the Press:
  "It was felt the difference was marginal and that since the Direct Works Department had already built three series of schools and private enterprise had received only one contract, private enterprise should be given another contract to preserve the balance.
  If all contracts go to Direct Works, there is a danger that private enterprise will not tender in future and competition will be eliminated."
  I hope that my hon. Friend will take careful note of what Councillor Tucker said.
  Rarely does one come across a more classic case of "jobs for the boys" and I challenge Aims of Industry to publish Councillor Tucker's remarks in its next leaflet. For never has it been more frankly admitted that it is private enterprise that needs political protection when it comes to competition with the Manchester direct works department.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) has pointed out, the gift of about £8,000 of the ratepayers' and taxpayers' money has to be compared with the controlling Conservative group's so-called saving of £5,000 on reducing cleaning standards in schools and with its "saving" of £4,500 on school library books.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am a former local government man myself, but the hon. Gentleman must come to Ministerial responsibility and tell us what he wants the Minister to do about the issues he raises.
  Mr. Morris: I shall ask the Minister for a public inquiry and to look carefully at the additional costs, which I am now explaining from the Manchester point of view.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw, like my hon. Friends for other Manchester constituencies, is extremely anxious that all the implications of the threatened dismantling of the city's direct

  783
  works department should now be fully and urgently investigated by all the Ministers concerned. And there is very good reason for this anxiety. For the squandering of taxpayers'—as well as ratepayers'—money is involved in the recent decisions taken by committees and sub-committees of the council.
  My hon. Friends representing Manchester constituencies have been approached again and again by constituents who want to know whether the Conservative councillors who have been voting for unnecessary public expenditure can at any stage be surcharged for so doing. Furthermore, they are under very heavy pressure to demand a full and thoroughgoing public inquiry into all that has happened.
  To entrust any successful public enterprise to a Conservative majority is like leaving Fagin in charge of the till. The question of party attitudes to public versus private enterprise is, of course, highly germane to any discussion of this affair. Much of the Conservative Party's money derives from private concerns which stand to benefit from the wrecking of efficient and expanding public enterprises like the Manchester direct works department. Such firms are not believers in free competition. On the contrary, their most compelling need is to smash any successful non-profit-making competitors.
  This is, however, only a subsidiary question tonight. The real issue concerns the taking of decisions which are demonstrably against the financial interests of ratepayers and taxpayers and the need now for an urgent and impartial investigation. For what is being attempted is deeply unworthy of Manchester's reputation and besmirches the fine traditions of public service in the local government of the city.
  9.49 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Taylor: This debate clearly brings out the fact that this is a problem of the difference between free enterprise and Socialism. The Labour Party in power in Manchester for many years increased the size of the direct works department, wrongly and expensively so for the ratepayers. There is no doubt about that. A direct works department, like many other such
  784
  bodies, does not have to fight for its existence. Every man, foreman and executive on the job knows that the cost, whatever it is, will be met. This does not happen in private enterprise, which must struggle for existence and must make ends meet, because if it does not it will cease to exist. That is the main difference. If there is no profit motive or incentive that must be met, there are liable to be excessive costs, which has happened time and again not only in other local authorities but in Manchester as well.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the local authority department has to produce realistic reports of the outcome of every job. I did not want to bring this up but I must refer him to 1960, when Manchester Corporation was hauled over the coals when it was discovered that costs were allocated to different jobs in order to disguise the true cost of contracts carried on in Manchester.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I was quoting the city treasurer of Manchester, than whom there is no more distinguished municipal official in that city.
  Mr. Taylor: I am endeavouring to quote facts. One of the problems in tenders is that, to be effective, they must be truly democratic. They should be true tenders, open to free enterprise. But there have been known cases in this country in which tenders from private enterprise have been made available to direct works departments so that those departments could undercut them if they wished, and that is unfair.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that this happens in Manchester?
  Mr. Taylor: I was going to say that I hoped that it did not happen in Manchester. But it is a risk and we all know it. [Interruption.] I am interested not only in the comparison of tenders undercutting private enterprise but in the ultimate cost of the job, which comes to a very different figure time and again. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have listened to one side in stony silence. I ask the same for the other side.
  Mr. Taylor: I do not mind barracking, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that it is the

  785
  cost at the end which matters and that we have had innumerable cases in Manchester where contracts have been given to the direct works department and along have come supplementary estimates later which have thrown the original estimates out of gear.
  I hesitate to do so, but I must refer to our near neighbour, Salford, which had the sorry record of £500,000 missing and where no one could blame anyone. I would hesitate to think that Manchester might find itself in the same boat.
  I hope that the central works depôt will be closed as early as possible, for the simple reason that this department, on figures available, cannot hope to exist unless it spreads among neighbours outside the bounds of Manchester and could, therefore, become effectively a corporation producing for the North, so that it would seem probable that all building in Manchester would have to be restricted to departments which would use its products. This would kill private enterprise and in the end would kill prices.
  There are many other reasons that I could put forward to resist and refute the statements made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), but I refer only to his comment that he hopes for a public inquiry. So do I. It will reveal a lot of facts which the country would care to know.
  9.54 p.m.
  Mr. Will Griffiths: I rise with relish to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Frank Taylor) and I shall do so in a short intervention because I hope that it will be possible for some of my colleagues also to speak. I shall also endeavour to relate my remarks strictly to the accountability of the Minister's Department. But first I must deal—and this is relevant—with some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  The whole House will admit that it is a perfectly legitimate argument that building and certain works should be carried out either by a works department or by private enterprise. What would surely unite every hon. Member, and certainly every member of a local authority, is a consideration of what gives the greatest material benefit to the people they represent. That should be the criterion.
  786
  The hon. Member for Moss Side said that the policies which were initiated by the then Labour majority on the Manchester City Council had increased expense to the ratepayer. It is perfectly proper for him to have regard to the interests of the ratepayer, and we in the House of Commons have to defend the interests of the taxpayer. Manchester Corporation has decided that in future the direct works department is to concentrate on house building and it has removed capital projects such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) from the department's purview.
  Let us examine the view of the hon. Member for Moss Side in relation to the single instance of the Wythenshawe Civic Centre. The direct works department and private enterprise tendered for this very large contract. It amounts to £1,500,000 and preliminary work has already started. The Government have to give approval, for they have to give loan sanction and therefore are directly concerned and so the taxpayers' money is involved, as is the ratepayers' money.
  The committee of the Corporation responsible for changing the policy hopes to persuade the council at the February meeting to switch the contract from the direct works department, which put in the lowest tender, to a locally well-known firm, Gerrards, which put in the second lowest, and the extra cost to the taxpayer and the ratepayer will be £150,000. I challenge the hon. Member for Moss Side to relate those facts to his expressed concern tonight for the ratepayer and the taxpayer. Assuming that those who checked the specifications of the contract are satisfied about the ability of the tenderers to meet the design, how can the hon. Member and his friends justify inflicting upon his constituents and mine, for nothing more than what appears to be political prejudice, an extra cost of £150,000 on a single contract?
  Mr. Frank Taylor: In many cases the direct works department has taken on jobs, which it has known it had no hope of starting immediately, in order to have a full order book a year hence. That may well be what has happened in this case. The tender of the direct works department might well be £150,000 less,

  787
  but what the ultimate cost might be is another matter. If there is a delay of only six months in the starting, that will enormously increase costs, which may not be clearly visible, but which will none the less exist.
  Mr. Griffiths: I cannot follow the relevance of that argument. The work has already started and there is no question of six months' delay. I am not as arrogant as the hon. Gentleman. I do not profess to know the details of the specifications and the details of the contract; nor does he. However, I trust the judgment of the professional staff employed by the Manchester Corporation who are above politics and who advised the then city council majority that this was the best tender which they had had for the job. That is not from the Conservative Party, or the Labour Party, but from the city's officers.
  I content myself with that one example. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench ought to treat this with the utmost seriousness. This is only the beginning. We are just removing the lid from what is a rather unpleasant cauldron. Much that my hon. Friend has said tonight, and I endorse every word—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]
  Mr. Griffiths: —as being absolutely true. I refer to the Bessemer Street works, the good labour relations in the labour force. I hope that we will hear from the Parliamentary Secretary a constructive response, which we can display to the citizens of Manchester as holding out some hope of a reversal of this policy, whether in the form of a public inquiry or through Ministerial action. The Minister has a duty to protect the taxpayer and ratepayer. I hope that we shall have a satisfactory answer.
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: There is Ministerial responsibility on the part of the Department of Education and Science in that it has allocated money to the local authority
  788
  for building schools. There is Ministerial responsibility on the part of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in that it has to see that expenditure is properly carried out. There is also some responsibility on the part of the Board of Trade in so far as supervision of the Registrar of Companies is concerned, but I will raise that matter direct in Questions.
  I see this in two ways. This week I toured the proposed clearance areas in my constituency, and in those of the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Frank Taylor). I want to see the houses there replaced by new houses quickly, properly and efficiently. On its record the direct works department has been doing that, while private enterprise has not.
  I am particularly concerned about education. In the last two schools in which I have taught—at Ardwick and Blackley—there have been extensions built by a private enterprise contractor. Both are examples that can only be described as unsatisfactory. There have been innumerable cases of schools, housing contracts, abattoir and other developments where the direct works department has had to be called in to finish the job.
  Tonight I want to deal particularly with the schools question. On Monday the Manchester education committee considered lenders for the construction of schools. It did not choose the lowest tender and it gave no reason why. It is usual when this is done for the officers who have reported that they do not think the firm submitting the lowest tender to be capable of carrying out the job to give reasons, such as those of time, economy and so on. The opposite is the case here. The Conservative councillors admitted that the direct works department had been more efficient. The councillor who proposed acceptance of the tender said:
  "The very existence of the direct works department keeps tenders very tight, so it is only right that at times there should be some incentive to firms to come in with tenders, otherwise they will cease doing so."
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he must come to the point about Ministerial responsibility. There is such a thing as local government in Britain. Local authorities have a certain amount

  789
  of power. He must tell us what comes under the responsibility of the Minister.
  Mr. Marks: I want the Secretary of State for Education and Science to order an immediate inquiry into the circumstances whereby the Manchester education committee has proposed to its council that the lowest tender should not be accepted for a particular contract and why it has not given adequate reasons. I urge the Secretary of State to take immediate action.
  10.5 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I intervene in the debate as someone who has lived for many years in the greater Manchester area, and been dependent on it, and as the representative of a constituency which, although not in Manchester, is adjacent to it. Under the present electoral system, many of my constituents are voters at local elections in Manchester and own property in Manchester and, therefore, are very much concerned in this matter.
  I support the demand of the hon. Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) for an inquiry. I should like to see an inquiry set up, because I am not sure what it would reveal. I have not come here wholly committed to the principle of public enterprise as against private enterprise. Nor am I wholly convinced of the universal virtue and desirability of private enterprise. Quite a lot of private enterprise I have not found either as private or as enterprising as I might wish.
  However, I come from an area which is not fortunate enough to have a direct works department. The competitive tendering obtained by the Cheshire County Council in respect of contracts has sometimes seemed to me to leave something to be desired. I should have liked to see further elements of competition introduced. The existence of a direct works department can provide a valuable and important stimulus and yardstick to private enterprise, provided that the competition is fair in all respects. Whether it is, I am not sure.
  The hon. Member for Wythenshawe made a compelling case. He put a lot of facts on record which should be commented on. If the facts reported by him are correct, it would seem that the
  790
  balance is very much on the side of the direct works department. But I have heard only his side of the case. It may be that the method of accounting is not as simple as it would seem, and there may be explanations for some of the apparent advantages which he put forward.
  The Minister should take advantage of this opportunity to say something about the Government's policy concerning enterprises of this kind in general. Is it the Government's policy to encourage direct works departments, or do they take a neutral and uncommitted attitude? I do not think that they can remain wholly neutral in a matter of this kind. I know, as you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that this is a question of local government, but it is of the utmost concern to the central Government, which cannot afford to remain entirely neutral and say nothing. Let us hear what the Government think. Do they think that, on the whole, direct works departments are profitable and economic enterprises? Do they intend to encourage them?
  From what I have heard, the direct works department of the Manchester City Council performs a valuable function. I should not like to see it take over a large amount of territory, but I was interested in the remark of the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Frank Taylor) on the need for a department of this kind to spread its tentacles rather wider if it is to remain economic. I see no objection to that. If the Manchester direct works department is to flourish, I see no reason why the urban district councils in my area should not have the right to employ it if they feel it economically advantageous so to do, provided that it competes on a sound and equitable basis.
  We should like to hear the Minister's comments on these matters. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe for raising this subject tonight.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I should like to say a few words, not on the question of Manchester, but on the principle involved in this matter. I was rather surprised to hear the words of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) as a member of the Liberal Party. I would have expected him to

  791
  follow the cry that the Liberal Party has constantly uttered that power should be delegated from Whitehall to the regional and, presumably, local authorities. I am surprised that on a subject such as this, he suggests that the Government should intervene.
  I am also slightly surprised at the attitude taken by hon. Members opposite. I well understand them generally holding the view, as they would as people believing in public ownership and public enterprise, that a direct labour department is a good thing. It fits in with their political philosophy, but not with mine. This is a genuine difference between us.
  Mr. Will Griffiths: It is cheaper.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Member says that it is cheaper. I could quote a whole host of examples where, only too late, ratepayers have discovered how expensive a direct works department has been. We could mention all sorts of places, from Salford, Wolverhampton—
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. Member has mentioned Salford. It is interesting that since the direct works department in that city has been wound up, a contract which was taken over by private enterprise is 15 months behind time.
  Mr. Walker: Nevertheless, as the hon. Member knows, considerable losses were made to ratepayers as a result of the activities of Salford direct works department. I could go through a long list of direct works departments which have lost money for the ratepayers.
  Irrespective of that argument, I am interested in the view which is expressed against a Conservative council which genuinely believes that the direct works department will cost the ratepayers money. I have looked at some of the facts and figures concerning this direct works department. There are many contracts for which the final figures are not yet available, a workshop which employs one man per 1,400 ft. of the site, and matters such as that. It is suggested that because a Conservative council decides, in my view rightly, that a direct works department should be more limited in its activities and genuinely does this, a public inquiry should be demanded of the Minister. If that were done, it could
  792
  lead to future developments in the event of there being a Conservative Government and Labour local authorities, and quite frequently local authorities act in contrast to the Government of the day for reasons which we all know. I would hope that if a Conservative Government were in power and Socialist local authorities genuinely decided that it was in the interests of their ratepayers to go in for a direct works department, there would not be a demand for a public inquiry because of what we consider to be the danger of such a policy.
  If we are to have local government, we must leave to local government the decisions in matters such as this. If in the views of ratepayers in those local government areas the decisions are wrong and against their interests, they have the electoral process by which to express their views. If, on the other hand, the local authorities are correct, they have the electoral process to support their views.
  If every time there are violent political views, as there are on this issue—there is a straight division between the political parties as a matter of principle—there is to be a demand, whether Tory or Labour Governments are in power, for a public inquiry of the Government which happens to be in a doctrinaire fashion against the particular local decision, it would be a sad and tragic day for local government.
  Dr. Winstanley Dr. Winstanley rose—
  Mr. Alfred Morris Mr. Alfred Morris rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much enterprise. Will the hon. Member decide to whom he is giving way?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Cheadle.
  Dr. Winstanley: Would not the hon. Member agree that the purpose of a public inquiry is not to pre-empt people's right to opt for one system or another electorally, but to provide the information so that they may express their choice electorally?
  Mr. Walker: Not at all. It can be debated in the council chamber, questions can be put down through the local government process and all the facts put before the members of the committee and the committee of the public works

  793
  department, whether in Conservative or Socialist councils. All the facts are available to both sides of the council and they can be brought out locally. We can argue about the particular process. I would be only too pleased to do so, but the Minister has only 15 minutes left in which to reply and, doubtless, wants to give us his views.
  In principle, I hope that in the interests of local government the Minister will not hold a public inquiry. He may well express his views and those of his party against the action taken by a Tory council in Manchester, but it would be very sad if, in an issue like this, intervention takes place in local government.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): As you, Mr. Speaker, properly reminded us, there is such a thing as local government, and my right hon. Friend has no general power to hold inquiries into matters which are under the direct and independent responsibility of local authorities. He is, of course, concerned with the financial implications of some things that happen, but he has no roving commission or roving power. He may, however, hold inquiries, among other things, into applications that have been made for loan sanctions. He can look, for example, at whether the expenditure is justified, whether the scheme is necessary and whether it is economically planned. My right hon. Friend looks at applications and if a future case arose he would no doubt consider whether the circumstances suggested that he ought to have an inquiry.
  I wondered whether we could find a way out of the difficulty through the wisdom of the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Frank Taylor). He, speaking with wisdom, said that he would welcome a public inquiry. If the city council felt, as they may well feel, that the atmosphere created by this unhappy dispute—the bitterness and the accusations that are being bandied about—is of such a quality that they could take his advice and themselves have an inquiry, my right hon. Friend would do everything he could in providing guidance and, perhaps, finding somebody to hold the inquiry for him. The initiative
  794
  for such a general inquiry would have to come from the council rather than from my right hon. Friend.
  I accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) to say something about the views of my right hon. Friend and of the Government on direct labour. There is an expert working party looking at the problems of cost control and accountability, and their report will be a valuable guideline for future administration. My right hon. Friend has never made a secret of his policy towards direct labour. He has frequently and decisively expressed his confidence in its future. He has insisted that a direct works department must be efficient. In no circumstances would he defend one which had shown itself to be inefficient.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, when he was in our Department, had to take some very painful decisions on which he showed his usual courage by telling some direct labour departments that they were inefficient and were not to undertake work beyond their capacity. It follows from that that where a direct labour force is proved to be efficient it should be given every encouragement to develop and provide a profitable service to the public.
  I want to make it clear that when we wrote to Manchester asking them to put out to tender the next large housing scheme, it was not intended to imply that the direct works department was inefficient, and we have no evidence which would lead us to differ from the quotations that have been given by my hon. Friend from people who are professionally qualified that it is very efficient, but it was in conformity with my right hon. Friend's general attitude that costs should be checked from time to time. He would say, given that the Department has proved itself by having the lowest tender, that it should most certainly be allowed to do the work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe and other hon. Members raised the question of tenders for school building. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about it. He tells me that the local education authority has made no application to him for approval to these projects and, therefore,

  795
  that they are not formally before him. I am sure that, if and when he receives a submission, he will give it the most careful consideration in the light of any substantial increase in the cost of the work.
  As the education account is subject to district audit, excess spending resulting from the transfer of work from a direct works department to a private contractor at a higher price could be subject to objections by a ratepayer at audit. I cannot say whether the objection would be upheld or justified.
  1 can well understand the very deep feeling of my hon. Friend about the fate of the civic centre. I know how hard he fought for it. He bullied me. He even ventured to bully my right hon. Friend to obtain loan sanction for it. Eventually, to my personal delight, we were able to agree to it.
  Competitive tenders were obtained, of which the lowest was from the district labour organisation. We issued loan sanction in instalments on the basis of that tender. We have had no request from the city council to revise it. If my right hon. Friend found that the council was, of its own free will, proposing a change in the method of work which would add to the cost, I am sure that he would anxiously and carefully consider whether it would be right for him to issue loan sanction for the second instalment, which is due next April. This expenditure would not be subject to district audit. It would come under the responsibility of the council's own auditors. It would be possible, though it is not for me to say how probable, that if the change resulted in an increase in overall cost, it might be criticised at the annual audit.
  My hon. Friend quoted from reports which had been made by the city treasurer to the council. I have no reason to question the accuracy of the quotations though, of course, my hon. Friend will understand that these are council documents and that the Department has no direct concern with them. In any event, the city treasurer is literally at the top of his profession. He is the current President of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants. It would be impertinent of me to emphasise his standing and authority in these matters.
  796
  I will only say that, if my hon. Friend is correct, it seems strangely odd that the council apparently should prefer to take their financial advice from Aims of Industry.
  In conclusion, I would only say that I speak as an hon. Member representing a Lancashire constituency. My right hon. Friend, too, represents a Lancashire constituency. Manchester is a very great city. The City Council has a worldwide reputation. Many who, like myself, have written and lectured on local government have, in our discussions and readings, learned from the wisdom of the first Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. The title of one of his great books is "The City Council from Within", and it portrays the grandeur, fascination and pride of the great city of Lancashire in local government. He was an outstanding figure in local government in Manchester. I would be sad to think that any change in the standard of local government should in any way sully the reputation of that great city.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: My hon. Friend mentioned Aims of Industry. We are familiar in this Chamber with the pamphlets written by Mr. Hoppie. I hope that Mr. Hoppie will obtain a copy of HANSARD for this evening and include it in his next pamphlet when he ventures again into stating the good and bad things about this type of labour.
  I should like to bring one or two points to the attention of my hon. Friend concerning the advantages and disadvantages of tendering by direct labour departments. Although it can be said that direct labour departments, such as Manchester, do not have to make a profit, there is an inbuilt loss in many aspects of their work. A private enterprise firm buying building materials, if it pays within seven days, can in many cases obtain a discount of up to 2½ per cent. Unfortunately, in local government, where payment has to be made through the city treasurer's department, it is usually impossible to get the bills for materials through the respective departments of the town hall within seven days.
  In many cases the loss of this 2½ per cent. has to be taken into account

  797
  when tendering. In other instances, public works direct labour departments are governed by the N.J.I.C. scales. In many cases they have to pay wage rates and sickness benefits plus pension benefits to their manual employees, which is far from prevalent in the building industry.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, this is the case for direct labour. The hon. Member must say what he wants the Minister to do about it.
  Mr. Ashton: The Minister was asked to instigate an inquiry, which he said the local authority was prepared to do. I was merely making remarks concerning Aims of Industry and imparting some information, through the Minister, for their
  798
  attention when they write their next pamphlets. We all welcome the Committee which has been set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), and an opportunity to debate—
  Mr. MacColl: I realise that it is confusing to have so many right hon. Friends, but that was my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  Mr. Ashton: I thank my hon. Friend. We will welcome an opportunity to debate this report immediately it is produced
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

POST OFFICE
  Crown Offices
  Crown Offices
  Wholesale Market, Stanley
  Wholesale Market, Stanley
  Mail, Anguilla
  Mail, Anguilla
  Post Office Change Facilities (Telephone Calls)
  Post Office Change Facilities (Telephone Calls)
  Broadcasting and Postal Services, North-East Scotland
  Broadcasting and Postal Services, North-East Scotland
  Mail (Two-tier System)
  Mail (Two-tier System)
  Advertising (Cost)
  Advertising (Cost)
  Mail Delays (Losses)
  Mail Delays (Losses)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Codsall, Staffordshire
  Codsall, Staffordshire
  Bishop's Stortford
  Bishop's Stortford
  Directories (Omissions)
  Directories (Omissions)
  Manual Exchanges
  Manual Exchanges
  Tariff
  Tariff
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Licence Fees
  Licence Fees
  Londonderry Area
  Londonderry Area
  Colour Television
  Colour Television
  Costs
  Costs
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities (Applications for Admission)
  Universities (Applications for Admission)
  Teachers (Married Women)
  Teachers (Married Women)
  Primary School, Boston Spa
  Primary School, Boston Spa
  Secondary School Places (Garforth)
  Secondary School Places (Garforth)
  New Junior School, Boston Spa
  New Junior School, Boston Spa
  Eleven Plus Selection (Greater London Area)
  Eleven Plus Selection (Greater London Area)
  Accreditation Council for Correspondence Colleges
  Accreditation Council for Correspondence Colleges
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Physically Handicapped Children (Urmston Urban District)
  Physically Handicapped Children (Urmston Urban District)
  Students Grant (Vacation Courses)
  Students Grant (Vacation Courses)
  Spina Bifida Sufferers
  Spina Bifida Sufferers
  Capps Report
  Capps Report
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Constitutional Commission
  Constitutional Commission
  Littlewood Report
  Littlewood Report
  Charities
  Charities
  Demonstrations
  Demonstrations
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Police (Radar Speed Meters)
  Police (Radar Speed Meters)
  M1 Motorway
  M1 Motorway
  Sikhs (Employment)
  Sikhs (Employment)
  Cruelty to Children
  Cruelty to Children
  Rhodesia House (Flag)
  Rhodesia House (Flag)
  Detained Children (Absconders)
  Detained Children (Absconders)
  Otters (Protection)
  Otters (Protection)
  Criminal Records (Computer)
  Criminal Records (Computer)
  Police (Neighbourhood Beat and Juvenile Liaison Schemes)
  Police (Neighbourhood Beat and Juvenile Liaison Schemes)
RAILWAYS
  Wickford-Southminster Line (Proposed Sunday Closure)
  Wickford-Southminster Line (Proposed Sunday Closure)
  Livingston New Town
  Livingston New Town
TRANSPORT
  Ellingham Lock
  Ellingham Lock
ROADS
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Pedestrian Crossings, Speed Limits and Highway Refuges
  Pedestrian Crossings, Speed Limits and Highway Refuges
  Multi-tone Horns
  Multi-tone Horns
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Defence Equipment Loans
  Defence Equipment Loans
  Herriot-Watt University, Edinburgh (Contract)
  Herriot-Watt University, Edinburgh (Contract)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
AVIATION
  Civil Airlines (Airborne Radio Teleprinters)
  Civil Airlines (Airborne Radio Teleprinters)
  Airport Employees (Dispute)
  Airport Employees (Dispute)
  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
BOARD OF TRADE
  Exports to Commonwealth, Rhodesia and South Africa
  Exports to Commonwealth, Rhodesia and South Africa
  Cheese (Anti-Dumping or Countervailing Duties)
  Cheese (Anti-Dumping or Countervailing Duties)
  MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (SPEECH)
  POSTMASTER-GENERAL (SPEECH)
  POSTMASTER-GENERAL (SPEECH)
  NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES
  NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES
  MINISTERS (LETTERS TO MEMBERS)
  MINISTERS (LETTERS TO MEMBERS)
  NIGERIA
  NIGERIA
  DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION (REPORT)
  DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION (REPORT)
  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Annual Review (Insurance Premiums)
  Annual Review (Insurance Premiums)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Electricity and Gas Industries (Investment)
  Electricity and Gas Industries (Investment)
  Purchase Tax (Film Strip Projectors)
  Purchase Tax (Film Strip Projectors)
  Rate and Rent Rebates (Grants)
  Rate and Rent Rebates (Grants)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations
  Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Palace of Westminster (Carpets)
  Palace of Westminster (Carpets)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Social Security Offices
  Social Security Offices
  Flu Vaccine Supplies (Harrow)
  Flu Vaccine Supplies (Harrow)
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
SCOTLAND
  General Teaching Council
  General Teaching Council
TECHNOLOGY
  Rolls Royce RB207 Engine
  Rolls Royce RB207 Engine
WALES
  Road Improvements Programme
  Road Improvements Programme

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Truro):
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE MIDDLE EAST: PROPOSED FOUR-POWER MEETING
3.0 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what their reaction is to the recent proposal, put forward by France, for a meeting of the Permanent Representatives of the Four Powers (the United States of America, France, Great Britain and the U.S.S.R.) within the United Nations to discuss ways of establishing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, we welcome any move which might contribute to the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. We are giving the French proposal careful consideration, and we are in touch with the other Governments concerned.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him this supplementary question? As the Russian and French proposals allow for the stationing of international troops in the area, would Her Majesty's Government consider that this might be a good basis for starting discussions with a view to positioning them at places of military confrontation?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we are giving all these proposals very careful attention and we are in consultation with other Governments. I do not think I should be asked to comment on that particular aspect.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to comment, then, on something else? Would he be willing to comment on what would now appear to be Egypt's new two-pronged approach to this problem, the first prong of which is concerned with the occupation of Arab territories by Israel, to be subjected to the provisions of the November, 1967, Security Council resolution, and the second of which is concerned with the grouping of the four Palestinian Resistance Movements, and not to be affected by that resolution?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there are a number of proposals, and the noble Lord will be well aware that Dr. Jarring has been in close contact with the various Governments concerned in this unhappy dispute. There are a number of factors which have to be borne in mind, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that, at this very delicate stage of seeing whether negotiations can be started, perhaps the less said the better.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government recognise, in all their discussions with other Powers on this question, whensoever they may occur, that Great Britain bears especial responsibility for the original creation of the Kingdom of Jordan, which is shorn now of its most economically viable territory? Will the Government also recognise that King Hussein's friendliness towards the West, many rebuffs and frustrations notwithstanding, still offers a slim chance for the Western Powers to protect themselves against Russian interest and ambitions in the Mediterranean and Near East? Finally, this being acknowledged, will Her Majesty's Government examine with great care and responsibility King Hussein's own suggestion of the creation of a Palestine independent of but co-operating with his own régime, a suggestion which surely offers—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I think that the next Question had actually been called. I think the noble Earl is stretching the patience of the House a little. Perhaps he can conclude his question.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would say to the noble Earl that obviously Her Majesty's Government have an interest and responsibility in that part of the

1025
world, but clearly the help and assistance of many other countries will be needed—and there are other countries involved, apart from Jordan. But these are all matters which will have to be borne in mind if and when negotiations commence.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that answer.

GIBRALTAR AND SPANISH CLAIM TO WATERS
3.5 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they recognise Spain's recent decree which extends its territorial waters and which states that waters inside bays that are less than 24 miles across are to be considered internal Spanish waters; and what action they propose to take to ensure, for merchant ships, free and unhindered access to Gibraltar.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the full implications of the decree published by the Spanish Government on January 20 are still being studied. It extends from six to twelve miles the zone in which the Spanish authorities exercise fiscal control for customs purposes and for the repression of smuggling. The decree also states, as did a Spanish law of 1967 on fishing limits, that the waters in bays where the opening does not exceed 24 miles at low water will be regarded as internal waters. It is not clear whether the decree is aimed at Gibraltar; and, so far, there has been no case under the decree I have just mentioned of interference with shipping calling at Gibraltar. But there can be no doubt that it cannot affect our existing and undoubted rights in respect of Gibraltar.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for that full reply. May I just ask him three supplementary questions, the first regarding territorial waters? Would the Minister agree that unilateral claims to greater breadth con
1026
flict with the universally accepted principle of the freedom of the seas and ought therefore to be rejected? Secondly, regarding the interior or national waters to which the noble Lord referred—and that is the most important part I think of this Question—can Spain uphold this claim to these "interior" waters internationally; and does the noble Lord really think that Spain will not say, regarding the Bay of Algeciras, that on compelling national grounds she must regulate the access of foreign vessels to these waters and Gibraltar?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on the face of it the enactment of this decree does not seem to be contrary to, International Law, unless, of course, Spain puts some unexpected interpretation upon it. It appears to me that it is within Article 24 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which allows a State to exercise the control necessary to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitary regulations within the territory or territorial sea. As regards the Algeciras Bay, as the noble Lord will be aware we have stated our view as to which are Gibraltar territorial waters and which are Spanish waters. This is based on the Median line, and to the best of my knowledge this has not been disputed by the Spanish authorities.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, while welcoming the noble Lord's statement that no action by the Spanish Government can prevent lawful access to and from Gibraltar, can the noble Lord say whether the closing of the Bay which is contemplated by the Spaniards is in conformity with the Convention?
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly not, my Lords. It would not be.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, on this question of interior waters, could I ask the noble Lord whether it is not a fact under International Law that foreign States cannot, as a matter of strict law, demand any rights for their vessels or subjects, although for reasons based on the interests of international commerce and navigation the custom has grown up in modern times that the access of foreign vessels should not be refused except on compelling national grounds? What I am afraid of, my Lords, is that Spain,

1027
in view of her attitude in respect of Gibraltar, may feel now that there are compelling national grounds.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think the noble Lord is being slightly alarmist. I pointed out earlier that this decree is very similar to one that the Spanish authorities issued in 1967 and that this has not in any way affected the entry of ships into Algeciras waters. Undoubtedly the access to the port lies within the Gibraltar, British, waters.

EGG MARKETING AND PRICES
3.8 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice to Her Majesty's Government; namely:
"To ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has anything to add to the Statement he made yesterday about the future price and marketing arrangements for eggs."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I hope that the following information will be helpful. As I said yesterday, the conclusions have been reached in the light of the views expressed by the interested organisations. These include the views of the farmers' unions. Noble Lords will have seen, however, that the initial reactions of the farmers' unions are that they are not in agreement with certain aspects of the proposals.
I was asked whether this scheme was a forerunner of a new agricultural policy. As I said yesterday, it would be wrong to assume that the policy for eggs will be extended to the rest of the field of agriculture. The new arrangements for eggs should be looked at on their own. In any event, we do not subsidise the production of milk or sugar; and we already have arrangements, designed to promote greater market stability, which regulate imports of some of the more important commodities such as cereals, butter, bacon and potatoes. Within our system of agricultural support there is plenty of room for flexibility, and the new system for eggs is designed to suit that particular commodity.
I was asked whether there will be special arrangements for the production
1028
and distribution of eggs from Northern Ireland. As noble Lords will have seen from the full Statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Government will be discussing with the Northern Ireland authorities the provision of special assistance towards sea transport costs for producers in Northern Ireland and similar provision will be made on this account for producers in the Orkneys.
My Lords, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, whether support buying and control of imports would take place simultaneously or whether they are alternates. As I said yesterday, this will be a simultaneous operation. The Egg Marketing Board already undertake market support, and this will also be one of the functions of the new authority. Minimum import prices will be introduced as soon as possible following discussions with the overseas suppliers. I was further asked whether the Government contemplate a levy on imported eggs. The answer is that the minimum import prices which we propose to introduce will be enforced by levies on imported eggs when the price falls below the minimum import price.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, asked whether the producers will be given the chance, if necessary, of providing the whole of the market for eggs. The answer is that it remains our policy for the home producers to meet virtually the whole of the rising demand for eggs in this country. My noble friend Lord Silkin asked about the effect on the consumer and what will be the effect on egg prices. We are well aware of the importance of protecting the consumer under the new arrangements. As regards price, the Commission's view was that while prices might rise a little during the transition period, there might on balance be some reduction in retail prices in the longer term as a result of the continuing increase in the efficiency of production and of the economies which can be expected under free market conditions in marketing and distribution. I do not foresee any significant change in market prices to the consumer.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the very full replies he has given to the questions that we put yesterday. May I ask one further question? As the removal of eggs from the guaranteed price

1029
schedule, the First Schedule to the 1947 Agriculture Act, would increase to about 25 per cent. the proportion of total farm produce outside guaranteed prices, will the noble Lord tell us what implication this has for the Price Review machinery for the other commodities and whether the existing conventions will be valid when such a large part of the total production of agriculture is, or will be, outside the guaranteed price system?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think the answer is that it will depend on the details of the scheme, which have yet to be worked out. The question of levies, the question of machinery for support prices, have all to be discussed with the interests concerned. I think it would be wrong to say what the effect will be on the general review of prices until we come to some conclusions as a result of the discussions with the interests concerned.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am sorry if my question was not clear. The question I am asking is this. Is the noble Lord aware that the price of eggs will be outside the control of the Government? Does the noble Lord realise that when an award is made in an Annual Price Review for increased costs, wages, and so forth, this is sufficient to cover the extra costs of different commodities? When eggs are out that machinery will no longer apply to about 25 per cent. of the total agricultural produce; and to that extent will invalidate the conventions of the Annual Price Review. Has this very important point been considered in the context of whether this total machinery should be maintained at all?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think there is no question that the machinery for price review will have to be maintained. There is no question about that. To what extent the discussions will be changed because they cover fewer commodities is something we shall find out as we gain experience.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord referred in particular to Northern Irish eggs. Can he give an assurance that they will continue to be readily available in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's?

CANNABIS REPORT
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice: Whether they will make a Statement on the Report on Cannabis of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

STREET OFFENCES BILL [H.L.]
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Street Offences Act 1959. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª. —(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
3.16 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is a notable occasion, because Representation of the People Bills are few and far between. It is more than twenty years since Parliament considered the last major one. Indeed for your Lordships' House the occasion is historic. In introducing the Representation of the People Bill 1948, the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, my noble friend's father, said on July 5 that year (Hansard, col. 288):
"It may well be that your Lordships feel that this is a Bill which is mainly concerned with another place At the same time it is an important constitutional matter of which this House properly takes cognisance."
The present Bill is also an important constitutional matter of which this House properly takes cognisance. But it is more than that. For the first time it is a matter of direct personal concern to each one of us—or will be if Clause 16 of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill becomes law, so that Peers and Lords Spiritual will be able to

1031
vote at Elections to the House of Commons; and if Clause 17 of that same Bill becomes law it will enable some of those who are now Members of this House to stand for election to another place. We are therefore engaged on very much more than an academic exercise.
This Bill is the fruit of the review of electoral law which has been carried on by the Government for more than three years. The main features of that review have been the deliberations of the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law, which was originally set up nearly four years ago and whose Final Report was presented to the Prime Minister in February, 1968; the deliberations of the Electoral Advisory Conference which the Home Secretary convened in 1965; consideration given to points of local government electoral law by the conferences convened early in 1968 by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland; and finally, as the Home Secretary said in another place, "six months and many meetings" devoted by my right honourable friend and his colleagues to the whole matter. At the end of this process the Government's conclusions on their review of the law relating to Parliamentary elections were published in a White Paper in July, 1968, and debated in another place on October 14.
The White Paper shows that the Government have accepted sixty out of the seventy-one recommendations made by the Speaker's Conference, and forty-two out of the forty-five recommendations made by the Electoral Advisory Conference. It has been suggested that the Government should have accepted without question all the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference—otherwise there was no point in setting it up. We have taken a different view of our responsibilities. Having received the advice of the Speaker's Conference, to the careful and devoted work of which it is not possible to pay too high a tribute, and of the Electoral Advisory Conference, the Government think they would have been failing in their duty if they had not applied their own minds to the subject; and this they did at length and with care.
In the White Paper we set out fully the recommendations of the Speaker's
1032
Conference and of the Electoral Advisory Conference which we do not feel able to accept. Four related to major issues: the minimum age for voting; public opinion polls and betting odds; polling hours; and Party labels on nomination and ballot papers. With most of these I shall be dealing more fully later, but I would touch briefly now on one recommendation which is not embodied in the Bill; namely, public opinion polls and betting odds. Whether the publication of public opinion polls influences uncertain electors to jump on the "bandwagon' is debatable. Our main objection to a ban related to a fixed period before polling day is that it could easily be evaded, and it is a sound maxim that a provision which could not be enforced should not be passed into law. As for betting—whether or not one disapproves of it in general or in the context of Parliamentary Elections—the plain fact is that prohibition of the publication of odds would not stop betting on elections. Of the seven other recommendations of the Speaker's Conference which the Government could not accept, I think I need only refer your Lordships to pages 4 and 5 of the White Paper where our reasons are clearly set out.
Perhaps I should say a word about the form of the Bill. The fact that it is not quite so easy to follow as one would wish arises from the nature of the case. The review made it clear that fundamentally electoral law, as we have known it for the last twenty-odd years, is sound and still working well. Accordingly, the Bill proceeds in the main by building on the existing law. Alterations or extensions of the law effected by the Bill are to be found both in its clauses and in its Schedules, particularly in Schedule 1. In the main the clauses are aimed at amending sections of the relevant existing law: but they also amend those Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Rules which are set out in Schedules 2 and 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1949; and Schedule 1 to the Bill now before us. That is concerned solely with amendments of those Rules. Schedule 2 to the Bill comprises detailed consequential and supplementary amendments of the Representation of the People Act 1949, both sections and Schedules.

1033
My Lords, I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with the voting age. One feature of the clause will. I am sure, be generally welcomed. This is that as soon as a person reaches voting age—whatever that age may be—he will be able to vote; and the registration procedure will be adapted accordingly. We thus get rid of the arrangement by which only some young voters—the "Y" voters—coming of age during the currency of an electoral register could vote, and then only during the second half of the register's life. This made sense at the time it was introduced, but is now not generally understood, and has become increasingly a source of irritation and frustration.
As for the voting age itself, 21 under the present law, I think we are all agreed that some reduction is justified. The Speaker's Conference recommended the age of 20, and as the Government see it, the choice lies between that and the age of 18, which was the age of majority recommended by the Latey Committee for purposes other than civic and which the Government accepted in the Family Law Reform Bill. This is very much a matter of judgment and opinion, but the Government came down in favour of 18, and this is the age which—although not without dissentient voices—was accepted in another place. Our view was based partly on the argument of consistency—that, although the Latey Committee left the matter open, there is virtue in fixing the same age for civic purposes as for private.
What weighed far more with the Government was the real change in social climate that has taken place over the last twenty years. Physical maturity now comes earlier than it did, but—more important—social and moral maturity is assumed, and conceded at an earlier age. Improved education, and the impact of mass media, particularly television, means that everyone is better informed than ever before on public and social issues. Information arouses interest, and interest arouses a desire to have a voice in the way things are run. We already have evidence of this in the frustration I mentioned over the "Y" voter arrangements. There is much more evidence in the shape of demonstrations and so-called "student unrest", which the Government regard as symptoms— not always desirable in
1034
the particular form they take—of a healthy state of affairs. Our young people are no longer children, and they resent being treated as such. Our view is that, if we entrust them with responsibility, they will act responsibly. With all respect to the Speaker's Conference and those who share its view, we think that to fix the voting age at any point between 18 and 21 would be a half-measure, which would be neither understood nor appreciated, and which, for that matter, would be not allowed to stand for long. The changes in the franchise effected by Clause 1 are applied, with slight modifications, to ward elections in the City of London by Clause 23.
Clauses 2 to 6, give effect to various recommendations made in the course of the review on such matters as periodic registration of service voters, extension of the service voter arrangements to British Council staff, disfranchisement of offenders in prison, facilities for wives or husbands of absent voters who accompany their spouses also to vote by post or proxy, and various minor easements in the absent voting arrangements. Clause 6 contains a provision which was not in the Bill as first introduced in another place. By it postal voting facilities— though for a particular election only—will be available to those who are prevented from voting in person on grounds of religious observance.
Clause 7 gives effect to a recommendation made by the Speaker's Conference with a view to ensuring the accuracy of the electoral register, and enables the electoral registration officer to correct clerical or printing errors—but not to make alterations which could have been the subject of a claim or objection while the electors' lists are on public display.
Some of these errors would bear less hardly if we had two electoral registers a year instead of one. The register would also be more up-to-date in the second half of the registration year. The Speaker's Conference, however, recommended against a second annual register and the Government agreed primarily on grounds of economy: because the cost of producing one register a year is about £3 million. My right honourable friend considered the matter further in the light of representations made in another place but confirmed the earlier decision. We

1035
have therefore not taken the necessary financial or statutory power in the Bill because the prospect of our being able to afford two registers a year is remote. Moreover, the electoral register achieves, as at the qualifying date, a very high degree of accuracy which has been maintained over the years, despite increasing difficulties experienced by electoral registration officers arising both from the greater mobility of the population and from problems of staff. Clause 8 increases the maximum permitted election expenses, and the sum allowed per elector is stated in terms which will be immediately convertible into decimal currency.
Clause 9, dealing with broadcasting, is very important. Subsection (1) is in tended to give effect to the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference as slightly modified by the Government's conclusions. The intention is that during an election it will now be lawful for candidates to appear in a broadcast item if all of them agree to its taking place, even though one or more of them does not actually take part. We had hoped that the subsection was sufficiently tightly drafted to meet the views of the broadcasting authorities on the way in which they would wish to be free to report and comment on the progress of an election campaign. We have already met them to some extent by dropping from the clause a provision which would have penalised individuals serving the broadcasting authorities for failure to be impartial between candidates in election broadcasts, but there are other points on which we are still examining their suggestion. One thing is clear: Party politican broadcasts, even at election time, would be lawful, must be lawful, as they are now. No one, I think, will quarrel with the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 9, which removes broadcasting from the field of election expenses; or of subsection (4), which extends to local government elections the ban in the existing law on attempts to influence elections in the United Kingdom by means of broadcasts from abroad.
Clause 10 repeals an out-of-date provision which prohibited election expenses on account of bands of music, torches, flags and banners. It is generally agreed
1036
that this can now be dropped, the matter being adequately covered by the limit on candidates' election expenses. Clause 11 makes some useful easements in the law relating to election agents and polling agents and, in particular, the place where an election agent's office may be situated.
Clause 12 is another major feature of the Bill. It makes it lawful for the description of a candidate which appears on the nomination paper, and so on the ballot paper, to include a reference to the candidate's political activities. Such a reference, with the agreement of the main political Parties, has been prohibited for the last twenty years or so and there are respectable arguments for maintaining the prohibition. On the other hand, the Government think—and this is another instance of their taking account of changes in social and political opinion—that the Party system is now so much a part of political life, even in local government, that it is the citizen's constitutional right to know what Party or cause is represented by those offering themselves for his choice. Quite apart from this, there is the fact that at local government elections where there are several places to be filled for a single electoral area, the number of candidates appearing on the ballot paper may be anything from a dozen to twenty or more, making the elector's task at best difficult and at worst almost impossible. It is for such reasons that the Government did not accept the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference that the present prohibition of Party labels should be maintained.
Your Lordships may be aware that the Bill, as first introduced in another place, contained in Clause 12, as it then was, a system under which Party labels could have been used only if they had first been duly registered. Consideration of this scheme in another place showed that its complexity made it undesirable, even for Parliamentary elections, and for local government elections, where the need for Party labels on ballot papers is greatest it would be almost impossible. Accordingly, Clause 12, as it now appears, substitutes a very simple scheme, which has been described as a "free for all", whereby, subject to a statutory limit as to the number of words, the candidate may, if he wishes, include

1037
a reference to his political activities in the description on his nomination paper, which will then appear on the ballot paper. There are, it is true, possibilities of abuse and of awkward cases arising where two candidates lay claim to the same Party label. On the whole, however, the Government are prepared to trust the good sense of the majority of those taking part in political life, and think that the simplicity of the scheme now put forward, together with its applicability to local government elections, will be found to outweigh possible disadvantages.
Clause 13 deals with the awkward situation when a candidate dies after polling has begun. Broadly, the proposal is that the poll shall be abandoned. At a Parliamentary election the proceedings will be commenced afresh 28 days later. At a local government election, it will be for the returning officer to fix the date for the fresh election in due course. In either event, no fresh nomination will be needed for the surviving candidates. At the resumed election the surviving candidates may be at some disadvantage in the mater of election expenses as compared with any new candidate or candidates, who, as it were, will be starting with a clean slate. We are considering whether some provision should not be made for such cases, on the lines of an Amendment suggested in another place. Clause 14 gives power to repeal in Schedule 1 to the Bill certain provisions in the Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Rules which are no longer needed and to amend others to bring them into line with the present Bill.
In Clause 15 the Government have introduced provisions relating to local government elections which were not put to the Speaker's Conference or to the Electoral Advisory Conference, because both those bodies were limited to Parliamentary elections, and which were not put to the Conferences on Local Government Elections Law because of their fundamental constitutional character. The Home Departments wrote to the local authority associations concerned inviting their comments. Their views—uniformly hostile in England and Wales, much less so in Scotland—were noted by my colleagues. I have spoken about this with precision because the Government have been charged with failure to consult on
1038
an important matter. This is not true. It is true that the exchanges were limited to correspondence and that no discussions, in the sense of a meeting round a table, took place; but as I have said, the matter was discussed and no meeting was asked for. The clause does away with two features of local government elections law which have survived from the days when the franchise, Parliamentary and local, was based on property. The first of these is the non-resident franchise, under which occupation of property in one area gives a vote in that area, over and above the vote the elector may have in the area he resides in: it also gives him the right to stand for the local authority in whose area the property is. The other is the right to stand as candidate conferred by the simple ownership of land or premises.
The Government's proposals in this clause have encountered much opposition, not only from the local authority associations in England and Wales, but from many other quarters, chiefly, though not entirely, from the Party opposite. Their representatives in another place moved several Amendments aimed at nullifying or mitigating the reform embodied in the clause. Among the Amendments was one which would have extended the grounds for candidature, by making it open—as recommended by the Maud Committee on the Management of Local Government—to people whose principal place of work is within the area of the local authority. But none of these Amendments succeeded, and the clause comes before your Lordships in the form in which it was introduced in another place.
Some of the opposition to the clause may have been politically motivated. Much of it, however, was prompted by genuine concern for the quality of local government, which, it has been argued, will lose by the displacement of many keen and able councillors. On this particular point the Government take a more optimistic view. Be that as it may, the fact is that the Government are acting on the principle that residence, not property, should be the sole and sufficient qualification for voting in local government elections, as it has been since 1948 for Parliamentary elections. Personally, I think our case is unanswerable in equity. As for candidature, the parallel still holds good. For Parliament, the field is the United Kingdom. For a local

1039
authority, the field is the whole of that authority's area, not merely the ward or electoral division in which the candidate resides.
By Clause 27, the non-resident franchise will cease with effect from the 1970 register, and it is the Government's intention to provide that the property qualification for candidature shall go at the same time. But, under Clause 15, councillors then in office will be able to serve out their time, even though elected on the strength of qualifications to be abolished by the clause.
I should add that, by Clause 23(4), this change will not apply to the City of London. The City, with its small resident population and great local government responsibilities, the Government recognise to be a quite special and exceptional case. The remaining clauses of the Bill are concerned mainly with points of machinery, useful, but not controversial, adjustments and easements.
Of the Schedules, I need only refer to the provision, in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, extending the hours of poll at Parliamentary elections. Under the existing law the closing hour is 9 p.m. Under the Bill it is 10 p.m. This provision has had a bad reception, not least from the representatives of returning officers, to whom it was first put by letter, and subsequently discussed at a meeting at the Home Office. The difficulties they foresee have been freely acknowledged by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place, as also the prospect that in many more constituencies than at present the count will have to be postponed to the following day. But, as the Government indicated in the White Paper, in thus going contrary to a recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, and the strongly held and urged views of returning officers and others, the Government think the extension is in the interests of the people, and that it is their interests that must prevail.
My Lords, the Representation of the People Bill which I have the honour to introduce to the House is, as you will have gathered, the outcome of a long and careful review of electoral law to which valued contributions have been made from many quarters. The result is, if I may say so, a nice blend of radical
1040
reform and conservative adjustment—I use the word "conservative", of course, in no political sense: there is indeed much non-Party matter in this extremely useful, sensible and radical Bill. Nevertheless, it will, I am confident, benefit from scrutiny in later stages in this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Stonham.)

CANNABIS REPORT
3.44 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a Statement in accordance with the reply to Questions which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given in another place about the Report on Cannabis of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence. I will use his own words:
"My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have carefully studied the Report on Cannabis, submitted by the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, and wish to thank Sir Edward Wayne, Baroness Wootton and their colleagues for their painstaking examination of this social problem.
"The Sub-Committee of which Lady Wootton was chairman recommended that the penalties for possession, sale or supply of cannabis should be substantially reduced. It also recommended studies of the use of police powers, of the exclusion of strict liability, and of redefinition of the offence of unauthorised possession. It recommended that the general law on drugs should be recast.
"My right honourable friends and I fully accept that more comprehensive and flexible powers of control are needed to check drug abuse and I hope to be in a position to announce proposals in due course. We also accept that there is a need for wider research and we are bringing this to the notice of the Research Councils and others.
"As regards a review of police powers of search and arrest, the Advisory Committee has set up a Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of the right honourable Member for Ashford to review these powers in relation

1041
to drug offences, and this inquiry is proceeding. I am in sympathy with the view that the scope of strict liability in relation to drug offences should be restricted and I shall continue consultations with the Law Commission to that end.
"On the other hand, I cannot reconcile the view expressed by the main Committee that the wider use of cannabis should not be encouraged with the proposal that legislation should be brought in to reduce the existing penalties for use. Nor has the Advisory Committee made any forecast of the consequences of such legislation. But in our opinion, to reduce the penalties for possession, sale or supply of cannabis would be bound to lead people to think that the Government take a less than serious view of the effects of drug-taking. That is not so. It would be entirely contrary to Government policy to allow this impression to spread, nor would such a view accord with the resolution of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which the Government accepted last year, recommending
'that all countries concerned increase their efforts to eradicate the abuse and illicit traffic in cannabis'.
Accordingly it is not the Government's intention to legislate to reduce existing penalties."
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for reading that Statement in reply to my Private Notice Question to him on this subject? I think your Lordships will wish to have time to digest the Statement and, as I hope, return to the whole subject on some subsequent occasion when longer time for debate is available. I should just like to ask, here and now, whether the noble Lord is aware that, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness and her colleagues who have given so much study to this question, the Statement he has made to-day on behalf of the Home Secretary will be found to accord with the great majority of public opinion in this country?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Statement that has been made, and in welcoming, in particular, the assurance that more research is to be carried out on this question, I would ask if this can
1042
be done fairly urgently. I would ask the Government whether they agree that this is the crux of the matter: that if this is really a dangerous drug, as the World Health Organisation seem to think, then we should stamp on it as hard as we possibly can; but that if it is not a dangerous drug, as a number of other authorities and as, within bounds, the Wootton Committee seemed to think, then there is nothing that could be worse than to put takers of a relatively harmless drug among the criminal community where they will meat the heroin "pushers"?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful both to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the general welcome they have given to this Statement. With Lord Brooke of Cumnor's suggestion that we shall need time to digest the Statement, and that it might well be a suitable vehicle for discussion over a longer period later on, I would quite agree; but that is not a matter for me. No doubt through the usual channels we shall have an opportunity of getting a date to discuss this problem. For that very reason I do not think that this is the time to go into details in this matter, or to discuss the pros and cons of the Report of the Committee of which my noble friend Lady Wootton was chairman. That may well come at a later date.
I think, however, that the Home Secretary's Statement, which I have just read, is quite unequivocal as representing the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the present time. As such, whatever the dissenting views of experts, I am sure that it will be reassuring to the great majority of our community, who are very concerned indeed, and rightly concerned, about the overall problem of the drug menace. Having made this Statement, I think we should do better now to leave the matter until a later occasion when we can consider it in greater detail.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to press my noble friend a little further on this point. There is little doubt that the decision made by the Government on, I presume social and political grounds will be generally accepted. Nevertheless, because the Report presented from the Committee is one of such importance

1043
generally, and one which really means that further investigation on the widest scale must be undertaken on this subject, it would not be sufficient simply to say, as I am sure the Government do not mean to say, that on this matter their attitude is negative.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, nothing that I said could have given rise to such a supposition of my noble friend. Nor do I think that anything I have said should give rise to the suspicion, which he apparently entertains, that part of this decision is a political one. Certainly social reasons enter into it; of course they do, and they must do. But what I want to make quite clear at this stage is that the Government are not prepared to legislate on cannabis in isolation and on what they firmly believe to be—I think the Report of my noble friend's Committee bears this out—as yet inadequate information.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, while I agree with the Government on the cautious attitude they have taken to the whole question of the Report, particularly on the question of more investigation to find out why cannabis has become so fashionable, would not the Minister agree that the emotional and prejudiced reaction of many people is perhaps a little exaggerated? I ask that, in view of the fact that no one can question the intellectual capacity of my noble friend Lady Wootton and her intellectual integrity. I should like to pay tribute to her courage in this matter.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said about my noble friend Lady Wootton. I should have said all these things earlier if I had imagined there was anyone in this House who would question either the standing or the integrity of my noble friend. Those are matters which, to my mind, are beyond dispute and do not arise. But what does arise is what my noble friend Lady Gaitskell referred to as the emotional content in, the emotional feeling about, this matter. In my experience there is emotion on both sides, and I think that this matter should not be judged emotively; it should be judged on the facts. All I am pleading for now is that this House should leave the subject and not try to deal with it with
1044
totally inadequate questions and the answers I am giving, but wait until we can consider it properly on the basis of such evidence as exists.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I be allowed to add how very important it is that the Government have made their views on this highly controversial issue known so promptly, so as to leave no doubts in the minds of the country as a whole, and especially in the minds of the addicts themselves, as to what the Government's decision has been. Also, may I be allowed to stress that the matter of urgency should take second place to a thorough and complete investigation of the whole subject, especially in its relation to other addictive drugs?
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, before the Minister replies and although I do not want to appear to be narrow-minded, may I ask this question with relation to the procedure of the House? After it has been suggested to us by some of our leading Members that this is a matter which should be debated at a later stage, we have had a series of statements, without any attempt to ask a question, from Members of your Lordships' House who have recently been on their feet. Is this acceptable practice now in the House when a Statement is made, or should we follow the normal procedure, which is to ask questions and to limit ourselves to questions when we do so?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, since my noble friend the Leader of the House is not here, it falls to me as Deputy Leader to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Alport. Clearly we tend to be generous, but sometimes I think our Rules are stretched too far, and I suggest that perhaps this afternoon that is in fact the case. The real object, of course, if there are points to be made on Statements, is that they should be in the form of questions to elicit information; although we have always extended a degree of tolerance—shall we say?—to the three Front Benches so that those who lead for their Parties might make a statement. But, in practice, contributions from the House generally are in the form of a question to elicit information. In view of what my noble friend has said, that this is such an important matter and it is something we should debate at some stage (and clearly that subject could be dealt with

1045
through the usual channels), and particularly as we still have other Business to do this afternoon, I think this is perhaps the moment when we should move to further Business.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question of my noble friend Lord Segal. And, indeed, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that I was in fact answering a Question, given by Private Notice, by his noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. In reply to my noble friend Lord Segal I would agree with him, and I would add also that the Government are aware that the existing law is in many respects inadequate, inflexible and anomalous. But what we need, as speedily as possible, is to get it right. What we need is a single, comprehensive code covering drug abuse in its entirety and giving the Government proper powers to deal with it adequately.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, mindful of the warning that has been given to ask a specific question, may I ask whether the Government will, if possible, before any debate on this subject takes place, give serious thought to one specific matter: whether there cannot be some differentiation in the law between the "pushers" who may deserve serious penalties, and the possessors, many of whom are quite wrongly imprisoned?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the penalties of up to ten years in this connection are, in our view, adequate, and the courts are perfectly well able to distinguish between different classes of offenders according to the evidence.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
3.59 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading continued.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, if we may now return to the Representation of the People Bill, it will be noted that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is carrying both drugs and votes to-day on his broad back—I hesitate to say, "in his pocket", because that might have sinister meanings. He has already established over these last two or three years, if I may say so, a considerable reputation in your Lordships' House for piloting a number of important Bills
1046
through to the Statute Book. To-day he is widening his range still further by extending it to a Representation of the People Bill.
He cannot have dealt with this subject before because, as he said, this is the first Bill of this character for twenty years. It is the first Bill of this character, and I venture to guess that it is a so the first Bill presented to your Lordships' House which includes the word "teenage". I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Conesford will approve of that when we come to the Committee stage, but clearly we are now getting a little more up to date on the Statute Book. May I say, in the same spirit, how delighted I am that the noble Lord, Lord Royle, is proposing to celebrate his birthday by taking part in our debates to-day.
This Bill amends the law governing elections to another place, and also to local councils. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, stressed that we have a special entitlement to examine it because we all may have the right to a vote in the next Parliamentary elections. Who knows? I hope that I shall carry him with me in saying that those are not the only grounds for our entitlement. It is a direct concern of your Lordships' House, because both Houses together make up Parliament. Not only that, but elections, whether national or local, affect the government and administration of the country, and your Lordships, by virtue of being Members of Parliament, have a very special interest in its good government.
The noble Lord referred to the extent to which this Bill implemented the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. He said that it took up 60 of them out of 71. I trust he will agree that among the 11 which were rejected were some of the most important. In his speech he seemed to me not to grant sufficient weight to the fact that the advice of an all-Party Speaker's Conference is traditionally designed as a safeguard against the rules of the election fight being changed at the will of one political Party only—that is, the Party that happens to have a majority in another place at a certain time. Accordingly, the present Government have only themselves; to blame if a penetrating inquisition is made into those cases where they have ridden roughshod over all-Party agreement in the Speaker's Conference.

1047
The first major issue is in Clause 1, the voting age. Here the Speaker's Conference agreed by 24 votes to one that it should be reduced to 20 from 21—or, more accurately, from 21 years and 4 months, because I believe that it now is impossible for anybody actually to cast a vote until he or she has reached the age of 21 and 4 months. Indeed, as the noble Lord rightly said, in many instances it is later than that, because the time after one's 21st birthday when one actually acquires the right to vote depends on the place of one's birthday in the calendar.
The Government have rejected this all-Party decision of the Speaker's Conference, and have announced that in their view the age should be 18. I am inclined to think that this is because this Government are absolutely hypnotised by the Majority Report of the Latey Committee. Of course, as the noble Lord rightly said, the Latey Committee did not in fact have this subject within their terms of reference. They were invited to examine all manner of other things, but not the voting age. I really do not think that the Latey Report itself can in any sense be urged in support of a decision to make the voting age 18. The Majority Report of the Committee said, in paragraph 25:
"But it does not seem to us that changes in the civic field are at all likely to follow changes in the private field even if we wished that they should. It is a very different thing to cope adequately with one's own personal and private affairs and to measure up to public and civic responsibilities. … We do not accept that the civic and the private field either would or should necessarily go together."
Therefore in so far as the Government's case for fixing the voting age at eighteen rests on the Majority Report of the Latey Committee, it falls down.
I appreciate, however, that the noble Lord explained that that was only the part of the case. The other part—and maybe the greater part—was the new assessment of the place and the part which younger people should be taking in society, what with their own earlier physical maturity and the advantage that they have nowadays, through television and otherwise, of acquainting themselves more easily with what is going on all over the world.
The Government are so keen to give maximum powers to boys and girls from
1048
their 18th birthday onwards that they now intend that they should have the vote. The debates on this subject in another place, which are well worth reading, showed that there were divided views on this in both the main Parties, and, for all I know, in the third Party. Personally I think that the Speaker's Conference was right. I think the members of that were wise to recommend, by an overwhelming majority, the age of 20 for voting. Your Lordships recently voted that the age of marriage without consent of parents or the court should be 20 and not, as the majority of the Latey Committee had recommended, 18. Yet I remember saying on that occasion that it is easy to change one's vote next time if one has made a mistake— as millions of electors now realise they did in 1966—but it is not so easy, even with modern divorce laws, to change one's partner. One marries for life, not for the length of a Parliament. So I am not intending personally to table an Amendment to leave out "18" in Clause 1 and to insert "20", because I think that there is a difference between marriage and voting at elections. In Committee in another place, after a full day's debate and in a Division where there was cross-voting, it was decided by more than a 2 to 1 majority to make the age 20. I would not myself feel justified in moving to reverse that decision. It is far more lastingly serious to make a wrong marriage than to cast a wrong vote.
Moreover, if the present Government are determined to shatter the Labour Party in Wales and Scotland at the next General Election, and to present their seats to the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, who am I to stop them? I would not dare to speak for Scotland, but I have served as Minister for Welsh Affairs, and in Wales, at any rate, it is high time that the domination of Socialism should be challenged and shattered once and for all, exactly as the domination of Liberalism was challenged and shattered by the Labour Party some forty years ago.
So arising out of Clause 1 I have personally no Amendments in mind; but I have a few questions to ask, arising out of the Government's apparent decision that boys and girls on their 18th birthday are experienced and mature enough to help choose the House of Commons;

1049
in other words, that they are to be regarded as full citizens at 18. At present no one under 21 can serve on a jury. Do the Government regard 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds as mature and experienced enough to serve on a jury; and do they intend to amend the law accordingly? Or are those between 18 and 21 not to be regarded as full citizens in that respect? This is a relevant question which the Government must face, though I must say that I have noticed no legislative enthusiasm, or indeed interest, on the part of the Government in removing the present anomalies in the law relating to jury service, on which the Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, which I appointed in 1963, presented a valuable and unanimous Report almost four years ago. It recommended legislation in various directions, but nothing has been done. I hope that legislation on that Report will not be further delayed while the Government are struggling with this question of the minimum age for jury service.
There will of course be other questions. If full citizenship comes on one's 18th birthday, can a young man reasonably be committed to the care of a local authority up to his 19th birthday, as the Government themselves propose in the White Paper, Children in Trouble, published only nine months ago. In the Government's keenness to establish 18-year-olds as full citizens, do they propose to bring down the age of consent in respect of homosexual offences to 18, very quickly after that has been fixed by Parliament at 21? I have a strong feeling that we shall find that the Government have not thought out all these related questions yet.
To pass on, Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill are generally welcome, I feel sure. Clause 4, "Disfranchisement of offenders in prison, etc.", was hardly mentioned in all the proceedings in another place, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will confirm that it eliminates some rather odd anomalies at the present time. I seem to remember that under existing law some convicted prisoners can claim a lawful entitlement to vote at elections, provided they happen to be incarcerated in a prison in a constituency of which they are on the register. It is all very odd, and I must say that Clause 4 seems a much more logical settlement of the whole matter.
1050
The next clause to which I want to refer is Clause 7. When I was a Member of another place, and when I held responsible office, I used to be seriously worried about the inaccuracies of electoral registers. The proposals here seem to me to be a useful step towards diminishing their inaccuracy, though only a small one. For myself, I believe that by administrative action far more publicity could be given, and ought to be given, to the draft lists of electors and to the period when they can be inspected and mistakes can be pointed out. In the long run, the only way to get the registers of electors substantially more correct is to help or impel potential electors themselves to check that their names are correctly on the registers. The lists, in my view, ought to be available not only in post offices but in other places of public resort. They ought to be strikingly advertised and not simply hung up among a lot of other miscellaneous paper.
I would add that the dates between which claims and corrections can be made are so obscure that I venture to think that only one person in a thousand could state them correctly. I believe that these curious dates are the period November 28 to December 16. Why those odd dates should be so selected I have no idea. It is almost impossible to carry date s like that in one's head. If we could have a more vigorous publicity policy designed to get people to check their own lames on the register, I think it would be a help if the period during which claims could be made was also a more rational one calendar-wise.
Clause 8 increases the maximum election expenses at a Parliamentary election, which by common consent are at present too low. The new figures, I believe, will suffice for the time being. I am a little surprised that provision was not made in another place for the amount of £750 which was in the Bill to be increasable by order in the future in case of need, for at the present rate at which prices are rising the figure of £750 may well be inadequate by 1975, and then a whole new Representation of the People Bill will be imperative.
I am much more concerned about subsection (1)(b) of Clause 8, which deals with local government elections. I really cannot believe that the maxima fixed in that paragraph will be adequate for

1051
Greater London Council elections in the future. I hope that this matter can be further looked at in Committee, because in a curious way, though it was raised in another place, it somehow got shelved. The debate was taken on a group of Amendments, and this one, which seemed to me outstandingly important, was hardly discussed, and the Government answer was directed to other Amendments and not this one. It is a matter of common concern to all Parties, and indeed to anybody thinking of standing for the Greater London Council. The material point is that whereas at present there are large constituencies for the Greater London Council and each constituency elects three or four candidates, after a future date, which may be coming near, it will be a case of one candidate being elected for each constituency, and each of these constituencies is to be the same size as a Parliamentary constituency. It is curiously anomalous, therefore, to find that the amount which a G.L.C. candidate will be allowed to spend will be considerably less than half what a Parliamentary candidate, contesting the same seat, with virtually the same electorate, would be permitted.
I have no comments, at any rate at this stage, on Clauses 9 to 14, except to welcome the improvements proposed in the Bill as to broadcasting, and to congratulate the Government on having bowed to criticism in another place regarding Clause 12, so that now Party political descriptions may be used on nomination and ballot papers in local government elections as well as in Parliamentary elections.
The content of Clause 15 was recommended to the Government by nobody, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, frankly avowed. More than that, it is directly contrary to a recommendation of the Maud Committee in relation to local government, who quite rightly recognised that one ought to enlarge and not restrict the categories of people eligible to stand as candidates for local councils. I find this flouting of the Maud recommendation most strange. It had seemed to me (and I have some local government experience) that all those in local government, regardless of Party, were constantly disturbed at the difficulty of finding men and women of requisite quality to come
1052
forward and stand for election. In a situation like this, it seems madness to proceed by reducing and narrowing the categories of people who will be eligible to become candidates.
Clause 15 is also a further violation of the principle of "No taxation without representation," a democratic principle to which Socialists no longer appear to pay even lip service. I will not develop the arguments against this clause, or rather against the two separate parts which as the noble Lord said this clause contains, because obviously we shall have to examine it thoroughly in Committee. The Government have realised that the effects of Clause 15 in the City of London would be absurd, and therefore they have excluded the City, and I suspect that the effects in certain places elsewhere would be absurd, too. No doubt that is a reason why a good many Government Back-Benchers in another place failed to support the clause, and the Government's majority on it shrunk to a mere 13.
There is another proposal in the Bill which was recommended to the Government by nobody at all. That is the proposal in Part II of Schedule 1 that polling hours in Parliamentary elections should be extended from 9 to 10 p.m. This again conflicts with a unanimous recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, which specifically considered the question of polling hours and came down unanimously in favour of no change. I understand that the Government consulted the local authority associations about the idea of extending the time from 9 to 9.30 p.m. and discovered that those whom they consulted were dead against that; so thereupon they decided to pay less than no attention to the warnings they received, and they have put into this Bill not 9.30 p.m. but 10 p.m. The issue is whether an extension by one hour will enable so many extra electors to cast their votes who, had they wished, could not have voted between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., as to justify the extra strain imposed on staffs and everybody in what is already, for all concerned, an extremely wearing day. In Committee I shall ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, among other things, what extra cost this additional hour will impose upon public funds; for, frankly,

1053
I do not believe the statement in the Financial Memorandum prefixed to the Bill that that cannot be quantified.
There were several other matters raised in Committee or on Report in another place which the Government promised to consider with a view to possibly putting down some Amendments in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred, I think, to one of those, the question of expenses if an election is cancelled through the death of a candidate. If I am right in believing that the Committee stage may be taken a fortnight to-day, may I express the hope that the Government will table their own Amendments on that and any other points as quickly as possible, so that there is proper time to consider them. For my part, I should like to see a new clause in this Bill to provide that electors in rural district council elections are no longer deprived of the citizen's normal right to a postal vote. There is nothing about that in the Bill as it stands, but it has never seemed to me fair or reasonable that everybody, at all kinds of other local elections, right down to urban district council elections, can claim the right to vote by post, yet mysteriously this right is not accepted in the case of rural district councils.
I would not advise my noble friends to vote against this Bill on Second Reading. In another place it received a Second and a Third Reading without a Division, but a number of the separate points it concerned gave rise to searching debate in Committee. I hope that the same pattern may be repeated here. I am sure that we should put this Bill on the Statute Book, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having described it as a vehicle of conservative adjustment, because we may be able to carry that further. If it reaches the Statute Book, the Bill will add some 3 million names to the electoral registers from February, 1970. That is an increase of some 8 per cent. Owing to movement of population over the last fifteen years or so, there are already some huge electorates and some quite small ones, as exemplified by what we see to be the electorate in Ladywood, where a by-election is now pending. These existing electorates, whatever their size, will all be increased by some 8 per cent. under Clause 1 of the Bill. That means that Clause 1 will considerably aggravate these wide and quite in-
1054
defensible anomalies in the size of constituencies. Therefore, the passing of this Bill will render even more urgent the redistribution of Parliamentary constituencies on a more just basis in time for February, 1970.
4.28 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to join the two previous noble Lords in suggesting that we in this House have a real interest in this Bill. Indeed, I will go further than them and say that we have a particular interest; that we should apply the principle quis custodiet ipsos custodes, which may well be translated as "Every Member of the House of Commons has a vested interest and we have not". We on these Benches greatly welcome this Bill. We have, of course, one major reservation: we are extremely sorry that there is no recommendation for proportional representation, not as a means of increasing the representation of minor Parties (though your Lordships mist not expect me to think that that is a bad thing) but as a way of enabling people to exercise votes between members of individual Parties and therefore of not having to vote just between Governments but between policies as well.
We particularly welcome the provision reducing the age to 18, and we think this is a step forward for reasons which have been most fully put by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I am not certain that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, about Wales were not slightly tinged by sour grapes. There is only one thing worse than having a political control of a country shattered; it is not ever having had the political control and not being likely to have it.
Among the minor points of the Bill, we are interested in the position whereby people are able to register for Parliamentary elections in two places and choose in which place to use their vote. We think this is subject to some abuse, and we are not certain of the exact way to put it right. We shall do our best to produce some Amendment at the Committee stage, but we hope that the Government will look at this point again. On election expenses, I am sure that the moves are good ones. We need a greater and more realistic allowance for election expenses, particularly in by-elections. Anyone who has had much experience of

1055
the workings of by-elections knows that the present laws are regularly broken by people on all sides. I join the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in his plea for a more realistic allowance for Greater London Council elections. Obviously, in this case and in the case of regional government—if we get it—there is a totally different kind of election from the ordinary local government one, and it should be treated separately and on a different scale.
The main point that I want to talk about this afternoon is on Clause 15, and here I must admit to your Lordships that I differ not only with the Government but with my friend in another place who was dealing with this Bill. If l may digress once more, I took some slight exception to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in dealing with Clause 15, made a differentiation between political motivation and motivation from a genuine concern for the quality of local government. If I may say so, he also made the same distinction when we were talking about cannabis earlier. I am a politician, and I am proud of it. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is a very good politician, and I hope he is proud of it, and I hope we shall not fall into the false distinction of thinking that things that are political are somehow bad and that good motives are not in some way political. However, I concur with the Government in considering that the property qualification—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? The point of principle he is putting in commenting on what I have said is important. What I had in mind is that a policy should be supported on the basis of the facts and whether you consider it right or not, not on the basis of whether you consider it likely to be politically popular or unpopular. That is the distinction I make.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but I hope he will respect my view that I think we use the word "political" pejoratively too often, even possibly in these cases.
I concur with the idea that the property qualification is an anomaly, but there are two ways of dealing with an anomaly. One is that you can remove it; the other
1056
is that you can deal with the rest of the situation in such a way that the anomaly disappears and ceases to be anomalous. I believe that in this case the Government have chosen the wrong alternative. This is a time when we are seeking more not less participation in all local matters and matters of local government. It is therefore, I should have thought, an occasion when we should be seeking to give more people the vote and not fewer people. I realise that we are doing this by extending the age group, but there are other people. Those who have businesses in local government areas have a definite interest in what goes on in that area. Indeed, they are taxed for the support of that area, and if they do not have a vote they are subject to taxation without having representation.
Those who work in an area also have a considerable interest in the services that it provides. I should like to see some kind of system introduced which would give some say in local government to those who work in the area as well as to those who have businesses there. In areas where there is a great deal of non-resident industry, of course this could not be on the basis of a vote for every person who worked there. But it would not be impossible to devise a means for giving the people who worked in an area, as well as the people who had businesses in an area, some say on the local council. It would be unprecedented in the English political system but that is not to say that it is necessarily wrong. It is argued that this would be to give people two votes. I see no reason why they should not have two votes, or three or four, or even 24 so long as they are in different areas for different authorities and so long as they have an interest there. If I belong to two chess clubs, or am a shareholder in two electronic firms, no one says that I am somehow unfair if I go along and vote at the annual meeting of each. Likewise, if I have a business in Hythe, work in Camden and live in Petersfield, there is no reason why I should not have some representation at some level in all of those areas.
I should also like to mention the second part of Clause 15, the property qualification for membership of a local authority. I think that the abolition of this qualification is bad, not because I think it should exist as it is, but because I think it should

1057
be extended. If the electors of Camden wish to elect people who live and work entirely outside the boundary, why should they not do so? We may question whether they are sensible to do so, but I do not see that it is any business of ours to stop them doing so if that is what they want to do. It has been argued that the change we are making makes the system work mutatis mutandis in the same way as it does in national elections. There is a comprehensible reason for saying that people who vote for M.P.s should be citizens of the United Kingdom. I do not think that it is necessarily an overwhelming reason, but it is a comprehensible one. It is that so long as we have a Nation State it is not right to have people sitting in the House of Commons who do not have a loyalty to this House and to the Queen. But we are reducing the whole subject to the level of the "Napoleon of Notting Hill" if we apply this principle to local elections.
I can see no reason, no really good reason, for both these changes as they are proposed. I can see that taken in isolation they may appear to be quite reasonable. I should have thought that as part of a general pattern of the way that we want to see the electoral system in this country, and local government in this country, progressing, they are retrogressive and not progressive steps. I believe that the Government have not really thought through these particular implications, and I hope that this House will amend this particular clause in Committee.
4.39 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I share with the speakers who have already spoken gratitude for this Bill in general. I do not want to speak for long on any of the clauses in particular, except Clause 15. Here I must join sides both with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and with the last noble Lord who has spoken, in my dislike of the clause as at present drafted. We have already been told that this particular clause has got in without the sort of consultation that one would have expected to take place in a matter of this kind. We are told that there has been correspondence with local authorities, and that many of them
1058
have expressed a dislike of this clause but have not asked for consultation. I imagine that the reason they have not asked for consultation is that they did not think it possible for this particular clause to go forward. But now here it is. We have been told that the plain fact is that in this matter the Government are giving effect to their own clear view of principle. This is a principle which, as I understand it, has never yet been properly debated, has never been properly discussed. Yet here it is, included in a clause in what otherwise is an important Bill
I wish to criticise the clause on two grounds: first of all, as to the way in which it has been brought in, which I have already indicated; and, secondly, as to its timing. It seems to me most unfortunate that this clause should have come in before the Royal Commission on Local Government have had a chance to report. I wonder whether the effect has been really thought through in the local situation. I imagine that when the Commission report it will be some time—probably three, four or five yearsyearsbefore their recommendations are put into effect. In that time, if this clause goes forward, people who have sat for years on a local council will have been turned out of their seats. I wonder whether, when the recommendations are then put into effect so that the place in which they reside comes into the area, they will want to go back on to a council from which they have had to retire.
I am concerned here about two points. In relation to the first part of the clause, I have the pastoral oversight for an area which, because it is an island, is a slightly difficult area to deal with in Portsmouth; the City boundaries go just outside the island area, but not very far. During the last fifteen years between 30,003 and 40,000 of the citizens of Portsmouth have been rehoused on a housing estate which is not within the City boundaries, and they therefore have no vote in local elections so far as the Portsmouth Council is concerned. They pay their rents to that Council, yet they have no voice in the way in which the affairs of the Council are conducted. I had so much hoped that the Government were going to accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission because then practically all these people who are at present

1059
disenfranchised, so far as the City Corporation is concerned, the body to which they pay their rents, and so on, would be brought back. They all work in Portsmouth; they come in every day. But at the moment there is a stupid and anomalous position.
If the second part of the clause goes through, I am afraid that the effect on local government will be very serious. We shall certainly lose from eight to ten very valued councillors on the City Council, and I can see no reason why the clause should be put into effect. I do not believe that the position is analogous to that of Parliamentary elections since local elections are on a quite different footing. We have already been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that Members of Parliament do not need to live in their constituencies, because they represent the general assembly. This can be applied the other way to those in local government whose interests lie in a particular area, whose whole life is spent in that area, yet who happen to live just outside and are prevented from standing for election in the local council. I very much hope that very serious consideration will be given to this clause in Committee.
I feel that there is a strong case for arguing that this is a matter for local decision and not something to be imposed by the Central Government in Westminster. It has already been recognised that the Greater London Council is an exception. I believe that there are a number of other exceptions over the country, and this fact should be taken into account. Therefore, although I express gratitude for the Bill in general, I have very severe reservations about Clause 15 and I hope that some changes will be made to it before it leaves this House.
4.46 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made clear in his introduction, for the most part embodies the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, which sat for three years, and of the Home Secretary's Electoral Advisory Conference, which consisted of experts and representatives of the main political Parties. I suppose we shall all agree that if the
1060
electoral law is to be changed and brought up to date, as from time to time it must be, that is the way in which it should be done. But there are embodied in the Bill other changes, some which are different from those recommended by the Conferences and others which were not considered by them at all. I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to the more important of these matters.
First of all, there is the matter of the age of entitlement to a vote. The Speaker's Conference recommended the age of 20; the Bill says 18. Well, the Latey Committee has recommended 18 as the age of majority, and this has, I think, met with a general acceptance. Notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord Brooke has said, that fact seems to me to be perhaps sufficient to justify the Government's decision on this point to override the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference.
There is then the question of Party labels on nomination papers and ballot papers. The Speaker's Conference held that the prohibition on Party labels should be maintained. Clause 12 of the Bill would remove it. Rather surprisingly, although the Government White Paper lists this change under the heading of major issues, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill does not mention it at all. The White Paper merely says that there is "a strong case in principle" for Party labels—it does not attempt to say what that case is. I know that it is said, and indeed it has been said to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this will help to prevent people from voting for the wrong candidate, particularly in local elections where there is sometimes a long list of candidates. But what a feeble reason that is! People who do not know whom they should vote for do not deserve to have a vote at all, and any such random voting probably cancels itself out.
It seems to me that there is a strong case on general grounds for not overriding the view of the Speaker's Conference on what the Government themselves list as a major issue; and, also, that there is a strong case in principle for maintaining the prohibition. I think many of your Lordships would agree that the power of the Party machines is a factor already too dominant in elections. More particularly in the smaller local elections—although, of course, we must accept that

1061
nowadays most votes will be cast on a Party basis—anything that tends to prevent people from taking account of the merits of candidates as individuals rather than the merits of the political Parties that support them is to be deplored. I very much hope that the Government will think again and will accept the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference on this point.
Then, my Lords, we come to Clause 15, and this is an altogether more serious matter. This is something that forms no part of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and it was not considered at all by the Home Secretary's Conference. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has told us why. But it is not mentioned or forecast in the Government's White Paper either. I find it difficult to understand how it got into the Bill at all, except by an afterthought, and, like many afterthoughts, it would have been better not thought of at all.
Clause 15 does two separate things. In the first place, it takes away from 130,000 people now on the registers their right of voting in local government elections. This was no part of the Government's White Paper; it has just appeared from nowhere. It seems to me, and I think will seem to many of your Lordships, a prime example of the way in which changes in the electoral law should not be made. On the merits of the question, the suggestion that the business vote—if I may call it that—the nonresidential vote, creates an improper plurality in the hands of a few favoured people is nonsense. They have one vote in the election of one local authority, and they may have another vote in the election of a different local authority, paying rates in both. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, pointed out, in just the same way a shareholder in two different companies may have one vote in the election of the board of one company and another vote in the election of the board of another company. There is nothing wrong in that. No one gets more than one vote in the same election.
Then it is said that the abolition of the non-residential vote will remove an anomaly; that whereas individual nonresident traders can vote in local elections, the limited companies that provide the bulk of the business activities in most areas, and the people who spend
1062
their day working in those areas, cannot. That is, of course, perfectly true. But it is also true that in many urban areas the business and the commercial activities provide the greater part of the rates. If there is an anomaly, it is that many of those who provide the local authority with its revenue—those who spend their working day in its area—have no say in electing that authority. That is the great anomaly that many of your Lordships may think ought in equity to be set right. But it can be no possible reason for depriving 130,000 non-resident ratepayers, who are now on the register as individuals, of their right to vote is local government elections.
The effect of Clause 15 is serious enough on that ground, but the second and separate effect is, I think, far more so. The second effect of this clause is to prohibit people living outside a particular local government area from standing for the local council of that area. Whatever may be the merits of such a proposal in theory, and I must confess that I do not know what they are—those merits that have been put forward in this afternoon's debate do not seem to me to hold much water—there can be no doubt whatever that this proposal will have a disastrous effect on the quality and efficiency of many local councils.
The Maud Committee on the Management of Local Government are unanimous in their Report in their concern at the difficulty that local councils have in attracting men and women of sufficient ability and experience to carry oh their work with the breadth of vision that it calls for. In order to improve the position, they recommend that there should be an additional qualification for election to a local authority; that it should be open to anyone who has had a principal place of work within the area of the local authority for the previous twelve months to stand for election. This admirable proposal, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, would certainly improve the position. But Clause 15 of this Bill would have precisely the opposite effect. It may be that your Lordships do not realise the extent of the effect it would, in fact, have. In the great cities, many of the existing councillors, and m any of the ablest of them, would be debarred from seeking re-election. In Birmingham, 24 councillors would be unable to stand again, in Manchester 18, in Nottingham

1063
14, in Glasgow 12, and the London Borough of Camden—in terms of rateable value the fourth largest local authority in the country; larger than Liverpool, larger than Manchester—would lose six of its committee chairmen and vice-chairmen, two former mayors and the leader of the Opposition.
Anyone who has any knowledge and experience of local government knows that the very drastic effect of this provision on local government, not only in the cities but also in the scattered rural areas, would be utterly deplorable. It is really no good the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, being optimistic. There is no doubt whatever what will be the effect. In another place there was so little enthusiasm for this proposal that the Government carried it by only 240 votes to 226—a majority of 14. I hope that on consideration they will now decide to drop a proposal that must do great damage to the efficiency of local government, and that they will themselves bring forward on the Committee stage a suitable Amendment.
4.59 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, we have so far got through this debate without anybody repeating the slogan, "One man, one vote". I know there are many people who find that slogan attractive and persuasive. It may be that in a Parliamentary election there is something to be said for the principle of "One man, one vote", because whether the elector casts his vote in one constituency or in another he is, in fact, voting for or against the same Government. But in local government that does not hold good. If an elector loses the vote which he holds in respect of business premises, then in one municipality he loses his power to influence that municipality altogether, because he is voting in a contest in which only one of the two municipalities is engaged.
He still continues, of course, to pay his rates to the municipality in which he has lost his vote. That, I would think, infringes another constitutional principle—and one that has been accepted as such for many years: "No taxation without representation". That is exactly what this Bill does. It takes away from the elector such power as the vote gives
1064
him to influence the conduct or behaviour of a municipality in which he has a substantial interest. That, I would have thought, was quite clearly wrong.
Now there are many things in this Bill which, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has pointed out, will be welcomed by those who are concerned with elections, particularly local government elections; but, my Lords, there are other things in the Bill that I hope your Lordships will most vigorously resist.
The Bill will make two major changes in the conduct of local elections. It will abolish the non-resident qualification for voting at local elections, and it will also abolish the property qualification for election to a local authority. Now these changes are neither necessary nor desirable. Indeed, I think they are wholly harmful. They may well result, as has been pointed out by my noble friend, in local authorities' losing many of their most valued and competent members. It is interesting to see the extent to which this is going to affect local councils. A survey of 16 local authorities, with a combined membership of 943 members, shows that no fewer than 104 of the 943 councillors would no longer be eligible for membership of their council. Very nearly one councillor in ten would cease to qualify for election. That, I think, illustrates the very far-reaching change which these proposals are going to have on the composition of local authorities. Is it really desired that these councillors who are willing to devote their time and energy to the service of their council should be deprived of the opportunity of doing so, merely in order to satisfy some fancied or trivial social or political injustice which the duplicate vote in local government is said to create?
My Lords, local government to-day aims at broadening and not restraining the field from which members of the council can be drawn. That view is strongly expressed in Lord Redcliffe-Maud's Report on the management of local authorities; and I think that everybody who is concerned with local authorities recognises the great difficulty which exists at present in finding suitable men and women who are willing to give to the working of local government that time and energy which the proper conduct of a council's work demands. The

1065
amount of time and energy which must be given to local government work today is very formidable and very considerable indeed, and it is not easy to find persons who are prepared to make the necessary sacrifice. I should have thought that the present was a singularly inappropriate time to carry out these changes. In a few months the Report of the Royal Commission will be published, and it is certain that the Report will recommend a substantial readjustment of the boundaries of most local authorities. Such a readjustment of boundaries may well make the purpose of the changes which are proposed in the Bill unnecessary.
Many persons, including councillors and prospective councillors, have of course gone to live just outside the boundaries of the town in which they work, and it is, I think, worthwhile to consider for a moment what the effects of these changes are going to be on a local authority before and after its boundaries have been readjusted. In the town of Wolverhampton the boundaries of the borough have been adjusted and brought up to date. The result has been that although before adjustment nine councillors would have ceased to be eligible for election, after adjustment, under which the outlying districts of the town to which people have gone are brought into the borough, the number of councillors who will cease to qualify for election is reduced to, I think, one. That shows very clearly what the effect of the reorganisation of boundaries which will follow the publication of the Maud Report is going to be. It shows very plainly, I think, that the change which this Bill seeks to make will prove to be something of a very trivial nature when the boundaries are adjusted. Would it not be better to wait until the Report of the Royal Commission is published before carrying out changes which, as I have said, are going to have far-reaching results?
My Lords, that is all I desire to say about Clause 15. I hope that when the time comes your Lordships will reject that part of the Bill. There are some other measures in which I have no doubt we shall desire to make some changes. As to Clause 8, which deals with election expenses, my noble friend Lord Brooke has pointed out that some ad-
1066
justments will be required in the case of elections to the Greater London Council. So they will. Frankly, I think that that omission was an oversight rather than an omission by design, and that when the time comes we shall have no difficulty in putting it right.
I do not propose to say anything further about those matters this afternoon. On the Committee stage of this Bill we shall have a number of matters—some major matters, some less important—about which we shall desire, if we can, to obtain some satisfaction.
5.9 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, how much I appreciate his very kind reference to myself at the beginning of his speech? By the time I sit down I shall be wondering in my own mind whether I was right to celebrate my birthday by making a speech in your Lordships' House—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear,hear!
LORD ROYLE: This is particularly so in view of the "Hear, hear!" from in front of me, because it would appear that Clause 15 is the one that has attracted most attention in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I am not surprised; for, with the possible exception of the change to the age of 18 for voting purposes, this is the clause that seems to stand out. But it was Clause 15 of the Bill which attracted me, and perhaps I shall shock some of my noble colleagues on this side of the House when I say that in common with some previous speakers, I am going to be critical of the clause. But I make one discrimination, a discrimination which has not been specifically made so far in reference to Clause 15. That is the difference between the criticisms. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, really touched on it; although perhaps I shall say it rather differently. I am discriminating between property disqualification and place of work disqualification.
My Lords, I believe this is terribly important. I do not think noble Lords opposite have stressed enough the difference here. Not one of them has said that it is wrong to have a vote on the grounds of property. I am opposed to votes for property purposes; but I am in favour of votes on the qualification of

1067
working in a certain area. That is where I differ. My criticisms are based purely and simply on the fact of a man living in one locality (although his greater interests might be in another) being unable to sit on the local authority of the other locality because he does not actually reside there. Therefore, the Government are right in taking any step which will wipe out the right to vote on the ground of property. I want to make that very clear from the beginning.
My concern is with the other person, the person who works in and is mostly engaged in a district in which he does not live. In Parliamentary elections—and this has been often said this afternoon—we must all believe in the principle of "one man, one vote"; otherwise an individual has two indirect votes for one authority, in this particular case, Parliament. But in all fairness I suggest that so far as local authority representation is concerned the case is different. The proposal contained in Clause 15 has not been before any electoral conference. Furthermore, as was said in the Committee stage of the House of Commons, Amendments to this clause in the Bill were defeated by only the narrowest of majorities. In fact, the Maud Commission recommended that those whose principal place of work was in a certain area of an authority should be eligible to participate in the work of that authority.
My Lords, this is the point I want to make. This is very different from qualification on the ground of property. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth spent some time this afternoon discussing the Royal Commission. Certainly the Royal Commission is important in this aspect at this particular time. But we do not know what suggestions the Royal Commission are going to come up with. It may well be they will come up with suggestions of amalgamations. In fact, it is not long since we amalgamated the police forces in this country. It may well be that, based on that, the Royal Commission will report that it is desirable that there should be amalgamations, and perhaps large amalgamations, in the local authorities. Are we to start all over again? Are we to say to a man, "You will not sit on that local authority because you live in the one next-door", only in
1068
due course for legislation to be introduced on the lines of a Royal Commission Report which will make those two authorities one? In that case we shall for some period have prohibited a man from serving on a particular authority for which, by the amalgamations which are to come, he might be qualified to serve.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, surely that is the strongest possible argument for postponing these proposals in the Bill.
LORD ROYLE: That is exactly what I am saying. That is what I am arguing. Perhaps the noble Lord is confusing what I say about property qualification with what I say about work qualification. I am arguing that this is a reason for postponing the proposal until such time as the Royal Commission reports. A man's greater interest may be in the town in which he works rather than in the place in which he lives. Members of Parliament do not always live in their constituencies. When it comes to considering legislation before Parliament, I am quite sure that a good M.P. has a greater interest in the constituency he represents than in his home town.
Naturally, in these matters one comes to the area one knows best to illustrate what is in one's mind. I am a resident of the town of Hove which is quite close to Brighton. It seems obvious to most people that before long those two towns must be one; in fact, there are many people resident in Brighton who do not know where the dividing line is, for once you are off the sea front there is no indication of it at all. Therefore, it seems apparent that they must come together at sometime. I have looked up the situation in the Brighton Council. I find that the Brighton Council are 76 in number and include 10 non-residents.
Perhaps in this connection I may be forgiven for making a personal reference. Noble Lords will remember our late noble colleague, Lord Cohen of Brighton. Lord Cohen lived in a road the right-hand side of which was in Brighton, the left-hand side of which was in Hove. He lived in Hove; yet he devoted the whole of his life to public service in Brighton. Would anyone doubt that Lord Cohen of Brighton was one of the greatest local government men that Brighton ever had? In addition, his interest in the arts and related matters

1069
made him a very valuable citizen. But if this clause had been on the Statute Books during his lifetime he would not have been able to sit on the council in Brighton. I do not think there could be a better illustration of the point I am trying to make.
My Lords, there is another point. If we interfere along these lines in local government matters, what about magisterial matters? Are we in future to say that anybody who does not live in a particular town shall not be a magistrate in that particular town? I go back to my Brighton illustration. There are 59 active magistrates in Brighton. Twenty five of them do not live in the borough; but they have an interest in the crime in Brighton because they have other interests in the town. I go further. What about corporation officials and staff? Are we going to say that because a person is employed by a local authority he must live in that authority's area? I know some parts of this country where there would be great difficulty in persuading a town clerk to live in the town where he works. If we carry this matter to a logical conclusion, we have to consider all those questions as well.
My Lords, the other part of the country with which I am mostly concerned, and have always been, is the large conurbation of Manchester. Up there Stockport, Salford, Bury, Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, Ashton, Eccles, Stretford, Irlam and Swinton have all a common boundary with Manchester. Is anybody going to say that a person who lives in any one of those districts has no right, in spite of the fact that he works in Manchester, to sit on the local authority of the City of Manchester? It may well be that I am repeating myself, but when the Royal Commission reports we may see something like a Manchester County Council, with all those authorities within its area. Would it not be better to wait and see what arises? Because those thousands of people who go to Manchester every day might easily become qualified.
I do not think that there is much else to be said, because it is a question of repetition; this matter has been so greatly stressed during the debate. If an apology is in order, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Stonham for the fact that I from this side of the House, join in the chorus of criticism against this
1070
clause, but I do so only after a great deal of thought, and I am quite sure that it would be a mistake to accept the clause, at least at the present time. What I want to see in its place is a clause which would preclude a vote on the grounds of property ownership but would permit a vote or a representation on the local council on the grounds of work and activity. That is where I differ from noble Lords opposite. I do not think it is beyond the wit of man, or of the Government, to get down to making an amendment of that kind.
5.22 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not give the assiduous attention to the social columns of The Times that is clearly the practice of my noble friend, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and therefore I was unaware that to-day is the birthday of the noble Lord, Lord Royle. I, of course, join in the congratulations extended to the noble Lord, Lord Royle. He has said that on this occasion he has undertaken a rebellion against his Party. I hope that the noble Lord has many more birthdays which he may celebrate in that way. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Royle, need be worried that he will bring himself into any disfavour, because in fact all the noble Lords on the Government side of the House, on the Front Bench and on the Back Benches, agree precisely with what he has said. Indeed, all that I am here to do is to add one more voice to those which we have heard this afternoon referring to one particular provision in the Bill.
After all, my Lords, this is really a House of Commons Bill, and speaking as a Member of your Lordships' House, I think that we should be restrained and circumspect in any comments which we may make about it. I should like to think that there might be some quid pro quo from the House of Commons when they come, as no doubt they will in due course, to deal with the Bill to reform the House of Lords—that Bill of "conservative adjustment" to use the term which I think was used by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for this type of legislation. But I fear that that is too much to hope.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, reminded us, this year 1969 is likely to be the year in which, for the first

1071
time in the long and splendid political and Parliamentary history of this country, the vote is to be extended to Members of your Lordships' House and to teenage citizens of Britain equally. I can only hope that, with youth at the helm and the Peerage at the prow, the political future of this country and the restoration of our representative institutions will be assured. I voted for the first time when I was 40; it happened that on other occasions I had no opportunity to do so. I experienced very little frustration at not being able to vote at the age of 18, or even at 21. I think there is a tendency on the part of many observers—I say this seriously—to accept that there has been a substantial change in the social climate that makes it necessary for us to accord privileges and to place the burdens of responsibility on younger people to an extent greater than in previous generations, or perhaps it would be more correct to say than for many generations past. I am not sure that the younger people wish to assume those responsibilities, or will enjoy them as much when they get them as they may think now. We should, I think, be careful about reducing the age of responsibility in civic life and in family life to the extent which is envisaged by the Government and which, they are right, is part of the present pattern and climate of opinion.
There is one thing, my Lords, which is absolutely certain: it is that when we, as I hope, get the vote and the teenagers get the vote, the Labour Party will be the only Party that will not gain from the entry of these new classes of voters into the field. It has been the invariable rule in the past that the newly enfranchised voter has bitten the hand that fed him, and therefore if, by speeding this Bill on to the Statute Book, we make doubly certain that the Labour Party will be relieved of the cares and toil of office at the next Election, then who are we to grumble? In carrying through this legislation as expeditiously as possible we are only doing our public duty.
What I have said so far refers primarily, in fact entirely, to the provision in the Bill relating to the national Parliament and national elections. The clause in the Bill, Clause 15, to which I particularly wish to refer deals, as has been pointed out so often during this debate, with prob-
1072
lems of local government; and therefore we in this House are fully entitled to make our representations and to express our opinions on it, because whatever we may not have by way of a franchise in national elections at present we are local government electors. I do not think that there is any mystery about the reason why this particular clause has been included in the Bill. It is a sort of relic, an interesting historic relic, of the Labour Party psychosis and Labour tradition of generations and decades past. Anything that appears to be related to the ownership of property; anything that appears to place businessmen in some particularly favourable position; anything that could remotely appear to be to the advantage of the property-owning classes is something which has to be destroyed, expunged from the Statute Book, removed from national life.
My Lords, I have watched with great interest, as we all have, the work of noble Lords on the Government side of the House. One has on many occasions watched with admiration the way in which they have adjusted their attitudes, their ideology, to the tremendous changes that have taken place in the circumstances of the Labour Party and Government during these last four years. It seems, therefore, strange that they should allow some little fossil, so to speak, of the old prejudices of the Party to remain embedded in this Bill. Because no one, whether it be the Maud Commission, whether it be the majority opinion in the House of Commons—whatever the vote may have been—whether it be those taking part in this debate, believes that at any rate one aspect of Clause 15 makes sense: the aspect that takes away the property qualification for membership of a local authority.
Many examples have been given of the anomalies which this piece of legislation is likely to produce. I can produce one from my own close experience. On the road I use leading straight out of Colchester, perhaps 200 or 300 yards from the urban area, there live on one side a leading Liberal and on the other a leading Conservative, exactly opposite each other. It happens that the borough boundary runs straight down the middle of the road. This means that one of these gentlemen, both of whom are eminently suitable in every way to serve

1073
the community on the local authority if they would wish to do so, though neither of them is a member of the council at the present time, would be entitled in future to be a councillor and the other would not. Both have a leading position in the political life of the community, both work and have worked all their lives in Colchester and so far as I know both of them were born in Colchester.
It might be all very well in big cities—I do not know—but in the smaller towns more and more people, particularly younger people, are moving out of the urban area into smaller houses or housing estates in the periphery of the town but they maintain the greatest possible contact with the whole life of the town. These people are relied upon to a large extent, irrespective of Party, for running the local authorities. In fact at the present moment only two members of the Borough Council of Colchester would be directly affected. I fully accept that we have to look to the future. I do not want to be unfair to the Ministers who are responsible for this piece of legislation, but all of us know that in circumstances like these, a Government tend to get themselves into a position which they find it difficult to get out of. They commit themselves and carry the matter through the House of Commons because it is part of the disciplines of that House. Yet they know in their heart of hearts that it is wrong.
It is clear from all that has been said by both Liberal and Conservative spokesmen and by a distinguished Member of the Government's own Party that there will be strong objection to part of the clause removing the property qualification for representation on local authorities. I hope and believe that noble Lords more expert than I in drafting Amendments will be moving an Amendment to exclude this part of the clause or to alter the clause in some way so as to ensure that people who are worthy and who desire to give service on local authorities are able to do so even though they do not have a residential qualification within the area concerned.
Therefore, the Government have the choice of moving an Amendment at Committee stage, getting it carried and sending it back to another place where no doubt, as a Government Amendment, it
1074
would be accepted, thereby putting this matter right. If the Government do not do that there is the absolute certainty, in my belief, of them being defeated; of having an Opposition Amendment passed against the advice of the Minister—if that is the advice he gives—and sent back to another place, where they will have to go through the difficult procedure of forcing the Members of another place to accept this clause after it has been rejected by your Lordships' House. They have already experienced an unacceptable episode, from the point of view of the Labour Party, when the Government managed to scrape this through by a majority of some 13 votes.
This is the position in which the Minister finds himself. We do not expect him to make any decision or to commit himself in any way now, but I hope very sincerely that he will undertake to look at this. Whether he will say that publicly in this debate when he winds up is not for me to say, but I sincerely hope that the Government will be prepared to put down an Amendment on Committee stage to enable them to do what frankly noble Lords on both this side of the House as well as on the other—whether they have spoken or not in this debate—know to be the right action for the Government to take in respect of this particular provision.
5.36 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, if representation of the people is most truly achieved by ensuring a 100 per cent. poll in an election, then there is much to commend in this Bill. I must say that I had not thought of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, of linking this Bill to House of Lords reform, but if that becomes an accepted fact then perhaps one day we shall see a 101 per cent. poll which I think everyone in the Chamber to-day would be in favour of.
Under this Bill proxy and postal voting rights are extended, and many election agents in large towns will be relieved to see postal voting rights proposed for those who move to a new constituency within the same borough boundary. Indeed, anything which clarifies postal voting is welcome, and in this respect Clause 6(5), whereby the notice of election shall state the last date for postal votes or proxy votes, something which most people never

1075
seem to realise, will greatly help matters. If political descriptions of candidates are desirable, the Bill has been greatly improved by the Government's acceptance of the very simple procedure now set out in Clause 12, even though noble Lords may still think there is room for some improvement here. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, put the case against Clause 12 clearly enough.
I think two practical queries arise from the Bill. First, undoubtedly a great deal more work will fall on registration officers. The insertion in the register of the date of attaining voting age and the considerable increase in postal votes for students are but two examples, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, what consultations were held on the question of more work with registration officers and what their reactions have been to the Bill in this respect.
The other point is that if voting at 18 becomes law, it will add on average about 6 per cent. to the electorate of each constituency at the next General Election—and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor puts it at 8 per cent., if the next General Election takes place within a year of this Bill becoming law. It may reasonably be assumed that the average will be more than 6 or 8 per cent. in larger constituencies. As the Home Secretary said in another place on October 14 last:
"It is difficult enough in all conscience to get to know 50,000 or 60,000 electors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 14/11/68, col. 38.]
The effect of more than 6 to 8 per cent. increase in a constituency of, say, 100,000 is an intimidating thought.
There is a point here also about election expenses. Once again, the bigger the constituency, the more difficult it is to describe the election expenses position. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor gave a warning for the future about what the Bill is doing in regard to election expenses and pointed to the anomalies. He was joined by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, who pointed out that election expenses would be tricky for the London boroughs. I would ask then whether the passing of Clause 1 would ensure action by the Government on the forthcoming Boundary Commission Report with all possible speed.
1076
It is not unreasonable. I think, to query the balance of advantage in the proposal that polling stations should stay open for one hour longer at General Elections only. As the Speaker's Conference recommended no change in this matter, I wonder what evidence there was which influenced the Government. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to the consultations which had been held on this subject, but on the evidence which influenced the Government he was silent. This additional difference between General Election and local election polls must lead to confusion. Under the Bill, the General Election poll is going to last 15 hours, and will involve polling station staffs in a 17-hour day. Following this, many presiding officers and polling clerks will be needed for the count. After such a day, this is to invite just about what everybody wishes to avoid—a badly conducted count, or one delayed to the following day. If the Government have evidence that this move is necessary, then of course they are justified; but if not, surely there is room here for the Minister to think again.
The recommendation in the Bill for voting at 18 is bound to attract the reader's attention if only to inquire why the Government have disregarded Mr. Speaker's Conference in this matter. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Brooke warned against the dangers of riding roughshod over the Speaker's Conference. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made the point that this had been passed by a considerable majority in another place; but, of course, we in this House are in the tricky position of receiving this Bill with this clause having been voted on in another place where the Whips were on on the Government side. None the less, I must confess that I certainly, rather at the tail end of a list of experienced speakers, mention this matter with a certain amount of diffidence. For, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, this is very much a matter of judgment and opinion.
It would seem that the Government's argument is that as the Latey Committee recommended an age of majority at 18, the voting age must be the same. I would most certainly accept that there is a connection between the two proposals. From 1970, one more year of compulsory education; higher wages; a younger marrying

1077
age, with the means to have a home of one's own—all these provide a basis for the vote. There is also the argument that an 18-year-old can serve in the Armed Forces, and that if you are old enough to fight for your country, you are old enough to vote. But such arguments, my Lords, are hardly conclusive. The last most certainly carries weight. Yet most 18-year-olds killed in action would, under this Bill, never have had the chance of influencing the Government by their vote. If it is so very wrong to tax an 18-yearold without granting him representation, does this mean that we enfranchise 16-and 17-year-olds? And is marriage at 18, with or without parental consent, really a passport to the vote?
It is remarkable, I think, that the Latey Committee, stepped outside their terms of reference in paragraph 25 of their Report, which was Quoted by my noble friend Lord Brooke, and which ended with these words:
"We do not accept that the civic and the private field either would or should necessarily go together."
Yet, paradoxically, possibly some of your Lordships may agree that it is the educational argument that can lead to a definite conclusion. To vote is to make a judgment. Surely it is wrong to expect that someone who is still being educated should so judge, for those in higher education are sheltered from much that should help to form our judgment at the polls. I am sure that in this matter of casting a vote, many of your Lordships of far greater experience than myself would agree that no elector is prudent who fails to weigh promises for the future with performance in the past. Yet this is scarcely possible for 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds, who five years previously have been in the midst of secondary schooling.
My noble friend Lord Brooke reminded the House that in this matter the Bill proposes an irrevocable step. If it is accepted that the Latey arguments call for some reduction in the voting age, then the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference for voting at 20, coupled with the very fair provision in the Bill for voting as from the date of attaining the correct age, would be a most prudent step. In this case, the proposals of the Latey Committee would give young people at least two years' responsibility
1078
of their own affairs before the time comes when they would cast a vote. This was something to which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, referred.
Finally, my Lords, may I join with all other speakers in the debate in drawing the attention of your Lordships to some points in Clause 15? First, this clause abolishes the non-resident vote in local government elections. In answer to a House of Commons Question on November 7, 1968, the Minister of State for the Home Office made it crystal clear that local authority associations were opposed to this proposal; and this has been confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to-day. I believe it is correct that this point was not considered at the Home Office Conference on Local Government and Electoral Law. From where, then, does the Government evidence come? Of course, the principle behind this nonresident qualification, as has been said many times, is that if a person pays rates upon which the local authority depends he should have a voice in choosing councillors. But such electors have other interests in local government upon which their businesses and the livelihood of those working in those businesses depend. And let it not be forgotten that healthy local government depends on a two-way contract, to which local government electors of the sort of whom we are talking now so often contribute—perhaps a little more than others, sometimes—both in money and in time.
If there is a case for altering the local government franchise, perhaps it should lie with enfranchising more people, as the noble Lords, Lord Cottesloe and Lord Beaumont, both said. The noble Lord, Lord Royle, made the point that he did not agree with the property qualification for voting, and said that what he wished to see was a qualification for those working in the local authority. May I just say, in passing, that, whatever the rights and wrongs of this point of view may be, I think it is worth beaying in mind that if anyone has a qualification through living in a local authority's area to stand for the local authority it has to be a 12-months' qualification. There is immediately a difficulty here, when one starts to talk about people being allowed to vote in local elections because they work for the local authority, that they may suddenly "up and go"

1079
and not be there for something like twelve months. It is really no good (words used by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford) to represent this voting qualification as outmoded. For so long as the rating system remains, it can certainly be argued that this proposal means taxation without representation.
But, my Lords, this proposal will affect only 130,000 electors, and it pales in significance before the second part of Clause 15, which proposes to abolish the property qualification for election to local authorities. Figures have been given by the noble Lords, Lord Cottesloe and Lord Ilford, on the effects that this will have on membership of local authorities. The imprudence of adopting this second part of Clause 15 before the proposed reorganisation of local government has already been pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Ilford and Lord Royle. Once again, this change is opposed by the local authorities and was not, I believe, considered by the Home Office Conference. The Maud Report reached conclusions opposed to the clause, and in paragraph 424(c) said:
"The effect of the law is to exclude some people who might be valuable candidates for election to local authorities, particularly in urban areas."
And, of course, it is in urban areas, where there is plenty of talent but so little time to spare for the unpaid service of local government, that the effects of this clause will bear most heavily.
Not only is the weight of informed opinion against the Government here, but it would seem that the Home Secretary has not taken very much account of modern developments. To-day town redevelopment may cause people to move out, and car travel into a town is often easier than travel from one side of the town to the other. And who are these councillors who will be affected thus? Many are people who, although they live outside their borough, yet spend more of their waking hours within it. This was a point made very clearly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. No wonder that paragraph 425 of the Maud Report recommended:
"that there be an additional alternative qualification to election to a local authority, namely that the person should have had a principal place of work within the area of
1080
the authority during the whole of the 12 months preceding the election."!
So, my Lords, after receiving good advice that the qualification should be widened, Her Majesty's Government announce that they will move in totally the opposite direction. It would have been understandable if the Government had come to Parliament and recommended that councillors should be, as it were, within striking distance of their local authority—rather like the 15-mile rule for justices of the peace. But this the Government have not done. I apologise to your Lordships for appearing heated in this matter, but this proposal deliberately reduces the chances for recruitment of councillors at a time when their responsibilities are more than ever varied and vital. I trust that Her Majesty's Government may reconsider this step before the Bill passes into law.
5.52 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words at this time in the debate in favour of the Bill, and also in support of Clause 15. My excuse for doing so is some remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in his most interesting speech when he seemed to assume, if I heard him aright, that every noble Lord on this side of the House, or on the Back Benches at least, was in agreement with what he was saying. So far as I am concerned—
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I was not saying they were in agreement with what I said but were in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Royle, said.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Royle, I agree, was opposed to the property vote, but he was in favour of the very interesting suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. But, in view of that, if I may take up the time of the House, I thought I would say a few words. Also, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, was less than fair to the Labour Party when he said, if I heard him aright, that this was part of the old myopic, traditional attitude of the Party to property. My Lords, I think that that is most unfair, if I may say so. It is just as unfair as if I were to say that the Conservative Party always leaps to

1081
the defence of property whenever it can. I would not say that; I do not think it is true of the modern Conservative Party. And I do not think that what the noble Lord said is true at all of the present-day Labour Party.
Why I support this particular clause is because I think it does away with many anomalies. I think there is a very good case, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, put forward, for allowing local votes for those who work in an area. There is a very good case for that. But I cannot see that there is a case for allowing the vote to a leaseholder, although someone who actually occupies the premises or the land, but denying it to a large company or another body of some kind; or, moreover, denying it to another business where the particular businessman has made himself into a registered company and therefore is ineligible, so that you get two businessmen occupying premises beside each other in the same street, one of whom will be in one category, enabled to vote, and another in another category and not able to vote. Also, this seems to be quite out of line with the 1948 Act which abolished the business vote—I think quite rightly, although many noble Lords on the other side of the House, of course, were against it. It abolished the business vote for Parliamentary elections. It seems to me quite wrong that we can have "one man, one vote"—I say this pace the noble Lord, Lord Ilford—for Parliamentary elections, and yet "one man, two votes" for local elections.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting for a moment, surely the justification of the two votes is that a person will be voting for two quite separate and distinct municipalities, not for the same State as when he votes in the Parliamentary Election.
LORD STRABOLGI: I was going to develop that point a little later on.
There is also the question of the qualification for standing for a local authority. Here one of the qualifications is the nonresidential vote; and the other one is that one can own land even if one does not reside in the area at all. One could own a grave, for example, and that qualifies one to stand in a local election. I really think we must bring this into line
1082
with modern thinking, and gradually bring into effect a situation where all local councillors are those who actually reside in the area.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, and I should like to pay a tribute to the great work that is done by councillors who do not always reside in the area. But there are in quite a number of cities, for example, a great many councillors—I believe in some there is a majority of councillors—who do not reside in the city at all. I believe that in Birmingham there are 24 councillors who are nonresident; there are 18 in Manchester; 14 in Nottingham, and 12 in Glasgow. I accept that these are very worthy councillors and are doing wonderful work; but, all the same, I think one must bring the procedure into line with modern conditions and have only a councillor who is not only spending some part of the day in the area through his work or ownership of land there, but is also resident in the area as well.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I interrupt again, because the noble Lord is replying to something in my speech? What does he mean by bringing the procedure "into line with modem conditions"? Where else in the world, or in this country, in Parliamentary Elections has a member to be identified residentially with the area he represents? That does not apply. If I may suggest it to the noble Lord, this is not bringing it into line with modern conditions. This is, in fact, going back to an old idea of territorial identification, which perhaps was the basis of this noble House but certainly was not a democratic institution.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not want to get into an argument, because I think, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, we are getting into a Committee stage situation, and this is a Second Reading. There will be ample opportunities to deal with such matters when we reach a further stage of the Bill. What I was saying is that we must ensure that the local councillor will be someone who is closely identified with an area where he is living as well as working. I should have thought that that was modern thinking in the middle of the 20th century, and that one should not have the right to stand for a local council because one happened to own a

1083
small piece of land, while not resident, in the area. I know that there are difficulties. My noble friend mentioned Brighton and the distinguished career of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Brighton. Of course there are difficulties—and the City of London must be an exception—but, in general, as I said at the beginning, this clause will iron out several anomalies, and for that reason I support it.
5.59 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I intrude into this debate at a late hour, and for that I apologise. I do so for two principal reasons: first, because so far no voice has spoken from Scotland to say what are the feelings in that part of the United Kingdom; and, secondly, because I was privileged to serve for many years on the largest local authority in Scotland, that of the City of Glasgow. I want to tell your Lordships of my own experience. Before doing so, however, may I say that on the question of, "One man, one vote", and also on the question of, "No taxation without representation", I am entirely in agreement with those noble Lords who have spoken on these subjects.
From the factual point of view I had the misfortune (if one would call it that) of having the duty of finding candidates to stand for the local authority in the City of Glasgow. Quite recently I found one of my books in which I had lists of people who had been seen—and their names ran into dozens and dozens. They were men of ability, men of business experience, the very type of men one wanted to have in the local authority. But all of them were reluctant to serve on it. After I had left the Council, which at that time was Socialist controlled and has only recently ceased to be after some thirty years, I was privileged to be invited to lunch, on different occasions, by two Lord Provosts. Both were Labour Provosts, and both spoke to me of the great difficulty of getting men of the stature they would have liked to see on the Council. All this provision will do is simply to reduce the area from which the people whom one would like to see doing business—and it is big business—on the local authorities to-day can be chosen. Particularly is this so in the cities, because certainly in Scotland it is easier to
1084
get candidates for the county councils than it is to get them in urban areas.
If I may say so, we had an excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Royle. I agree with practically every word he said. He told us about the difficulty in Brighton and Hove, but I think the same thing applies in practically every city in the country. In my own City of Glasgow it is impossible to tell when one moves from the City into the areas round about. They are all built-up, and there are many people who would like to serve on the Council—and indeed many who do—who live outwith the boundaries. As we have been told twice to-day, five present members of the Glasgow Council will lose their seats, and they are not all of one Party.
I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, could have given us the figures of the breakdown of the 12. I know that a number of them are Labour and a number of them are Progressive councillors, but what strikes me as being particularly hard is that when a City like Glasgow is being redeveloped, simply because one has to live outwith the boundaries of the City one is prohibited from taking part. I cannot conceive of a situation—and I do not believe that the noble Lord who so capably introduced this Bill to us on Second Reading would approve it—in which councillors would be unable to serve the city where they work, where they spend the greater part of their lives, where all thir interests, except that they go home to a little place outside to sleep, are centred. I cannot think that anyone who has had experience of local authorities would wish to deny such people the right to serve their native city.
6.4 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, my name is not on the list, for which I apologise, but I will be brief. I wish to refer to Clause 15. This clause will restrict the choice of candidates at a time when fewer and fewer able people are coming forward. Also, it will remove experienced and able councillors and aldermen of all Parties. Like the noble Lord, Lord Royle, I am not pleading for the property qualification, because rates are a charge upon the occupier, but I am pleading that the place of work should be considered, whether the worker be a labourer or the managing director.

1085
In many parts of the country we have restricted boundaries for urban areas. I live in the City of Portsmouth, where since the war the corporation has rehoused 60,000 people. Thirty thousand of these people have been housed on the other side of the boundary, and whether they were housed within or without the boundary has merely been a matter of chance, according to how they came on the housing list. At the same time, thousands of other residents of the City of Portsmouth have been compelled, because of the shortage of land, to live in private houses on the wrong side of the city boundary. Many of these people were born in the City of Portsmouth; they work in the city, their social and other interests are in the city, and I plead that they should be considered, and that further consideration should be given to the Report of the Maud Committee.
I would point out that a large part of the rates are paid by corporate bodies. Corporate bodies in themselves cannot be represented on the city council, so surely it is fair and equitable that the people who work for that corporate body should be allowed a seat on the city council, whether they live within or without the city. No doubt we shall be told that probably these boundaries will be put right when we have the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. To put into effect the kind of Report we are likely to get will require not only wisdom but a great deal of courage, and I believe it will be some years before any such Report is put into effect. Therefore I feel that this is the wrong time to have these restrictions.
Finally, I have no doubt it will be said that it is difficult to define what is meant by "working within the city or other local government boundary". I suggest that a fair and reasonable way of dealing with the matter would be to insist that the person should produce a certificate from the employer, showing that he had worked within the city for an average of 20 hours a week over the preceding five years. I believe that a qualification of that kind would be fair and reasonable.
6.7 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate, which has brought two things to my mind. The first is that I must investigate and find
1086
out why it is that without being intentionally provocative—and I cannot imagine that I have been unduly interesting-1 always attract three, four or five Peers into the debate who had no intention of speaking when we started the debate. This has happened on at least the last five or six occasions, so in future we had better allow a little more time for these debates.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, it must be the noble Lord's personal magnetism.
LORD STONHAM: The other conviction I now have is that we can look forward to an extremely interesting and fruitful Committee stage. I cannot recall any occasion that I have looked forward to with keener anticipation since the Criminal Justice Bill 1947, when we spent nine days in Committee. I do not think we shall spend as long on the Committee stage of this Bill, but I am sure it will be most interesting. It is always tremendously helpful when the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, opens for the Opposition, and I should like to spend some little time answering a number of questions he put to me but leaving until last the main questions which have concerned almost everyone; namely, Clauses 14 and 15. I should like to deal with those in a general way.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked a number of questions in regard to Clause 1. First, on jury service, he asked whether the Government intended that jury service should be obligatory on young people between the ages of 18 and 21. That is a fair question, but jury service is a responsibility of a very different kind from the one we are dig cussing at the moment, which is the question of rights which an individual can exercise or not, as he feels inclined. Jury service is a duty arbitrarily imposed on individuals selected at random from among those having the necessary qualifications.
In our view, it does not follow that if the voting age and age of majority are lowered to 18 the age for jury service should necessarily be lowered as well. This is a separate issue which we shall have to consider very carefully, in conjunction with the proposals for legislation that we shall be bringing forward to implement the recommendations of the Morris Committee on jury qualification.

1087
I am unable to give the noble Lord at the moment even an approximate date on which we hope to bring forward that legislation. I would remind the noble Lord that the recommendations of that Committee were made in relation to an electoral age of 21; and this new age, if the voting age is to be 18, will have to be considered in regard to jury service and the Morris Committee recommendations, and of course the debates which have taken place on the present Bill, including what the noble Lord has said on this occasion.
Then the noble Lord asked about the position in relation to (I think he said) the 8 per cent. increase in the total of electors that would result from changing the voting age to 18, and the effect this would have on increasing the disparity in electorates of different constituencies. And he mentioned Ladywood, at one end, and another constituency at the other. I do not think I can do better than repeat what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said on this subject in another place on October 14. He said, if I may use his own words:
"I would say on the implementation of the recommendations that the Government see no reason at present to take a decision about the work of the commissions in advance of receiving their reports. I think that it would be expecting rather too much to assume anything else. I shall wait to receive the reports, give appropriate consideration to them, and then bring the Government's recommendations to this House in the light of the conclusions I reach at that time.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 14/10/68, col. 35.]
The noble Lord then referred to a subject with which we are both very closely associated, prisoners and their rights. I think he spoke with approval of Clause 4 which eliminates anomalies—and indeed this is so. But, contrary to the noble Lord's belief, the prisoner who can claim a postal vote now is the one who is on the register for a different area from the one in which he is in prison. Under Clause 4 that right will vanish. So we are right on principle but not on detail.
I was very much in sympathy with what the noble Lord said about the electoral lists, the draft register as it were, and the dates for public display. Unfortunately we cannot do much about what I think he called rationally calendarising the dates. Probably he had in mind something like November 1 to December 1,
1088
a calendar month easily memorable; and I am sure that that would be a great advantage. But the fact is that the period November 28 to December 16 is about the only one that can be fitted into the very tight registration timetable. The Speaker's Conference wanted the qualifying date, October 10, altered to November 1; but the Electoral Advisory Conference looked at this, and at the timetable, and they concluded that no change was possible at any point.
With regard to publicity, as the noble Lord is aware, we already do all we can, short of paid-for national advertising—through TV, radio, postmark slogans, local publicity by electoral registration officers—and it is difficult to see what more we can do. Most of us have had the unfortunate experience that so many people begin to think about their vote only a week or so before an election, and then very often find they are disfranchised because of their own neglect, which is most unfortunate. I think that one of the most valuable things the noble Lord suggested was that the lists themselves, where-ever they are displayed, should be more prominently displayed with an indication of what they are, so that no one could miss them, and so that anyone going into these public places would think, "I want to see for myself". I am sure that that suggestion will be very carefully considered.
The noble Lord also spoke about the maximum of expenses allowable in elections for the Greater London Council. He pointed out, perfectly correctly, that although the area and the number of constituents were precisely the same for the Greater London Council Elections as for Parliamentary elections in the same area, the total amount allowed for the G.L.C. Elections is less than half the amount for the Parliamentary election. If the noble Lord will put down an Amendment, I shall be prepared to consider it sympathetically. This is something we should like to get right.
On the question of polling hours continuing until 10 o'clock, I have nothing to add on the question of principle. In our view this is a question of judgment and not of statistics, and we feel that the interests of the electors should prevail. The noble Lord asked me whether I thought that the number of people who would vote additionally—and I am sure

1089
we all want as many people to vote as possible—would pay for the additional cost. That poses all sorts of hypothetical questions. What is the value of the vote? What is the value of a man's life? There is no price in many respects. But in real terms, as far as I can tell the House about the cost, first of all with regard to presiding officers and poll clerks the Treasury are willing to meet the additional cost on a pro rata basis; that is, payment for 15 hours, instead of 14, to presiding officers and poll clerks at polling stations. The cost of the 1966 General Election was £630,000. An increase of one-fourteenth would be £45,000. The returning officers have, however, expressed doubt whether such an increase would be sufficient, but it is something of that order.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I was not seeking simply to equate votes with money. I was asking whether it really was the case that the additional number of votes that would be secured would be such as to justify not only the extra cost but also the considerable extra strain put on everybody in what they already find a very wearing day.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, having three times fought a Division of 400 sq. miles and 70 polling stations, I agree that it is a wearing day. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord that he was not thinking in terms of money, and I am sorry if I did him an injustice in that respect. He and I both know of the fairly substantial number of people who go to the poll in the last hour and the not insubstantial number who actually get locked out. I am quite sure that when the time is 10 o'clock there will still be some people locked out, but there will be a great many more who will vote, and therefore we think it worth while. So far as the cost of the count is concerned, of deferring it to the next day, that cannot be estimated; we do not know how many it will affect. It will depend whether the returning officers can complete the count the same night or not. On the question of poll cards, it will be necessary to alter 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on about 100 million poll cards for Parliamentary elections, and it will be necessary to pay for a considerable amount of extra clerical time, but we cannot at the moment estimate what it will be.
1090
The noble Lord also mentioned a possible new clause—I do not know whether he intended to put down an Amendment —providing for a postal vote at rural district council elections. This is something that we think would be best left until after the Report on the Reorganisation of Local Government is received. The difficulties about a postal vote at rural district council elections are, first of all, the expense to small local authorities; secondly, the burden on returning officers—because it is not only a case of rural district councils, but also parish council elections which take place at the same time; they are combined; and, thirdly, the electoral timetable would have to be rearranged.
I think the last question, except for the "64,000 dollar question", which the noble Lord addressed to me was whether I would put down Government Amendments early. I shall be able to put down some Government Amendments early next week, but not all. I certainly would not be ready, at least for a little while, with the Amendment on expenses following the death of a candidate, to which I referred in my speech. Two other matters that we are considering (although I do not know whether we shall put down Amendments or not) concern psychiatric patients and broadcasting. Certainly I realise the importance of the House learning the Government's intentions as quickly as possible, and I will see what I can do in that respect.
Now I come to Clauses 14 and 15. I will do what I possibly can to lump together all the speeches that have been made on these clauses, with the exception of the speech by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, which I would corn-mend all your Lordships to read and read again in relation to its point of view, which is vastly in conflict with the view of anybody else. It is a pint of view with which I entirely agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I think almost everybody else, commended the Maud recommendation of the "principal place of work" qualification for candidates. I find that on this subject there has been a most extraordinary debate. Astonishing things have been said, even by my noble friends Lord Royle and Lord Jacques—absolutely astounding things—but this "place of work" really takes me to the fair! As

1091
my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said in another place, eventually it would mean that everyone who worked inside an area could become a candidate in that area. As he said, this would swamp everything and we would not get local representation. What we want is identity and local representation.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, made some quite extraordinary remarks on this subject. When he spoke of, "One man, one vote" and, "No taxation without representation"—which have been the battle cries, and which were put so succinctly again, in case I had forgotten them, by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—he did not mind even if a chap had 24 such votes. In Londonderry, the battle cry is "Vote often, vote early". As far as having 24 votes, "One man, one vote", to them does not mean 24 votes; they are shedding blood to stop that. I thought everybody in your Lordships' House was agreed on what is meant by. "One man, one vote" in Northern Ireland. I have always understood what it meant here in elections for the United Kingdom Parliament.
I have been listening for nearly three hours to one noble Lord after another, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, saying that if a man pays taxes there he should have a vote, and if he goes to the next constituency, which is only another borough or even an urban district, and pays taxes he should have another vote, and, going on, he could get up to the 24. If noble Lords really hold those views, of course we shall debate them and vote on them. But I say to your Lordships that they are the antithesis of democracy.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth spoke movingly about losing 30,000 people who had been moved out of Portsmouth. He said that they were disenfranchised. "Disenfranchisement" to me means that they have no vote. I object to the use of the expression "abject nonsense" of anything said by a right reverend Prelate, but it is. I have not been down to interview those people, but of course they have a vote. They do not have a vote in Portsmouth, I will accept his word for that; but they have votes in a most estimable local authority area—Eastleigh or somewhere like that. It may not be Eastleigh, and
1092
it is no good my noble friend Lord Jacques shaking his head. It may be that his particular friend, some quite worthy alderman or someone of that kind, an extremely able person has moved out of Portsmouth or perhaps never lived there, but had the quite worthy ambition to represent Portsmouth. I for one would regret the ending of many of these associations. But to say, as my noble friend said, that they would be lost is something that I cannot accept. I am quite sure that my noble friends Lord Royle and Lord Jacques are aware, from their own knowledge among their own friends, of many representatives on local authorities who have only retained their property qualification by a subterfuge. They have got their pied-à-terre. It was suggested that they lived there or had their business there or had a vote there. Those are the kind of things—
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Is the noble Lord really suggesting that the principle of "one man, one vote" is breached by a person having two votes for two separate authorities? If he is suggesting that, is he not also saying that to have a vote for Parliament and a vote for a local council is also a breach of the principle?
LORD STONHAM: No. I am saying that if a man has two votes for one Chamber of Government it is a breach of the principle of "one man, one vote". Certainly I am saying that. What the noble Lord advocated during his speech was of course a breach of the principle of "one man, one vote". If he does not believe it, I would ask him to go to Londonderry and expound his views, and see whether they think it is a breach of this principle. The noble Lord spoke of dual registration, and he suggested that he would put down Amendments on Committee. We shall be pleased to see the Amendments; but I am sure that he will find himself in serious practical difficulties in ensuring that a person was registered only once. When we get into Committee on these points we can develop these things.
We achieved this position in 1948 in the United Kingdom, except for Northern Ireland, of "one man, one vote", in Parliamentary elections. It took over half-a-century to achieve that position. Now in this Bill we want to achieve the

1093
same democratic principle in local government. Inevitably we are told—the right reverend Prelate said this—that even if it is right we should not do it now. We have not had a Representation of the People Bill for twenty years. We might not have another one for another twenty years. I say that if it is right, now is the time to do it.
Whether or not councillors who are displaced will endeavour to get a qualification in the areas they at present represent, or whether they will stand for election in the areas where they live, has to be seen. But I am quite sure that what we are suggesting is absolutely right and that the attitude taken by noble Lords opposite, and even by my noble friends, on this issue is quite indefensible and something they would never apply to any other category of administration of which they have knowledge, because they are completely grounded in democracy and this is something which is really undemocratic.
We have had recited to us the number of non-resident representatives of some of the large cities, including Glasgow. What about the people living in Glasgow who have been, for that reason, precluded, excluded from the chance of representing their city? Is it to be assumed they have no ability? They certainly have full rights. In a great city like Glasgow, or a great city like Birmingham, I completely and utterly reject the proposition that there are not men and women in all the political Parties of sufficient calibre, dedication and ability adequately to represent their city. Well, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can shake his head. He can go up to those cities and tell the people so. I believe otherwise, and I am quite sure—
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? Would he be good enough to explain what he means by "being precluded from serving on the council because of other people". Surely it is for the citizens to decide who is going to represent them. There is no precluding whatsoever about it, and the noble Lord knows that perfectly well. It is a nice word to use, but that is about all there is in it.
LORD STONHAM: The Lord's argument, like his indignation, is somewhat synthetic. If people are occupying positions—and most of these people belong to particular political organisations—and then are, as they quite obviously are, re-appointed, re-adopted, if you like, for those seats, if they fight again it means that somebody else who is resident, and but for those people would become a candidate, does not become a candidate. It is as simple as that.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt, as this is a very important point? Is the noble Lord saying that the selection committee of the ward, whether it is Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Independent, has not got the right to choose the man they want, whether that man is a resident or whether he is somebody associated with them whom they know well and wish to have representing them in the local council?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, what I am saying is that when this Bill becomes law—and it is right and just—some people who have hitherto been qualified will not be qualified, and therefore they cannot be selected. Again it is as simple as that. I am also saying that there will be plenty of good people left with the necessary residential qualifications who will be selected and who will fight for election.
I may not have covered all the points but there is another important debate corning on and I should be doing a disservice to the House if I went on to deal with matters which could properly be dealt with in Committee. I am looking forward to the Committee stage. We will certainly put some Amendments down as soon as possible. We will very carefully study the debate and hope that we can have a full, constructive and useful Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FOREIGN COMPENSATION BILL
Brought from the Commons: read 1a, and to be printed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS (SOCIAL NEED) BILL
6.35 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this short but significant Bill is to enable Government grant to be paid in aid of a special programme of local authority expenditure aimed at tackling the multiple problems of urban areas with acute social needs. This urban programme was first announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place on July 22 in a Statement repeated here by my noble friend Lord Stonham on the same day. The Government's preliminary study of these areas showed that although large and expanding programmes were having an impact on each of the main social services concerned, education, housing, health and welfare, there nevertheless still remained in a number of our cities and towns certain areas with special social needs.
What this Bill does is to provide for a new specific grant payable towards local authority expenditure approved for the purpose of the programme. As Clause 1 of the Bill puts it, grant is to be payable on expenditure which the Secretary of State thinks the local authority is required to incur because of special social need existing in an urban area. In effect, then, it is left to the Secretary of State to determine whether special social need exists in a particular case. This allows for considerable flexibility in determining where such special need exists, and in particular allows for the opinions of local authorities themselves to be taken into account in a particular case, rather than trying to go by a narrow definition in the Bill. But we can tell, from studies which have already been undertaken and from discussions with the local authorities so far, roughly what these areas are like. They are comparatively small and sometimes isolated pockets within local authority areas. They are the areas which were described in the Plowden Report on Primary Education as
"districts which have been scarcely touched by the advances made in more fortunate places".
They usually show the signs of multiple deprivation, which may be marked, for
1096
example, by notable deficiencies in the physical environment, especially where housing is concerned; by overcrowding; by persistent unemployment; by a high proportion of children in trouble or in need of care; or by a combination of these and other factors. A substantial degree of immigrant settlement would also be an important factor, though not the only factor, in determining the existence of special social need.
By my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland are not thinking in terms of permanently designating specific geographical areas as areas of special social need. They want to take full advantage of the flexibility which this Bill offers, and the best way to do this seems to be to decide on broad criteria of need, to ask the local authorities who consider that needs of this kind exist within their areas to submit proposals designed to meet them, and then to decide in the light of both local and central knowledge what specific items of proposed expenditure should receive aid under this programme.
It should be clearly understood from the outset that this urban programme is not designed to relieve all the needs, or even all the acute needs, that exist in our cities and towns to-day. There are already substantial programmes of expenditure in the fields of all the great social services. Nor is it the only Government programme deliberately designed to give priority to certain special local needs. In the field of education, we have already had the £16 million school building programme which followed on the recommendations of the Plowden Committee; and in the field of housing the local authority house-building programme will continue to give priority to slum clearance and to eliminate shortages, especially in rented accommodation within conurbations and in the case of authorities with the biggest concentration of these problems.
This particular programme, which will have definite ceilings of expenditure limited to £20 million to £25 million in its first four years, is a co-ordinated attempt to identify the districts—possibly quite small districts—where social need exists in its acutest form, to inject special financial help through the local authorities and to try to bring them nearer to the

1097
general level of urban areas in this country. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said when moving the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, its intention is to arrest the downward spiral which affects these districts; to try to put a stop to the situation in which unmet needs create apathy and apathy gives rise to further needs which are not met. He also expressed the hope, which I should like to echo here, that under the programme, and in close partnership between central and local government, an attempt should be made to experiment and develop new kinds of projects which might be particularly effective in meeting special needs in particular districts.
Mention of the partnership between central and local government brings me to the financial principles underlying this short Bill. The discussions which have taken place between the Government and the local authority associations on this subject have centred on two main points. One, which is directly relevant to the Bill, concerns the relationship which the new specific grant under the Bill should bear to the rate support grant, and the other, which, though of great importance to the programme, does not directly affect the provisions of the Bill—because the Bill leaves it to the Home Secretary to prescribe—is the amount of grant which the Government would propose to pay in aid of local authority expenditure under the urban programme.
As was explained during the progress of this Bill through another place, its effect will be that the specific Government grant will in due course be taken into account under Section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1966, for the purpose of estimating the proportion of the aggregate Exchequer grant which the Minister estimates will be allocated to grants in respect of specific services. I say "in due course" because the grant has not been taken into account during the rate support grant negotiations which have just ended and will therefore remain outside the rate support grant arrangements during the next following rate support grant period—that is to say, up to the end of the financial year 1970–71. Incidentally, because of this, expenditure on the programme for the next two years will be additional to the public expenditure limits placed by the Government upon local authority expenditure.
1098
The general approach in the Local Government Act 1966 to specific revenue grants is to treat them as part of Exchequer contribution to the revenues of the local authorities as a whole, and the Government see no reason to depart from the general procedures in the case of this Bill. Perhaps most of these specific revenue grants have a similar object to this one, in that they were devised to deal with a situation where the incidence of expenditure is uneven over the country as a whole. The effect of the Bill therefore, is that the new grant, like all other specific revenue grants, will be deducted from the aggregate Exchequer grant before arriving at the rate support grant. So far as public expenditure limits upon local authority expenditure are concerned, we do not know what the position may be in 1971, but it is certainly the Government's intention that likely expenditure in the urban programme will be fully taken into account in calculating the forecasts of reasonable expenditure and the overall levels of grant.
As regards the rate of specific grant, which, under the Bill, is for the Home Secretary to decide, the Government, as was announced on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, have decided that, exceptionally, grant should be paid at the rate of 75 per cent. on all programme expenditure. The rate of 75 per cent. will also apply to the not dissimilar grants payable under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 towards the cost of staff employed by local authorities who have to make special provision for carrying out their functions because of the presence of immigrants whose language and customs diner from those of the rest of the community. In the case of Section 11, the new rate of grant will apply from April 1, 1169. In the case of the grant under this Bill, it will be possible under Clause 1 to pay specific grant at the new rate on account of expenditure incurred during the current financial year.
The local authority associations have reserved their position upon these financial points and they have urged in discussion with the appropriate authorities that, because of the strong national interest in the development of the urban programme, the grant should be a 100 per cent. The Home Secretary understands their views and in particular their

1099
anxiety on behalf of those authorities who may have to make an additional call on the rates to provide their 25 per cent. contribution, but he has taken the view that there is clearly a local as well as a national interest in the implementation of the urban programme and that the 25 per cent. share of expenditure which will be borne by the local authorities taking part in the programme is not disproportionate to the balance of national and local responsibilities. The rate of 75 per cent. is itself an exceptionally high rate, as noble Lords with local Government experience will agree, and clearly indicates the importance which the Government attach to the programme. Discussions with local authority associations will continue in order to sort out some of the technical problems that the establishment of the programme will undoubtedly present. One of the most important of these will be the extent to which it is going to be possible to achieve a more objective assessment of comparative social need to supplement the information that the Government already have or that can be put forward by local authorities themselves.
In the initial phase of the programme, as announced by Ministers on Tuesday of this week approval in principle has now been given to building projects totalling about £3½ million for the 34 local authorities selected on a pre-determined criteria as being those within whose areas special social need clearly exists. The full programme will provide aid to deal with a broad spectrum of social problems, but the schemes already approved in the first phase are mainly in the field of additional nursery school provision and child care, thus fulfilling the promise in the gracious Speech; for the Government take the view, which I am sure is shared by all noble Lords, that it is the pre-school child growing up in areas of acute social need who is in most urgent need of help at this stage—help which is essential if these young children are to have a reasonable start in life and which will have a permanent effect on their later development. Since the war, and in spite of the 1944 Education Act, nursery education has tended to be a Cinderella of the education services in this country. Every Government has agreed that it is desirable, but until now
1100
no resources have been allocated specifically to extend it. There are still some shortages both of capital for building and of teachers to staff the schools; but, despite this, the time has surely come to make a start, if only initially, in these areas of greatest need.
The Government are therefore happy to have been able to approve to date 138 projects for nursery education, totalling over £1⅓ million of expenditure; to provide an additional 191 nursery classes, including 21 new nursery schools. Altogether 5,250 additional full-time nursery school places will be provided by this means. The initial phase also provides for 32 new or extended day nurseries, to assist young children whose homes or family circumstances are such that they require day care; these, together with one or two other projects, will cost just over £1·4 million. In addition, £723,000 has been allotted to the approval of 22 children's homes to provide residential accommodation for children who have to be received into care by local authorities.
Furthermore local authorities will very shortly be asked to make proposals for further expenditure under the programme up to a limit of about £2 million. This will cover the same period of time as the £3 million approvals which have already been issued—that is to say, up to April 1970. Although the ceiling of expenditure is limited, it will enable authorities outside the original 34 to bid for the type of projects approved in the initial phase. We also hope to widen the scope of the programme to include such developments as family advice centres, play groups, language classes for immigrants and aid to voluntary bodies who run play groups or make other relevant contributions to the social needs of their areas. I should like here to underline the importance of considering family-centred projects on this next round, including family advice centres. Just as the Government are taking a new look at the social and educational needs of the under-fives in the first phase of the programme, the second phase will take a new look at the need to help families as a whole, the parents as well as the children.
In all, about £6 million will be approved by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland for the remainder

1101
of this financial year and for 1969–70. The remainder of the £20-£25 million programme will be kept for the two years following, and the study of its allocation has already begun. Here, as in the previous phase, we shall welcome the views of local authorities on what is best for their areas. But one thing we intend to study is the possibility of concentrating socially valuable projects upon a district of special social need—what one might call "multiple schemes for multiple needs." And I should just mention in this connection that, as reported recently in the Press, the Government are now actively considering community development projects to tackle poverty and deprivation in selected areas by new methods. Negotiations with the local authority associations and any necessary consultation with voluntary organisations on these proposals are not yet complete, so your Lordships will not expect me to go into detail; but I assure the House that as soon as they are complete a full Government statement will be made.
I should like to conclude by saying a word about the significance of the programme as I see it. Allowing for the limitations of size—and I have already indicated that it is not intended to solve all urban problems—I am sure that everyone concerned with the development of the social services will welcome this positive approach by the Government. Perhaps the warmest welcome will come from those—and there are some who sit in this House—who agree with the weight of opinion that has urged upon the Government, as the Plowden and Seebohm Committees and others have done, the urgent need to do something about the under-fives in socially deprived areas. Though the scope of the programme in its early stages may be limited, the Government's intention is that the programme should be a continuing one. My Lords, this is a Bill of great opportunity and social significance, and I commend it to the House as a measure designed to play its part in improving conditions for all our citizens alike who live in areas of special social need. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Baroness Serota.)
6.53 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Baroness has rightly
1102
described this as a short but significant Bill. It is wholly concerned with money grants from the Exchequer. Therefore it is not surprising to find that Mr. Speaker has certified it as a Money Bill. This means that the Bill could be passed unamended over your Lordships' heads. I do not think that this will cause any anxiety to your Lordships, because I feel quite certain that this Bill will receive here the same unanimous assent that it received in another place. In Standing Committee in another place no Amendments to it were moved, and it went through all its stages unopposed. I feel sure it will meet with the same good fortune here, and I will delay the House only with just a few questions on which I think noble Lords will wish to be satisfied.
The noble Baroness, I know, has very near to her heart many of the causes which this Bill will advance. She always speaks persuasively when she moves the Second Reading of a Bill. On this occasion, particularly in sections where she was explaining the relation of this new grant to the rate-support grant, I thought she spoke like a financial wizard. That is intended as a compliment—it might be misinterpreted. I, for my part, am delighted that the Government are showing this further recognition of the fact that there are certain areas—it may even be certain neighbourhoods—which require special attention.
This new approach was started, I believe, when under the Conservative Government a special study was made of the needs of the North-East by Mr. Quintin Hogg, as he now is. That led to a reshaping of Government policies to give special aid to the social infrastructure, if I may use that word, of certain regions, and it has been considerably developed in the six or seven years since into a full-blown regional policy. This seems to me another aspect of that approach. Now, led by the Plowden Report, we are singling out particular neighbourhoods as areas where those who are living in them, or are being brought up in them, may not for environmental reasons have the same opportunities as the rest of their fellow citizens, and for that reason special financial assistance is required. I wish this Bill well, and I hope that the application and administration of it will go forward quickly.

1103
I wonder whether the noble Baroness can give us any up-to-date information about a further circular which was foreshadowed in the debate in another place. The Government issued, on October 4, a circular which indicated that, in the chronological sense, first priority was to be given to nursery schools and classes, and day nurseries and children's homes. Ministers in another place expressed the hope that before Christmas they would be issuing a further circular to local authorities which, as I understood the matter, would enlarge the field that they would be prepared to consider for grant purposes next. It seems to me that it is very desirable that that circular should be issued as soon as possible. If it is not out yet, I take it as disappointing that now, four weeks after Christmas, the local authorities are still waiting for that further guidance.
Next, am I right in thinking that any grants under this Bill, in the current financial year and in the next financial year at any rate, will be new money? Will it be additional money made available by the Exchequer, and not money found by reducing other grants that would otherwise be made to these or other local authorities? I confess that until the noble Baroness spoke I was quite certain that the answer to that was, "Yes". But I was not at all sure that I followed all her exposition with my intellect, and so I still venture to ask that question. If I may put it in other words: Is this a distribution of money, or is it a redistribution?
My third question, to which I greatly hope the noble Baroness will be able to give me an affirmative answer, is this. Are the Government satisfied that subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill is drawn widely enough to permit local authorities to use grant money under the Bill for assisting voluntary organisations that are engaged in meeting special social needs, instead of the local authorities spending all the grant money themselves? As we know, this is a four-year programme, dealing with extra expenditure of about £5 million or £6 million a year, and that extra expenditure is to attract 75 per cent. grant. Frankly, these amounts of £5 million or £6 million a year will not go very far if they are all to be spent on new local authority enter-
1104
prises. They will be able to benefit a great many more people in social need if they are used, in part at any rate, as financial support to enable voluntary bodies to extend the size of their existing efforts. From my study of the matter I feel virtually sure that that is what the Government intend. All I am asking here is for an assurance that there is nothing in subsection (1) of Clause 1 which will restrict the local authority from using this Government money in aid of voluntary efforts.
My fourth question is whether the financial need of the local authority concerned is to be taken into account. I am given to understand that the richest of the London boroughs may qualify for grant. That may be right, but it will mean so much less for helping far more impoverished authorities to cope with social need in their areas; and my fear is that some areas may lose grant which, on grounds of human compassion, they deserve to have for some of their people's needs, through the limited amount of money being in part distributed to other local authorities which are commonly regarded as affluent.
My next question—I am coming to the end of them—is this. Will each local authority be able to determine its own priorities under this grant scheme? Of course, they will have to attend to what Ministers have said in Government circulars, but when a local authority puts up its proposals to the Government, indicating in those proposals what are the most urgent steps to take in the opinion of the local authority, will the Government then be prepared to accept that authority's judgment on priorities? I would submit that the scheme will never work smoothly if the Government reserve the liberty to say, "No—these proposals that you have put up are not the most urgent measures to take; we will not grant-aid these; we know your area better than you do; you have your priorities wrong; Whitehall knows best." If that policy were adopted in any Department, it would gravely impair the smooth and successful working of this scheme.
Lastly, my Lords, as it is no secret that most of the areas which the Bill is designed to benefit are areas where large Commonwealth immigration has accentuated social need which was there already, may be for many years before

1105
—Notting Hill is a clear example of that which presents itself to my mind—are the Government satisfied that if some £19 million of Government grant over four years (that is, 75 per cent. of £25 million or so) was enough at the time when the Government announced this policy some six months ago, it will still be enough to meet the much bigger needs of 1972, the end of the four-year period, by which time, under present Government policies, another 200,000 immigrants will have arrived in this country and, in accordance with all our expectation, will themselves largely concentrate in the type of area to be delineated here as "an area of social need"?
My Lords, I think the Bill is a good idea. I think it is overdue. Actually, I see nothing whatever in the Bill that limits expenditure to the figures mentioned in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. Indeed, I wonder whether there has ever been an important financial Bill so vaguely drawn as this, giving such unfettered discretion to a Minister. I sympathise with what the noble Baroness said about flexibility, but this is a question of Parliamentary control. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 says:
"The Secretary of State may out of moneys provided by Parliament pay grants, of such amounts as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine, to local authorities who in his opinion are required in the exercise of any of their functions to incur expenditure by reason of the existence in any urban area of special social need."
Subsection (2) says:
"Grants under this section may be paid at such times, subject to such conditions and on account of such expenditure … as the Secretary of State may determine."
I am astonished that this was considered good and precise enough in another place, but, my Lords, that is their business rather than ours—more's the pity! Parliamentary control over expenditure does not seem to me to be quite what it was when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
I think the noble Baroness will agree that the questions I have asked are relevant questions, and if there are any of them which she would prefer not to answer on the spur of the moment but to reply to on Third Reading, then of course I shall entirely understand. But all the time we are considering a Bill like this I have a disturbing belief that the worst tightness affecting all this
1106
acutely needed social work is, in the last resort, not money but sufficient qualified people to carry on and extend the work. That is why we so badly need, through the voluntary associations, to call forth the help of all sorts of selfless people of good will. I hope noble Lords in all parts of the House will be prepared to join with me in expressing gratitude and admiration to all these men and women, white and coloured, paid and unpaid, trained and untrained, who are so manfully grappling with the pressing needs of people in these difficult neighbourhoods, and who would never think of going on strike, working to rule or sitting down in protest so long as there was work to be clone and services to be given to their fellow men.
7.7 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships long, but I could not allow this occasion to pass without expressing a warm welcome to an admittedly fairly small but significant beginning in the provision of additional nursery schools and classes. In fact, I was extremely pleasantly pleased, if I caught the noble Baroness's financial wizardry aright, to hear her say that 191 new nursery schools and classes were to be provided under this initial programme. That is a significantly better performance even than was forecast in another place where I think the figure was thought to be something like 150.
This is certainly not the time, though it could be the place, to argue in detail the case in favour of increased nursery education. In any event, it hardly needs much arguing, particularly in present company. The only difference between us might lie in the difference in priority that we think it should be given. After all, the Report of the Plowden Committee made a very convincing case for pre-school education, particularly in the areas where, as the Committee put it:
"the jobs people do and the status they hold owe little to education".
It is worth reminding ourselves that, according to their survey, 29 per cent. of all our homes had five books or less. In such circumstances, it surely might well be too late to wait until a child is five before introducing him or her to the use of the mind and the imagination.
But, of course, the value of nursery education is not confined to children in deprived areas. It can be of immense

1107
value to all sorts of children—in fact, in every case where a mother does not have the time or the inclination to play with the child; and with children of this age playing matters just as much as learning. The busy housewife, as well as the working mother, is quite likely to neglect her children through no fault of her own, and special difficulties arise when a family is living high up in a modern block of flats. Certainly, too, I would stress, as did my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the value of pre-school education in areas where many immigrants live, not only from the point of view of teaching them English at any early age but also from the point of view of integrating young immigrant children into the local community.
Moreover, it often happens, particularly in the case of voluntarily run play groups, where the mothers play a considerable part in the running of the groups, that by the same process the parents, as well as the children, get to know each other. And it can all take place in an atmosphere where both have the same sympathetic interests. In fact I think it is an arguable proposition that money might well be more usefully and better spent at the bottom end of the educational ladder than at the top. After all, if we could implant in children at an early enough age an interest in learning and an enjoyment of school, we should be giving them a desire to educate themselves which would never leave them; and a person willing and keen to learn poses no problem at later stages of education.
My Lords, although of course I welcome the Bill, it only touches the fringes of the problem. Even in the areas of special social need the finance available does not go very far. But at least I am happy to know the number of schemes that have been approved. I understand that in the Inner London Education Area some two-thirds of the schemes put forward have been accepted. This is a very satisfactory result, and I was particularly happy to know that the choice had been wisely made and that those schemes which were most economical were chosen, in preference to those which were expensive; in other words, that fewer new nursery schools were approved but that schemes making use of existing rooms, and places where huts could be provided, were chosen.
1108
On the theme of the best use of the money available, I should like to follow what was said by my noble friend Lord Brooke about the use of the voluntary societies. I believe I am right in saying that the annual cost of maintaining a child in a local authority nursery school or class is £150 per annum, and in a day nursery £250. Yet some of the voluntary play groups, which in the work they do do not differ substantially from the nursery classes, manage to make provision on a half-day basis for under £50 per annum per child. Admittedly in some of these voluntary groups the standards are not so high and the buildings are often makeshift, rather than purpose-built schools. And those in charge may not always be fully qualified teachers, although the children are always supervised by a fully qualified teacher; and, as I mentioned earlier, mothers may well play a big part in the play groups.
But while such groups may be of considerably lower standards, they have positive advantages not only in the saving of money, both capital and income, and in the conservation of scarce teacher resources—and we should not forget that the Plowden Committee recommended that one qualified teacher should be in charge of 60 children with nursery assistants to every 10 children underneath her—but also in the use of mothers, the involvement of mothers, with great benefits both for the mothers and the children. In fact, I believe that the Preschool Play Group Association have started to run courses for mothers which have proved extremely popular and have been of real benefit in helping mothers to understand their own and other people's children.
Certainly the Inner London Education Authority have recognised the value of voluntary effort. They recently made a grant to the "Save the Children" Fund for starting another nine play groups in new housing estates. This is where I hope that the Government will follow up what was said by my noble friend. He referred to this second circular which we have been promised. In another place it was stated that it would bring the local authorities into discussions on matters of family advice centres and assistance for play groups. The noble Baroness repeated that this was intended. I hope that this circular will specifically

1109
mention local voluntary organisations and will encourage local authorities to get in touch with them to see whether they can put up schemes that would make full use of voluntary effort. I presume that under the Local Government Act 1948 it is open to local authorities to help these voluntary societies; but I imagine that the authorities' natural instinct when bidding for scarce funds is to give priority to their own projects and that the local voluntary effort might suffer. So I am hoping that the Government will urge upon the local authorities the need to take into account the assistance that could be given to them in this field by local voluntary organisations.
My Lords I welcome the Bill and I urge that, side by side with the statutory provisions, financial support may be made available in suitable cases for voluntary assistance.
7.17 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am sure that the House would not wish to be detained at this late hour with a long and detailed reply to the points made by both noble Lords who have spoken. Nevertheless, we would all wish to thank them warmly for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, as in the past, has made the case for nursery school education, and we are all glad that he finds pleasure in this Bill and in the extension of nursery education even on a limited scale. I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who has done a very heavy stint on the Front Bench to-day—first on a very big Bill of national importance and then on this small Bill which some of us regard as of equal national importance. He asked me some eight questions. I will try to answer them this evening briefly, but I shall also read his remarks carefully in Hansard tomorrow. If I find any point that I have omitted to answer I will do so in writing.
First, both he and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked when the next circular is coming. I understand that it is in draft and has been fully discussed with the local authorities. This is quite a time-consuming process. I have already indicated that it is the Government's wish that this programme should be a joint operation between central
1110
and local government, and therefore a considerable amount of preliminary discussion has preceded the issue of the circular. I understand that the circular is to be available within the nest fortnight. It will indicate to local authorities the kind of projects which the Government are willing to consider favourably for the next phase of the programme.
My Lords, the next question that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked was whether this was new money. I can assure him that, certainly for the next two years, this money is additional to the rate support grant. The House of Commons was told in a Statement by my right honourable friend on July 22 that the cost of the programme has been set against the general economies made in the course of the normal processes of managing Government expenditure programmes. If I were speaking personally, I would say that I wish they could do it more often for purposes of this kind.
The third question was raised by both noble Lords. Would these monies be available to assist voluntary organisations working in local authority areas? I will write to both noble Lords about this point. I am sure that they are eligible for these monies; but I am not quite certain—I should like to be accurate here—whether the grant is made to the local authority who will then assist the voluntary organisations within their areas, or whether the grant will be made to the voluntary organisations direct.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think that I can assist the noble Baroness. I am virtually certain, from debates in another place, that these grants will be made to local authorities and cannot be made direct to the voluntary organisations. I want to be completely assured that the wording of Clause 1 is such that it will not be ultra vires for local authorities to pass on some part of the grant to voluntary organisations.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He has saved my writing a letter, because I can in fact give him that particular assurance. There is no question whatever that voluntary organisations will be eligible to receive funds from this programme via the local authorities in schemes which have been approved on the basis which I have already indicated.

1111
The next question I was asked related to who would determine the priorities: would central Government be telling local authorities their business or would local authorities be free to decide what particular kind of schemes were needed in their neighbourhoods? This, as I have already said, will be an operation conducted on a partnership arrangement between central Government and local government. The Government will indicate, as they have already done in the first circular, the kind of project which they think will meet needs in particular areas. It will be for local authorities, on the basis of their local knowledge of their areas and the services in the areas and the unmet needs within the areas, to submit projects to the Home Office which will then be the subject of discussion, decision and eventually allocation.
I think that in all fairness one should say that one of the difficulties is that the tools and techniques of social planning to-day have not reached the stage where there is a wide acceptance of it or indeed where we even have widely practised techniques for systematic assessment of multiple social needs. This is one of the areas in which work is being done with a view to seeing whether we can more effectively measure comparative social needs as between different areas. As noble Lords may be aware, in certain parts of the country a considerable amount of work in this field is already done in connection with the Plowden educational priority areas and the criteria on which certain areas have been selected. We have a great deal more knowledge to gain in this sphere, and I think that one of the questions in the mind of the noble Lord when he asked this particular question relates to who is to decide which need is greater. This will be a question for discussion, for assessment and for, as I have already indicated, a better development of our tools of measurement, which is something which can come only by experience. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that it is uppermost in the mind of the Government and is at present the subject of discussion with different local authorities, some of whom have already developed certain techniques in this particular field.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, although what the noble Baroness has said is very valuable and important,
1112
it does not quite cover the point I was asking. What I had in mind was this. Once it has been accepted by everybody that a certain area is an area of social need and the local authority concerned may have put up to the Government, say, a nursery school project as being, after careful consideration, the most urgent priority need in its area, I am anxious that the Government will not then say, "Oh, you know nothing about it. We know your area better than you do. What you need is a day nursery project." Because in that way I do not think there will be sufficient good will generated between local authorities and Government Departments to ensure the smooth administration of these grants.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware, as I am, that he is touching on what is perhaps one of the most delicate areas of concern in the relationships between local government and central Government. My answer to him—and I hope that he will accept it—is that it is for the local authority to submit schemes, as I have said, on the basis of its local knowledge of local needs and the people in the area and their unmet needs. Ultimately it will be for the Home Office, or in the case of nursery schools the Department of Education, to decide, in co-operation and in collaboration with local authorities, which are the schemes which will be eligible for grant under this programme. I do not know whether that satisfies the noble Lord. I can only assure him that it is the wish, and indeed the intention, of the Government that this programme should go forward on the basis of a partnership. That undertaking and assurance has in fact been given to the local authorities in the many discussions. This is the only way in which we can see this as being a successful programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked whether, in view of the increasing number of immigrants in certain parts of the country, the Government took the view that this programme was going to be sufficient, particularly in the period after 1970. I have already indicated that this urban aid programme is not confined solely to areas of acute social need that have within them a concentration of immigrant population. It is designed to assist citizens of this country of all kinds,

1113
be they immigrants from the Commonwealth or not. I have also indicated that the Government intend this to be an ongoing programme, eventually to become part of the rate-support grant programme, and in this sense it will be a matter that will be kept under continuing consideration and continuous review so that proper and adequate arrangements can be made for its continuation into the next period.
My Lords, all of us would join with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in paying tribute to the people who are involved in the services that are the subject of our concern tonight. Of course it is true that the quality of these services is determined by the quality of those who serve in them, be they voluntary or professional paid staff. I was a little concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in his desire—quite a proper desire, and one that we all share—to praise the continuing efforts of staff in difficult circumstances may perhaps have given the impression that the buildings were not important. Of course staff are more important than buildings but, for example, for the teachers in some of these socially deprived areas perhaps the greatest help that one could give them
1114
would be to provide better buildings. It is not the determining factor but it would give them better tools with which they can do a better job. We shall all, I think, agree that better facilities will help the staff to do a better job.
My Lords, I hope that I have answered all the questions raised. If not, I will, as I have already indicated, write to both the noble Lords concerned. I think that we all take great pleasure in joining together to steer this very modest Bill through your Lordships' House, and after some of the mammoth Bills with which we had to struggle in the last Session one takes even greater pleasure in it. I did not think that there could be such a thing as a two-clause Bill, after the long days and nights spent dealing with the Town and Country Planning Bill, in which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor played such a valuable part. I would simply once again commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.
House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.