Sitting of 6 May 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION
Mr. Secretary Rosspresented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to British Transport Docks: And the same was ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 173.]
COATBRIDGE BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION
Mr. Secretary Rosspresented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Coatbridge Burgh: And the same was ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 174.]
REGENT, ROYAL AND CARLTON TERRACE GARDENS, EDINBURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Sydney Irving): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:

SCHEDULE
Standing Order 31, line 8, leave out (Navy Department)'.
Standing Order 39, line 3, after 'Security', insert ' and at the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications '.
Standing Order 39, line 6, leave out 'the General Post Office'.
Standing Order 39, line 11, leave out 'the Ministry of Power'.
Standing Order 39, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
Standing Order 75, line 15, 'after although', insert neither '.
Standing Order 75, line 17, leave out 'or' and insert nor
Standing Order 75, line 17, leave out 'not'.
Standing Order 192A, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert:
Provided that

(a) a petition may be prepared otherwise than in writing by hand; and

(b) except in the case of a petition for a Private Bill or a petition for additional provision in a Private Bill, a petition may be signed on behalf of the petitioner by his agent.

(2) A petition signed by the petitioner's agent shall, when so deposited, be accompanied by a written authority of the petitioner or petitioners authorising the agent to sign the petition on his or their behalf.
Standing Order 244, line 10, leave out 'presenting the counter-petition' and insert 'by whom or on whose behalf the counter-petition is presented'.
Standing Order 244, line 25, after 'signed', insert 'or whose agent signed'.
The Amendment to Standing Order 192A makes it possible for Petitions against Bills to be signed by the Parliamentary Agent concerned on behalf of his client. This follows representations made to me that it is sometimes difficult for such Petitions to be formally signed and sealed within the strict limits laid down by the existing Standing Order. I have carefully considered this matter, and I now commend to the House this Amendment, which includes provision for an important safeguard against abuse of this relaxation of the rules.
The other Amendments are of a drafting or routine character.
Question put and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Personnel
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a further statement regarding the shortage of personnel, in total, in the three Armed Forces of the Crown at 1st April, 1970; and whether the figure of 11,000 estimated at 1st April, 1970, relates to the same total service establishment as extant on 1st April, 1969.
    The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The total requirement for trained male officers and other ranks fell by about 9,000 during the period.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman still evades answering the Question which I have put to him twice. Do the figures for the total establishment of the three Armed Forces at the end of 1969 correspond exactly to the total establishment at the end of 1970, and do the respective shortages for those two dates, given as 9,900 and 11,000 respectively, both appertain to the same total establishment figure or to different establishment figures?
    Mr. Hattersley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's Question. I understood it when he asked me a month ago. I answered it then, and I have answered it today.
    Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has not.
    Mr. Hattersley: The establishment which we regard as the trained necessity fell during the year by the figure I have quoted. That is the simple and absolutely straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question.
    Mr. Ramsden: I think that it would help the House and save me a later supplementary question if the hon. Gentleman would give the comparative percentage shortfall in establishments in the two years.
    Mr. Hattersley: I shall give those figures in a Written Answer if the right hon.
    378
    Gentleman puts down a Question. It is a complicated matter to define the requirements for trained strength, bearing in mind other matters. There is no reason why one would want to keep the information from the House. It is a matter of not wishing to give a long-winded answer if the right hon. Gentleman asked a longwinded question.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current ratio of civilian, non-industrial and industrial to military personnel employed by or serving in the defence forces; and what increase or decline there has been in this ratio since 1964.
    Mr. Hattersley: The ratio of civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence to military personnel in the Services has gone down from 0·87 to 1 in 1964 to a current figure of 0·84 to 1.
    Mr. Hooley: I welcome that answer in general terms, but will my right hon Friend explain why, in that case, the number of civilian scientists employed by his Department has gone up by 6 per cent., with a net increase of 360, in the past five years, according to information supplied to me by his Department? Will he explain this in the light of the publicised reduction in the military research effort?
    Mr. Hattersley: The answer is that during the period of reduction there has also been a period of increasing sophistication of our defence capability, which naturally calls for additional scientists.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is not the improved ratio due to the fact that the Government have cut the teeth arms and uniformed services without cutting the civilian staff to the same extent?
    Mr. Hattersley: No, that is absolutely wrong, and if the hon. Gentleman will read Annexes E and F of the current statement on defence expenditure he will see how wrong he is.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing
    asked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the final recruiting figures for the financial year 1969–70; and what is the current shortfall to the latest date for all three Services.
    Mr. Hattersley: Final recruiting figures for the financial year 1969–70 are not yet

    379
    available. Provisional totals are about 35,250 male other ranks, making a shortfall of about 12,400.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: In view of the very alarming shortfall of 12,400 recruits, would it not be wise for the Government to seek to stop the forced rundown of forces, and the non-voluntary redundancy which is particularly being forced on the Fleet Air Arm, until such time as recruiting improves?
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman should consider the figure of shortfall with some caution. It has largely resulted from recruiting failures in previous years which produced a cumulative shortfall. The recruiting figure last year is, we believe, about 7,000 better than in the previous year, and the indications are that this improvement will continue.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply to this Question and the earlier Questions on redundancy, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment on an early occasion.

    United States Military Aircraft
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Defence what revised estimate he has now made of the total cost of United States military aircraft, including the Phantom, to be delivered and accepted in the year to 5th April, 1971, expressed in£s sterling; and to what extent reciprocal sales of such aircraft as the Harrier jump-jet and other types and Rolls Royce jet engines, to the United States of America diminish the United Kingdom's outgoings in the year stated.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): No United States military aircraft are due to be delivered in the current financial year but continuing dollar expenditure associated with these purchases will amount to about£60 million this year. The answer to the second part of the Question is well over£20 million.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Those two then, comparing the one with the other, mean that the net outgoings in this year will be only of the order of£40 million?
    Mr. Healey: The situation is even better than that, because expenditure in
    380
    dollars by American Forces stationed in this country in itself is sufficient to cover the whole£60 million to which I have referred.

    Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a further statement on the progress of the multi-rôle combat aircraft project.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the multi-rôle combat aircraft proposal.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the multi-rôle combat aircraft project.
    Mr. Healey: We are examining with our partners the results of the project definition study which has just ended. I hope to be in a position to make a statement in a few weeks' time.
    Mr. Onslow: When shall we be told how much it will all cost?
    Mr. Healey: I am consulting the other Governments concerned about the release of information. I appreciate the desire of the House to have more facts on both numbers and costs than it has been possible to give so far. Until agreement has been reached on proceeding to the development stage, some of the consequences of recent German decisions have been dealt with, and I have received the agreement of my partners to give further information, I am unable to give it.
    Mr. Marten: If the Germans are reducing their orders to 400, and we are uplifting ours to 400, as the Germans have not designed a combat aircraft for 25 years is not this the appropriate moment for Britain to reconsider whether we should not have industrial leadership in this project?
    Mr. Healey: Inevitably, the arrangements for work sharing of the project are complicated by the German decision to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and this is one of the matters now under negotiation.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it proper for the Minister to deny month after month to the

    381
    House and to the taxpayer even an approximate estimate of this expenditure, which must run into hundreds of millions of pounds?
    Mr. Healey: It is not a question of denying information. The point is to get the agreement of my partners, the other two Governments concerned, to the publication of figures which will not even be known until agreement on the form of the development phase has finally been determined. I would be very much under criticism if I gave the House figures which had no basis in fact.
    Mr. Rippon: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance that he will make a full statement about the position as soon as possible. Could he say what is the attitude of other Governments, including the Italian Government, to the project? We are grateful that he has shown an awareness of the anxieties about this project. Have the Government any contingency plans for the production of alternative aircraft if these negotiations should break down?
    Mr. Healey: There is no question whatever of negotiations breaking down. Indeed, we are now in the final stages of reaching agreement on proceedings to the development phase. On the question about the Italian Government, since the Germans decided not to order the single-seater version of the aircraft, the Italians have also decided not to order that particular aircraft since they would have been the only country wanting a single-seater version. They have not yet decided their attitude on the two-seater version.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: Could my right hon. Friend say what will be the in-service date of this aircraft? Is he hopeful that there will be export sales to third countries?
    Mr. Healey: On the first question, that is one of the matters on which I want to consult my partners before giving information. On the second question, I believe that this aircraft will be unique in the world when produced because there will be no aircraft with this type of capability, particularly in short field performance, at anything like the price at which this will be available.
    An Han. Member: What about TSR2?
    Mr. Healey: That would be much more expensive.

    Military Aircraft Projects (Information)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will advise the firms carrying out military aircraft projects for Her Majesty's Government that there is no official objection to their making available to hon. Members of this House any information which he himself has made available to journalists at a non-attributable Press briefing.
    Mr. Healey: No, Sir.
    Mr. Onslow: What is the Minister afraid of? Clearly not me, but perhaps of some of his friends? What inhibits him giving freely to this House information which, in spite of the Official Secrets Act, he seems willing to give to journalists?
    Mr. Healey: I can assure the hon. Member that I find him comic rather than alarming. On the second question, as the House knows, many estimates have been published in the Press. Indeed, Flight published two quite different estimates in recent weeks.
    Mr. Rippon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we regard it as quite unsatisfactory that he should make a personal comment about one of my hon. Friends? Does he realise that there is considerable anxiety, which has been expressed on both sides of the House, about the way in which information is available to the Press which is not made available to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Healey: As I have pointed out in my answer to a previous question, I would have thought the right hon. Gentleman, who is a Shadow Minister of Defence, an office which I hope he will hold for a very long time, would recognise that it is necessary, when attacked, to defend oneself. On the other question, many figures have appeared in the Press, even the same newspapers, which have differed from time to time. I cannot take responsibility for any of those figures, but if I can get the agreement of my partners I shall seek to give the House more figures when we proceed to the development.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is the Secretary of State aware that the figures about M.R.C.A. upon which we as Members are relying are based on something we saw in the Financial Times two weeks ago?
    Mr. Healey: I am not aware of that, but I am interested to know the papers my hon. Friend reads.
    Mr. Onslow: In view of the cynical and unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Beira Patrol
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost to date of the ships and aircraft engaged in the Beira patrol and those supporting them, including all pay, fuel and repairs, as well as trooping.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the effectiveness, and cost to date to public funds, of the Beira patrol, including the air component based in Malagasy.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): To calculate all the total cost to date of the patrol would involve a disproportionate amount of effort. The average annual running cost of the ships and aircraft normally engaged on the patrol is about£2·75 million, but this would have been incurred wherever the forces concerned were employed. The total extra cost to date is about£1·75 million. The patrol has been most effective in denying any oil through Beira to Rhodesia, and the Umtali refinery is closed.
    Mr. Wingfield-Digby: Is it not a fact that the Minister wishes to conceal the extent to which the resources of the Fleet are being squandered on this irrelevant exercise? Will he instead pay attention to the needs of the Merchant Navy, as recommended by the Rochdale Report out today, which has been neglected?
    Dr. Owen: There is certainly no question of hiding the extra costs. These extra costs are important, and they have been given to the House on numerous occasions.
    Mr. Henig: Is it not the case that these costs need not continue to be incurred if it were not for the fact that hon. Members opposite are encouraging the illegal Smith régime to continue its illegality by making suggestions that should the Conservatives ever return to power they will change this country's policy? Ought my hon. Friend not to draw it to the attention of Mr. Smith that the majority of opinion polls now suggest that it will be a very long time before the Conservatives return to power?
    Dr. Owen: Any support by hon. Members opposite on this issue has been noticeable by its absence, but we have carried out to the full our obligations under the Security Council Resolution of 9th April, 1966.
    Mr. Rippon: In assessing these costs, does the hon. Gentleman use the same method of slice costing as does the Secretary of State when assessing the cost of aircraft carriers in the area? If not, what is the cost on that basis?
    Dr. Owen: As I have said, the extra cost of the patrol is less than£400,000 a year. It is not possible to provide a complete allocation of all the administrative and support costs to particular teeth units. It has never been the practice to do so, and it is not the practice at the moment.

    Brunei (Defence)
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the request by Brunei to retain and pay for a battalion of Gurkhas.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is, and will be, the British contribution to the defence of Brunei.
    Mr. Healey: Twenty-four officers and twenty other ranks from all three Services are currently on loan to the Brunei armed forces. At present there is one Gurkha battalion in Brunei as part of the forces now stationed in South-East Asia. As regards the future the Government decided in 1968, as the House knows, progressively to withdraw British forces from South-East Asia over the period up to the end of 1971. This, of course, includes the Gurkha battalion in

    385
    Brunei. We have been holding confidential discussions with the Sultan, not yet concluded, about the consequences of this decision for Brunei. While the full costs of the Gurkha battalion are at present met by the Brunei Government, in the future the problem will be a question no longer of finance alone but of the total resources available in terms especially of backing and support.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is it not a fact that the Government policy east of Suez was to continue what they called the residual colonial responsibilities? Is not Brunei a protectorate, and if they are to rat and ask Brunei to pay for the cost of the Gurkha battalion, what security will there be for other protectorates for which we are still responsible?
    Mr. Healey: If the hon. Gentleman reads the treaty with Brunei, he will know that the Brunei constitutional position in relation to Her Majesty's Government is different from that of other protectorates.
    Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, while the Gurkha Regiment has served this country in the past, it is now an anachronism in terms of our imperial days, and that the economic circumstances in Brunei and elsewhere should be improved so as not to place reliance on the Gurkha Regiment?
    Mr. Healey: I do not accept that view. Recruiting to the Gurkha Regiment plays a part in sustaining the economy of Nepal, but I am certain that particular factor is not a major one in determining the attitude of the Nepal Government on this matter.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? In particular, there are a great many volunteers in Nepal who are prepared to serve in Gurkha battalions. If they are being paid, as is the case at the moment, by the Brunei Government, would he not use them as an extra battalion after 1971 for exchange with the troops who will be stationed in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Healey: I cannot undertake to do that. The question of the withdrawal of the Brunei battalion is already settled, and this is well understood. The House will recall that there was no Gurkha battalion—or any British troops—in Brunei until 1962.

    Serviceman's Death, Malta
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will order an independent inquiry into the circumstances relating to the death of a radar plotter from H.M.S. "Hermes", particulars of which have been sent to him, whose injured body was recovered from the harbour at Malta on 25th February last after he had been missing from his ship for 19 days.
    Dr. David Owen: This is properly a matter for the Maltese authorities, and the examining magistrate reported yesterday on the outcome of their inquiries; I understand that what amounted to an open verdict was recorded. A full report of the proceedings is being sent to me today and I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can.
    Mr. Wilson: That is unsatisfactory. When a Serviceman dies in peculiar circumstances overseas it is natural that the British public should want to know the reason for his death. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I and others have been asking questions for some time about this affair but that we have not been given any hard information or, to date, any news of what the coroner found in this case? We have merely been told that this man was not murdered. How did his injured body come to be in the harbour at Malta?
    Dr. Owen: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety on this issue, and I have profound sympathy for the relatives of this man. I suggest that he and I should await the full report of the coroner. The delay that has occurred has been due to administrative difficulties and the sickness of the magistrate who acts as coroner in Malta.

    Establishment
    Mr. Ramsdenasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the peacetime establishment for male officers, other ranks, junior soldiers, boys and apprentices on 1st April in each year since 1966.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Ivor Richard): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Ramsden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that until a Minister answers the question on this subject posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire South (Sir G. Nabarro) the House will have no means of comparing the shortfall from year to year against the establishment figures and that there will continue to be concern lest the rate at which the Government are proceeding with redundancies is much too fast having regard to the present state of recruiting? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the House should be given the perfectly simple information for which hon. Members have been asking?
    Mr. Richard: If hon. Gentlemen opposite would ask for perfectly simple information they would get it, but if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Question, which I have answered, he will see that it does not in any way speak of a shortfall. It merely asks for the establishment figures, and those I have given.
    Following are the figures
    The peacetime establishment for U.K. enlisted male officers and other ranks on 1st April in each year since 1966 was as follows

    Officers

    Soldiers

    1st April, 1966

    …

    20,300

    159,700

    1st April, 1967

    …

    20,360

    160,770

    1st April, 1968

    …

    19,820

    159,180

    1st April, 1969

    …

    18,889

    155,111

    1st April, 1970

    …

    18,300

    148,700

    There are no establishment figures for junior soldiers, boys and apprentices.

    Overseas Forces (Costs)
    Mr. Ramsdenasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the resource cost of forces stationed overseas related to the foreign exchange cost.
    Mr. Healey: As I explained to the House on 8th April, this depends on the location and composition of the forces. The answer to the Question may not be the same in all circumstances. [Vol. 799, c. 529–30.]
    Mr. Ramsden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told us in March that, broadly speaking, one could arrive at the resource cost of a force in a theatre by taking the foreign exchange cost and multiplying by a factor of three? Does he uphold that and, if so, how on earth, when the foreign exchange cost of the present east of Suez policy is about
    388
    £50 million, can he cost Conservative policy at£300 million?
    Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir, and I can answer that very well indeed. In the Middle East and Far East theatres the resource cost is about three times the foreign exchange cost, if one takes the forces as a whole. This is proved by the fact that the total saving to the defence budget of our withdrawal east of Suez will be£300 million in resource cost and£100 million in foreign exchange cost. This, I believe, is welcomed by the taxpayers as well as by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    The cost of the Conservative presence east of Suez I explained in detail in the defence debate on the basis of all the information I was able to derive from such precise statements as had been made—and there have not been many of them—by the Leader of the Opposition and some of his hon. Friends about the composition, rôle and local cost of the forces concerned.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would my right hon. Friend agree that both the resource cost and the foreign exchange cost of our forces abroad are still too great?
    Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir, and that is why they will be reduced from the present£120 million to£60 million when the withdrawal east of Suez has been completed in 18 months' time.
    Mr. Rippon: Do the figures—of£300 million in total and£100 million saving in foreign exchange cost—have full regard not only for the increased costs in Hong Kong as a result of the reinforcements there but also for the costs of Gan and Masirah, the general capability of which the Government think should be maintained? Will he explain the discrepancy between what he told the House on 5th March and 8th April?
    Mr. Healey: I have already explained what the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes as a discrepancy. I was talking about different things. (Interruption.] In the first case I was talking about the cost of Conservative policy, while in the second I was talking about the current cost of British forces compared with the foreign exchange cost of keeping them there. The fact that we shall still be spending£60 million in foreign exchange

    389
    outside Europe at the end of 1971 is explained partly by the factors to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred; namely, the size of the British garrisons in Hong Kong and the continued staging posts at Gan and Masirah. I would have thought that the right hon. and. learned Gentleman would have been aware of that.

    Forces, Germany (Chemical Warfare)
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Defence what defence, other than passive measures, the British Armed Forces in Germany have against chemical warfare, in view of the fact that the Soviet forces there are equipped and trained for offensive chemical warfare and that it is their policy to use chemical warfare equipment as conventional weapons to the maximum extent consistent with tactical advantage.
    Mr. Healey: Our defence in this field consists entirely of passive measures.
    Mr. Cronin: Has not the time come for some reappraisal of N.A.T.O.'s policy on chemical warfare? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is intolerable that our young soldiers in Germany should be exposed to horrible, deadly and paralysing gases which the Soviet forces have available for them in large quantities without any fear of reprisal?
    Mr. Healey: N.A.T.O. as a whole has chemical weapons available to it because the United States maintains an offensive chemical capability. However, I believe that both the former and the present Government in Britain were right not to stockpile offensive chemical weapons in the United Kingdom. If the House really considers the situation, I believe that it will recognise that it is almost inconceivable that enemy forces would use chemical weapons against N.A.T.O. forces except in the circumstances of a mass invasion—in which event more terrible weapons would surely come into play.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the essence of this is the interpretation that nations put on the Geneva Convention? Has not the time come when all the dedicated work that has been done in the interests of this country and of our forces at Porton
    390
    demands a reconsideration of that policy?
    Mr. Healey: No, Sir. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who I know is extremely concerned about this matter, there is nothing in the Geneva Convention which prohibits countries from using chemical or other weapons in retaliation. This is quite another matter. The present Government and their predecessor have not believed it necessary for British forces to stockpile offensive chemical weapons. I believe that that has been the right decision and that it is particularly right to maintain it at a time when Her Majesty's Government are seeking a new convention in the disarmament talks on the banning of chemical weapons.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Defence what assurances he has received regarding the number of United States-controlled tactical nuclear weapons manned by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in Germany, in the light of the superiority of the opposing Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces in numbers and conventional weapons.
    Mr. Healey: I am satisfied that N.A.T.O.'s capabilities match its strategy.
    Mr. Cronin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that a more definite reassurance on this issue is desirable in view of the strategic arms limitation talks which are now taking place in Vienna? Would he further agree that, whether or not we like it, in the last resort the land defence of Western Europe is at present dependent almost entirely on United States-controlled tactical nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Healey: Tactical nuclear weapons are not among the subjects under discussion at the strategic arms limitation talks. Indeed, they are specifically excluded. The United States Administration have stated on more than one occasion in recent years that over 7,000 American tactical nuclear weapons are deployed on this side of the Atlantic. I do not think that my hon. Friend need be under any anxiety as to the adequacy of N.A.T.O.'s capability in this respect.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the United

    391
    States presence in Europe is apt to be considerably reduced in the years soon to come? What is he doing to put in place of American tactical nuclear or conventional forces an adequate European deterrent to a Soviet attack?
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman does no service to the cause which I am sure he espouses by stating as frequently as he does that it is inevitable that there will be massive American force reductions starting in the middle of next year. That is by no means the case. He must recall, if he was present during our last defence debate, the decision of Her Majesty's Government to return 6 Brigade to Germany in the autumn of this year. This is an example which has been welcomed by all our allies, and not least by the United States.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now define tactical nuclear weapons to ensure that the potential enemy against whom they might be used is aware that it is Her Majesty's Government's policy not to exchange strategic nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Healey: A tactical nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon used against a tactical target. I have said this in the House before. Of course, it is not Government policy to use nuclear weapons of any type unless a major invasion of Western Europe has already taken place and N.A.T.O.'s conventional forces are unable to resist it.
    Mr. Brooks: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what a tactical target is? Does it, for example, include a city? Does not he agree that if the nuclear strategy of a limited tactical first strike by N.A.T.O. under certain conditions is to be workable, it is desperately important that any potential enemy should know that this is intended and nothing further?
    Mr. Healey: As my hon. Friend will recognise, this is one of the extremely important matters which have been considered in the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. in recent years, and considerable progress compared with past thinking has been made during these deliberations. The furthest I can go in attempting to give a single sentence definition of a tactical target would be
    392
    a target the destruction of which has a direct impact on the course of the land battle.
    Mr. James Davidson: Will the Minister then say, in the event of an incursion by armour from the other side of the frontier, how big a force would, in his opinion, have to be to be a strategic rather than a tactical force?
    Mr. Healey: With great respect, I do not think the hon. Member listened very carefully to what I said. Tactical nuclear weapons are weapons used against targets the destruction of which is immediately relevant to the course of the actual fighting, as distinct from enemy cities or targets a long way behind the area where fighting is taking place. The size of an enemy tank thrust, although it may determine whether or not it is necessary for N.A.T.O. to use tactical nuclear weapons, has nothing to do with whether their use in that situation would be tactical rather than strategic.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consideration he gave, in considering a policy of first use of nuclear weapons entailing the firing of battlefield nuclears on targets in East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia, to the corresponding targetting by the Warsaw Pact powers;
    (2) what steps he is taking to prevent escalation to inter-continental nuclear war following the implementation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation policy of nuclear response to conventional attack.
    Mr. Healey: The whole purpose of N.A.T.O's. strategy of flexible response is to deter aggression or, if that fails—and over 21 years it has not failed—to prevent it from escalating automatically. As I have explained on numerous occasions, the adoption of this strategy represents a major steps away from the "trip-wire" strategy which was in force when I entered office.
    Mr. Jenkins: As my right hon. Friend has just explained that he has difficulty in defining the precise difference between a tactical and a strategic nuclear weapon, on what grounds is he so confident as to say that, whereas strategic nuclear deterrence is not credible, tactical

    393
    nuclear deterrence is credible? How does he know that the one will not escalate into the other?
    Mr. Healey: Tactical weapons have a central rôle in reinforcing the credibility of the strategic deterrent. I must correct my hon. Friend. I would have no difficulty in defining tactical nuclear weapons in great detail, but this is a matter of some complexity, and I admitted to difficulty in finding an adequate definition in one sentence. Fortunately, I am not limited to one sentence, and neither are S.H.A.P.E. and the Supreme Allied Commander, in drawing up plans in this respect.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government have said, as they have in the White Paper, that in certain circumstances we will be the first to use nuclear weapons, it is an open invitation for other Powers to use their nuclear weapons before we can get in with ours?
    Mr. Healey: No, Sir. I do not think that that is the case. The fact is that it has always been N.A.T.O.'s policy in certain circumstances to use nuclear weapons against an overwhelming conventional atack. The fact that this is so is one reason why no such attack has ever taken place.
    Mr. Goodhew: If the Secretary of State believes in a flexible response, why does he not say to his hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) that in answer to a chemical attack he would use nuclear weapons, something much more flexible? If he believes in a flexible response, why does he not have chemical weapons as well?
    Mr. Healey: It is always a question of judgment. I think that the hon. Gentleman asked this supplementary question in a serious tone, and it is a very serious matter to decide in which areas flexibility is desirable and in which areas flexibility is not desirable. This is an area in which flexibility is not desirable, because I do not think that it would be in anybody's interest to give an impression to a potential enemy that we were prepared to fight a chemical-nuclear war in Europe.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an
    394
    undertaking that the number of tactical nuclear weapons available to British forces in Germany will not be reduced in return for a reduction in the number of medium-range nuclear missiles aimed at Great Britain and other countries in Western Europe from Russia and other Warsaw Pact countries.
    Mr. Healey: This is a hypothetical question relating to a matter which would be of concern to the whole of the North Atlantic Alliance. It will hardly be appropriate, therefore, for me to give an undertaking such as the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Goodhew: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that his policy and N.A.T.O.'s policy of a flexible response depends on the use of tactical nuclear weapons in certain circumstances and that they are, therefore, vital to N.A.T.O.'s forces?
    Mr. Healey: I am scarcely likely to forget that. I do not need the hon. Gentleman to remind me of it.

    European Economic Community (Nuclear Information)
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the military aspects of the proposal by Euratom to seek nuclear know-how from Her Majesty's Government as the price for British entry to the European Community.
    Mr. Healey: Her Majesty's Government have not received such a proposal. But in the event of United Kingdom entry to the Community our nuclear defence programme would remain outside the ambit of Euratom. Entry would be under conditions consistent with our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments.
    Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be general satisfaction with that reply? In view of the impending negotiations between the Six and the International Atomic Energy Agency over the enforcement of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, will he make it quite clear that until France signs the Treaty there will be no handing over of nuclear know-how to Euratom?
    Mr. Healey: With great respect, this is a totally different matter. The question

    395
    of military nuclear know-how is as I have described it. It is not affected by our prospective entry into the Community and would not be affected by our entry. France is a member of Euratom, and the Euratom provisions already apply to France and the other members of Euratom on the Continent.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the Secretary of State say what discussions he has had with the French Government about working more closely with the French force de frappe or if he has not had discussions, why not?
    Mr. Healey: I have recently had the pleasure of prolonged discussions with M. Debré, the French Defence Minister, in Paris. This question was not discussed, because the French Government have repeatedly made it clear that they are not in a position to submit their nuclear military programme to the same type of integration with N.A.T.O. as the British military nuclear programme. I thought that the recent pamphlet published by the Conservative Central Office on this matter showed a welcome degree of progress in the thinking of the Opposition in accepting this as a fact.

    Retired Officers and Officers' Widows (Pensions)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce his proposals for improving pensions of retired officers and officers' widows consequential upon the current study of the arrangements for increase in public occupational pensions.
    Mr. Hattersley: The study of existing pensions to which I referred in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on 3rd November, 1969 is in progress, but this is a complex matter and I am unable to say when the review will be completed.—[Vol. 790, c. 39.]
    Mr. Iremonger: Is not this intolerably dilatory? Is the Minister aware that these officers and their widows have nobody to fight for them but himself? Is he not rather ashamed of the way he is handling this?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am not remotely ashamed of it, nor am I ashamed of the way in which the previous Government handled it, which was exactly the same.
    396
    I accept entirely that, with the provision of the new sort of pension brought in by my right hon. Friend, we have an obligation to bring Service pensions as near into line with that as possible, but this is a very complex matter and we are right to deal with it with some caution.
    Dame Irene Ward: When will something be done for the benefit of the officers? Why should everything always be complex? Surely to goodness, are not there enough Ministers, civil servants, admirals, generals and other people to advise the Minister properly on this matter, so that he can get on with it and not always give this wretched answer which is destructive of the morale of those who have served this country so well in the past?
    Mr. Hattersley: The answer to why so many things are complex is a matter with which philosophers have wrestled for the last 200 years, and it would be inappropriate for me to add my suggestions this afternoon. The hon. Lady can accept our absolute assurance that we share with her an anxiety to sort this matter out properly as quickly as possible, but she must accept our assurance that to do the job properly speed is not the overriding consideration.

    Conscription
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate discussions with the Common Market members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with a view to discussing the implications of a common policy on conscription.
    Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir.
    Mr. Marten: As all the Common Market countries with the exception of Luxembourg have conscription, would not Britain be the odd man out if we joined the Common Market with the object of having a unified defence?
    Mr. Hattersley: I think that, not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands some of the objections of the European Economic Community. I think he will agree that I am at least as enthusiastic for our membership of the Community as he is, and he may therefore rest assured that we are taking whatever steps are appropriate and necessary. This is not one of them.
    Mr. Orme: We are well aware of my hon. Friend's views on the Common Market, and that is what worries many of us on this side of the House. France and other countries have used conscription and defence as an argument for Britain to join the E.E.C., and we are concerned that the Defence Ministry should state its position on this important issue.
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not pretend for a moment that the issue is not an important or indeed fundamental one, but what I do insist upon is that on many occasions in the last two months the Government have made their position on conscription very clear. That position is unalterable, and I think it satisfies my hon. Friend.

    Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital, Millbank (Treatment of Ministers)
    Captain W. Elliotasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's Government have been admitted for treatment to Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital at Millbank since October, 1964.
    Mr. Hattersley: According to my inquiries, three.
    Captain Elliot: Would not the Minister agree that the use of this facility by members of the Government enables them to jump the general hospital queue? While I appreciate that members of the Government may need medical treatment, and may need it early, will the hon. Gentleman at least tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to stop his hypocritical lectures about queue jumping to the private citizen who takes out a health insurance policy?
    Mr. Hattersley: I assumed that that was the point that the hon. and gallant Member strove to make. This Service hospital, like other Service hospitals, has, as a normal part of its business, an arrangement with the Health Service so that it takes in patients who are non-Service if the situation allows. On the occasion to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers there was no degree of priority in the sense he means. The priority that existed was one which enabled all three—my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends—to carry on doing their Government work. This resulted
    398
    in the Secretary of State himself carrying out Government business very shortly after a serious operation, which is something for which he should be praised rather than blamed.
    Mr. Snow: Was not that a rather mean little Question?

    British and South African Naval Exercises
    Captain W. Elliotasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether South African shore-based air support is available during combined exercises between British and South African naval forces in South Atlantic waters.
    Mr. Healey: South African shore-based aircraft take part in these combined exercises.
    Captain Elliot: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this shore-based air support will be very important if the Government's plan to abolish aircraft carriers is carried out? Is he quite satisfied that the South African aircraft in use and the technical equipment they carry are modern and up to the task they have to carry out?
    Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. I am quite satisfied of that.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If it is not in order, as the Prime Minister describes it, to play such games as cricket with all-white South Africans, is it not even more wrong to play war games with an all-white South African team?
    Mr. Healey: I think that the House has recognised on many occasions the distincton between activities which are essential for the prevention of war and activities which are not essential for that purpose and which could be held to imply some political view of what happens in a foreign country which was undesirable. That is why we have always drawn a strict distinction between the position of Greece under the current regime and her position in the Council of Europe. I think that this is well understood.

    Absent Servicemen
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence pproximately how many Service men went absent without obtaining leave or deserted in the

    399
    last 12 months to a convenient date; and how many of these were boys aged 15 to 18 years or men who had enlisted between these ages.
    Mr. Hattersley: Service statistics are not such as to enable me to give all the information my hon. Friend asked for. I will write to him.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it not the fact that there are very many cases of young soldiers going absent without leave in order to be with young wives who are on the verge of nervous breakdown, and who often have young babies, some small indication of the widespread unhappiness caused by the obnoxious system of holding boy recruits for 12 years in the forces, often against their will?
    Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend knows that I share his concern. He asks me every month Questions that show his concern, and I assure him every month that a committee of inquiry is now inquiring into the conditions to which he refers. As to young men who absent themselves from or desert the Army for the reasons he gives, they may have been recruited as boy soldiers or they may have been recruited rather later. These are circumstances which face a disciplined Service and the members of a disciplined Service.

    Forces, Europe
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement concerning the negotiations for a balanced reduction in forces in Europe in so far as they affect the British Army of the Rhine and the Royal Air Force, Germany.
    Mr. Healey: As I told the House in the Defence debate, N.A.T.O. is working hard to develop an approach to mutual arms reductions which will guarantee both sides at least as much security as they enjoy today. The form that such reductions might take can only emerge from actual negotiations, and so far I regret to say that there has been no response to the open invitation issued by N.A.T.O. to the Soviet Union and its Allies at Reykjavik in June, 1968.—[Vol. 797, c. 422.]
    Mr. Goodhew: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who would have to bear the brunt of any attack feel that the balance is heavily weighted against them already, and that any reduction on our side would be disadvantageous?
    Mr. Healey: No, Sir. Since I see perhaps more representatives of the German people who are no doubt in the position to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I can say that their view, on the contrary, and I share it, is that peace in Europe would be safer if we could organise mutual force reductions and maintain the balance at lower levels of expenditure and risk.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend really expect a favourable response from the Soviet Union and those responsible for the Warsaw Pact? In view of the obvious change of opinion in the United States—the attitude of the Congress and Senate there—is there not a likelihood that there will be some substantial withdrawal of American forces from Europe in the near future? In those circumstances, do we not require a reappraisal of the military situation required in the West?
    Mr. Healey: If my right hon. Friend is saying that unilateral arms reductions by Western Powers, whether the United States, Britain or Germany, would make mutual force reductions less likely, I entirely agree with him, and I hope that I can count on him to support me in resisting pressure from any quarter for unilateral reductions before we get these negotiations started.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he now has for increasing the size of the British Army of the Rhine in view of the present proposal by the United States Government to reduce the size of United States conventional forces in Europe by 25,000.
    Mr. Healey: The United States Government have made no proposal to reduce the size of their forces in Europe.
    Mr. Goodhart: Would the Secretary of State care to wager one week's salary that the Americans do not withdraw 25,000 conventional forces in the next year? As the Americans clearly will

    401
    withdraw a very substantial number of men in the next couple of years, does the right hon. Gentleman plan to increase the size of B.A.O.R. or modify the plan for a graduated response?
    Mr. Healey: I bet only on certainties, but I am prepared to take the wager that there will be no reduction of 25,000 in the next 12 months.
    Mr. Shinwell: Although the United States made no definite proposal for the withdrawal of forces from the West, is not my right hon. Friend a little anxious about the position in the light of existing circumstances? Does he not consider that it might be desirable to review the position in the West with his colleagues associated with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation'? He said in reply to a question of mine that he hoped to gain my support in the event of a substantial withdrawal of American forces from the West. I give him the assurance that he will get all the support he requires.
    Mr. Healey: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I feel immensely fortified by his support. I have recognised for many years—and I have said this in the House many times—that some readjustment of the burden inside N.A.T.O. between North America and Western Europe was inevitable in this decade. I started discussing this matter with my European Defence Minister colleagues in N.A.T.O. two years ago, and our discussions have been immensely valuable, not only to ourselves, but to the American Administration. N.A.T.O. as a whole is discussing all the potential implications of this trend as a result of President Nixon's speech some months ago. But I remind the House that he also gave a guarantee in that speech that America could no more disengage from Europe than from Alaska, and that no reduction would take place at least before the middle of next years, and that no reduction had been decided after that date.
    Mr. Rippon: Is the Secretary of State aware that both sides of the House welcome the assurance which the President of the United States gave to Congress in February this year when he guaranteed that there would be no withdrawal before mid-1971? We are probably agreed that it would be wrong to assume that any reduction will be made in the United
    402
    States forces, although Europe may have to bear a greater share of the burden. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is just as important for America to defend Europe against Communism as it is for America to defend South-East Asia against Communism?
    Mr. Healey: I do not know what implications the right hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to drag into his last remark. If I may treat the rest of his contribution with the seriousness with which he made it, I do not think that there is any disagreement between the two Front Benches in this House about the need to take this problem seriously and how to handle it. This should be understood by our allies as well as the British people.

    Exercise, Malaysia (Servicemen's Living Charges)
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what reduction in living charges will be made on those Servicemen taking part in the exercise in Malaysia this spring and summer 1970.
    Mr. Hattersley: No Serviceman living in field conditions for two nights or more is charged for accommodation or food. Servicemen who are liable for single accommodation charges have these charges reduced when field conditions do not apply but they occupy sub-standard accommodation. These arrangements are as recommended by the National Board for Prices and Income in its Third Report on Forces' pay.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does that mean that the troops going out to take part in the exercise, although they will be living in worse accommodation while acclimatising themselves to the conditions, will have the same fixed charges made on them as when they were in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hattersley: That depends on the conditions under which they are living at the time and whether it is appropriate for a reduced standard of payment. That is a decision which should essentially be taken by the field commanders or by people to whom they may depute that decision. I think that we can rely on the matter being tackled with some degree of understanding.

    Sharjah (Desert Training Exercises)
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many desert training exercises will be held this year based from Sharjah.
    Mr. Hattersley: Between 1st May and the end of the year the Army will conduct four exercises based on Sharjah. None of these exercises is intended specifically to train troops to operate under desert conditions.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the troops be going out from the United Kingdom? If so, what acclimatisation will they need before they can effectively carry out any exercises in the desert? As this is the only place which we have left, having evacuated Libya, are four exercises sufficient to make a force ready to come to the aid of our treaty allies in the Middle East?
    Mr. Hattersley: Some troops will not be stationed in Sharjah before the exercise is carried out. I have no doubt whatsoever that the plans for acclimatisation are adequate. The hon. Gentleman overstates the needs in this area and in the Far East. As for future desert training, my right hon. Friend made clear in the House a month or two months ago that one of the purposes of the large desert areas was to provide not desert training but training in very large areas where there was sufficient space properly to carry out the operations. That must be the criterion against which we judge our future policy.

    Helicopters (Purchases)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for purchasing helicopters from France and the United States of America.
    Mr. Healey: The House has heard on several occasions about the Anglo-French helicopter package which is to provide the three Services with the helicopters they require. As the House will know, after reviewing their defence programme, the French have asked for some rearrangement of the helicopter programme, and their suggestions are now under review. It is our intention to secure a satisfactory settlement in view of the importance of the programme and the willingness which both Governments have
    404
    expressed to see it through to a successful conclusion.
    Mr. Goodhart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this important field of Anglo-French co-operation is now going sour? Is it because of the French refusal to buy British designs on chauvinistic national grounds, or because of our slowness in putting in firm production orders?
    Mr. Healey: The programme is not going sour. The problem is quite different from either of the suggestions which the hon. Gentleman has made. The French Government are now carrying out a defence review of a nature which is all too familiar to us in the House, and it is the financial pressures arising from that review which have caused the French to review some elements of their requirements. I am hopeful that in the very near future we shall reach a satisfactory rearrangement of the programme which safeguards our industrial, no less than our operational, interests.
    Mr. Snow: Would my right hon. Friend consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table to show the extent to which we are able to fulfil from our own manufacturing resources our helicopter requirements of the different types?
    Mr. Healey: I will consider that. I will not make any commitment before considering it. What I can tell the House now is that the powerful links which are being forged between the British and French helicopter industries are by far the best way by which Europe as a whole can guarantee a stake in this vitally important world market against severe American competition.

    Officers (Retirements)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers have applied to retire from the three Services since 1st January, 1969.
    Mr. Hattersley: The number of officers whose applications for retirement (including voluntary redundancies) were accepted during 1969 was 1,427. The total number of applications is not readily available.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Are not these figures rather disquieting? Cannot the Minister do more to try to persuade

    405
    promising young officers to stay in the Services, particularly in view of the career structure ahead of them?
    Mr. Hattersley: Naturally, one regrets that so many officers wanted to leave during the period, but, if it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman and the House, the figure was appreciably smaller than in the preceding year. I hope that young officers will understand, as I think the House does, that there remains a substantial career in all three Services, with a good salary, and that many of their best interests will be served by remaining in the forces.
    Mr. Rippon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is particular anxiety about the position of officers in the Fleet Air Arm? There are allegations that there have been redundancies because of pressure which can only by the wildest stretch of the imagination be described as voluntary. Also, would the Minister make it clear that there is no truth in the suggestion that the Fleet Air Arm will not be allowed to fly at Farnborough, which, if true, seems incredibly petty?
    Mr. Hattersley: The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the last part of his supplementary question is another matter. On the first part, I am sure that he welcomes our absolute assurance that there have been no pressures of the sort which he describes. I hope that we shall hear no more of that allegation from the newspapers or from anywhere else, because it is simply not true.

    Chatham Dockyard (Cleaners' Pay)
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to rectify the anomalous position whereby part-time lady cleaners in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Chatham, are paid at lower hourly rates than full-time lady cleaners doing identical work.
    Dr. David Owen: Yes, Sir. The recent report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on pay and conditions in the industrial Civil Service drew attention to a wide range of similar duties which are undertaken by industrial and non-industrial civil servants with differing rates of pay.
    Mr. Burden: Is that a guarantee that the rates of pay of the part-time cleaners will be brought into line with those of the full-time cleaners? There is at the moment a very considerable differential.
    Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is a differential. The proper negotiating procedure is through the Whitley Council. If these negotiations take place, some modification or change may be made.

  TAVR
  Mr. Wigginasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received for expanding the manpower and training time of Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve cadres.
  Mr. Richard: None, Sir, other than that on training time from the Council of Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations to which I referred in my Written Answer of 26th November last. Resulting from the review to which I then referred, the number of training periods for cadres, as for other independent units of the TAVR, has been increased from 18 to 30.—[Vol. 792, c. 97.]
  Mr. Wiggin: Is it not a fact that the limitation on training time is seriously reducing the amount of voluntary effort which members of the cadres can make in the national interest? Would the hon. Gentleman consider some interchangeability of training time between the cadres and their parent units?
  Mr. Richard: It is obvious that if the amount of training time is limited the amount of training is also limited. I am not prepared to consider the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman. It would seem inappropriate for the cadres, having regard to the rôles which the Government allotted to them when they were set up.
  Mr. Wigginasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received for expanding the manpower and training time of Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve cadres.
  Mr. Richard: TAVR cadres are issued with personal arms, equipment and clothing appropriate for their mobilisation rôles as foreseen at the present time.
  Mr. Wiggin: Is it not a fact that the Government originally resurrected these

  407
  regiments as cadres with a view to using them as a nucleus for regiments in the event of mobilisation in a national emergency? Is it not also a fact that they have totally inadequate equipment for that rôle?
  Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. I invite him to read the statement made in the House by the then Minister of Defence for Administration on 28th November, 1968, when the various rôles for which the cadres were set up were given. They do not correspond to that given by the hon. Gentleman.

DIVISION NO. 116, 4th MAY (CORRECTION)
Mr. Lomas: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order of which I gave your office notice this morning.
Are you aware that on Monday, 4th May, when the Government were defeated by one vote, voting in the Aye Lobby with the Conservatives was your honourable self? You are recorded in HANSARD as voting with the Opposition.
I wonder whether you would explain how impartial Mr. Speaker is in these matters. If you had not voted in that Division, the result would have been a tie and you would then have given your casting vote in favour of the Government, and they would have had the Clause they wanted in the Bill. Can you explain the constitutional position to us, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has called attention to a unique printer's error in HANSARD, so unique that it makes yesterday's copy of HANSARD a collector's piece. The error has been corrected in the erratum in today's HANSARD, which the hon. Member must have read.
The Division list itself, which is the official record, contains the accurate account and shows that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) and not the right hon. Speaker of the House of Commons voted in the Aye Lobby.

FARNBOROUGH AIR SHOW (FLEET AIR ARM)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
MR. MONRO: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why no Fleet Air Arm fixed-wing aircraft are to participate in the flying display at the Farnborough Air Show this year.
Mr. Monro: On a point of order. The Under-Secretary of State referred to my Question No. 58 in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). Would he like to answer the Question now?
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will answer Question No. 58.
The Naval Air Command recommended that since the only operational Fleet Air Arm squadrons which could have been made available were committed to a major programme of aircraft replacement and modification during this summer they should not take part in the Farnborough Air Show this year.
Mr. Monro: Will the Minister agree that all Members of the House will be thoroughly dissatisfied with that reply? The Fleet Air Arm has always been in a very prominent position at the Farnborough Air Show and its absence this year will be greatly regretted.
Dr. Owen: I cannot see why hon. Members have any cause for dissatisfaction. Are they seriously suggesting that we should go against the recommendations of the Naval Air Command? This was a unanimous recommendation from the Naval Staff. There has been no political interference in it.
Furthermore, at the latter part of the 1968 Farnborough Air Show, a commentator said that he thought that it might well be the last time that a major part of the Fleet Air Arm took part. The people who saw the Farnborough Air Show were well aware, even in 1968, that that was likely to be the last occasion when the Fleet Air Arm flew at the show.

409
Hon. Members opposite should accept that there has been no political interference and that the story which was reported on the front page of a prominent Sunday newspaper has no foundation in fact.
Mr. Rippon: Is the Minister aware that we regret very much that the Government feel it necessary to shelter not only behind their official advisers, but, apparently, also behind a commentator? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this decision by the Government is deeply regretted?
Dr. Owen: All decisions affecting the Services are made by the Government as a whole. On this occasion, the recommendation from the Naval Air Command was that the Fleet Air Arm should not take part. [Interruption.] The allegation from hon. Members opposite is that there has been political interference. I reject the allegation that there has been political interference.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): It is a complete lie.
Dr. Owen: If hon. Members opposite say that I am lying, I wish that they would say so outright and straight. I am telling hon. Members opposite that there was no—
Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. The word "lie" came out of the mouth of the Secretary of State for Defence. It was levelled at this side of the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to direct the Secretary of State for Defence to withdraw the allegation that my hon. Friend who put the Question or my right hon. and learned Friend was lying.
Mr. Healey: I should like to make clear that the word "lie" which I used—under my breath, as I thought—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—referred to the statement in the Sunday Telegraph by Mr. Desmond Wettorn which, so far as I know, has not yet been quoted in the House.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that in taking together Questions Nos. 18 and 34—two very different Questions—my right hon. Friend succeeded in avoiding answering
410
either of them and that I shall, therefore, seek to raise both matters in separate Adjournment debates.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

BILL PRESENTED
  HARE COURSING
  Mr. Secretary Callaghan, supported by Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Secretary Thomas, Mr. Gerry Fowler, Mr. Attorney-General, and Mr. Merlyn Rees, presented a Bill to make hare coursing matching illegal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 176].

PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL
Mr. Speaker: I have an important Ruling to make.
The House will note that the next item of business on the Order Paper is the presentation of the Political Contributions Bill by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I am afraid that today I have to take the unusual course of refusing to allow the Bill to be presented and read the First time.
As Speaker, it is my duty to protect the rights of private Members to legislate, and already this Session the House has passed no fewer than 10 Private Members' Bills on a variety of important topics. It is, however, an inexorable and necessary rule of the House that no private Member may legislate on the expenditure of public money or on the levying of taxation unless his proposals have first been authorised by Resolution.
Yesterday, the House agreed on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, regulating taxation in the current year. Hon. Members will appreciate that the financial rules of the House, giving the initiative in all matters of expenditure to the Crown, are essential if confusion is to be avoided.
I understand that by his Bill the hon. Member for Nottingham, West intends to defer its proposals until they are validated by a subsequent enactment. Although, however, there may be precedents

411
for this process in the case of several categories of Public Bills, there is no precedent for a Bill relating to taxation brought in by a private Member.
The opening words of the hon. Member's Notice are:
"A Bill to enable every parliamentary elector to require the Treasury, if Parliament consents, to contribute a portion of his taxation to the political party of his choice."
These words indicate that the main objective of the Bill is to impose a charge on the revenue, and such a Bill, under the ancient rules of the House, cannot be introduced by a private Member, except upon a Resolution. Nor can I admit that the words "if Parliament consents" exempt the Bill from this rule. These words appear to mean that the Bill, if enacted, is inoperative unless Parliament passes another Act, since in this context their effect would be to circumvent the financial rules of the House. I cannot. therefore, allow the hon. Gentleman to present a Bill of this kind.
Mr. Michael English: You have just done something, Mr. Speaker, which I believe has not been done for over 41 years. I know that you are aware of this and I realise why this Ruling had to be given today. In your Ruling, you said that the financial rules of the House are necessary. I would not myself think that this is a principle which could not be argued. I accept that financial rules of the House exist, but it seems to me that they rather tend to assume that public expenditure is less desirable than private expenditure and that they were founded on that principle.
In this case, I think that, by your Ruling, you have extended the existing principle. The suggestion in my Bill is that the relevant Clause should come into effect only if another enactment, founded upon a Money Resolution with its Queen's Recommendation, was passed. This means that there would have been an opportunity to propose the principle of the Bill for Parliament to consider and, I hope, agree. Only subsequent to Parliament's agreeing to that principle would the Clause have been brought into operation as and when it was thought desirable on financial grounds.
By your Ruling, you have extended the financial rules to inhibit such discussion and consideration by Parliament of a
412
principle prior to consideration of the financial advisability of that principle.
In this case, although your Ruling is rather on technical grounds, the whole basis of the Bill is a proposal that electors should be able to decide for themselves where a very modest amount of their taxation goes. It seems to me that the fact of nearly 40 million electors being able to decide such a thing for themselves is a democratic principle. However desirable it may be thought that the Treasury, as guardian of the interests of the people, should be the only body able to put forward enactments relating to financial matters, I would think that the electors themselves could be the guardian of their own interests in this case. No elector would have to contribute a penny if he did not wish to do so.
I submit that you have extended the rules a little. I accept your Ruling, but I think that it is in that respect unfortunate and, in this case, that the operation of these financial rules is a technicality.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West for the way in which he has put his criticism of my Ruling. He will find full details on pages 729 and 730 of Erskine May. This is no new Ruling. This was not a new circumstance.
Mr. Onslow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped to join the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in sponsoring the Bill. Would it be possible for this matter to be referred to a Committee for consideration, so that we could see whether some means could be found of enabling the House to consider the principle involved?
As I understand, the hon. Gentleman would not be seeking to increase the amount of taxation levied, but to allow each taxpayer to hypothecate a small proportion of his tax. There may be arguments against this principle, but I do not see how there could be great objection in principle to allowing the House to consider it.
Mr. Speaker: The objections are those I have stated in my Ruling. I may add that it is the practice of the House, on an important matter like this, when Mr. Speaker, after careful consideration, much thought and much advice, makes a Ruling, to accept it.

413
If the hon. Member wishes to question the Ruling of Mr. Speaker, he always has the safeguard of being able to put down a Motion on the Order Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of a Bill brought in upon a Ways and Means Resolution, any remaining stages of the National Health Service Contributions Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

NOISE
3.35 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to maintain environmental amenities by restricting noise levels of motor vehicles, motor cycles and aircraft; and for purposes connected therewith.
I do not think that many hon. Members would quarrel with the wording in the Declaration for the Management of National Environment in Europe, which proposed that a protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights should be drawn up which would guarantee the right of every individual to freedom from undue noise and other nuisances. Yet noise is all about us and increasing in volume. Whether it be in the streets of a city or in the depths of the country, it is now quite impossible to get away from the noise of aircraft or motor vehicles. If it is not the raucous noise of motor bicycles, it is the thunderous din of jet aircraft; if it is not the roar of a sports car, it is the rumbling of a heavy diesel lorry. Noise, like its definition, is unwanted sound.
As we have learned from medical research, noise levels of 80 to 85 decibels constitute a hazard to our mental, physical and social well-being in terms of the stress they impose upon those who have to hear them. During the past 10 years, some noise legislation has found its way on to the Statute Book. There was the Noise Abatement Act, 1960, which, alas, last year resulted in only 450 prosecutions. The Minister was unable to tell me where those prosecutions were imposed. More recently, there has been the Civil Aviation (Noise Certification) Order, which was debated a fortnight ago, and on 1st April the regulations were brought in laying down noise levels for motor vehicles. These were based on the findings of a committee, headed by Sir Alan Wilson, which reported in 1963 about noise. It has taken the House seven years to put into effect what the committee said in 1963.
We must wonder whether we can really afford such a niggardly pace in something so important to our environment. No doubt there are some very good reasons on the part of those who make cars,

415
lorries and motor cycles why that legislation should not have come in more quickly. As the Director of the Cycle and Motor-Cycle Association wrote to me, when I asked for his views:
"It is probably not an exaggeration to say that the principal manufacturing companies of motor-cycles in the United Kingdom would cease production of vehicles for the home market if totally unrealistic noise levels were imposed upon them."
The crucial word there is "unrealistic". I am sure that the car and lorry manufacturers would also talk about unrealism if we tried to impose noise levels which came nearer to what is desirable in a pleasant environment.
But the question is: do we seek noise levels which keep pace with what industry finds easily achievable, or do we in this House consider it to be our task to say what are acceptable limits, taking into account the medical factors as we know them, the simple evidence of our ears and then what industry says is reasonable? I submit that that is our task. After all, if Rolls-Royce can produce a car with a noise level somewhere in the 70 decibel range—a car which the company itself says it designed to make as quiet as possible—why cannot other manufacturers do likewise?
The irony is that if they want to sell their cars to Switzerland, or to West Germany, they are forced to do so. So why should not what is good enough for Switzerland and West Germany be good enough for us? Why are we so slow in imposing the kind of restrictions that we should have?
By the same token the motor-cycle manufacturers may talk about unrealism. But we all know that the police are equipped with an excellent motor-cycle, euphemistically called the "Noddy" bike, which has a very much lower noise level than many motor-cycles now roaring about our streets. I suspect that if "Noddy" bikes can be made in one engine capacity, they can be made in other engine capacities.
Therefore, it is not unrealistic for me today to ask leave to bring in a Bill to restrict noise levels. I aim to produce legislation which will progressively reduce noise levels for cars, lorries and motorcycles below those which are now emitted.
It is one thing to talk about laying down noise levels, but quite another to
416
say how they will be enforced. In 1968, noise meters were introduced as the means by which these new motor regulations would be enforceable. But virtually none of our police forces has noise meters, for the simple reason, as a senior police officer said, "We are still trying them out to find satisfactory arrangements for putting them into practical operation. For one thing, we have had difficulty in finding suitable sites". It is also an incredible fact that there is not one noise meter in the Metropolitan area at the moment. Without noise meters the noise levels laid down in the motor regulations cannot be enforced.
Indeed, a Metropolitan Police officer told me this morning, "Once upon a time we could get a prosecution on the noise that a policeman heard. Today, if you take that case to court, you will be asked by defence counsel to give the meter reading. We have not got meters with which to give those readings, so prosecutions are going down and the volume of noise is rising."
Even in the noise levels set down in the motor regulations a figure is spelt out which is higher than that which Sir Alan Wilson said would be achievable in 1963. Therefore, I cannot feel that we are putting much pressure on the motor industry.
There is then the question of aircraft noise. Hon. Members frequently raise the question of the noise which their constituents have to suffer if they live near airports. On Monday of this week there was such a debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, I thought correctly:
"I think that everyone is prepared to put up with a reasonable amount of noise if he is satisfied that everything possible is being done to limit the period of time he has to suffer it".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 153.]
Alas, the House is not giving people much hope of a limited period during which they will have to suffer it, because the Civil Aviation (Noise Certification) Order, to which I referred, does not apply to airliners flying now, but to airliners still basically on the drawing boards. Therefore, people can find little or no comfort in the legislation that the House has so far passed for controlling civil aircraft noise levels.

417
There is no reason why airlines operating airliners which create excessive noise, particularly on night flights, should not be severely penalised. Yet they are not. Therefore, I submit that, just as with cars, motor-cycles and lorries there is room for new legislation, so there is room for new legislation to control the noise emitted by civil airliners.
The truth is that, like the man in the B.B.C. "Doomwatch" programme on noise, the individual today feels that he is a peripheral nuisance whose voice is unimportant and will rapidly be drowned in the thunder of diesel lorries and high-powered jet engines.
For that reason, and because I believe that the noises to which I have already referred are a serious menace to our health and to the enjoyment of our environment, I beg to ask leave to bring in a Noise Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. Chataway, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Sir B. Rhys-Williams, and Mr. Wiggin.

NOISE
Bill to maintain environmental amenities by restricting noise levels of motor vehicles, motor-cycles and aircraft; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th June,
and to be printed. [Bill 172]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY [22ND ALLOTTED DAY]— considered.

    UNEMPLOYMENT
    3.55 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Carr: I beg to move,
    That this House regrets that, as a result of the policies of Her Majesty's Government, the number of people out of work in April was the highest for that month since 1940, and that the total registered unemployed has been over half a million for 32 out of the last 33 months.
    We last debated unemployment just over three months ago, on 3rd February. Before I go into the substance of the debate again today, I must draw attention, as I did then, to a remarkable and, in our view, deplorable fact, namely, the absence from the debate of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity.
    As I pointed out last time, that was the first debate on national unemployment, in modern times at least, in which the Minister of Labour, of whatever Government, had not participated. It is repeated today. At least, last time the Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity, took part in the debate. This time, we understand that there is to be no spokesman from the Department of Employment and Productivity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Yet the Government and the right hon. Lady keep making much of the claim that they have converted the old Ministry of Labour into the new Department of Employment and Productivity.
    Only last Sunday, at lunchtime, I heard the right hon. Lady being interviewed in "The World This Weekend" programme. I should like to quote two of her remarks. First, in answer to the question:
    "…is there a broad strategy in what the D.E.P. is now trying to do?",
    the right hon. Lady replied:
    "I think so. When it was turned from the Ministry of Labour into the D.E.P. it was turned from a department tremendously preoccupied with conciliation in strikes"—

    419
    it is hardly that now—
    "into a department with a positive job of manpower planning and our rôle is to parallel in the manpower field with what the Government has been pressing ahead with on the technological side of industry."
    Later in the same interview the right hon. Lady said:
    "I am trying to deal with manpower problems of this country, which means human problems of technological change."
    That is the task which the right hon. Lady is claiming to do. Yet for two consecutive unemployment debates she sees fit not to come and address us on the subject for which she is claiming responsibility in the eyes of the country. Today, the right hon. Lady has not even come to listen to the debate, let alone to participate in it.
    On 3rd February, we censured the Government for breaking the promises that they had specifically made about full employment at the time of, and shortly after, the last General Election. We demanded that we should have from the Government some plain truth about unemployment prospects and some hard. properly thought out action. We got neither. That is the first reason for debating the subject again today.
    The second, and from the country's point of view far more serious, reason for debating the matter again today is that the underlying employment situation has got worse, not better, since February. The total number of unemployed last month at 617,000 was greater than in any April since 1940. It was double what it was in April, 1966, just after the last General Election.
    On several occasions since the war we have had, under all Governments, a few months at a time when unemployment reached uncomfortable levels, but always, until the last three years, the high figures were never sustained for long. But this April's figure, for the fourth month running, exceeded 600,000 unemployed and as the Motion states, it was the 32nd month out of the last 33 when the figure rose above half a million. This has now become a problem which, because of the way in which it has been sustained, is one to which the Government must at last address themselves seriously.
    Ministers—I am sorry to say the Minister of State, Department of Employ-
    420
    ment and Productivity, joined in this in the last debate—tend to belittle the problem. Unemployment, they say, is not what it was. They talk about wage-related benefits and redundancy pay which allow workers to look around and pick their new jobs—by implication, to pick their new jobs out of a glittering array of alternative choices.
    Of course, there is some truth in this; of course, wage-related benefits and redundancy pay have helped both to take the hardship out of losing one's job or changing one's job and to make movement of labour easier; but there is not much truth in it from the point of view of the total unemployment problem. Just as Marie Antoinette told people who had no bread that they had better eat cake, so Ministers seem to be telling workers who can find no ordinary jobs that they should get better ones. Where are the better jobs which are within the capacity and reach of people unemployed today?
    If we want to see the true nature of the problem, the House must look not just at the total unemployed figure, but at the special categories. Look, first, at the long-term unemployment problem. In April, 1966, there were 84,000 on the unemployment register who had been out of jobs for more than six months. This April, that number had risen to 178,000; 30 per cent. of the total unemployed last month have been out of jobs for more than six months. Look at the even worse figure of those who have been out of jobs continuously for more than 12 months. In April, 1966, there were 47,000 men and women who had been out of work continuously for more than a year. This April, that number was 98.000. The number of people out of work continuously for more than a year has more than doubled in the four years of the present Government's life. It has doubled over the country as a whole.
    In the Northern Region about a quarter of all those out of work have been unemployed for more than a year. In Wales, it is about 20 per cent.; in Scotland nearly 20 per cent., and for the whole of Great Britain almost 17 per cent. of all those on the unemployment register last month had been continuously out of work for more than 12 months. It is about time that the Government stopped belittling this problem and started to take it seriously.

    421
    Look, next, at the unemployment among disabled workers. I have not the April figures for the two years: I have the March figures. In March, 1966, at the time of the last General Election, 47,000 registered disabled workers were unemployed. By March this year that had risen to 73,000, an increase of 57 per cent. in the lifetime of the Government. It is in the huge increase in these categories of long-term and disabled unemployed that we see the true measure of what has happened—no, not what has happened, but what has been brought about as a direct and clearly predictable result of the policies which the Government have followed.
    Mr. Russell KerrTory policies.
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Member talks about Tory policies. During the whole of our 156 months in power the number of unemployed exceeded half a million for eight—or it may have been nine—months compared with the 32 months out of the last 33 months. If we could get back to Tory policies, the unemployment situation would be a great deal better than it is today.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: In current circumstances would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to increase demand even at the expense of balance of payments surplus in order to provide the extra jobs which he talks about not being there at present?
    Mr. Carr: We are talking about the unemployment which the Government have caused—
    Mr. Barnett: Answer the question.
    Mr. Carr: I should like to hear from the hon. Member—
    Mr. Barnett: Answer the question.
    Mr. Carr: What I should like to hear, and what the country would like to hear from the hon. Member and his right hon. Friends, is why the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, gave most categorical assurances that whatever pressures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—unemployment would not be caused, and then adopted policies which predictably were bound to bring about this result. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Over 13 years of Tory gov-
    422
    ernment unemployment reached half a million in only eight or nine of the 156 months.
    Hon. Members: Answer the question.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Running commentaries do not help debate.
    Mr. Carr: Over the whole of that period of 13 years there was a net balance of payments surplus, if I remember rightly, of £775 million and during the whole of that 13 years the nation's overseas debt was reduced, and not increased. What we did before we can do again. What the Labour Government have done over the last four years is exactly what Labour Governments have done before.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Many of us on this side of the House regard the unemployment situation as extremely serious. We regard these figures as utterly deplorable. Some of us believe that the policies advocated by the Conservatives would make matters even worse. Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore try to persuade us on this matter? Secondly, could he explain what the Conservatives propose to do about assistance received in the development areas which have mitigated these serious figures?
    Mr. Carr: I realise that of all people the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) cares passionately about unemployment. But we care. When we had charge of the country's affairs we put our caring into action. And when we next have charge of the country's affairs, we shall again convert our caring into action.
    I remember how before the Conservative Government came to power in 1951 exactly the same charges were then made by the Labour Party. It said, "If we have a Conservative Government, there will be unemployment." This did not prove to be so, nor will this happen next time.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Could the right hon. Gentleman describe what he will do about development area grants and how it would affect my own constituency of Ebbw Vale, where people are very concerned about this matter? I should like to know exactly what he proposes to do.
    Mr. Carr: On another occasion I will willingly debate with the hon. Member about regional policies. Today, we are talking about unemployment as a whole.

    423
    I cannot for the moment remember the figures for the hon. Member's constituency, or for Wales, but I remember that during the last three or four years of Conservative government the total number of jobs in Scotland increased by about 30,000. I am speaking from memory. Over the last five years of Labour government the number of jobs in Scotland has decreased by almost 50,000. Just as we managed to do better for unemployment in total, so we did better in increasing the number of jobs in areas like Scotland.
    Mr. F. A. Burden: Does my right hon. Friend not also remember that the last Labour Government, in 1950, said that 3 per cent. unemployment was acceptable.
    Mr. Carr: That seems to be the policy on which they are working, and they should be more honest in saying it to the country.
    We see the same pattern in the regions. I will not give the figures for every region, but that information was given in a recent Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). It will be seen that between April, 1966, and April, 1970, unemployment increased in every region. Similarly, looking at the obverse side of the coin, 700,000 fewer people were in jobs last June, which is the latest time far which figures are available, than were in jobs in March, 1966, at the time of the General Election. That total fall is reflected in almost every region.
    I cannot tell the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale the figures for his constituency, but the figures for Wales as a whole show that in June, 1969, there were 50,000 fewer people in jobs than was the case three years earlier. I do not know how many of these were in the hon. Member's constituency. From region to region and, with the exception of East Anglia where there is a small increase, every part of the country shows a reduction in the number of jobs during the lifetime of this Government. These are the facts.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Some of them. The right hon. Gentleman is being very selective.
    Mr. Carr: I could spend a great deal of time giving more and more facts which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and his colleagues would not find any more palatable than those to which I have already referred. But these are the facts.
    What were the promises? In the dobate on 3rd February, I gave chapter and verse of the promises given by the Prime Minister. I will not weary the House by repeating them today, but every one of them has been broken. I will merely quote two short extracts from the Labour Party election manifesto of 1966. Under the heading, "Full employment policies", on page 14, the Labour Party said:
    "The level of economic activity in the community must be sufficient to provide jobs for all. Labour has always insisted that this can and will be ensured through intelligent management of the economy."
    On page 5 of the manifesto, a part entitled "Face the facts", we see
    "Whatever the pressures, it"—
    that is, the Labour Government—
    "would not jettison the four central objectives of its policy…"
    The third of four objectives listed on that page was
    "To maintain full employment…"
    Within three months of winning that election, the Labour Government had embarked on policies the intended, deliberate and inevitable effect of which was to jettison that objective. So much for the promises.
    Part of the "intelligent management of the economy" which was to be so wonderful was the much vaunted National Plan of 1965. That plan foresaw a manpower shortage of 400,000. Instead, we have 700,000 fewer jobs and 300,000 more men and women registered unemployed.
    Let us go from the present to the future. I hope that the Government Front Bench will tell the House and the country what they believe will happen now. Will unemployment go up or down? The Chancellor, in his Budget, took a cautious view that unemployment should move downwards. We very much hope that he is right. But he gave that view before the April unemployment figures, when there was some sign perhaps that the worst had been reached.

    425
    The April figures do not confirm that and we should like to have in specific terms from the Government their forecast now—not in precise numbers, of so many hundred thousand, but whether unemployment will go up or down. Obviously, the determining factor is whether the total growth in demand will be greater or less than the growth in productive capacity.
    I should like to spend a few moments in considering the main components of the demand, not in any precise or theoretical way but in general. Let us consider exports. Sometimes a broad look at these matters can be a lot more accurate and give far more information and guidance than a spurious casting up of detailed estimates, each of which is more guesswork than fact. Let us use our common sense.
    Export demand is still rising, and that is good. However, it is now rising obviously less buoyantly than it was. We can, therefore, look less to buoyancy in exports to provide such a large surge in demand that we could last year. That is shown in the figures published by the Government. This is also a matter of common sense when one looks at the state of the world's economy and at individual countries.
    The next element in demand is investment at home. This must have a doubtful outlook. Although hopes are still being expressed by industry of investing on a large scale—unfortunately, not as large as our main competitors in other countries—there are clear signs in industry that profit margins are now being squeezed, and, in some cases, squeezed very seriously. There is, therefore, a real danger of a reduction in the flow of money for self-financing investment within industry. At the same time, it is very difficult indeed at present to raise new capital, at least on terms which makes projects seem viable. This means that considerable doubt is hanging over the trend of investment as an element in total demand. It was surely a grave mistake on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to have taken steps specifically to encourage industrial investment which, if it has not already turned down, is in danger of doing so.
    The remaining main component in demand is domestic consumption, and this will almost certainly be the key
    426
    to the question of unemployment in the next year. On the one hand, we have the wage explosion pushing up demand and, therefore, tending to reduce unemployment. On the other, we have the price explosion mopping up demand and thereby tending to maintain or increase unemployment.
    Which of these will win? The price explosion is of nuclear dimensions. So far this year prices have been rising at an annual rate of 7 per cent., if not a bit more. That is at least as fast as immediately after devaluation—indeed, I believe that it is faster than at any time since there was last a Labour Government 20 years ago. Will the price explosion or the wage explosion win in influencing the overall level of demand? What do the Government think about this state of affairs?
    Then there is the tight money policy. If wages go up, but money supply is restricted as fiercely as it has been or is projected, it is obvious that production and employment will suffer as a result.
    Some factors lead one to think that unemployment might go on rising, while other factors lead one to hope that it might fall. How do the Government see this balance? What are their latest estimates? We ask the Government to give their considered views to the House and not ride off with the normal excuse that Governments do not forecast the movement of unemployment statistics.
    The Labour Party made enough promises and forecasts about unemployment in 1966, when it last wanted to win votes. With another election on top of us, let it give its forecasts and promises now, but this time let us have the facts on which they are based, let us see what reality Labour can give to its promises and what faith it can give to people this time, unlike last time, to believe that its promises will be kept and not broken.
    I turn from forecasts to action. What must be done? We will solve the unemployment and other related economic problems only within an economy which has a faster rate of growth. We will get a sustainable higher rate of growth only if certain fundamental changes take place in economic policy and industrial environment. In our view, at least six such changes are essential.
    Mr. Stanley Orme: Industrial relations?
    Mr. Carr: That will be one of them.
    Each of these six essentials is a subject for a whole day's debate. I hope that we will have a chance to debate them in full. We would welcome such an opportunity, for only when we have made certain such changes in our economic environment will we find solutions to the problems we face.
    First, my right hon. and hon. Friends are absolutely convinced that the tax structure must be reformed in a way deliberately designed to encourage earnings and savings by individuals and companies.
    Secondly, however hard to achieve, we are convinced that public expenditure must be contained within a smaller proportion of the total national income. It is the proportion of the national income which is vital, and not the absolute amount. For almost the whole 13 years of Conservative rule we were able to go on increasing Government expenditure while, at the same time, slightly and progressively reducing the proportion it took of the total national income. It was only in the last year or two of those 13 years that we failed to do that.
    If we have a lesson to learn from the economics of the post-war era, it is that the trick or method, more important perhaps than any other, by which a healthy economy can be maintained is this business of keeping public expenditure within a proportion, a slightly declining proportion, of the national income.
    Thirdly, we must provide a new environment for the conduct of industrial relations.
    Mr. Orme Mr. Orme rose—
    Mr. Carr: I will not give way. I have given way a great deal already. The more one gives way the less time is available for other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. I have made a number of speeches about industrial relations in the last few years and I am looking forward to making another in the near future when, perhaps, the right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State presents her non-event of a Bill.
    Fourthly, we must have a more vigorous policy to promote competition.
    428
    Fifthly, while we need more intervention to ensure competition, we need less intervention to prop up inefficient companies and industries and, generally speaking, less meddling and muddling in people's affairs.
    Sixth—and this is where I genuinely regret the absence of the First Secretary of State—we need a much more positive employment policy. That is what I want to talk about for the last few minutes of my speech, and about which, surely, we ought to have heard from the right hon. Lady today.
    The present unemployment problem, or at least a part of it stems from the inevitable technological and structural changes taking place in modern industrial economies and requires a more positive and better thought out manpower and employment policy than was necessary perhaps in the years gone by. First, we must pay a great deal more attention to manpower forecasting. I ask the House to note that I use the word "forecasting" rather than "planning". It is no good trying to plan artificial targets of what we shall need in different sectors so many years ahead. We want to keep an updated three- to five-year rolling forecast of what is likely to be needed in the main sectors.
    Then, we want to provide a much more sophisticated system of job information, a much more sophisticated and widespread system of job guidance and of employment placing services. All these have to be made much more professional, with much more emphasis on job guidance. Part of this improvement will require us to get clear from the employment exchanges their present business of benefit paying which detracts from, and to some extent degrades, the value of the employment service as a placing service, as a job counselling service, and as a job information service.
    Mr. E. Fernyhough(Jarrow)rose—
    Mr. Carr: No, I must not give way.
    Next, we must have a new look at our redundancy payments scheme. This was introduced, with our support, soon after the Government came to power. Let us be quite clear about that. It has been in operation for some years, and although it is doing some of the job that we wanted it to do, it is becoming more and

    429
    more clear that it simply is not designed to meet one of the major needs of a modern employment policy, because the benefits provided under our present redundancy payments scheme are determined entirely by past service and age, and not at all by the future needs of a man or woman in the way of retraining or moving to another job.
    A person gets precisely the same amount whether he can walk into a good, equal, or perhaps even better job, or whether he has to go through six to 12 months' training and searching before he can get himself redeployed. We must consider the possibility of some form of trainee wage, or mobility pay, call it what one will.
    I am certain that we have to look at the whole problem of adult retraining. I know that G.T.C.s are being expanded, and this we welcome; but we do not believe that these on their own can do the whole job. We believe that in connection with the great expansion in retraining opportunities which we must have, we should, after six years' experience, have a look at the organisation of our industrial training boards. This was a Conservative Act, which, on balance, has done great good; but there is increasing evidence that at least some of the boards are not doing quite the job that we would like them to be doing.
    When we look as the training effort, not so much in relation to training new entrants to industry, but at the machinery required for retraining adult workers for new opportunities, we realise that there is a strong case for considering a regional basis of administrative organisation, at least for some industries, rather than a vertical industry-wide one which tends to spread the organisation for that industry both extravagantly and thinly over the whole island. This has to be looked into.
    I am sure that we have to consider housing policy if we want to get people to move. I admit that most of the work has to be done by bringing jobs to people, but we must make it as easy as possible for people to move. I do not believe that housing policies yet make proper provision for this, nor that the financial aids available for people to move are either sufficiently well publicised or adequate in scale. The money is paid only when the result has been achieved.
    430
    Then there is the whole problem of the I.R.U.s run by the right hon. Lady's Department. They do admirable work but that, too, could be expanded.
    We know that the right hon. Lady's Department is looking into these matters. I believe that a month or two ago she presented a paper on some of these things to the National Economic Development Council, and that makes it all the more important why today the right hon. Lady should have talked about these vital subjects which are her responsibility. We believe that although something is being done, there is an urgent need to give it a new concentration and urgency of attention.
    The various aspects of manpower policy about which I have been talking need to be brought under unified direction, and we are actively and deeply considering the advisability of establishing, separate from, but under the umbrella of, the Department of Employment and Productivity, a national manpower commission, or employment services agency—call it what one will, the name is immaterial—which will have all those responsibilities. It would be managed by a chief executive, with a board comprising members from the trade unions, from management. and from the world of education. We believe that there could be real merit in associating industry and education directly with the responsibility for planning and executing the sort of manpower policies which our modern economy needs.
    We believe that those are the sort of ideas which are worth considering, and I hope that when they answer the debate the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench will tell us what their forecasts really are, give us reasons for those forecasts, and tell us and the country what hard action they will take to bring down this unemployment, and, in particular, to reduce the number of people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months.
    4.37 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning (Mr. Anthony CroEland): I apologise to the House in advance for the fact that I speak in a croak this afternoon. I apologise, too, if I do not attend the whole debate. This will be due solely to the

    431
    same mild influenza which causes me to croak rather than to speak boldly this afternoon.
    The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Can) asked why my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State was not taking this debate. There is no mystery of any kind about this. There are two reasons for it. One is that I and my colleagues on the Front Bench think it only fair that we should share amongst ourselves the pleasure and privilege of listening to the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, if we look back over the years we find that debates on the economic situation, because that is what we are debating this afternoon—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Crosland: We are debating the basic economic and regional situation.
    Over the years these debates have been variously taken by Ministers with regional, or labour, or industrial, or Treasury responsibilities. At the moment, as the right hon. Gentleman said in the first half of his speech, the problem of employment is substantially one of the regions and of industrial structure, and it therefore seemed appropriate that I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology should take the debate.
    I, in turn, express some surprise that we are not to hear from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) who, alone of Opposition spokesmen, has outlined something approaching a specific regional policy. Certainly, the right hon. Member for Mitcham said nothing constructive this afternoon. He confined himself to a few generalities at the end but gave the House no detailed indications of how, in the period immediately ahead, he would cope with the unemployment problem.
    I have said that our problem is substantially a regional one. This is shown by the fact that while the percentage of wholly unemployed is less than 2 per cent. in London, the South-East and the West Midlands, it is double that figure or more in Scotland, Wales and the North. I turn, first, therefore, to the regional problem, the continuing unbalance and inequality between the more prosperous and the less prosperous areas, an unbalance which is bitterly and naturally resented by those who live in the less
    432
    prosperous areas and continuously, and rightly, brought to our attention by hon. Members, from both sides of the House, who represent those areas.
    The principal reason for that inequality is not in dispute. It is the exceptionally rapid and severe rundown in employment in the traditional industries on which those regions are heavily dependent. Between mid-1964 and mid1969—these figures are very striking—there was a loss of over 208,000 jobs in coal mining; 134,000 in agriculture. forestry and fishing; 128,000 on the railways; 123,000 in textiles and clothing; 43,000 in metal manufacture; 21,000 in the ports and inland waterways; and 20,000 in shipbuilding and marine engineering. The total drop in those traditional industries during that period amounted to no less than 678,000.
    Looking at particular areas, the Northern Region, during that period, lost 45 per cent. of its coal mining jobs, 39 per cent. of its jobs on the railways and 15 per cent. of its jobs in metal manufacture. Scotland lost 38 per cent. of its jobs in coal mining and 28 per cent. of its jobs in agriculture. Wales lost 43 per cent. of its railway jobs and 40 per cent. of its jobs in coal mining.
    Some of those industries, of course, were running down before that period, but the rate of rundown was not as fast. During the previous five-year period the drop in unemployment in those industries was 466,000. During the last five years it was 678,000, an increase of nearly one-third. This represents a structural change of quite unusual magnitude. If it were not for the vigorous measures which the present Government have taken, and which I shall describe, this would have led to unemployment of disastrous proportions.
    I might add that the problem would have been a great deal less severe if, in the long years before 1964, the party opposite had planned and phased the inevitable contraction in these industrial sectors.
    Mr. R. Carr: Surely, in 1966, when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had been in power 18 months, they had some means of foreseeing these changes before they made their promises to the country that unemployment would not rise.
    Mr. Crosland: I have been speaking for about four minutes. If the right hon. Gentleman allows me to develop my argument, I think that he will find the answer to his question.
    As we all well know, this kind of structural problem cannot be solved by across-the-board national policies. If we have a regional imbalance such that we have full employment in some areas at the same time as significant unemployment in other areas—and that is our situation in Britain—then national fiscal and monetary policies cannot reduce the unemployment in the less prosperous areas without creating an unacceptable degree of inflation in the more prosperous areas.
    The rate of expansion, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is, of course, a relevant factor, and I shall come to it a little later. But faster growth alone cannot cure these regional inequalities. For that we need a purposive and systematic regional policy, which is what the Government have embarked upon. I certainly do not claim that it is perfect—far from it—but I will claim that it stands comparison with any in the world and is far in advance of anything that the party opposite have produced.
    The most urgent and immediate need in the face of the rundown in employment which I have described was to take steps to deal with the personal and family hardship resulting from the loss of jobs. Some people profess to argue that unemployment has today lost its terrors. The right hon. Member for Mitcham did not argue this, but some people give that impression. It is true that we are not in the 1930s, but the hardship of not being able to find work, especially where this drags on for weeks and months, and especially where someone has been in the same job for many years past, is still very much a reality.
    The measures which we have taken since 1964 have, however, gone a long way to mitigate at least the problem of loss of earnings and so to make it easier to adjust to the changes which are taking place so rapidly. Successive increases in flat-rate unemployment benefit, the introduction of earnings-related benefit, the redundancy payments scheme, the help to the older redundant mineworkers
    434
    —of great importance in many areas—and the greatly developed Government training facilities have all helped at least to lessen the suffering of unemployment. They cannot eliminate it, but at least they mean that unemployment today does not carry with it the degrading poverty that it did in years gone by.
    It may be—and here I come to a point that was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—that those measures have also affected the significance of the unemployment figures. There is evidence to show that the unemployment figures since 1966 do not necessarily indicate the same degree of slackness in the Labour Party; I am sorry, the labour market—[Laughter.] I hope that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has read today's Evening Standard, which he will find far from encouraging from his point of view. There is evidence to show that the unemployment figures since 1966 do not necessarily indicate the same degree of slackness as would have been assumed from the same figures previously.
    For example, there has been a change in the relationship between outstanding vacancies for men and the number of men wholly unemployed. The proportion of vacancies to unemployed is now much higher than in previous periods. Again, we now have a high level of overtime working and a relatively low level of short-term working in manufacturing industry—both features which would normally be associated with much lower levels of unemployment than we have. We now know that the range of the seasonal fluctuation over recent years is one which would in the past have gone with considerably lower levels of unemployment.
    There may be a number of causes for this apparent change in the character of unemployment. But it seems likely that Government efforts to mitigate the worst hardships of unemployment have played a considerable part. It may be that people now somewhat more easily accept redundancy and are more willing to take time in finding a new job.
    However, I do not want to make too much of this. The fact is that whether it is true or not unemployment in the regions is still too high and must be reduced. So I turn to the Government's basic policies for reducing the regional

    435
    imbalance. I shall describe them briefly, as I think that by now they are fairly familiar.
    First, the I.D.C. control, which I know well from my days at the Board of Trade. It is, no doubt, unpopular with the C.B.I., with chambers of commerce in the South-East and West Midlands, and even with hon. Members, on both sides, who represent constituencies in those regions, but in my view this unpopularity is the best tribute to its success as an instrument of regional policy.
    Secondly, financial incentives. Despite the constraints on public expenditure, preferential assistance to the less prosperous areas has been consistently increased, and in 1969–70 it reached over£310 million compared with about£40 million in 1964–65. Last year, the 20 per cent. regional investment grant differential—introduced in 1966—benefited the development areas by about£96 million. Payments of the regional employment premium—first made in 1967—totalled about£100 million. Assistance under the Local Employment Acts is running at over£80 million a year. In 1968–69, for example, the same number of advance factories were authorised as during the whole of the five-year period 1960–64.
    Thirdly, we have done a great deal to improve the infrastructure in the regions. Public investment in new construction in Britain as a whole rose from just over£1,600 milion in 1965–66 to nearly£2,300 million in 1968–69, an increase of 40 per cent.
    We are talking here of a wide range of economic and social infrastructure—houses, roads, schools, hospitals, urban redevelopment, new and expanded towns, the renewal of town centres, and so on. Compared with this national increase of 40 per cent. the Northern Region had an increase of 100 per cent. from£83 million to£161 million the North-West Region had an increase of over 50 per cent., and Yorkshire and Humberside an increase of 60 per cent.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: Yesterday, the Minister of Housing and Local Government told the House that the cost of housing had risen by 40 per cent., so the so-called increase is no increase at all.
    Mr. Crosland: The so-called increase is a real increase. I am concerned with the contrast between the figures for the whole country and the figures for the regions. It is the reality that I am stressing.
    The Government have helped in other specific ways. I mention only the resettlement and retraining schemes; the dispersal of Government offices from London and the construction of new offices outside London as a result of which 45,000 Government jobs have been established out of London; 21,000 of them in development areas; and the derelict land grants, to which I shall return later.
    Fourthly, and not least important, we have shown that a regional policy can and must be flexible enough to adapt itself to changing circumstances. It must be capable of geographical selectivity which matches the changing needs of different areas—needs that cannot always be defined in a rigid bipartite division of development areas versus the rest. We have been developing policies for all the regions. We have met the accelerated rundown in coal mining by the creation of special development areas, which I announced in November, 1967, and have accepted the case for certain intermediate areas, as embodied in the Local Employment Act, 1970.
    These have been our policies. I believe that the achievement has been substantial. It is true that unemployment in the development areas remains generally much higher than the national average. But since 1964 there has been a marked improvement in their unemployment position relative to the national average—and this despite the structural convulsion that I described earlier, the fact that they have borne the brunt of jobs loss in the older industries.
    Unemployment figures for the development areas before 1966 are available only for June in each year. In each June, from 1960 to 1964, the development areas accounted for over 40 per cent. of all those unemployed in Britain. In June, 1964, they accounted for nearly 48 per cent. of the total unemployed. But by June, 1969, the figure had fallen to 37 per cent. and at the latest count, in April, 1970, it was only 36 per cent. So, while in mid-1964 the development

    437
    areas' unemployment rate was over double the national rate, by mid-1969 it had fallen to 1·75 times the national rate.
    It is clear, therefore, that the dramatic fall in jobs in the older industries has been to a considerable extent offset by the increased number of new manufacturing jobs which our regional incentives have encouraged. Figures for I.D.C. approvals between 1965 and 1969 give a striking indication of the flow of new jobs into the development areas. About 334,000 jobs were expected to arise in these areas from projects approved in that period. That was 49 per cent. of the total of estimated new jobs for the whole of Britain, although the development areas contain only about 20 per cent. of the employees in Great Britain.
    This does not give a complete picture of new jobs in the development areas, since I.D.C. returns do not include new employment created either by firms which increase their labour force without extending their buildings or by firms which—as, for example, in the services sector can build or expand without requiring an I.D.C.
    But, and this is forgotten by some who argue against an investment grant differential—it is not only on the number of new jobs created; although that is impressive—the success of development area incentives should be judged; it is also on the quality, variety and durability of employment. Those factors are equally vital. Given the decline in the traditional industries, it is essential to broaden and diversify their industrial base and ensure them a share of modern capital-intensive, science-based industries, as well as of the more labour-intensive industries.
    By this token, too, the policies of the last few years have paid a handsome dividend. Many hon. Members from different parts of the country can give their own examples of new science-based, capital-intensive forms of expanding industries that have come to their areas. The imbalance between the regions has lessened, and we can take pride in that fact. Nevertheless, the absolute figures for unemployment are still too high, and the cause is to be found in our national economic situation, to which I now briefly turn.
    438
    After devaluation the over-riding need was to switch resources on a large scale into the balance of payments and, to a lesser extent, investment. This was the second major structural change that has dominated our economy in recent times. A switch of resources of this magnitude cannot be accomplished without keeping a rigid control over other forms of spending. It requires firm restraint over the total level of demand. Hence the restraints, in successive Budgets, on consumer spending; hence the tight control over public expenditure; and hence, in consequence, a temporarily higher level of unemployment. This was the price we had to pay for restoring the basic health of our economy.
    But that process—the switch of resources—has now largely been com-pleted. Exports have risen strongly. Investment has risen, and is still rising. Contrary to the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman, the Financial Times survey of only two days ago expressed an extremely buoyant outlook for both exports and investment. The balance of payments, which, in 1967, showed a deficit of£322 million, on current account, now, in the first quarter of this year, shows a surplus at an annual rate of£600 million. So, having largely accomplished the switch of resources, with its inevitable transitional unemployment, we can this year—as my hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear in his Budget speech—expect a faster rate of growth than for some years past, and a lower level of unemployment.
    The Budget also contained a most helpful concession in the shape of the differential initial allowance for industrial buildings. On bank lending, where some queries have been raised, I can now confirm that while overriding priority is accorded to export finance, and to investment and production bringing direct benefit to the balance of payments, the request to the banks to pay regard to the Government's policies on regional development most certainly continue in effect.
    Any fool can run a regional policy with an£800 million balance of payments deficit. The measure of the present Government's success is that during a period when we have been faced not only with an accelerated decline in traditional industries, but also with a need to switch

    439
    resources on a vast scale into the balance of payments, we have kept the increase in unemployment in the development areas below that in the country as a whole. In June, 1964, nearly 48 per cent. of thos e unemployed in Britain were in development areas. By April of this year that figure had fallen to 36 per cent.
    The right hon. Gentleman did not give us a detailed account of Tory policies for dealing with regional unemployment. Certainly, on the point of economic growth, where expansion should go faster, the judgment of right hon. Gentlemen opposite has been wrong. They have never suggested—not in this year's Budget, not in last year's Budget, and not in that of the year before—that the Chancellor should have gone in for faster expansion. The suggestion has been made by some of my hon. Friends, but it has never been made by the Opposition Front Bench. If the party opposite has a different policy for reducing unemployment it must be solely in terms of regional policies.
    For a long time it appeared that the Opposition totally disapproved of the Government's regional policies, but in the debate on the Northern Region, on 23rd February, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East—I am sorry that he is not here—produced a policy that bore a superficial resemblance to the Government's policies, but with some ominous differences in emphasis.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that he would keep the I.D.C. system—good. But there have been discreet references in a Tory publication, "Notes on Current Politics: Regional Development", to operating it more flexibly, which, in practice, can only mean less strictly. These references have caused grave disquiet in the regions. I hope that we shall be assured tonight that the Opposition would tend to administer it with the same firmness as the Government have done in dealing with firms which, without convincing grounds, are reluctant to move to development areas.
    Next, the right hon. Gentleman said that they would abolish investment grants, but keep an investment incentive differential. This, again, has caused disquiet in the development areas, especially when it is accompanied by vague warnings that existing investment incentives have been
    440
    rather too successful in attracting capital intensive industries, such as chemicals and oil refining, to the development areas.
    The right hon. Gentleman calls for more selectivity. It has been suggested that the Local Employment Acts might be used in some way to operate the regional investment grant differential. It would be very interesting to know how grants of plant and machinery would be linked with the provision of a particular number of jobs. Perhaps grant would be paid only to projects of "particular value". Just how these would be identified from amongst millions of applications, by the reduced Civil Service which is also an Opposition objective, remains extremely obscure. Industry has been known to complain, even under our present system, that it is sometimes difficult to predict what support a particular project would attract. It would certainly be a great deal more difficult under the arrangements which the Opposition appear to envisage.
    Next, R.E.P. is to be phased out, in contrast to the Government's policy, clearly stated in the White Paper, Cmnd. 3310, to maintain it for seven years, and only then to decide, in the light of the circumstances at the time. whether to continue the scheme in full or to taper it off.
    It seems oddly inconsistent to criticise the Government's policies for attracting too much capital intensive industry and yet to want to abolish R.E.P. which is a subsidy to labour-intensive industry. It is a direct subsidy to labour costs in areas where unemployment is high, and it encourages the development of labour intensive industry. Nothing has emerged since it was introduced to contradict our view that it will prove to have an extremely low economic cost.
    However, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East has some solace for us. In our debate on 23rd February, he said that
    "…for everyone who is sad about the end of R.E.P., there will be at least one, if not two, who will rejoice at the end of S.E.T."— [OFFiciAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1970; Vol. 796. c. 867.]
    What the right hon. Gentleman omitted to tell us was how many might be even sadder about the introduction of V.A.T. There will hardly be dancing in the streets for that.

    441
    Next, say the Opposition, the infrastructure is to be improved. I have already shown how much it has already been improved under this Government. We must be allowed a little scepticism at the idea that a Tory Chancellor, committed simultaneously to drastic cuts in public expenditure, sweeping reductions in direct taxation, and the abolition of purchase tax and S.E.T., could do much better than we have done—even with the help of V.A.T.
    Mr. Ian MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to comment on the fact that while our regional policies were in force employment in Scotland went up by 30,000, whereas while his Government's regional policies have been in force it has dropped by 41,000?
    Mr. Crosland: The whole of my speech so far has been devoted to an attempt to explain this as being due partly to the rundown of older industries in Scotland and elsewhere, and partly to the need for a large switch of resources into balance of payments and investment.
    The Opposition's last suggestion is that the environment should be improved. Of all their suggestions I find this to be the suggestion that invokes in me, at any rate, the hollowest laugh. Let us take the question of derelict land clearance, so crucial to improving the environment. When the Tories came back in 1951 they suspended all grants for clearance between then and 1959. They did then reintroduce grants, at a modest level, but very little was paid between 1960 and 1964. We, by contrast, now pay 85 per cent. grants in development areas, 75 per cent. grants in intermediate and derelict land clearance areas, and 50 per cent. grants over the whole of the rest of the country.
    As a result, in the last two or three years, for the first time, clearance of derelict land has at last got under way. Expenditure five years ago was negligible—virtually nothing. It rose to£2 million last year. I estimate that it will be£3 million in the current year, and I hope that it will rise to£6 million in 1973–74, and that we shall be able to clear the worst of our derelict land in the next 10 years—something what would have been quite impossible under the level of
    442
    grants which the party opposite was giving.
    The trouble is that the Tories, on this as on other things, strain our credulity too hard. Their attacks on the Government have become extravagant in tone and irresponsible in content. Nobody now believes what they say about unemployment, law and order, trade union reform or taxation and public expenditure. As recent public opinion polls show very clearly, they are grossly underrating the intelligence of the electorate.
    Of course, we are not complacent, as I hope I have made clear, about the unemployment situation. We are constantly examining all our policies, and we are certainly prepared to adapt them as experience or changing circumstances requires. But when I consider the massive structural changes with which they have had to cope in the last few years, I claim that these policies have been remarkably successful. And I add that anyone who thinks that the problem of unemployment will be safer in Tory hands must be, quite simply, out of his mind.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. May I successfully appeal for brief speeches, which will assist the Chair and enable many of the hon. Members wishing to speak to participate in the debate.
    5.7 p.m.
    Mr. Henry Clark: Over the last two years internal strife has replaced unemployment as the most popular topic to be discussed when Northern Ireland is mentioned. But although strife has filled the headlines, unemployment in Northern Ireland remains. It would be quite untrue to suggest, as some hon. Members have suggested, that civil strife and disturbance are largely the result of unemployment, but there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland has added bitterness and a wider dimension to our civil troubles.
    Typical of just this situation is the statement made to me the other day by a man in a heavy industry in my constituency. He said, "Not for five years have I been able to have any confidence in the future of my job. I have never been able to see firm employment for

    443
    more than three months ahead. It is pure luck that I have a job in the factory, but it may be gone in a few months' time." Men with that uncertainty in their minds must be much more likely to enter into the civil disturbance and strife of the sort we have had in Northern Ireland.
    In April, we had 35,000 unemployed in Northern Ireland, and that represents 6·9 per cent. of the population. Perhaps more disturbing than the percentage and the total figure is the fact that the activity rate, the percentage of population in gainful employment, is 10 per cent. below that for the rest of the United Kingdom. A small part of that difference can be explained by the large number of small farmers, and the fact that the activities of farmers' wives may not be included, but we cannot accept an activity rate 10 per cent. lower than that for the rest of the United Kingdom together with an altogether lower level of wages. It certainly adds to the incentive to trouble, strife, riot, and the horrors we have recently had in Northern Ireland.
    It has been said on a number of occasions that when South-East England sneezes the outlying regions catch cold. All I can say is that, thank God, such a state of things has not been entirely true on this occasion. The level of unemployment in Northern Ireland has not, over the last five years, increased by the 5·9 per cent. it has in the rest of England as a whole.
    We have in Northern Ireland just succeeded in holding our own over the last five years at the tragically high figure of 7 per cent. unemployment. But the change over the last five years is the change in attitude and the complete loss of optimism. In 1964 and 1965 and even up to 1966 there was genuine hope that, by the early 1970s, we would be bringing the 7 per cent. unemployment rate down to 4 or even 3 per cent. Although I do not think that even 3 per cent. is an acceptable rate, it would be acceptable if we could create it next year or the year after in Northern Ireland.
    This loss of optimism and of dynamism has added to the bitterness and troubles. We looked forward in particular to tackling the really high pockets of unemployment. Hon. Members have mentioned on occasion the very high levels of unemployment in the western
    444
    part of the country. I had looked forward in these years, but now with less hope, to tackling the 12 and 14 per cent. unemployment pockets in the northern end of my constituency, which are not in the west of Ulster.
    There can be no doubt that the slowing down of industrial expansion, which had been steadily moving outwards from Belfast from the mid-fifties onwards, enabled people to suggest that there was some special difference between the east and the west of Ulster and that this added to the fire and bitterness of the troubles we have had. We are now reaching the end of the five year targets set by the Wilson Report for Northern Ireland, and it is a matter of some pride for the Ministry of Commerce of Northern Ireland, which is no laggard in finding new jobs, that we just managed to keep pace with the targets for industrial jobs.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Gentleman compares the east and the west of Northern Ireland. The unemployment figure in Deny was almost double that of Belfast and the eastern areas.
    Mr. Clark: I did not want to go into this in great detail, but within a radius of 30 to 35 miles from Belfast there is almost full employment. That area was moving steadily outwards at a rate of perhaps a mile or even two miles a year in the early 1960s. There always has to be a growth point from which to grow, and the growth point here was Belfast. Unfortunately, the expansion of the prosperous area around Belfast has come to an end and there is no doubt that this has led to a considerable degree of bitterness and dispute.
    We have achieved the Wilson targets for industrial employment and I have said that this has been due considerably to the Northern Ireland Ministry of Commerce. But we have fallen short in the creation of new jobs in service industries. In that sector, there has been a considerable shortfall on the very modest and conservative targets set by the Wilson Report. The Government cannot deny that selective employment tax has to some extent held back the expansion of employment in service industries. After all that was one of the aims of the tax. The Northern Ireland Government have

    445
    been able to soften the blow to some extent but there is no doubt that S.E.T. still provides a disincentive. I am continually receiving complaints about it from my constituents and all parts of Northern Ireland.
    As a remote area of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is particularly sensitive to transport costs, yet one feature of the Government's policy over the last five years is that they have taken every opportunity to add to transport costs through taxation and restrictive legislation. My belief is that the Northern Ireland Government might have been well advised to have broken loose from the£25 motor vehicle tax and to have kept it at a lower level in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that they felt that they must have a step-by-step policy with the United Kingdom Government, because a car is not a luxury for everyone. In remote places it is an expensive necessity in order to be able to find a job.
    A classic case has recently been brought to my attention. Northern Ireland Trailers, a Northern Ireland-based firm, recently announced a 10 per cent. increase in freight charges on the Irish Sea to the Republic of Ireland but a 12½ per cent. increase to Northern Ireland. In correspondence with the firm, I discovered that it was restrictive legislation and the high taxation in the United Kingdom which had resulted in the additional 2½ per cent. for Northern Ireland. The firm also warned that restrictions on drivers' hours may well in future force it to raise charges to Northern Ireland yet again, but not to the South. This is a test case in which one can see how restrictive the Government's legislation has been.
    The air fare between London and Belfast—very important for managerial and consulting services—has crept up from£14 10s. five years ago to just on£20 today. The need for journeys between London and Belfast is a factor which must bear heavily on the budgets of smaller companies which we are trying to attract to the remoter areas of Northern Ireland.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) dealt effectively with the poor climate for industrial investment created by the Government. 1
    446
    believe that this is the root of the industrial stagnation which threatens Northern Ireland. During 1969 and 1970, we have had in Northern Ireland the disincentive of civil disturbances and it is tragic that these are so often backed by those who need and cry loudest for more jobs. Internal security is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government but it is shared today by the British Army, and I speak for the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland when I say that we should like to see a considerably more robust attitude from the British Army towards those who break the law in Northern Ireland, so that we can restore peace and get back to the confidence which the creation of the jobs in Northern Ireland need so badly.
    Mr. John Mendelson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I attach the greatest importance, as he does, to more jobs being secured for Northern Ireland. I said so when I was in Derry. They are needed to help both economically and politically. But there is a curious omission from his speech. When he claimed some success, he claimed it for the Ministry of Commerce in the Stormont Government. He has not mentioned any of the economic help which has gone from the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland under the present Government. When I was in Belfast, many of the supporters of the party to which he belongs, stressing the importance of the United Kingdom connection, were saying that a lot of help was coming from London.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Interventions must be brief.
    Mr. Clark: I had wanted to restrict my remarks, and indeed I did so. I agree that we in Northern Ireland as citizens of the United Kingdom receive as of right considerable amounts of money—
    Mr. Mendelson: Then the hon. Gentleman should say so.
    Mr. Clark:—but the people who take the initiative for finding new industrial jobs are in the Ministry of Commerce, and they have taken a number of bold initiatives. The trouble during the last five years is that the edge which the Northern Ireland Government had over

    447
    other development areas in the United Kingdom has been considerably eroded. We are now competing on virtually level terms with all the other development areas, whereas previously we had a considerable edge over them and a higher level of incentive to bring industry into Northern Ireland.
    5.20 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) has dealt with regional policy, something astonishingly completely missing from the speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). The right hon. Gentleman's speech was one of the most curious openings I have ever heard of what, after all, is a debate on a censure Motion. It consisted of a series of broad political generalisations at the beginning and became somewhat more constructive towards the end, when the right hon. Gentleman made a series of modest, useful, administrative propositions which have been discussed jointly in the O.E.C.D. and other international bodies concerned with industrial policies. They were propositions to which many of us would not take exception. and the Government have been following many of the proposals. The right hon. Gentleman was rather belated in putting them forward as his own policy and his speech was an extraordinary mixture.
    I care passionately about unemployment and the level of unemployment which my constituency has to face. I do not make any apology for using the facts of the situation in my constituency to try to deal constructively with the problem of unemployment and so make valuable a debate which, from the Opposition would have been useless.
    Of course unemployment is a regional matter, and there are heavy pockets of unemployment within regions. Even within the Northern Region, which overall has an average high level of unemployment, there are large areas which have made great progress, and we all delight in that, largely because of Government action. There are areas on Teesside and elsewhere, which suffered severely in the past, which have seen rapid and important developments. Many parts of County Durham and of Northum-
    448
    berland and even of Tyneside, even Newcastle itself, have benefited from these developments.
    Unfortunately, there are large pockets of severe unemployment, and they include the area I represent. We now have 3,000 men out of work in South Shields alone, and this represents 14 per cent. of men able to work. This level is utterly unacceptable. Alas, many of them have been out of work for a considerable time. Many are older men. Just under onethird—and this is also true of the adjacent area—are over 55.
    A large proportion of these are ex-miners who are receiving the special mining allowance which the Labour Government introduced. Whether the Conservatives would have done anything of the sort is a very big question. A considerable number of older men thus receive 90 per cent. of their former earnings for three years. Nevertheless, this older group is an important part of the problem. We should not write off these men. They are still able to make a useful contribution to the economy and it is a waste of their ability, and sometimes of their skill, not to be able to use them.
    Within the total of unemployed, 850 men previously worked in shipbuilding, ship repair and marine contracting, mainly related to the ship-repair industry. Many are unskilled men. The news on Tyneside about the possible closure of Palmer's Yard in Hebburn adjacent to my constituency adds to the current deep anxiety. This must be seen as part of the wider problem of the ship-repair industry. We must take special action here, not only because of the threatened closure of Palmer's Yard, but because of the serious position of many other repair yards.
    There is a heavy concentration of ship-repair work towards the mouth of the Tyne, on both sides of the river. We are awaiting a report from the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Council, but we cannot afford to wait for that report for long. We want to know in what way the Government can help the industry to get back in a position to have a bigger share of the world's ship repair work. We should not take the pessimistic view and say that changes in the size of ships and so on will rule out all chance of bringing

    449
    employment to men in the British shiprepair industry. Much of the shipping industry is still in smaller ships, some very large, but never-the less smaller than the mammoth ships which we have recently been building on the Tyne. A big job has still to be done to keep them in good repair.
    What action can be taken to help to ensure that we have our full share of that work? We are certain that there is a big job of modernisation to be done and perhaps an operation similar to that successfully carried out on the Tyne for shipbuilding needs to be done for the ship-repair industry. Far too many ships, and British ships, are being repaired abroad. We have to consider whether there is any way, within the rules of E.F.T.A. and so on, in which we may ensure that a bigger share is available to our own yards.
    We need to set up an action group representing the Ministries chiefly concerned, the local authorities and the trade unions, to try to iron out the difficulties in the special areas of unemployment, an action group to speed action. To some extent, this is beginning to come about. My hon. Friend the Minister of State came to discuss the problems of South Shields only a short time ago, and I am told that there has been some recent help from the Departments to clear up some of our problems.
    For example, we are short of proper sites for industrial development in the immediate area. There are many complicated problems involved in making sites available for large-scale industry which would employ about 1,000 men. However, this could be done. There are industries which want to have sites on the Tyne. We cannot get sufficiently large sites, but there are many projects involving areas along the river which could be used for industrial purposes. Some of these projects are beginning to go ahead, but not fast enough. We need an action group to ensure that the blocks are eliminated.
    I am sorry that my local authority is not going ahead with some roadwork projects closely linked with these potential industrial areas. I hope that it will reconsider this. The Government are offering£750,000 towards the£1 million scheme, and at present the local authority has postponed it. That is tragic when
    450
    we need access to the site so badly. I hope that it can be persuaded to go ahead with the scheme.
    I firmly believe that the solution to many of our problems is well within our capacity. As we have been able to succeed in bringing new employment to other areas that were in equally difficult situations, so I believe that we can cure this problem.
    We have a special responsibility towards some of the younger people. Sadly there are still far too many young people who have been out of work for six months and more in my area. This is quite unacceptable. I ask for special attention to be paid to the proposal that I have made time and again, in the House and elsewhere, for use to be made of the potential facilities of the Marine and Technical College, which is willing to make these facilities available to help with preliminary engineering training for many of these young men who are on the streets without work after leaving school. In such conditions they naturally move into violence and this may be one of the factors in the violence that we have seen in some of these areas.
    I have tried to put forward a limited number of constructive proposals to which I have every confidence we can get the right answer from the Government. All that I propose has been done with success elsewhere. This is a challenge that our Government can face. While I reject with utter cynicism some of the comments made from the other side of the House because we know that such proposals as we have heard from that quarter are only too likely to push us further into trouble. I expect something different from my own Front Bench. I hope to have a specific answer to my proposals quickly.
    5.33 p.m.
    Mr. Esmond Wright: It is a singular honour that you are conferring on me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that following South Shields and Ulster, Scotland should be given its rightful priority. It is natural that I should endorse what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has said, because as he knows I have considerable concern with his native area, the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, with which he was for a long time associated as Member for

    451
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East. I want to continue the theme of this debate because the challenge was put out to this side of the House that we were extravagant in tone. I have no wish to be extravagant in tone about a subject much too important to justify polemics. What I am concerned about is that the very same structural imbalance is unhappily, the same in May, 1970, as it was, in ratio, back in the 1930s, which the hon. Member for South Shields will remember perhaps as vividly as I. He will no doubt recall Palmer's Yard on the Tyne in those days.
    It is a curious phenomenon that this Government have produced, a quite unique economic situation—an economy of high wages, high unemployment, yet at the same time low productivity. There is no change between the ratio of 1966 and the ratio of today. It is still almost a ninefold increase in earnings as against a fivefold increase in prices, as against a 1½ per cent. increase in productivity. That is the abiding indictment of this Government. It is a political tactic of the Government in this run-up to the General Election to say, "Never mind about productivity, let us leave the price spiral to take account of things after October, because it is the earnings that are clearly important." The reason why there is such pride among the other side in the recent opinion polls is bound up with this.
    In today's economy, rather than face the threat of unofficial strikes, employers are ready to pay phenomenally high wage increases of 10 per cent. and 11 per cent. to buy off trouble. In this sense they may, indirectly and unwittingly, worsen the problem of productivity. As I see it, prices will rise fast but unfortunately so will unemployment, and there has as yet been hardly any increase in productivity. We have already had some figures. The total unemployed in the United Kingdom is now 617,000 and since December, 1966, there have been only 11 months during which the figure has dropped below 550,000. In Scotland we now have the situation in which the figures are despairingly high. The average is 4·3 per cent. About 20 per cent. of those unemployed in Scotland have been out of work for over a year, and 18 per cent. are over the age of 55.
    I say quite soberly to the Government, a Government which at any rate on their
    452
    placards talk about heart: where is this heart? Where is their concern for full employment and the anguish that unemployment produces in so many thousands of homes? The basic criticism of this Government is that they have failed to solve the regional economic problem. I am glad that the Ministers concerned with regional affairs are dealing with the debate. I suspect that we will get a great deal more economic sense from their two speeches than from the right hon. Lady who ought to have been here.
    In Scotland a few weeks ago there were seven adults unemployed for every available vacancy. In Glasgow, a few weeks ago, there were 22,600 people out of work, an increase of 1.000 over the same period a year ago. There is a fundamental problem of human anguish, waste of resources and a worrying problem of cost. The other day I costed the high price of Socialism for Scotland. The figures seem almost incredible. In terms of the extra rate burdens the cost has been£42 million over the last 5½ years; in terms of increased interest charges, a further£32 million.
    We have lost about 36,000 jobs. Estimating those at an earning power of around£1,000 a year this means a loss of another£36 million. There is, at the very outside,£100 million already. Add that the rate of inflation has cost us, reckoning on 2 million wage and salary earners in Scotland, over£400 million, because the "£1 in your pocket" is now worth 15s. 10d. We have a debt of£3,000 million, which works out in Scotland as£300 million for a 1 in 10 ratio. There is extra taxation of at least£3,000 million which works out in Scotland as another£300 million. Adding it all up, it comes, even at that point, to well over£1,000 million for Scotland alone.
    I have not mentioned S.E.T., which in its impact on the service industries, tourism and hotels—indeed, in its impact on the quality of life—is a basic blow. We should also add mortgage rates, and high prices, and the cost to Scotland of the regional employment premium of£40 million. I ask the Minister of Technology to bear in mind the cost which we are paying to maintain unemployment at the old level. I want an answer from him, if answer he can give, to this curious paradox.

    453
    In Scotland, there are special issues which worry all of us who represent Scottish constituencies. Government expenditure on defence in Scotland has always unhappily been low, but in the last 12 to 18 months we have had the closure of almost all the basic defence stations in Scotland. We have had the closure of H.M.S. "Condor", the Royal Naval Air Station, at Arbroath; the takeover by the R.A.F. of the Royal Naval Station at Lossiemouth; the closure of the torpedo factory at Alexandria; and its take-over by Plessey; the closure of the R.N. Store at Almondbank in Perthshire; the closure of the engineering school at H.M.S. "Caledonia", at Rosyth; and the closure of the ordnance depot at Irvine; and the closure of the submarine attack school at Port Bannatyne, in Bute.
    I ask hon. Members opposite who are concerned about Scottish nationalism to notice how this policy has played into the hands—perhaps now the palsied hands—of the Scottish Nationalists. There is a plain indifference, not only to the defence interests of Scotland, but to the economic interests of Scotland. I add the point on which, it is true, a different gloss can be put of persistent emigration from Scotland, even if in the last few months the figures are not quite as bad as they used to be.
    I wish to mention in the presence of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) a point of which I hope he will take note. If there has been a single source of economic boom in Scotland in the last few years, it has been due to the immigration of foreign companies, not least American companies. Since 1945 no fewer than 360 non-Scottish based industries have moved to Scotland—two-thirds of them since 1960. Since 1953, 89 American based companies have moved to Scotland. The increase in employment in manufacturing industry in Scotland has taken place, disturbingly and almost totally, in American-owned firms.
    There is a basic problem, and I know that the Minister is concerned about it because I once took part with him in a television debate on the changing character of Scottish and, indeed, United Kingdom society under Americanisation. In Scotland there has been a rundown in agriculture of 32,000, rundown in mining of 42,000, and a rundown in ship-
    454
    building of 20,000. The two great industrial sectors which have developed in Scotland over the last decade are the construction industry, in which 30,000 more people are employed, and the service industries, in which nearly 50,000 more people are employed. Yet it is precisely these industries which are hit by selective employment tax, which are compelled to pay£23 million to the United Kingdom Exchequer.
    I now consider the future. We on this side of the House are constantly challenged to say what we would do. All that we heard from the Minister was about industrial development certificates, Government grants of greater or lesser degree, the word "infrastructure—"which emanates from the Toothill Report of 1963 which was made while the Conservative Administration was in office—and the phrase "geographical selectivity". I wish to deal with this issue by putting five fundamental questions.
    First, what is the effectiveness of the policy of grants to industry in Scotland or in any region of the United Kingdom? I know that the Ministry of Technology is involved in a study of this matter, and I would welcome any advance information about it if it can be given. I accept the wisdom of industrial development certificates. I doubt whether that is an issue between us. I doubt whether anyone, except perhaps the absent members of the Welsh and Scottish National Parties, would question whether there should be the emphasis on centralisation implicit in industrial development certificates. There must be some centralised control if industry is to be steered.
    However, the policy of grants to industry is phenomenally expensive. The Minister gave the figure of£310 million. Is not this policy much too blunt a weapon? We are persuading industry to go to Scotland, but we are not stimulating home-grown Scottish industry to modernise and develop. There are too many firms in which the balance sheet suggests a profit which exactly equals the regional employment premium which they get from the Government. The regional employment premium is too indiscriminate. Why should it be paid to industry already in the area? Has it helped the modernisation of native firms already in being? Has it not encouraged over-manning? I thought that the

    455
    Minister admitted that without putting it in that form.
    Selective employment tax should go for all the reasons which I have given. There are, however, times when the Conservative Party is in danger of chanting "S.E.T. must go" as if it were the only economic incantation necessary. We need to say very much more.
    The Professor of Political Economy at the University of Glasgow, Prof. Wilson, suggested that grants to firms moving in should be replaced by loans, which might not then need to be repaid if the promise of new jobs provided by them were fulfilled. This codicil to the grant might be a useful step.
    My second question is based on the firm fact that Scotland—and I imagine that this is true of Ulster and Wales—is not a homogeneous country. The measures which helped to solve the problems of the Lowlands, no doubt producing congestion in their wake, will not solve the problems of the Highlands and the Islands. Has the Minister's Department considered, or is it prepared to consider, regional variations inside the formula? Is it true that when Prof. Kaldor, who I think originated what is now called selective employment tax, first brought the plans forward they took not the present form of emphasis on industry versus service trades, but a regional form. It might well be useful to revert to the regional variant.
    I turn now to my third question. When we are discussing manpower planning and forecasting, cannot more attention be given to training and retraining? Again, I concede that there are 10 Government training centres and that a great deal of emphasis is put on this by the present Government, but the number of places is puny considering the nature of the problem. In Scotland, there are precisely 1,500 places. I admit that, in 1960, there were only 200 places, but an increase of 1,300 is very marginal.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the year when we had the highest unemployment of 815,000—quite different from what we are talking about today—there were 10 Government training centres and that, in that climate, when the need was
    456
    so great, the hon. Gentleman's party closed two of them?
    Mr. Wright: As I said at the outset, I am concerned about the future, not the past. I was not in the House when those decisions were taken. I am emphasising that talk about Government training centres is a marginal matter in view of the scale of unemployment which Scotland and the United Kingdom are facing. What concerns me is how far genuine efforts are being made by the Government to persuade the unions to accept the products of the training centres, and to ensure that people who accept training, and who often move house to have it, are assured of a job after they have been trained.
    My fourth question is about the fundamental problem of training management and the higher skills in Scotland. As of a few days ago, thanks largely to the U.G.C., there has been a grant for management training to three universities in Scotland, Strathclyde, Heriot Watt and the University of Glasgow, but we have only begun to nibble at the problem. The Minister, who knows the United States, will accept that the Stamford campus, whatever may be its tensions today or this week, and its notion of a close link with science, or the M.I.T., or the North Carolina triangle at Chapel Hill, are models for us to copy in Scotland. It would not be difficult—indeed, steps are already being taken by Strathclyde and the University of Glasgow—to have close links with industry. These steps should be fostered by the Government and with Government help.
    My fifth and final question is less a question of information than one of rhetoric. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) said that there was a need for "sea changes". I believe that one of our blights in this country is that we are governed by economic men, with all the limitations of economic men. We are governed by plans and planners, and the harsh fact is that the plans have not been able to predict what has happened. We have had plans now for 5½ years, and all we can do is laugh at them on both sides of the House. There is a sharp difference, for instance, between the situation in Upper Clyde and its repercussions in Cammel Laird and Harland and Wolff and the situation in the lower reaches of

    457
    the Clyde at Scott Lithgow. Why is there a sense of enterprise and adventure, why are there jobs and security on the lower but not on the upper reaches of the river? I recognise that the Minister is personally involved in this and has done a great deal as an individual to try to cope with it.
    Why is it that Hewlett-Packard at South Queensferry is booming, with an increase in jobs from 500 to 1,500, whereas Rolls-Royce is paying off 1,100 skilled men? The answer is that planning means bureaucracy. Planning has meant 1,500 extra civil servants in St. Andrews House in this same period of 5½ years.
    I believe that Scotland certainly needs a sea change. Its call is for enterprise, for greater freedom, and the only way in which a Government can stimulate freedom and enterprise is lower taxation and a sense of challenge and adventure in the economy.
    5.57 p.m.
    Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) and the party to which he belongs have a collossal nerve to lecture us on some of the problems which he posed but steadily refuses to give answers to. What we look for from the party opposite and what we looked for from the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), who moved what is, after all, a censure on the Government, is alternative proposals to solve the undoubtedly worrying problem of unemployment in the various regions.
    When the hon. Member for Pollok talks about the new phenomenon of high wages, high unemployment and low productivity, and then talks about the "phenomenal" wage increases, he is talking complete and utter nonsense—unless he says that the recent 20 per cent. increase which we gave the nurses is a phenomenal wage increase, unacceptable to the party opposite, or that the recent increases to lower-paid workers would be prevented, by means of an incomes policy, by the party opposite. They are consistently on record as opposing any attempt to impose an incomes policy. They must spell out these things. It is no sufficient answer to belly-ache about these matters without saying what they would do about them.
    458
    I would refer the hon. Gentleman, when he says that there has been no increase in productivity, to a recent issue of the Bank Review of Hill Samuel, the merchant bankers who, in 1968, gave£25,000 to Tory Party funds and so cannot be accused of being Labour Party sympathisers. An article in that publication pointed to the amazing record of the nationalised industries over 20 years. Since 1948, the productivity record of all the nationalised industries is, on average, 40 per cent. greater than that of the private enterprise which hon. Members opposite believe in.
    The hon. Gentleman also talked about shipbuilding. If this Government had not injected public money into the Clyde through the Shipbuilding Industry Act, there would have been no shipbuilding industry on the Clyde today. We see in the newspaper this morning—in the Glasgow Herald, I think—that the Tory Party's solution is to split up U.C.S. and sell it off in little bits. I was about to say that I do not know what the Scottish people think about that, but they have given a sufficient answer in the local election results. There is as much correspondence between the Tory Party interests in Scotland and the Scottish people as there is between Peking and Glasgow.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to unemployment in Scotland in immoderate terms. Let us look at the record. In 1951, when the Labour Government went out of office, the average monthly unemployment figure in Scotland, in thousands, was 53·4. In 1963, 12 years after the Tory Party came to power, it had gone up to 104·8, nearly a 100 per cent. increase. This is the party which is trying to persuade the House and the Scottish people that it has the answer to this problem.
    Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Instead of being selective, and taking figures for periods when bad weather caused unemployment, will the hon. Gentleman include the 1964 figures?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am about to come to that. For six successive months, from December, 1962, to May, 1963, there were in Scotland well over 100,000 each month on the dole. In those same six months, over half the unemployed had

    459
    been unemployed for eight weeks or more. In March, 1963, over 75,000 had been out of work for eight weeks or more. The peak of 136,000 in February, 1963, represented a 6·2 percentage rate, and 7·6 in the development areas. In 1964 the average monthly unemployment, in thousands was 80·3. It went from 53·4 in 1951 to 80·3 in 1964, after 13 years of Conservative Government. This is a story of massive Tory ineptitude and failure to tackle the problem.
    The relative figure between Scotland and Great Britain as a whole has considerably narrowed. Under the Tory Government in 1960 Scotland had 2·23 times as much unemployment as the average in Great Britain. In 1961 it was 2·18; in 1962, 1·9; in 1963, 2·03; in 1964, 2·23; in 1965, 2·15. During all those years there was on average twice the rate of unemployment in Scotland than there was in Great Britain as a whole.
    Let us see what has happened since then. For Scotland the figure was 1·98 in 1966; in 1967, 1·65; in 1968, 1·58; in 1969, 1·56. There has been a steady diminution in the gap between the percentage rates of unemployment in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman may talk about the failure of regional policies, but those figures are a sufficient commentary on the success of those policies. In no single month since October, 1964, when the Labour Government took over, has there been more than 100,000 unemployed, despite the squeeze and the freeze. Despite all the policies that we had to pursue for balance of payments reasons, there has never been anything approaching the 105,000 average monthly unemployment figure in the twelfth year of the Tory Government. Another encouraging feature not mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is the continuing movement in the employment Position of school leavers in Scotland. There is not such a big improvement as we should like and shall eventually get. None of these solutions to the problem will work overnight. but we are seeing undeniable evidence of improvement.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for differential policies between the Lowlands, the central industrial belt and the
    460
    Highlands, but he must know as well as I that the developments in the Lowlands and in the Highlands are a direct result of the regional policies and the different machinery which we are using. The Highland and Islands Development Board was made by this Government. During the 13 years of Conservative rule there was steady depopulation of the Highlands. There was no industry and no new life being breathed into the Highlands. On the contrary, the Conservatives intended to implement the Beeching Report proposals for the closure of railway lines, and this was one of the major reasons why in the Highlands they lost seats to the Liberal Party and to us.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I know the hon. Gentleman likes to be fair, and I am sure he does not want to distort the truth. Will he tell the House who brought the pulp mill to Fort William, and why the number of jobs in Scotland declined by nearly 60,000 between 1965 and 1969? Will he paint the full picture?
    Mr. Hamilton: I wish the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) would curb his interventions. I shall be fairly comprehensive in my coverage. If I am incited by interventions the hon. Gentleman must expect answers to them. Of course the pulp mill went there, but not of its own initiative. The Conservative Party, belatedly, in the 1960's and in the runup to the election, sought to encourage private industry to go to places where it would not otherwise have gone. It was the same with the motor car industry which had to be given massive grants and loans. The Labour Government have encouraged private and public industry to go to Scotland and there has been over the last few years a massive industrial reconstruction.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of the rundown in agriculture, coal mining and shipbuilding, the contraction of older industries and newer industries taking their place. This rundown has now reached its nadir, and we have probably seen the end of it. From now on we shall see a build up of the new industries of the future. In Fife and in the East of Scotland, there is a complex of electronics industries bigger than anywhere else in the world outside California. I see in my

    461
    constituency a remarkable transformation, with the minimum of friction, from an almost exclusively coal mining economy to a diversified industrial structure of electronics, light engineering, textiles and so on, and the people are happier and healthier socially and economically. There are isolated rural communities in the West of Scotland and elsewhere where unemployment remains high. I hope that whoever is to reply to the debate will give the House a breakdown of the unemployment figures.
    There is a new phenomenon here. We have high unemployment but that of itself tells us little about the nature of the problem. The Central Office of Statistics and the Department of Employment and Productivity are going into the problem of trying to break down the figures to find out the number of skilled and unskilled, the age groups involved and the number of people who are changing from one job to another. Because of redundancy payments and high social security benefits they are taking their time over the matter. All this detail needs to be given to the House and to the country before we can make a general assessment of the problem.
    It is generally accepted that what we are seeing in Scotland, as well as in the North-East and in the North-West of England and in South Wales, is an enormous and exciting amount of industrial change and industrial diversification, with changing social patterns. New industry is coming in which in the main employs women rather than men. We see this in Glenrothes, Kirkaldy and Dumfermline and in other parts of Scotland. I do not know how we can solve this problem, short of directing male-employing industries there. We will need to be more selective to make sure that where there are male-employing industries they may be given financial incentives to go to such areas as I have mentioned. We might also sharpen the instruments of regional planning.
    We have only to keep our eyes open to see what is happening in Scotland. Hon. Members opposite are less than fair to themselves and to the Scottish people in consistently painting a picture of gloom, doom and a miserable future. Between 1965 and 1969 under the present Govern-
    462
    ment 50 million sq. ft. of new factory space was approved in Scotland. When completed there will be 106,000 new jobs available, of which more than 63,000 will be for men. In Fife there will be 19,400 new jobs, of which 10,800 will be for men. The figure during the last five years of Tory Government was 27 million sq. ft. of new factory space approved to provide 75,000 new jobs. There has been a marked improvement during our period of office as compared with the previous five years.
    The hon. Member for Pollok appeared to deplore the use of the word "infrastructure", saying that it was a word first used in the Toothill Report. We all know what is meant by "infrastructure"—housing, hospitals, roads, education and the like. On any of those subjects the record of the Labour Government is infinitely superior to that of the Conservative Government. The hon. Member can mention housing, hospital building, school building, university provision, anything he likes, and I will give him the figures.
    Mr. Wright: The point I was making about infrastructure was that it was a word that arose out of the Toothill Committee's Report, a committee appointed by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) under the Conservative Government. I do not question the hon. Gentleman's accuracy. Everything he has said is derivative from Conservative policies.
    Mr. Hamilton: Then if he says that we are continuing Tory policies I do not know what this Motion of censure is all about. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that all this alleged unemployment has resulted from a continuation of Tory policies which they are now opposing, it makes nonsense of the Motion.
    In the last five years we have completed an average of over 40,000 new houses every year. Was that a continuation of Tory Party policy? They did not achieve anything like that figure in any one of their 13 years. Furthermore, we have given considerably increased subsidies. The Tory Party is on record as saying that one of the first things it will do is to cut housing subsidies and local authority house-building. The effects of such a policy will be increasing immobility of labour and the putting up

    463
    of rents, both of which will be deleterious to industrial development in Scotland.
    I have mentioned public expenditure on housing for 1963–64 when the Tories spent£120 million in Scotland. In 1969–70, under the present Government, the figure went up to£226 million. The subsidies in 1963–64 amounted to£17·7 million. In 1968–69 they rose to£29·2 million. I could go on quoting similar figures in regard to education, school building, public investment in health and welfare services and in the clearance of derelict land.
    The hon. Member for Pollok spoke about the quality of life. He should see some parts of Fife in the mining areas where the greedy vultures of private coal owners dug their profits out of the bowels of the earth and left their vomit on top and the other depredation of industry. We had pit bings coming right down to the roads and houses where the miners used to live in Fife. This Government decided these must be cleared and have paid 85 per cent. of the cost of clearance. Where pit bings used to come right down to the roadside, there is now lovely green hillside. The Duke of Edinburgh is coming next month—I do not know whether I will be there—to have a
    look—
    An Hon. Member: Not at the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hamilton: He is coming to look at a£1 million project which Fife County Council is undertaking to get rid of the industrial filth and squalor left by private enterprise. It is being cleared by public money. That will have an undoubted effect in improving the quality of the lives of people who live there and will be an added incentive to incoming industry. This is what we mean by improving the quality and standard of people's lives.
    Is this a continuation of Tory policies? On the contrary. In 1960–64 the last four years of Tory rule, some£253,000 was spent on clearing derelict land in the whole of Scotland. Between 1964 and 1969 we have spent£1,856,000 and we expect to spend£4½ million in the next five years.
    To be lectured by the Conservative Party on industrial training is more than most of us can bear. They closed industrial training centres. One matter that
    464
    is holding up industrial development in certain parts of Scotland is shortage of skilled labour. The hon. Member spoke about Rosyth dockyard, but even the defence establishments are crying out for skilled manpower. Industries in Glenrothes New Town are crying out for skilled manpower.
    In 1963–64, the last full year of Tory Government, they spent on industrial training in Scotland£300,000. We are spending in 1969–70, £1,300,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not enough."] As an hon. Member says, that is not enough, but for these training establishments we have to get people to do the training. There is a bottleneck here, but we are providing 1,360 places, so we get some indication of the scale of the increase and of the dereliction of duty of the Tory Party when it was in power.
    Emigration figures have shown a substantial decrease over the last few years. Peaked in 1965 at 47,000 the latest figures show that that has been very nearly halved and is now 25,000. A colleague told me today that he had spoken to a constituent who had been thinking of emigrating, but who said he now had decided to stay in Scotland. When asked why he said, "Because I can see the opportunities in housing, for the education of my children and for employment increasing day by day". Everyone knows that that is true in Scotland. That is why we have had the recent results in the local elections and why we shall get the right results in the General Election whether we go in June or October.
    6.22 p.m.
    Mr. Walter Clegg: When this debate started, Mr. Speaker, your predecessor in the Chair asked for short speeches. We did not get a short speech from the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). We had an exceedingly bitter speech from him. I do not propose to follow him into Scotland, but I hope that one of my hon. Friends will be able to catch your eye to deal with what he said.
    This debate is about unemployment, which has doubled during the lifetime of this Parliament. Since I came to the House in April, 1966, unemployment in the North West of England has doubled, with an increase of 44,000. The attitude adopted by the Minister at the opening of

    465
    the debate was that the Government have done a great deal in regional policy and have spent a great deal of money. We cannot deny that the Government have spent a great deal in the regions, but the underlying self-satisfaction which the Government appear to have I find very worrying. They should be looking at that expenditure and realising that although it has been spent in the regions and they have adopted that policy, it has not worked, for unemployment has doubled.
    All we had from the Minister was a passing reference to what is to happen in future. There is to be no change of policy. He went over this swiftly. just as the Chancellor did in his Budget Statement, by suggesting that after a switch of resources following devaluation we could have a further switch of resources. Then there would be a faster rate of growth, but there was not much confidence in the way in which the country was to be enabled to get a faster rate of growth. We have to face the fact that, in spite of all the Government have done in the regions or elsewhere, their overall policy for employment has failed.
    We should perhaps look at some of the reasons why it has failed and challenge the concept put forward by the Government. I start by looking at regional policies. In my constituency, Thornton Cleveleys and Fleetwood, together with Blackpool, have sent a memorandum to the Minister asking that their area should be made an intermediate area. No doubt the Minister will give that consideration. I come from an area which does not have any assistance from the Government.
    Is the money which has been poured into other areas being used in a cost-effective way? I have some doubts about this. The strategy of help for development areas concerns very wide areas in the whole of Scotland and the North-East. This means that areas which are quite viable have an unexpected bonus. In my county, Fords, Vauxhall and Lever Brothers, of Port Sunlight, were already established before development area provision was made. Money which puts a great burden on the taxpayer, and which could be better spent on other things, has been diverted to the shareholders of Fords, Vauxhall and Lever Brothers. Is it producing more jobs? I think not.
    466
    Some hon. Members opposite have questioned the regional employment premium on this basis. When it goes to an employer in manufacturing industry in a development area, often it has a counter-productive effect by allowing him to buy new machinery which, in turn, reduces the number of jobs available. We should be looking at these things rather than hon. Members opposite saying that they have spent a lot of money from which they are not getting results but they will continue spending a lot of money. It was amazing that the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning did not mention selective employment tax. How, in a debate on unemployment, could a Minister fail to mention that?
    Part of the strategy of S.E.T. was to create unemployment in service industries and to drive people into manufacturing industry, but this has just not happened. I think that it was a wrong strategy and that the position of the Government today is partly due to this. We should note experience in America. It has a highly-industrialised economy, with computers doing jobs which hundreds of people did formerly. As a result, a huge factory employs very few people.
    The question which has to be answered by any Government in those circumstances is: where do the people from those factories go when they are redundant? In part, the answer in America is that they are mopped up by the service industries. Those industries employ people rather than machines. To single out the service industries, which employ many people, and to punish them, seems quite wrong. It is one of the reasons why the Government are having to face this debate today.
    When I came into this House I sought, on every possible occasion, to raise the problem of unemployment. I cannot today give any comparison with the figures that were relevant to my constituency, Fleetwood and Thornton Cleveleys in 1966, because in 1968, after an inquiry by the late unlamented Department of Economic Affairs, a decision was taken to change the area basis, which automatically violently cut the percentage of unemployment overnight without having obtained an extra job for anyone.

    467
    In the travel to work area, which includes Blackpool. Thornton Cleveleys, Fleetwood and other parts of the Fylde coast, there is an unemployment rate of 4·6 per cent. This is more for Fleetwood than would seem on those figures. In Fleetwood, there are now 581 men unemployed and only 50 vacancies—a ratio of about 12 to 1. This means that in Fleetwood there are 581 men chasing 50 jobs. In Thornton Cleveleys, there are 438 unemployed men chasing 10 jobs.
    That is the kind of problem facing my constituency, and on which I have been trying to get action since I came into the House.
    When the intermediate areas were settled, it was decided that the Fylde should not form part of them. An application has now gone to the Minister to reconsider that decision. The three councils to which I have referred also make other suggestions. I have a feeling that the Minister will find it hard to accept the application, and I will give the reason. The Government cannot keep spreading these areas. It just is not possible. Otherwise, they will cover the whole of England with them. Therefore, I suggest that the Minister may have some difficulty.
    Another suggestion which the three authorities have made, which I think the Minister could certainly take to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, concerns the impact of S.E.T., which is particularly hard on the Fylde coast, because it is a service industry area. It has some industry, but most people in the area are engaged in construction and tourism which have been hard hit.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) mentioned that S.E.T. is supposed to be infinitely variable. Could it not be varied for the Fylde coast to put it on an equally competitive basis with other areas which compete in the same trade? The Lake District—where unemployment is much lower than in my constituency—and Scarborough get relief from S.E.T. in the tourist industry. We do not. I ask the Minister to consider whether something could be done on those lines.
    I am driven to the conclusion that the Minister will not be able to grant us the
    468
    concessions for which we are asking. We need a Government which will operate the economy in a completely different way. We are asked time and time again by hon. Members opposite, the Government having made a mess of unemployment, how the Tories will get out of it. This is the pit that they have been digging for themselves, and this is what they have been saying all day.
    Our approach is different. The whole economy will be expanding at a much faster rate because people will be encouraged. We will do what we did in the past. We will lower unemployment and raise the living standards of the people. The greatest hope for my constituency is not that it should become an intermediate area under the Government or even that it should have S.E.T. relaxed, but that we should get a Conservative Government which will get an expanding economy going again.
    6.35 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The hon. Member for North Fylde, (Mr. Clegg) was telling us, or threatening us, that we should go back to the Tory approach to unemployment. I remind him that under that kind of dispensation we had an extremely high level of unemployment. Most of the unemployed were feverishly looking round—indeed, I was one of them at one period—for any kind of possible employment to get a few stamps back on their cards so that they could get back in the unemployment queue. That was the kind of outlook in the unemployment days we knew under a Conservative Government.
    We must not minimise the problems of any unemployed man or woman. It is not now the case that there are 600,000 people doing just what I said was the position of the unemployed in days gone by. It is a difficult problem, but the basis of unemployment now is entirely different. In those days, we used to argue for work or maintenance. We have gone a good distance along the road to providing the maintenance where there is not, as yet, full employment.
    Although 600,000 unemployed are not jostling for poor types of jobs to get stamps on their cards, I do not believe that a lost of scrounging is going on. But when we analyse the full position, there is still a serious job shortage in the

    469
    development areas—my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) told us how that was being remedied—and there is a more rapid job changing cycle in other parts of the country. Above average job changing is inevitable in a period of great industrial change such as we are now witnessing. Inded, if there were not this increased cycle of job changing in the first nation into the Industrial Revolution of a century ago, we would be in grave economic difficulties in future.
    We know from past experience that, no matter how or what day we choose for the collection of figures of unemployed, there has always been a minimum of 200,000 to 250,000 people changing their jobs. It may be that the future will show that that figure, which I pointed out represents, or did in the past, utterly full employment, has now increased. It may be that it will remain at a higher figure so long as the velocity of job changing, to which I have referred, needs to go on.
    There are at least two new features whose effect on that figure we have yet to quantify. First, the effect of redundancy payments and the relatively higher payments from unemployment incomes as a percentage of that obtainable from those in low income industries. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West that there is need for a close analysis of these matters. There has a not yet been an attempt to produce detailed figures upon which to base a judgment of those matters.
    We have to consider the contraction of job opportunities of an unskilled nature for male workers, and also the demand for non-existent skilled operatives in many parts of the country and in many trades. The building industry is contracting, yet this is one of the most heavily affected by the present levels of unemployment. I do not want to exaggerate, but there are thousands of small firms which cannot possibly tender for huge road programmes, or for the building of massive housing estates. One of the needs of the Industry is a new grouping, on a bigger scale, of many of the firms in it.
    A peculiarity of the present level of employment is the small number of women who are now unemployed compared with the high level of 1963. In
    470
    those days there was a much higher ratio of unemployment among women, and in this connection we have to look closely at what will be the effect of equal pay. Will it result in more women being displaced by men as the advantage to employers of cheap labour disappears? Will we reach the stage at which female labour is replaced by the application of automated machines which will not need operatives, but which will result in an even greater demand for skilled personnel to supervise the robots?
    Looking back at the debates in the House of some years ago, I realise that in those days there was great anxiety about the effects of automation and the coming of heavy technological unemployment. No one had the answer to the problem, but those effects have not yet been felt. If we contrast what has happened in this country with what has happened in the United States during the intervening period we see that unemployment there reached massive proportions, whereas in this country we have not faced anything like the problems about which many of us were apprehensive. It may be that what we feared has not happened because we still have a low capital investment economy. It may be that we are not moving as rapidly as we ought to be doing towards the modernisation of our industries.
    I am sure that one of the beneficial things which we have to keep down levels of unemployment during difficult periods is the large expenditure in the development areas. I understand that if the Tory Party were returned to power it would cut this expenditure. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to begin to assess where they stand on this matter. When I used to go round the Northern Region as a whole I used to visit as many councils as I could. Many of them were Tory-controlled, but I never visited one which did not ask for more money. I should have wondered what was the matter if they had not done so.
    Some months ago I heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about the shibboleth of the high expenditure rate in development areas. I wonder what the leaders of the Tory-controlled local authorities think about this. Can they really put forward policies in line with those advanced by the Leader of the

    471
    Opposition when, for instance, in the Northern Region I was always being told that we were skinflints, and that there ought to be greater expenditure in that area. These are important problems for the future, and I know that it is to the future that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to look, and not the past. I understand the reasons for that.
    I deal, next, with the register of unemployment. It is common ground that for many years the weighting of the register of unemployment figures for seasonal purposes has been utterly unreal. The result is that we have less than the expected levels of unemployment during the winter months, and far more than the expected levels during the summer months. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will tell us that the Government are undertaking a comprehensive review of the weighting system of the unemployment register, but I hope that they will do so, because it is not registering in the way that the weighting system was supposed to do.
    How many people appearing on the live unemployment register are not unemployed in the sense in which we understand the term, and are never likely to seek work again? There must be thousands of such people, especially in development areas and former coal-producing districts where ex-miners over 55 are drawing the benefits of the arrangement made for people in that category. I should have thought that in many areas these people represent a high percentage of those who are listed as unemployed. Many of these ex-miners have done a Herculean job and have reached the stage at which, with all the good will in the world, they cannot be retrained for other work. I doubt whether, by the very nature of things, they could ever work again. The nation owes them a good living for the rest of their lives. Why should such people appear on the live register?
    If we take a figure of 600,000 for unemployment, make allowance for the 250,000 people who are changing their jobs on the day that the figures are taken, and then add the number on the live register who are never likely to work again, I think that we begin to get the problem into far better perspective than is the case now.
    472
    My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West talked about training. The Government's record in providing G.T.C.s is excellent. Their record in assisting job training is perhaps even more important, with the provision of £10 per week to employers who do the training. This is a vital contribution towards solving the problem. I should like to know the level of vacant places in the G.T.C.s, first, in the development areas and, second, in other areas. To me the problem of the levels of unemployment is incapable of solution until we begin to look at the problem of retraining.
    I am in danger of being accused of tedious repetition, because I seem to say this every time I speak—and I propose to go on saying it: we shall find no answer to the problem of unemployment unless we take extremely seriously the question of retraining. I have had the good fortune to see the results of it. After a period of retraining miners in Durham, Northumberland and Cumberland have readily adapted themselves to new kinds of work and are doing a first-class job in their new employment—employment that a year before they would not have dreamed they could venture into. The nation cannot afford to have its personnel unemployed for the want of training.
    Mr. Keith Stainton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he ought to insert in his present comments something about industrial rehabilitation centres for the disabled?
    Mr. Lee: I have been lucky in that, in the old days in the Ministry of Labour, I had the opportunity to study the work being done by Remploy, and to see what an important contribution is being made by the disabled. I agree with the hon. Member. People who, years ago, would have had to go on to the industrial scrap-heap are now able, because of the work of Remploy and similar organisations, to do a new job of work, to attain a new dignity, and to make a useful contribution to our economy.
    I want to enlarge upon the point I made about retraining. The number of unskilled jobs available will continue to decline. Further, the number of skilled people required will continue to rise. Even in development areas there is a

    473
    terrible shortage of skilled men in some trades. Once the economy can be allowed to run free that shortage will show itself in the form of ever-increasing numbers of vacancies for a skilled labour force that does not exist.
    We must also face the problems caused by the effects of equal pay. I hope that the House will give a lead here. How dare people, nowadays, look upon one-third of our labour force—the more than 8 million employed women—as being synonymous with unskilled labour? It is sheer male conceit even to harbour the thought. I do not want to become too nostalgic, but during the war thousands of women worked in the engineering industry, doing skilled work, making a first-class job of it, and earning tradesman's rate. Some of us insisted that they got the proper rate, and they did. The irony about equal pay now is that far fewer women are getting it for doing skilled work than was the case a quarter of a century ago. We must not kid ourselves that we are doing very well at the moment.
    If I am right in arguing that in the future there will be fewer unskilled jobs available, by encouraging 8 million or more women to stay in industry we shall be creating a further unemployment problem unless we do the sensible thing and train the women to fill the ever-increasing number of skilled jobs that will become available. I do not want to go over the debates that we have had on equal pay, but one of the great fears that was expressed in them was that the cost of equal pay will be very high.
    For every woman who can be trained to fill a skilled vacancy, there is no cost; it is a positive asset, but if we discuss unemployment only in terms of the present figures, without considering what we are going to do about the retraining programme, and the fact that we shall need many more skilled people, we shall not be able to grapple with the true implications of the present problem.
    I have suggested a few ways in which to get a better breakdown of the figures that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like. I could not possibly tell how many of those 600,000 people will never again have to seek employment. I do not know what the figure is below which it will be impossible to get
    474
    because of job changes, but my suspicion is that it is at least one-half of the present unemployment figure. I therefore hope that the Minister will at least tell us that the Government are engaged in trying to analyse these figures, to study them more closely, and to give the House the benefit of their deliberations.
    Hon. Members opposite have suggested, for political purposes, that great wage increases are now being conceded. That comes oddly from them. I pose a question to the hon. Member who is to reply from the Opposition Front Bench. Hon. Members opposite have condemned us for having an incomes policy. Are they now condemning us for having none? That is what it is all about. To me, the party opposite has been culpable in many ways in respect of its arguments about wages. It is responsible for some of the price increases.
    I wrote a letter to The Times the other day suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition is very culpable in this respect, because every time the Government brought an Order before the House in connection with their incomes policy, and to prevent an increase, the Opposition not only prayed against it but voted against it. We hear cries of horror about a 20 per cent. increase. I challenge anybody to deny that if the Government had brought in Orders against these increases today the Opposition would have prayed and voted against them. Their culpability for the increase in prices is established.
    In any debate on unemployment it is important to analyse the new unemployment problem. It is not a question of the old desperation that some of us knew years ago, when sons and daughters were driven out of their family homes because their parents could not otherwise obtain unemployment pay. It is not that sort of problem. It is a highly technical problem, the solution to which can be arrived at only by keeping a better type of register, which will enable us to analyse more closely the causes of unemployment.
    6.59 p.m.
    Mr. John Pardoe: It is difficult to fault the Motion moved by the Conservative Party on its technicalities, but I cannot say that the speech that we heard from the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr)—which

    475
    I can only dignify by the description "electioneering claptrap"—will help to solve the unemployment problem. Not one idea expressed by the right hon. Gentleman gave me any confidence that the Conservatives will reduce the unemployment problem in my constituency. I suppose that such a speech is inevitable in an election year, but it can have unfortunate effects.
    A considerable part of the present unemployment level, both in the whole country and in the development areas, is the result of some of the Government's policies. I have no doubt that S.E.T. has created unemployment in areas such as the South-West. We told them that it would cause wastage when they brought in this Act, that a development area like the South-West had a high incidence of people in service industries and a very low incidence of people in manufacturing, so it would inevitably cause unemployment over the whole area.
    What I was surprised about was the certainty of the right hon. Member for Mitcham of what the unemployment figures meant. There is very little certainty among most of the other pundits who write in our journals, or the independent and unbiased economists who study the figures. The sort of thing that we have been seeing in recent days is The Times leader of 27th April, entitled, "The Unemployment Riddle". I could not have described it better. In the same week, there was an article in The Guardian headed, "New clues on unemployment", in which Anthony Harris said:
    "The big problem has been this: for some two years now it has been clenr that the total unemployment figure does not ' mean ' the same as it used to mean."
    Those of us who have to live with high unemployment in our constituencies know this.
    I do not usually quote the Confederation of British Industry in support, but I should have thought that the Conservative Party, of all organisations, might have taken note of what certain leaders of the C.B.I. have been saying. There was an interesting quotation by Eric Wigham, the industrial correspondent of The Times,about a conversation which he had had
    476
    with Mr. Douglas Taylor, a deputy director-general of the C.B.I., who said:
    " There seems to be a sort of conspiracy among politicians to make the unemployment situation seem worse than it is."
    Some of the politicians in this debate have done just that.
    Again, Mr. Norman, the President of the C.B.I., was reported in an interview with the Financial Times in June last year as saying:
    " We have been obsessed for too long in this country by the system of counting heads in labour statistics, and this is particularly damaging in terms of the figures for the unemployed."
    What is the real labour reserve? This is really what we need to know if we are to solve the problem. The C.B.I. seems to think that it is probably about 200,000, when the unemployment level is between 500,000 and 600,000.
    It is very difficult to be precise about figures of this sort, but I asked the old Ministry of Labour, in 1967, to carry out a survey in a small town in my constituency, in an employment area — Camelford. At that time, Camelford had an unemployment rate, according to the register, of about 6 per cent. Admittedly, only 122 people were involved, but I had been talking to one or two industries which wanted to come into the town and which were a little concerned, as was the development committee of Camelford, a sub-committee of the council, which had done great work in getting new industry in, about how much labour we could offer. We had these figures of 6 per cent. and 122 people, but how many people actually wanted work, particularly in manufacturing?
    I therefore asked the then Minister of Labour, the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), to carry out an investigation into this. Although it is a very small area, it was a very interesting study. The right hon. Gentleman wrote to me:
    " The results were generally encouraging. In Camelford out of a total of 102 males and 40 females unemployed at the time "—
    this was done a little later—
    " about a third of the males and rather more of the females were considered suitable for immediate employment in manufacturing industry. Similar proportions of males and females. although unlikely to be acceptable for manufacturing employment, were thought suitable for other forms of work."

    477
    This obviously meant the service industries, hotels and summer employment.
    But this leaves us with a third who were, to all intents and purposes, virtually unemployable. This is a hateful term and one which none of us likes to use, but, nevertheless, it has to be faced. I see no reason to suppose, knowing Camelford as I do, that the proportion of the registered unemployed who are virtually unemployable, or who were then, is higher or different in any way than the proportion in the rest of the country.
    Taking the underlying level of unemployment, about a third, for one reason or another—health is one, and age is particularly important, as is background, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned when he talked of some of the closed-down mining areas—are not really in the market for any kind of employment, let alone manufacturing.
    The Ministry of Labour Gazette,in April, 1966, produced some very interesting figures on unemployed men relating to October, 1964. They divided them into three categories. Category A was, "Should get work without difficulty", and the proportion was 22·4 per cent. Category B included various things. It was headed:
    "Will find difficulty in getting work on personal grounds because of "
    and went on to list physical or mental condition, prison record, lack of English, all the things that make it difficult. This proportion was 60·4 per cent. That is a very high figure. Category C was:
    " Will find difficulty in getting work because of lack of local opportunities or present qualifications, experience or skill not acceptable to employers."
    That was 17 per cent.
    So, between a fifth and a quarter should get work without difficulty, nearly a fifth will find difficulty in getting work because of lack of local opportunities, and the rest, 60 per cent., will find it difficult to get work because they are what they are. This may not apply over the whole country—these figures were for the whole country—and it may not apply all the time at every level of unemployment. I do not expect that it does, but it is an important factor.
    Of course, something has changed in the unemployment situation. Everyone except a biassed political animal in elec-
    478
    tion year recognises this. Indeed, some hon. Gentlemen on the back benches of the Tory Party recognise it. It is only on the Front Bench that it cannot be. It is obvious that something must have changed. In 1963, the Government were spending approximately £210 per head on the unemployed. By 1968, the figure had risen to £450. Even if one takes into account cost-of-living increases, it is inevitable that this would have affected the employment situation and the structure of the unemployment register.
    There has been much more mobility, much more aptitude to change jobs and the problem of age has probably become more important. It is getting more and more difficult to find work over the age of 40. Any analysis of the regional employment factors from the Department'sGazette—I have done it this week with the February Gazette—shows that the age of 40 is becoming a watershed in employment.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he aware that there have been suggestions on the Merseyside dock front that the age of 30 should be the limit for recruitment?
    Mr. Pardoe: That is a hateful suggestion. We shall certainly have to revise the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill if that becomes the rule.
    I thought, at one stage in my political career, that it was the Labour Party who had to be weaned from the arguments of the 1930s, but I was amazed to find today that it is the Tory Party which is raising the old phantom of the dole queues, as though we were all back to Jarrow. Things are very different today.
    No hon. Member faced with the experience of this country, is likely to be complacent about unemployment figures, but there are grave dangers in over-emphasising the social disaster of unemployment today, because one of the key factors in industrial unrest, in increasing productivity and creating new aptitudes to the manning of machinery, is security of employment.
    If we keep raising this hoary old phantom of unemployment we will drive the unions back to the wall and have overmanning and all the other nonsense of the past. The time has come for us

    479
    to be more sophisticated about this whole issue than has been manifest in the speeches made today.
    The overall level of unemployment today is undoubtedly too high. No doubt it would have been substantially lower had the Government done some of the things they should have done, such as devaluing early, as a result of the mess they were left in 1964. No political party in the House could have done that then, because devaluation was not being advocated in 1964. However, some of us were far-sighted and realised even then that the value which we attached to the £ was not shared by foreigners.
    I come to what is happening in the development areas, with particular reference to my part of Cornwall, which is part of the South-West Development Area. Let us consider what is going on and what needs to be done. The Hunt Report on the grey areas made it clear that although the development areas contained 21 per cent. of employees, they nevertheless made up one-third of the unemployed. That was in 1968.
    In January, 1970, according to the Department'sGazette,262,000 people were wholly unemployed in the development areas of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and 649,000 in the United Kingdom as a whole, which meant that 40 per cent. of the unemployed were at that time in the development areas. The Secretary of State showed that the figure had fallen to about 34 per cent. by April. However, between June, 1964, and June, 1969, while the number unemployed increased in the United Kingdom as a whole by 82·6 per cent., the number in the development areas increased by 17·9 per cent.
    The question whether we are getting value for money has been raised. In 1964–65 and 1968–69, we spent £779 million on development area incentives, including the whole ragbag of R.E.P., S.E.T. rebates to manufacturing industry, and so on. The average commitment per job created was about £629. I do not regard that as a lot of money. If I could create a new job in a development area—an area with a rate of unemployment of between 5 and 7 per cent.—for £629, I would regard it as money well spent on a good social cause.
    480
    It is being asked, however, if this money is being wasted or is having sufficient effect. I answer it from my experience of the South-West Development Area, which consists of virtually the whole of Cornwall and most of South Devon. The total number of employees in 1968 in this area was 135,000, or 2·8 per cent. of the population of the development areas. In other words, it is by far the smallest of the development areas.
    In each of the years 1967–68 and 1968–69 the average unemployment figure was 4·8 per cent., undoubtedly higher than the other development areas. It was much the same as for the Northern Region in 1969, but in previous years it was higher than even that region.
    Moreover, my part of the country has a very high seasonal variation, which sets it apart from the other development areas. For example, in January, 1969, the South-West Development Area had an unemployment rate of 6 per cent. while in June the rate was 3·6 per cent. In other words, in January of that year there were 8,106 people out of work, while in June the figure had dropped to 4,851.
    This is a much greater variation than occurs in other development areas. For example, between January and June of 1969 the variation in Merseyside was from 3·4 per cent. to 3·3 per cent.; in the Northern Region, 5·2 per cent. to 4·3 per cent.; Scottish Region 4·4 per cent. to 3·6 per cent.; and in the Welsh Region it went from 4·8 per cent. to 4 per cent.
    There are other differences which set the South-West Development Area apart from other development areas; for example, we have a very low percentage of people in manufacturing employment—33 per cent. compared with 51 per cent. elsewhere. In agriculture, forestry and fishing we have 7 per cent. compared with 2 per cent. in those occupations elsewhere. In the service industries we have 60 per cent. compared with 47 per cent. in other development areas. These figures are relevant to the nature of our unemployment problem.
    I have attempted to give a brief profile of events in the South-West Development Area. I have shown that we have a worse unemployment problem, in statistical terms, than other development areas and I wonder whether this is a social disaster or primarily a waste of human resources.

    481
    While I do not want to minimise the social effects of these unemployment figures, I must comment on them as a result of my personal observations.
    I used to think that unemployment was the major problem in my constituency. I no longer hold that view. Low wages are a much more important problem. I am in many ways more concerned about the people who are in employment on low wages than about the unemployed, because in some cases the former are living at substantially lower standards. This leads to the problem of bad housing, because it is frequently not a question of councils not being able to build houses for the workers but of the workers not being able to afford the economic rents—I have taken account of subsidies, and so on—which are charged.
    When I compare a town like Launceston, which, in April, had an unemployment rate of 2·6 per cent.—lower than the national average because it has done a fantastic job to solve its unemployment problem—with Newquay, which had an unemployment rate of 7·9 per cent., I ask myself whether the social consequence of the unemployment rate in Newquay is three times what it is in Launceston, and I am bound to reply that it is not. This must be taken into account in assessing this problem.
    A great deal has been done in my constituency of North Cornwall, which is only one part of the development area. During the last four years we have established 26 new factories, totalling 467,000 square feet of space which will provide 1,060 additional jobs of which 610 will be for men, and this in an area with an electorate of only 44,000 people.
    These four years we have built twice as many new factories in North Cornwall as were built throughout the previous decade. The process has been gathering pace, because in 1969 I.D.C.s were granted for seven new factories, giving 249,000 square feet of space and providing 390 new jobs.
    Just across the border, in the constituency of Bodmin great progress has been made. I am delighted to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) has returned from another of his trips to America, this time with a splendid contract for a large factory to be sited at Liskeard, to provide 800
    482
    new jobs. It will be the largest plastics container factory in the country. This will be of tremendous help to employment in that part of the development area.
    I emphasise that the South-West Development Area has not been given as much money as other development areas and that we still have a rate of unemployment which is substantially higher than theirs. Back in 1968 I took up with the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, the hon. Lady the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody), the question of the amount of money allocated to the various development areas per head of insured employees.
    It turned out that under the Industrial Development Act between 1966 and 1968 the South-West had £13·3 per head, whereas the total for the English development areas was three times as much, at £39·4 per head. In correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary I said then that more needed to be done for the South-West by comparison with the other areas. Explanations were given about the variance in the figures, but I found them somewhat unsatisfactory, and subsequent events have proved that to be true.
    In answer to a Parliamentary Question at the end of last year I was given some figures which showed the total amount of money spent per 1,000 insured employees in Government assistance to industry—so it includes everything—in the years 1964–65 and 1968–69. In the South-West, we got £96,000; Merseyside got £192,000; the Welsh area got £173,000; the Northern area got £176,000; and Scotland got £136,000. It will be seen that in money actually spent on our problem per 1,000 employees in the area we were substantially below the other development areas.
    Analysing the figures of Local Employment Act grants and investment grants, we find the same situation. In the South-West, under the Local Employment Act, we got £5,000 per 1,000 population between 1964 and 1969, and all the others got £9,000. In investment grants for the period 1967–69 we got £12,000 per 1,000 population, while the others got £28,500. It costs rather less to create a job in the South-West Development Area than in the others, because we do not have—and

    483
    that is why we get less money, or that is the excuse given—many capital-intensive industries. In the period April, 1966, to April, 1969, the South-West only got £440 per new job created, whereas it cost £629 to create a new job in the other development areas.
    I emphasise, therefore, that less has been done for the South-West. Our unemployment figure is still higher than that for the other development areas, and it is totally unacceptable. But having listened to the right hon. Member for Mitcham, I must confess that I agree with the desperate uncertainty and the fears expressed to me by councils in my constituency, all of which are independent, about the likelihood of future development policies. One of the best things that the Tory spokesman could do tonight on his party's behalf would be to clear up these uncertainties, just in case the Conservatives should become the next Government. One of the reasons for councils in the South-West holding back from acquiring new industrial sites is their fear that they will not be able to get rid of them because the grants will not be available if the Conservatives are returned to power. I have already had that point put to me in the last few weeks by two councils.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) came to Cornwall the other day and talked of R.E.P. as fairy gold. One may have reservations as to whether R.E.P. is the best way to develop the South-West, but to talk as the right hon. Gentleman talked leads to much uncertainty amongst the people there. We greatly need attention to be given to our infrastructure. We need more rural transport, much better housing subsidies—and subsidies that are related to the income levels of the area. We need S.E.T. to be changed into a regionally varied payroll tax applying to all industries, and not just to some. We need help for the towns which are getting sites.
    Most of all, we need the certainty which the Conservatives can give us only if they make a clear policy statement tonight; and I personally think that somewhat doubtful, if the ghastly apparition of another Conservative Government should ever face us in the South-West—and heaven forbid that it should. But
    484
    we want a clear statement that if that should happen, the Tories will at least not remove the carpet of development area policies from under our feet. I have never been more confident than I am now that we have begun to lick the problem in the South-West. I believe that we are on the threshold of a new era of prosperity which has been unknown since the closing of the Cornish tin mines, and in view of the Government's announcement last night we may even start to open those mines again.
    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has just said that he has a gleam of hope that the Conservative Party might yet do something about unemployment, but I have no hope of that at all. I prefer to put my trust in my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman's support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) about getting a more realistic meaning into the unemployment figures. That is essential from the numerical point of view, and also to enable us to analyse those very large figures and do our very best for every individually unemployed person. We do not know enough about unemployment, and to regard unemployed people as mere ciphers or units of economic possibility is nonsense.
    The hon. Gentleman said that some of the employed people in his constituency were getting less in wages than the unemployed were receiving in benefit. There is something very wrong in a society in which unemployed people are on almost the same level of income as wage earners. I suggest that he gives closer attention to that angle, because either the people who are trying to survive on unemployment pay are getting too much, which is unlikely, or the employed are on almost sweated labour. The hon. Gentleman's constituents need to take the sort of action we had to take many years ago, when exactly the same situation pertained in the great industrial areas.
    Only a super-optimist could say, as did the hon. Gentleman, that he believed that we were beginning to beat the unemployment problem, but I fervently believe, and I have seen unemployment since 1929, that we are beginning to get

    485
    control of it. We must not minimise—and I hope that none of the hon. Gentleman's remarks or the remarks of anyone else will minimise—what unemployment means here and elsewhere. I have seen poverty and unemployment in India, and I remember thinking how dreadful it all was that the masses of the people in that far-flung country were denied the possibility of raising standards of living which were essential.
    The difficulties of Merseyside should be enumerated. My right hon. Friend came to Merseyside, and applied himself to our problems with the same great detail that he applies to the general problems affecting his Department. On Merseyside, there are 30,000 people on the register and that has been about the number for a very long time, despite all that the Government have done. I hate to think what that figure would have been had it not been for the activity of the Government in getting new industries to Merseyside. They are not shipping industries, but new ones which have grown up in our modern society and they are doing remarkably well, although with different records in industrial relations. For example, Merseyside originally had no motor car plants. Where would it have been now without the great new motor car plants which have moved there? I would add that people seeking jobs and finding them care not which Government have sent these industries to Liverpool. They are grateful to find work.
    The responsibilities of those who are in work for those who are out of work are of great measure. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has constantly pointed out, if we would only listen to him, those responsibilities. Before people frivolously stop work, as they did on Liverpool dockside last week, they should think carefully and ask themselves, "What shall I do to the unemployment position? What opportunities for obtaining work shall I deprive my fellow men of by what I am doing?"
    May Day is not only International Labour Day. In Liverpool, 10,000 men left their work that day but they were not all in the May Day procession. May Day is not only Labour Day, but the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker and some people on Merseyside have more regard for St. Joseph the Worker than they have
    486
    for Joseph Stalin, or Lenin, or anyone else. I make the plea that, when we look at these stoppages, we get them into complete perspective. It would be a wonderful thing if all workers in the country stopped work on May Day. This country used to be known as "Merrie England" and May Day was Labour Day. May Day should be a statutory holiday, and probably New Year's Day as well. What is wrong is the irregularity of the holidays. This causes stoppages and affects employment.
    I feel that we should look at the question of public holidays, particularly in the regions. We often talk about the regions and their traditions and habits. They differ one from the other. When people condemn dockers for coming out on May Day, they should remember the traditions and background of Merseyside.
    What are we to do about the English Electric factory on Merseyside? My right hon. Friend, who has visited Bootle Netherton and Liverpool, is intervening to offset the harshness of the decision to run down the factory. The situation really is a bit much. The local authority gave 70 acres of very valuable land in an overcrowded town in days of great social adversity for the building of a wonderful factory with Government assistance. It is the most modern factory in Europe, with the best machinery in Europe. It is the nearest factory to the finest docks in Europe, and the nearest to the Western Approaches. It brought with it one of the finest apprentice schools. It offered jobs in my constituency of the highest calibre.
    What happened? Mr. Arnold Weinstock decided that he would close down the factory, in connection with which I had personally arranged for 750 houses to be made available for key workers. These things must be said, for perhaps they will be heard in the right place. The factory is running down and this magnificent machinery is being taken to a non-development area from a development area. I know that the Government have explained what is happening, but I want to know what is to be done. It is my responsibility to my constituents to find out what will happen. I shall say favourable things in a moment, but, nevertheless, the factory is being run down and the machinery is being taken to Trafford Park.

    487
    I think that Mr. Weinstock and English Electric were in error. We are not only losing the jobs, but also the training facilities for so many of our young men. When I left school, there was no opportunity, not even to become an engineer. I had to go into the humblest of work on Merseyside waterfront. I do not want to see a situation in which blind-alley occupations, which beset so many of us in the old days, are again the only thing available for our young people on Merseyside.
    I know that the Government are doing all they can. They have been in constant touch with me. They have been making all sorts of approaches to industrial concerns. Knowing their interest and their heartfelt concern for my constituents, I ask them to get down quickly to the job and see what they can do to bring rewarding industrial opportunity to the area before this factory runs down, which will probably be after this summer.
    I turn now to the docks industry on Merseyside, where 750 men need to be recruited. That recruitment would make a substantial reduction in unemployment on Merseyside. But there is a halt in recruitment because of a difference of opinion as to whether the men should all be recruited by the trade unions or partially by the bosses. Because the two parties cannot agree, recruitment is not going on and 750 men who could otherwise get work are being left unemployed. I appeal to both employers and unions on Merseyside to get over their difficulties as quickly as possible so that we can get these 750 men at work and out of the desperate position they are now in.
    How silly can people get? One set of people wants to see the recruitment age limited to men up to 45 years old. Port employers stated that the age would be up to 30. I remind the House that Liverpool is a maritime city. Such an age would mean that no one coming out of the Navy would be able to get a job in the docks. I have done my best in representations to the employers, who have had the courtesy to write to me and say that they had reconsidered the age because of the points I had put to them. To limit recruitment by such an age level could be hurtful not only to the individuals concerned, but to the industry itself.
    488
    One problem is causing Merseyside great anxiety, and I want to be careful about what I say about it. One of the great shipbuilding firms of the country has run into considerable difficulty. It is not only the 8,000 jobs in that firm which are in jeopardy, but the 20,000 in ancillary firms.
    No one has done more than the Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), to bring this situation to the attention of the Government. If he were free to add his voice to the debate, he would describe the situation in greater detail and with more eloquence than I can command.
    I am interested in the subject of shipping and I have a position in the House connected with the industry. What a pity it is—and I will say no more than this, for I do not want to be condemnatory of Cammell Laird in any way—that Cammell Laird did not draw the attention of the Government to its financial difficulties before the end of March. It must have known what the situation was. If it was the change from the Polaris nuclear system—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is straying a little from the subject before the House. He must not go into too much detail.
    Mr. Mahon: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will appreciate more than most what the position will be if Cammell Laird stops work, as it has said it would, within 10 days. It will add to the unemployment on Merseyside no fewer than between 10,000 and 20,000 people.
    I congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have stepped into this difficulty. On Merseyside, we depend on what the Government do. We hope that they will follow the lead given by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and will meet his demands that this great firm should be prevented from getting further into difficulties. I will say no more than that. It is a great firm which has made its name throughout the world and it has done this country credit by building great ships. Whatever its future management or control, we all agree that it should not be closed down and that

    489
    the Government should step in to see that it is kept in being.
    When hon. Members opposite criticise the Government, do they know of anybody else who would have sent to my constituency the National Giro system? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) knows how important this is. It provided 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in my constituency and was little short of miraculous. Does the hon. Member for Garston remember the disaster when a private firm, the name of which I will not mention—I am too charitable—told 850 girls over the Tannoy system that they were sacked? When I remember that sort of treatment from private industry and compare it with the generosity of my right hon. Friend, I am bounden and beholden to pay tribute to the Government.
    In Bootle, we have the Giro and the Inland Revenue. The town never had this kind of employment before. What it has done for the girls and young women of my constituency is almost miraculous. It has given them opportunities which they have never had hitherto.
    We have had a £30 million dock, probably the greatest container base in the country. We have had dock access roads and town centres and £200 million made available for the building of new ships. All this has meant a great opportunity for the whole of Merseyside. We are on the road to defeating this old problem of unemployment. I put my faith as always in the Labour Government. I know what efforts my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet are making. I have never been disappointed in anything for which I have asked.
    As an hon. Member who holds a green card on the disabled register, may I make a fervent plea for a little more attention to be given to the position of disabled men? They need their dignity as much as anybody and it is a little hard to preserve one's dignity when one is not quite as physically fit as the next man. I will leave the matter there.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Lengthy speeches curtail the number of hon. Members able to participate in the debate. I hope that brevity will be the rule from now on.
    7.46 p.m.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: I shall attempt to follow your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be as brief as I can, not least because, as you have said, we have had some lengthy speeches and I know that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I shall try to compress what I had originally intended to say into a very few minutes.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), who enjoys the respect of both sides of the House, will forgive me if I do not comment on his arguments. However, there is one comment which I should like to make about his speech. It was very appropriate that a person of his standing on Merseyside should have suggested that those who go on strike should consider the effects of doing so on their work-fellows, not only on Merseyside, but throughout the whole of the country. It was a very good point to make. We would all join what he said about St. Joseph the Worker. I will leave it at that in an attempt to be brief.
    The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) was wholly on the defensive. I understand why. He was wholly on the defensive when he talked of the rundown of traditional industry as being the main reason for the heavy unemployment which the country knows today. This will not convince anyone any longer. It may have done so in 1966, but it will not now.
    In 1966, every Labour candidate in the North-East of England, where I come from, knew of traditional industries that were running down—coal and shipbuilding. They knew it long ago. We knew this in the 1959 election and in the 1964 election. If the right hon. Member thinks that this is a reason for unemployment today standing as it does at its present high level, will he kindly examine the election addresses of those of his hon. Friends who fought seats in the North-East of England and largely won them in 1966?
    In 1966, there was not one Labour Party election address which did not suggest that in the 17 months from October, 1964, to March, 1966, the Labour Government had been responsible for a substantial reduction in unemployment. The

    491
    North-East Development Council has stated recently that the only year in which we had enough replacement jobs in major industry was 1964–65, in other words the year in which new industry coming into the area had been brought there by Conservative as against Labour action. As Conservative candidates in the North-East we had to face the constant suggestion in the 1966 campaign, and some of us will never forget it, that in the 17 months of Labour Government they had cured unemployment. It is a hollow cry today. The poster then said:
    " You know now that Labour Government works."
    They know differently in 1970.
    The last time we debated unemployment, was on 3rd February when I was fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I suggested that the position in the North-East of England was desperate, but it is worse today. I make no apology for stating the position as it stands. For the purpose of a calculation I have made, I have taken the North-East, as against the Northern Region, as representing the North Riding, the County of Durham and the County of Northumberland. In the North-East at this moment we have 53,696 men unemployed, 7·3 per cent. of the employable population. We have 6,651 women, 2,641 boys, and 1,201 girls, unemployed.
    I appreciated the contribution by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) who suggested that the high rate of unemployment among young people was something that we could not accept. I agree. The total unemployment in the North-East of England is 64,189. It is disgraceful and it is higher than it was in the month of March. I see little possibility of it improving until we have a change of central economic policy. Whatever may be said from the benches opposite, either by the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning or anyone else, this is the basic fact which we must grasp. If the Government's central economic policy fails then the development areas suffer most.
    I try to meet as many employers as well as employees as possible in my area. The trouble for employers in the past few years has been the restriction of credit. There is no doubt about that.
    492
    Whether I talk to someone employing 10,000 people or 10 people, this is the complaint. First of all, there has been difficulty in getting credit and secondly there has been its high cost. This has meant a great restriction on employment possibilities. We have shining new factories in the North-East and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a transformation. The change in the infrastructure, as it is called now, is substantial. In County Durham particularly we see lots of wonderful new roads and factories, but in these factories are employers who nag away at those like myself who go to see them about the high cost of credit and its non-availability.
    Last weekend I held a meeting, attended by smaller employers, organised by a small employer. The smaller employers put their complaints to me. They told me that grants which were promised took a long time to come. They said that alternative finance was available but that they had delayed obtaining it because of the promise of grants, and those delays were expensive. They had begun to lose faith in the Government's ability to provide sufficient grants. This is after six years of Labour Government. Now the position is that on Tyneside, the heart of a great industrial area, we have 7·6 per cent. unemployment among the employable population. In Sunderland, and I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) in his place, the unemployment figure for April was 13·2 per cent.
    Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am as disturbed about the high rate of unemployment as he is. I am sure that he will agree that the very high rate of 13 per cent. is due to an industrial strike and that the true figure is much lower.
    Mr. Elliott: I agree with that at once. Although the strike is taken into consideration in the percentage I have quoted. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if we took out the percentage represented by the strike the unemployment rate for Sunderland would remain very high. The percentage has become progressively higher since Labour came into power. On Tees-side the unemployment figure is 9·4 per cent. and

    493
    in south-east Northumberland 11·2 per cent.
    There is now a new, hated, word in this industrial area and it is "redundancy". It has been rightly said that unemployment is different these days. The unemployed are cushioned against the most severe and immediate effects, but I have talked a good deal to the unemployed lately and it is easy to realise that despite the payments there is a fear of redundancy which throws a horrid grey shadow over many. It is not only those already in the dole queues who fear this shadow. There is a great fear of further redundancy, the fear that the breadwinner may lose his job, his ability to keep up the hire-purchase payments and, much worse, lose his pride and the respect of his children.
    Let there be all the talk in the world about better conditions for the unemployed from the other side of the House, but these awful fears and feelings remain. There is the fear of being unwanted, unneeded which is a terrible social problem in itself, and based on distressing statistics. When 10,000 new jobs were created in the last year we needed 24,500 new jobs. This is the straight criticism of the Government's economic failure. The gap here is wide. In 1969 factory building fell by 20 per cent. from the 1968 figure. It was a fall which we could not possibly stand, as a region desperately needing more employment. Even if there are no more pit closures in Durham, there is an enormous leeway to make up, a leeway created particularly in the last two years.
    What are we to do? This is the sixth time that I have made this sort of speech since last November, but the North-East needs to have this said. We must think ahead about our skill requirements. I appreciated the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee). It was a sound point to suggest that unemployment today needs to be approached in a different way, and this is what I have hoped to say in my speech. We must think more about unemployment. We hear too much about how many extra square feet of factory space has been provided. We need to do more than consider the exact numbers of unemployed people listed at each labour exchange, whether men, women, boys or girls. We need to con-
    494
    sider the situation much more carefully, intelligently and scientifically.
    We need to consider the skill requirements of new industry. Over and over again in debates I have said that there should be a full inquiry in the North-East, which is the cradle of regional development, into the exact skill requirements of new industries. I have always been told that the Government are fully aware of the requirements. But that is not so. When I make factory visits in the region, industrialists are inclined to say, "The training places are there, but they are not right for what we require. Not enough notice is taken of what we say".
    There must be a great increase in the participation of existent industry in the North-East in training generally and in training requirements particularly. Trade union fears must be permanently allayed in the near future in all development areas. Trade union barriers—and some still remain—must be finally removed.
    As the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) rightly said, there is a grave shipbuilding and, in particular, ship-repairing worry in the North-East. Recent problems are urgent and acute. The ship-repairing industry particularly and the shipbuilding industry have been victims of rampant inflation. It is not only a question of wage claims and awards, although we know that wage increases have been all too readily given, sometimes with no relation to increased productivity. The high and rising price of steel has a great deal to do with the present shipbuilding and ship-repairing problems in the North-East. It was, nevertheless, encouraging to read in the Financial Times today the brave words of Sir John Hunter who said that his great consortium would not get into the queue for Government aid and that, despite its problems, would try to continue to overcome them.
    The North-East urgently needs easier credit conditions and greater liquidity. So much can be done by existent employers if the iron financial control of the Government is further eased. The easement which has taken place has been much welcomed, but their financial control needs to be eased much more. If it is, the industry which is already in the area can employ more people.

    495
    Secondly, we need urgently to meet the social problems embodied in redundancy. I shall not enlarge on that matter now. New hope can be given by a wholehearted industrial training policy. Again, I refer to the right hon. Member for Newton. For a time he was responsible for the North-East, and he had experience similar to mine when going from factory to factory. We need to think much more intelligently about our industrial training programme.
    Thirdly,we need honesty in our national approach to regional problems. The days of the public relations exercise are over. I have said that before, and I say it again. The days of the public relations exercise in the North-East occurred during the elections of 1964 and 1966. What we in the North-East want from the Labour Party in the next election is the truth. It will be disastrous for the North-East if, for the sake of winning the election, the Government were to place undue stress on the precarious improvement in the balance of payments. What the North-East needs above all else is an election and a Conservative Government. Perhaps we shall have both very shortly.
    8.5 p.m.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) said that people wished to feel wanted and that it is horrible for people to feel that they are not needed. I wonder why that was not said during the many years when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. My constituency is in the North, and those days ended with 15 per cent. of the employable men in my constituency out of work. In 1963, which was a highly critical year for us, the Leader of the Opposition went to the region and the only successful thing that he did was to play the organ in Durham Cathedral.
    The second source of annoyance in the hon. Gentleman's speech was his reference to honesty. For a member of the Conservative Party to talk about honesty is an utter load of tripe. The people in the North know all about it. The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) should have consulted his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) before quoting figures on regional unemployment.
    496
    It is useful to quote the figures given by a right hon. Member opposite. This was the story given by the right hon. Member for Grantham concerning the years between 1951 and 1963. In 1951, in the London and South-Eastern Region, there were 57,432 people out of work. In the last year, more or less, of the Conservative Party's administration, when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government, the figure rose to 71,775—an increase of 25 per cent. In 1951, the last year of the Labour Government, in the Eastern and Southern Region there were 21,490 people out of work. In 1963, after many years of Tory administration, the figure had risen to 34,424—an increase of 60·2 per cent. In the South-Western Region in 1951, 14,916 people were unemployed. The figure rose to 26,245—an increase of 76 per cent.
    In the Midlands there was a remarkable increase. The 1951 figure of 17,570 jumped to 48,423—an increase of 175 per cent. In the Yorkshire Region, the 1951 figure of 26,487 rose to 35,211—an increase of 32 per cent. In the North-Western Region, it rose from 41,605 to 78,086—an increase of 87 per cent. In the Northern Region, the figure rose from 29,345 to 58,303—an increase of 98·7 per cent. In Scotland the increase was 64 per cent. and in Wales 15 per cent.
    Hon. Members opposite cannot refute those figures because they were given by one of their right hon. Friends.
    Mr. John Brewis: Although the hon. Gentleman believes he is being honest about his figures, he has followed the example of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) by quoting distorted figures. Why does he not quote figures for 1947 and compare them with 1963?
    Mr. Leadbitter: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the figures as distorted, because they came from his right hon. Friend.
    The problem with which we have been dealing ever since is a legacy of the Conservative Party.
    Mr. Stainton: Would the hon. Gentleman go along with me in an extrapolation, an extension, of the figures? In my constituency in Suffolk, the unemployment

    497
    rate increased by 84 per cent. between 1,964 and March this year.
    Mr. Leadbitter: No one in this House should minimise the difficulty of unemployment or suggest that it is an easy matter. I agree with the hon. Member that if he has a problem, it is a serious one and we should all be anxious to put it right. We want, however, to talk about which party is best able to do the job and, unfortunately, the record of the party opposite has indicated to the country that they are not fitted to deal with the problem.
    For the record, I want to give some in- formation which is vital to the debate. I pose a simple question to the House. If the policies for my region during the past five years have produced 116,000 new jobs, is it likely that the same policy during the next 10 years will produce the other 210,000 jobs that we need to meet our total employment problem? That is a fair proposition.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) had the temerity to suggest that the industrial development certificate policy was not an issue between the parties. It is an issue, because between 1945 and 1947, under a Labour Government, 48 per cent. of I.D.C.s were directed to the development areas. Under the party opposite, however, that figure was reduced in the 1950s to 18 per cent.
    The same thing happened with Government training centres. When we took office in 1964 and we looked at the books, we found that in the year when there was the highest unemployment figure since the war—815,000—under a Tory Government, when there was need for training, they cut down the 10 Government training centres by two. We have increased the number of training centres to 21, and to complete the programme there will be 26. The output of Government training levels in the Northern Region has been lifted from 2,000 to 3,000 trained and new skilled men. That is the rate of progress in the Northern Region.
    Whilst the North has been having the benefit of a good programme from the Government, we have to face a fundamental fact. During the past five years 40,000 men in the coalfields have lost their jobs. This number has had to be taken up by new industries. The rate
    498
    of improvement during the past five years has always been countered by the rate of decline in basic industries. Therefore, if a policy had not been devised by the Labour Government to deal with this problem, what would have been the unemployment situation in the North today?
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: What the hon. Member is saying is simply not the case. We have just replaced 40 per cent. of the redundant jobs. Under a Conservative Government, we would have had economic growth nationally, the country's economy would have been thriving and we would have gone on apace.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The economic growth was so exciting that when we took office, we were left with an £800 million deficit. In 1970, we have a surplus of over £500 million, we have more foreign earnings than ever before and we have paid back £1,600 million short-term debt. That is the record.
    The Labour Government are providing inducements for industry in the Northern Region to the extent of £105 million, new construction works and the clearance of derelict areas to the extent of £143 million and a road construction programme this year to the extent of £50 million—in total, £300 million of government help to give new life to the area.
    When a General Election comes, I challenge hon. Members opposite to announce in the Northern Region that they will dare to relax the I.D.C. policies or dare to suggest that they will reduce the amount of aid. I know very well that private industry is not prepared to come to the Northern Region without some carrots being put into its hands—and I have never yet found private enterprise not putting out its hand to grasp public money. We have been able to induce people who would have gone elsewhere to come to the North.
    There is no question that during the general election the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North will not dare to pronounce Tory policy and say that they will ease up on I.D.C.s and reduce Government aid. If that is what they intend to do, I challenge the hon. Member to say it now. The Tory Party will either keep the inducements and the

    499
    I.D.C. policy for the benefit of the development areas, or they will not. I challenge the hon. Member to say what his party's policy is.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: I accept the challenge at once. We have said consistently, and we say again, that we will continue to aid the development areas, but we will do it much more intelligently and to much greater effect.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I will close my remarks in deference to the co-operation that we have had from the Chair in the sharing of time.
    The question of intelligence does not come into this. The record speaks for itself. For areas like mine, the intelligent approach of the Conservative Party produced despair and despondency. We have replaced that with Government policy whereby I have in my constituency a nuclear power station, a new shopping centre, a better house-building programme and more amenities than ever before. That is the pattern of physical development in the North. I am satisfied what the electorate will do. They will decide what intelligence is at work in their interests, and they will reject the party opposite.
    8.17 p.m.
    Mr. Marcus Kimball: I wish that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) would come and see the distressing and tragic employment situation which is building up in Lincolnshire. I was sorry that the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning dismissed the unemployment which we now have in Lincolnshire as part of merely a regional pattern.
    I think we all agree that the problem with unemployment is as the Hunt Committee said in its Report on the Intermediate Areas:
    " Unemployment remains very largely a regional problem."
    But when it gets to the proportions it is now getting to in the Gainsborough and North Lincolnshire area, it becomes a very serious problem indeed. In the Gainsborough employment exchange area alone, at the last count at the end of April this year, 5·3 per cent. of the insured population were unemployed, com-
    500
    pared with 2·7 per cent. in Great Britain and 3 per cent. for the Humberside region. It is worse than the Northern Region, of which we have heard so much and where the last count was 5·2 per cent., and it is second only to the unemployment situation which we all know is worse—the 6·9 per cent. of the insured population unemployed in Northern Ireland.
    It is distressing how the problem is growing in Gainsborough and in my part of North Lincolnshire. It is caused by people losing their jobs in far greater numbers than the Department of Employment and Productivity can possibly place in other employment. This tendency has grown enormously since 1966. The reason for it, certainly north of the Trent, is the lack of work on building and civil engineering, which causes great concern in that part of the world.
    Building and civil engineering are large employers of labour. They are the two industries which are worst hit by the selective employment tax and the credit squeeze. When one wants to find employment for people, it is iniquitous and unfair to go on taxing employers, who have to pay out 86s. on a Monday morning gefore ever they can employ a man. We all know that selective employment tax has nothing to do with the redistribution of labour. It is a tax which the boss pays and which the Socialist voters do not notice.
    In North Lincolnshire, many firms are going bankrupt and having to close down. They have suffered from the credit squeeze and, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that the credit squeeze has now eased, there is little practical sign of it easing for the small industrialists and employers in the Gains-borough area. The real trouble is that the Labour Government, despite repeated requests, have refused to schedule Gains-borough as an intermediate or development area. Yet all round Gainsborough there are places which have far lower unemployment counts which have been scheduled. The marginal seat of Doncaster, for example, which is next door to Gainsborough, has a much lower unemployment figure than Gainsborough, yet it is scheduled as an intermediate area.
    The Secretary of State and several hon. Gentlemen made great play of the jobs

    501
    which have been created by the granting of I.D.Cs. I am forced to the conclusion, from practical experience of trying to get firms to apply for I.D.C., that there is almost a political bias in the granting of them. My constituency needs a firm to come to the area which will provide about 300 jobs on a comparatively simple conveyor belt production line. Just when that firm was about to come into the town it was given a strong hint that it would get an I.D.C. only if it moved to the marginal constituency of Swansea. It would be interesting to compare the unemployment rate in marginal constituencies with the Socialist policy of granting I.D.Cs.
    If the Government will not schedule Gainsborough as a development or intermediate area, the most constructive step would be to give people more opportunity to go to one of the 21, shortly rising to 26, Government industrial training centres. There is a large waiting list in the Gainsborough area for admission to those centres. If one writes a letter to the Minister, a vacancy is nearly always offered promptly, but it is quite wrong, in the tragic situation of unemployment, that a place at a training centre is not available until a person is so hard pressed that he writes to his Member of Parliament.
    Although there is much unemployment, there are still a large number of vacant jobs. There is an enormous waiting list far skilled engineering workers, electrical draughtsmen, welders and fitters. A constructive way of helping would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refund the selective employment tax in employment exchange areas where unemployment on Budget day was over 4 per cent. of the insured population. In this way, employers would be encouraged to employ more people.
    It is depressing to represent an area of high unemployment because there is so much hidden misery. When jobs are hard to get, not all the unemployed will register. Many people have to work a long way from their homes and must pay tax on petrol to travel these long distances. The amount of take-home pay is reduced when people have to go far afield to find jobs.
    I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision and agree to the
    502
    scheduling of Gainsborough as an intermediate area.
    8.24 p.m.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Unemployment is a very emotive subject, and we in South Wales feel that we know a little about it because of our personal experience. I am not wholly satisfied with the Government's policies for employment in the regions, but I cannot dispute that they have achieved a large measure of success in contrast to the old days.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), who has had such a distinguished career and who knows so much about this subject from personal experience, has said that in his career he has witnessed many run-downs in the mining industry, but the present one is the most humane yet. Miners over the age of 55 can now get 90 per cent. of their take-home pay for a period of three years, and the Redundancy Payments Act, which was one of the first Measures to be introduced by this Government, has done much to relieve the distress of unemployment. The rundown of the mining industry has caused unemployment in South Wales. The Government's regional employment policy has achieved a good deal of success but it has cost a lot of money, and one wonders whether some of this money would have been better spent on publicly-owned industries strategically placed in areas of high unemployment.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) thought that miners over the age of 55 should be struck off the employment register, but I do not agree with him about this. Many of these men would be only too pleased to take a job. I am not saying that at their time of life they can be made into skilled tradesmen, but miners are very adaptable people and, if work were available close at hand, they would be only too pleased to take a job.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is unreal to regard miners in that category as classified in the same way as workers on the life register of unemployed?
    Mr. Hughes: I might have got the wrong impression, but I want to make the point on behalf of those people who are only too ready to take up work.

    503
    W. H. Davies, the tramp poet, invited us to stand and stare. If we do this at present in Newport we find that it is a thriving and prosperous town with a great future. At the moment, we have the well-known Maritime Industrial Development Area Scheme—M.I.D.A.S. involving a major industrial and port complex on the flats east and west of Newport. We must also bear in mind the Severn site development, which would very much affect the South Wales side of the Bristol Channel. These developments are essential for the future of South Wales.
    Looking at the present situation we should examine the positive ways in which the Government have helped the area of South Wales which I have the honour to represent, and also South Wales in general. Hon. Members will remember the controversy over the Port of Bristol's expansion scheme at Port-bury. Many of us on the South Wales seaboard feel that this could have spelt ruin for the South Wales ports. We would all have been directly competing for trade from the Midlands, motor cars, steel coils, timber, and so on. We in South Wales were relieved when the Government decided to reject the Portbury scheme.
    The Port of Bristol then came along with a modified scheme, the West Dock scheme—what we termed a mini-Portbury. But, again, that scheme was rejected. I understand that Bristol has yet another scheme, a scaled-down version, a mini-mini-Portbury.
    These three schemes have one thing in common. They have all been backed by principal spokesmen of the Conservative Party. Had the development been allowed to go ahead, it could well have had disastrous effects on the ports in South Wales. One or two of them could well have been closed down, putting a number of our dockers on the dole. I commend the Government for their wise action in turning down this scheme. What was the point in creating additional facilities when facilities in South Wales were already under-utilised?
    A further point I should like to raise relates to the report of the Hunt Committee, which excluded South Wales. Within 24 hours the Government had
    504
    rejected its recommendations and saw to it that Cardiff, Newport and some surrounding areas were included and given grey area status. This provides for assistance with new factory building, training and site reclamation. It has been of positive help towards solving the unemployment problems of South Wales.
    The British Steel Corporation has announced a £42 million scheme of investment for the great Spencer steel works which will provide 1,000 new jobs. This development will set the seal on the prosperity of the whole of South Monmouthshire. In addition, there has been a major investment in the Ebbw Vale steel works. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was delighted when he heard that news. We are glad to see the publicly-owned steel industry making such good progress.
    I praise the Government for their dispersal policy. About 10,000 new jobs have come to Wales as a result of the siting there of offices and other establishments. The Motor Taxation Office has been established in Swansea, the Royal Mint has gone to Llantrisant, and the Census Office to Newport. All these will have a tremendous effect on employment possibilities in South Wales generally.
    The Conservative Party speaks about cutting public expenditure, but at the same time, declares the intention of maintaining a presence east of Suez. That would increase, not decrease, public expenditure. If ever there is a Conservative Government again, we in South Wales know where the cuts will come. The old, the sick and the needy would suffer and cuts in development area aid would increase unemployment. We in South Wales know, the Tory Party from an abundance of experience. The election results bear this out.
    We appreciate that the Government's policies are by no means perfect and much more remains to be done. These policies need a little refining. The full realisation of the Government's plans will take some time to be evident. Meanwhile, much has been achieved. I am proud to be associated with the efforts that the Government have made to provide employment for our people.
    8.37 p.m.
    Mr. David Crouch: I shall speak, I hope, only briefly. I want to raise an area problem but I do not want the House to think that I am raising a purely constituency or parochial problem. I am rather illustrating a problem which exists, particularly in my part of the country in Kent, which shows up a deficiency in the Government's programme.
    We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) of his concern that the Government had plans, planners and economists and that those plans, planners and economists were not solving our problems. That is what we are debating, the riddle of unemployment, which is over 600,000 and has been at that high level for more than 32 months. It is a challenging problem to the Minister of Technology. I am glad that he is here tonight. It is a challenging problem that the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning. I am sorry that the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity is not present, because we are talking of something which is also her concern. What I have to say has to do with planning and with the activities and instructions which should come from the Minister of Technology if these problems are to be dealt with.
    In the Minister of Technology and the Secretary of State, who opened this debate, we have two men who have very powerful opportunities. They are very powerful indeed for the country. They are overlords overseeing several Ministries. They have the opportunity to put right some of the problems which are producing unemployment in the country today. I am reminded of a song about two gendarmes who had a solution for everything that went wrong. It ended with the words:
    "We run them in, we run them in."
    These two Ministers have a solution to all the problems, "We have a plan, we have a plan". They have a plan, but it does not work. The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) made a most captivating speech showing his concern that his Front Bench colleagues have not found a solution.
    I speak of an area in Kent to which the Secretary of State referred in his
    506
    speech at the opening of the debate as a prosperous area. The South-East is not a development area, but in March this year the number of unemployed in Kent was 15,374. The area is bigger than that of North Cornwall. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) spoke of the highest figure of unemployment reached in his area as 8,000. The number of 15,000 unemployed in Kent compares with 4,676 in July, 1965.
    The Minister spoke of regional inequalities. I should choose to speak of sub-regional inequalities. We are a forgotten sector of a large prosperous area. The South-East is rich overall in employment opportunities. It includes London. It is a growth area. It attracts people. It has a high standard of living. But not everywhere.
    In North-East Kent, the part in which I am most interested, there is a pocket not just of resistance, but of decline and decay. There is no solution, no plan, for it. Nothing is offered. This decay is occurring in a coastal strip from Sittingbourne, through my constituency, to Folkestone. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is here this evening. There is also a problem much further towards London in Gravesend and the Medway Towns. But the real problem lies further east where there is little opportunity and hardly any industrial development. The towns on this coastal strip are dying a slow, sad death. The people see no opportunity of future employment, because no opportunity is being provided.
    In March, 1970, the total of unemployed from Gravesend around the coast to Hythe was just under 11,500, of which 9,000 were in the smaller area from Sittingbourne to Hythe. The percentage of unemployed about which we have heard today around the country are interesting. I know that statistics can be deceptive, but the smallest figure in the City of Canterbury is 3 per cent., which is consistent, and the highest figure in two of the coastal towns, Herne Bay and Whitstable, is 8·5 per cent. These kind of figures make people disheartened and discouraged.
    What are the Government doing to prevent this decline? I cannot believe that they want it to continue. They state that they are showing sympathy. I will

    507
    not bore the House by quoting letters that I have had from the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman nods in response to my remark. I have had assurances that the Government will view with sympathy the problems in this area. I am grateful, but sympathy is no substitute for action.
    Kent needs more industry, more office development, more positive moves to direct to office and industrial development which would mop up the unemployment that I have mentioned. Sympathetic consideration of the grant of I.D.C.'s and O.D.P.'s is not enough. I have been told in letters from the Ministry that it is for the local authorities and perhaps for myself to persuade manufacturers, employers, to take a look at Kent and to invest in Kent. I have another letter from the Minister of Housing and Local Government telling me to do exactly that.
    I have recently embarked on my own interpretation of the Maud Report. Only this week I collected together four local authorities, under my chairmanship, to make a group plan—not a parochial plan for individual authorities trying to solve their individual problems—because a factory in one area can provide employment for the other three. This kind of initiative would be helpful from the Government. I wish that the Government would not sit hack and leave it all to the local authorities to take the initiative.
    The problem is that there is no incentive for a manufacturer to come into this prosperous area, because there are no financial incentives and no R.E.P. The investment grant is 20 per cent., not 40 per cent., and so on. There are no building grants. We have been told by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that if we can persuade manufacturers of the attractiveness of our area, he will be sympathetic to the granting of I.D.C.s and O.D.P.s.
    We are helped by a local voluntary body which has grown up out of the necessity of tackling this problem. The Minister has had many letters from Mr. Bridger, the Chairman of the South-East England Development Board. It is remarkable that a voluntary organisation has shown such initiative and energy in studying the figures from the three
    508
    Departments concerned and has been of great assistance to the local authorities in work which they are not fully equipped to do themselves. In addition, this voluntary body is helping me to see the size and shape of the problem.
    I think that the Government must open the door and help, not just manufacturers to come down there, but men to get employment. During interview sessions at my surgery I have met men who have been out of work for three years. I grant that they come to me well dressed, well heeled, and well turned out, and I am all for that and for the generosity which enables them to do that. But there is a lack of hope among these men because there is not enough industry to employ them.
    Mr. Costain: My hon. Friend's experience is the same as mine. Does he not find that one tragedy is the large number of school leavers who are not able to get jobs?
    Mr. Crouch: I was coming to that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening. About 7,000 school leavers a year come on to the market for jobs, but there are no jobs for them; neither office nor industrial jobs. The result is that they have to look elsewhere, mainly in London.
    There is a commuter train service up the coast to London. These young people, who live perhaps 60 miles from London, fill the trains to bursting point, to the great discomfort of everyone. I then have to write to the Minister of Transport to ask him to tackle that problem. I am told that the Southern Region of British Railways will embark on a programme costing £220 million to make it more comfortable for people to get from North-East Kent, a declining area, into the Medway towns or London where there are industries and employment.
    I hope that the Minister will take positive action to give encouragement and not discouragement to manufacturers who might think of extending their development or coming to develop in the north-east of Kent. It is no longer true to think of this area as purely a seaside resort which declines in the winter and gets back into full employment and productivity as it were in the summer. These areas are no longer seaside resorts in

    509
    that sense. They were seaside resorts, but they do not now provide any employment.
    We have another problem about which I have often spoken in the House. We have a coalfield in Kent. Last July one of the four collieries there was closed. Once there were four collieries, now there are three. Once there were 5,000 miners; now there are just over 4,000. We cannot offer those miners who have been displaced jobs and pay which are comparable to what they were getting at the coal face. There is great disillusion in the area, but I shall not weary the House with details of that.
    What are the Government planning for this area in the next 10 to 15 years? I wrote to the Chairman of the National Coal Board, Lord Robens, to tell him that he, too, must start to think and talk to the Government about providing against the time when the contraction of the coalfield will affect the miners there. This may be in 10 or 15 years' time. Are the Government planning for the future? Are they thinking of what will happen to the miners? Twenty acres of National Coal Board land above the old colliery at Chislet are scheduled as industrial land, and we want it. We could develop it into a small industrial site to help to solve our problem.
    We have good communications in our area. Factories can be developed, and it is possible for office blocks to be built 15 or 20 miles from the labour reservoir. A factory in Whitstable would help solve the unemployment problems of Canterbury, Herne Bay and even Faversham and the Thanet towns. But there is a limit to the distance that people are prepared to travel.
    I must be parochial in this and say that the solution to these problems is not to be found in Ashford or Maidstone. Internal communications are not good. The good communications, both road and rail, go along the coast. I do not seek to turn this corner of England into an industrial area; I seek, rather, to prevent its death. I want to increase its wealth and happiness and, above all, to bring back some hope to people who have been so long unemployed.
    8.51 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: The hon. Member for Canter-
    510
    bury (Mr. Crouch) has made a very good constituency speech. I congratulate him for trying to look after his constituency. But our debate today is about unemployment over the whole country. The hon. Member outlined what sounded like some grim prospects for his constituency, but I wish that I had his problems, rather than the far more difficult ones that exist in Sunderland.
    Just before he sat down he said that he was worried about what would happen in Kent in 10 or 15 years' time. I wish that his Government had worried about my area 10 or 15 years ago. They gave no thought to it. The Government today are also thinking about the grey areas. We appreciate the problems there. I wish that the hon. Member's Government, 10 or 15 years ago, had appreciated what would happen in Scotland, the North of England, and Wales. If they had done so then we might not now be faced with a Motion of censure, of all things, on the subject of unemployment.
    On 23rd February, we were told the Opposition's alternative regional policy. Unemployment is a question of regional policy. Unemployment is an unbalanced situation. If the Government want to expand the economy, what is right for the South and Midlands is not good enough for the North, for Scotland and for Wales. Those areas will still be in the cold. But if the Government, on a national scale, do what is right for Scotland, the North of England, and Wales, there is raging inflation in the South. We must reach a balance. That is what the Government's regional policy is about. That is why, on 23rd February, we pressed the right hon. Member for Leeds North-East (Sir K. Joseph) to spell out the Conservative Party's proposals and to be honest about it.
    I can understand the argument of the hon. Member for Canterbury and his hon:Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). Of course, they do not like a slice of the national economy being ploughed into the regions. There is no joy for the Tories in the North of England. We do not return any Tories from Durham. We send only two or three from Northumberland, and very few from Scotland and Wales. I can understand the party opposite not being very concerned about the regions.

    511
    I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East was so candid. But he must start thinking in the terms in which Sir John Hunter has thought about the problem. Sir John Hunter, of the Swan Hunter group, has said that he is phasing out the regional employment premiums. No less than £1½ million of the £l·6 million profit of Swan Hunter last year was accounted for by regional employment premiums. The shipbuilding industry, which is a large employer in my area, is entitled to be told by hon. Members opposite what they mean by a regional policy, and what effect it will have on unemployment in the regions.
    This is what we are entitled to know. It should be spelled out much more clearly, because it is causing consternation among American bankers and industrialists who want to establish a European base here.
    I was recently at a reception for bankers from America, Holland, Switzerland and Italy, when the North-East Development Council was putting the case for expansion in the area. The question put to us was this, "Your Government is offering all these inducements to move into the regions, these financial aids and training incentives and regional employment premiums, but a General Election is coming. It looks"—as it did then—"as if you might be defeated. We had better wait, because the Opposition, the alternative Government, have said that they will not carry on some of these facilities". They rightly asked, "Should we take the plunge and put our investments into these areas, or should we wait until after the General Election?".
    This is the effect of the Selsdon Park proposals on regions like mine. Hon. Gentlemen opposite owe it to the country and they owe it to us, while we are still trying to get people into our areas, to spell them out more clearly.
    Today's debate has been rather a sham from the party opposite. I do not believe in crocodile tears. They have never been the friends of people out of work, or particularly concerned about people who were put out of work. They have never been magnanimous with financial help for redundancy payments or wage related unemployment benefits and the like—all necessary facets of a modern society
    512
    facing technological change, with its effects on people in particular industries. These people are bound to face change. Miners or shipbuilding workers who change their jobs are entitled to some consideration, because their investment has been their lives and not financial investment.
    This party has done this, and we like to give credit where it is due. There is a very high unemployment rate in my constituency, and I could make a very good attack on my own Government for that, but that would be totally dishonest, because the change in industry, with the replacement of miners, the change of structure in the shipbuilding industry and the intense international competition faced by the ship-repairing industry has all had its effect. The real problem can be solved only with time and planning and the intention to put it right.
    The basic problems which we are facing are still paramount in my region. We have a very high unemployment rate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) knows from his experiences when he was responsible for the region. Fifty per cent. of that unemployment rate are over the age of 40 and 45 per cent. are over the age of 45. This is the depth of the difficulty. The Government have tried to solve it by providing a phased increase in the number of training centres. I hope that hon. Members opposite, with their great influence in industry, will encourage their industrial friends to move into the regions. But I suspect that they will not, and are far more interested in letting alaissez-faire economy go its own way, find its own level and create further problems which have been greatly built up in the Midlands and the South-East.
    A strong Government must say, "You cannot go on in this way. You must think of a national economy based on full employment, which means from the north coast of Scotland to the west coast of Wales and 'the south coast of England —not just the concentrated areas." We must, of course, think not only in human terms, but in terms of the national economy.
    It costs the Government a lot of money to pay people benefits when they are out of work. We have provided high rates of unemployment pay and this causes a drain

    513
    on the economy. The Government do not want to pay people to be out of work. They want what the unemployed want, which is that each person should contribute to, and have a share of, the national cake. I accept that many of my constituents are having a touch time. I have more faith that their problems will be solved with Labour in power than should hon. Gentlemen opposite become the Government.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) made a short, strong, political intervention. I found his remarks interesting. He is, like each hon. Member, entitled to his point of view. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not immediately comment on his remarks, but as my speech proceeds I will come to some of the suggestions which he made.
    Last month was the coldest April for 30 years. It was also particularly chilling for the many thousands of people who are facing being out of work on a continuing basis. We had an interesting account from the Secretary of State of the catalogue of alleged successes which have occurred under Labour in industrial planning in the regions. At the end of his speech I was left wondering why, if all those things had been done, the figures are so bad and why we are having to table a censure Motion in which we speak of the rate of unemployment in April being the highest since 1940.
    If all the actions of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke have taken place, and have tended to work, as he suggested, it is amazing that we are not in a more satisfactory position, particularly from the unemployment point of view.
    In view of the catalogue of events to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I must, at the outset, make two statements which are particularly relevant. First, the true level of unemployment in April, and in the previous month of March, showed, in the seasonally adjusted figures, the highest unemployment rate of any month since the war, with the exception of the period of the 1947 fuel crisis.
    Secondly, the April figures also reflected an underlying increase in the true trend of unemployment since last November. The annual average of un
    514
    employment has not so far exceeded 550,000 in any year since 1940, but the average so far this year is running at about 560,000. I emphasise, if hon. Gentlemen opposite are thinking that I am tailoring these figures for my own use, that these deductions are not mine. They come from Mr. Peter Jay, the economics expert of The Times,who is a supporter of the Labour Party. Indeed, I gather that he is seeking nomination for a rather safe Labour seat in Islington. We look forward to having a contribution from him in due course, after the General Election; that is, when he will be sitting on these benches, in opposition.
    Time and again in this debate—in which there have been some thoughtful contributions and some avowedly political ones, such as that made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—I have thought of the uproar there would have been had we been the Government of the day and presented unemployment figures of the sort with which we are faced. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been throwing the book at us. They would have been hammering us with censure Motions.
    We recall the days under the Conservatives when unemployment was running at a far lower level. We recall how we were criticised then by hon. Gentlemen opposite whenever the figures tended to creep up a little. It is quite fantastic that, despite all the apologies we have had today from Government spokesmen —and we shall probably get some more from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology—right hon. and hon. Members opposite are prepared to tolerate these sets of figures.
    The debate has emphasised the nation's disturbing unemployment situation. It is a state of affairs over which, despite their admitted attention to regional policies, and no one would deny that, the Government have not got adequate control. The position could grow worse in due course unless there is much better and more rigorous action than we have had so far; and despite the optimism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which one would expect in an election year. We must, in an election year expect the Government to show this rather unhappy tendency to play down the situation, and to pretend that it is somewhat transitory

    515
    and a problem more of redeployment than of general unemployment.
    It is alleged from the other side, and it is a fair point for Government supporters to make, that the sting has been taken out of unemployment by virtue of the admittedly better unemployment and redundancy payments. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said that it was now an entirely different problem. He did not think that there was much of a long-term unemployment problem there at all, but on that score I disagree with him fundamentally. It is true that some of the sting has been taken out of the situation, but for many the eroding poison of not being wanted is still left in the wound.
    As to whether or not the unemployment situation is serious, I want to quote from an inportant leading article in The Times,published in January. It stated:
    "But there comes a point at which all this sophisticated interpretation and explaining away of politically palatable unemployment figures goes too far. The Government must now begin to face up to the fact that, on the basis of present policies, the margin of slack in unemployment is bordering on the unacceptable."
    It certainly is bordering on the unacceptable. I repeat my surprise that hon. Members opposite should be prepared to tolerate such unemployment figures.
    Again, quite fairly, the Labour Party has always laid great stress on full employment. Time and time again, it has featured full employment prominently in its election prospectuses, on television programmes and in the speeches of its leaders. We all know that it was the big emotive political issue of the 'twenties and 'thirties. It has always remained the central plank of the Socialist Party of what it is pleased to call social justice.
    It is true that the accent on unemployment has changed. It is true that many men are taking longer to decide what job they will take up if they find themselves redundant, or if they are sacked. It is true that the fearsome queues outside employment exchanges of listless men who knew that they stood little chance of getting jobs for years, have gone and, we hope, have gone for good. But the unemployed man of yesterday has been replaced by someone nearly as pathetic. He is the long-term unemployed worker who may well be cushioned by benefit
    516
    payments but who gradually loses self-respect and confidence as a useful member of society. That point was well made in a very fine speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott).
    If there should be doubts that we have the problem of the long-term unemployed person, let me quote one or two of the latest percentages. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) had a Written Question to the Department of Employment and Productivity on the numbers and percentages of men registered as wholly unemployed. That Question was answered today. It will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, but my hon. Friend has kindly furnished me with a copy.
    The latest figures show the trend in long-term unemployment. In the Northern area, 27·2 per cent. of men have been unemployed for over a year. The percentage in Wales is 24·8; in the East Midlands, it is 21·2; in Scotland it is 20·9; in the South-Western area—which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Cornwall—it is 19·2; and in Yorkshire, again, it is 19·2. In the South-Western area, 63·1 per cent. have been unemployed for over nine weeks; in the Northern area 68·1 per cent.; and in Wales 64·9 per cent.
    We are not merely talking about people who, because of changing industries, are out of a job and are gradually going back, but about men for whom this is a severe problem stretching over weeks and months and then years. This should give us cause for grave concern. I think that sometimes technocrats look at today's unemployed as statistics rather than as individual people.
    I do not say that they do so deliberately—I am sure that they are honest and sincere—but they give that impression. In the end, the success of economic management is concerned really with people rather than with figures. It is no use being able to prove that one has a temporary balance of payments surplus if one has a continuing trend of unemployment. We have to give people the opportunity to work and be happy.
    There are those who say that today there are men who do not want to work because they get so much money for not doing so that there is little point in their

    517
    working. I am not one of those people who say that. I do not join that band. There are scroungers and naturally lazy men, and this was referred to by the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), with much of whose speech I agreed, although he spoilt it a little by the politics at the end. However, we are all entitled to do that. We have always had scroungers and lazy men and shall always have them, but I believe that the vast majority of people wish to be able to work and to be occupied in a useful way. They are anxious to preserve their human dignity by showing that they are capable of supporting themselves and others.
    Imagine the crushing indignity for a man who has been jobless for a year, whose only crime is that he is not sufficiently well trained for one of the jobs vacant in his area, or whose age is against him. He might well be in his middle fifties. One of the most alarming things to emerge from the debate is the way we have talked about men in their fifties being made redundant, some of whom may never get another job. Really, we are talking of ourselves in many cases—men who are in the prime of life. How can one undermine a man's confidence in that respect?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I do not disagree with the argument the hon. Gentleman is making, but I hope he remembers that in the years 1962 and 1963 the Conservative Government reduced the amount spent on industrial training in Government establishments.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: We pioneered industrial training.
    The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is a realist. I know he will agree with me that it is very bad that men of 50 should be placed in this position. Imagine the feelings of a longterm unemployed man who has been out of work for a year seeing his daughter perhaps going out to work in full employment and bringing home a wage which, a few years ago, would have made him green with envy. It takes away a man's self-respect to be in that position. That is what I am afraid we may be doing in the regions, because the Government policies have failed signally to create sufficient job opportunities.
    If I read the figures aright, I am sorry to say that I see a continuing trend
    518
    towards long-term unemployment. Over 25 per cent. of those unemployed in the Northern region have been out of work for over a year and over 62 per cent. of those unemployed in the country at large have been workless for over eight weeks. We have heard today something about manpower forecasting. Apart from aspects of regional policy, I want to refer to this because I want to talk about the Department of Employment and Productivity's various experiments with a view to improving the facilities of the employment exchanges.
    They include self-service facilities for job vacancies, more professional advisory services, area managers responsible for assessing how situations are developing in their own districts, and an extension of specialist help for white-collar workers.
    These are all very good in their own ways, but they are inadequate. The employment exchange is a service which needs a new image. It is still known to far too many of its customers by its old colloquial name of "the labour". In most cases the name conjures up visions of brown institutional paint on the walls and shoddy minimal furniture. There is often a lack of professionalism about their activities and all too often this is accompanied by an air of latent despondency. There is a crying need for modern techniques of manpower forecasting to be developed and built up quickly.
    The need is to find out from employers what kind of labour they will require in the years immediately ahead and to adjust training to meet demands. That is why my party is giving deep consideration to a manpower commission which could also help over mobility of labour questions, expert job guidance and the information which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). I hope, too, that attention will be given to housing policy. One of the greatest disincentives against moving from one area to another is not being able to get another suitable house easily when there is not flexibility of interchange between councils.
    We must have far more adequate retraining facilities, particularly for the workers of more than 50 whom I have just mentioned. This is why some of my colleagues and I have recently been urging the Government to undertake a

    519
    critical review of the Industrial Training Act instead of tinkering with it, as they now are in a Bill now going through Parliament. It is very important that modern manpower needs should be properly identified and properly applied. The right hon. Member for Newton was so right to say that one of the keys to the whole problem is training and retraining.
    Mr. Bagier: The hon. Member has rightly stressed the problem for the over-50s and over-45s and the need for retraining. Would he not go further and try to instil in industry and among management generally the importance of at least interviewing people of that age instead of rejecting them without seeing them? It is a distinct disadvantage to a man of that age to have to state his age on the application form before he is even considered.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I am glad to be able to agree with the hon. Member. Since first coming to the House, I have fought the case of the over-40s and now that I am over 40 it becomes more relevant. It identifies more than anything else the need for professional services at employment exchanges and manpower commissions so that these people may be helped. Industry is wrong to close its mind to the middle-aged man. He is often far more efficient and has a better approach to his work than the younger man.
    Unemployment is very much a regional problem, as most speakers today have emphasised, but there is very little comfort in that. The Secretary of State tended to play this down and rather implied that it was not too bad because it was a regional problem. But we are a very small island with a very large population and we ought not to have this imbalance throughout the geography of the nation.
    Unemployment has increased in every region during the course of the last five years. The present development areas were scheduled under the Industrial Development Act in August, 1966. The position in all of them worsened drastically after the crisis measures of 1966, crisis measures which, though needed, left us with a difficult situation, and the position has deteriorated during the last
    520
    three years. We last debated unemployment only three months ago. The underlying position has not improved since, despite the assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman.
    In a very effective speech then, the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) who, I am sorry to say, is not here tonight, but who is one of the most experienced Members of the House, put it very well on 3rd February when he said:
    " Now we are in a position where, happily, our exports have reached record levels. At the same time, our unemployment has also reached record levels. Although it has been gratifying to hear about the amount of money, time and work which has been put in to the special development areas, we should consider whether much of the work has been worth while. I have figures here published in HANSARD on 24th June last. They show that, in the special development areas over the years from April, 1964, to April, 1969, these special efforts resulted in almost a doubling of unemployment. That is so for Scotland, Wales and the Northern Region." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1970; Vol. 795, c. 238–9.]
    When right hon. Gentlemen opposite hear their own experienced back-benchers making such points they must know that this is so and that something serious has to be done. We have also heard about the grey areas where the situation is serious. There has been talk of the large number of vacancies available for the unemployed. Too much talk about the number of vacancies is misleading. The ratio of vacancies to people unemployed varies enormously from region to region. This is why it needs to be identified very carefully by experts.
    In Scotland and the Northern Region, in April, there were seven adults wholly unemployed for every vacancy available. In Wales, there were 6 for every vacancy, 4 in Yorkshire and Humberside and there were roughly 1½ people in London and the South-East to each vacancy. A situation like this does not imply that a man can go out and get one of these vacancies, unless he is fortunate in living in London and the South-East and even then he comes up against difficulties.
    Mr. Pardoe: Would the hon. Gentleman estimate for the benefit of the House exactly what proportion of those people about whom he is talking actually want to get a job, because this is the reserve of labour on which we need to concentrate?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I believe there are far more people wanting to get jobs than he realises, far more who believe in preserving their dignity and having a job, however humble, rather than being cushioned by the effects of State welfare payments.
    We have been asked about our policy and it is instructive that the Government have nowadays become so interested in concentrating on our proposals to the exclusion of solving their own difficulties. This is because they try to deflect attention from their failures. It is a good technique sometimes, but it does not always work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham spoke of some of the fundamental needs and changes required if we are to have a viable employment policy. Without going over the ground in too much detail, I would say that if we are to be successful in cutting down the unemployment rate we must encourage a faster rate of growth.
    There must be fundamental changes in the economic policy of the nation. We must have new industrial relations and a better environment, more vigorous competition and a more positive employment policy along the lines I have described, and better tax incentives not only for industry, but the individual, so that he gets a real return for his work. The Secretary of State went through the regional and development area policies of my party as spelled out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). In reply to one query which he put to me, I can tell him that we will keep the I.D.C. system and we will apply it with firmness. We will also apply it with fairness and flexibility. Cases will be decided on their merits. We shall keep the development area boundaries until the problems in a region are seen to be on the way to a solution.
    We shall keep an investment incentive differential in favour of the development areas and we shall phase out the regional employment premium. Why? Because we think we can make better use of the money in helping to cure the fundamental reasons for unemployment.
    Captain Walter Elliot: On a point of order. Is it not deplorable
    522
    that during an important debate like this there should be such a trifling number of hon. Members present on the other side of the House and that the First Secretary has only just come in? Is there not something that can be done to get hon. Members to attend?
    Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member's hon. Friend is grateful to him for interrupting. That is not a point of order at all.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Further to that point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I agree with the Minister about the importance of the infrastructure. It is vital that we have better communications to the development areas. Only the other day I heard of the possibility of a factory being established in a region. The company concerned decided not to go there merely because there was not an airport within reasonable reach to get its senior executives there. The question of the environment is also very important, and we subscribe to the view of the Minister.
    I now sum up our policy. We need more flexibility in regional policy. If we can combine it with a better economic climate and give the individual more incentive, the unemployment figures will come down. Undeniably, the Government have poured money into the development areas, but it has not produced the results which they thought it would. Some companies have benefited very substantially when others should have been encouraged to go to the area to provide extra jobs for the long term unemployed. The regional employment premium has been costing the nation about £100 million a year, and a good deal of it is sheer waste. This situation cannot go on indefinitely.
    I come, finally, to a very important point. I describe it as probably Sherlock Holmes would have described it—" the case of the dog which did not bark ". When we last debated this subject, I did some research on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and I discovered that the First Secretary of State, who joined us a few moments ago, was the first Minister of Labour, or the equivalent title of that post, to speak in

    523
    a debate on unemployment for 20 years. She must now be the first in history to miss two in a row.
    On the last occasion that we debated this subject we had the advantage of hearing the Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). He is quite capable of presenting the Government's case, perhaps even more so than the right hon. Lady. But even he has been dropped on this occasion. What have we had in substitution? We have had pollution with a bad cold and the white heat of the technological revolution. I sympathise with the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who spoke valiantly, although he was suffering from a cold. We accept that he cannot be with us for the winding-up speeches. But pollution and the white heat of technology will not bring much comfort to the hearts of the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. John Mendelson Mr. John Mendelson rose—
    Hon. Members: Sit down!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) is obviously not giving way.
    Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. I was present when the two opening speeches were made. I could, therefore, give evidence. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) should allow me to speak about the quality of my right hon. Friend's speech as against that of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, who said nothing of substance.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is a point of indignation.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I would willingly have given way to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) if he had been here for most of the day, but he has not. If he keeps interrupting, he will only take time from his right hon. Friend, and I want to be fair to his right hon. Friend.
    I hope that I am not being discourteous to the two leading Government Ministers in the debate when I say that it is a disgrace that the right hon. Lady
    524
    the First Secretary of State has not spoken today. She is the Minister responsible for employment and is the one who is always talking about it outside the House. I am almost forced to the conclusion that the Department of Employment and Productivity has washed its hands of the unemployment situation.
    Unemployment is primarily a human problem. I am sure that a large number of Government back bench members are, rightly, very worried about it—perhaps more worried than they are prepared to admit here. It is, however, to their credit that some hon. Members have spoken up, and others have done so on other occasions. I remember an intervention by the hon. Member for Jarrow, who is not an obscure back bencher but is a veritable pillar of the Establishment on his side of the House, and who said last week that redundancy payments were not substitutes for jobs. I agree with the hon. Member.
    I believe that the cost to the nation at present is the longest prolonged period of high unemployment for 30 years, a vast increase in concealed unemployment and, with it all, the fastest rate of inflation for 20 years. The Labour Party, with all its boasts, on placards and elsewhere, about being the party which cares and the party of heart and soul, has today become the party of unemployment. No sleight of hand, no juggling with the figures, no explanations, about redeployment and no stress on the number of vacancies, can rid Labour of that charge. The charge is the one that sticks, and for that we roundly condemn the Government.
    9.31 p.m.
    The Minister of Technology(Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have referred to the special regional nature of unemployment in Britain today. This has emerged from every speech and this is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning and I, who are responsible for regional industrial policy, have been chosen to speak. All I can say is that the speech of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) which contained very thoughtful parts, ended with an extremely silly political point designed simply to prepare and underline the motive for this

    525
    debate, which is to try to get the maximum electoral advantage out of the difficulties that confront us.
    The debate fell into two separate parts. We had speeches from the Opposition Front Bench, which were along the lines I have described, and we had a number of extremely good speeches from back benchers on both sides. Before I come to the main argument, I want to deal with some of the constituency points which have been raised, because they highlight the nature of the problem which we are discussing.
    I should like to deal with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sough Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) about the Palmers Yard in Jarrow. I think that my hon. Friend knows, and the House is aware, that the Geddes Report did not cover ship-repairing, and there are certain geographical and other problems associated with ship-repairing on which we expect a report before long.
    In view, however, of the history of that yard and the level of unemployment in that part of the country, my hon. Friend will want to know that we have been seized of this problem from the outset—indeed, before it became public knowledge—and I am hopeful, or, at least, not unhopeful, that it may be possible to make a contribution to the solution of this problem.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) made a much more thoughtful speech than that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham. The more, however, that he analysed—and what I liked about his speech was the analysis—the problems of the Scottish economy, the more he was driven to selectivity. The very criticism which is continually laid against the Government in dealing with this and other problems is the selectivity of our policy. When the hon. Member for Pollok, who is too honest in his thinking to be diverted from the proper conclusions of his analysis, thought it all out, he concluded that what was wanted were more people thinking about where assistance should be given.
    When the hon. Member talked about the regional employment premium and said that it stimulated over-manning, he was, curiously, saying that more unemployment should be achieved by reducing the problem of over-manning. I do not
    526
    want to be unfair to him, because I listened to his speech with considerable interest, but if he followed his analysis instead of his leader's into the Lobby tonight, he might well find himself supporting the policies that we have brought forward.
    There have been one or two other hon. Members who, in the same way as they discussed their constituency problems, began outlining at least the objectives which we are trying to meet. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) was arguing the case against the immense amount of money put into capital intensive projects. If one takes this view, which I know has become rather fashionable, particularly on the other side of the House, what one is really saying is that the trading estate solution, with a lot of light employment, is the only way of meeting this difficulty. This runs absolutely counter to the idea of the growth point, to which we have devoted a lot of attention, which involves capitally intensive projects. In considering the problem of unemployment in the regions, it would be wrong to say that investment of a high quality and involving high expenditure should be ruled out in development areas, even if only for this reason. Many of the firms which have come to this country from abroad as the result of our development area policies have come because of the high level of investment grants that have been given to them.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), who probably knows more about this subject than anybody, properly identified the element of job change that lies at the heart of some of the difficulties we are discussing —the problem of people moving their jobs. I want to come to the reason why this has happened, inflating the figures and allowing the House to get perhaps a false impression of what is, despite that, a serious problem. The difficulty of trying to break down the figures in too great detail—although I am entirely with him in spirit—is that the further one breaks down the figures the more one is dependent upon an assessment by the officers involved of exactly what are the job prospects for those people. I think it more important, therefore, that we should be confronted with the totality of the problem if we are prepared to

    527
    recognise that it conceals a number of different problems within it.
    The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who spoke about the South-West with great passion and feeling, left out of account some of the special measures that have been taken to help his part of the country. I am thinking of the S.E.T. relief for rural hotels, which applies throughout the South-West more comprehensively than elsewhere and the Development of Tourism Act which is also designed to help. I strongly support what he said about the need for certainty in regional policy. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite, and some of my hon. Friends, to examine the question theoretically and to say that it would be better to do it this way or that. In an academic sense and in terms of longterm development there may be value in such an examination. But, if regional incentives are to work, there has to be certainty that they are there for the people who want to take advantage of them. Although I know that the motive is not to shake confidence, because it would be too cruel a charge to lay even against the Opposition, the result of all that has been said by a number of people, including the Leader of the Opposition—who has made speeches that have thrown serious doubt upon what the policy of the Conservative Party would be if ever it came to office—has been to prevent these measures having the effect which both sides of the House want them to have.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), coming from Merseyside, spoke with deep feeling about specific issues which concerned him. He will recall my visit to Netherton and the Napier works last autumn, when we were trying to find a new use for those plants. This arose not from the merger with English Electric and General Electric, but because of the total load on the plants in the industry. Had this merger not occurred, the problems would have arisen exactly as they did following the merger. There is a tendency, which I fully understand, for some people when they see a merger followed by redundancy to link the one with the other. There are many cases, and I shall cite one or two, where without the merger there would have been
    528
    much mote serious unemployment in the component firms involved. But my hon. Friend has been patient, and in view of his difficulties I am grateful to him for the way in which he spoke today. I am also grateful to him for refering to the fact that I pushed the Giro in his direction when I was Postmaster-General.
    Many other hon. Members who have spoken have made points of considerable importance. But I should like to come to the central question by asking the House to consider some of the wide issues of policy involved in this debate. The two Front Bench speakers opposite spoke without conviction or much compassion.
    Members: Oh.
    Mr. Benn: I am only giving my view. The reason was that the principal concern in moving this Motion was in these words:
    " That this House regrets that, as a result of the policies of Her Majesty's Government, the number of people out of work …"
    and so on. Candidly, if they had left out the words
    " as a result of the policies of Her Majesty's Government "
    the whole of this side of the House would have been with them in the Lobby. There would not have been a Division in the House tonight. If anybody thinks that the level of unemployment is acceptable to Her Majesty's Government then they must ask themselves why we are devoting more time, more money, more effort, more attention and more commitment by Ministers personally to regional policies than has ever occurred in the history of this country in the past.
    The truth is that the two Front Bench speakers opposite have not made the least contribution to the debate. Somehow they had to be able to lay the blame for what had happened on the Government, whereas everybody else in the House knows quite well that we are dealing with one of the most intractable and serious problems of economic management.
    I want to carry the analysis a stage further. This is not just an economic problem, though that is part of the problem. It is also a human and a psychological problem. A man may have redundancy pay and he may later get a job. But when he loses his capacity to

    529
    earn, the effect on his self-respect is very great. Even with generous unemployment provision, it is difficult for a man not to feel unwanted, especially if he is unemployed for a long time. Of course, unemployment is too high in Scotland, in Wales, in the Northern Region and in other regions. This is what we are now debating. But to seek to debate unemployment in isolation from our general economic problem over the years is to try to narrow debate to a point at which speeches lose their value to help the situation.
    The situation is part of a wider problem of the British economy, a problem which Government after Government have had to confront, not just over the last five-and-a-half years or over the 13 years before that, or even the six years before that. The fact is that historically this country, which was the leading industrial country in the world in 1840, has successfully first lost to the United States, and then been overtaken by Germany. By the time we came to power in 1964 we were in a position where if the trends of the previous five years were projected we would have ended up more or less bottom of the major industrial countries of the world.
    The problem of unemployment in its long-term sense is a problem of trying to create an industrial structure competitive enough to sustain full employment. It would be wrong to look at the problems in terms of the time scale contained even by the life of this Government, five-and-a-half years, or even by going back over the previous 13 years. We are dealing with a number of separate issues and I should like to invite the House to consider them one by one.
    First of all, we had the short-term necessity of dealing with the indubitable deficit of 1964 and converting it into the surplus of 1970. The point is often made that there was a price paid in unemployment for that switch from deficit to surplus. But it had to be done. It was a hard slog which made us very unpopular with the country, but it had to be done. And if we had not done it that way, we would not have bought the time to deal with the other changes which were required.
    Mr. R. Carr: The right hon. Gentleman has now been honest and has said that a price had to be paid in terms of unemployment. Why was the Prime Minister not honest in 1966 on that point?
    Mr. Benn: Let me develop my argument and I will deal with—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let me develop my argument in my own way and I shall deal with it. If we are to swap quotations, I also keep some.
    The second problem was the problem of the underlying weakness which, if we analyse it, we find goes back to the 1880s. It might surprise the House that I put at the top of the very fundamental problems of this country education. If we read Joseph Whitworth we find that he said at the American Exhibition in 1853 that want of education was the cause of our decline. Dr. Lyon Playfair in 1867 also said that it was due to failure of education.
    An interesting point which has emerged, even from hon. Members opposite, is that increasingly this debate has turned on people and not just machinery equipment and plant. I am identifying the continued theme. A book in 1901 said that the secret of American success was their better education.
    Sir Edward Boyle: If the right hon. Gentleman will come on a century can he explain, in accordance with this argument, why when my party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which party?"]—the Conservative Party—raised educational expenditure by 28 per cent. between 1960 and 1964, the right hon. Gentleman's party is now raising it only by 3·8 per cent. a year, and intending to reduce that to only 2 per cent. in the seventies?
    Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman does not get my point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—What was wrong with—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is fair. It has heard one side and it must hear the other.
    Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman fails to get my point. The defect in British education is that we have concentrated our expenditure always on the so-called best and ignored the average. That is what is wrong. If hon. Members

    531
    want to know what it is that leads to deficiencies in technology, management and motivation, it is the hideous selection system which is built in. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who has had some views to express on this, knows that if we are talking about one of the basic reasons why the British economy has not been competitive and why we have had problems in management and on the labour side in applying new technology, this is because of the elitist conception of education built into the party opposite and still entrenched in it.
    The next underlying problem we will have to take up—[Interruption.]—A little law and order from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) might help us to get somewhere. The next problem which had to be tackled, and which has been specifically my responsibility, was trying to strengthen the basic competitiveness of industry after industry. We find that in this area we are able to make use of the time which the harsh short-term measures have bought. One example is the shipbuilding industry. Without the measures we took in that industry there would have been total tragedy and mass unemployment in all areas of shipbuilding. The party opposite have moved their Motion of censure on unemployment, but they go round the country and on other issues, as the Leader of the Opposition did, they say that what they want is to end
    " the enormous and wasteful indiscriminate subsidies".
    Of what is he speaking? Upper Clyde, Swan Hunter, Harland and Wolff, Cammell Laird? The party opposite have failed in this debate because they have not spoken with the same voice.
    It is not only the Leader of the Opposition who does it. Let us look at what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. fain Macleod) says when he goes about:
    " But we must not underestimate the difficulties."
    That is always a good way to start.
    " The feather bed is soft and comfortable, and, baby, it's cold outside."
    That is the gritty, tough, right hon. Gentleman.
    " But can we go on with a system which discourages enterprise? "
    532
    When right hon. Gentlemen opposite speak to their business audiences they say things that are utterly contrary to what they have said in the House today. They tell people outside that the Government should keep out of industry. Then they come to us and say, "Why have you allowed the coal mining industry to run down? Why do you not deal with this; why do you not provide more money for the aircraft industry to create further employment?"
    Sir Douglas Glover Sir Douglas Glover(Ormskirk)rose—
    Mr. Benn: I am not giving way.
    Sir D. Glover Sir D. Glover rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
    Mr. Benn: I say to the House—
    Sir D. Glover Sir D. Glover rose—
    Mr. Benn: I am not giving way.
    The Leader of the Opposition has got some pretty useful statistics to use, and he has used them. The reason why what he says would not win a cheer in any development area in Britain is because people know that the Opposition do not believe in the measures that must and can put this problem right. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is the preparation for his eve of poll, I warn him: keep off it; it will not convince anybody; because the Opposition have consistently at every stage attacked the necessary measures to deal with unemployment.
    What we are engaged in doing—this may or may not be right, but this is what lies behind our policy—is to build a partnership between government, management, scientists, technology and the trade unions to tackle these problems together. This is effective, because we have a common interest in solving these problems.
    Mr. Peter Blaker Mr. Peter Blaker(Blackpool, South) rose—
    Mr. Benn: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has not been in the House throughout the debate.
    Mr. Stanley R. McMaster Mr. Stanley R. McMaster(Belfast, East) rose—
    Mr. Benn: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. McMaster: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that the Minister has given way to him.
    Mr. McMaster: I am obliged to the Minister.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the shipbuilding industry. I should like to put one point to him on that subject. The Government have poured millions of pounds into the shipbuilding industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that they should, therefore, allow British Railways to place an order in Italy, where they get a 15 per cent. subsidy?
    Mr. Benn: In addition to urging me to support the industry, the hon. Gentleman—I give him credit—now suggests that we should apply protective measures. So the Government are to intervene not only to help, but also to protect. That kind of conscientious constituency point utterly destroys the credibility of the party opposite. I am meaning to be courteous. The hon. Gentleman is right to think how the Government can help. It may be that we reject one solution or the other, but if anybody thinks that this country can tackle the problem of industrial competitiveness on the principle put forward by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), that competition turns business men into public servants—that is his philosophy—then he has another think coming.
    The fact is that in practical terms—this was not mentioned by the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen—Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, Furness, the Greenock Dock, Burnt island, the Alexandria Torpedo Factory, Netherton, Palmer's Yard and Cammell Laird, come to us to see whether we can help. U.C.S. is under new management, and with the co-operation of the unions I think that it will be viable. We got Furness in with Swan Hunter by a contribution from Government. We got Greenock in with Lower Clyde. We got Burntisland in. We got Alexandria taken over by Plessey. Can the party opposite listen to that and then say that it is our job to keep out of industry?
    Sir D. Glover Sir D. Glover rose—
    Mr. Benn: No, I have only five minutes. The right hon. Member for Mitcham said that he would debate regional policy on another day. He is suggesting that he did not even understand that this is a debate about regional policy. That is what unemployment is all about.
    Let us consider all the measures which have been taken to deal with these major structural changes. The development districts have been extended and made development areas. There are the special development areas and the intermediate areas in which the I.D.Cs, withing a few months, are beginning to build up. As for R.E.P., Sir John Hunter said that if it was abolished it would make his shipbuilding company bankrupt. There are the measures that we have undertaken in respect of derelict land. All these represent a consistent commitment by the Government to the problem of unemployment in the regions, and it is the commitment more than the money by which I ask us to be judged.
    I understand why a constituency Member, particularly if he is a member of the Opposition, has to sound pretty gloomy, but I sometimes wonder how often the two Front Bench Opposition speakers have been to see what is happening in the development areas. I spent last Friday in South Wales at Llantrisant seeing a big international company developing there opposite the Mint. I saw the Waterton Estate being built. I saw the Morgan Crucible Company and derelict land clearance in the Swansea Valley. Although I was in an area of unemployment that was unacceptably high, everybody there was talking about the progress being made.
    The reason why the party opposite has failed so lamentably with this Motion is that it has not got the mood of the areas, which is now beginning to change.
    Sir D. Glover Sir D. Glover rose—
    Mr. Benn: No. I have only three minutes left, and many points to make. There was more reality in the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and he saw what is meant by trying to get development activity. Energy and local initiative is better than the professional electoral gloom of a party which pursued the balance of pay-

    535
    ments problem until it crumbled in their hands and has now had to change its line of attack.
    Sir D. Glover Sir D. Glover rose—
    Mr. Benn: I shall not give way.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) must sit down.
    Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman's proposals do not measure up to the problem here. He and his colleagues go round the country demanding cuts in public expenditure, and the development areas and industry which are receiving help to maintain employment are rightly suspicious about believing that what lies behind this is the desire to get personal taxation down even at the expense of measures to check unemployment.
    There has been talk about industrial management problems and manpower planning. All this is being dealt with by the Department of Employment and Productivity, and the central question—
    Sir D. Glover Sir D. Glover rose—
    Mr. Benn: No.
    If there had been a debate a year ago it would have been, not on unemployment, but on the balance of payments, and if a Minister had said that in a year's time we would have a surplus running at £500 million, and a Budget with no tax increases and some marginal reliefs, with a rate of growth forecast of 3½ per cent., the party opposite would have said that that was typical Prime Ministerial euphoria. But that has all happened, and I say to the House that the measures which we have taken to deal with this problem will put it right. The Opposition's Motion will not only be defeated by the House, because that does not matter, but will carry no conviction whatsoever in the country.
    Question put:—
    That this House regrets that, as a result of the policies of Her Majesty's Government, the number of people out of work in April was the highest for that month since 1940, and that the total registered unemployed has been over half a million for 32 out of the last 33 months.
    The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 289.

    Division No. 118]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Clark, Henry

    Goodhart, Philip

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Clegg, Walter

    Goodhew, Victor

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

    Cooke, Robert

    Gower, Raymond

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Grant, Anthony

    Astor, John

    Cordle, John

    Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

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

    Costain, A. P.

    Grieve, Percy

    Awdry, Daniel

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Crouch, David

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Gurden, Harold

    Balniel, Lord

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Bats ford, Brian

    Dance, James

    Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

    Belt, Ronald

    Davidson. James(Aberdeenshire.W.)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Dean, Paul

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Biggs-Davison, John

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

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Hastings, Stephen

    Blaker, peter

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Hawkins, Paul

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Body, Richard

    Eden, Sir John

    Heseltine, Michael

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

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

    Hiley, Joseph

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Emery, Peter

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Brainc, Bernard

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Brewrs, John

    Farr, John

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Fisher, Nigel

    Holland, Philip

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir. Walter

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Fortescue, Tim

    Hordern, Peter

    Bryan, Paul

    Foster, Sir John

    Hornby, Richard

    Buchanan-Smith, Atick(Angus, N&M)

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

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Fry, Peter

    Hunt, John

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Burden, F. A.

    Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Johnson Smith, c. (E. Grinstead)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Murton, Oscar

    Smith, Dudley (W' wick & L'mington)

    Jopling, Michael

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Neave, Alrey

    Speed, Keith

    Kimball, Marcus

    Nicholas, Sir Harmar

    Stainton, Keith

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Stodart, Anthony

    King, Tom

    Nott, John

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Kirk, Peter.

    Onslow, Cranley

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Kitson, Timothy

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Lambton, Antony

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Taylor Edward M (G' gow, Cathcar)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side

    Lane, David

    Pardoe, John)

    Temple, John M.

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    parson Sir Frank Clitheroe)

    John Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Peel, John

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Percival, lan

    Tilney, John

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

    Peyton, John

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

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

    Pike Miss Mervyn

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Longden, Gilbert

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Waddington, David

    Lubbock, Eric

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    MacArthur, lan

    Prior J M L.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Mackenzie Alasdair(Ross&Crnm'ty)

    Pym, Francis

    Walters, Dennis

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Quennell,Miss J. M.

    Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

    McMaster, Stanley

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Weatherill, Bernard

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Renton Rt Hn. Sir David

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Maddan, Martin

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Wiggin, jerry

    Maginnis, John E.

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholes

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Rildsdale, Julian

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Marten, Neil

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Maude Ansus

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Mawby, Ray

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Maxwelt-Hyslop, R. J.

    Royle, Anthony

    Worsley, Marcus

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

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Wright, Esmond

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Wylie, N. R.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

    Younger, Hn. George

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Monro, Hector

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Montgomery, Fergus

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Silvester, Frederick

    Mr. Jasper More

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    and Mr. Reginald Eyre.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

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

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Albu, Austen

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Ellis, John

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    English, Michael

    Alldritt, Walter

    Callagnan, Rt. Hn. James

    Ennals, David

    Allen, Scholefield

    Carmichael, Nell

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Anderson, Donald

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Chapman, Donald

    Fauids, Andrew

    Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

    Coe, Denis

    Fernyhough, E.

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Coleman, David

    Finch, Harold

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(lslington,E.)

    Barnes, Michael

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)

    Barnett, Joel

    CrawShaw, Richard

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Baxter, William

    Cronin, John

    Foley, Maurice

    Bence, Cyril

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Ford, Ben

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Fowler, Gerry

    Binne, John

    Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Blackburn, F.

    Davies, Dr. Ernst (Stretford)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

    Gardner, Tony

    Booth, Albert

    Davies, S. O.(Merthyr)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Boston, Terence

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Ginsburg, David

    Bottomiey, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Den, Edmund

    Golding, John

    Boyden, James

    Dewar, Donald

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Bradley, Tom

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Dickens, James

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Brooks, Edwin

    Doig, Peter

    Gregory, Arnold

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Driberg, Tom

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brigtitside)

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

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

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

    Eadie, Alex

    Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

    Brown, R. w. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Buchan, Norman

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    538

    539

    Harming, William

    Mackintosh, John P.

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

    Hannan, William

    Maclennan, Robert

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Harper, Joseph

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Haseldine, Norman

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Rose, Paul

    Hazell, Bert

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Healey, Bt. Hn. Denis

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

    Ryan, John

    Henig, Stanley

    Mapp, Charles

    Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Marks, Kenneth

    Sheldon, Robert

    Hilton, W. S.

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E

    Hooley, Frank

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Mayhew, Christopher

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

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn, Robert

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Mendelson, John

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

    Mikardo, lan

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Millan, Bruce

    Sillars, J.

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Sifverman, Julius

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Slater, Joseph

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

    Snow, Julian

    Hunter, Adam

    Molloy, William

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hynd, John

    Moonman, Eric

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Moyle, Roland

    Swain, Thomas

    Jeger, George (Goolc)

    MuMey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Symonds, J. B.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

    Murray, Albert

    Taverne, Dick

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Newens, Stan

    Thornton, Ernest

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Tinn, James

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Tomney, Frank

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

    O'Malley, Brian

    Tuck, Raphael

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Oram, Albert E.

    Urwin, T. W

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

    Orbach, Maurice

    Varley, Eric G.

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

    Orme, Stanley

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Judd, Frank

    Oswald, Thomas

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Kelley, Richard

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

    Wallace, George

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Padley, Walter

    Watkins, David (Consett)

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

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

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

    Paget, R. T.

    Weitzman, David

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Wellbeloved, James

    Lawson, George

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Park, Trevor

    Whitaker, Ben

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    White Mrs. Eirene

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Whitiock, William

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Pentland, Norman

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Williams, Clifford (AbertiWery)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Winnie, David

    McBride, Neil

    Probert, Arthur

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    McCann, John

    Randall, Harry

    Woof, Robert

    MacColl, James

    Rankin, John

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    MacDermot, Niall

    Rees, Merlyn

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    McElhone, Frank

    McGuire, Michael

    Richard, Ivor

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Mr. J. D. Concannon

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

    and Mr. R. F. H. Dobson.

    Mackie, John

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
    Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time (Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified).
    Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    TEACHING COUNCIL (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)),That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]
    Question agreed to.
    Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

    SCOTTISH WATERS (POLLUTION)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
    10.14 p.m.
    Mr. John Rankin: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the subject of the pollution of Scottish waters. The whole issue springs from what is happening on the land in that on too much of our countryside local authorities are creating great refuse heaps. These eyesores disfigure lovely byways and help to poison the soil. In so doing, they affect deleteriously the food of our animal population as well as the content of our rivers.
    It may be that cooking destroys some bacteria, but those engaged in preparing battery chickens, for example, for the table, are in many cases now suffering from dematitis derived from the birds they have cleaned for consumption. The former dainty has become the present danger as a result of pollution.
    This is bound to affect all creatures on land nourished by polluted waters as much as it affects human beings, but into these streams and on to this earth now go, in addition to this danger, industrial acid, along with a wonderful array of plastics, which are indestructible except by burning, and large unwanted utilities like cars, lorries, refrigerators, bedding and furniture. They are still deposited on the countryside despite recent legislation though, admittedly, not to the same extent as was the case a few years ago. Therefore, we must have further legislation to deal with this menace of pollution.
    The local authorities were compelled by Government to clear their streets of unwanted material, so the residents were driven to the countryside to dispose of their waste. Further Government legislation closed that outlet, also. The local authorities have now themselves become the delinquents, and over burdened, I assume in ever increasing quantities. In these mounting piles originates one of the sources of the pollution that is now destroying life in our countryside waters.
    Why can this waste—and I put this point directly to my hon. Friend the
    542
    Minister of State—not be burnt? It seems to be the only way left to deal with this tremendous menace. I know that this means the building of great incinerators, and legislation. Nevertheless, can I be told of any other way in which to deal with this waste and, if not, whether legislation to cure this menace is intended, and when? Or will my hon. Friend assure me this evening that this matter will have high priority in the Scottish legislative programme of the next Labour Government?
    Today's issue of the Glasgow Herald reports the proceedings at a four-day international seminar at Aviemore. Mr. James R. Simpson, a consulting engineer, warns "the irresponsible industrialist" and the "thoughtless do-it-yourself mechanic" that
    "…not anything may go down a sewer ".
    Mr. D. Buchanan, of the Clyde River Purification Board, said:
    " Oil pollution is as serious a problem in the West of Scotland as in any other part of the United Kingdom."
    There were demands at the seminar, which I am sure my hon. Friend noted, for tougher anti-pollution legislation. But he must also have paid attention to the warning from Mr. Price, of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who said that legislation would be useless unless there were safe facilities for the disposal of waste oil. He warned that if we deferred payment now in providing facilities we would have to pay with interest later.
    Dr. Martin, Senior Industrial Officer of the Department of Health and Social Security, said:
    " Probably the most serious aspect of oil pollution of rivers was the possibility of the contamination of drinking water supplies."
    I am glad to mention that important reference to water supplies in view of Dr. Martin's own Minister's determination to add sodium fluoride to our drinking water supplies to preserve children's teeth, despite van Nostrand's description of that chemical compound in his scientific encyclopaedia as a poison for destroying rats and roaches. Doubtless there are degrees of pollution, although I have not yet determined them.
    The pollution of rivers has to be understood in order to be controlled and prevented. Therefore, river purification

    543
    boards are essential. It may be, of course, that my hon. Friend will tell me of an alternative to the river purification boards, but so far as I know they are essential. There is one for the Clyde area, as I have said. Work previously carried out by the Scottish Development Department has been handed over now to that Board.
    During the last five years, £150,000 has been spent in building up a knowledge of the River Clyde which is a necessary preliminary to dealing with pollution and other problems. I trust, however, that my hon. Friend will agree that £30,000 yearly is not over-spending or over-investing in this essential hydrological work. I hope that he will think in bigger terms than £150,000 over five years.
    I trust that my hon. Friend will agree that, unlike the system of river authorities in England and Wales, the functions of river management in Scotland have grown up in a manner which is quite uncoordinated. Little attempt has been made to link up the different activities affecting the rivers such as, for instance, urban run off and flood warning. Yet the Clyde River Purification Board has a comprehensive network of gauging statistics with data being fed on to a punch tape for computer processing, and the more important stations are having equipment installed so that there is a direct signal of river level being made by G.P.O. line to any interested parties.
    But, in the early part of this year, the part of Glasgow in which I live was completely cut off by river flooding over the whole of the south side of Glasgow because absolutely no attention was paid to the existence of this method of getting information about flooding being probably at hand due to rain. The consequences were almost disastrous.
    All rivers, it is usual to say, flow to the seas, sometimes with disastrous consequences, for they carry their pollution to swell the discharge of both oil and rubbish from ships. Discharge of rubbish may be witnessed from time to time on our own Channel ships. The oil pollution, despite its illegality, is proved by the state of the shores of almost any part of Britain. It is difficult to identify the offending ship with pollution at sea, but it is only fair to say that ship owners are now anxious to deal with this nuisance
    544
    and have insured their liability to the extent of 124 million gross registered tons out of the world's 185 million tons of shipping. But there is much uncertainty about liability. The "Torrey Canyon" case contributed to this, and as a result there is a move for a new international conference.
    Meanwhile, the tanker owners themselves are considering action and have put forward a scheme for voluntary agreement concerning liability for oil pollution. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to say something about that effort. This is particularly important for us in Scotland, because, according to my latest information, 53 million gallons of untreated sewage now flow into the River Forth; and that cannot be healthy for the salmon in the river, nor for holiday makers on the East Coast of Scotland. The 30,000 dead seagulls picked up on the West Coast of Scotland last year, after examination of various carcases, were shown to be victims of pollution. That cannot be good for the fish in our rivers, nor the people who eat them, nor for the ships entering polluted waters, because of the dangers of corrosion to their structures.
    If Loch Lomond becomes a source of supply of drinking water to the increasing population of the West of Scotland, it may not be good for them, because the River Leven, which flows from the loch into the Clyde, which is polluted, is tidal and will share the Clyde's pollution, unless we seriously face this menace.
    10.29 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon): My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has touched on a number of important matters about which the Government are greatly concerned. This matter goes wider than simply the responsibility of the Scottish Office. The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning has been enjoined by the Prime Minister to concern himself with pollution in its widest sense, and we now have the country's first standing Royal Commission, which is concerned with all the problems, not only of pollution of the air, sea and land, but with pollution in its widest sense, including noise.
    This Standing Royal Commission serviced by the central unit of the Ministry

    545
    for which the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning has responsibility is reporting to him and to the commission on ways and means of dealing with the general problem. My hon. Friend has rightly touched on a large number of points with which I shall deal as best I can. I do not think that he or I would pretend that 30 minutes is sufficient for such an extensive subject, and to deal with the nature of pollution in Scottish waters and its possible effects. We are all agreed that in a heavily industrialised country like Britain with important fisheries and a long coastline the problem of pollution of the sea demands our serious attention. There are many potential sources of pollution and although the sea's capacity to absorb extraneous matters is large the problem is that some pollutants are extremely persistent.
    Even apparently insignificant changes in the patterns of animal and plant life may be the first indications of more serious and lasting damage. The principal effects of marine pollution are to give rise to hazards to human health, damage to our living resources and to hinder maritime activities and for that matter reduce amenities. The sea is increasingly becoming a depository for a great variety of wastes and other materials but the most important and potentially the most harmful is probably sewage. I am glad my hon. Friend referred to that. There is also crude oil, petro-chemicals, organic wastes, pesticides, heavy metals and in this century, radio-active materials. The principal sources of these wastes are the local authority disposal systems and we have passed a Sewerage Act in this House dealing with Scotland—an Act which embraces industrial outflows and the deliberate and accidental dumping or discharging from ships. Estuaries and shallow coastal waters are more seriously affected since dispersion is very slow; certain persistent wastes such as pesticides and radioactive materials do affect large areas of the oceans. Wastes reaching the sea may affect it in many ways depending on the nature of the pollutants and the conditions in the receiving area. Fish may be poisoned and driven away by adverse biological conditions. We have seen this with salmon.
    546
    Shellfish may accumulate trace metals or even be contaminated by sewage and made unsafe to eat. A wide variety of marine organisms may pick up pesticide residues and these may accumulate and possibly reduce breeding among fish-eating birds. Oil, sewage, and solid industrial wastes make the beaches unfit for recreational purposes. Our marine scientists in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland have been carrying out a broad survey of pollution in Scottish waters and its sources. The areas affected have been described in maps within our Department.
    The disposition of industry and population has produced the situation in which roughly half of Scotland's effluents are discharged into the Firth of Clyde, about a quarter into the Firth of Forth, and the remainder is relatively widespread. We have pollution on the West Coast from iron and steel manufacture, from coal, sewage sludge, paper pulp, paper production, sugar refining, from power station wastes and from the dumping, sometimes of explosives and sometimes of by-products formed during the manufacture of explosives. My hon. Friend who has a close connection with the Isle of Arran knows to what I am referring.
    We are very much aware of the dangers of uncontrolled dumping at sea and that is why we are concerned in the Government with this review of all forms of pollution. The White Paper which the Prime Minister has promised when the Royal Commission on Pollution was announced may lead to controls in areas where there is an obvious problem. My hon. Friend was good enough to refer to the work of the river purification boards. He will remember how our late friend Hector McNeil when he was Secretary of State introduced the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951. It was my privilege in 1965 to introduce the current Act, which is now the consolidating Act, which deals with that.
    We have, of course, a number of purification boards. I think that in his considerable investigations, my hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that the figure which he mentioned as being the expenditure over five years is the figure for one year and not five years.
    Mr. Rankin: The £150,000?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes; it is for one year. While, then, my hon. Friend has multiplied his concern five times, I give him the point that still there may be more work to do. What I have said implies that we must pay great attention to this.
    We have 10 boards in Scotland. In view of what I have said, the Clyde board is obviously the most significant in terms of the work that it has to do, but on the West Coast of Scotland as such—my hon. Friend has referred to the birds which die, and a number of which died in September last year—are the boards covering the Solway, the Ayrshire board, the Clyde board and, of course, the boards working in association with the County Councils of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty and Sutherland. The Clyde board takes in part of Argyll. In the North-West, there have been no complaints that the county councils concerned are failing to carry out their purification responsibilities satisfactorily. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that pollution of coastal waters there is affecting fishing interests or amenity.
    Since my hon. Friend raised this matter in the House, I have tried hard to find out what he meant when he stated that the only purification officer known to him had recently been appointed by Glasgow Corporation. The Clyde Purification Board is particularly well off for technical staff. It is better staffed than any other board in Scotland. Under the control of a director and river inspector, there are 15 principal professional and technical staff, comprising an inspectorate, two senior assistants and five assistant inspectors, a chemical laboratory staff of a chief and a senior chemist, a biological staff of one biologist and two assistants, an estuarial hydrographic surveyor dealing with the estuarial survey and one hydrologist as such and an assistant. The revenue expediture is £135,000 for one year.
    Mr. Rankin: What I meant was that Mr. Waddington was the only one I knew.
    Dr. Mabon: Mr. Waddington is a lucky man, knowing my hon. Friend, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should introduce himself to the others.
    Thre is no doubt that the Clyde board, well staffed as it is, is a model board for
    548
    many other boards. While my hon. Friend's reference to the other functions relating to river flooding, estuarial flooding, and so on, is allied to this, I think that it would require substantial legislation for us to recast both purification functions and flooding functions and all the other matters concerned with the ecology of a river.
    The English legislation is substantially different from ours. Whether we are right or they are right, or whether, perhaps, a synthesis of both is right, remains to be seen. Certainly, in the Government we are conscious that all the legislation dealing with sewerage and pollution in all its forms is ripe for review and needs to be looked at comprehensively in a Great Britain context and not just a Scottish context.
    I know that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Regional Planning and Local Government will be very interested to read closely my hon. Friend's speech, his references and his suggestions, and we will refer these to the appropriate bodies so that we will get a proper report and be able to follow it out as best we can.
    Mr. George Lawson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Clyde Purification Board is quite dissatisfied with the powers which it has. Can he tell us just a little more about the differences that exist between him and the board?
    Dr. Mabon: There are no differences between us. I am perfectly friendly with the Clyde Board. It is important that any statutory board which is enjoined by Parliament to do any work and which does it enthusiastically should be anxious to point out to Ministers where it is short of powers. We can then, in bringing forward new Bills, take into account all these representations.
    This Adjournment debate is not dealing just with matters of importance to an individual or a community. It is concerned with a gigantic problem which affects the British Isles and the whole world. We in Great Britain are proud of the fact that we are looking at this subject very closely. There is already on the Statute Book legislation going back to the Alkali Inspectorate, and

    549
    legislation dealing with clean air, and we have recently been concerned with noise abatement. We have all this behind us. Yet, despite the good record of legislation, even in this Parliament, we are still looking to the standing Royal Commission to deal with many matters which have been raised by my hon. Friend, and he would not pretend to have raised tonight all that could be raised under this heading.
    550
    We will pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said. I hope that when the White Paper is published he will feel satisfaction that what he has done tonight will be useful, and that he will have something further to say—for he is irrepressible—when the White Paper reaches Parliament.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Armed Forces (Deserters)
  Armed Forces (Deserters)
  Bridge of Don (Barracks)
  Bridge of Don (Barracks)
  East of Suez (Military Expenditure)
  East of Suez (Military Expenditure)
  Bodmin Moor Training Area (Helicopter Exercises)
  Bodmin Moor Training Area (Helicopter Exercises)
  Register of Electors (Service Voters)
  Register of Electors (Service Voters)
  New Cruiser
  New Cruiser
  B.A.O.R. (Winter Clothing)
  B.A.O.R. (Winter Clothing)
  Second World War (Twenty-fifth Anniversary)
  Second World War (Twenty-fifth Anniversary)
  Explosives, Northern Ireland (Security)
  Explosives, Northern Ireland (Security)
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ship, Isle of Wight (Oil Discharge)
  Ship, Isle of Wight (Oil Discharge)
  Pigeons, Central London (Killing)
  Pigeons, Central London (Killing)
  Discipline Acts (Review)
  Discipline Acts (Review)
  R.A.F. Station, Lindholme
  R.A.F. Station, Lindholme
  Russian Vessels, Atlantic
  Russian Vessels, Atlantic
  Recruiting Advertisements (Union Jack)
  Recruiting Advertisements (Union Jack)
  Pembrey Gunnery Range (Incident)
  Pembrey Gunnery Range (Incident)
  Brigade of Ghurkhas
  Brigade of Ghurkhas
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Berlin Wall
  Berlin Wall
  H.M.S. " Hermes "
  H.M.S. " Hermes "
  Farnborough Air Show (Fleet Air Arm)
  Farnborough Air Show (Fleet Air Arm)
SCOTLAND
  Kidney Machines
  Kidney Machines
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Housing
  Housing
  Health and Welfare Services
  Health and Welfare Services
  Grant-aided Schools
  Grant-aided Schools
  House Building Costs (Report)
  House Building Costs (Report)
  Firemen (Fire Prevention Duties)
  Firemen (Fire Prevention Duties)
  Hospital Dialysis Units (Viral Hepatitis)
  Hospital Dialysis Units (Viral Hepatitis)
  Bingo Halls (Fire Regulations)
  Bingo Halls (Fire Regulations)
  Maternity Units (Western Region)
  Maternity Units (Western Region)
  Doctors (Remuneration)
  Doctors (Remuneration)
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  New Hospitals
  New Hospitals
  Medical Research
  Medical Research
  Forth Park, Kirkcaldy (Maternity Beds)
  Forth Park, Kirkcaldy (Maternity Beds)
  Doctors (Salaries)
  Doctors (Salaries)
  Urban Areas (Play Facilities)
  Urban Areas (Play Facilities)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Foreign Visitors
  Foreign Visitors
  Spain (Scotch Whisky Exports)
  Spain (Scotch Whisky Exports)
  ompanies (Annual Returns)
  ompanies (Annual Returns)
  Ships (Oil Discharge)
  Ships (Oil Discharge)
  Rochdale Committee (Report)
  Rochdale Committee (Report)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Libya
  Libya
WALES
  Hospital Plans (Cardiff and South-East Glamorgan)
  Hospital Plans (Cardiff and South-East Glamorgan)
  Pontardulais (Bypass Scheme)
  Pontardulais (Bypass Scheme)
  Conservation Areas
  Conservation Areas
TECHNOLOGY
  Jaguar EO1 Aircraft Accident
  Jaguar EO1 Aircraft Accident
  National Coal Board (Central Heating Works)
  National Coal Board (Central Heating Works)
  Helicopters (Anglo-French Projects)
  Helicopters (Anglo-French Projects)
  Smokeless Fuel Supplies
  Smokeless Fuel Supplies
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Stockport
  Stockport
  Industrial Disputes (Union Recognition)
  Industrial Disputes (Union Recognition)
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  Disabled Persons (Morecambe and Lancaster)
  Disabled Persons (Morecambe and Lancaster)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Redundant Mineworkers, Ayrshire (Re-training)
  Redundant Mineworkers, Ayrshire (Re-training)
  MINISTERS AND RESIDENCES
  MINISTERS AND RESIDENCES
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Commodity Producers (Prices)
  Commodity Producers (Prices)
  Food Prices (England and Belgium)
  Food Prices (England and Belgium)
  Museums and Galleries (Disabled Visitors)
  Museums and Galleries (Disabled Visitors)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers' Pay
  Teachers' Pay
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Noise Meters
  Noise Meters
  West Midlands Police Force (Undermanning Allowance)
  West Midlands Police Force (Undermanning Allowance)
  Minor and Capital Works, Brighton (Finance)
  Minor and Capital Works, Brighton (Finance)
  Police, Sussex
  Police, Sussex
  Fire Brigades (Malicious Calls)
  Fire Brigades (Malicious Calls)
  Domestic Fire Safety Appliances
  Domestic Fire Safety Appliances
  South African Cricket Team Tour (Police)
  South African Cricket Team Tour (Police)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  Circular 100 Procedure
  Circular 100 Procedure
  Town Schemes
  Town Schemes
  Housing Costs Yardstick
  Housing Costs Yardstick
  Compulsory Purchase Order, Hull
  Compulsory Purchase Order, Hull
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Officers (Departmental Briefing)
  Overseas Officers (Departmental Briefing)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Government Offices (Fire Drill)
  Government Offices (Fire Drill)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  General Election Correspondence (Postal Codes)
  General Election Correspondence (Postal Codes)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  B.M.A. Planning Unit Report (Disabled Persons)
  B.M.A. Planning Unit Report (Disabled Persons)
  Hospital Patients (Length of Stay)
  Hospital Patients (Length of Stay)
  Hospital Building Maintenance (Report)
  Hospital Building Maintenance (Report)
  1971 Census (Languages)
  1971 Census (Languages)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Save As You Earn Scheme (Northern Ireland)
  Save As You Earn Scheme (Northern Ireland)
  Royal Mint
  Royal Mint
  Pornography (Imports)
  Pornography (Imports)
  Textile Industry (Depreciation)
  Textile Industry (Depreciation)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth): The LORD CHANCELLOR ON the Woolsack.

CLITHEROE-WHALLEY BYPASS
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make with regard to the danger to life involved in the single carriageway on the new Clitheroe-Whalley by-pass.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, the increased capacity provided by the new single-carriageway bypass will much reduce the hazards on the existing trunk road, A.59, through Whalley and Clitheroe.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the great anxiety of the Chief Constable and of the Lancashire County Council about the hazards that will be involved in building this single carriageway, which will inevitably lead to head-on crashes and the impossibility of ambulances and fire engines getting to the crashes? Is he also aware that the added cost of doing this work, which the noble Lord told me would in any case have to be done in due course, will be very much greater when once the contractors have removed from the present site? Have all those matters been taken into consideration? Finally, may I beg the noble Lord to reconsider this decision, which will lead to great loss of life?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, since I replied to the noble Lord on an earlier occasion there has in fact been a development which he may well have noted; namely, that my right honourable friend in another place has announced the
216
plans for the Calder Valley. When these plans, which were announced yesterday, are carried into effect a large proportion of the traffic now travelling on the A.59 will be diverted elsewhere. The fact that Whalley and Clitheroe are bypassed, and the fact that the Calder Valley is going to take a lot of traffic away from this area, will I think reduce the risks of accidents and damage here.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, under the very best possible conditions, this new Calder Valley road cannot possibly be there for four or five years, during which time these terrible accidents are bound to happen and it will be the Government who are responsible?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords; the Government are not responsible. The responsibility must lie with the individual driver, who must drive with care.

THE SEYCHELLES
2.33 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been reached in the discussions with representatives of the People's United Party of Seychelles and the Seychelles Progressive Party regarding the future of the colony and its relationship with the United Kingdom.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, the conclusions are contained in a White Paper (Cmnd. 4338), which is available in the Library. It is planned to introduce the new Constitution and hold elections under it before the end of 1970. The relationship with the United Kingdom remains unaltered; the Governor's reserved powers remain the same as under the present Constitution.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend, and congratulating him on his part in these conclusions, may I ask whether we may now

217
hope that the proposals for the integration of the Seychelles with this country are now put on one side? Has there been consideration of the possibility of the Seychelles becoming confederated with East Africa and Mauritius?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, what future relations Seychelles will have with East Africa is clearly a matter for the people of Seychelles. Speaking as of now, I do not foresee a confederation such as he mentions coming about. As regards integration, it is fair to say that the Leader of the Seychelles Democratic Party still maintains that this is the policy of his Party, but recognises the view of Her Majesty's Government that this is not possible at present.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the 1970 Constitutional Report referred to:
"a ministerial portfolio including tourism, planning and labour".
May I ask the Minister when the airport will be constructed in the Seychelles? Secondly, when is it proposed that the first B.O.A.C. flights will be started? Thirdly, would Her Majesty's Government consider approaching the other Governments which are involved in this agreement on the constitution of the Indian Ocean Tourist Alliance, which takes in the Malagasy Republic, Mauritius, Reunion and the Comores? In the interests of tourism on a regional basis, does not the noble Lord think that possibly the Seychelles could be included in this regional alliance?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has taken the Report rather literally and has been able to go rather wide of the original Question on the Order Paper. His third supplementary question I will write to him about. I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that progress is being made on the building of the airstrip. I have no knowledge when B.O.A.C. will be flying, but he may be interested to know that there is now a light aircraft service in operation between Seychelles and Mombasa.

CAMBODIA: CIVILIAN CASUALTIES REPORTS
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the facts concerning the terrible massacres of civilian Vietnamese reported to be taking place in Cambodia and what steps are being taken to prevent their continuing]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are deeply shocked by reports of killings of civilian Vietnamese in Cambodia. We have expressed our serious concern to the Cambodian Government. They have assured our Ambassador in Phnom Penh that they fully understand the importance of ensuring that no grounds are given for reports of this nature. Since that time, I have seen no further reports of this sort.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he is not aware that since that episode new violent, brutal aggression by the United States Forces has taken place in Cambodia, so that the war now covers the whole of Indo-China? Hundreds more innocent Vietnamese and Cambodian peasants are being slaughtered and burnt. Will Her Majesty's Government now dissociate themselves in the strongest possible terms from these shameful events?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question is "No". As to the first, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that for many years now Viet Cong forces have been in Cambodia. They are completely alien to the country of Cambodia; they have been asked to be removed, and they have not been removed.
LORD BROCK WAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, while very sincerely appreciating the first Answer he gave—I repeat, very sincerely appreciating it—whether he is aware of the deep concern of many of us about events in Cambodia? Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to suggest, through Lord Caradon, that there should be a

219
special meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations to support the proposals of U Thant for an international conference to end this terrible war?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we would support discussion either in the United Nations or anywhere else which could bring this war to an end. As perhaps the House will remember, I think it was last Friday that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference, called upon his fellow co-chairman, the Russian Foreign Minister, to bring a conference into being. I am afraid that we have not yet had a reply.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, could my noble friend give some reasons why his answer to the question whether Her Majesty's Government would not dissociate themselves from present events in Cambodia was such an emphatic negative?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I answered with an emphatic negative in view of the way in which the question was put. But I think the position of Her Majesty's Government was fully explained in another place, yesterday by my right honourable friend, and I would suggest that my noble friend reads that speech.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we all want peace in Vietnam and in the Far East? I happened to spend a fortnight in the war zone, with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on the Opposition Benches, last year. It is really serious, the infiltration from Laos and Cambodia, where American soldiers and Vietnamese do not know whether their next-door neighbour is their friend or whether he will stab them in the back.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the tied bodies floating down the Mekong River are a foretaste of what the occupation of Cambodia by the Viet Cong might involve?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, war in South-East Asia—or for that matter anywhere, but particularly in South-East Asia—is of a most beastly character, and all those who have any influence, whatever the side may be, should seek to use
220
that influence to bring the parties to a conference table and negotiate a settlement.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are opposed to the presence of Viet Cong forces in Cambodia as well as to the presence of the American forces? We are seeking a solution which will mean that there will be no foreign forces at all in that territory. Will Her Majesty's Government exert the fullest influence to try to bring about that result?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I said the other day, we will use whatever influence we have, as we have done in the past. All we need is a little co-operation.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am rather confused about this situation and I should like to ask whether my noble friend can tell us who started this war: was it the Communists or the other side?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord knows as well as I do.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the explanation he has given as to why President Nixon has taken this new aggressive step is similar to explaining why a criminal takes to new violence in order to escape from the scene of his original violent crime, in this case the waging of a war of extermination in Vietnam——
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I raise a point of Order? Your Lordships are very fair-minded in the way questions are allowed to be posed in this House, but may I ask for a ruling as to whether it is right to use a Question for purely propaganda purposes, as I feel—though I may be wrong—the noble Lord has done, both in his original Question and in his second supplementary question?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I am not sure that that is strictly a point of Order. I have always been mystified about points of Order in your Lordships' House, and I am not in a position to give a ruling, I can only occasionally give some rather tentative guidance. I think it is quite clear that Questions

221
ought not to be used as a means of expressing views or arguments. Your Lordships take a tolerant view up to a point; beyond that point your Lordships begin to get restless. But since a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Blyton in his most interesting intervention, have also expressed views, I did not feel that it was fair for me to intervene against the noble Lord, Lord Milford. None the less, I think the House would much prefer that Question Time should not be used as a kind of concealed debate.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I would not in any sense disagree with what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said on this matter, and I think he has been very fair about it, but I hope we shall not be too restrictive about Questions in our rules of Order. I sometimes think that if noble Lords who have less usual points of view and express themselves more strongly than others are allowed to put their point of view the House can hear what they really mean and can express its own opinion quite adequately.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, there is a Resolution of the House saying that speeches should not be read. Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House might consider whether Question should be read.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is the noble Earl asking whether propaganda should not be "Red"?
LORD SHACK LETON: My Lords, I really think we should now return to Question Time.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether we could have a debate on this subject?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is open for noble Lords to bring about a debate. Because of the flexibility of our arrangements, it is customary for us to do so by discussion, and clearly if there is a strong opinion that there is a requirement for such a debate, one could be provided. The noble Lord has his own rights in the matter, of which I have no doubt he is aware. I shall certainly be willing to discuss it through the usual channels. If I may express a personal view, I am bound to say that I know that
222
there are strong feelings, and I wonder just how much could be achieved by debating this subject.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, would it be right to bring the noble Lord, Lord Mil-ford, into the "usual channels"?

B.A.O.R. WINTER CLOTHING
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the serious deficiency in the quality of the winter clothing presently on issue to our troops in B.A.O.R.; what action is being taken to rectify this deficiency, and when can an improved issue be expected.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I could not agree that there is any serious deficiency. The present scale of winter clothing was introduced only after extensive troop trials to ensure its adequacy. In order to take advantage of technological progress in this field, however, the whole range of combat clothing for temperate areas, including B.A.O.R., has been under review. Prototypes of improved garments have been produced and trials held. Until the results of these trials have been evaluated I cannot give a date for the introduction of the new items.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that not entirely reassuring reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that, so far as my experience has shown, there is a good deal of opinion expressed—it has been expressed to me and to others who were on a recent Parliamentary visit to B.A.O.R.—by all ranks, from private soldiers to generals, about the quantity and the quality of the clothing. It appears also to be true—I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of this—that there is a general expectation that the troop trials, whatever they may be, are not likely to produce an adequate scale of clothing within the next three years. Would the noble Lord care to comment on that?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the main comment I should like to make is that the past winter has been a particularly beastly one. The snow has been lying for 137 days on the central German plain, and of course troops have suffered as a result. The quality of clothes supplied, as indeed the standard of equipment, is high. But we are not satisfied. Studies are taking place, and we hope that even better qualities of winter clothing will be issued to the troops after the studies have been evaluated.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, can the noble Lord give a sightly clearer indication about the length of time that this will take?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords; but I will inquire and I will write to the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why the troops suffer more because the winter is long? If the clothes are adequate for one day, surely they are adequate for another.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is not entirely true. For instance, under extreme conditions a rum ration is issued, but not everyone would want it for 137 days. Basically the fact is that this was an exceptionally hard winter and the standard of clothes issued to the troops was, in the opinion of many of them, not quite equal to the severity of the winter.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in 1916, when I was a soldier, I had a rum ration every day?
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, bearing in mind what the noble Lord has just said about the particularly severe winter, is he aware that there are at present insufficient heavy duty pullovers to supply all the troops in B.A.O.R.?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. For the next winter heavy wool jerseys will be available for each man in B.A.O.R.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, for the uninformed, can the Minister say where the deficiency arose in the quality of the winter clothing?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord may have noticed that I used the words, "temperate areas". Unfortunately, the central German plain is not particularly temperate and last winter was particularly bad. The quality of winter clothing has not been criticised for the last few years.

PEERS AND COMMONS DIVISIONS
2.49 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a domestic question, of which I have given him some notice. I understand that yesterday Divisions were called in both Houses at the same time, and that a number of noble Lords were listening to the debate on Cambodia from the Peers' Gallery in another place. When the Division there was called at the same time as the Division was called here, noble Lords were not allowed to leave the Gallery and to come and vote in the Division in this House. On the face of it, this hardly seems to be a satisfactory state of affairs, and I wonder whether the noble Lord has had, or will have, consultations with those in authority in another place to see that this does not happen again.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, for having given me notice that he intended to raise the matter. I am aware that certain noble Lords yesterday found themselves in a position where they thought they were unable to return from another place to vote in this House. This was true, in the sense that practice in another place, for historic reasons, forbids any Stranger from using the Members' Lobby during a Division. There are alternative and longer routes (which I have myself used on such an occasion) which they might have taken, but I have since also learned—and I have not had very long to investigate the matter—that they were not in fact informed that there was a Division in your Lordships' House because there was a misapprehension as to whether they would be able to return. If any noble Lords wish advice as to how to get back without going through the Members' Lobby of another place, I shall be happy to brief them.

225
None the less, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the consultations for which he has asked have in fact already taken place between the Houses. I have myself been in touch with the Leader of another place, and officials of the House have also been in touch, and I am informed that they have considered a solution which should ensure that this inconvenience will not arise again. Mr. Speaker, I am informed, has agreed that Peers may proceed across the Commons Lobby for the purpose of going to a Division in the House of Lords. They will not be allowed to do so for any other reason during a Commons Division.
At the same time, I think this is perhaps a suitable opportunity for me to remind your Lordships that in the last resort it must remain a matter of individual responsibility for Peers to ensure, by one means or another, that they are capable of returning to the House in time for a Division. There are other hazards that could befall them. So that there may be no misunderstanding, I should like to say that I know that the Doorkeepers, under Mr. Harrison, and in particular Mr. Reuter, always go to great lengths to inform noble Lords, and I am sure that there is no reflection on their help in this matter on this occasion.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for having taken such prompt and satisfactory action. I think we can now, on both sides of the House, assure any Members of another place who come that we will allow them to get out, too.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may just answer the noble Lord, I am not sure that that, because of the technical difficulties of getting off the Steps of the Throne when locked in on one of our longer Divisions, is quite so easy. I am not quite sure what the noble Lord thinks he has promised, but no doubt we should wish to be as courteous and considerate to another place as they undoubtedly have been to us in this matter.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does not this question show the ineptitude of the Tory Whips' Office? They were bound to know that there was a Division in the House at 7 o'clock; they created the Division on the tied cottages at 7 o'clock. The blame was theirs, not ours.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I fear that I cannot accept that reflection on the Tory Whips' office, because it could also reflect on the Government Whips' office.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I say, as one of the Peers who was trapped in the Gallery, that if one had been told there was a Division here, having been on that side of the House one would have found a devious way of getting here. The trouble is that we were not told—not by our own people, but by those in the other place because they thought we could not get out. Since we did not know that there was a Division here, there was no devious way of getting out.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think I covered this point. I am quite sure any noble Lords should take the noble Baroness with them as a guide in these matters.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, as one of the noble Lords who was compulsorily paired with the noble Baroness, I may say that we had the better of the count.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, as one of the noble Lords who was, very regrettably, unpaired, may I ask whether the holding of a Division in this House might not also be announced by the wider ringing of bells, as is done in another place, in addition to the vocal announcement which is done so efficiently.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is a point which has been discussed, without progress. If any other noble Lords wish to confess their default, no doubt the House will hear them. The point raised by my noble friend Lord Segal is one that we have tried to pursue, without much success, whether bells are right, or the television Annunciator, but we will consider the matter further.

HOUSING
2.56 p.m.
LORD ST. HELENS LORD ST. HELENS rose to call attention to the reduction in house building, and to the disappointment caused thereby; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I am conscious of the fact that we have not in your Lordships' House debated housing for quite a long time. On the other hand, there have been a series of debates on housing in another place, the last of which took place on January 29 this year, and I hope that your Lordships will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not rehash all the arguments put up in that debate. Masses of facts and figures were given, and I feel that it would be rather tedious repetition simply to churn them all out again, because I am quite certain that those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject will have read the debate in another place.
One of my main reasons for raising this debate is that I believe that lack of housing and bad housing is one of the greatest causes of misery in the country to-day, and I am absolutely certain—I am not very often but I am on this occasion—-that I shall have the full support of the Government Benches opposite, because in the Labour Party Manifesto for the 1966 Election the following phrase occurred:
"Bad and inadequate housing is the greatest social evil in Britain to-day."
I must confess that since I have had the honour of coming to your Lordships' House I have been very much more out of touch with the housing situation than I was as a Member of the other place. In another place Members normally went to their constituencies every Friday evening for what we used to call our "surgery", and, on an average, of 12 people who came to see me each Friday evening, 9 at least were people who had housing cases. The dreadful thing was that it was almost impossible to help them because of the overall lack of housing accommodation in the borough. Furthermore, one used to go canvassing, and there one saw the deplorable conditions in which human beings lived. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, will agree with what I
228
say. The River Wandle flowed through the borough, and every now and then it overflowed. When that happened, large areas and streets were flooded, not only from above but from below, because the water got into the sewers and pushed water up into the houses, which is quite deplorable. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, is not in his place, because when he was Chairman of the L.C.C. Housing Committee I remember going to him and asking for his help. I may say that his help was very considerable and prompt, and we were all extremely grateful to him.
On March 27, 1966, at Bradford, the Prime Minister made the following pledge:
"Starting from last year's total of 380,000 houses and flats, we shall go on year by year exceeding this total, and reaching by 1970 no less than 500,000 new dwellings.
"This is not a lightly given promise It is a pledge. We shall achieve the 500,000 target, and we shall not allow any development, any circumstance, however adverse, to deflect us from our aim."
It is the non-fulfilment by the Government of the Prime Minister's pledge that this debate is really all about.
The plain fact is that the electorate, without realising it, have been deceived. One cannot guarantee these things, but in my own personal opinion the pledge given by the Prime Minister was one of the greatest vote-catchers in the whole of the 1966 Election; and, if I may be Party political for a moment, I hope that the electorate at the next Election will remember that pledges given by the Prime Minister do not appear to be worth the paper they are written on. Thousands of young marrieds, thousands of people living in inadequate houses up and down the country, have been cruelly cheated and disappointed. In fact, we are going to miss the target by something like 140,000 houses this year.
The reasonable question to ask oneself is, what is the reason for the Government's failure? The reason is not in spite of the Government but because of the Government; for the Government's economic policy overall has militated wholeheartedly against their achieving their pledge. Selective employment tax I put first on the list of iniquities that have prevented the Government from reaching their targets. I am glad that my Party are pledged to abolish the selective

229
employment tax when, in a short time, we are returned to power. The import surcharge, the import deposits scheme, bank rate and betterment levy are all factors that have militated against the Government being able to achieve success in their housing policy.
The failure of the pledge and of the Government's economic policies has also affected other solemnly given promises, such as that the price of houses will go down. In fact it is common knowledge that since 1966 the price of houses has soared. It was said that mortgage rates would go down: we all remember Mr. George Brown's pronouncement on the 3 per cent. mortgage rate. Those rates, too, have soared. The late Lord Attlee once said that it is not surprising that the Socialist Party cannot efficiently administer a capitalist policy, because fundamentally they do not believe in capitalism. This may well lie at the root of many of the failures that have occurred.
There is also the question of the philosophy of housing, the attitude towards housing demand and the construction industry as a whole. Government policies have taken housing out of the general market function. This is admirable in the short run, but I believe that it will be disastrous in the long run. I shall have a little more to say about that later. Through rent control and massive subsidies housing has been provided at prices well below those normal in a free market. This policy must have inevitable effects. Distortion of the market will always have inevitable effects. The first effect is on private enterprise. Builders and financial supporters of 90 per cent. of pre-war construction have taken less and less interest in housing and construction for letting. Private builders have found themselves no longer in a position to compete with subsidised construction. This has meant not a diminution, but perhaps a less than possible aggregation of the building possibilities of the private market.
Another effect of this distortion has been that on the tenant himself. To-day, in many cases, the tenant, because of his cheap and rent-protected accommodation, no longer wishes to build and to become an owner-occupier, even when he can afford it. There has resulted under-occupation of property. This is a very serious thing that is happening in London. When I was in another place one
230
often used to go round canvassing or visiting houses, and one would come to a nice looking house, probably Victorian, and find one elderly couple living there. One would say, "Well, you are all right now. You have a nice house." But the poor housewife, almost in tears, would say, "Oh, but how we wish we could get out of it! It is far too big for me. It is killing me, and my husband cannot get up the stairs." There was, and there is no machinery for such an elderly couple to get out of that house and perhaps into a small council flat. They have a roof over their heads, and therefore they are ineligible for inclusion on the council's housing list. This causes a great deal of hardship, both to the elderly couple and to families crammed into one room who want enlarged accommodation.
Finally, one effect is the occupation of protected or subsidised housing by people who do not really need public help. This we find widespread throughout the country to-day. It is difficult to pin down and difficult to put right, but it is a fact—a concealed fact, something that we shall have to deal with sooner or later. The result of the accumulation of all these factors has been a stagnant and falling housing market. Nor is the outlook for the future particularly encouraging. My noble friend Lord Molson put down a Question for Written Answer. It was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, yesterday, in these terms:
"The nation-wide excess of houses over households in 1973 is expected to be about I million. As Mr. Robinson explained at the time, this surplus will not be evenly spread throughout the country, and I regret that shortage of housing and bad housing must be expected to continue beyond this date in some places."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/5/70, col. 214.]
I should like to ask Lord Kennet, on that particular Answer, to what degree, in achieving the I million surplus houses, has slum clearance come into the matter? I do not know the degree of slum clearance, for instance this year. But how much does slum clearance contribute towards the additional 1 million houses in 1973, or how much is planned? (should be grateful if the noble Lord would say a few words about that subject when he comes to reply.
My Lords, I want to be brief, but I wish to turn to two other countries in Western Europe, the Federal Republic

231
of Germany and Belgium. The Federal Republic of Germany was faced with the greatest problem as a result of the devastation of its houses. I remember shortly after the end of the war visiting two cities, Hanover and Hamburg. It was one of the most dreadful sights I have ever seen. I see the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, nods agreement. Hanover had been subjected to devastating 1,000-bomber raids, in which the technique of using incendiaries with high explosives was used, I think, for the first time. The result was a fire of incalculable size. So great was it, I was told when I went there shortly afterwards, that fire engines were actually sent from the City of Berlin to help out. What is more, so great was the conflagration that fire engines at the perimeter of the blaze were, with their crews, actually sucked into the middle of the blaze. Your Lordships can imagine the devastation that they were faced with there.
Hamburg had a similar experience. When I went there shortly after the war the Germans had started to bulldoze the rubble away. There were no streets; they were merely clearing the way for streets. But so bad had been the destruction and so great the carnage that they had to stop doing it until the thousands of corpses had further decomposed and they were able to tackle the job. During the early years after the war public resources in Germany were spent in housing amounting to well over 50 per cent. of the total investment. As I said earlier, that represented the public side; but the nearer they came to their target the more the public commitments were reduced and withdrawn and the construction was left to the functioning of private enterprise and the market. Certain very definite trends were observable in the German policy: people were encouraged to become home owners; tax relief was most generously given; a widespread system of construction savings banks was introduced; and special mortgage banks were set up to help tenants, As a result, the housing problem of the West German Federal Republic has been solved to-day—in so far as one can ever say that a housing problem has been solved, because when you have built the necessary number of houses you have then to start turning again to slum clearance and modernisation of old houses.
Belgium was rather different. Belgium had relatively a smaller task than that of Germany, but there again the emphasis was on owner occupation. Some five years ago in Belgium no less than 60 per cent. of the total number of houses were owner occupied, and that percentage has increased in the past five years. Private enterprise was stimulated as far as the Government could go by such schemes as a 10 per cent. construction bonus; loans were issued at reduced rates; here again tax relief was generously granted, and a credit system of special mortgage banks was introduced.
Although we are discussing housing in Britain, I have mentioned those two countries because, so far as I know, they are the only two countries in the whole of western Europe who have solved their housing problems. They have freed the market in housing; they have abolished rent control; and this they have done through a massive stimulation of the private sector and through generous tax relief schemes. They have done it through a progressive return to a free market and the gradual transference of subsidies from things (that is to say, the very badly needed houses) to people (that is to say, the people who could not afford to pay the economic rent). I believe it to be a cardinal point that a great deal of money is wasted in subsidising things, whereas when money is in short supply, as it always will be, the correct way to give subsidies is to give them to the people who need the money. If your Lordships believe, as I do, that policies are to be judged by results, then I suggest that we have still a great deal to learn from these two European neighbours who have solved their problems post war.
I would conclude with one or two, as I hope, constructive suggestions. First of all, I would commend to your Lordships Mr. Peter Walker's ten points which were set out in Hansard of January 29, 1970, in the last housing debate in another place. I hope and imagine that they will become the basis of Conservative housing policy in the next Administration, and I commend them to your Lordships as being eminently practical. I would also suggest that greater effort be made to co-ordinate public, private and co-operative efforts in the field of housing, and that private

233
efforts should be immensely stimulated from the position in which they are in to-day. I should like to suggest that a study be devoted to providing greater tax relief to home owners, and building bonuses. I would suggest a Government credit guarantee system; individual aid to family home owners by the assumption of liability for part of the mortgage (as is done in Belgium and was done in Germany), and the promoting of public and private construction savings banks. I should like also to suggest that greater efforts be taken to ensure that social housing accommodation is occupied solely by persons of moderate incomes. About five years ago an article appeared in The Times which said:
"The country may well do more building between now and the end of the century than in the whole of its previous history. This target will never be reached by broken pledges and a falling output."
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, let me first of all congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, for much of what he has said was constructive in tone—if I may say so, more constructive than I expected. I think there was a great deal in his speech for a Government of any colour to read, mark and inwardly digest. Of course, my kind remarks cannot possibly extend to the whole of his speech, as he will well understand. I should like to take the opportunity for the rest of the afternoon to mull over some of the points he brought up, and if the House is kind enough to give me leave to speak again at the end of the debate I shall try to answer them then.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, in his Motion refers to:
"the reduction in house building, and to the disappointment caused thereby."
In a way, I think his Motion is more Party political than was his speech. Let us consider what is the reduction, and who has been disappointed. Because I do not think it has caused much disappointment to all leading members of the Party opposite, some of whom have invited their friends who are in office
234
in local councils to see that in the public sector at least the decline continues.
What reduction are we talking about? The year 1969 was not a good year for housing by recent standards. The total number of houses completed showed a small decline on 1968, which showed, of course, the all-time record figure of over 414,000 houses completed in Great Britain. But the 1969 figures, though they are disappointing, are still better than any figure ever achieved under the Party opposite, if one excepts the year 1964, which was not wholly a Tory year and was, in any case, an election year. Indeed, during our period of office we have built five houses for every four that the Opposition Party built in the comparable period ending in October, 1964. The number of houses completed in the public sector has increased in that period over 40 per cent., and in the private sector by over 12 per cent. The picture is hardly one of strangulation of the private sector, even though the rate of increase has been lower than in the public sector. Not only have there been more houses built, but they were of better quality. Before we took office the quality of houses had been sacrificed to obtain numbers though, as I have already said, lesser numbers than we have been able to achieve with the superior quality.
The Parker Morris Report in 1961 recommended that the typical new dwelling of that time was seriously inadequate in a number of respects, particularly those of space and of heating, and these two standards were made mandatory from January 1, 1969. In 1964 only 33 per cent. of new dwellings met those standards. In 1968 it was 93·1 per cent., and I am proud to say it is now 100 per cent. As for the other standards which are not yet mandatory, only 14 per cent. of dwellings met those in 1964. It was 87 per cent. in 1968. In the private sector also there have been improvements, partly influenced by the National House Builders Registration Council, and partly by the example of the improvements in the public sector. In 1965 the present Government played a major part in strengthening the National House Builders Registration Council, and at the moment all dwellings receiving the Council's certificate have to reach certain standards which approximate to those of Parker Morris. The purchaser of a house with

235
a N.H.B.R.C. certificate obtains a 10-year guarantee against bad workmanship, and at the present time no less than 99 per cent. of new dwellings in the private sector are covered by the scheme. I repeat: more houses of better quality have been built under this Government than were ever built before.
Of course, there is no denying that the past few years have been years of great difficulty from the general economic point of view, from which the house building programme has not been wholly exempt. There has been a dip in the building of new houses during the last year. Of course there has. Who would have expected otherwise? There has been a dip in everybody's housing. What is happening abroad? The noble Lord quoted the examples of Germany and Belgium, but let us take a slightly more detailed look. Let us look at six countries with which we might compare ourselves: the United States, the Soviet Union, France, West Germany, Holland and Sweden. In every one of those there has been a dip in new housing since 1967. In the United States, 1969 was lower than 1968. In the Soviet Union and Holland, both 1968 and 1969 were lower than 1967. In France, 1968 was lower than 1967. In Germany, 1969 was lower than 1968. And in Sweden, 1970 is forecast to be lower than 1969.
We had to get the balance of payments right, and besides that there has been the world-wide phenomenon of high interest rates which is reflected in the figures I have just given the House. One could discuss for a long time why interest rates have been high in recent years. Some would say that it is no more than the result of a general situation of inflation and boom, and that what we see is no more than natural domestic checks introduced in this country or that. Others would relate it more closely to imputed disequilibria in exchange rates. They would notice the high value of the Deutschmark and the constitutional inability of the German Federal Government to use fiscal means to check or deflate their own internal economy. They would notice, also, that the United States abandoned their traditional low interest rate policy, which was of course internationally motivated, in order to check their domestic boom about two years ago.
236
Whatever one said, one might admit that there was an element of unwelcome but unavoidable escalation as nation reacted to the action of nation in this matter of interest rates. At any rate, it was clear enough that, if we were to prevent a possibly disastrous outflow of sterling at that crucial point of our own economic recovery, it was not open to us to refrain from the interest rate increase which all others were finding necessary.
And so to return to housing. Let us therefore not take last year's dip as anything more than the ripple it is. Let us consider the broader picture on house building. The Conservative Governments of the 'fifties achieved an annual average of 297,000 new houses. That figure is for Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. In 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, in each of those four years one after the other, the Labour Government set a new record in the history of this country. The peak so far, came in 1968, with 414,000 as against the pre-1964 Tory record of 348,000. That record was in 1954, and not once in the nine years thereafter did the Party opposite achieve a higher rate. They did in 1964, but that was the year in which they ran up an £800 million balance of payments deficit. So they financed their election year housing boom on foreign borrowing. Our figure of 368,000 last year, which was 20,000 better than their pre-1964 record, was financed not on foreign borrowing, but on a balance of payments surplus now running at the rate of about £600 million a year.
Let us look now at the cumulative totals. Towards the end of last year, the two millionth family since the Labour Government came in in 1964 moved into a new house. I should like your Lordships to think for a moment what 2 million houses means—because these noughts are hard to grasp. There are about 2·4 million houses in the whole of Greater London. Put it another way. If you were to take all the houses now standing in the whole of Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Sheffield, Coventry and Brighton, that would be just 2 million houses. Look at it another way again. If you take an average family size of four, 2 million houses equals 8 million people, and that is one-seventh of the entire population of these islands.

237
I think that is a fantastic achievement in five years, and to get a measure of the difference between that achievement and what the Tories did in their last five and a half years in office, I ask your Lordships to imagine all the houses now standing in the whole of Manchester and Liverpool. How many people have a Labour Government moved into a new house in five and a half years? About the whole of London. How many more people have a Labour Government moved into new houses in five and a half years than the Tory Government did in their last five and a half years? The whole of Manchester and the whole of Liverpool.
The arrangements under the 1967 Housing Subsidies Act have mitigated the effect of world-wide high interest rates on local authority new construction, but it has not been possible to shield them from the effect which they suffer when having to re-finance existing debt at the prevailing high rates. This has meant that some local authorities, after three or four years of exceptionally large programmes, are meeting difficulties. Some have exaggerated their difficulties in order to cut their programmes for political reasons, but I am not denying the existence of the difficulty.
So what are we doing? My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing has himself written to 20 major authorities which had cut their programmes, and has subsequently held meetings with them, either himself or represented by one of his Parliamentary Secretaries, and those meetings have been followed up by further meetings between officials. At the same time as those meetings have been going on, there has been within the Ministry of Housing and Local Government a major investigation into housing finance. This is a very far-reaching inquiry, and one of its objects is to find ways in which housing authorities with exceptional financial difficulties, which are often those with the greatest housing needs, can be distinguished from those which, whatever the reason, are simply not tackling their problems. In this same connection we are also examining the possibility of setting up a central agency with powers to build, and thus to supplement the efforts of local authorities. That is for the future. But the Government have taken a number of steps to encourage and stimulate building, and I should
238
like to remind your Lordships of what they were.
The foundation of all these measures is the Housing Subsidies Act 1967, which provides for the most generous subsidies ever given in this country and without which it would not have been possible to maintain a public sector building programme at all in the difficult years through which we have passed. I was interested in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, that it was in some way the housing subsidies which were to blame for such shortfall in housing as there is. I assure the House that, had it not been for those subsidies, and had it not been for the very great increase in those subsidies, we should not have had half the number of houses built that we now have.
But we have not been confining our attention to the public sector. During the past year there have been two successive increases in the permitted ceiling for local authority mortgage lending: £45 million was announced in 1969, and a further sum of £50 million was announced in March this year. This makes a total of rather over £150 million available for the current financial year. Money is at present flowing into the building societies at a satisfactory rate, and they have benefited from being admitted to the contractual savings scheme, called Save As You Earn. On January 1 this year an Order took effect giving improved terms for the option mortgage scheme. So far, about 335,000 persons have taken advantage of this scheme and, obviously, a great number of them could not have afforded a mortgage without it. As a matter of interest, I may say that in the financial year 1958–69 the average owner-occupier claiming tax relief on his mortgage interest received relief worth £43. The average benefit to a person under the option mortgage scheme was £22, and the average Exchequer subsidy on a council house was £28. This latter figure, by the way, compares with £17 in the financial year 1963–64.
Housing associations are now running at about £17 million a year, compared with £7 million a year only three years ago. At the same time as my right honourable friend announced the increase in local authority mortgage lending he also announced a further allocation of resources to the Housing Corporation to

239
permit them to sponsor at least an extra £20 million worth of cost rent or co-ownership housing schemes in the current year. In the Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a number of measures which should be of benefit to the building industry, particularly a reduction in the Import Deposit Scheme, which should tend to reduce the price of import timber, and the relaxation of credit restrictions, which should particularly benefit builders. Builders may also welcome the Chancellor's statement that he could now encourage the provision of bridging finance for house purchase. They can welcome, too, the further reduction in the bank rate.
My Lords, that is all about new housing. I turn now to the question of housing improvements. The Housing Act 1969 was a tripod Act. The first of its three legs was market value for owner-occupiers of slums. This is going to speed up slum clearance and free it of certain frustrations and miseries which have accompanied it previously. The second leg was the increase—an increase of no less than two-and-a-half times—in the discretionary improvement grants and the conversion grants. In the old days, when a housing authority was in doubt whether to demolish an old house or to improve it, it all too often needlessly demolished, because the grant system was loaded that way: it was cheaper for the authority to do so. The purpose of the 1969 Act was to equalise the grants as between new development and improvement. The Minister has power to vary the grant rates, and we shall be watching the operation of the Act very closely to see whether even now, with this two-and-a-half-fold increase, we have got the level right.
The third leg of the Act is the creation of the so-called general improvement areas, where the housing authority is to improve everything about an area of housing, not only adding baths and sinks, where they are lacking, but painting up the houses, adding play space, knocking down single unfit houses and rebuilding, adding parking space, planting trees and closing streets to traffic. I could also become lyrical about the concept of the general improvement area, but I will not do so. I will suggest only, instead, that those among your Lordships who are
240
interested should go to Exeter one day and look at a part of that city called Newtown; or one could go to Lancashire and look at a little place called Whit-worth. Newtown, in Exeter, was a drab area of mid-Victorian artisan housing—the sort of stuff we have been knocking down without a thought for the last twenty years. But it was in Newtown that my right honourable friend and the City Council of Exeter agreed jointly to carry out a pilot general improvement area in advance of the Act—and, by the way, what a valuable provision that is, when the Treasury anticipate the wish of Parliament and authorise expenditure of that sort! Newtown, in Exeter, is now really an enchanting place to look at, and I will dare to say that it is to live in, too, though every politician knows that to say that anybody is happy, especially in Election year, is to invite contradiction.
Looking ahead into the next Parliament, I think that the scene will be increasingly dominated by the regional housing situation, and even by the sub-regional housing situations. I gave a Written Answer yesterday—Lord St. Helens has read it out—reaffirming the Government's forecast that by 1973 the excess of houses over households in this country will be no less than one million. But that, of course, is not the whole story. If it were, my Party and this Government, and the Housing Ministers personally, would be in sight of an achievement which would be unique perhaps in the history of the modern world—the purely hypothetical achievement of "solving the housing problem".
We know that in 1973 and afterwards there will still be in certain parts of the country a housing shortage, and there will still be bad houses. There are at present, after all, still families trying to bring up children in one rat-ridden room. There are not many, but it is intolerable that there should be any. And it is no comfort to them to inform them that if they went to certain Northern cities they could call at the town hall to-morrow morning, pick up a key and be in a new council house tomorrow night. They stay where they are because that is where their work is; and the long-term detailed solution of our housing problem is inextricably bound up with the problem of the location of employment, region by region, city by city, and even town by town.

241
Speaking personally, my Lords, I believe that this will be the major challenge for the next Labour Government—a challenge which I confidently hope it will be able to meet, with the assistance of Labour town halls up and down the country—and one which it will be able to meet because it is part of the historical fibre of the Labour Party itself to be able to seize hold of a situation and direct the resources of society to improving it. And the historical fibre of the Party of noble Lords opposite is, I think, something rather different.
3.36 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will take it from me (that I mean nothing personal when I say that in thirty years' Parliamentary experience I have seldom heard more extensive use of selective facts and statistics to support a case which will not stand up. My noble friend Lord St. Helens has been very right in calling the attention of the House both to the shrinkage of house building and to the disappointment inflicted thereby. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, sought to minimise the shrinkage; he sought to wave away the disappointment; and he devoted a large part of his speech to improvement grants and matters like that which are not mentioned in the Motion at all.
As to disappointment, falling supplies of anything which millions of families want is always a disappointment. This particular disappointment is made more painful because no less a person than the Prime Minister pledged his Party to produce 500,000 houses a year by the year 1970. It is almost inconceivable that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his speech seeking to reply to my noble friend, made no mention whatever of that pledge—no mention whatever. I can see from the noble Lord's speech and from the statistics which he selected that I shall have to take your Lordships through what has really happened in the last 15 to 20 years. As a result of that speech by the Prime Minister in Bradford in 1966, probably a million people or more were swung into giving Labour their votes because they trusted Mr. Wilson's word. Now there is no escape for him or his Government. His word has been broken
242
and the British people have been let down, as my noble friend has so clearly proved.
It is worth while—it would be worth while, even apart from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—to run over the housing programmes and performances of years gone by, because only in that way can one see the whole story in perspective. In meeting the housing needs of the ordinary family that wants and longs for a better home, it is the number of new houses built which is at the heart of everything, and no doubt that is why my noble friend made that the heart of his Motion. Without a big and steady building programme one cannot get the elbow room to provide for the growing population of the country and the still faster growing number of separate households, or for meeting all the varied requirements of people with different kinds of housing need, still less for pulling down the houses which have to be pulled down to make room for new roads, new schools and so on, or because those houses are no longer fit to live in.
Where I profoundly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is in his description of some of the houses where people are still having to live—and here there is no Party difference between us, though I think in his closing words the noble Lord sought to establish one. I would not for an instant suggest that in the last five or six years the Labour Government could have cleared all the slums which remained in this country in 1964. I made it my business, when I was Minister of Housing, to go about the country and see the type of slum clearance which was going on and was waiting to be done in various towns and cities. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will confirm, it is not only in the large cities where these appalling conditions can be found. I remember visiting houses in a small, old town where one had to climb up a vertical ladder to get to the bedroom. I confess that I have never seen worse housing conditions in England than in some of the Victorian London houses that I visited; tall houses in multiple occupation. Those seem to me far more degenerating in their effect on those who live in them than the small, box-like structures which we also have to pull down as slums. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I are fully at one, that

243
there will be years and years more of intensive work by Conservative and Labour Governments, by Conservative and Labour local authorities, before the curse of slum houses is lifted from this country.
My Lords, we could not afford to restart the slum clearance campaign until the early 1950s, for the very obvious reason that immediately after the last war new houses were not being built in sufficient quantities. Just as it is not possible to pull down old prisons and rebuild them while the prisons are still overcrowded, so one cannot start pulling down unfit houses until enough new houses are being built into which to transfer the people. One had to build up before one could pull down. It is a fact that the only two great slum clearance drives this country has ever known—the one which began in 1934 and was halted by the Second World War, and the one which began in 1954 and is still going on—were started under Conservative Governments; so my noble friend's Motion goes to the heart of the matter. There are countless fringe aspects of the housing problem which one could discuss for hours and hours, but I am not going to do that because my noble friend is inviting your Lordships to concentrate to-day on the key indicator, the number of new houses completed.
When the Labour Government fell in 1951 houses were going up at the rate of 195,000 a year. The Conservative leaders promised 300,000 a year and within two years fulfilled their promise. Housing was given top priority among the public needs. It is no secret that in those days house building enjoyed a deliberate priority over other objects of public expenditure, such as, for instance, hospital building and road building. That priority could not last for ever, but while it lasted it enabled us to get the houses to re-start pulling down the slums. I must confess that I should have liked to be at the Ministry of Housing in those exciting days when, under Cabinet direction, new house building took precedence over everything. I was less lucky because I became Housing Minister at the point when housing had to take its place among other needed services and it was time for the other services to be given some chance to catch up.
244
Nevertheless, my Lords, though the special priority ended, from 1953 to 1963–11 years inclusive—the Conservative Government saw to it that a steady annual average of 300,000 new houses was kept up. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made it fewer than 300,000, doubtless for political reasons, by including the year 1952 in the period over which he took the average. In 1952 we were handicapped by the small number of houses left under construction when the Labour Government fell in October, 1951. Therefore, it was not possible for us to build up to 300,000 by that year; but from 1953 we averaged over 300,000 houses a year.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be so good, he will readily concede that we must equally have been helped in 1965 by the splendid number of houses that his friends left under construction when we won the Election in 1964.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I was just coming on to 1965, but first I wanted to correct the noble Lord over 1952. By about the year 1962 it became possible to reassess national needs, and I well remember attending meetings of Ministers about that time when the further forward leap in the house building programme was being planned. This produced a breakthrough to 374,000 new houses completed in 1964. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was inclined to reproach the Conservative Government for having done specially well in a pre-Election year. I am not sure whether he is likewise anxious to pat his own Party on the back for having done specially badly in a pre-Election year.
When the Labour Government took over from the Conservatives in October, 1964, they took over about 430,000 houses under construction. I think that is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was seeking to make. That was almost double the number under construction which the Conservatives had taken over from Labour when the change of Government occurred in 1951. In other words, my Lords, the Labour Government of 1964, unlike the Conservative Government of 1951, had a flying start which they inherited from their predecessors. At first they used it well. The

245
number of houses completed crept up by about 10,000 a year, on average, from 1964 to 1968; not a large enough increase to fulfil the pledge, but, nevertheless, it was about 10,000 a year on average from 1964 to 1968. Then came the downward crash, and that is the crash to which my noble friend is drawing attention to-day.
Completions in 1969, instead of recording another 10,000 gain, showed a shrinkage of nearly 50,000. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to describe that as a "small decline". Later in his speech I think he referred to it as a "ripple". It was in fact the largest shrinkage in house building in any one year that had ever occurred. This shrinkage is doomed to go on. There were 33,000 fewer houses under construction at the end of 1969 than there were at the end of 1968. After five and a half years of Socialist Government, my Lords, there are at this moment fewer houses being built than when the Conservatives went out of power. And this is the Government whose Leader solemnly pledged the building of 500,000 houses in 1970. What did Mr. Wilson say? It is worth repeating, though I think my noble friend Lord St. Helens got it right:
"This is not a lightly given promise. It is a pledge. We shall achieve the 500,000 target, and we shall not allow any development, any circumstances, however adverse, to deflect us from our aim."
That was what Mr. Wilson said, and it won him votes. Your Lordships will remember that Cassandra was a prophetess whose fate it was always to foretell the truth and never to be believed. Mr. Wilson is a kind of inverted Cassandra.
How many houses will be built in 1970? Completions in the first quarter were down by 3,500 compared with 1969. Starts were worse: starts were down by 12,000. Houses under construction at the end of March were 32,000 down compared with the previous March. Will the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, tell us, when he comes to wind up—he promised to answer questions—what his estimate is of the number by which the Government this year will miss their pledged target of 500,000? Will it be by 150,000? Will it be by 160,000, or 170,000? If the Government are only 165,000 down they will have missed the target by a mere 33 per cent.: they will have carried out
246
two-thirds of their pledge; they will be "two-thirds men"—men who achieve two-thirds of what they promise to do.
But if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, does not like this line of argument, will he give us his estimate of how many fewer houses will be built in this, the sixth, year of Labour Government than were built in the last year of Conservative Government? What would be his figures for that? Does he estimate that it will be 20,000 less? Or 30,000 less? Or 40,000 less? This is information which noble Lords would like to hear from him when he comes to wind up. Whatever happens, we know that at least 150,000 fewer families will have new homes to go into this year than Mr. Wilson led them to expect—150,000! To which city shall we compare that? Half a million people live in 150,000 houses; so a whole city of a half-million population will not have been built as a result of this Government's falling down on their Leader's pledge. No wonder that my noble friend Lord St. Helens has moved to call attention not only to numbers but to disappointment. The Conservative promise of 1951 was swiftly fulfilled; the Labour promise of 1966 has been tragically and blatantly broken. This is the true measure of the difference between the Parties.
My Lords, my estimate is that the average cost of a new house or a flat has gone up by £1,500 under this Government. If that is not the correct figure (it is only my estimate) I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will tell us so at the end of the debate. I think that your Lordships would like to know from him the Government's estimate of the rise in house costs since this Government came to power. That, after all, is the severest of the brakes on getting more houses built—that and high interest rates.
The building societies have had to put up their building mortgage interest rates from 6 per cent. to 8½ per cent. under this Government; and from what one reads there seems little prospect of their being able to bring them down this year. We all know what high mortgage interest rates mean to people longing to get a house of their own. There is the disappointment! The Government have promised, too late, to allow local authorities to lend more money this year on mortgages for house purchase—even

247
though what the Government will allow is less than what was lent by the local authorities in the last year of the Conservative Government, when prices were lower. The people who take up these mortgages in 1970 will still have to face the general rise in the price of the houses they have to buy. Can the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, say whether there has yet been any visible effect of the relaxations which his Minister announced two months ago?
Can he say when the Government are going to take selective employment tax off house building? Putting S.E.T. on the house builder must have been one of the cruellest blows ever inflicted by one member of the Government on another. Would the noble Lord care to say whether it is true, as was widely reported at the time, that Mr. Crossman, then Minister of Housing, was not consulted about this until after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made up his mind? Even had there been nothing else, the extra cost dumped on the building industry by S.E.T. would have ensured that the 500,000 target could not be attained. Sheer shortage of house-room is no longer nation-wide. It is now concentrated in the bigger, older towns and cities, although of course it also exists in areas where very rapid population increase due to industrial development is going on.
London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and a number of the older industrial towns are the crux of the council house building problem now. It is the financial difficulty for these councils which the Government have so far failed to solve; indeed, they have accentuated it. The housing authorities in these places, when they want to press on with new houses and flats, are faced with an unenviable, intractable choice, either having to charge rents for them which will be much too high for many of the people they most want to help or, alternatively, having to throw an unreasonably heavy burden on all their ratepayers to make good the deficits on their housing revenue account.
Of course, there is an escapist way out: to stop building. But I am certain that that would be wrong. Council building by those cities must go on; although
248
I should like to be sure that each housing authority, in making its plans, was working really hard to take the Cullingworth Report to heart. As a former chairman of the housing management sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, 20 years ago, long before I became a Minister, may I take the opportunity of expressing my appreciation to Professor Cullingworth and his colleagues for the sub-committee's latest Report. I should like to quote from paragraph 448 of that Report:
"… local authorities need to have a clearer, deeper and more detailed understanding of the housing situation in their areas. … we no longer have a single 'national' housing problem: we have a large number of local housing problems of great variety. It is therefore essential that local policies be based on a well-informed understanding of the problems of individual areas and the context in which they arise. Our first recommendation is, therefore, that local authorities should take steps to ensure that they are better informed of the housing situation of their areas."
I am quite certain that that recommendation is fundamental to the future course of council house building; for council house building is very costly nowadays to public funds. As some needs are progressively met, it becomes more and more necessary to swing council building on to the needs which are still crying out to be met; and that means identifying the particular needs and not continuing to build for general needs blindly.
I know that the Ministry have set on foot a special study of housing finance. Can the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, tell us how that is getting on?—because solving the housing financial problem is obviously, as indeed he admitted, going to have an effect on the number of new council houses that are built. Can he say whether the local authority associations are going to be brought fully into consultation in this study at a stage where there will still be time for their advice to be taken into account in reaching conclusions? So far as public housing is concerned, what has happened so far is that the Government have launched into a more generous—and of course more expensive—form of subsidy than at any time in the past forty years. It has involved all the complications and delays of applying a yardstick to house prices, and it has ended with many housing authorities finding themselves worse placed financially than ever. Now that we have fair rents determined by

249
rent officers and rent assessment committees for privately owned houses and flats, the housing subsidy system in future must take much more account of what these fair rents are in each local authority. Council tenants should be expected to pay these fair rents; and those households that cannot afford to do so should be generously helped by rent rebates. Subsidies from the Exchequer and the rates should be properly tailored to make this policy practicable, and then there could be no more complaints.
As things are, housing authorities which are keen to get ahead to tackle their problems are having their keenness blunted by the truly frightful financial difficulties caused by the present system, and by not being allowed to charge fair rents to tenants who could well afford to pay them. One bad consequence of that is that quantities of council houses which ought to be available for people in pressing housing need are now being permanently occupied by people who, if they were not being needlessly subsidised, could well afford to move off the council estate and buy a house of their own. I know that the Government meant well with what I might call their 4 per cent. subsidy plan, just as they meant well with their option mortgage plan: but neither has worked out as they hoped it would.
Then, after councils had been pressed to experiment with industrialised building, the Ronan Point disaster befell. I am not suggesting that the disaster was in any way the Government's fault, but where they were to blame was in refusing to meet generously the heavy extra cost thrown on the local authorities for strengthening the blocks which they had built under Government recommendation. A number of these are just the authorities which in any event would have found it hardest to balance their housing accounts, and now the Government have ungenerously left them, in addition, to carry half the cost of the extra expenditure falling on them solely because they had taken the Government's advice. I cannot emphasise to the noble Lord too strongly the amount of ill-will which the Government have built up against themselves among the local authorities affected, and indeed in the local authority world generally, through their lack of generosity in assisting those housing authorities
250
which have been heavily hit by these extra costs.
Well, beyond doubt there is going to be a great deal for the next Government to do, to clear up the problem and get the building industry going again, as a new Government showed it could do in 1952. Perhaps it is the present Government's hope that the concessions they announced on March 18 are going to make a big impact on the situation of the building industry and are going to speed up housing starts. I doubt if they will. It is a case of too little and too late, I am afraid. New energies are needed, and new brains. My noble friend's Motion is timely, in calling attention to failure and disappointment. If the Government now seek to run out of their pledge—a pledge which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, did not deign to mention—by asserting that 500,000 houses a year are not necessary in any way, they must argue that not only with me but with the Estimates Committee of another place, an authoritative all-Party Committee, who reported as recently as last winter that they believed that:
"A figure of 500,000 houses is the proper target, taking into account all the factors at work in our changing society and having regard to the high levels of housing investment in industrialised communities comparable to our own."
What have the Government to say to that?
4.4 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, to follow my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cum-nor, with his massive experience in Government work and particularly in the field of housing, naturally causes one to review anything one had intended to say. In initiating this debate, my noble friend Lord St. Helens emphasised to us the reduction in house building and the disappointment caused thereby, and his speech itself provided so much ammunition, addressed so trenchantly to the Minister who is to reply for the Government, that we shall indeed look forward to hearing the noble Lord's answer at the end of the debate. We are accustomed to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, deploying impressive skill in blunting the points of attack and assuaging any uncomfortable position in which Government find themselves. But to-day's performance has been a disappointment because, as my noble friend Lord Brooke

251
of Cumnor has just said, he has failed miserably to reply to the points which my noble friend Lord St. Helens made in opening the debate. I suggest that it is perhaps not entirely his fault.
I cannot refrain from referring to the general who announced that house building should be carried on as a military operation, thereby invoking all the resources of the country, and also to the remarks made by the general—the Prime Minister—in Bradford, my native city, which I had the honour of representing in another place. I seize on those remarks. I feel now that the Minister will fail effectively to defend the Government against the charges made by my noble friend Lord Brooke. Still, we shall see when he comes to reply.
There is no need for me to deal with figures and statistics, because they have been presented adequately enough to emphasise the Opposition's case. But I am going to suggest another angle to the Government's failure to do what they were pledged to do. It is the general atmosphere in which government has been conducted by the Socialist Party. There is this tendency towards étatism, the bureaucracy which cramps, and what is more bureaucratic than the Ministry with which the noble Lord is associated? The well-known slowness of their tempo retards progress, and the house builders themselves know what discouragement they give to private enterprise. It is recognised that the climate which house building requires in order to develop is one of confidence, and that is lacking under a Socialist Government. House builders will not build, the buyers are discouraged from buying and the whole construction machinery gets bogged down by this mass of regulations and procedure.
There is another angle of Government policy which affects the housing situation. The noble Lord may say that I am bringing in an outside matter, but one of the aggravations in the housing situation is the high inflow of avoidable immigration, which puts an additional pressure on housing. The policy of permitting immigration reminds one of what a humbug integration is. Separate development is what the immigrants themselves want. I just introduce that sentence because it
252
supports my view that various Government policies detract from house building. The real difficulty, as was said by my noble friend in opening the debate and as the public as a whole feel, is that there are too many occupiers of council houses with incomes which should disentitle them to State-assisted housing. This produces an inadequacy in the council house pool necessary to assist the mobility required for the industrial organisation for which the Government press so strongly. In those houses there are many who could well afford to pay higher rents. Apart from husbands and wives, there are young men who work and earn high wages. The result is that sitting tenants stay in their houses, and the needy suffer.
In addition to the general atmosphere of Government policy and the lack of confidence, there are the policies of the Government which during their office have created £3,000 million of additional debt, much of it wrong priorities. Within the last few days I read in a newspaper a statement by an experienced, responsible and successful man, the head of a large company, who said:
"Spiralling wages and prices are not the cause of inflation, but the natural effect of it. Governments create inflation by their fiscal policies and their wasteful expenditure which combine to debase the currency."
And under a Socialist Government we have had devaluation.
"It is not difficult to find some connection between the debasement of the currency and the heavy and grossly inequitable burden of taxation."
It is taxation that I want to come to, because that discourages private building. It causes the high rate of interest on money. My noble friend Lord Brooke said that under the Socialist Government it has risen from 6 per cent. to 8½ per cent., and, as he indicated, the price of an average house has gone up from £4,000 to £5,500; costs of building have gone up between 1964 and 1969 by something like 40 to 45 per cent., and in 1970 will have increased by a further 12½ per cent., making 60 per cent. in all, which means that developers, to sell houses at all, will have to sacrifice some of their normal margins.
Local authorities, despite high Government subsidies, have experienced a big decline in the production of houses. I submit that a mandatory national rebate scheme, like the G.L.C. have, should be

253
applied to the whole country. That would probably assist to increase the number of houses. Local authorities might then be able to sell a larger proportion of their houses to the public, giving mortgages of up to 100 per cent. and with adequate Government grants. The building societies have been playing their part. In the first quarter of this year they have granted 106,000 mortgages of a total value of £370 million. They have among those properties some 50,000 new houses and some 70,000 old houses. I conclude by saying that I think there needs to be better co-ordination between the national resources and all other media contributing to the production of houses. I hope that when he comes to reply to the debate the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will succeed in answering my noble friend Lord Brooke better than we anticipate—better than he did in answering Lord St. Helens's presentation—and in explaining the inadequacy of the Government's housing problem.
4.17 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I think that all Members of this House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, for introducing this Motion. I am sure we all agree with him that the matter is serious and, furthermore, that there can be nothing but disappointment in not attaining a target. I feel that the noble Lord may be a little disappointed at what has happened since, because it is obvious that the "knockabout" season has arrived, and that, in consequence, even in this House there have been the hurly-burly and amusing irrelevancies to which we have been listening for some little time.
It is not perhaps unexpected that when an Election season arises one is told that the housing problem is the result of massive immigration of people into the country. I am a little surprised that Welsh nationalism and Scottish nationalism were not blamed for this, because I have no doubt that they play an important part in the problem. I should have thought that cricket, and perhaps the departure of our soccer team for Mexico, might have had something to do with it. In fact, really I am surprised that so little has yet been brought in. Perhaps as the debate goes on we shall have more brought in to explain to us
254
exactly how it is that the Government have failed to deal with this problem.
But the problem is a serious one, and it cannot be dealt with by just good "knock-about" farce. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he ceased his more wild statements at the start of his speech, pointed out that this is really a problem of people and individuals. That is why it is so serious and important to us all. It is the fact that every house that is not built means that three or four people either are not housed or are badly housed. This is something that I am sure must greatly concern us all, because we all want to get more houses.
I believe that the Government have done pretty well, though I am sorry they have not done better. I think the part over which they had absolute control, or fairly good control, until a couple of years ago—that is to say, the municipal building side—has gone ahead pretty well. When one looks at the public sector one finds that the housing in that sector has gone ahead remarkably well in the past five years. I have not the exact figures in front of me, but I think I am right in saying that six years ago 155,000 houses were completed in the public sector. Two years ago, the corresponding total rose to over 200,000; and it is now about 185,000 houses. So there has been a substantial increase over this period, and this shows that the Government have been serious about it.
Obviously, one would have wished that there had been no decrease at all. The decrease in the public sector over the past two years has not been very large, but even a small decrease is serious. This has undoubtedly come about because of the financial problems with which the country has been faced over the past few years. One hopes—in fact one must demand—that the Government will proceed as quickly as possible to reverse this trend and go back to the previous increase that was taking place.
When we come down to the whole question of housing, we must realise that the really serious part of our housing problem concerns big cities and the poorest section of the population. This is true not only of this country, but of every country. In the United States—the wealthiest country in the world—they have this problem probably to a greater extent than we have in this country.

255
While I was in the United States I was interested in looking at this, so far as I could. I happened to be staying on the edge of Harlem, in New York City. Harlem, as your Lordships will know, is the place where practically all the Negro people, the coloured people and the immigrants live.
If one goes into Harlem to-day one sees a whole area of the City, densely populated, with practically 100 per cent. Negro and coloured people; and one sees all the decay. There are houses which are not being looked after; no new houses are being built. Some new housing developments are being started on the borders of Harlem, but not in Harlem itself. There, practically nothing is being done. This is because in the United States there has never been a policy of public responsibility for ordinary residential accommodation. Public funds go on fine buildings; they have built some marvellous blocks of offices, some wonderful buildings for administration and some splendid university buildings. But when it comes to residential blocks very little is being done with the aid of public funds. Most of the housing is financed by private funds, and it is utterly uneconomic for private funds to be used for low-cost buildings. It is a complete fallacy to imagine that private funds can be used for low-cost building. The cost of building is such, and the cost of maintenance is such, that it is impossible without heavy subsidies from the State to put up buildings in the hearts of cities for the ordinary medium-income or poor person to live in.
If you go at the present time into any American big city you find that the heart has decayed because the Americans cannot afford to put up in the hearts of their cities the buildings in which people may live, and one finds that all the fine buildings that were there have now become slums. Then there comes in a Governor who is disgusted by all this, as Rockefeller was in New York State. He tore down the centre of Albany, and to-day in Albany, the capital of New York State, you will find magnificent new buildings, like the Rockefeller Hall, going up. But you find that there are virtually no houses in which private people may live. The centre of Albany has become a devastating slum, right at the heart of the greatest State in the United States. Last
256
December I stayed at one of the two remaining hotels in Albany, and I was warned that I should on no account go out of that hotel at night—it was too dangerous.
This is happening, my Lords, simply because there is no way of keeping the centre of a city like that going. Thank heavens! we have had in this country for many years, under all types of Government, a public building policy which enables us to continue to put up low-cost building. I do not want to make an electioneering speech, but I would seriously warn noble Lords on the Benches opposite that if they change that policy they will do the worst conceivable damage to the future of this country.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why he is expecting a change? I pointed out in my speech that the two great slum clearance drives in this country's history were both started by Conservative Governments.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I admit that the noble Lord has said that, and I know that he means it. There are statements that are made by members of his Party which seem to indicate that they want to throw building on to the market. The phrase has been used, "throwing building on to the market". Even the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, used this phrase to-day and referred to market forces. I suggest that market forces cannot possibly control public building and give us an effective means of putting up houses for the ordinary poor people. It cannot be done. That is the point that I was making. I freely admit that the noble Lord is not committed to such a policy, but there are members of his Party who are—or, at least, talk as if they are. Perhaps one should not refer to Mr. Enoch Powell as a member of his Party.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: Why not?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: If one moves on to the problems which have been so clearly set out in the United States, one sees how careful we have to be about the housing programme. I have a report of a speech made by Mr. Albert Walsh, Chairman of the New York City Housing Authority. At the outset he said this:
"The question, 'Is public housing heading for a fiscal crisis?' must have been framed

257
solely for the sake of rhetoric. Let there be no doubt about it, public housing is not heading for a fiscal crisis, it is already in it. The only question is, 'What will be done about it?'"
He goes on to give some very interesting figures to show the problem. I think it is important that we should see what the nature of this problem is. Although these figures refer to New York City, I have little doubt that, in basic outline, the problem is exactly the same in this country.
In the year 1952, in the low-cost housing in New York, the average income of a tenant was 2,500 dollars, and the rent charged was 37½ dollars a month. The operating expenses for the apartment were 31·4 dollars a month, and so there was a profit of a little over 5 dollars a month. In 1957, the income of the tenant had risen. The rent had gone up to 47¾ dollars a month, and the operating costs had gone up to 44·3 dollars a month. In 1967, the income of the tenant was up to 4,127 dollars—a rise of 65 per cent. in the income from 1952—but the rent had gone up to 64·4 dollars, a rise of 71·6 per cent., whereas operating costs had gone up to 70·8 dollars, which was a rise of 126 per cent. In other words, the operating costs had outrun the rent, and yet the rent had gone up more rapidly than the person's income.
Here, my Lords, is the problem—and it arises just as clearly in our big cities as in New York. One finds a strange anomaly. If one looks at the rise in incomes one finds that it is the poor people whose income rises least rapidly. This we must bear in mind. The figures come out from New York City that the tenant's income (this is an average tenant in this low-cost housing) over the years from 1952 to 1967 had gone up from 2,500 to 4,127 dollars. In the same time, the income of the caretaker of the apartments concerned had risen from 2,600 to 5,300 dollars. In other words, the caretaker's income had gone up somewhat more rapidly than the average income of the tenant. When we come to the maintenance man, we find that his income had gone up from 3,100 to 8,200 dollars—a sensationally different change. When we come to the housing assistant, we see that his income had gone up from 3,300 to 8,100 dollars. One sees that
258
the better off you are, the more rapidly your income goes up. This comes out very clearly in America. It is equally true in this country, for all that those of us who are better off may say. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This has been going on and still goes on.
My Lords, without a national policy, without a policy of public housing, and without giving priority to public housing, we shall never cope with this problem of dealing with housing for poor people. Although I regret the slowness of development, and although I am sorry that the Government have not done better, I would say to them, "You have done pretty well, but we expect you to do a great deal better."
4.33 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, put this important Motion down in your Lordships' House to-day, because it is many years since we had a housing debate in this House and it is very apt we should have one to-day. The debate has been on a very high level. I was glad to hear the noble Lord who was speaking for the Government say that Her Majesty's Government were going to introduce a financial study into why they failed to reach their target of 500,000 houses. That is very important, but I am going to try to put before your Lordships some of the reasons why I think they have not been able to reach the target of 500,000 houses.
I received yesterday a table of annuities, which I will hand to the Minister, prepared by the Newmarket Urban District Council, where I live, on annuity payments of 9 per cent. for borrowing limits against weekly income. This is illuminating. A man earning £16 a week—and I take that as an average low wage—amid borrow over 30 years from the local authority £1,981; over 25 years, £1,897 and over 20 years £1,767. I made careful inquiries and found that two-bedroomed bungalows built to-day in a rural area of Newmarket (an area where they are no longer building) cost £2,500 to £2,700, plus £650 for land and fees, making a total of £3,150. I refer to accommodation being built in rural areas for old people, to try to induce them to move out of bigger houses so that those houses might: be used for young people.

259
So we can see that people earning £16, unless they can buy a second-hand house, are quite out of the market as regards being able to borrow to buy their own house.
If we take those earning £20—I took £16 because a stableman in Newmarket earns a basic wage of £16 to-day—we find that a person with that wage can borrow £2,477 over 30 years, £2,372 over 25 years, and £2,208 over 20 years. Let us then take those earning £25. I believe that this is about the average wage in East Anglia. People with that wage can borrow £3,096 over 30 years, £2,964 over 25 years, and £2,760 over 20 years. If we go up to £30, which some factories of course are paying although it is well above the average for East Anglia, we find that someone with that wage can borrow £3,715 over 30 years, £3,557 over 25 years, and £3,300 over 20 years. So one must earn something like £30 a week before one can borrow to buy a bungalow costing about £3,350.
I went to one or two private enterprise estates and found that the lowest figure was £3,600 for a two-bedroomed bungalow on one estate, and about £3,900 on another. If one wants anything really decent in the way of a house with three bedrooms it is necessary to pay just over £4,000. That is one of the reasons why we are confronted with these extremely high interest rates. We are confronted to-day with the question of why the Government are not doing better. I was handed a circular sent out on May 1 by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, on rates of interest on loans to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. It gave these figures: loans for not more than 5 years, 8⅛ to 8¼ per cent. interest; for 10 years 8⅝ to 9⅜ per cent.; and for 25 years 9¼ to 9⅜ per cent. My experience on local government is that many local governments take the risk and borrow short and lend long, and it is not good policy; but if they are borrowing long and lending long they have to pay Her Majesty's Government's local loans boards 9¼ per cent. for 25 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that some local authorities, especially those which are Conservative controlled, perhaps were not pulling their weight in
260
building enough public housing and were not being co-operative with Her Majesty's Government. That is not right, my Lords, The problem is this—and I have spoken to town clerks on this matter in the last few days when preparing to speak in this debate. They told me in all sincerity that the more houses their councils build today the more they get into debt because of the enormously high building costs. Therefore, rather than have to put the rates up, which are so high and going up every year, they are slowing down on building.
The urban council where I live have a very good record in the amount of building of public housing since the war, but for the moment they have closed that down completely. They are going to replace some old bungalows, but they do not think it fair to be continually putting up the rents to the existing tenants because year by year they have to keep the housing revenue account in balance. If the account gets out of balance they have two alternatives, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said: they have either to put the deficiency on to the rates or to put up the rents. They have chosen to slow down building, which I think is regrettable. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, knows this problem, and perhaps when he replies he may be able to tell us about it, and also tell us what they should do to try to get some of the interest rates down. We shall not get the houses built so long as these enormous interest rates persist.
There are also enormously increased capital costs. I went to see a builder yesterday to get some information in preparation for this debate, and I asked him what is the average basic wage paid in a town to a tradesman per week. I asked him how much it cost him to send out that tradesman to work, before taking account of any profit. The figures he gave me are illuminating figures, although they are probably well known to your Lordships. He told me that the average wage is between £18 and £20 per week but that by the time the firm send a tradesman out to work it costs them, without their profit, anything between £30 and £33 per week. There is S.E.T. to pay, the National Insurance stamp, the holiday money, and so on. So it is extremely expensive.

261
The same builder also told me that he thought that labour on the site represented probably 60 per cent. of the total cost, the materials representing about 40 per cent. We all know that, on the materials side, the manufacturers get back their S.E.T. after three months. The builders do not get that S.E.T. back, and that is one of the things which has caused this enormous increase in the cost of housing. I am quite certain that my noble friend Lord Brooke is right when he says that in the last six years under the Socialist Government the costs have risen by between £1,200 and £1,500 per house. I think that when our Government left office the figure was something about £2,500, whereas to-day it is a matter of £3,800 to £4,000.
With those few words, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to tell us something about what they propose to do in regard to this problem, because it is a serious matter. They will not get the houses unless they look seriously at the financial provisions which are prevailing to-day.
4.43 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord St. Helens for initiating the debate on this Motion to-day. The subject is one of human concern and one which should exercise the best attention of every Member of your Lordships' House. It is customary, my Lords, to state an interest. I am a director of a building society and also of a development company. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, my noble friend Lord Brooke put some pertinent questions to the Minister, and I hope Lord Kennet will be able to answer them. I had of course prepared my speech, which would have included some of the points which my noble friend Lord Brooke made, but as your Lordships have heard a certain amount of repetition of them it is not my intention to repeat them. It is my opinion that if one quotes a mass of statistics it is possible to blind oneself to some of the cogent reasons for the difficulties with which the housing industry is faced to-day.
If there are certain figures which would be of value in a consideration of this problem. I consider them to be these. The building industry, like any other
262
industry in the country, must take full recognition of the economic facts with which it is faced. Quoting, as I am, from the housing statistics, which form an official document put out by Her Majesty's Government, I believe there can be no argument that in the first three months of 1964 (that is to say, under a Conservative Government) 100,000 houses were started. But in the last four years under the Labour Government, and again taking first quarter figures, one finds that the number of houses started in 1967 under the present Government was 107,000. That figure was up by some 3,000, but it declined to 90,000 in1968 and to 75,895 in 1969, and for the first quarter of this year it is down to 58,653. I put that point for the con sideration of your Lordships, because anyone in the industry who has the responsibility of financing any building project is influenced by the economic factors and I cannot see how it will be possible for the Government to get the 500,000 houses which were promised (and this has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brooke) by the Prime Minister in an election speech, for which I could quote chapter and verse, Hansard, and so on, but which has been quoted by other noble Lords.
As to the 500,000 houses, there was a debate in another place in November, 1969 [Hansard, col. 853], in which, while the Minister of Housing and Local Government admitted that in 1969 the number of houses completed would probably be some 365,000, he went on to say:
"We expect this figure to be approximately the same for the following year"—
that is, for this year of 1970. So whatever the Minister may say, or however he may skate around the facts, there is that admission on the part of the Government that they have failed in an election pledge.
My Lords, what has brought about this state of affairs, and what can be done, if one wants to be constructive—and I am endeavouring to be constructive—in the situation facing us? I have already stated that the number of houses started for the first quarter of this year is down to 58,000. Take transport costs, which of course affect the industry. The tax paid per gallon of petrol has risen by 1s. 9d. since the present Government.

263
came into office. High interest rates for the past few years have greatly increased the cost to builders of maintaining adequate stocks of materials. It is calculated that the incidence of the selective employment tax on the construction industry, including the sum paid by builders' merchants, is £200 million per annum, or 5 per cent. of the total turnover of the industry. The betterment levy charged by the Land Commission is another factor. Could the Minister give us some information to-night about the cost of the Land Commission and how much land has been made available by that Commission? May we have some information as to how the Land Commission is functioning? The betterment levy has increased the building industry's costs. The combined effect of the betterment levy and the corporation tax means that building companies are subject to double taxation.
What can be done? My noble friend Lord St. Helens made some constructive proposals. He mentioned the ten points which were put forward by the Opposition in another place on January 29. Ten proposals were submitted to the Government for consideration. I have mentioned only three and I would ask whether the Government cannot at this stage make a reappraisal of the building industry, so that building firms may be included in the priority class for loans from banks. Secondly, I ask the Government to consider whether it is not possible to take advantage of the selective employment tax rebate, and for the Land Commission and the betterment levy to be abolished. My Lords, to conclude, this is a human problem. Whatever Government are in power, if they fail with their housing policy the homeless can only be in deep despair for it denies to the young their hope of obtaining a property in which to live. And as the months go by the chance of some of these people being adequately housed seems to be fading into the distance.
4.51 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, a number of previous speakers have expressed thanks to the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, for tabling this Motion this afternoon. May I add my thanks to him for reading from the Labour Party's
264
Manifesto at the last Election; I only wish he had read more. I certainly have no complaint if we are reminded of the targets set and the distance we have to travel before we achieve them all. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was very critical of the figures used by my noble friend, Lord Kennet, when he spoke earlier in the debate. It seemed to me that Lord Kennet is as adept in using figures as is the noble Lord, Lord Brooke—and that is some tribute!—but I think he uses them in a better cause.
My noble friend, Lord Kennet, made one point that I think is a very significant one. He used some very simple figures that I regard as being of outstanding importance. He drew attention to the fact that for every four houses built by the last Administration in their last five years the Labour Government has secured five, an improvement of 25 per cent. If the record of the previous Administration was acceptable—and I gathered that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, thought it was—then the record of this Government is good. My noble friend, Lord Kennet, gave reasons why there has been a fall from the record achievement set by a Labour Government. I think the point needs emphasising that the record figure in the field of housing production has been set by this Government, and we are discussing to-day a fall from that very high figure. I believe that the reasons he advanced would have been reasons that would have had to be accepted if the Party opposite had been in power. May I say that I am very glad that they are not in power, because in the light of one's experience throughout one's life I doubt very much whether they would have dealt with the situation in the way that this Government have done.
My Lords, I began my working life in the building industry. At that time there was a housing shortage, and there was a very substantial problem of unemployment. The shortage of housing was less on the surface than it would have been if we had had full employment. Those were the days not of under-occupancy, to which the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, referred; they were the days of love on the dole, when married couples were glad indeed if they could get a single room to live in. I am not ashamed that the Labour Government in five years have

265
built five houses for every four the Conservatives did in their last five years of office.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, spoke on the subject of under-occupancy. Possibly he knows the publication I have in mind; certainly the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, quoted from it. He will find there that a considerable amount of attention has been given and a good deal of advice is being given as to how under-occupancy might be dealt with and how transfers of tenancies might be arranged, not merely between local authorities but between local authorities and people living in privately owned dwellings. It is not without significance that under the last Administration the production of local authority houses fell in quantity quite drastically. That Government also reduced the standards of housing for local authorities—I think that that particular reduction in the standards of building enabled them to boost unit production in the way we have been told. I am by no means ashamed that under this Labour Government the production of local authority housing has gone up by some 40 per cent. I am certainly proud that the standard of building is being improved and that we are returning to the concept of amenities that ought to be provided by local authorities to the ideals enunciated by Aneurin Bevan when he was Minister of Health immediately after the last war.
There are other reasons why I think people have reason to be grateful to this Government for what they have done in the field of housing. I do not think we can discuss this problem of housing solely in terms of what is being provided; we have to see it in the general context of what is being done to enable people to live in houses in which they have grown old and the things that have been done to help people to live in homes of their own if they give up a larger dwelling and go into a smaller one. Let us not forget what has been done by way of supplementary benefits, because never has so much been done to enable people to live in their own homes as by this Government. Let us not forget what has been done in the field of rate rebates. In the year 1968–9 nearly one million people in England and Wales received a rate rebate equivalent to £16 or over, a substantial help to people living on their
266
own and with very limited income. These things have helped people to continue to live in their own homes. If they had not had them they would have had to move out, and the housing situation might have appeared to be not as difficult as it is at the present time.
We all, I think, support the idea of home ownership—I would qualify that remark by saying, where people want it and where people can afford it. As I see it, the great difference between the Party opposite and us on these Benches is that they would use the force of circumstance to drive people to purchase, whereas we on this side regard housing as a social service. That is why we attach so much importance to local authority production. I know a large number of people who want to get married and a large number of people who have got married. These young people face a serious challenge when they contemplate buying a house; and I live in an area where they are almost forced to consider buying if they are going to get a dwelling of their own. If they are going to buy a home at the prices asked in the area where I live, they have to reach an understanding that they are both going to continue at work and are going to put off indefinitely having a family. It is indeed a serious challenge. For so many of them the only real hope of getting a house or a fiat of their own is if the local authority is able to offer them one.
As everybody in this House knows, prices for houses offered for sale are high. It seems to me that nearly every person who puts up a house for sale expects to make a profit on it. I find this a most worrying aspect in the field of home ownership. Houses that I recall being built for sale at £400 are fetching £5,000 in the market to-day, and every time a house changes hands there seems to be an expectation on the part of the seller that he is going to be better off. People do not seem to appreciate what they are doing. They complain that they have to do this because of an inflationary situation. It seems to me that they themselves are helping to create substantial inflationary pressure.
On the question of buying a house to sell for profit, I cannot for the life of me understand the substantial difference

267
in the price of houses offered for sale in different parts of the country. My noble friend Lord Lindgren has told me of the price of houses at Welwyn Garden City where he lives. Houses there are £1,500 cheaper than in the area where I live. This is not because of the extra cost of land or extra labour costs. Here there is a considerable element of scarcity value.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, I would point out that this situation is due largely to the fact that Welwyn Garden City is a New Town and the whole thing is organised by a development corporation.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend says. But this situation arises not merely in Welwyn Garden City but in many other places as well. I take his point, and I appreciate that what he is saying is that possibly we could get a solution to this problem if the methods used in Welwyn Garden City were employed on a greater scale. In regard to private development, I think that probably I am not alone in the real concern that I feel, in that I wonder what some of the estates being built by private enterprise are going to look like in twenty years' time. I am really worried. I know that if they were erected by a local authority they would be referred to as "rabbit hutches". Recently I was looking at a house that I needed to provide for somebody working in an establishment with which I am concerned. I was appalled at what was being asked for so little, and the thought came to me, "What is this place going to look like in twenty years' time?". I accept that it is a unit of accommodation. But I feel that we cannot be too careful about the type of development that is permitted to take place.
We on this side have claimed that in the last five years new records have been set with regard to the number of houses completed. We should be wrong to be complacent about what we have done in the light of what has been indicated. I do not know about complacency, but I listened with great care to what was said from the Front Bench opposite and it seems to me that complacency with regard to the last five years of the previous
268
Administration could be detected in what was said.
I end by saying, indeed by repeating, what I said earlier: that from the years 1964 to 1965 we achieved an increase of 25 per cent, in the production of building units of accommodation. I join with my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones in saying that there is no cause for satisfaction, no cause for great congratulation. We regret that we have not been able to improve on that record immediately. Indeed, we must make up our minds and be quite certain that we are going to return to increased production and create greater records than ever before in the period of Labour Government which I am perfectly satisfied will continue for some years ahead.
5.5 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord St. Helens for introducing this extremely important debate. It is true that there has not been a housing debate in this House for some years. There was mention the other day of a debate in another place, but that concerned building construction and not the narrower confines of housing which we have before us to-day. We are concerned at the decreasing rate at which housing is being produced. After the Election promises—or should I say premises?—of 500,000 houses per annum (this point has been well "flogged" this afternoon, but it is still worth while repeating) I would suggest that this is playing with figures for purely political ends. There is surely no one on either side of the House who is not deeply disappointed at the current decline in housing production performance, and who is not conscious that there remains a huge national need for the provision of adequate housing. Perhaps, in terms of explanation or political excuse, there is a confusion between demand and need. Need is a fundamental, an absolute, thing, whereas demand argues the capacity to pay. There can surely be no doubt as to the dimensions of housing need. It is in relation to the capacity to pay that the problem arises.
Noble Lords opposite can scarcely contest the validity of associating means with need. Or need I add, in the hushed tones of the stage prompter, the prefix "From each" in order to make my point clear? But in the housing field this

269
basic philosophy has been lost sight of. We are subsidising the property and not the individual, and in so doing are assisting cases which do not need assistance and causing deprivation to those who do. The anachronism of the means test of forty years ago as compared with the criterion of tax liability to-day is enough, merely by touching upon the point, to indicate that there is to-day the potential mechanism for assessing, on a fair, equitable and declared basis, the extent to which society should and could provide subsidy to those in need, and none to those who do not, and by this means secure a fair distribution of national incomes and prosperity. What I am suggesting is that in housing there is waste—waste in terms of subsidy where none is needed, and waste in terms of complex and unnecessarily tedious procedures. If we could get our priorities and incentives right, such waste could be substantially eliminated, with benefit accruing to all.
The drop in housing production, of course, combines the private and public sectors. Under a Labour Administration the emphasis is placed deliberately upon the public sector rather than on the private sector. Consequently I propose to deal, in the terms of this Motion, mainly with the public sector, because of its topicality and relevance. Therefore it suffices to say, in relation to the private sector, that the decline in production and the immense increase in mortgage rates do no more than accurately reflect the reduction in ability to save. Insufficient saving, or capital formation, arises directly from the abstraction of potential savings from the people in terms of unnecessary and excessive taxation to support bureaucracy. We need not look further than the statistics of growth of direct and indirect taxation since 1964, coupled with political bias towards the public sector, to find our explanation for the drop in output in the private sector. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned the figures of 40 per cent. and 12 per cent.
Let us, therefore, come to the public sector. We have several basic facts with which to deal. Municipal housing was conceived with two basic objectives: one, to provide subsidised rental housing for the needy; two, to secure a mobility of the nation's labour resource so that people could move to the places where
270
the demand for their services existed. On both these counts public housing policy has failed. The most needy section of the community does not live in council housing because, in too large a number of cases, it cannot afford so to do. In parenthesis, let us remember that only about 40 per cent. of local authorities operate rent-rebate schemes. Second, there is a huge disincentive to the occupier of a low-rental house to move to another area, because he is unlikely to secure the equivalent benefit elsewhere and because the State will support his remaining where he is, and possibly doing nothing, under more advantageous terms to him than would apply if he moved. This is an example, if you like, of the waste to which I have referred earlier.
Let me go further. I am personally aware of instances of the same house, or the same house type, being let in various parts of the country, at rents varying from £2 17s. to £4 15s. per week. The houses have been built at the same time, at roughly comparable construction costs. The difference in rentals lies solely in the size of the rate subsidy, which is regulated by the individual authority, in addition to Exchequer subsidy, and greatly depends upon the size of the authority's inter-war council housing stock. This creates a disequilibrium which is undesirable and yet which seems to be an intrinsic and inexplicable element of public housing policy.
Let us now move on to housing standards and construction costs. Housing standards are now in accordance with what are technically referred to as "redefined Parker Morris standards". I do not propose, in the time at my disposal, to discourse upon the validity of these standards in terms of national income equations. They are good standards, and certainly should be achieved if economically possible. Construction costs are influenced by what is known as the "Ministry Cost Yardstick". I believe that the introduction of the Housing Cost Yardstick (will it become the "Metrestick" on January 1, 1971?) is one of the most constructive moves that this Government have made; and it was also initiated by the previous Administration. However, I am staggered that, having introduced the Cost Yardstick in 1967, having reviewed and increased it

271
two years later by 4 per cent., there should have been decreed, on April 15 last, a 6 per cent. increase over the figures established only twelve months earlier.
Building contractors are now required to work under fixed price tenders covering periods of up to two years from the signing of contracts. They are required to guess and to assess increases in their costs over these periods. And, let us remember, there is often a period of four to six months—which I must say is rather a conservative estimate—from the date of tender to the signing of contracts and the commencement of the fixed price term. I suggest that in permitting the wages explosion with which the nation is confronted the Government are guilty of a breach of faith with an industry which is the most intensive employer of labour of all industries in relation to the value of the end product.
The building industry needs, above all else, stability. In other words, the expectation that, year by year, the demands made upon it will not fluctuate beyond certain reasonable limits. The Government have encouraged the industry into investment, into planning, and into expectations which have not been realised. Moreover, in the public housing sector, more and more of the contract award responsibility has been placed with larger groups, such as New Town Corporations, who have by their sheer size made procedures more and more complex—a point that has been mentioned—and pre-contract delays more tedious and protracted. There is enormous scope for speeding up these procedures and also for making better use of techniques which have survived and proved themselves in recent years.
So-called building systems have served their apprenticeship. Some have survived and fulfilled expectations. That is to say, they can be used to build houses more cheaply than by traditional methods, and far more quickly because there are certain techniques which are not influenced by the weather—which, with to-day's interest rate levels, is desperately important—and also can provide the means of securing much higher earnings for the operatives engaged, although making less demand upon national labour resources as a whole.
272
To conclude, we suffer from a declining production of housing. I believe that the building industry is well capable—and has the desire—of coping with the desired rate of output. Moreover, I believe that careful examination of mortgage insurance principles and financing of house building as operated in Canada by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the principles of graduated mortgage subsidy as applied, for example, in France, would be immensely valuable to our economy and our housing need. What is needed is a recognition, if you like, of greater emphasis upon home ownership and graduated subsidy eligibility towards that end; and, in addition, a bold policy towards reality in rental policy on public housing already built. Given acceptance of these realities, the proper incentives must follow. Then it will be possible for us to utilise to the full the resources of our building industry, and to secure an adequate flow of completed houses where they are required and at prices which yield the utmost value for money for the community.
5.17 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I rise to make a brief intervention in this debate in order to emphasise some of the points which might have been made by my noble friend Lord Ilford, had he not been prevented from being present at this debate. I thought that perhaps it might be a good thing not so much to attack, say, the policy of one Party or another in this debate, but to look at some of the reasons why housing policy has not recently been successful in achieving its ends. The Association of Municipal Corporations has, over the years, developed some strong views on the housing problems; problems which have presented undeniable but somewhat intractable difficulties in solution. There is still a need, for instance, for a new approach to housing finance, and local authorities can make valuable contributions from their knowledge and experience. I have no right to assume that the Government will not welcome such assistance, but it would be a relief to the Association if they could be given an authoritative assurance to that effect.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me

273
to ask a question? The noble Lord said that it would be a relief to the "Association" if the Government were to do something. I may have missed part of what he said, because I am not quite sure what Association the noble Lord is referring to.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I was speaking of the relief which I thought the Association might feel if they had an assurance from the Government that in all their actions in respect of a subject of this kind in which their knowledge and experience was immense, they would always give them an opportunity of taking part in their decisions.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sorry, but I must hear it from the lips of the noble Lord himself. Which Association?
LORD MILVERTON: The Association of Municipal Corporations. I understood that the noble Lord had heard of it. It is actually the only Association which one is likely to refer to as "the Association" in this context.
Some authorities, especially those with large slum clearance programmes and where building costs are high, are faced with the problem that they cannot press ahead with their housing programmes without incurring a heavy rate burden or charging high rents. Unfortunately, many of those authorities are also the ones affected by the implications of, for instance, the Ronan Point disaster, and the financial burden upon those authorities has been made even heavier. That is why the Association of Municipal Corporations has expressed so much concern about the size of the Government grant towards the cost of strengthening system-built blocks of flats. It was as a result of the Government's policy that local authorities undertook industrialised methods of building in the first place, and the Association has been urging that the Government should recognise their responsibilities, and the consequential burden upon individual authorities, by making a grant far higher than the 50 per cent. at which the rate has now been settled by the Minister.
Admittedly, 50 per cent. is an appreciated improvement on the 40 per cent. originally offered. There seems to be
274
little prospect of a further increase in the Ronan Point grant, although the Association—do I have to repeat the Association of Municipal Corporations every time I mention it?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is quite enough if the noble Lord mentions the name of the Association once.
LORD MILVERTON:—although the Association of Municipal Corporations considers that nothing less than 75 per cent. could be considered as a reasonable settlement. If no progress can be made on the level of the grant, perhaps the Government will be persuaded to give a higher grant in exceptional cases; for example, Salford and Newham. An assurance on this point would, of course, be welcomed. Moreover, the grant arrangements are currently limited to buildings exceeding six storeys in height. In some cases, however, it has been found necessary to strengthen buildings under that height, and it is hoped to persuade the Minister to pay a similar grant of 50 per cent. on special application for assistance from individual authorities.
The financial burden falling upon authorities over housing finance generally underlines the inappropriate nature of the current restrictions by Government upon rent increases. For example, the consent of the Government is still required for any increase exceeding an average of 7s. 6d. a week, or a maximum increase of 10s. a week. Within those limits there has been, since the beginning of this year, a form of voluntary restraint agreed upon by the aforesaid Association on behalf of its members. But the Association regards this as a transitional arrangement, and expects the Government to fulfil their declared wish to revert as soon as possible to the traditional position, whereby the fixing of council house rents is entirely a matter for local discretion.
Another matter mentioned in the Report of the Estimates Committee is the question of the housing cost yardstick, which has now been increased by an average of about 5¼ per cent. There are, I understand, continuing consultations on the actual structure of this yardstick, which at present tends to discriminate against low density development and small-unit accommodation. The Association's view is that the basic idea of a

275
yardstick is good and carries advantages, as well as difficulties which are probably laregly due to its inflexibility. The statutory obligations of the local authority are clearly to make reasonable charges for rent and to balance the housing revenue account. To the extent that income does not meet expenditure, the balance must come out of the rates.
Housing costs have been seriously affected by the incidence of high interest rates and the use of industrialised building methods, while the Government expectation is that housing authorities should use the subsidies primarily to assist those tenants in the greatest need. But if subsidies are redistributed to pay for the rebates to tenants who cannot afford a standard rent, then the rent of those tenants not eligible for rebate will normally have to be increased.
The Association deplored, and still deplores, the Government's legislative action to enable Ministers to control council house rents. It called in question a long-established relationship, by bringing central control once more into a field of activity which has traditionally and rightly been regarded as a matter for local discretion and decision. Furthermore, in regard to house mortgages it is to be hoped that national economic circumstances will ultimately permit the abandonment of any limit, leaving local authorities free with unfettered discretion to assist with house purchase as a proper adjunct to their general housing powers. I understand that a special Working Party set up by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, on which local authority associations are represented, is now engaged in a study of the problems surrounding rent allowances paid to those in receipt of supplementary benefits.
May I mention two further points? The type of new housing development which has to be undertaken is becoming increasingly more difficult and involved. In many areas vacant land is simply not available. The emphasis is on acquisition of slum properties, clearance, infilling and so forth, all of which takes more time and tends to slow down the rate of progress.
Lastly, my Lords, one has to remember, too, that the housing programme should not be judged solely on the completion
276
of new dwellings. There is now increased emphasis on improvement and the rehabilitation of areas which would otherwise fall into decay. This is part of the Government's own policy as now embodied in the last Housing Act; and the work involved does not produce the same demonstrable results in terms of new completions. It is nevertheless of vital importance; and it is also of vital importance to remember this in considering numbers. In short, we have had from the Government a mixture of words about their intentions and a singular lack of competent, practical management which has dwarfed their achievement. That is why the situation cries aloud for a change in management.
5.31 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long but, with the leave of the House, I should like to pick as many as I can of the points that have been made; and perhaps if there are any left over which are obviously crying out for an answer and I am unable to give it now, I shall be able to write to the Peer concerned later.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, in introducing the Motion, told the story of the difficulties of the elderly couple in the big Victorian house who wanted to get into a council house. I think the point was largely answered by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy, and I have little to add to what he said, except simply to remind the House that the Cullingworth Report says—and I am now quoting from the Report:
"Rather less than half of the local authorities in our sample inquiry do not normally accept applications from owner-occupiers, though a few of these make exceptions in the case of elderly people. This is difficult to justify."
My Lords, I entirely agree with that statement. The Ministry are constantly urging local authorities to provide accommodation for elderly people, and deplore the unwillingness of some authorities to consider those who are already house-owners just for that reason. So I am with the noble Lord in that; and we do what we can.
The noble Lord also asked me about slum clearance, and he particularly asked whether the figure of one million national excess of houses over households in 1973 took account of slum clearance rates. I

277
will not detain the House by giving the annual figures, but let us take a rough sample. When the Labour Government took over, slum clearance was running at about 60,000 to 61,000 dwellings a year. It is now running at about 70,000 a year, and the forecast national surplus to which I have just referred of course takes account of the anticipated continued rate of slum clearance.
I turn now to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. Much of what he said, I think, he will not expect me to reply to because in my view, at any rate, I replied to it in advance.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I should not expect the noble Lord to reply to a great deal of what I said, because there is no possible reply.
LORD KENNET: TO which I would only add that I did not expect the noble Lord to reply to a great deal of what I said because there is no possible reply; and indeed he did not, although he had the advantage of speaking immediately after me. But there are some things that I should like to reply to, because they were constructive and helpful, though some were erroneous, and perhaps I can correct him about them.
On the question of the average price increase of a house being built for sale since the Labour Government came in, I think, if I remember aright, he gave the figure of £1,500. Perhaps we should compare the figure for 1965 (because I know that he is very sensible of the marginal benefits conferred upon this Government by the hangover of activities by the last Government), with the figure for 1969, which is the last full year for which we have figures. I quote the prices furnished by the building societies of the average price of new dwellings, including land, which are mortgaged by private owners; I suppose that is as good a price to take as any. The increase there has not been £1,500, but £1,051.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, could the noble Lord say at this stage whether it is correct that the S.E.T. alone has added £125 to the cost of an average house to-day?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I could not, at the drop of a hat, confirm or deny that figure. It is obvious that it has added something. As the noble Lord will
278
know, Professor Reddaway's inquiry into the effects of S.E.T. has not yet covered housing; and for an up-to-date figure I should like notice and time to inquire.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, inquired about the progress of the housing finance review, which I mentioned. I do not think I should say more about that than I said before. He also asked me to make various forecasts about the housing position during the rest of this year, 1970.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the housing finance review, may I say that I asked whether the local authority associations were going to be associated with it before it reached the stage when final conclusions were becoming crystallised.
LORD KENNET: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. He did indeed ask that; and so, of course, did Lord Milverton at a later stage. The answer is, "Yes", but I think one wants to understand what a review is. A review is simply internal consideration of realities and of possibilities for the development of future policy. The next stage must be a choice by the Government of what they think will be the best future policy. That stage has not yet been reached. When it is, and before any such Governmental choice is carried into effect, then of course there will be the fullest possible consultations, as there always are, between the Government and not only the Association of Municipal Corporations but also the three or four associations which represent other types of housing authorities.
There was one passage in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, which I fundamentally welcome and as to which we are entirely at one. If I remember aright, he was speaking of the difficulties in which housing authorities sometimes find themselves, in this era of high-interest rates and rising prices, in providing enough council houses. He said, speaking of those authorities, "There is an escapist way out, and that is to stop building." "But I am certain", said Lord Brooke, "that that would be wrong". My Lords, so am I, and I am very glad indeed to have it from the noble Lord himself, sitting opposite, that he is certain that that would be wrong. Because there have been certain speeches made by his colleagues who sit on the Front Bench in the House

279
of Commons—not in the House, but in the country—which have raised the suspicion, at any rate in my mind, that they were not always sure that that would be wrong. Of course, we would agree that there are local authorities who are taking that way out: the only question is whether or not it is wrong.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt so often, but this is important. I think it is entirely proper for a Minister of Housing and Local Government from time to time to remind local authorities, regardless of their political colour, of their duty to build more houses. I had to do that to both Conservative-controlled and Labour-controlled councils from time to time.
LORD KENNET: I would not dissent from that, my Lords.
My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones gave the House, I thought, a most valuable reminder of what might happen if we did not pursue the policies we are pursuing, by describing the situation in the United States. In my view, he very accurately laid his finger on the reason why that situation has arisen—that is to say, the lack of public money. Their system does not provide public finance for low-cost housing, as they call it, to the same extent as ours does, and that is why they are in trouble in their cities. I note that voices are to be heard among the Party opposite (Lord St. Helens himself said something of the sort to-day, and my noble friend quoted Mr. Enoch Powell as having repeatedly said it) saying that the role of public finance should be reduced or even terminated in this matter, and that we should free the market. I notice, however, that the reaction of the new Federal Administration in the United States to this all too well known situation was not the same. Their reaction was immediately to send someone to this country to ask how we did it, and how we have managed to avoid the extreme urban decay which they have incurred. I had the great pleasure of taking Secretary Romney myself around one of our New Towns—an example of public enterprise and public money if ever there was one—and I explained how I thought that we had succeeded in doing all that we
280
have done. What the American Administration will make of it in the long run we must wait and see.
The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, asked that various things should be done. He will not be surprised that I am not able to promise to do all of them, but particularly he mentioned that it would be a good thing if building firms were included in the priority claims in the matter of loans. I hope that in that context what I was able to say in my opening remarks about bridging finance in the housing field will be of interest to him. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, if I understood him aright, said that the costs of house building are influenced by the Ministry cost yardstick. I wish it were so. If it were, then all we Should have to do would be to lower the yardstick and the cost would then go down. But that, unfortunately, is not the effect. What the yardstick influences is the amount of money spent on a given house on which the local authority may draw an Exchequer grant. It simply says that if you apply this or that yardstick you get the grant; if you go 10 per cent. over you may do so but you will not get the grant on the 10 per cent.; and if you go beyond that you will get no grant at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, spoke with some feeling about council rents. I hope that he will excuse me if I do not follow him in that matter because I rather think that it is outside the terms of the Motion. The housing finance review question and consultations I have already dealt with. The noble Lord concluded by saying that the housing programme ought not to be judged solely on the new completions rate and that it ought also to be judged by the improvements rate. Coming from a man of his great experience and authority in this matter I think that that is an important opinion. I was very interested to hear it and I am certain that it will become true in the future. I think it is already true to some extent, and I will say no more about that.
In conclusion, I would remind the House of some of the things that were thrown at me and would suggest that some noble Lords may have forgotten them. I would remind the House that I have not sought to deny that the number of completions of new houses was lower last year than the year before. I have not sought to claim that it will go up again

281
this year to the same level at which it was the year before last, in 1968. What I have tried to do is to explain why it happened and to put that in proportion. I have tried to explain about the international phenomenon of high-interest rates. Nobody has taken me up on that. Nobody has said that I was wrong, and nobody has said that although I was right the Government ought to have been able to do something about it. No suggestion has been made of steps which the Government could have taken in order to bring it about that this country, alone of the countries like ours, should be able to maintain an ever-rising rate of new housing completions in the economic climate of the last two or three years. On that defensive note—and I make no apology for that, since I was rather aggressive before—I conclude.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord has been very courteous in answering questions. Before he sits down, would he answer my one remaining question? By how much does he estimate that completions in 1970 will fall short of the 500,000?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is a rash Housing Minister who gives estimates of completions at this time of the year, as I think the noble Lord knows better than I. I am not sure whether he used to give completion forecasts in early May. I should be reluctant to do it. I go no further than to say that I think the completion rate this year will be comparable to that of last year.
5.45 p.m.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, in exercising my right to wind up, very briefly, I would express the hope that your Lordships, like myself, have found this an interesting and constructive debate. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the kind remarks with which he started—or at any rate for the absence of unkindness, which is always very acceptable. I must say to him that I have seldom felt as sorry for anybody in my Parliamentary life as I felt for him when he took the most frightful "bashing" from my noble friend Lord Brooke. He was not greatly helped out by the fact that only two Members from his own side saw fit to support him in the debate.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to inform him that we on this side had so much confidence in the case stated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that there was no need for further support.
LORD ST. HELENS: That is a very good try. May I say how much I personally welcomed the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, as a practical builder? We on this side who initiated the debate wished it to centre on the Prime Minister's pledge at Bradford of 500,000 houses a year by 1970. The most outstanding fact of this debate has been the deafening silence from the other side. There has been no mention of the pledge. They have tried to obscure it by a mass of statistics, not always entirely relevant to the original statistics raised from these Benches. However, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MALTA AID NEGOTIATIONS
5.48 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made with the Government of Malta in the negotiations over aid. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I put down this Unstarred Question because I have been unable to understand how it is that Her Majesty's Government have run into such heavy weather in the discussions with the Government of Malta over the division between gifts and loans in the second quinquennium of the Agreement on financial assistance which we concluded in September, 1964; and because of a widespread suspicion that the heavy weather is of Her Majesty's Government own making and quite unnecessary.
I understand that these discussions, which started in December, 1968, having reached a complete impasse, were broken off on the instructions of Dr. Borg Olivier, the Prime Minister of Malta, at the end of last month. I was glad to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in another place on April 27 last [col. 885]

283
that the right honourable lady, Mrs. Hart, had stated:
"So far as we are concerned, discussions can continue. Clearly, it is only on the basis of discussions that we can find a satisfactory solution."
Later in the debate on the same occasion the right honourable lady warmed to the theme and said [col. 890]:
"… the British Government are anxious and eager to continue discusions …"
We are all very glad about that. It is certainly not my purpose to make the task of Her Majesty's Government in reaching a satisfactory solution more difficult; but we on this side of the House are very anxious about the turn of events. I sincerely hope that the Minister who is to reply will be able to give a clear explanation of the Government's position.
Alas, to-day's debate is taking place while a state of deadlock exists between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Malta. Very briefly, my Lords, I would outline, as I see it, the background to this unhappy state of affairs. Immediately after Malta became independent in 1964, Her Majesty's Government signed two Agreements with the Government of Malta. One was on mutual defence and assistance; the other was an Agreement on financial assistance. Although these two Agreements were concluded through separate Instruments, the second, the Agreement on financial assistance, was, as stated in the second of its Articles:
"subject at all times to the continued operation of the Agreement on mutual defence and assistance."
Those Agreements were entered into when Malta elected to become a sovereign independent State of the Commonwealth.
My Lords, 160 years earlier the Maltese people had voluntarily placed themselves under the British Crown. Throughout those years Malta had been an important British base and her economy had virtually been geared to British defence requirements. By the end of the 1950s it was apparent to Her Majesty's Government that it was necessary to reduce British defence commitments in the Mediterranean and that the consequences of this would be a very serious disruption of the Maltese economy, following on the run-down of
284
the British forces in the Island. It was therefore decided that steps should be taken urgently to diversify the economy of the Island and place it on a footing not dependent solely upon British defence requirements. It was agreed to convert the Naval Dockyard to commercial use and to embark on a very considerable programme to attract industry to the Island and to develop its potential as a tourist centre. This was the first five-year development plan to run from 1959 to 1964, and under it Britain provided £35 million in aid including £7½ million towards the conversion of the dockyard. Two-thirds of this aid was by way of grant.
My Lords, it was clear in 1964, when Malta decided to become a sovereign State within the Commonwealth, that with the continued military run-down, without a major injection of new capital the economy of the Island could not be viable; that there would be massive unemployment and that the people of Malta would be subjected to a long period of extreme poverty because, owing to the rapid change in British defence requirements, they had not had time to adapt their economy to the new circumstances. I think we all felt at the time that we could not allow such an act of ingratitude to gallant people to be perpetrated, and we accepted our moral obligation to seek to prevent it.
It was therefore in this spirit that it was agreed that the sum of £50 million spread over 10 years should be provided by way of grants and loans in order to increase the rate of growth of the Maltese economy; and a further sum of £1 million by way of gift was to be given towards the restoration of historic buildings previously occupied by the Government of the United Kingdom for defence purposes, making a total of £51 million. It was agreed that of the £50 million provided, £18·8 million should be available up to March 31, 1967, and the balance of £31·2 million during the remaining seven years. It was agreed that in respect of the five years ending on March 31, 1969, the division should be 75 per cent. by way of gift and 25 per cent. by way of loan. The division between grants and loans for the second quinquennium was to be the subject of later discussions.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene? I may have misunderstood

285
the noble Marquess. I was not certain which Agreement he was referring to earlier. To the best of my knowledge there is only one. I think he attributed this particular Agreement to the present Government. The noble Marquess will know that the Agreement was signed in September, 1964, before the General Election, and was in fact signed by Mr. Duncan Sandys. I thought I should intervene now to establish which Agreement we are talking about.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct; and, as he may remember, I was myself personally involved in the drawing up of that Agreement. It was a very large sum of money. It amounted to no less than £18 per head of the population. I am convinced that we were right to agree to it and that it was in no way excessive, in view of the special circumstances of the Maltese people; circumstances for which the British were in fact very largely responsible—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, assents to this point of view.
I should also perhaps remind your Lordships that the Maltese, when entering into the defence and financial Agreements concluded after independence, freely offered the defence facilities of the Island to the British forces. Two years after the independence of Malta, that is to say, in 1966, from the Defence White Paper of that year the Maltese people learned to their dismay that the rate of the military run-down was to be considerably accelerated, and that British defence expenditure would in consequence be cut from about £12½ million a year to less than £6 million a year by the early 1970s. Your Lordships will, I am sure, remember the consternation produced by this change of plan and the rowdy demonstrations in Malta that subsequently ensued.
The Joint Mission for Malta, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Robens, published its Report in July, 1966, and suggested a plan which, it was considered, by taking a target of 15,000 new jobs and absorbing the 6,500 people made redundant by the withdrawal of British defence forces, could achieve the full industrialisation of the Island by 1972. It was estimated that that plan would cost £44·3 million—and I give that figure, my Lords,
286
simply to indicate the size of the problem. The present difficulties have, I think, been somewhat complicated by a grant, over and above the £50 million agreed in 1964, of a further £3 million made in 1968 specifically for the dockyards. The £3 million is a grant (I think there is no question about that), but it can be drawn in addition to the £50 million only after April, 1974; that is, outside the 10-year period. If it is drawn before that date (that is in fact when it is wanted) it must be taken temporarily from the £50 million total.
The present position is, as I understand it, that in the negotiations over the division between gifts and loans for the second quinquennium, Her Majesty's Government made an initial proposal that the division should be 75 per cent. loan and 25 per cent. grant; in other words, an exact reversal of the ratio for the first five years. This was unacceptable to the Government of Malta, and after further consideration Her Majesty's Government came forward with a suggestion that it should be 50 per cent. loan and 50 per cent. grant. No one, my Lords, will wish to criticise Her Majesty's Government for efforts to save the hard-pressed British taxpayers' money, but I am bound to say that Her Majesty's Government's whole approach to the second half of the financial Agreement with Malta has the appearance of niggardliness; of being out of line with the assurances given by Mr. Gordon Walker and with the spirit of the Agreement for a £3 million grant for the development of the dockyard, following discussions in March, 1968, with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
In those discussions, and in the Agreement about the £3 million loan, it was specifically stated that this allocation of £3 million would not be taken into account in applying general arrangements relating to the proportion between grants and loans under the financial Agreement. I understand that Her Majesty's Government are now contending that this additional £3 million should be reckoned in terms of a general formula on grants and loans. Will the Minister tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government are now insisting on including the additional £3 million grant within the general formula of grants and loans, and also—and this I can hardly believe is

287
possible—the £1 million gift which was contributed for historic buildings? I should be grateful if the Minister could give me a categorical reply to that question.
Up to March, 1969, £29·3 million had actually been drawn down by the Government of Malta, leaving a balance of £21·7 million out of the £50 million, and no drawings had been made in respect of the second quinquennium. I understand that the offer of the right honourable lady, Mrs. Hart is for a 50 per cent. grant, whereas the Government of Malta are asking for the continuance of the 75 per cent. grant. The right honourable lady has stated in another place that the amount under discussion is £6·75 million—in other words, the difference between what the Government of Malta want and what Her Majesty's Government are prepared to agree to at the moment. Will the Minister explain to the House how his right honourable friend arrived at that figure? I read the official account with great care and I cannot see a clear explanation of how the Minister arrived at that figure of £6·75 million. If the noble Lord could give the House an exact reply, it would be very helpful. If the amount under discussion is in fact £6·75 million as stated by the Minister, we are concerned with whether we lend or whether we give to Malta £1·35 million per annum for the next five years. Of course, if we lend it, that amount will be redeemable in 25 years.
When we entered the original Agreement in 1964 it was thought proper that there should be a review after the first five years. But it seems to me extraordinary that because the economic position of Malta has improved—after all, that was the whole purpose of our financial aid to Malta—Her Majesty's Government should take the line that the terms in the remaining quinquennium should be far more severe than in the original first five years. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to think again. It seems to me that a number of new elements have entered into the picture. One is the accelerated rate of run-down, and I will not deny that Her Majesty's Government have been sympathetic about that. I will not deny that they showed great sympathy over the
288
dockyard. It is for this reason that I find it so difficult to understand what I can only describe as a niggardly attitude over this relatively small sum. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to think again, always bearing in mind the significance of our Agreement on mutual defence.
6.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, after the admirable exposé of my noble friend, my remarks on this subject will be brief. I must confess to having some sympathy with Her Majesty's Government in these difficult negotiations with the Government of Malta. The Maltese are hard bargainers. I have had personal experience of this on a considerably lower level than the noble Lord. Nevertheless, this country has a very special admiration and affection for the George Cross Island. There are many champions of Malta in your Lordships' House and in another place, regardless of Party, and I am unashamedly one of them.
With the relaxation of the currency restrictions and a number of other considerations, I do not believe that there is any reason to suppose that the economy of Malta will continue to increase at the remarkable rate at which it has increased over the last five years. If there ever was a case for unqualified generosity, perhaps this is it. There is another aspect. As the noble Marquess has reminded the House, the financial Agreement of 1964 was linked with a defence Agreement, which was, and is, of the utmost importance to this country and to NATO.
I got the impression when I was in Malta four weeks ago that the fortunes of the present National Government in the next election in Malta depended very largely on the outcome of the present negotiations. The Opposition, the Maltese Labour Party, whatever the merits or demerits of their domestic policy may be, have declared themselves neutralist in foreign affairs. I can only assume that this means that they will abandon their support of NATO and will be prepared to accept economic aid from the highest bidder, relying on their skill in negotiation to avoid any strings attached. That I believe to be a very dangerous course. I must take some comfort, I think, from the assurance given last week by the right honourable

289
lady in another place that the defence aspects of this complicated problem will not be forgotten, but I think it must be in the minds of all of us that on a day not too distant there is a possibility that we may wake up and find a Russian squadron lying at anchor in the Great Harbour, by invitation. Should that happen, it would spell a very great danger for this country, for NATO and ultimately for the people of Malta. I would ask the noble Lord who is replying whether he could reassure me that these dangers are in the minds of Her Majesty's Government in the context of the present negotiations.
6.7 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. He has gone into the financial side with great clarity and I want to add just a few words on a more general line. So far as I can make out, there has been no payment to Malta since 1969. Discussions broke down completely for some five months. Reading the Questions and Answers in another place, I notice that the replies of the Minister of State give the impression, though I am certain she did not mean to do so, that the total figure is still under discussion. She said:
"Clearly, in terms of our very special relationship and friendship with Malta we need to extend as many concessions as possible; but when this comes so sharply into conflict with the developmental needs from our restricted aid budget we are bound to consider what is the right figure to arrive at."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), 27/4/70, col. 887.]
Then she said:
"… one cannot go beyond a certain point in terms of the merits of development and in terms of the demands on Britain's money." [Col. 888.]
I think that we should stress again that the total figure is settled. The only question is the method in which it is going to be paid.
It seems to me that in view of the fact that there are going to be elections in Malta in September, the present Government are running the risk—indeed, I have already heard this criticism—of being reproached with playing politics. Because obviously the present Prime Minister of Malta going to an election with the whole of this matter not cleared up
290
will be at a serious disadvantage. For the sake of this small amount of money being given either in grant or by way of loan and the small amount of interest involved, is it worth risking the defence system of the Mediterranean?—because that is what it may come to.
The breakdown of discussions seems to me deplorable. It is at best incompetence, either on our part or on the part of Malta, or somebody playing politics here or in Malta. If one looks at the present situation in the world, at the clouds of every kind that are gathering, and the few friends that we seem to have at the present time, and then at the key place that Malta holds in the Mediterranean, I should have thought that it was of the utmost importance that we should come to a settlement with them as quickly as possible.
It is no good saying that they are better off than they were and that therefore the terms may be altered. I understand from the present Government that we also are better off. And there is no guarantee, as my noble friend Lord Glasgow said, that their prosperity will continue at the same rate. Surely, my Lords, friends are very valuable to us. With the ties that we have built up with Malta—and many of us, including, I feel sure, the Minister who is to reply, have an affection for the Island which has been built up through our war experiences—surely it is our job at the present moment to hurry up this settlement, and to make our ties even stronger in the future than they have been in the past.
6.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, there are two points that I should like to put to the noble Lord. The position of Malta has been adversely affected by factors right outside her control. Malta has been brought up to a certain way of conducting its affairs, largely connected with defence, with no action on its part to change the fundamental basis of its employment and the life of the country. We know that it has done a number of things in the past to try to establish that life. One is the development of the tourist industry, which I believe is having great success, Malta being popular with those who visit it. As international exchange becomes more easy it may become more difficult to attract visitors than it has been in the past.

291
There is another factor that has affected Malta adversely. The reform of the dockyards was really based on the Suez Canal route. Ships coming from Asia would pass close to Malta and it was an extremely convenient place to go into for repairs. This route has been closed—I do not know for how long, and it may be indefinitely—and that has dealt a further blow to Malta's industries. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that the adverse factors which have affected Malta have been wholly outside their control. They have been dependent on us. I do not say that the Government have not been generous; but Malta will continue to depend on us for the structure of life, for which we are largely responsible.
6.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for raising this matter in your Lordships' House, as I believe this is the first occasion for quite some time that we have had the opportunity to discuss our relations with Malta. I know that whatever may divide us in your Lordships' House this subject does not. Our bonds with Malta are very strong and were cemented, as has been said this evening, by the gallant role that the people of Malta played in the Second World War. It is therefore a matter of exceptional regret to us that we have not yet reached agreement on the terms of the said aid to Malta during the period 1969 to 1974.
The noble Marquess wondered why we were making so much heavy weather of this, and I hope to refresh his memory of what went on during the negotiations in 1964 in which he played a leading part. Before doing so, however, I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, that I cannot believe there is anyone without a particularly evil mind who would believe that the Government would "play politics" in Malta. We have had to consider our position in the light not only of our connections with Malta but also of the considerable and, in some cases, growing needs of colonial territories and other independent territories which, as the noble Baroness knows well, are in desperate need of money, Clearly, although to-day we are enjoying a balance of payments position which is
292
perhaps stronger than it has ever been in her lifetime (and I will not say how long that is), we still need to keep a careful watch on expenditure, and therefore even a few millions is something that one needs to watch with the greatest possible care.
I hope that I may impose upon the House for a moment by digging a little deeper into the history of the present negotiations. The Financial Agreement was signed in September, 1964, by Mr. Duncan Sandys and was entered into at the time of Malta's independence in order to assist in the diversification and development of the economy of Malta, which for so long had been almost entirely dependent upon its fortress existence.
It was specified in the Agreement that for the first five years aid would be made available in the proportion of 75 per cent. grant and 25 per cent. loan. The Agreement did not specify any fixed proportion between grant and loan for the second five years, but left this to be decided in future discussion.
I think I must make it quite clear that in the original discussions leading up to the Agreement the British negotiators made it plain that the high proportion of 75 per cent. grant agreed during the first five-years period was in recognition of Malta's special economic position at the time. Indeed (perhaps the noble Marquess may care to have his memory refreshed on this) I have seen the record of a meeting which took place in June, 1964, in which the British negotiator said that the aid, even for the first five years, would have had to be on a 50–50 basis—not the figure that was eventually agreed—had it not been for the special difficulties which Malta faced; and that during the second five-year period the British Government would expect a more normal pattern within the 75 per cent. grant and 25 per cent. loan. It was envisaged at that time, when the economy of Malta was in a particularly poor state, by Ministers of the Party of noble Lords opposite that the second period would be within 75 per cent. and 25 per cent. My Lords, let us remember that.
The Maltese representative, quite naturally for his part, reserved his Government's position on the division between grants and loans for the second

293
five years. Discussions on this division of the second five years started in Malta in December, 1968. These discussions took place against an economic situation which was infinitely more favourable than had seemed possible in 1964.
Nearly all the projections of Malta's development plan for the period 1964 to 1969, on which the terms of financial aid were based—and I remind noble Lords opposite of what the Government of the day had in mind—proved to have under estimated Malta's economic capacity. The gross national product, which had been forecast to drop to £45 million by the end of 1968, instead rose to £76·5 million, and has improved in the past year by over 13 per cent. We are all deeply gratified that this has happened. Unemployment, which had been forecast to reach 6,382 by the end of March, 1969, stood then at 3,886; and now is even lower. If my memory serves me correctly, thinking of a piece of paper I saw a few moments ago, it is today at the lowest level for the past 21 years. Here again we must be gratified with the progress made. The gainfully employed forecast of 82,775 for the end of March, 1969, similarly improved to 93,466. Here again we must be gratified. Emigration was also much lower, and per capita income rose over this period by some 27 per cent. Malta's foreign exchange reserves are now £90·2 million—among the highest in the world—and are sufficient to finance some 18 months' imports.
Against this vastly improved economic background, but taking into account the special circumstances of our relationship with Malta, the British Government therefore proposed, when discussions started in December, 1968, that aid for the second five years should be made available in the proportion of 75 per cent. loan to 25 per cent. grant. In fact that was the division that Conservative Ministers had in mind when they entered into this Agreement in 1964. These terms were more favourable than those which would be applied to any other country in similar economic circumstances. In giving aid we do not seek terms which it is beyond the capacity of the recipient to bear, nor do we ignore other relevant non-economic considerations; but we must have some regard for the relative wealth of the recipient. Indeed, by all normal aid criteria Malta
294
would to-day not be eligible for grant aid at all.
The offer that we made was rejected by the Maltese, and in consideration of representations made by the Malta Government in January, 1969, we revised our offer to one of 50 per cent. grant and 50 per cent. loan. Unfortunately, Dr. Borg Olivier remains unsatisfied with this offer. But in the light of the continuing strength of the Malta economy we do not believe that we should be justified in offering any more generous terms, again bearing in mind our responsibilities to other territories. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, that it is true we agreed to a figure, but it still needs to come out of the general aid programme? Therefore, too large a grant to one country means that other countries are deprived of aid.
In an attempt to bring about a resumption in the flow of aid to Malta, which under the terms of the Agreement ceased at the end of March, 1969, the British Government did however propose temporary arrangements which would have allowed the flow of aid to Malta to be resumed. This offer would have made available some £5·6 million in grant and an equal amount in loan for the period 1969–71. Unfortunately this offer was turned down. Our position was re-stated by Sir Duncan Watson, our recently arrived High Commissioner in Malta, in discussions with Dr. Borg Olivier on April 13 and 17. But again, I am sorry to say, no progress has been made. Following the statement by the Minister of Overseas Development in another place on April 23, Dr. Borg Olivier stated that he regarded discussions as at an end. We very much regret that the Maltese Prime Minister has felt obliged to take this view, and I should like to make it plain that the British Government's offers remain open.
The noble Marquess asked me about the £3 million which was a special arrangement to help in the Dockyard. It is true that this £3 million would come by grant out of the total figure of £50 million, but we agreed at the same time that we would pay an extra £3 million in the two years 1974 to 1976. In other words, we have (shall we say?) increased and extended the offer that we have made to the Maltese.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I did not think that the noble Lord had forgotten, and I know that he is trying to be helpful; but could he also help me over the question of the £1 million gift for historical buildings? Is that included in the general arrangement about grants and loans?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that this is so. According to my piece of paper, the £3 million and the £1 million for historic buildings were treated alike.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, this is a matter of very considerable importance, because it was specifically arranged in 1964, as the noble Lord well knows, that this sum should be excluded. It was £1 million outside the £50 million. I cannot see how by any stretch of the imagination it can now legimately be considered with the £50 million. It is for this reason that I am asking the noble Lord whether he can explain to me how his right honourable friend arrives at a figure of £6¾ million as being the sum representing the difference between the Government of Malta and Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SHEPHERD: My understanding is that the £3 million and the £1 million to which the noble Lord refers has already been allocated. I believe that in the case of the £3 million this is a figure that will be put on at the end for the years 1974 to 1976. As I understand it, the difference of this £6¾ million arises because my right honourable friend made an offer that for 1969–70 there would be a sum of £5·8 million, and for 1970–71 a figure of £5·4 million, which would readily be made available in grant form if the Malta Government was prepared to resume discussions on the basis of the temporary arrangements proposed in July, 1969. The difference between our 50–50 offer and what the Malta Government have so far indicated to be the minimum acceptable to them is this £6f million. I will certainly look into the point, and if I have in any way misled the noble Marquess I shall be only too ready to write to him and correct myself.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am quite sure the noble Lord has no intention of misleading me or anybody else, but I shall study what he
296
has said with very great care, and if I do not find that I am receiving a clear-cut answer to this question I shall of course return to the charge.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope the noble Marquess will.
May I say, in conclusion, that we sincerely hope that the discussions can be resumed at an early date and that our long-standing friendship with Malta and her people, and our common interests—and these go much wider than our military interests—will eventually lead to a fair and a very friendly solution of this problem.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, could the Minister please give me some reassurance on the defence aspect?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is directed to aid. The noble Earl knows I have to speak with many hats, but that is not one of the hats I am prepared to wear to-night. I will look into the matter and will write.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
GENERAL RATE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
ROADS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
WELLAND AND NENE (EMPING HAM RESERVOIR) AND MID NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS AND WAR GASES
  DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS AND WAR GASES
  HYDE PARK UNDERGROUND CAR PARK
  HYDE PARK UNDERGROUND CAR PARK