Sitting of 24 November 1971

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

    Slum Clearance (Shelter Estimate)
    Mr. Idris Owenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent he took account of the estimate of Shelter Organisation, a copy of which is in his possession, that slum clearance will take 204 years, in formulating his own estimate that all slums in England and Wales can be cleared within 10 years.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): All relevant information available was taken into account.
    Mr. Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Question was asked in good faith but that it has since been ascertained from Shelter that this was a public relations exercise and more of a joke than a fact?
    Mr. Amery: I am sure that any Question put down by my hon. Friend was asked in good faith. I thought that there was a public relations aspect to the Shelter campaign, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there may be many corporation houses in this country empty in a very short period of time for many reasons, not least among them that people are finding it hard to pay the rent, and that there is dual and sometimes treble occupancy taking place once again in some areas?
    Mr. Amery: The rebate system which we are introducing under the Housing Finance Bill, the Second Reading of which was accepted the other day, will correct that position.

    British Rail (Financial Aid)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests he has received from the Chairman of the British Railways Board for greater financial aid and support, the absence of which would result in rail closures; what total subsidy is being given by the Government in 1971–72 and for what length of railway routes; what estimate he has made for 1972–73; and whether he will make a policy statement on rail closures.
    The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): None, Sir. Grant in 1971–72 will be about £58 million for unremunerative rail passenger services on 8,450 route miles. No estimate can yet be given for 1972–73.
    Sir G. Nabarro: In cases in which there is no social grant and British Rail announce their intentions to close, will my right hon. Friend consider selling or leasing these railway lines to appropriate private companies, under light railway orders, in order that the services may be continued? Would he espouse denationalization—more Thomas Cooks—and condemn more Giros, which are anathema to Tories like myself?
    Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend will not expect me to follow him into Giro, but I will content myself today with saying that if he makes a proposal to me I will look at it most carefully.
    Mr. Maclennan: Would the Minister give an assurance that at this time of high unemployment he will look with a favourable eye upon proposals to extend the uneconomic railway social grant and bring forward no proposals for closures of the lines in the North of Scotland particularly, both in view of their likely employment factor and of the need to develop the economies of those parts of the country?
    Mr. Peyton: I am aware of the considerations raised by the hon. Gentleman. I could not give quite the blanket undertaking for which he asks, but I assure him that the needs of the North of

    1313
    Scotland in particular are constantly borne in mind and treated with the utmost consideration.
    Mr. Bradley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the views of all those Conservative Members who sought to harry the previous Labour Government on the need to preserve branch lines running through their constituencies?
    Mr. Peyton: I had no idea that any Conservative Members ever harried the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Roger Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what applications he has now received from the British Railways Board for additional infrastructure grants for the London and south-east network; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peyton: I regularly receive such applications. £40 million of infrastructure grant has already been committed this year to British Railways Board projects.
    Mr. White: Following the announcement of the Borough Market project recently, it was also stated that train services in the South-East—in Kent in particular—would be subject to delay during the construction period. Can I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that the discomforture to passenger services will be minimal, since already both passengers and services are at breaking point?
    Mr. Peyton: I am very conscious of the discomfort endured by commuters day after day, which was one of the reasons which led the Government to back the Borough Market project. I assure my hon. Friend that the Chairman of the Railways Board is also sharply aware of these problems and will do his best to minimise the inevitable inconvenience.
    Mr. Spearing: But does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that priorities for expenditure are also a matter of responsibility to this House? Does he recall that when I asked him in correspondence what priority was being given to various schemes, he said that it was only schemes which were presented by the Railways Board which he could consider? When I asked the Board to inform me of the whole range of schemes it had in mind,
    1314
    it said that it was not prepared to let me have them. Would he look into this?
    Mr. Peyton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has grounds for discontent. If I can remove them, I will.
    Captain Elliot: Commuter services generally have done very badly in recent years in respect of capital expenditure compared with inter-city services. Will my right hon. Friend look into that and see whether he can facilitate increased expenditure on these lines, which carry many millions of passengers?
    Mr. Peyton: I am not sure what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "recent years". I do not think that he can be referring to the last year.

    Motor Vehicles (Pollution)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he now intends to introduce regulations to reduce lead emissions from petrol; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes further legislation to control motor vehicle exhaust pollution.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I will be making an announcement in the near future of what further controls over atmospheric pollution by motor vehicles I consider necessary. I am paying particularly close attention to the use of lead additives in fuel.
    Mrs. Butler: As lead in petrol is now recognised as a serious and growing health hazard in cities, would the Minister indicate whether he is considering the possibility of legislation to compel petroleum companies to make an effective reduction in lead content? Nothing else could be significant in reducing this pollution.
    Mr. Walker: I must ask the hon. Lady to await my announcement over the total position. I am not certain whether the proposals I would make would need legislation or could be done by order. I ask the hon. Lady to wait until the final discussions are concluded.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend take seriously the report in the

    1315
    Evening Standard yesterday about the alarming increase of lead in the atmosphere? Following from that, would he expedite legislation in this matter, because increasingly our overseas motor markets, such as United States and, perhaps, in future, Europe, will demand that engines are able to cope with low octane ratings?
    Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend probably knows, the Chief Medical Officer has stated that it is important that lead content in the atmosphere does not increase. I am well aware of this advice and I shall be taking the appropriate action.

    Teesside Parkway
    Mr. Tinnasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to announce the decision on objections to the Teesside Parkway which was the subject of a public inquiry at Middlesbrough earlier this year.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): My right hon. Friend has today approved Teesside County Borough Council's compulsory purchase order for land for the Parkway as recommended by the inspector following the public inquiry.
    Mr. Tinn: I genuinely thank the Minister for that reply, particularly because a great deal of advance work is waiting on this decision, for which application will be made to his Department and which I hope will receive similar expedition.

    Tree Planting Year
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will sponsor a national tree planting year in 1973, following his promise to consider this suggestion in reply to a supplementary Question by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth, on 28th July. 1971.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I very much wish to encourage amenity tree planting, particularly in view of the losses from Dutch elm disease. I am considering what form of local or national campaigns would be of the greatest assistance, including the possibility of a tree planting year in 1973.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. The purpose of the exercise is to plant trees where they are needed in towns and
    1316
    cities. Under my modest plan there would be no cost to local planning authorities other than the cost of earmarking and preparing the land in towns and cities for the planting of trees donated by families, individuals, organisations, trade unions and other societies.
    Mr. Walker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign he has launched. Cities which have already encouraged similar tree-planting campaigns in urban areas have achieved considerable success and have made a considerable impact upon the quality of the environment.
    Mr. David Clark: Will the Secretary of State have discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in an effort to persuade him to allow some financial help to the Forestry Commission for environmental planning?
    Mr. Walker: The Forestry Commission plays a considerable rôle in helping with the landscaping of motorways, which is now of a very high order. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

    General Improvement Areas
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which have designated general improvement areas; and if he will give details of the number of areas per local authority and the number of householders involved.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Yes, Sir. As the Answer contains a large number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. McCrindle: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The indications are that considerable progress has been made in this respect. I suggest that it would be advantageous to draw to the attention of local authorities the considerable powers that exist under Section 75 of the 1969 Act and that, particularly in general improvement areas, greater impetus be given by the Government to local authorities to take these steps.
    Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says and agree with him. Two hundred and thirty-six general improvement areas have now been declared. In the past 10 months, 123 have been

    1317
    declared, compared with 113 in the previous 14 months.
    Following is the information:

    GENERAL IMPROVEMENT AREAS DECLARED IN ENGLAND UP TO 31ST OCTOBER, 1971

    Areas

    Number of dwellings

    Northern Region

    Ashington U.D.C.

    1

    94

    Berwick upon Tweed B.C.

    1

    318

    Crook and Willington U.D.C.

    2

    219

    Darlington C.B.C.

    1

    233

    Flaxton R.D.C.

    1

    40

    Gateshead C.B.C.

    3

    352

    Hartlepool C.B.C.

    1

    222

    Newcastle upon Tyne C.B.C.

    5

    991

    Prudhoe U.D.C.

    1

    70

    Seaton Valley U.D.C.

    6

    1,244

    Spennymoor U.D.C.

    1

    123

    Stanley U.D.C.

    2

    217

    Stockton R.D.C.

    1

    36

    Teesside C.B.C.

    2

    1,405

    Thirsk R.D.C.

    1

    23

    Wallsend B.C.

    1

    385

    Washington U.D.C.

    4

    1,084

    Workington B.C.

    1

    119

    Yorkshire and Humberside Region

    Aireborough U.D.C.

    1

    125

    Baildon U.D.C.

    1

    54

    Bingley U.D.C.

    1

    355

    Bradford C.B.C.

    2

    2,296

    Doncaster C.B.C.

    1

    178

    Grimsby R.D.C.

    1

    255

    Halifax C.B.C.

    1

    223

    Hebden Royd U.D.C.

    1

    140

    Hemsworth R.D.C.

    1

    13

    Huddersfield C.B.C.

    1

    221

    Keighley B.C.

    1

    533

    Leeds C.B.C.

    1

    352

    Penistone R.D.C.

    1

    15

    Pontefract B.C.

    1

    220

    Rotherham R.D.C.

    1

    355

    Scunthorpe B.C.

    1

    1,062

    Sowerby Bridge U.D.C.

    1

    81

    Spenborough B.C.

    1

    190

    Swinton U.D.C.

    1

    206

    Todmorden B.C.

    3

    326

    Wetherby R.D.C.

    1

    27

    North West Region

    Atherton U.D.C.

    1

    1,238

    Audenshaw U.D.C.

    1

    150

    Barrow-in-Furness C.B.C.

    1

    756

    Blackburn C.B.C.

    2

    254

    Bolton C.B.C.

    1

    254

    Bury C.B.C.

    1

    200

    Cheadle and Gatley U.D.C.

    3

    191

    Ellesmere Port B.C.

    1

    214

    Heywood B.C.

    1

    338

    Irlam U.D.C.

    1

    164

    Kirkby U.D.C.

    1

    296

    Lancaster B.C.

    2

    467

    Leigh B.C.

    1

    352

    Liverpool C.B.C.

    2

    2,106

    Langdendale U.D.C.

    1

    95

    Manchester C.B.C.

    3

    648

    Nelson B.C.

    1

    99

    Oldham C.B.C.

    1

    142

    1318

    Areas

    Number of dwellings

    Preston C.B.C.

    1

    31

    Preston R.D.C.

    1

    300

    Prestwich B.C.

    1

    105

    Rochdale C.B.C.

    1

    320

    Royton U.D.C.

    2

    268

    St. Helens C.B.C.

    1

    267

    Skelmersdale and Holland U.D.C.

    1

    219

    Stockport C.B.C.

    3

    808

    Stretford B.C.

    1

    70

    Warrington C.B.C.

    1

    368

    Whiston R.D.C.

    1

    60

    Whitworth U.D.C.

    1

    244

    East Midlands Region

    Alfreton U.D.C.

    1

    296

    Basford R.D.C.

    1

    149

    Bolsover U.D.C.

    1

    87

    Carlton U.D.C.

    1

    251

    Clowne R.D.C.

    1

    160

    Derby C.B.C.

    2

    618

    Heaton U.D.C.

    1

    72

    Hinckley U.D.C.

    1

    50

    Kettering B.C.

    1

    338

    Leicester C.B.C.

    1

    1,752

    Lincoln C.B.C.

    1

    300

    Loughborough B.C.

    1

    479

    Mansfield B.C.

    1

    290

    Newark B.C.

    1

    183

    Northampton C.B.C.

    1

    296

    Nottingham C.B.C.

    1

    485

    Sleaford U.D.C.

    1

    46

    West Bridgford U.D.C.

    1

    364

    Worksop B.C.

    1

    309

    West Midlands Region

    Atherstone R.D.C.

    1

    216

    Birmingham C.B.C.

    7

    4,050

    Dawley U.D.C.

    1

    20

    Droitwich B.C.

    1

    302

    Halesowen B.C.

    1

    220

    Leamington Spa B.C.

    1

    308

    Redditch U.D.C.

    1

    64

    Shrewsbury B.C.

    1

    535

    Stock-on-Trent C.B.C.

    3

    812

    Warley C.B.C.

    1

    191

    Wolverhampton C.B.C.

    2

    555

    South East Region and East Anglia

    Aldershot B.C.

    1

    253

    Bedford B.C.

    1

    648

    Bournemouth C.B.C.

    1

    472

    Brighton C.B.C.

    1

    406

    Cambridge B.C.

    1

    268

    Chatham B.C.

    1

    216

    Chelmsford B.C.

    1

    140

    Gillingham B.C.

    1

    160

    Gosport B.C.

    1

    633

    Guildfort B.C.

    1

    584

    Hastings C.B.C.

    1

    111

    Huntingdon and Godmanchester B.C.

    1

    158

    Kempston U.D.C.

    1

    631

    New Forest R.D.C.

    1

    24

    Northfleet U.D.C.

    2

    387

    Norwich C.B.C.

    2

    1,491

    Peterborough B.C.

    2

    557

    Portsmouth C.B.C.

    2

    744

    Reading C.B.C.

    1

    568

    1319

    Areas

    Number of

    Sittingbourne and Milton U.D.C.

    1

    92

    Southampton C.B.C.

    1

    537

    Thetford B.C.

    1

    19

    Thurrock U.D.C.

    1

    536

    Tunbridge Wells B.C.

    1

    307

    Walsingham R.D.C.

    1

    201

    Winchester B.C.

    1

    375

    Working U.D.C.

    1

    103

    Greater London—London Boroughs

    Barking

    2

    666

    Brent

    2

    663

    Camden

    8

    1,309

    Enfield

    1

    578

    Greenwich

    1

    488

    Hackney

    1

    363

    Hammersmith

    1

    409

    Haringey

    4

    3,388

    Hounslow

    1

    127

    Kensington and Chelsea

    1

    265

    Kingston upon Thames

    1

    148

    Lewisham

    2

    452

    Waltham Forest

    1

    536

    Wandsworth

    1

    720

    Westminster

    2

    511

    South West Region

    Bath C.B.C.

    2

    1,223

    Bristol C.B.C.

    3

    198

    Exeter C.B.C.

    1

    219

    Gloucester C.B.C.

    1

    263

    Holsworthy R.D.C.

    1

    17

    Plymouth C.B.C.

    2

    410

    Swindon B.C.

    1

    172

    Torbay C.B.C.

    1

    243

    Trowbridge U.D.C.

    1

    157

    Wells R.D.C.

    1

    10

    Voluntary Housing Movement
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the safeguards he will guarantee for the voluntary housing movement in his housing revenue proposals.
    Mr. Channon: The provisions in the Housing Finance Bill will in total considerably increase the amount of money available to the voluntary housing movement. There are also provisions to mitigate special financial difficulties which may occur for individual associations.
    Mr. Tebbit: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I hope that he will note that there is still some anxiety that it will become more difficult to start a new housing association. We all accept that large and substantial associations are
    1320
    needed, but we should not try to stop the formation of new housing associations.
    Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. During the passage of the Housing Finance Bill I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter, and either my right hon. Friend or I will be able to outline in detail the safeguards for housing associations.
    Mr. Crosland: The Under-Secretary keeps giving very reassuring answers on this point, but is he aware that, as the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) said, many sections of the voluntary housing movement have expressed the greatest possible anxiety about the effects of the new Bill, particularly the newer and younger societies? Will the hon. Gentleman underline what he has just said and state categorically that when we discuss this matter in Committee he will take these anxieties into account?
    Mr. Channon: I have told the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion that varying views have been expressed by the voluntary housing movement about these proposals. I am anxious to reach the point at which we can discuss the proposals in detail in Committee, and I am sure that at that stage we shall be able to allay some of the anxieties.

    Housing Register
    Mr. Parkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the Shelter Organisation's recommendation in Shelter Paper No. 2, a copy of which is in his possession, that local authorities should maintain a housing register containing details of all properties within each local authority's boundaries.
    Mr. Channon: I read this paper with interest but do not believe that a housing register would be the best answer to the problems outlined.
    Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that 200,000 houses a year are still becoming unfit? This suggestion by Shelter might be a contribution to tackling this problem and anticipating houses becoming unfit.
    Mr. Channon: I will certainly consider again what my hon. Friend says. There are immense practical difficulties about

    1321
    a housing register. As regards the other suggestions made in the Shelter Paper, local authorities largely have the powers. I hope that the new slum clearance subsidy will be a considerable help to local authorities in dealing with their slum problems.
    Mr. Freeson: I agree that local authorities have the powers, but does not the Question ask by implication that the Minister should encourage local authorities to act? Should not effective housing advisory centres take this suggestion aboard as a central part of their activity? The idea is to have a central register, particularly in areas of stress.
    Mr. Channon: That is a sensible idea. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that great progress is being made with the creation of housing aid centres, which can provide a very useful service in this and many other matters.

    Derelict Land
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider applying the 80 per cent. grant for restoration of derelict land to all areas whether development, intermediate or not.
    Mr. Graham Page: No, Sir. The Government intend to maintaitn the present differential rates of 85 per cent. grant in the development areas, 75 per cent. in the intermediate and derelict land clearance areas and 50 per cent. elsewhere.
    Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a very disappointing reply to the people of Bolton and many parts of Lancashire which are not development areas and not intermediate areas but which have a large amount of dereliction? Is not one dark Satanic mill as bad as another, whether it is in a development area or not?
    Mr. Page: No. We must give preferential treatment to the development areas. This acknowledges their considerable economic problem. The response from local authorities in the derelict land areas to the 75 per cent. grant is encouraging.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when this general subject was last raised in the House the Secretary of State for the Environment implied that those of us who wished these differentials
    1322
    to be extended to the greater Manchester area did not care about areas of high unemployment? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Manchester is an area not only of very bad problems of this nature but also of high unemployment? To deal with both of these problems, will the hon. Gentleman now extend these grants and facilities to the Manchester area?
    Mr. Page: The 75 per cent. grant applies to a very broad band right across from East to West in the North and the Midlands. At 75 per cent. it is a very generous grant and local authorities in the poorer areas, by means of the rate support grant, bring it up to about 85 per cent.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is there not a lack of logic in the way my hon. Friend is approaching this? Do not the special areas have extra inducements to attract industry from elsewhere? In this case, the dereliction is fixed. The dereliction does not move from these areas, so the aid that is given should run equally all along the band.
    Mr. Page: The development areas have economic problems which the others do not. We must maintain this differential.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the rate of progress in the reclamation of derelict land; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Page: Local authorities in the priority areas are making encouraging progress. The estimated gross expenditure on schemes approved for grant in England during the first six months of the current financial year was £3·3 million. This is more than the amount approved during the whole of 1969–70.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that despite the generous Exchequer grant, far too many local authorities are not taking advantage of it? Will he consider killing two birds with one stone by increasing the grant to 100 per cent. in areas of high unemployment, so speeding up reclamation and at the same time creating sorely needed jobs?
    Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman can give me the names of any local authorities which are not responding, I shall be happy to look into the matter. I think

    1323
    it would defeat the object if we were to increase the grant to 100 per cent. In fact, although the poorer areas receive 80 per cent., with rate support grant it already runs up to 95 per cent.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Hunt Committee emphasised that not only investment incentives but environmental criteria militated against industrial areas adjacent to intermediate and development areas? Will he look again at the question of providing better rates for the improvement of derelict land for industrial regions such as wool textile districts which face a serious problem in this matter?
    Mr. Page: We are looking into the problems of the textile areas now to see whether an adjustment can be made in the description of "derelict land" in those areas.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Will the hon. Gentle-reconsider having a 100 per cent. grant, particularly in respect of the special development areas, in which we have a massive unemployment problem? Is he aware that the 15 per cent. that remains for local authorities to find is often the breaking point—particularly in view of his right hon. Friend's generous offer of another £130 million of loan sanction to encourage local authorities to go deeper and deeper into debt?
    Mr. Page: The figures show that the grants are having their effect at the percentages at which they now stand. The amount cleared in 1969 was 2,500 acres and by 1970 it had gone up to over 3,500 acres, which means that local authorities are responding.

    A66 (Penrith-West Cumberland)
    Dr. John A. Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the date of the opening of the public inquiry into the proposed development of the A66 from Penrith to West Cumberland.
    Mr. Graham Page: I have now arranged for the inquiry to be opened in Penrith on Tuesday, 25th January, 1972.
    Dr. Cunningham: I welcome that reply. Why has it taken so long to
    1324
    arrange for this inquiry, bearing in mind the importance of this project to West Cumberland? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there have been no objections to the section of the road west of Cockermouth? If that is so, why has not the go-ahead been given for this part of the road, not only to speed the project but also to provide much-needed employment in Cumberland this winter?
    Mr. Page: I do not think that there has been any substantial delay. The Press announcement of an inquiry was made in September by my right hon. Friend. It was necessary to carry out the statutory procedures and to collect all the objections. We have fixed the inquiry as soon as it can possibly be managed. The inquiry must make its results known and my right hon. Friend must consider them before we can start work on the road.

    Foulness
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the meetings which have taken place between his Department and groups desirous of developing facilities at Foulness.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Meetings have been held with the Thames Aeroport Group and the Thames Estuary Development Company to find out more about their proposals. The discussions have been exploratory and imply no Government commitment to these organisations or to the ideas which they put forward.
    Mr. Douglas: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to give an unequivocal assurance that the Government will not support port development at Foulness with adjacent industrial development which would militate against the expansion of port development in other parts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Walker: No. I cannot give that assurance. We are, however, studying the full regional planning aspects of the varying types of development that could take place at Foulness, and until we have completed our inquiries, which are taking into consideration all the environmental and planning aspects, we cannot announce what form our decision will take.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to meet some of the people who believe that they can still house-train aeroplanes and make them decent to live with near to our big cities, thus obviating the need for the expensive pouring of concrete over large areas of the east coast of the country?
    Mr. Walker: I am always pleased to meet my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Crosland: This is a serious matter. Will the Minister bear in mind that opposition to Foulness—not only local opposition but that from informed quarters—is still very strong indeed? While recognising that he is in the midst of the planning stage, may we have an assurance that when this planning stage in his Department is concluded, he will be willing to have a last reconsideration of whether the case for Foulness still stands, and will he let the House have a final opportunity of discussing the issue?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. The case for Foulness certainly stands. The factors have not altered since we debated the subject and there is no doubt of the need for a third London Airport. The site chosen is, I am sure, the best site in environmental and regional terms.

    Peak District National Park
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the lack of public access to the moors in the Peak District National Park in the vicinity of Meltham.
    Mr. Graham Page: I have received rep-representations about the lack of public access in the vicinity of Meltham from four local organisations and two individuals.
    Mr. Clark: Is the Minister aware that for centuries the public have had access to these moors within the National Park but now find that in this age of increasing leisure, by means of fences and signs they are being prohibited from having access? Will the hon. Gentleman consider making an access order for this piece of moorland?
    Mr. Page: It is difficult for me to talk about the merits of this case because it may go to my right hon. Friend on appeal. The Peak District National Park
    1326
    Planning Board expects shortly to advertise and to submit to my right hon. Friend under the statutory procedures a map showing the extent of public access in the National Park, and my right hon. Friend will consider any representations that may be made about that map. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is the stage at which representations should be made.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this stretch of land is some of the best walking country in these islands and that it would be a tragedy if it were to be enclosed, thus stopping literally thousands of people from enjoying these areas, for the benefit of a comparatively few who want to poop off guns?
    Mr. Page: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not answer the case on its merits. My right hon. Friend is in a quasi judicial capacity, although he gave an undertaking when answering Questions recently that he would consider this overall question of access to parks. He has considered it with the N.F.U. and the Country Landowners' Association, and the Countryside Commission is considering the results of that consultation.

    House Building
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for house building in the public sector; and how they compare with a similar period for 1970.
    Mr. Amery: In Great Britain 104,134 permanent dwellings were started in the public sector in the period January to September, 1971, and 116,310 were completed. This compares with 117,897 starts and 131,634 completions in the same period last year.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that these figures are a total disgrace and look very sad indeed against the claim we used to hear about the Conservatives clearing the slums within ten years? Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of the boast he made in Manchester in the summer of 1969, when he urged local authorities to abandon council house building? Is he aware that 225,000 construction workers are on the dole and that when the new Housing

    1327
    Finance Bill has been in operation for two or three years even these figures will look like paradise?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman should beware of overstating his case. The figures which will be published at the end of the week will, I think, show a welcome rise in public sector building resulting from the understanding by local authorities of the White Paper and the Bill.
    Mr. Crosland: Whatever next week's figures may show, is it not a fact that these figures are serious enough without there being any need to overstate them? Is it not the case that there are over 100,000 unemployed construction workers? In the light of that, is it not remarkable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, when detailing his plans for increases in public expenditure, made no mention of council house building? Will the right hon. Gentleman press on the Chancellor that as part of this programme of increased public expenditure there should be an emergency programme for increasing council house building?
    Mr. Amery: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that there was uncertainty in the minds of many local authorities until the publication of the White Paper on the reform of housing finance and the publication of the Bill. The figures which will be published at the end of this week will, I am sure, show a welcome increase in public sector building, and this in itself is encouraging.
    Mr. Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite table a similar Question every month—[interruption.]—or certainly at regular intervals, in an effort to prove that private enterprise housing does not clear slums just as effectively as council house building? Is it not better to build houses where they are wanted rather than according to dogmatic beliefs?
    Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend has put the matter into perspective.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: May I follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in asking the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of the figures he has just given and of the army of 125,000 building workers who are unemployed, now to request local authorities
    1328
    to launch a crash programme of house building? I admit that it takes time to plan a house, but could they not be asked to bring forward their existing programmes by six months?
    Mr. Amery: As I ventured to tell the House at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate on the Housing Finance Bill, I have written to all local authorities asking them to let me have the latest estimates of their slum problems and of how they can possibly bring forward their necessary action.

    Pollution Offences (Statutory Penalties)
    Mr. Cormackasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his review of the statutory penalties for all pollution offences.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Soon, Sir.
    Mr. Cormack: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he press ahead with his encouragement and ensure that the penalties are really tough and are a genuine deterrent?
    Mr. Walker: Most serious offences will be liable to trial on indictment and in such cases the courts can often impose fines without limit or terms of imprisonment. Maximum fines on summary conviction will be increased substantially. The new scales will, I am sure, provide real deterrence to offenders.

    Compensation
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a Green Paper with proposals for amending the law on compensation.
    Mr. Graham Page: I do not think a Green Paper would be the most appropriate way to announce our intentions when we have completed our review.
    Mr. Lane: Will my hon. Friend reconsider that reply? We all realise how complex the issue is and how full his hands and those of his colleagues are at the moment, but there is great public impatience. Could he try to publish proposals before Easter, in whatever form?
    Mr. Page: We have already consulted very widely—perhaps too widely for speed in making our decisions. I think

    1329
    that it is right that we should publish our decisions quite definitely, and then there will be plenty of scope for discussing them.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Despite the good work done by the Labour Government's legislation for giving compensation in these cases, there are certain anomalies in that one house which is the subject of such an order may get full compensation while the house next door may get only site value. Would it not be more equitable to assess this on a sliding scale so that there is not a sharp division between the house that gets full compensation and the one that gets nothing?
    Mr. Page: That is the sort of thing we have considered in the review, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the results.

    Environmental Control (International Co-operation)
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations his Department has had with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on methods of international co-operation on environmental control matters; and what is his policy towards the purpose and form of international agreements in this field.
    Mr. Peter Walker: My Department is represented in several groups arranged by O.E.C.D. to pool information and ideas about protection of the environment and in particular the economics of control of pollution. I strongly favour international agreements where a part of the environment common to several countries is involved or where sources of pollution, such as vehicles, are articles of international trade.
    Mr. Jones: While recognising the worldwide desirability of standards, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that it would be more rewarding to concentrate the United Kingdom efforts nearer home in Europe rather than widely on the international scene?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I am much in favour of trying to get regional agreements on pollution, particularly pollution of the North Sea, river pollution and so on, and I think that we can make more speedy progress on a regional basis.
    Sir G. de Freitas: In view of the great success of the Council of Europe's European Conservation Year two years ago, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of what he said, working more closely with the Council of Europe, which, after all, is limited to this part of the world?
    Mr. Walker: We work with a number of European bodies. I am anxious to avoid unnecessary duplication, and I think that we can do so while continuing such co-operation.

    Child Pedestrian Casualties
    Mr. Michael Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reduction in casualty figures for children has occurred since the introduction of the Green Cross Code.
    Mr. Peyton: In the period May to August child pedestrian casualties fell by 1,070 or 7·3 per cent. compared with last year. This was achieved at a time when the general trend is upwards.
    Mr. Roberts: In view of the many sincere doubts and reservations expressed at the time of the introduction of the Green Cross Code, would my right hon. Friend consider giving these figures the widest possible publicity?
    Mr. Peyton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's help in doing just that. I should like on his behalf and, I am sure, on behalf of the House, to say a word of appreciation to all those who put this code into effect. It produced some quite striking results.

    Seat Belts
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the result of Government encoragement of the voluntary use of seat belts.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): After the recent publicity campaign in the north-east the proportion of front seat car occupants wearing seat belts was about 28 per cent.—double the level before the campaign.
    Mr. Montgomery: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government are not intent on bringing in legislation to make this compulsory? Could we

    1331
    be assured that they will continue their campaign to get the voluntary wearing of seat belts, in order to reduce the number of deaths in car crashes?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would always prefer to persuade rather than compel.
    Mr. Strauss: In view of the great loss of life avoided by the wearing of seat belts, will the hon. Gentleman suggest to all Members of the House of Commons that they should set a good example by wearing seat belts whenever they take their cars on the road?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

    Bus Licensing
    Mr. Foxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has held with the bus industry regarding his proposals for the modification of the bus licensing system.
    Mr. Peyton: I have had useful discussions with both sides of the industry.
    Mr. Fox: Will my right hon. Friend remember in these consultations that many bus operators are not represented by the organisations he has consulted and that many of them have great sympathy with the modifications he is proposing?
    Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observation. I have seen one or two of the independent operators, outside the associations, who have expressed views similar to those he has just put.

    Use Classes Order
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will amend the Use Classes Order so that planning permission would be required for a change of use from a shop to a restaurant or café.
    Mr. Graham Page: Representations to this effiect have been considered and discussions have taken place with interested organisations; we hope soon to reach conclusions which will be incorporated in an order.
    Mr. Worsley: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the discussions on this subject have been going on for a very
    1332
    long time, under both the previous Government and this Government? Can he give an undertaking that a decision will be reached by the end of this year?
    Mr. Page: I hope it will. I appreciate that the discussions have been going on for a long time. The matter is tied up with the revisions of the General Development Order, and we do not want to make piecemeal announcements about these reforms.
    Mr. Bob Brown: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). The discussions have been interminable. Will the hon. Gentleman make a decision rapidly, otherwise I shall have more chop suey shops than bus shelters in my constituency?
    Mr. Page: I would not say that the discussions have been interminable. We have had consultations with the local authority associations and with the trade, and I hope that we shall come to a decision soon.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: I do not dissent from the thought underlying this Question, but will my hon. Friend make it clear that the mere amendment of the Use Classes Order would not automatically make an application for planning permission obligatory, which, following a long line of decisions in the Court of Appeal, would be a matter of fact and degree in the circumstances of each case.
    Mr. Page: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. What he said merely shows how many consultations one must have on these difficult problems.

    Moped Riders (Accidents)
    Mr. Fidlerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of fatal and serious injuries to motor cyclists during the past year has involved moped riders.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: About one-tenth.
    Mr. Fidler: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the serious nature of the statistics he has just given and consider whether any further regulation is necessary to ensure that those who are relatively inexperienced—that is, moped riders—do not constitute a continuing and growing danger?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. Mopeds generally are less dangerous for their riders than are motor cycles, but my hon. Friend knows that the Secretary of State's proposals will include the compulsory wearing of helmets by both motor cycle and moped riders.

    Transport Vehicles (Security of Loads)
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to increase the measures of enforceability which exist with regard to the security of loads carried by transport vehicles in Great Britain.
    Mr. Peyton: I am having a Code of Practice on Safe Loading prepared in consultation with industry.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: That is a very helpful reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a mother and child who were constitutents of mine were recently killed as a result of a lorry shedding its load on their car? Can he say how many instances of minor or major load shedding by road transport vehicles were reported in the last 12 months and how many of them resulted in death, injury, serious damage or delay? Is he further aware that it is practically impossible to embark on a journey of more than a few miles in this country without observing an insecure load?
    Mr. Peyton: I am well aware of the serious problem to which my hon. Friend referred. I am also aware of the miserable accident to which she drew attention. I think that about 350 accidents have taken place in the last year in which insecure loading played some part. While I cannot give my hon. Friend all the information for which she asked, I can assure her that this matter is not taken lightly.
    Mr. Lipton: In his consideration of this serious problem, will my right hon. Friend apply his mind to the question of nuisance caused by lorries carrying rubbish or loads of sand which are not properly covered so that all the muck and rubbish blows on to following cars?
    Mr. Peyton: Yes, certainly.

    Improvement Areas (Grants)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether
    1334
    he will seek to increase the limit on which grant is payable for environmental improvements in a general improvement area above £100 per dwelling.
    Mr. Amery: We have no firm evidence at present that the existing limit is inadequate, but I am keeping this matter under constant review.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware that, now that we have experience of the working of the grant, there is widespread feeling that to be effective it must be increased quite substantially?
    Mr. Amery: I have heard a number of views expressed in the same sense as that expressed by the hon. Gentleman. If he has any firm evidence for what he said, I should be pleased to receive it.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend always bear in mind that during the war the North-East Coast, because it was thought that we should be bombed to bits, was deprived of new industries and housing? The problem in the area is partly due to the fact that during the war we had to endure a very difficult time, in the national interest. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, when we put forward proposals, we do so in the light of the sacrifices which had to be made in our area in the interests of national security and protection?
    Mr. Amery: I always bear in mind anything that my hon. Friend says. I shall particularly bear in mind what she said today.
    Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give rather more urgent thought to this matter than he seemed to indicate to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop)? The grant of £100 is now worth, in real terms, about £80 compared with the time when it was originally fixed. Will the Minister urgently consider increasing the grant considerably in selected housing priority areas and areas of high unemployment?
    Mr. Amery: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have increased the Government contribution to the grant in the development areas. However, if the hon. Gentleman, with his vast experience of housing matters, would let me have any evidence he may have concerning areas in which an increase would be helpful, I shall be grateful to receive it.

    Beaches (Tipping of Colliery Waste)
    Mr. Urwinasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he now proposes to take in order to prevent further despoilation of beaches by tipping of colliery waste material.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have been very concerned about this problem. A Working Party of officials of the Departments concerned and of the National Coal Board has been set up to examine the financial implications of disposing offshore colliery waste at present being tipped on the Durham Coast. Further consideration will be given to the problem as soon as the Working Party has completed its task.
    Mr. Urwin: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but does he realise that his answer will not be well received in areas such as that which I represent where this problem is very serious? As the tipping of colliery waste material has created and continues to create one of the gravest environmental problems in this country, is it not time that we had action instead of words, remembering that the Armistead Report was presented six years ago and that there have been discussions and conferences at the Department throughout this time? Things should be moving by this time.
    Mr. Walker: For part of those six years the hon. Gentleman was the Minister responsible for the North, and during that time there was not the examination made of this problem that I am now making.

    Improvement Grant Procedure
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to simplify the improvement grant procedure with a view to reducing the length of time it takes to get the formalities organised.
    Mr. Amery: I issued a circular on procedures last July and I believe that local authorities are generally acting on it. If my hon. Friend has any point to the contrary I would be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some parts of the country,
    1336
    such as the City of Leicester, the time taken from initial application to the completion of all the formalities sometimes amounts to over six months? This is proving to be a real handicap in getting on with improvements. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, I will. Six months is far too long.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that the good intentions of his Department are being frustrated by this delay? The time which is being taken in Liverpool is unacceptable. Will the right hon. Gentleman advise local authorities to appoint an officer with power to cut across the different departments involved? Six months for this procedure is a short time in Liverpool where the period is much longer than that.
    Mr. Amery: I have said that applications should be dealt with in a week or a few days and that authorities which take more than four to six weeks should review their procedures.

    Roads (South-West)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of the A30 and A303 have been double-tracked during the past year; how many will be completed during the current year; and what plans he has for extending the Basingstoke motorway M3, to the west towards Dorset.
    Mr. Graham Page: The mileage of dual carriageway on these two routes was increased by 2·2 miles in 1970–71. A further 2·85 miles will be completed this year. My right hon. Friend announced plans in June for the comprehensive improvement of both routes from the end of the M3 through to Penzance.
    Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that at this rate of progress it will be decades before we have proper roads to the South-West? Would it not be far better to get on with extending the motorway?
    Mr. Page: No, Sir. These schemes have only recently been added to the preparation pool and they will be completed. The comprehensive development of the whole of this road—with good, modern standards fully adequate for the

    1337
    traffic it will carry, traffic bottlenecks bypassed and so on—will take place in this decade, quite a good bit before 1980, I think.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of the latest timetable for the eastward extension of the M3 towards London?
    Mr. Page: No, Sir. There are still design problems and statutory procedures to be carried out. I should not like to Rive a date.
    Mr. Crowder: Is my hon. Friend aware that I discovered last August that it was quicker to go from Southampton to Plymouth in a small motor boat than it is by road? Will he do something about this matter?
    Mr. Page: I should like to join my hon. and learned Friend on his motor boat.

    Preston Bypass
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now able to make a statement about the programme for the Preston Northerly Bypass, M55.
    Mr. Graham Page: A public inquiry into the proposals for the route is being arranged for late February, 1972, and it is hoped that construction may start by the end of 1973.
    Mr. Blaker: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said, but may I ask whether he will bear in mind that the congestion and accidents on roads in this area are in the summer months worse than they are at other times of the year and will he have that in mind in relation to the likely completion date?
    Mr. Page: Yes, indeed. I am hoping to get work started on this road as soon as possible, but we are bound by the statutory procedures. I have 52 objections; a public inquiry will have to be held; and then all the procedure of land acquisition will follow. I do not think we can do it any quicker than that, much as we should like to be able to do so.

    A161, Goole
    Dr. Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will
    1338
    carry out an investigation to discover how many motor vehicles, and in particular how many heavy goods vehicles, pass over the railway level crossing on the A161, Boothferry Road, Goole, during an average weekday, and to discover what proportion of this traffic is estimated to be traffic to or from Goole Docks and traffic passing through Goole, respectively.
    Mr. Graham Page: No, Sir. I suggest that the hon. Member aproaches West Riding County Council, who are the highway authority.
    Dr. Marshall: Does the Minister hope that the effects of Government policies for Humberside will increase both through traffic and dock traffic on the roads of Goole, making the need for a relief road absolutely essential?
    Mr. Page: Yes, I think this is important. Right back in 1967 the West Riding County Council submitted a proposal for a southern by-pass. The scheme did not command sufficient priority to justify inclusion in the preparation list at that time, but I understand that the county council will make proposals later this year, when I shall be only too happy to consider them.

    Lorries (Parking in Residential Areas)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is now considering to curb the nuisance of parking in residential areas by heavy lorries.
    Mr. Peyton: I am considering the recent report of the Working Party on lorry parking.
    Mr. Dykes: I am grateful, of course, for the immense work which my right hon. Friend and the Department as a whole do, and I am appreciative of it, but could the Government not now act with a sense of urgency on this problem, in view of its gravity? Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the depredations by heavy vehicles in urban and residential areas, particularly in large conurbations such as London and Birmingham, and is it not time now for really urgent action to curb these monsters destroying the environment, particularly for old people and children?
    Mr. Peyton: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend said about the gravity of the problem and the urgency, and I can assure him that my Department is fully aware of it and needs no reminders of the fact that it needs dealing with, and quickly. It is, however, an exceedingly complicated problem, and one in which many industries are involved, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to take up an attitude which, if carried to its logical conclusion, would simply add intolerably to the cost of transport.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even if, in this business, he and his Department appreciate the urgency of the matter, the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan Police Force certainly do not, and will he use his influence with his colleagues at the Home Office to bring pressure to bear on the Metropolitan Police to cease obstructing the wishes of the London boroughs, and on the G.L.C. to make use of the powers which the G.L.C. already possesses to ban overnight parking of lorries in parts of London where there are off-street parks or where the nuisance is extremely intense?
    Mr. Peyton: The G.L.C., of course, deals with this matter separately. If the hon. Member has any particular area in mind and would like to call my attention to it or to any particular problem—
    Mr. George Cunningham: I have for the past year.
    Mr. Peyton:—I should be grateful to him if he would let me know and I will do my best to see that action is taken.

    Neighbourhood Noise
    Mr. Simeonsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, following the Noise Advisory Council's Report on Neighbourhood Noise, which of its recommendations he intends to seek to implement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have asked interested bodies to give me their views on these recommendations by the end of January. Thereafter I shall be making the appropriate decision.
    Mr. Simeons: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind
    1340
    that there is great concern about the difficulty people in this country are having in overcoming this problem? Will he, when making these decisions, take steps to see that remedies are produced much more quickly than at present?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. Sir.

    Water Services
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to publish his White Paper on water management.
    Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend intends to make an announcement on the future organisation of water services very shortly.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply.

    Historic Towns (New Roads)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when considering plans for new roads, he will bear in mind the environmental value of historic towns so that, where possible, they are relieved of excessive traffic.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Yes, Sir. We have done this in the programme that we have recently announced.
    Mr. Marten: As my right hon. Friend, I am sure, means what he says, as he has usually done in the past, does this mean that we are to get a by-pass at Burford in my constituency?
    Mr. Walker: If my hon. Friend will let me have a specific question about Burford I will look at it, but I do not think that Burford is specified as an historic town.
    Mr. Lane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will also be welcome in Cambridge in that for East Anglia this whole problem is made all the more urgent by the otherwise beneficial prospects of Common Market membership?
    Mr. Walker: I note my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. Marten: In view of the somewhat doubtful nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again.

    Rail Services (No-Smoking Compartments)
    Mr. Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give a general direction to British Rail to provide a greater number of no-smoking compartments in their passenger services.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at present only some three-eights of the seats in trains are allocated to non-smokers although fewer than 50 per cent. of the people of the country smoke? Would he not be prepared to ease the situation, and, perhaps, also promote the anti-smoking campaign by doing something to advise the people of this country of the dangers of smoking?
    Mr. Peyton: No: advice on that subject is a matter for one of my right hon. Friends and not for me. British Rail aims to provide about half the seats in non-smoking compartments, and I hope that my hon. Friend will think that that does not too inadequately reflect the figures which he quoted.
    Mr. Pavitt: Has the Minister seen the report of the B.M.A. requesting further help in this matter? Has he given evidence to the Prime Minister's interdepartmental committee now sitting on the whole question of the report of the Royal College of Physicians on smoking and on advertising smoking in public places?
    Mr. Peyton: No. In so far as I have an interest in the conduct of the railways I think it must be in the direction of urging and assisting the railways to carry their passengers in safety and in comfort.

    Rate Assessments (Revaluation)
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider recommending to local authority valuation officers, now revaluing all properties for 1st April, 1973, in accordance with the provisions of the General Rate Act, 1967, not to increase assessments for that proportion of an improved value to a property which has arisen from the installation of central heating.
    Mr. Graham Page: The revaluation is being carried out by the valuation officers of the Inland Revenue Department, who are obliged by Section 19 of the General Rate Act, 1967, to assess a hereditament on its open market rental value. My right hon. Friend has no power to intervene. Any changes in the legislation must await the outcome of the present consultations on the Green Paper on the Future Shape of Local Government Finance.
    Mr. Rost: Yes, but does my hon. Friend sympathise with the anger of many of my constituents, and householders up and down the country, in regard to the injustice of a rating system which allows a householder's rates to be increased after he has installed central heating at his own personal expense to improve the comfort of his own home, perhaps for his old age? Will my hon. Friend look at this when it comes to discussion of the Green Paper?
    Mr. Page: It will be looked it, of course, but it would be unfair if assessments were not to be consistent and not to reflect the open market rental values of the properties. The householder who had central heating at the outset would be taxed on the extra value but the householder who had the facility installed subsequently would not, and I think that that would be unfair.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: At a time when we are encouraging people to improve their houses, is it not stupid to add to their problems by discouraging them from doing the very sort of thing we want them to do? If my hon. Friend has not now the power, will he get the power to intervene to have this matter put right?
    Mr. Page: This is one of those matters which are being considered in the light of the Green Paper.

    Property Companies (Empty Flats)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to prevent the recent practice of property companies keeping flats empty and refusing to register them until the Government's proposals for higher rents become law, in particular that Clause allowing landlords to agree rents privately with new tenants.
    Mr. Channon: I am not aware of such practices, but if the hon. Member will send me details, including the areas where they are happening, I shall study them.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that I can send him evidence that this is being done by such large companies as the Freshwater Group and that they have said that they will do this? Is it not obvious, in view of the housing shortage, that many landlords will take advantage of this Clause in the Bill by charging exorbitant rents to the highest bidders for empty flats?
    Mr. Channon: If indeed there is that evidence, these people are very misguided, because the Bill has a different effect from that which the hon. Gentleman thinks it has. The situation will be that even if there is an agreement, the tenant at any time will have the right to go to the rent officer; his security of tenure will remain; and if there is a joint application made to register a rent, the rent officer need not necessarily register the rent put to him, but will register what he considers a fair rent.
    Mr. Allaun: But is the Minister aware that these landlords get their tenants to sign a document saying that they regard their rent as a fair rent, so that they will have very little chance when they go before the rent officer, and so will not be likely to go?
    Mr. Channon: Even if that were to happen, it would still not make any difference. Rent officers must register fair rents, and there are many cases in which a rent officer has refused to register a rent even when it has been jointly submitted by landlord and tenant.

    Seaforth Container Berth
    Mr. Simon Mahonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ascertain from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board the date when the new Seaforth Container Berth will be in operation; and what assessment he has made of its effect on employment in Merseyside.
    Mr. Peyton: I understand that the meat berth in the Seaforth Dock is due to come into operation on 6th December; the first four container berths by next Spring; the grain terminal by July:
    1344
    a further container berth and a packaged timber berth by the end of 1972.
    Mr. Mahon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that he hopes, with me, that it will bring more employment and prosperity to Merseyside. Is it not remarkable that a £45 million project should bring no major jobs into the port? The port labour register has dropped from 20,000 to 10,000 jobs, and there are 51,000 people unemployed on Merseyside. Does not this show the need for more initiative from the Government in bringing employment to Merseyside?
    Mr. Peyton: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Seaforth Dock, which represents the future of Liverpool as a port, is in replacement of existing inadequate facilities and not in addition to them.
    Mr. Dell: Does the right hon. Gentleman receive regular confidential reports of the progress of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company?
    Mr. Peyton: I receive fairly regular information.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole complex of this berth is dependent upon one lock, and if that lock became immobilised either through accident or sabotage the whole complex would be put out of operation? Has he taken this point into consideration, and will he consider having another lock added to the complex?
    Mr. Peyton: The cost of another lock, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, would be fairly formidable and would add to the costs of the port. If this principle were to be generally applied to all enclosed docks, it would put a fairly heavy handicap on them.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Mr. Wilkinson (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation on the borders between Pakistan and India, how British subjects and property are affected, and what action Her Majesty's Government is taking.
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): The situation in East Pakistan gives rise to serious concern. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the precise course of events. But it is clear that there have been military clashes on a growing scale in the course of the last few days.
There are no reports of injury to United Kingdom citizens or of damage to British property. Our High Commissioner in Islamabad is in touch with representatives of the British community in Pakistan and has advised those in the border areas to consider moving to areas of greater safety.
As the House is aware my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has throughout been in continuing and close touch with the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India and these contacts are continuing. We are also in close touch with the United States and other governments.
The possibility of a Security Council meeting is one that is constantly in our minds. But neither the Indian nor the Pakistan Government have as yet been ready to call for a meeting. It is far from certain that a public debate at this stage would enhance the prospects of achieving a reduction of tension. The view of other Governments as well as ourselves has so far been that better hopes lie in the continuation of the diplomatic exchanges in which we and they are engaged.
Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the present situation in which attacks are being mounted in the direction of Jessore, Rangpur, Sylhet, Comilla and Chittagong, there is evidence of concerted action of an aggressive nature? As this matter causes such worldwide concern, not least in this country, which has historic, traditional and personal ties with both India and Pakistan, will he, first, ask the Prime Minister of India whether she will at long last accept the offer of the President of Pakistan to invite U Thant's mediation? Secondly, will he ask both countries to adhere to the Liaquat-Nehru ground rules, whereby regular forces were not stationed within five miles of the frontier? Thirdly, if the situation deteriorates, will Her Majesty's Government consider making a forthright statement
1346
such as that issued on 6th September, 1965?
Mr. Godber: Making forthright statements can sometimes be of help, but I am not sure that it would be on this occasion. I am sure that we should all like to see withdrawal from the frontier, and we have urged this on both sides. As to the actual course of events and the particular attacks to which my hon. Friend refers, he will realise that all the reports are confused and conflicting. It is plain that attacks have been made across frontiers, but we are always told that it is the Mukhti Bahini who have crossed frontiers, and the Pakistanis say they have repulsed these attacks. It is the conflict of evidence that is the real problem.
Mr. Healey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the full statement he has made. I think the whole House will share the concern of Her Majesty's Government, and will approve the precautionary measures which have been taken to protect the lives of British citizens should that become necessary.
On the two major issues which the right hon. Gentleman raised, while I understand the reasons why a debate in the Security Council might not assist at this time, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that there is a patent threat to peace, indeed more than a threat to peace, in the sub-continent, and it is urgently desirable that the great Powers should get together to create the conditions for United Nations intervention?
Since the right hon. Gentleman says that he is in touch with the American Government, has he any information about the American Government's contact with the Government of the Soviet Union, and what prospects there is of general agreement by the super-Powers on this issue in the near future?
Mr. Godber: On the last point, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises that I cannot say very much in regard to two other major Powers. I am aware that the contacts exist, and of course we are in touch, as I have indicated, but it is difficult for me to comment further on that.
On the main point about discussion in the United Nations, so long as neither of the two major parties directly concerned is willing to initiate debate, it is

1347
difficult for others to do so. I think that the very high level approaches that are being made to both sides, not only by ourselves but by various others, are the best way at the moment of trying to defuse the situation.
Sir F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that time is running out very fast and, if we are not careful, we shall find the conflict spreading rapidly beyond Pakistan and India? Does the Minister still contend that only guerrillas are involved in East Pakistan? If so, can I be told why those guerrillas have heavy guns, tanks and limpet bombs? Does not the Minister realise that if this intervention goes on, however much my right hon. Friend urges moderation, it will not be long before Pakistan counter-attacks in another part of the sub-continent where it is at less of a tactical disadvantage than it is in Bengal?
Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the dangers of attacks in other parts. On his specific question about the use of regular forces, there is no doubt that they have been engaged. The Pakistanis on their side claim that theirs have been defensive against the Mukhti Bahini. Mrs. Gandhi said in the Indian Parliament today that some regular Indian forces had been engaged, but implied that this was to repulse Pakistani attacks across the border. It is this conflict of charge and counter-charge that is the problem at the moment.
Mr. Shore: Leaving aside allegations as to who is responsible on either side for particular incidents, surely the Minister will agree that the immediate problem is not the continuing rivalry between India and Pakistan but the continuing civil war, or war of liberation, that has been going on in East Bengal for the past six months? If this is so, and if we wish to see conflict avoided in the Indian sub-continent, as we do, the Government, with other Governments, must find ways of bringing pressure to bear on the Pakistan Government to find a solution to the civil war which they have brought upon the people of East Bengal.
Mr. Godber: Yes, I fully accept that the problems within Pakistan call for a political solution within that territory. This is what my right hon. Friend has
1348
repeatedly urged on those concerned. The immediate problem arises with the clashes across the border. The real tragedy is that where this happens things are made much worse for the refugees. What is so deplorable is that one hears that the Bangla Desh radio is supposed to have said that food supplies are now a legitimate target. That is a shocking thing for anyone to have said and should be condemned on both sides of the House.
Mr. J. H. Osborn: Are not the refugees now in a much worse plight? What contact have the Government with the United Nations Agencies to bring food to the refugees? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend say how much British property is involved, and has he any information about British interests being at stake? Thirdly, what steps have been taken to obtain information on the extent to which this conflict is being conducted by the regular army or by the Mukhti Bahini?
Mr. Godber: So far as I am aware, there is at present no risk to British property. As for the conflicting reports on the position of the Mukhti Bahini. I cannot add to what I have already said. It is a situation in which there are bound to be counter-claims on both sides.
The British position on refugees is that we want to continue supplying to the maximum extent we can within the very generous terms in which we have already sought to contribute. We shall certainly do so as long as it is possible for us to do so. If our food supplies come under attack, it will be impossible for us to maintain the supply.
Mr. Pardoe: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not only heavy guns that the Mukhti Bahini have on their side, but justice too? Would he not recognise that as a result of their success the ultimate recognition of an independent Bangla Desh is now inevitable and that we would do well to recognise this fact?
Mr. Godber: The hon. Member is entitled to his point of view, but it would be wrong for Her Majesty's Government to take up a partisan attitude on this matter. We must try to maintain a position in which we can try genuinely to help bring down tension, not to create it.
Mr. Tinn: I fully accept the limitations on the Government's action in matters involving independent countries, which is a matter often under-estimated in the House. However, would the Government use their high level contacts, to which the Minister has referred, to impress on the Indian Government the importance of accepting United Nations observers in the border area which for some time the Pakistan Government have been willing to accept?
Mr. Godber: This is a difficult aspect, and I personally, in contacts at the United Nations and elsewhere, have tried to reach an agreed position on both sides. I should not like to say anything publicly on this matter because, whatever point one takes, one can be criticised from either side. It would be a great help to have United Nations observers on both sides of the border. This is what I should like to see above all else.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR
FRIDAY, 10TH DECEMBER
Members successful in the Ballot were
Mr. Edmund Dell.
Mr. Christopher Tugendhat.
Mr. David Clark.

UNEMPLOYED (DEMONSTRATION)
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may not be within your knowledge, Sir, but at this moment thousands of unemployed workers are marching on the Houses of Parliament or congregating outside this building. I had difficulty in getting into the House because of the large gathering of unemployed there, and I have had experience of the trouble and difficulty caused by this sort of event on past occasions.
Will you, Sir, please take whatever steps may be open to you to facilitate meetings with these unemployed persons because they, like everybody else, pay their taxes which in turn help to keep this place going. Since it is very cold outside it is surely a crying shame that they should be kept outside the building when there are some 1,100 rooms in the building into any of which they could be invited.
1350
May I suggest that you give instructions to the authorities that those people now outside the building should be allowed inside in the warm, and that they should not be kept outside because of the alleged lack of accommodation when there is plenty of room in the building. It may be that if they get cold they may get a little exasperated with the Government and may wish to show their opposition to the Administration in ways which probably we should not welcome. I might suggest that perhaps Westminster Hall could be opened up to them, or the various committee rooms, or even the dining rooms which at this time of the day are unoccupied. I certainly hope that facilities will be made available for these people and that at least we can give them something when all they are asking for is work.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised as a point of order a matter which must be of concern to everybody. I do not think it is a matter for me to decide upon today. So far as Westminster Hall is concerned, I propose to abide by the advice given by the Services Committee in a similar situation during the last Parliament, and I propose to adopt that advice on this occasion. These other matters, however, are not for me today. They are matters of wider consideration involving the whole question of the administration of the building and the provision to be made available. They are not matters of order for me.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have the opportunity to give you notice of this matter or perhaps you would have had the opportunity of referring in the records to a similar incident which I raised with your predecessor. On that occasion there was a similar period of severe weather, and in those circumstances the then Speaker broke the normal rule by allowing into the House more representatives than was usually the custom. Your predecessor allowed those people to enter St. Stephen's Hall and on that occasion that accommodation was more occupied than is normally the case when people are allowed to wait there. I would repeat that it is bitterly cold outside, and I believe it is within your power to instruct the authorities of the House not to abide by their rigid rule of just allowing in a

1351
small number at any one time when there are so many thousands of people waiting outside.
Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly look look into the matter to see whether there is anything than can reasonably be done. The hon. Member will appreciate that Mr. Speaker is in difficulty because he cannot be aware of the conditions outside, but I will see if anything can be done within reason.

BILLS PRESENTED
  AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL
  Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Michael Noble, Mr. Patrick Jenkin and Mr. Anthony Grant presented a Bill to increase the statutory limit on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the British Airports Authority and to enable the Authority to borrow money in currencies other than sterling: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 15.]
  HARBOURS (LOANS) BILL
  Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, and Mr. Eldon Griffiths presented a Bill to provide for loans to harbour authorities to enable them to pay certain debts; to provide for the payment to the Secretary of State of the amount of past loans made by him for that purpose to such authorities; to impose a limit on loans made for that purpose to harbour authorities, on such payments and on loans made under section 11 of the Harbours Act 1964, in substitution for the existing limit on the latter; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.48 p.m.
  The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Transport Act of 1968 left the Transport Holding Company as a rather odd body—a holding company with neither premises nor staff of its own, and very few assets to hold. These, apart from a small engineering company in South Wales, were all concerned in the travel business; 90 per cent. of Lunn-Poly; 50 per cent. of Skyways; Pickfords Travel Service; and Cooks, this being easily the most substantial. The demise of the Transport Holding Company had already been provided for by the previous Administration. What we are now proposing is a modest change in the destination of the assets, a change based upon common sense rather than doctrine.
  Two of the more recent investments by the Holding Company have yielded a melancholy harvest. Skyways, in which the T.H.C. acquired a 50 per cent. holding in 1967, had, only four years later, to be placed in the hands of a receiver after over £1 million public money had been lost.
  Lunn-Poly was even less happy; a controlling interest was bought in 1969 for £400,000 but trading losses estimated at over £1·2 million were incurred before the firm—together with its onerous air charters—was sold to Cunard in the summer. This somewhat misguided investment cost the public over £1·6 million.
  Cooks itself has recently had a dismal profit record. Turnover has steadily increased, but profits, before tax, have declined from £1·2 million in 1968 to £0·4 million in 1970. It cannot be said that Cooks has made the most either of its reputation or of the uniquely favoured position which it occupied at the start of a period of 20 years' boom in the tourist industry.
  In fact, the total return in the years 1966 to 1969 was no more than the

  1353
  interest from the short-term investment of the very substantial amounts of cash which it held free of interest on behalf of its customers. In 1970 profits fell below even this sad level.
  The Government concluded, as I told the House on 27th January of this year, that the right course was to dispose of the T.H.C.'s subsidiaries, and that the company itself should then be dissolved.
  The future of Skyways, which was then in the hands of a receiver, had already passed out of the control of the T.H.C. or the Government. I am glad to say that Lunn-Poly, the Penarth interests, and an aeroplane which was owned by the T.H.C. but used by Skyways have been sold, leaving as the only assets of substance Cooks and Pickfords Travel Service Ltd.
  Pickfords has been doing reasonably well. It operates from the offices of Pickfords Removals, a subsidiary of the National Freight Corporation. It would, clearly, be sensible for it to return to the latter concern to which it is physically attached; indeed, I cannot for the life of me understand why the previous Government ever split it off.
  We therefore laid an order before Parliament on 5th August this year transferring Pickfords Travel Service to the National Freight Corporation as from 1st January, 1972. I feel that hon. Gentlemen opposite will wish to welcome this decision as well as the general approach, both of which are so eminently sensible.
  Cooks, which will shortly be the T.H.C.'s only real asset, grew up as a private firm, and passed into the public sector only by an accident of war when the Belgian company Wagons-Lits, which then controlled Cooks, fell into German hands. After the war it was reorganised as a subsidiary of the railways companies, and on nationalisation in 1948 the shares were vested in the British Transport Commission. Ownership passed to the T.H.C. in 1962.
  It is difficult to resist the conclusion that neither the company nor the public has gained from its inclusion in the public sector. All the evidence suggests that the company would do better in the private sector and that purchasers will be prepared to pay not just for net assets but for the potential profitability of the company. Bearing in mind that the
  1354
  property alone is valued at £8½ million and that total net assets are worth not less than £12 million, we can look for a very substantial price and one which reflects the very great potential of the company. This will provide an immediate and substantial benefit to public funds.
  The Bill is necessary in order to put beyond any doubt the power of the T.H.C. to sell Cooks and thereafter the Government's power to dissolve the T.H.C. This is achieved by Clause 1. Subsection (1) puts beyond doubt the powers of the T.H.C. to dispose of any remaining property, rights and liabilities. The sale of Cooks will, of course, be handled by the T.H.C., which will be seeking, as will the Government, the best possible price. But I will also have in mind wider considerations in deciding whether to approve a particular sale.
  Cooks is a substantial undertaking which in 1970 handled over £90 million in travel and a sum of the same order in travellers' cheques and exchanged some £80 million of foreign currencies. When I made a statement in January the Leader of the Opposition asked whether we intended to sell Cooks
  "to one of the crook organisations in the tourist travel industry which are not too squeamish about the safety of their customers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 813.]
  or to organisations which fleece their customers. As I said then, I was surprised that he felt it necessary to put such a question, and I hope that no hon. Member today will follow such a lamentable example.
  The House will not require my assurance that any such fears are totally unjustified. Of course the Government will wish to give particularly close attention to the financial standing of the proposed purchasers—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) wish to intervene?
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: Perhaps I might intervene in order to give my right hon. Friend a rest. Will he confirm these figures, which seem to be critical to his case? He said that Thomas Cook had a turnover of £90 million, in addition to which it cashed cheques for £90 million. Under those two heads, therefore, the company

  1355
  has a turnover of £180 million. It made a profit before tax of £400,000; in other words, less than a quarter of 1 per cent. of turnover represents its profit, which seems ludicrous.
  Mr. Peyton: It was I who wished to give my hon. Friend a rest. If my hon. Friend had been able to find time to listen to what I was saying he would have heard me put three figures: £90 million on travel, £90 million on travellers' cheques, and £80 million on its handling of foreign exchange. So there is a total turnover of £260 million. As I said, the Government will wish to give close attention to the financial standing of the proposed purchasers, to their ability and intention to carry on the business and to maintain confidence, especially in what one might call broadly the "banking side".
  The Government will also wish to take into account possible implications of the sale for the balance of payments. The House will recall that we have already made it clear that, while overseas bids for a share in Cooks would not be unwelcome, we consider it preferable that the company should remain under British control. I will, of course, take into account the willingness of the proposed purchaser to co-operate fully in the arrangements to safeguard staff interests, to which I shall be referring in a moment. Last, but not least, I shall wish to consider, before giving consent to the sale of Cooks to a particular purchaser, the possible effect of the sale on competition in the tourist industry, including the provision of foreign exchange facilities.
  Clause 1(2) makes it clear that the Secretary of State has the power to give directions about the disposal of securities by the Transport Holding Company. This provision is similar to Section 29(4) of the 1962 Act, and its inclusion is mainly formal. I do not expect that it will be needed. The detailed arrangements for the sale, to which my hon. Friend will be referring later this evening, are now being worked out. I have been informed by the Chairman of the Transport Holding Company that the first step will be the issue of a prospectus in about the middle of next month.
  The remainder of Clause 1 is mainly technical, but I should draw the attention
  1356
  of the House to subsections (5) and (6). These give us limited powers to make grants to the Transport Holding Company or to the body taking over its liabilities.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend note that there is such interest in this passing back to free enterprise of this nationalised industry that there is only one Labour Member on the back benches opposite—and he is asleep—and one Liberal Member?
  Mr. Roy Mason: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. We should not have an intervention upon an intervention.
  Mr. Mason: On a point of order. I think that when hon. Gentlemen who are left on the Government back benches wish to intervene they might also declare their interest when stating why they are present.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was really addressing me.
  Mr. Peyton: While I would not presume—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we really carry on the business of this House on a major Bill without an effective Opposition, as there are only five hon. Members present on the benches opposite, one of whom is a Liberal anyway?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are not points of order for me. We must watch the proper dignity of our proceedings and not be facetious.
  Mr. James Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  An Hon. Member: The hon. Gentleman has just come in.
  Mr. Hamilton: My point of order is that all my colleagues, with the exception of the five who are in the Chamber, are meeting trade unionists who have come from every part of the country to protest about the Government's policy on unemployment. On that basis, it is grossly unfair that reference should be made

  1357
  to hon. Members in that fashion when constituents come to meet them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it would be wise to leave all this discussion and get on with the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Peyton: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend does not require the advice of the right hon. Gentleman or other hon. Gentlemen opposite. I merely make this comment and offer him my advice. It ill becomes him to call attention to the emptiness of the benches opposite when, after all, they look so much nicer that way.
  Sir G. Nabarro: A cheap crack.
  Mr. Peyton: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South is really talking about. When it comes to making comments about cheap cracks—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We really cannot have this discussion going on along these lines. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to continue his speech on Second Reading.
  Sir G. Nabarro: You must get on with your speech, John.
  Mr. Peyton: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I bow to your Ruling. I was seeking only to give my hon. Friend some passing tribute on a subject on which he is undoubtedly an expert.
  I was saying, when I was interrupted, that subsections (5) and (6) of Clause I give us limited powers to make grants to the Transport Holding Company or to the body taking over its liabilities. These may be needed when revenue-producing assets are being disposed of. But some obligations remain; for instance, in respect of pensions and staff compensation. I attach the greatest importance to the interests and welfare of the staff and have already assured the House that pension rights will be safeguarded.
  Clause 2 applies to the sale of Cooks and the subsequent dissolution of the Transport Holding Company provisions for safeguarding the position of the staff comparable with those in the earlier Acts. Detailed consultations will be needed with representatives of the staff, the
  1358
  Transport Holding Company and the purchaser. The Clause, like previous provisions, gives wide enabling powers so that the most appropriate methods to safeguard pension rights and compensate anyone whose job is affected can be settled with all concerned. The Transport Holding Company itself intends to make it a condition of the sale that the purchaser undertakes to maintain the existing pension schemes, which have been revised in recent years, or provide no less favourable alternatives.
  I believe that this eminently reasonable Bill is in the best interests of Thomas Cook and Son, its staff and customers. I therefore commend it to the House.
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Bradley: The Minister has given us a most unconvincing and, at times, almost frivolous explanation for what we on this side of the House regard as a thoroughly undesirable Bill.
  The Bill has been brought here today as a further instalment of the Government's petty and spiteful policy of hiving off profitable sectors of publicly owned industries and services, a policy which formed part of that most devalued political document of all time, the 1970 Conservative Party General Election manifesto. We are, therefore, dealing with dogma and in no sense with proposals which have been designed to be helpful in meeting legitimate and understandable difficulties.
  The assets of the Transport Holding Company, which are to be sold to private bidders, are almost wholly those, as the Minister has explained of Thomas Cook and Son, whose well-known name is a byword for reliability in the unstable world of the travel trade business.
  The management and staff of that firm have given considerable confidence to the public, who have been able to feel that their holiday bookings and cash transactions were safe in the hands of this highly reputable and internationally famous firm. There are many thousands of disappointed holidaymakers who can testify to the opposite experience as customers of some of the less scrupulous operators in the travel trade jungle.
  No summer goes by without stories of distressed and stranded British tourists

  1359
  who have fallen victim to the false prospectus of some suspect travel agency. A number of breaches of the Trade Descriptions Act have littered the news column of our newspapers in recent months. They have become quite common within the travel trade industry. This is not to mention the unfortunate experience of so many tourists who arrive to find hotels unfinished and insanitary. Thomas Cook has been free from that kind of criticism, so we are not here dealing with any question of a public service failure.
  I suspect that what is proving of greater interest to the supporters of hon. Gentlemen opposite is the other side of Thomas Cook's activities, its foreign exchange and travellers' cheques business.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Bradley: In 1970 the foreign exchange business handled by Cooks amounted to £91 million, compared with £93½ million on the travel side. The Transport Holding Company's annual report does not give a breakdown of Thomas Cook's profits, but it is a reasonable assumption that the larger part comes not from tour operating but from travellers' cheques and exchange business.
  That is what has attracted City interests. In addition to the commission charge of 1 per cent. on each cheque. Cook has the use of money for several months before encashment. At the end of 1969, we are told, £14½ million was still outstanding in cheques. During the summer peak the figure is probably double. It is little wonder that we learn from the Press how certain banking and financial groups are jostling in a queue willing to bid for Cooks. After all, they do not have to keep all the company if they acquire it, only the part which yields the highest return.
  Thomas Cook is, in fact, a complicated organisation of many parts. In addition to the sale of tickets and the provision of foreign exchange facilities, it offers individual inclusive tours, package tours, business travel, conference arrangements and certain shipping and forwarding services for importers and exporters. It even owns a holiday camp at Prestatyn. The fixed assets of Thomas Cook are very clearly under-valued in the balance shoot, which takes no account of inflation
  1360
  or movement in the property market. The Government, by unloading Thomas Cook on to the market, are going to create an asset-strippers' paradise.
  The total staff employed by Thomas Cook worldwide is more than 5,000, of whom more than 3,000 are employed within the United Kingdom. They work through 450 branches in 54 countries. In the United Kingdom there are 109 branches and 12 shipping and forwarding branches in addition. At the moment the management is seeking to establish a further 60 new branches in Britain over the next two years in a drive to expand its inclusive tour operations.
  Since the General Election the Conservative Party's plans for the development of Thomas Cook's business interests and the future of its employees have been clouded by uncertainty and speculation. The political intentions of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have produced an atmosphere damaging to morale and detrimental to the successful prosecution of the firm's activities.
  Perhaps at this stage I might declare a personal interest in that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have the honour to be the president of the trade union which caters for Thomas Cook's employees, the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, and I know from meetings which I have addressed in that capacity how anxious the staff are to have their conditions of service and pension entitlements protected in any change of ownership.
  That is why I pressed the right hon. Gentleman on those points particularly on 28th January this year. I acknowledge at once that some provision has been made to meet those requirements in Clause 2, but the position is not entirely watertight, however, having regard to what was done for personnel affected by the 1953, 1962 and 1968 Transport Acts. But that is a matter which we can probe more thoroughly in Committee.
  What I want to emphasise is the total opposition of Thomas Cook's staff to the principle of this sale. They have no desire to be pitchforked into the area of low pay and poor conditions which constitutes the private travel trade, and in which trade union recognition is a rarity.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware

  1361
  that five years ago that could be said of many people working in the steel industry when it was threatened with nationalisation when the political decision was the reverse?
  Mr. Bradley: I thought we were dealing with the travel trade, not with the steel industry. What I have said is a fact. The private travel trade is one of low pay and poor conditions as a general rule.
  Great play has been made by the critics of Thomas Cook that the return of assets has been poor—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Bradley:—but it is important to remember that, whilst the travel side produced a turnover of £90 million a year, it is a commission business, and, therefore, turnover is not a direct guide to profit levels. The tourist business is also prone to fluctuations arising from the international political situation and from individual Government's internal financial policies. Our own currency restrictions and the curbs on foreign travel from France have all played their part. The company has also faced an escalation in general costs, and selective employment tax alone amounted to £360,000 in 1970.
  Nevertheless, I concede that profit levels have at times been too low, and for this situation we must place the blame on top management. That it could have improved the profitability of the company is an undoubted fact. For years the management of Thomas Cook coasted along on the firm's former prestige, content to administer but not to innovate. It was slow into the package tour business, eschewing the new cheap end of the market opened up by others in the 'fifties, believing that such sales were contrary to Cook's traditional image. It is not surprising that it has a relatively small charter business. Also, it was not until four years ago that it ventured into the inclusive tour business.
  Over a period of many years the same managerial mentality stubbornly refused to accept the advice of its staff and the trade union that it should start selling rival operator's tours where Cook had no tour of its own to offer. The management, however, thought that such conduct would be beneath it. Last year this long
  1362
  overdue practice was introduced, and it has been a great success. More than £4 million worth of other operators' package tours has been sold this year, and no extra staff has been needed to do it.
  That has been a big factor in the decision, to which I have referred, to go out for retail expansion in all our major cities. This achievement has come late in the day, and after a decade of resistance by Thomas Cook's management. If the Government are concerned over the way Cook is being run, then the remedy, as they have done with another public corporation, is not to sell the concern but to change the management at the top. All that is needed is change of outlook, not ownership.
  There is no justification for this denationalisation Measure. The travel trade is highly competitive so one cannot argue that the move is necessary in order to increase competition. Indeed, since some of those who apparently want to acquire Cook are private travel interests, the result may well be a reduction in competition and the creation of a virtual monopoly as Cook's retail outlets are used to push own-brand sales to a point which will eliminate very many private travel agencies.
  Mr. Gordon McNalley, the managing director of Exchange Travel, said on behalf of a consortium of travel operators, as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 5th February this year:
  "The travel trade is concerned to prevent the Cook colossus falling under the direction of any particular group which would ultimately wield a power which could dictate its wishes to the detriment of almost any member of the industry."
  In my view, the Minister is missing a great opportunity—
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
  Hon. Members: The hon. Member has an interest.
  Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have an interest in this matter, but not in the tour operating field. As a tour travel agent, I have an interest, but not in Cooks as such and certainly not in Cooks as a saleable proposition. Until recently, Cooks has been selling its own brand and nothing else. As a consequence, it has lost money. Since it has gone over to selling other people's tours, it has been making a little more, and the potential for making

  1363
  more was there because of this wider intake of tours. Clearly, therefore, if anyone takes over Cooks, it would not be in his interests to sell only one brand, since the large spread of Cooks' offices is a very good market for selling all brands of travel.
  Mr. Bradley: I am afraid that the prevalent fear in the travel trade is that the enormous number of retail outlets of Cooks will be used to push the products of any successful bidder. This is confirmed in article after article in Travel News, the journal of the trade.
  I repeat that the Minister is missing a great opportunity to make Thomas Cook the center piece of a national travel and tourist business which could be used in alliance with and to promote all aspects of the B.O.A.C., B.E.A., British Rail and National Bus Company services. Instead, for purely doctrinaire reasons, he intends to allow private enterprise to cash in on the years of hard work by those who have established the high international reputation of this firm.
  Can the Minister not tell us whether bids will be allowed by other public companies? Will he either increase their borrowing powers or permit them to borrow in the City, exactly as private buyers will be able to do, to purchase these assets? There have been rumours in the Press of a restricted B.O.A.C.-B.E.A.-Barclays Bank stake. If this is true, is it another example of this Government's demanding that State undertakers should behave like commercial concerns while at the same time preventing them from doing so?
  Is it intended to sell separately Cooks' shipping and forwarding section? This is a purely freight importing and exporting business. Surely, the best and logical thing to do with this part of the organisation is to transfer it to the National Freight Corporation, where it can be integrated with Pickfords and Container-way Services. With Cooks' contacts throughout the world a very important nucleus upon which a very good and reliable service could be evolved under the National Freight Corporation.
  The Minister admitted today that he had no difficulty in transferring Pickford's Travel Services from the Transport Holding Company to the National Freight
  1364
  Corporation earlier this year. What prevents him from dealing with this specialist section of Thomas Cook in a similar way?
  Mr. Peyton: Before the hon. Gentleman presses this argument further, I would point out that there is a basic difference between the two sides of the House. We would wish to see the public sector diminished, because we do not believe that its contribution to the economy is as favourable as the hon. Gentleman believes it. The hon. Gentleman and his party have made much of public ownership but not a great success of it; this is our point.
  Mr. Bradley: Then I can only assume that it is merely a question of time before the Minister comes forward with proposals to sell British Rail, the National Freight Corporation, the National Bus Co. and other public companies. Of course, if he wishes to inject that kind of political thinking into the life of the country, he is asking for considerable disruption and dismemberment of the economy. Public ownership has many proud achievements. We can give example after example of the way in which it has behaved responsibly. The Minister insists on bringing a doctrinaire approach into this very serious matter.
  I repeat that the Minister should transfer this specialist section of Thomas Cook to the National Freight Corporation in the same way as he did Pickford's Travel Services. A great potential traffic flow is involved here and it requires to be organised on a national and not a competitive basis—
  Sir G. Nabarro rose—
  Mr. Bradley: No. The hon. Gentleman is being almost as rude to me as he was to his right hon. Friend. I would ask him to resume his seat to allow me to get on.
  We are, therefore, utterly opposed to this needless Bill. It is a piece of vindictive nonsense. It is the product of small, politically motivated men who, careless of the uncertainty which they have created, aim only to satisfy the appetites of their party's zealots and business supporters. There is no sound economic reason for what is being done. Individuals should not benefit from the nation's investment. That is why we

  1365
  say that Cooks and all the other hived-off sections of public industry will be reacquired by the next Labour Government on a basis which will bring no financial advantage to those who now buy them. Therefore, for the reasons which I have given, I would ask the House to reject this miserable Measure.
  4.27 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Fox: In welcoming these proposals, I do so not in the belief that they are vindictive or small-minded, as the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) suggested, but rather because I believe that the Minister is being forward-looking in doing something which should have been done in our last 14 years of office. I do not accept from the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are the best people to make commercial judgments on issues of this character. Their record is to the contrary. I believe the Bill to be right, in so far as my right hon. Friend has said that in the first place this was an accident and that this company should have been handed back immediately after the war. We are now putting the record straight: this company has been in a privileged position.
  This company has operated like a State industry public body. We have seen, in a highly competitive field, a mentality that one can best compare with that of the Civil Service. One gets the atmosphere in the head office of this company. This is not a commercial enterprise than can do any good in public hands. The facts speak for themselves.
  I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), but, on my reckoning, a profit of £400,000 on a turnover of £260 million seems to represent one-fifth of 1 per cent. and not a quarter of 1 per cent.—
  Sir G. Nabarro: The Minister in charge of this debate evidently misunderstood my calculation. I deliberately excluded the third item of £80 million, which is not comparable in terms of turnover to the two first-stated items, each of £90 million. When my hon. Friend examines the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he will clearly see that I proceeded with the utmost propriety—placing £400,000 of profit before tax
  1366
  over £180 million and thereby arriving at a profit rate compared with annual turnover of between a quarter of 1 per cent. and a fifth of 1 per cent. I am utterly correct in that calculation.
  Mr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, I do not believe that it is wrong to relate profit to total turnover.
  The company has made several errors of judgment. I question the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East that it should have been in the package tour business earlier. That venture has not been a success. Cooks would have been far better employed building up the side of the business at which it was successful, and at which it had been even more successful in the past. I am referring particularly to travellers' cheques. A discount of 1 per cent. on a turnover of £90 million is not a bad profit to start from. The company has lacked the aggressive sales techniques that any company in that business needs. The progress made by American Express is an example.
  One alternative open to us is to let sleeping dogs lie. That would have been more relevant a little time ago. The Opposition would like us to do that, because to them every part of public ownership is whiter than white.
  Mr. Bob Brown: The hon. Gentleman suggested that Cooks lacked an aggressive sales technique. Would not he rather accept that Cooks have not embarked on the very questionable sales techniques of many of the tour operators?
  Mr. Fox: If the hon. Gentleman believes that aggression in sales is wrong, I am sorry for him.
  Mr. Brown: I said "questionable".
  Mr. Fox: I would not for a moment suggest that I want Cooks to operate as certain people in the industry have operated. But let us keep those people out of the debate, because none of them will be involved in the sale. In any case, they form a small part of the industry, and the public have the answer in their own hands.
  Although I accept the honourable position the company holds, if it is as good as the hon. Member for Leicester,

  1367
  North-East suggests, how is it that the public have turned elsewhere to meet their needs?
  The Opposition's course of action would be to leave things as they are. But we say that the Government should not be involved in the business at all. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on getting rid of Skyways and Lunn-Poly. We are now on the next part of the exercise. I am sure that I speak for many of my hon. Friends when I say that we hope that my right hon. Friend has not finished his venture.
  Sir G. Nabarro: He has not even started.
  Mr. Fox: I believe that he has started.
  The Opposition are always sore when a venture like Thomas Cook fails, but in open competition where the Government are involved free enterprise usually wins. We know the results; we have seen it on so many occasions.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Rolls-Royce.
  Mr. Fox: Rolls-Royce is doing very nicely. The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that it is now improving its position.
  Mr. Lyon: On public money.
  Mr. Fox: Not just public money.
  In an industry where handsome profits have been made, it is nonsense to have a public involvement. At best, it is a wasteful use of public resources, and at worst there is always the risk of a large loss, which will be met by the taxpayer. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated not only on saving the taxpayer money but on giving the public a better service.
  The terms provided by the Bill completely answer the allegation that the staff have been thrown to the wolves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has suggested, they will get far better protection than many private employees who were taken over by nationalised concerns not so long ago. We welcome that. Their rights, and particularly their pension rights, will be looked after.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will get a good price. With assets of £13 million
  1368
  and the scope provided by its turnover, Cooks is a company that should attract a considerable sum. I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that a good sum must be obtained and that the company should stay in British hands. I should like the name "Cook" to be kept, because it is part of our history. Whatever we may say in this debate, none of us decries the immense amount of good the company has done over the years in encouraging travel.
  We on this side could not suggest that the company should be taken over by another nationalised industry. I do not rule out a consortium of a number of companies, and if B.O.A.C. or British Rail, or American Express for that matter, wished to have a part in the company, there could be no objection.
  At the end of the day, I support the Bill, because, as a shareholder—we are all shareholders in the company—I believe that the nation will welcome what we are doing.
  4.36 p.m.
  Mr. Ron. Lewis: I disagree with the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox). Whilst I have no personal interest in the matter, my union has a slight interest in that some of its members are employed by Thomas Cook.
  The dissolution of the Transport Holding Company means, in effect, handing over the largest and most famous travel agency in the world, probably resulting in a hotchpotch of private enterprise companies, not one of them in any way approaching Cooks' world prestige.
  A number of questions need to be answered. What will happen to Cooks' foreign exchange and travellers' cheques business? The sale of travellers' cheques alone totalled £91 million last year. With so many smaller firms and agencies going out of business, is there any other travel company that could match Thomas Cook for public confidence in the provision of financial facilities?
  It is interesting to note the facilities that Cooks now offers: the sale of tickets on behalf of operators—airlines, railways and road and shipping companies; the provision of hotel accommodation, travel insurance and similar auxiliary services; the provision of travellers' cheques,

  1369
  foreign exchange and other financial facilities; individual tours of all kinds, arrangements for business travel and even the arrangement of conferences. There are also the creation and marketing of package holidays. In addition, there are car travel through holidays planned for the motorist; certain shipping and forwarding services for importers and exporters; and, last but not least, a holiday camp at Prestatyn in North Wales.
  Cooks deals with many special and international assignments. From its offices in New York, Paris and Geneva it deals with the travel requirements of the United Nations Organisation, U.N.E.S.C.O. the World Health Organisation and the International Monetary Fund. It also deals with the travel requirements of this House, which are very important. It has an agency agreement with Wagon-Liss, which is one of the reasons why it came into public ownership in the first place. Cooks, unlike any other firm in Britain, covers Europe and most of the world.
  I venture to assert that, once it is sold, there is no other agency which could match Cooks with these facilities. If the Government have their way, it may be matched in bits and pieces, but its international scale could not be matched. It is certain that the British public have a right as owners of Cooks even if they cannot prevent its being sold. This Government have no mandate for the sale, as they had no mandate for the sale of the State pubs in my constituency.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman keeps on saying that the Tory Party had no mandate at the last General Election to deal, for example, with these miniscule operations of denationalisation such as State public houses in Carlisle and Thomas Cook. But we have the overall mandate to reduce the area of public ownership, and it is in pursuit of that that we are getting rid, by hiving off, of unrewarding undertakings such as Thomas Cook and the State pubs.
  Mr. Lewis: I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is dishonest on the part of the Tory Party to do these things when it did not give the electors any opportunity to judge them one way or the other.
  Mr. John Pardoe: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the reason why the Government have no mandate is that they did not command more than half the votes cast at the last General Election; that more votes were cast for Liberal and Labour candidates than were cast for the Conservative Party. If the Conservatives wanted a mandate, they could reform the electoral system.
  Mr. Lewis: If I talked too long about the Carlisle State pubs, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would call me to order, and that is the last thing I want, having had my little say on that issue when the House discussed it.
  Returning to Thomas Cook, a business of this nature and prestige must not be split amongst the companies which so far have expressed an interest. They have done that most probably in the hope of easy pickings, as was the case with the brewers in my constituency. Some of them may be interested in only parts of the business. But the various facilities of the company are interdependent, and the company must not disposed of piecemeal at a give away price. We cannot get any information even now on what is happening in Carlisle because the Government seem to be a little cagey, and many of my constituents seem to think that with the State pubs some backhanders are being given. I do not want that said about this Bill. The company's very size and value make its sale as a single entity impossible at a realistic price, and it must be retained in public ownership if we cannot sell it as a whole at a realistic price. After all, it is the public's money that the Government would be giving away. The public are entitled to a high price.
  The profits in 1970 amounted to about £400,000, compared with £1,100,000 the previous year. But everyone in the travel trade knows today that 1970 was recognised in many respects as a disappointing year in the trade generally.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the profits fell to £400,000 last year, and that profits vary. But he ought to know that in the current year those profits of £400,000 have virtually disappeared.
  Mr. Lewis: I do not know. We had better wait until the financial statement is presented, and then we shall be in a better position to see. But the Government are always selling off the profitable sections of the nationalised industries.
  Sir G. Nabarro: That section is not profitable.
  Mr. Lewis: It is making a profit, as were the State pubs in my constituency. They were making a very handsome profit.
  During the passage of the Industrial Relations Bill and the Code of Industrial Practice the Government made great play of the suggestion that one of their main concerns was encouraging trade union membership. This is an opportunity for them to put their words into effect, because Cooks is the only travel agency with trade union organisation on any scale. Will the Government give an undertaking that a condition of sale will be that trade union membership will be encouraged and sustained by whoever purchases the company? The total staff of Thomas Cook, worldwide, is over 5,000, and many are union members. It is doubtful whether there are as many union members in all other travel agencies combined.
  I was glad of the assurance from my Front Bench today that the Labour Party's policy, when we form a Government after the next General Election, will be that any part of the nationalised industries which is sold now shall be taken back into public ownership without any compensation. I go a little further. When we form the Government of the day I hope we shall look at this question and not even give compensation equivalent to the amount for which these industries are sold. We have already given the undertaking that they will come back into public ownership. I say to whoever purchases them and to whoever purchased the State brewery in my constituency, and all the pubs, "Let the purchaser beware."
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order. I do not know whether you are aware of it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but at this moment the Metropolitan Police have brought in the mounted police at the gates of the St. Stephen's entrance to the House of Commons. I have been watching the
  1372
  events there. There was certainly a great deal of pushing; much too much pushing, in my opinion. But, in my view, to bring in the mounted police is a provocation which will create more problems than it will solve. Under those circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to protest at the use of mounted police and, at the same time, to urge that the officials of the House should make every endeavour to get them removed at the earliest possible moment, and return to some normal procedures at the St. Stephen's entrance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I do not think that that is a point of order for me.
  Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask that the Home Secretary should come to the House and look into the whole matter? This is a very important issue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That, again, is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: Further to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you any authority to send for the Home Secretary because of this situation?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I do not think that I have that authority.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I warmly welcome the Bill. It implements much of what we on this side promised during the recent elections. But not only at the last election, but on many other occasions the Conservatives have made it quite clear that the State should handle as little as possible of the nation's money and that people should be given greater opportunity to spend their own money. This means that raising funds by means of increased taxation to take part in activities which should be no concern of the State should cease, wherever possible, and be reduced where this is not possible. I welcome the Bill as one more move in the right direction.
  I wonder whether the exposition by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) of the virtues of Thomas Cook might not turn out to be the same as that an American congressman would have delivered to expound the virtues of the American Express Company should Congress ever decide to nationalise that

  1373
  company. The virtues of the American Express Company and of Thomas Cook are world-renowned. The company in the United States is in the private sector. The British company has inadvertently fallen into the public sector after the declaration of war in 1939. I believe that Thomas Cook can well revert to the private sector and continue to enjoy the reputation it has recently acquired.
  Mr. J. T. Price: May I be allowed to put the record straight? Thomas Cook has not fallen inadvertently into the nationalised sector. It was put into the nationalised sector by a decision of the House when the railways were nationalised in 1947. No one should make such wild statements as the hon. Gentleman has just made. The decision was that of the British Parliament in 1947. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that silly statement.
  Mr. Osborn: The hon. Gentleman is splitting hairs. He well knows that in 1939 Thomas Cook was taken over by the railway companies. The decision to nationalise the railway companies was taken in 1947. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to correct me he is welcome to do so, but I think that he and I agree on the matter.
  Why must we have the Bill at all? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] Thomas Cook should not have been in the public sector in the first place. I was one of the hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee which considered the Transport Bill in 1968. Section 53(1,a) of the Act contains phraseology which gave hon. Members concerned great cause for thought:
  "(1) The Minister may by order, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament—
  (a) transfer any such property, rights and liabilities of the Holding Company as may be specified in the order, being property, rights or liabilities not already transferred under section 4 or 28 of this Act or this paragraph, from the Holding Company to such other person, being either a publicly owned body (that is to say, a body established for the carrying on of any industry or part of an industry …"
  It is the wording of the 1968 Act which makes it necessary to have the Bill. I regret that the Secretary of State cannot take the type of action which he took with Skyways Coach Air Limited.
  1374
  My right hon. Friend has outlined the need to do this. The company was originally purchased for about £26,000. The public injection of finance was £1½5 million and then there was the further demand for £0½3 million which prompted the course of events which we know. Similarly, Lunn-Poly was purchased for a low figure by Cunard—namely, for some £100,000. The original purchase price was £400,000 and again there was an injection of public money—some £1½3 million.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. A dangerous position is arising outside the House of Commons. Following on from the previous point of order, is it not possible for you from the Chair to ask or instruct the Serjeant at Arms to investigate and see if there is anything in the powers of the Officers of the House which will alleviate this problem, which might get worse?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is going on outside the House is not directly within my purview, but, if something else is going on inside the House, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me and I might then be inclined to ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the past it has been a matter where instructions have been given to the Serjeant at Arms. No one understands better than hon. Members the difficult task that the police have on an occasion like this. There are a very large number of people outside who feel very strongly. I will not go into the merits of the issues which have been debated in the House. All of us have sympathy for the police in this. I have met literally hundreds of those who have come within the precincts of the Palace. They are peaceable, and I think that they are concerned to put their point of view in a peaceful way.
  If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have no powers to ask the Serjeant at Arms to look into this matter on behalf of hon. Members, all of whom want to see the lobby proceed peacefully and the task of the police eased, is it not for the Government Front Bench to make representations to the Home Secretary that someone on his behalf should watch this situation

  1375
  and intervene to ensure that it is as peaceful a demonstration as I am sure that most of the demonstrators wish it to be and as the whole House wishes it to be?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As it is plain that there is something going on which we desire should not go on, it would probably be best for me to ask the Serjeant at Arms to see if he can find out what is happening and to inform me.
  Mr. James A. Dunn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether, through you, we can address a question to the Leader of the House, who is also the Chairman of the Services Committee, which holds responsibilities for the services of the House and for the approaches to the House and request that he, too, should make inquiries.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it is sufficient if we ask the Serjeant at Arms to do this for the moment, and to inform me of what is happening.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order. We are glad that the Leader of the House has now arrived. I appreciate that events have moved quickly, and we therefore understand the position in which the right hon. Gentleman finds himself. We welcome the speed with which he has come to the House.
  May I repeat, for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman, what has gone before? First, you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, have acceded to the request that the Serjeant at Arms be asked to inquire what is happening. All of us want to protect the police. Second, I have said that all of the demonstrators whom I have met are very peaceable and friendly. If this matter is outside the purview of the Serjeant at Arms, perhaps the Government Front Bench will bring the matter to the attention of the Home Secretary so that he can have a representative there to see that as far as possible this matter is dealt with with the utmost consideration, so that those who want to come to the House and lobby in a peaceful manner will be allowed to do so.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point
  1376
  of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I respond to the Leader of the Opposition and say, first, that I am grateful for the way in which he has raised this matter.
  Representations will be made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms will look into the matter. It is in the first instance a matter for him and for the Inspector of Police on the spot. I will see that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is duly warned.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I am grateful to the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in the House attending the debate a few minutes ago when the point of order was raised about the police. I have just been outside. As some criticism was levelled, may I say that the police outside seem to be doing a splendid job with great good humour but they are having to cope not only with the unemployed, but with large numbers of students who obviously are not unemployed.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. No one made any allegations against the police in the previous point of order.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not for any hon. Member on either side to seek to make a judgment. All that we can ask you to do—you have now agreed to do it, and the Leader of the House has also agreed to take action—is to ask those who are competent to take direct action so to do.
  I apologise to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) for interrupting his speech.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: I appreciate the seriousness of the situation which gave rise to that interruption, and I will continue with my contribution to this debate.
  In my view the incursion of the Transport Holding Company into, for example, the Lunn-Poly and Skyways Coach Air Ltd. type of business did not prove a success. The public money invested in Thomas Cook could have been more wisely spent.
  What do we know about Thomas Cook? It is clear that it should never have been brought into the public sector,

  1377
  where it has existed for a number of years. Its presence among other public industries sticks out like a sore thumb. It is like a golden nugget in a sack of coal. It is a great and valuable asset among all those interests that have been nationalised.
  It is not my purpose to discuss whether a sack of coal, by which I mean the existing nationalised industries, is of poor or good quality. Nor is it my purpose to discuss the way in which any of these industries are run. Time and again we have discussed reports of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries. We have tried to establish yardsticks for the running of individual industries and we have suggested the form in which public accounts should be presented.
  I suggest that a coal merchant does not necessarily have the expertise to handle gold, and this type of gold, which is bought and sold throughout the world, is better handled by the dealers who specialise in this type of precious metal. Thomas Cook is a nugget of good quality but in view of what has been said about it and the criticism that has been made of its management, it is clear that it has become somewhat tarnished.
  I appreciate my right hon. Friend's difficulty in this matter. If he were to run down Thomas Cook now and condemn its management and structure, he would make it more difficult for the Transport Holding Company to sell it at a good price, and he must give an assurance that public money is not wasted by debasing an asset for which he is responsible. On the other hand, if he praises its virtues too greatly hon. Gentlemen opposite will say that there is no case against keeping it as a State enterprise.
  Thomas Cook is the type of activity which should not be run by the State, and time and again my hon. Friends have made it clear that there are fringe activities and assets that ought to be released by such sales and used to expand those businesses for which the nationalised industries are primarily responsible. To put it bluntly—and I promise not to continue with this analogy—dealers in rare metals do not trade in coal. Coal merchants are well advised not to trade in gold, and this parallel—
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman must, before proceeding, say why, if what he has said is true, we have such things as conglomerates in private enterprise. Is it really necessary for everyone to stick to his last when it is possible for marketing organisations to handle a great many different products?
  Mr. Osborn: That subject is probably best pursued in debates following the Reports of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries. In any event, the nationalised industries as a whole have given a poor return on the capital employed, particularly when they are in competition with firms carrying on similar activities in the private sector. If the hon. Gentleman will read speeches I have delivered on this subject in the past, particularly when we have debated reports of the Select Committee, he will see that I have made my views clear.
  I come to the imputation by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite that the management of Thomas Cook has not been progressive and that this has been responsible for many of its failings. Parliament is not well fitted to criticise management, and this is one of the problems we face, whether we are debating a small or large nationalised industry.
  Be that as it may, let us consider what we know about the travel industry. I have been in touch with the—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no!"] I do not apologise for interrupting the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and I do so in the knowledge that the point I wish to raise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has already been raised with the Chair on two occasions. I raised it with Mr. Speaker and foretold that there would be a lot of trouble unless assistance was given to the electors and taxpayers of this country who are being forced on to the unemployment market and who have come here by appointment to see their hon. Members.
  I rise on a point of order to inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that these citizens are being prevented from coming here, into the Palace of Westminster, although they have appointments to see their hon. Members. Outside the doors

  1379
  of this building are hundreds of policemen preventing them from entering, yet there are plenty of rooms in this House available and empty. Westminster Hall, St. Stephen's Hall and all the Committee Rooms are empty. Our constituents are waiting outside to see us and we have made appointments with them to come here to talk to us. This is a breach of privilege, I claim, because no one—I emphasise "no one"—is entitled to stop hon. Members meeting and discussing matters with their constituents.
  I want you to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that someone has given an order. As a result, police are stopping people from coming into this House to see us. I ask you to defend the democratic right of the people to come here and see their hon. Members. I urge you to order, not to ask, whoever was responsible for giving this order to the police to withdraw it so that we may see our constituents. Nobody should prevent my constituents from coming here to see me.
  I am very well aware that a number of hon. Members feel the same way as I do about this because they, too, have made appointments to see their constituents—[Interruption.] I intend to refuse to allow the debate to continue until you see to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I retain my right to see my constituents. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not care about this. I do.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The hon. Gentleman is making loud statements.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: People are making loud protests.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is not true.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker:—because he has doubtless been doing other things.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have been here, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Steps have already been taken—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was here.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am replying to it.
  Steps have already been taken to find out what is happening. When the report is made to me, I shall decide what, if anything, I can do.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order.
  Mr. Orme: On a point of order.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am speaking to one. You made a false statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Orme: On a point of order—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: You have made false statement—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Peyton rose—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. You are wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) resume his seat?
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I simply want to tell you that I was in the House and heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have just been outside. I can tell you what is going on out there, Sir.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman refrain from trying to monopolise the proceedings?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: My point of order, in addition to reminding you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was here and heard the Leader of the Opposition speak about this and the Leader of the House answer him, is to tell you that the mounted police are batoning down my constituents. I want—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat I shall have to name him.
  Mr. Will Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I have been in the Chamber intermittently during the debate. I was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) raised this matter a little time ago. I thought I heard you say at that time that the matter he raised was not within your province, that you could not deal with it. In view of what you have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)—that you have commenced inquiries into the matter—presumably that has happened during one of the periods in which I have been out of the Chamber. Is that the present position?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
  Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been out several times during the afternoon to see constituents. I took part in the march this morning from Euston to Tower Hill, which was well-conducted both by the marchers and the police. Unfortunately, someone in the early part of this evening gave orders to use mounted police to clear the area outside St. Stephen's entrance. This has had a very bad effect. The area is now cordoned off, arrests are being made and people are being prevented from entering the House. If it were possible for people who are on deputations coming in and for people going out to be filtered through, there would not be a build-up of the problem existing at present. As one who has witnessed many of these demonstrations, I would say that I have not seen one as bad as this one at present outside the House, and I ask you, with great respect, and, through you, Mr. Speaker, for something to be done as soon as possible.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman at this stage that something has already been done. The Leader of the House has been into the Chamber and has undertaken to take steps to see that there is an investigation and if necessary to put right anything that is wrong.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I lost my temper and I apologise. But I did hear the exchange between the two Front Benches, including my right hon. Friend the Leader of
  1382
  the Opposition, and I raised this point with Mr. Speaker at 3.30. The point I am trying to put is that, notwithstanding what may or may not be taking place now, you or Mr. Speaker should give an order that these people should be allowed into St. Stephen's Hall, Westminster Hall and the Committee rooms, because the place is almost empty.
  What I am suggesting is that we should get them in off the streets, first, because of the cold outside, and, secondly, because they can be controlled better inside than outside. If they are inside, hon. Members can meet them in the Committee rooms and discuss matters with them. Surely there are many hon. Members not here at the moment who would like the opportunity to meet these people. Therefore, let them all come in. Let us get as many in as possible to avoid the possibility of batoning and the horses being used and all the uproar outside. I suggest with respect that this can be done immediately and that the other investigation can take place later.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the various interventions which have been made, I wonder whether the Government Front Bench could confirm that not only are Officers of the House investigating but that the Home Secretary himself, so I understand, has intervened in the matter. If that is the case, I think that we are at the point where something now can be resolved.
  Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House came in as soon as he heard that the Leader of the Opposition was here and assured him that a message would be conveyed to those in authority. Literally only minutes have elapsed since then. I am sure that by this time my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware of the situation.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Further to that point of order. I ask whether the Home Secretary or someone from his Department will give immediate instructions for the withdrawal of the mounted police, the most provocative force that is used in demonstrations of this kind. It is our task to see that our constituents have access to this House, and we cannot tolerate the use of mounted

  1383
  police against them. May I ask whether the Home Secretary will give that instruction immediately?
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would not want to misrepresent the situation. I was downstairs and I saw police letting groups in.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: They should let the whole lot in.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: They cannot let the whole lot in. They were letting groups in to various rooms, where deptutations have been met by hon. Members. I followed some of the groups coming through. Many of us believe that the mounted police are not provocative and that their use is part of the normal activities of the police.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must take issue with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). I was told that no one was to be allowed in. I myself was prevented from coming in until it was explained that I was a Member of this House. Constituents of mine who have come here on a delegation to the Minister, about an important contract which would mean employment for thousands of people in Manchester, have not been allowed in.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the moment has been reached to leave the matter for the moment where the Leader of the House made his statement I think that hon. Members will accept the statement as dealing with the situation for the moment.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sympathise with the view you have just expressed, but there is a matter of some urgency. Some of my hon. Friends have indicated that men have been arrested because they are trying to get into the House and the police have stopped them. If that is true surely it is a prima facie breach of privilege and cannot be left until tomorrow morning because, if these men are arrested today they will be brought before the magistrates tomorrow.
  1384
  Surely in these circumstances the Chair should rule, before legal proceedings are taken, that this is a breach of privilege.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not propose to say that a breach of privilege has been committed until I know precisely what has happened. What happens out in the street is not a breach of privilege here.
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your guidance. There appears to be great concern about the situation obtaining outside St. Stephen's entrance—particularly on this side of the House. Am I in order in requesting you to suspend this Sitting for half an hour so that we can go down and interpose ourselves between the mounted police and our constituents?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that it is necessary to suspend the Sitting at present. The Leader of the House, together with what colleagues he can get hold of at short notice, is dealing with the matter and I think that we should leave it there for the moment.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are strong feelings on this matter and there is great concern. Could the Government Front Bench assure us that the Leader of the House, who has been most helpful—we realise that he has been making inquiries only in the last 5 or 10 minutes—will come to the House at the earliest possible moment and make a statement?
  Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has put his question. A message has been conveyed already to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Hon. Members know his willingness to help the House on all occasions. I have no doubt that he will do so on this one.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I wish to move that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do report progress or suspend the House or something, because I am not satisfied.
  I raised this point at 3.30, almost two hours ago. I am not concerned with what the Home Secretary may or may not be doing. I am more concerned with what he does to protect the rights of hon. Members, back benchers in particular, and their constituents. What I

  1385
  want is for the Chair to give instructions that any constituents of mine or any other hon. Member shall be allowed to come into the precincts of the House—into the Central Lobby or Westminster Hall. I am not concerned as to whether the Home Secretary has or has not given orders to the police. That is his business. I am concerned that it is almost two hours since I raised this issue, because I knew the situation that was coming. I cannot get out to see them and they cannot come in to see me. I have raised the matter with Mr. Speaker. What is needed is a simple instruction to the effect that every person outside who wants to come in shall be allowed to come in. There is ample room in this Palace for them all to be accommodated.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that what has already been done to achieve what the hon. Gentleman has in mind is quite sufficient in the circumstances. I propose to leave the matter there. Mr. Osborn.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: When I began my contribution, I promised that it would be short. I hope that HANSARD will not record me as having made the longest intervention in any debate in my parliamentary career.
  I was trying to show how the tourist industry has expanded. The Association of British Travel Agents points out that in 1961 it had 44 affiliated members. In the current year it has 310. In 1961, it had 458 full members and currently it has 1,455. The total number of officers in the same period has risen from 1,006 to 3,580. There has been a considerable expansion in the number of holiday visitors from this country, including people going on cruises. The figure was 5 million in 1968, 5½3 million in 1969 and 5½6 million in 1970. I suggest that Thomas Cook and Son has not shared in this expansion.
  Mr. Rose: On a point of order. I have made inquiries of the officer on duty at the St. Stephen's entrance and I am told that nobody is being allowed into the House and that if we want to meet our constituents we have to break the police barrier in order to get outside. This is monstrous and a breach of privilege.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has seen what he has seen. I now have a report from the Serjeant at Arms which says that many policemen have already been injured, and it could well be, in those circumstances, that it is not practical to allow people to come into the building.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order. When the Chair rules that electors cannot come to see their Members at the Palace of Westminster because certain police officers have been injured, surely we have reached the stage at which there has been a breach of privilege. It must be the right of any Member of Parliament to see his constituents in the House if they wish to come in.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has pointed out many times, there is plenty of room in the Palace where Members can see their constituents. Surely it is right that people should be allowed in—perhaps in a trickle or perhaps in a controlled flow—to see their Members of Parliament at regular intervals. Surely they cannot be stopped just because some police officers have been injured.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made no ruling whatsoever on the rights of constituents to come into the House. I have made certain animadversions about it being possible for them to come in. As a matter of fact, I have just heard that constituents are being allowed in.
  Mr. Rose: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You seemed to indicate that there might be some danger involved if people were allowed to come into the Palace because policemen have been injured. Therefore, it would seem very strange that I should be informed by an officer that it was all right for me to go into the crowd. This would seem to be inconsistent. My constituents are not being allowed to come in to see me. In five minutes I am due to have an important meeting with a Minister. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to suspend the sitting immediately so that this matter may be dealt with, because some of us have problems arising from what appears to be a prima facie breach of privilege.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: My information is that constituents are being allowed in.
  Mr. Rose: That is not true.
  Mr. J. T. Price: With great respect, and without wishing to enter into the merits of this serious matter and commotion which has been brought to the attention of the Chair, may I say that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has made, in my hearing, a submission to the Chair that there has been a prima facie breach of privilege. I therefore suggest, with the utmost respect, that when a submission is made from the Floor of the House that there has been a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House the Chair must say that it will consider the submission and give a Ruling. It cannot be just brushed aside. I am not speaking to the merits of the situation, but I submit that you, Sir, cannot dispose of the submission in that way. I therefore seriously suggest that, if you feel in no position to give a Ruling or that you have not sufficient authority to do so, your clear duty is to send for Mr. Speaker so that he may take the Chair.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of privilege. I have been told that constituents are now coming in. Perhaps the matter can rest there.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I have witnesses to something which happened in Westminster Hall two minutes ago. I saw a police officer physically twisting the arm of a constituent. I told the officer that I was a Member of Parliament and I asked him to let the man go as I wanted to discuss matters with him. The policeman not only refused but physically attempted to prevent me from speaking to the man. I said, "I want to speak to that man. Let him go". He not only refused but sent for more police, and the man was dragged away through Westminster Hall. I explained to the police that I was a Member of Parliament, and they spoke to me by name, saying, "It is all right, Mr. Lewis". I said, "It is not all right". They knew who I was.
  We know the battles that we have had in the 1970s between the Commons and the Crown and authority. We must stand up for the ordinary people, not for authority. Hon. Members witnessed the occurrence about which I have just spoken.
  1388
  The police would have used physical force against me had it not been obvious that Members were watching. I have seen a man being manhandled within the precincts of the Palace. This is not good enough.
  I therefore suggest that you, Sir, should suspend the sitting and go and see what is happening. You will see, Sir, that people are not being admitted; indeed, they are being physically prevented from coming in. What greater breach of privilege is possible than a situation in which an hon. Member says to the police, "Please allow me to speak with my constituent", and they not only refuse but twist the man's arm behind his back and drag him along Westminster Hall? That happened two minutes ago in the Palace of Westminster.
  Mr. David Steel: Further to the point of order. This was a long-term operation which was planned as an orderly demonstration. I received a letter from Mr. Vic Feather of the T.U.C. asking if I would circulate my colleagues and request them to see their constituents. Some of my colleagues represent very remote constituencies and people may have travelled a long way. Not one of us has yet received a constituent. If the allegations which have been made by hon. Members are correct, this is a most serious matter.
  I suggest, with great respect, that the proper course is to ask Mr. Speaker to return to the Chair to suspend the sitting. This is a most serious matter; I have never known anything like it in my relatively short time as a Member. The right of access to the Palace of constituents who have travelled some distance to see their Members of Parliament is crucial. We cannot brush it aside by raising points of order in the middle of a debate.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may be able to help the House. On the previous point of order, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition I said that I would report the position to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That I have done. Of course, the House will appreciate that it is a matter for the Commissioner of Police—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is a matter for the House.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to come to the point. If he will allow me, I am coming to the point and to accept the point he is making, but I cannot accept it if he will not allow me to reach it.
  I understand that Mr. Speaker is coming back to the Chair. Mr. Speaker, as you have now returned to the Chair may I proceed with the point of order which I was addressing to Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  My point is simply that, as requested by the Leader of the Opposition, I reported the situation, as far as the police are concerned, to the Home Secretary. I understand that, in my absence, hon. Members have raised other matters not necessarily concerning the police. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will agree that some of the references he has made concern the police. As far as matters concerning this House are concerned, I understand that the Serjeant at Arms was inquiring into these matters. As far as I am concerned. I am entirely, Mr. Speaker, in your hands as to what you feel would be the best action in the interests of hon. Members seeing those of their constituents who have come on the demonstration which, in reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I personally accept was a demonstration which was planned as an orderly demonstration. Everyone, I think, accepts that. Everyone wishes it to be so. Everyone wishes as many as possible—we all know the difficulties—of those who wish to see their Members to be in a position to do so.
  I would have hoped that it might be arranged, and that it might be possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to consider how better arrangements might be made so that those constituents who wish to see their Members could be in a position to do so.
  Mr. Heffer: As I was the one who originally raised this question in the House this afternoon, I should like to make it absolutely clear that once the mounted police were brought in that was regarded, as everyone knows it is in demonstrations, as a provocation and that it was at that stage that the matter got entirely out of hand.
  I went out and invited through six people from Liverpool. The last one
  1390
  who came through was grabbed by his hair by the police and has been incarcerated in a room in this House for the last half an hour or so. I do not know what has happened to that worker. I inquired from those who came through whether he was from Liverpool and they said that they did not know him personally but that he had marched all day, and those workers have marched from Euston to Tower Hill and from Tower Hill to here this afternoon.
  I wanted people from Liverpool to come in to see not only myself but other Liverpool Members of Parliament. I want to ask what precisely is going to be done in relation to this sort of thing, because the provocation was such that a peaceful demonstration turned into something quite the opposite. In these circumstances I really think that this House must pronounce on the future of demonstrations of this kind coming to the House. I should like to know now what is to happen in relation to those other workers from Liverpool, the Secretary of Liverpool Trades Council, and Alderman Bill Sefton, who came with a letter to me. They have not been able to get into the House. I think that this is most regrettable, and that something must be done now to clear up the position.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I did not hear the opening comments on this second occasion that this matter has been raised. I have been watching from a window in the House what was happening outside, and I had a very clear indication of what was happening. From what I saw there can be no question at all that the police horses provided no provocation. They were handled in an expert way which was most helpful indeed. As regards hon. Members having their constituents inside this House, I saw the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) go from the House and actually bring six people in, and he did it properly. I saw the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) walk out of the House into a clear space which had been provided outside the House—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am on a point of order. I am telling the House what I saw and what I saw was a demonstration which, clearly, started peacefully, but which did get slightly out of hand. I saw

  1391
  the police, both on horseback and on foot, deal admirably with it, and within something like 5 to 10 minutes clear St. Stephen's entrance to enable hon. Members to collect their constituents and bring them in. That is what I saw.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Further to the point of order. I wonder if I may help the House. I am perfectly prepared in my capacity as Leader of the House, responsible for helping hon. Members of the House, to go to see exactly what is going on, and perhaps I might be accompanied by the Opposition Chief Whip, if he will agree. We can see what better arrangements we can make. Perhaps hon. Members will agree to continue the debate meantime. Perhaps I can be accompanied by the Government Chief Whip also. We will see what arrangements can be made satisfactorily to hon. Members. If they cannot be made, it will be for hon. Members further to criticise me. I think that is a reasonable proposition on my part.
  Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the offer which has been made by the Leader of the House. I myself, along with a number of my colleagues, have just been outside. We have seen what is going on. The police in the main—there are far too many of them are doing a reasonable job, but I have had actually to pull up a constable, J 16—I give his number—for an action which I considered to be entirely unjustified. I have seen a number of demonstrators manhandled through that crowd in St. Stephen's entrance.
  The point of order I would like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that a number of people have been arrested while attempting to meet their Members of Parliament. I ask you whether it is within the competence of this House to make an investigation into the arrest of those people in view of the Sessional Orders which we pass at the beginning of every Parliament.
  Mr. Speaker: No. I think I can say at this point that I would personally be very much obliged if the Leader of the House and the Opposition Chief Whip would do straight away what they have suggested they might do. As far as the wider issues are concerned, of course there can be inquiries later. With regard to the position inside the Palace, I did
  1392
  make inquiries, and I found that there were 2,000 people on the premises. That gives the size of the problem. Certainly one must do what one can to see that hon. Members have reasonable access to their constituents, and to see that law and order are maintained outside. As for the conduct of the business of the House, I suggest that the best thing now is for the two right hon. Gentlemen to do what they have suggested.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Speaker, I raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker, when he was in the Chair, the question whether the conduct of the police raised prima facie a breach of privilege. I put the issue shortly. The first issue is, is it prima facie a breach of privilege to stop any constituent coming to see his Member of Parliament at the door of the Palace of Westminster?
  My second point is of some urgency and it will be too late to raise it tomorrow. Some of my hon. Friends have seen men arrested because they were trying to come into the House to see their Members of Parliament, and they will be brought before the magistrates tomorrow morning. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of urgency, perhaps not now but later in the day, to consider whether the arrest of these men is a prima facie breach of the privilege of this House. If it is, it would be wrong for the magistrates to proceed tomorrow morning, since all the men were trying to do was to enter the Palace to see their Members of Parliament. I ask you, therefore, to consider that second aspect of the submission perhaps later tonight and to rule on it at any rate before tomorrow morning.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. As is recorded in HANSARD, I explained to your Deputy what happened when I tried to talk to one of the men. This is not second-hand or hearsay evidence, and several hon. Members witnessed what happened. I saw the policeman twisting the man's arm and frog-marching him into Westminster Hall. I said, "I am a Member of Parliament and I wish to speak to that man". Notwithstanding that, more policemen came up and forcibly moved the man out. I said. "Let him go, I am a Member of Parliament. You are within the precincts of Parliament, and it is a breach of

  1393
  privilege for you to do this unless Mr. Speaker gives you authority". Notwithstanding that, more policemen came up and attacked the man, and then Inspector Sims came along. I said, "Inspector, let that man go. I want to talk to him". My request was completely ignored, and the man was dragged down Westminster Hall, I know not where.
  Is it in order for a policeman to arrest a person and drag him along Westminster Hall after a Member of Parliament has courteously asked permission to speak to him and been refused? I intended to take the man to a Committee room to talk with him. Permission was deliberately refused in the knowledge of who I was. You and I, Mr. Speaker, know the battles that have gone on for hundreds of years between the Executive and Parliament, and between the Sovereign and the Commons. We know why we have this privilege. It is not our personal privilege but the privilege of the people to come to discuss matters with their Members of Parliament.
  Will you please see to it that the man—he was wearing a red shirt, and Inspector Sims will know who he is—is released, because it is not right that he should be arrested in the precincts of Westminster.
  Mr. Rose: On a point of order. Is not the House entitled to an immediate ruling upon the question that our constituents who have appointments to see us are at this moment being prevented from seeing us, and on whether or not they have a right to enter the House when St. Stephen's Hall is virtually empty?
  Having gone through an empty St. Stephen's Hall and questioned the police officer, I was told that nobody was being allowed in, and, if I wanted to see a constituent, I could go into the throng where assaults were taking place. As a result of this, I have lost an interview with the Ministry of Defence about a contract that will affect the livelihood and future employment of several thousands of people in Lancashire. This is the result of the police, within the precincts of the House, physically preventing me from entering the House and physically preventing me seeing my constituent.
  1394
  Will you, Mr. Speaker, give a Ruling now, and not after these people have gone back to Manchester in an hour's time, on whether they can come into the Palace to see the hon. Members whom they have come to see on important matters affecting their employment? We understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not interested in their employment, but we are.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: On a point of order. I am concerned that I should see my constituents who have notified me that they wish to see me here at a particular time. I wish also to verify what my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has said, because I witnessed what occurred. I should like you to address your mind, Mr. Speaker, to the situation in which an hon. Member is placed when he sees a constituent being manhandled by policemen inside the Palace of Westminster. My hon. Friend pleaded with the police to let the man go, because he wished to talk to him. This is an extremely important matter for every hon. Member, including some hon. Members on the other side with their moronic minds.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. As I undertook to the House, in common with my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip and the right hon. Gentleman the Opposition Chief Whip, I went to St. Stephen's entrance and inspected the position there. I found that there was a queue of about 50 people still waiting to see their Members of Parliament. I was informed by the Inspector of Police that, because of the length of time some hon. Members were taking in Committee Rooms, there was some overcrowding, yet I felt, as there were only about 50 left, even if it meant overcrowding, that those 50 should immediately be admitted.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: There are thousands.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have, therefore, arranged with the Serjeant at Arms and the Inspector of Police that all the remaining people who are waiting to see their Members of Parliament will now be admitted to the House, and none of the people who were standing there will now be waiting. That is the position which the right hon. Gentleman the

  1395
  Opposition Chief Whip and I found. Perhaps he would wish to speak for himself on what he found.
  Mr. Robert Mellish: I understand my hon. Friends' concern and respect them for it. Neither the Leader of the House nor I saw what is said to have happened, and we cannot speak of that. I confirm what the Leader of the House has said. I have just come back from the front of the House where about 50 people are waiting. As the right hon. Gentleman said, very wisely, it has now been decided that they should all come in forthwith. The rest of the people who were there—I gather some thousands—have now dispersed.
  What has agitated some of my hon. Friends is what is said to have happened some time ago. I respectfully suggest that there could well be an inquiry into this matter, and I have no doubt that those concerned will take note of this suggestion. From what we have been told, the numbers are now under control and the 50 who were waiting are coming in. I hope that my hon. Friends will understand that we on the Front Bench will do all we can to ensure that there is an inquiry into some of the things which have been said. I think it would now be right to get on with the debate, which is of great importance. I am obliged to the Leader of the House for the way in which he has handled the matter.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I be allowed to intervene for a moment? I fully appreciate the importance of these matters and I will co-operate in seeing that there is the fullest possible investigation. These matters are very important and must be examined. Whether it is right to examine the matter as a question of privilege, as was suggested by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), I shall have an opportunity to consider, but it would be in the interests of the House and its privileges and in the interests of public order that these matters should be investigated. I hope, therefore, hon. Members will not persist too long in pursuing points of order.
  Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept what was said by the Leader of the House and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey
  1396
  (Mr. Mellish) about the current situation. I feel we should put on record that what happened—and I witnessed this myself—was that the stewards of the T.U.C. urged their members, because of the disturbance outside and because it looked as if there was going to be really serious trouble, to go to Central Hall. It should also be put on record at this stage that some of us intervened with senior police officers, who told us that they had taken the decision to clear the front of the House because they felt they had not sufficient facilities outside the House, which included the House of Lords car park. In consequence it appeared to many of us that the liaison between the Officers of this House and its custodians and the police outside was virtually nonexistent. Whoever gave the order for police officers to be used against a peaceful demonstration—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that both sides of the House will regard this as a serious House of Commons matter. I would ask the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) whether he is not now giving the kind of evidence which an inquiry might like to hear? What he is raising is not a matter of order.
  Mr. Orme: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is right that these things should be said and, if necessary, they can be contradicted. I accept the current situation as outlined by the Leader of the House and confirmed by my right hon. Friend, but many hon. Members will press for the fullest and most searching inquiry.
  Mr. William Molloy: On a point of order.
  Hon. Members: Oh, no.
  Mr. Molloy: It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to groan. They have not been outside. They do not know what is going on.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. What is the point of order for me to decide?
  Mr. Molloy: While I was trying to make my point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you did not hear some of the cacophonous cackling by hon. Members opposite. What I was trying to point out was that there has been a massive demonstration in London—[HON. MEMBERS:

  1397
  "What is the point of order?"]—with the police themselves enjoying the demonstration all the way through London. Many of our constituents who are unemployed were coming to the House to lobby us and we had made the necessary arrangements. I went outside to see if the people who had come to see me would be allowed in. At one point, with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), I stood at a window and watched what was happening. There was a reasonably orderly crowd and a large queue outside the St. Stephen's entrance.
  Those people stood there in an orderly fashion for an hour waiting to enter the House. Not one could get in. The only way to get into the House of Commons to lobby one's Member was to take a chance, become unruly and be dragged in by the police. This was an absurd situation. If the control had been orderly and those people had been allowed in in batches to see their Members, we would not be facing the problem we are discussing now.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make two brief points. First, I am informed that some of my constituents are to engage in a Lobby later this evening at about eight o'clock. I hope that the situation can be resolved by that time. My second point is that this is the second time within a week that this sort of thing has happened. A similar situation arose last week when the students sought to lobby. I hope that this will not become a precedent.
  Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I personally walked through the thickest part of this demonstration—in fact I strolled through it—but I did not see any of the troubles which have been mentioned. It was a well-mannered crowd. One person who had an appointment to see me at 5.30 must have come through the crowd, since I have the green card he gave me timed 5.31.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We will have no more points of order this evening.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: I think it will be as well to bring my remarks to a close as quickly as I can. I was pointing out
  1398
  to the House the extent to which the tourist and travel "package" industry has expanded. We were discussing whether Thomas Cook had shared in this expansion. I hope hon. Members who are trying to listen to this debate will be able to hear me above the noise of the crowd that is dispersing.
  I have been looking up the work of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and I draw to the attention of hon. Members House of Commons Doc. 298. I gather that only once has the activities of the Transport Commission been brought to the attention of a Select Committee in some 15 years. There has been no reference by the Select Committee to the activities of the Transport Holding Company or even to Thomas Cook since the 1962 Transport Act.
  This brings me to the accounts at which it might be as well to take a brief look. What interests me in looking through the accounts of Thomas Cook and those of the Transport Holding Company is to see that there is no record of turnover of any of the activities within the Transport Holding Company. We know that the assets of Thomas Cook are of the order of £13 million, the current assets are about £4 million, fixed assets £6 million. It has been suggested that the property is undervalued.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no record of turnover in the accounts of Thomas Cook? May I draw his attention to the fact that last year the turnover of Thomas Cook in its travel business was £93½5 million, compared with £90½3 million in the previous year. Why does the hon. Gentleman make such a statement?
  Mr. Osborn: I am reassured to hear that the hon. Member has accounts showing turnover. If the hon. Gentleman has seen the turnover, so much the better. My right hon Friend the Minister for Transport Industries has told the House a little more about the company. The turnover is between £260 and £270 million, which is made up of three components. We know all about this, but what we do not know is the performance over recent years—at least this information is not readily to hand, and the situation is difficult to assess.
  In all the years in which Thomas Cook has been part of the Transport Holding

  1399
  Company, and the Transport Commission before it, the Select Committee has not looked into its affairs. Parliament has not chosen to direct how Thomas Cook should or should not be run. This point must be borne in mind.
  It should be pointed out that Cooks is planning to expand.
  I have had drawn to my attention an advertisement which appeared in the Estates Gazette on 23rd October, 1971, headed, "Cooks want premises". This is expansion which is going on at the moment. It means that, although Thomas Cook has been going through a period of transition, whoever its future owners may be, there is every intention of looking ahead with optimism. That is greatly to be welcomed. Furthermore, a constituent of mine has written to me about changes to the branch of Thomas Cook in Fargate, Sheffield, where £30,000 is involved in a new building.
  The point that I wish to make about that is that there is no Select Committee which is able to adjudicate whether this has been money well spent, and I consider that the type of activity engaged in by Thomas Cook is much better handled as a small unit outside the public purview where its performance can be judged by results.
  The Leader of the Opposition has implied that many travel agents have reputations which leave much to be desired. That, too, is a matter which can be dealt with by this House. If travel agents are to expand their businesses, they must not fail to comply with the Trade Descriptions Act, and if they are to stay in business they know that they must deliver the goods—whether tour or travel arrangements—that they have advertised. These are matters which are entirely outside the point under consideration at the moment.
  The remaining point is who may the purchaser be. I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) that a small shareholding by interested parties, including B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., possibly with Barclays coming in, would not be unacceptable. The possibility of a foreign purchaser has not been ruled out. However, in my view, the company should go to private British hands. I hope very much that that will be the case.
  1400
  This Bill provides a rationalisation and a balance between public and private ownership in the travel agency business. I welcome it and accord it my support.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: In his closing remarks, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) gave the game away: the party opposite is in favour of competition, but only English competiton. Thomas Cook must remain with good old John Bull in control.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: I think I said that I should prefer to see that. However, I did not rule out the possibility of a foreign purchaser.
  Mr. Pardoe: I neither prefer nor do not prefer. As a free trader, I have an open mind about where the competition should come from.
  I had no intention of intervening in this debate. I remained in the Chamber merely to discover which way to vote. Nor do I have to declare any interest, either in the tourist industry or from the point of view of a contribution to the Tory Party.
  From the two Front Benches, we have had two caricatures of political attitudes. From the Minister for Transport Industries we heard that here was a company, Thomas Cook, badly managed and with a very low profit. I do not think anyone will quarrel with that assessment. In fact, it is an assessment which gives added force to the view that over the years central Governments, both Tory and Labour, have demonstrated that they could not run a second-hand toffee shop, let alone a travel agency. It is a condemnation of the central Government rather than of the management of Thomas Cook.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I can stand hostile statements, but how does the hon. Gentleman justify a silly statement like that? The Government, whether Tory or Labour, do not administer and run the nationalised industries. The hon. Gentleman must know that industries which are under national control are not under the political control of this House. They are run by competent executives, by and large, and Thomas Cook is no exception to that process.
  Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has enormous political acumen. He has just made the point that the Liberal Party has been making about the nationalised industries for the last 25 years, namely, that there is no public accountability whatever and that this House should have greater control of public enterprises than it has. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making the point for me.
  The Minister went on to say that he wanted to reduce the public sector. He tried to make out that this was a great philosophical divide between the two sides of the House. Coming the day after the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he intended to increase public investment in the public sector by £160 million or more in order to assist in solving the unemployment problem, I find the Minister's suggestion an extraordinary one.
  Then we heard the attitude of the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) spoke of Thomas Cook as though it was John Bull Ltd. more than Thomas Cook. The hon. Gentleman spoke of hiving off profitable enterprises as though that was a disastrous step to take, even though this company is not a profitable enterprise. One can say that its return on capital or its profit in relation to its turnover has been abysmal by any standards. The hon. Gentleman stressed how bad the management had been. I agree, and I find it incredible that such bad management should have been allowed to continue for so long.
  The questions that I wish to ask are these. I accept that private capital would be helpful. There are disciplines which private capital introduced into public ownership would create, quite apart from causing a degree of profitability. But if private capital would be helpful in an industry of this sort, why not sell shares in public co-ownership? Why do we have this sterile argument between public and private enterprise? I find it tragic that hon. Members on this side of the House who speak for those who are involved in Thomas Cook as employees have not called for a new industrial partnership in the company.
  Here is a classic case of a company which is at present owned by the State, albeit by accident, and of which the
  1402
  Government wish to rid themselves. I cannot understand why it is necessary to go the whole hog the other way. There is a middle way. We could create in Thomas Cook a partnership along the lines of the B.P. solution: in other words, a partnership between the State and public enterprise.
  Will hiving off improve the management? Is private enterprise always well-run? It would be a nonsensical proposition to suggest that it was, and the Minister came near to making it. With the example of Rolls-Royce and the long list of company bankruptcies before him, the right hon. Gentleman cannot back up his proposition.
  The right hon. Gentleman also made the point that returning the company to private enterprise would encourage competition. But does private enterprise introduced into such an industry really encourage competition? I agree that it should do, and I should want it to, but we have the example in the travel business of the competition which exists on the cross-Channel ferry services between British Rail and Townsend Thoresen. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at their respective schedules of fares, he will see that for years there has been an extraordinary identification between the fares charged for carrying an identical car across the Channel by British Rail and by Townsend Thoresen. Only last August, the executives of the two organisations got together and fixed identical increases in fares to exactly the same levels. So far, the Government have refused my requests that this monstrous piece of price-fixing be referred to the Monopolies Commission. Shall we have the same situation arising in a reconstituted Thomas Cook? In my view, the chances are that it will be exactly the same.
  To whom will the right hon. Gentleman sell the company? I do not expect him to say exactly who are the bidders. However, he has admitted that there are political restrictions on those to whom he would be willing to sell; in other words, it will not necessarily be to the highest bidder. What exactly does this mean? The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) said that he would have no objection to British Rail being involved in a consortium to buy the company. May we be told whether the Government

  1403
  will impose any limitation on the free bidding of B.E.A., B.O.A.C. or British Rail to buy the company?
  The Minister's description of the ideal bidder for whom the Government are looking is an English company involved in the tourist industry. All the matters which he itemised portray a picture of B.O.A.C., B.E.A. or British Rail. I suggest that they probably are the ideal purchasers, even by the Government's standards. Unfortunately, they are in the public sector. That means that they would not accord with the Government's ideology, but they would accord with their reasons. Since the right hon. Gentleman described them as ideal bidders, although not in exact terms, if they make a satisfactory bid, will they be allowed to raise the capital to buy this company in the normal way?
  The Minister also said that this company should never have been in the public sector. It is in the public sector, however it got there. Do we have a better alternative before us? Frankly, I do not believe that we have. Therefore, we might as well leave it where it is until the Government come up with a distinctly better alternative than they have produced in the Bill.
  6.11 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I will try to help the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). He told us at one moment that he had not made up his mind what he would do when the time came to vote and at another moment he said that he did not believe there was any better solution than the present position of Cooks. He has, therefore, decided already how he will vote.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he had no real interest in what happened to Thomas Cook. He should have, because in the West Country tourism is the biggest single industry and employer of labour. We should be looking to a company like Thomas Cook to have done a great deal more than it has over the past few years, with the tremendous facilities at its disposal which it has built up over 100 years, to bring more overseas visitors to the West Country. If I can help the hon. Gentleman to make his decision, I ask him to bear this important point in mind.
  Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Gentleman knows that when a Member declares that he has no interest, it does not mean that he has no political interest; it means that he has no financial interest. I suggest that he should declare what his financial interest is or has been in the tourist industry before making his speech.
  Mr. Adley: Let us get one point clear. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not have a financial interest. But he now says that he has a real interest in the Bill. When lie began his speech, why did he admit that he had not thought of intervening in the debate?
  I shall mention my interest in the tourist industry because for many years I have worked in it. Therefore, I like to think that I can speak from some experience. I have no financial interest in Cooks or any travel agency.
  Time is running short. I welcome the Bill. It is an opportunity to utilise the assets which Thomas Cook has built up over the past 100 years but which have lain rather dormant in the last 20 to 30 years.
  It is some time since the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) spoke, but I should like to take this opportunity to repudiate his unwarranted attack on the travel industry as a whole. We all know that a small number of companies in the travel industry, as in every industry, by their misdemeanours receive great publicity. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that the travel industry, and the package tour industry in particular has in the last 15 years brought to millions of our constituents the opportunity to escape from their humdrum lives by travelling abroad and seeing places which, without the imagination of so many companies in the industry, they would never have enjoyed. Before casting aspersions on the travel industry as a whole, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that millions of people are grateful for the energy and enthusiasm with which so many companies in the industry have worked over the last 15 years.
  I was particularly interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about confiscation—[Interruption.] Is he disagreeing with his

  1405
  hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis)? Perhaps he will tell us whether he agrees with his hon. Friend.
  Mr. Bradley: My words are on record. I am responsible only for my own words.
  Mr. Adley: As I recall, the hon. Gentleman was threatening those who may buy Thomas Cook that it would be taken back into public ownership without compensation. Those are certainly the words of some of his hon. Friends. I shall be interested to read HANSARD to see what he did say. I have been here throughout the whole debate and I understood him to say that. These attempts at confiscation will not stand his party in good stead when the time comes for the electors to have their say.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) mentioned the way that Thomas Cook has unfortunately been left behind in the development of the travel industry over the last 20 years. It has remained the leader in size, but it has stopped leading the industry in ideas. Private enterprise operation of Thomas Cook can restore to that company the use of its size and experience to bring profitability to the company in whatever ownership it may be held in future.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East, repeatedly called for a State travel industry. We have had numerous advertisements for the Prestatyn holiday camp. I do not know much about it. Perhaps under the plans of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East we may look forward at some future date to the establishment of Wilson's Tours whose slogan might be, "It is better to travel than to arrive."
  Thomas Cook has not been fully exploited over the last 25 years. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North asked me to declare an interest. That was an attempt on his part to insinuate that I had some financial interest in Thomas Cook. Of course I have as a taxpayer. As taxpayers we all have a financial interest.
  As a West Country Member I have an interest in the development of the tourist industry. I believe that Cooks has fallen down in the last few years because it has completely failed to make use of modern marketing methods which could have put it in an outstanding position in the world tourist industry. I believe that Thomas
  1406
  Cook started is business in Loughborough—
  Mr. BradleyLeicester.
  Mr. Adley: He started in Leicester and ran an excursion to Loughborough. Thomas Cook himself was an entrepreneur. In finally trying to convince the hon. Member for Cornwall, North to vote with us this evening. I ask him to look back at the history of Thomas Cook and the way that he started. He was the first man to put together a package tour. What my right hon. Friend is trying to do with Thomas Cook and Son Limited is entirely within the spirit of the man who started that business in the first place.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Mr. Mason.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: First, I apologise to some of my hon. Friends—
  Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. May I inquire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the rising of my right hon. Friend signals the winding-up of the debate? If so, I strongly object. The Standing Orders of the House do not require that the debate should finish at 7 o'clock. Some hon. Members have been sitting here during almost two hours of interruption of the debate by events outside the Chamber. I wish to make such dignified protest as I can that the House will not be satisfied with your agreeing to take the winding-up speech at this time—twenty minutes past six—when Standing Orders allow the debate to continue until ten o'clock.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is within my discretion whom I call. This signifies nothing whatever about the length of the debate.
  Mr. Price: It is the usual signal.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to the point of order. I support the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), and all the more so because there are only two or three hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate and who, presumably will not make long speeches.
  May I ask for an assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the right hon.

  1407
  Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) insists upon winding-up the debate for the Opposition you will nevertheless call those back benchers who want to take part in the debate before the Minister winds up? That is all we ask.
  Mr. Mason: As there has been a series of interruptions, and as I know from personal knowledge, having been here throughout the debate, that there are possibly only three or four hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, I am prepared to wait for another half an hour or 45 minutes before winding-up the debate for the Opposition, if both sides of the House will co-operate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Johnson: I should declare an interest as I am an honorary national officer of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, the trade union which organises and negotiates on behalf of the staff of Thomas Cook and Son Ltd.
  Since the Government have been in office, rumour has followed rumour about which undertakings were to be taken to the knacker's yard of free enterprise and dismantled for the sake of private profit. It is now clear that the decision that Upper Clyde shipyard was intended to go to the wall was taken even before the Government came to power and that other profitable sections of nationalised industries were receiving attention for the purpose of being hived off to the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Just how high the Government set their sights can be seen from the remarks of the Minister for Industry, who said:
  "The pubic sector should only be concerned with activities which cannot be done by the private sector."
  In other words, it is all right for the nationalised industries to continue activities in which it is difficult for them to make a profit and to provide a social service but when it come to the easy sell, the profitable sections should be hived off. Perhaps we shall find out in due course just what is in the Government's mind, not only in relation to this Bill, but in relation to hiving off generally.
  We are talking today about one section within the nationalised transport industry, Thomas Cook and Son Ltd. The proposal
  1408
  outlined in the Bill is both unnecessary and unjustified. It cannot be defended even under the criteria put forward by the present Government for the denationalisation of this company, and hiving off is quite unnecessary. The change is not necessary in order to increase competition. The likely outcome of the major part of Thomas Cook being taken over by other travel agencies is a reduction in competition and the creation of a virtual monopoly. On the other hand, if Thomas Cook were sold to someone outside the travel trade there would be the danger of the company's suffering from a lack of expertise. We are all aware of the unhappy experience of many people who have saved throughout the year to go on holiday and have then had their holidays ruined by unscrupulous travel agents, but this is where Thomas Cook has been a shining light.
  Reference has been made during the debate to Thomas Cook being a profitable organisation, and the fact is that it has consistently shown a profit, even if that profit has been low in relation to turnover. The Government stand indicted for selling off a profitable section of a nationalised industry for the sake of personal gain by the purchaser.
  The decision embodied in the Bill will affect the livelihood of more than 3,000 people, many of whom have given a lifetime of devote service and whose efforts have gained for the company an international reputation second to none. It is without doubt the most reliable travel agent in the world. That is the reputation which has been built up by Thomas Cook, and now the Government want to break the company into small pieces and hive it off without any justifiable reason.
  Other travel agencies have been handing difficult bookings to Thomas Cook to deal with because of their expertise, and the staff of Thomas Cook stand to lose considerably because they enjoy better conditions of employment than do other sections of the travel trade. There is no provision for the union to which I have referred to be consulted by the new owners during the crucial period immediately following the transfer of ownership. Perhaps the Minister will be prepared to give a guarantee that Thomas Cook will not be sold to any organisation which pays lower rates and offers poorer conditions of service than

  1409
  those now appertaining in the company. That assurance is absolutely vital.
  It is true that the financial results of Thomas Cook have been disappointing in recent years, but the fact is that the company has consistently made a profit and it is estimated that even in 1971, with all the difficulties which the company has had to face, there will be a surplus of about £30,000. I accept that that is a small return for the amount of turnover in so large a company.
  I hope that the Minister will fully consult the T.S.S.A. on all aspects before the Government hive off the various sections of Thomas Cook. I hope, too, that the union will be given the opportunity to discover the kind of employers to which the staff of Thomas Cook are going. That information, too, is absolutely necessary.
  At the Labour Party conference this year it was decided unanimously that a future Labour Government would re-nationalised hived-off sections of nationalised industries, such as Thomas Cook, and would do so without compensation. Would-be speculators should take warning. They will burn their fingers if they purchase hived-off sections of nationalised industries because, I repeat, a future Labour Government will renationalise without compensation. The Government should think again and drop the Bill forthwith.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I thank the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for allowing me to take part in the debate and I shall be as brief as I can in the circumstances.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right, having found himself with the Transport Holding Company owning virtually only Thomas Cook, to wind up that company. There is no doubt that in the long run the fact that Thomas Cook is a public company, though not a nationalised one, will be good for the company and for the country as a whole.
  Because of what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite and because of their criticism of the Bill, there may be some misunderstanding on the part of the public. They may have the impression that we think that Thomas Cook is not a very good organisation. It was, and it is,
  1410
  unprofitable in terms of the money that it makes to cover the capital employed in the business, but it has many good qualities and it has done a great deal for the travel industry since the end of the war.
  It is the only great British international travel company. Initially, it was the only company which carried out training in the travel business. Other companies are beginning to follow the example of Thomas Cook and, of course, the industry is now covered by one of the training boards. Cooks began it. Thomas Cook has given the industry as a whole a continuous flow of trained staff who have been vital to the growth of the business. It is the only British travel company which is big from the point of view of not only the issue of tickets and the arranging of tours, but the carrying out of banking arrangements. It was Thomas Cook which, through its leadership, originated the Association of British Travel Agents, which has grown immensely and has provided for the travel industry a stability and, I hope, a restraint against those who may seek to bring it into disrepute.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) was a little hard on the industry when he pinpointed those very few companies which occasionally let the public down. By and large, the industry provides a very good service to the public. This of course includes Thomas Cook itself. It was nationalised entirely by accident. The Government owned it after the war. The fact that we are denationalising it now will not harm it.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that the staffs will not be hurt either through redundancy or through their pension arrangements. Denationalisation will provide an incentive to management. The company has some good management, particularly good middle management, and it will now have the opportunity to give that management the scope which it has not had in recent years.
  Therefore, although it is no longer to be a nationalised company, it will still be a public company and a British company. When my right hon. Friend makes the company available, he must safeguard the currency aspect through a banking interest. He must try to avoid

  1411
  a monopoly situation being created which it would be all too easy to do if the company were sold to an already very big company in travel. The company must stay in British hands, because it can do much to bring tourists to this country and, therefore, provide considerable export earnings.
  The Minister should also seek assurances against stripping. If the assets are broken down to assist the company to serve the country better, that is fine, but to allow the stripping of assets to the disadvantage of the company would be wrong.
  This company, although it will become a free enterprise concern, will still be able to provide for the country an advantage both to those who travel and to those who are employed in the business. It should secure the incentive of enterprising management and I believe that it will become an expanding company. I have no doubt that it will also be profitable. If it is really profitable, it will provide a sum for the Exchequer larger than it has been able to do in recent years. It will do this because it will be paying taxes just like any other company, and the Exchequer will get the advantage of that tax out of those profits.
  6.33 p.m.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you have returned to the Chair because I was almost on the point of leaving the Chamber. I never like to remain here when I am bad-tempered, so I am fortified to see that the Minister of Transport Industries has stayed with us. Our proceedings have been considerably interrupted during the last few hours by more serious events outside. Without making any apology to anyone, because I was involved in those events at the beginning of the debate, I did not have the advantage of hearing the right hon. Gentleman or my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley). So what I say is entirely divorced from anything they may have said.
  First, I am happy to see the Minister. He knows that I have a personal regard for him. I say that with the utmost sincerity. Therefore, I can say to his face and not behind his back that although I hold that regard for him as a man, I have
  1412
  the utmost contempt for this sordid little Bill which he has brought before the House.
  It is a strange circumstance, surely, that when we have 20,000 people demonstrating outside the House against an unemployment total of 1 million, when our neighbours in John Bull's other island across the Irish Channel are on the verge of civil war, when the Middle East may go up at any time because of the tensions there and when inflation is running away in this country to an alarming extent, the British Government have nothing better to do than bring forward a piddling little Bill of this kind to satisfy their ideological prejudice against anything which is nationalised.
  Like me, Mr. Speaker, you have had to endure this sort of ideological debate many times over the last 20 years—[Interruption.] I do not want any assistance from South Worcestershire either. I notice that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has returned to the House and wants to announce the fact. I hope that he will make his speech on his feet and not make interruptions when I am speaking.
  Against the background of the desperate world and domestic events in this country, I do not know how a British Government can justify occupying a day of parliamentary time with a little Bill like this merely to give satisfaction to the Primrose League, the old dames who finance them and run tea parties for them and all the spivs in the City of London who are looking for a few more chips to play with by denationalising a nationalised industry.
  I have taken part in many debates about transport and on other occasions we have had some rational debates in Committee, when I have sometimes broken a lance with the present Minister and have always enjoyed a genuine difference of opinion. There is nothing to justify the Bill, however, and the apathetic speeches of Tory back-benchers this afternoon. They spoke as if they would not qualify even for a Sunday school league, let alone the Third Division. How anyone can be so small-minded as to make an ideology shibboleth of something which has been one of the most noteworthy pieces of public enterprise like Thomas Cook, I do not know.

  1413
  Despite the statements which have been made, incidentally, the company was not nationalised by accident. It was nationalised by this House under the Transport Act, 1947. Otherwise the Bill would not be necessary and the change could be made administratively. I know that the Conservative Party must please its friends, the people who give it not only moral and physical but also financial support at election time. We know that when a Tory Government—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment need not rub his hands. It is a conventional attitude of the men in the City to rub their hands. When a Tory Government are in power, they know that loot is going and they want to get their hands on it.
  This company enjoys a world-wide reputation. It is not losing money. It may not produce the sort of dividends which would be accepted in the City on a commercial basis, but I have never agreed, as a Socialist Member for over 20 years, that a balance sheet is the only test of a company's success.
  The company has at least given good service. In every country in which I have travelled I have found that the company with an even higher reputation than American Express is Thomas Cook. Conservative hon. Members, too, have travelled the airlines of the world on occasions and they know that what I say is true. Thomas Cook has been well-managed and well-advertised and has had its offices in the right places. It has produced reliable services and has earned for this country a world-wide reputation.
  I cannot understand the type of mind that believes that because something is nationalised it is bad, and because it is private enterprise it is good. That is complete nonsense. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) want to help me?
  Sir G. Nabarro: Hurry up with it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be better if hon. Members would refrain from making interruptions from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Price: I am trying to make a vigorous argument as courteously as I
  1414
  can but the standard of debate from the Tory benches has been pathetic.
  We are under the pressure of great events outside: mass unemployment returning for the first time for 30 years, almost civil war in Great Britain and world tension at a record level in many trouble spots, including India and the Middle East. The international bankers, who are supposed to express the commercial expertise of the business community, are completely baffled in their attempt to provide a rational form of international exchange. The whole capitalist system is shaken to its foundations by the machinery it has created, unable to provide full employment or a rational system of exchange between nations and unable to prevent inflation. And yet, as a humble Labour Member, I have to listen to balderdash about those failures being due to the failure of nationalised industry.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) tried to damn Thomas Cook with faint praise. He said that it did not produce much profit, but he did not say that it produced a loss. Another young man who has been here five minutes, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley), who I think was an executive in the travel industry and who may not be without interest in the matter, said that Thomas Cook was inefficient, that it was not carrying out its functions, and so on. Those statements are not in accordance with fact.
  Conservative hon. Members are entitled to peddle their old-fashioned ware about the virtues of private enterprise and the wickedness of public enterprise but any intelligent man will see that it is complete nonsense to make such a distinction. Public and private enterprise, properly and efficiently run, must function side by side for a long time. I do not believe in a dictatorial system or one that gives complete monopoly. I have always said that.
  Despite all the snide comments this afternoon, Thomas Cook had a £400,000 profit last year and a £1¼ million profit the year before, and in other years it did even better. I agree that it could produce more in terms of commercial results but I do not judge whether something is successful by the balance sheet alone, important though that is. I do not

  1415
  run away from that test, but I am disappointed when little-minded commercial business men who may have been functioning as junior executives on a unit trust or in another sphere of public relations activity have the cheek to talk that kind of rubbish, which was out of date in the sixth form at my grammar school over 40 years ago. The House is getting too many such Members. I hope that we shall be able to bring them up to be more respectable citizens in due course.
  I appeal to the Government for genuine answers to the question why Thomas Cook is being denationalised. Can it simply be that there are plenty of people with greedy eyes who helped fill the Tory war chest at the last election and who are constantly looking for new sources of access to land, the exploitation of which is the damnation of this country? Every site in our great cities, if it can be cleared of its buildings, whether Cooks' or anyone else's, becomes worth £100,000 or £200,000 an acre. That is where inflation starts, not in the mismanagement of Thomas Cook or any other nationalised concern. The capitalist system which Tory hon. Members defend has created these anomalies. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has left the Chamber because he is the most ideological of all Tory Members on these matters and can sometimes express himself quite forcibly.
  I may have made my protest a little roughly but I have said what I believe. It is unworthy of the House to be spending time on hiving off the profitable sections of our nationalised industries and making greater problems for those who will have the duty of running those industries. I know from experience that nothing pleases a certain type of Tory Member, who perhaps is not typical—he may be uneducated or politically illiterate—than to go on to the hustings, write articles in the Press and make speeches at Primrose League meetings saying, "This great nationalised industry lost £X million of public money last year. It is your money that these wicked Socialists are losing." He never tells the public that the electricity and gas industries are making money and that but for the Tory Government's nationalisation of the atomic energy industry in 1954, we should have no atomic energy industry
  1416
  because private enterprise could not provide the capital required.
  If any hon. Member wants ideological arguments, there they are. I invite anyone who disagrees to sort them out. We have weathered many storms and faced them with resolution and fortitude, as Churchill used to say at the Dispatch Box. It is not worthy of the House to be trying to score little ideological victories for all the nitwits outside the House who are the camp followers of the Tory Party and who helped fill its war chest. We have better, bigger things to do. We must make the nationalised industries better if we can.
  I have never stood in the way of efficiency. I have always supported it. One hon. Member constantly referred in his speech, which was very much interrupted by the trouble outside, to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, as though to imply that it supported the denationalisation of Thomas Cook. I am a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and I have been for some years. I have taken an active part in its work in all kinds of inquiries, including the inquiry—the first ever made by the House—into the affairs of the Bank of England, and I had the honour and pleasure of cross-examining many of the leaders of the financial world on these matters.
  No hon. Member is entitled to insinuate that in some way the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries would support a Bill of this kind. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is composed on an all-party basis. It is not a piece of the Tory Party machine. It is part of the effective working machinery of the House of Commons. So I make my protest on that score, too.
  I suppose I ought to stop now, but I have been thwarted a little today in not being allowed to get started. At ten o'clock tonight there will be the usual ritual. Hon. Members who have not heard the debate will hear the bells ring and go off into the Lobby to vote in favour of denationalising Thomas Cook. When they do that, let them just reflect that in spite of all the silly speeches which have been made in support of this stupid Bill today, not so very long ago our present Tory Government, who have been in office, with disastrous consequences for the nation, for the past 18

  1417
  months or so, had to bring in a little Bill to nationalise one of the greatest private companies in the world, Rolls-Royce of Derby.
  The nationalisation of Rolls-Royce was a bitter pill for the Tories to swallow. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), the Under-Secretary of State now on the Treasury Bench, was not personally involved in that episode. I assume, but I bet that the senior Minister concerned was not a very happy man. He had to ask the House to pass a Bill to nationalise that great international company, which was non-viable and which was declared bankrupt by the auditors appointed to investigate its affairs. It is one of the greatest trade names in the world and a famous company of which we are all very proud.
  Now, having done that, as a little bonus, so to speak, to their disappointed supporters who found that pill difficult to swallow a few months ago, the Government are giving them back Thomas Cook so that someone can play about with it, perhaps alter its structure and make a bit of profit out of it.
  I have talked more of general principles today because I thought it right to do so on such an occasion, but to revert now to the specific question of Thomas Cook I warn the House—I speak entirely for myself, as a private Member—that those hon. Members who have expressed the hope that this company, once it is taken back by private enterprise, will remain British have no ground for that hope. Once the shares go on to the international stock market, no one in the House will have any power to make conditions or control the source of investment.
  The Minister for Transport Industries is no novice in the House; like me, he has been here a long time. It completely beats me how he can seriously deploy the argument that the nation will be better served by private enterprise and that transport undertakings—I think that this is how he put it—should be concerned only with transport and not with all the odds and ends of items like hotels, tourist services and the like, which ought to go back to private enterprise.
  Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered how British capitalist finance works? Has he never heard of the conglomerate company or the holding company?
  1418
  Has he never heard how the Companies Act is so manipulated by clever accountants and lawyers that a man like me, who is very interested in these matters, finds it most difficult, even with the services of our Library stocked with one of the most extensive collections of references in this country, to ascertain who really owns what in the business world? The conglomerate and holding company technique is used for all sorts of purposes.
  If it is regarded as sound practice in terms of good commercial management for a great company—I shall not name any because I might give the wrong impression, though I could name quite a few—holdings ranging from, say, pen-nibs to tractors, aeroplanes and goodness knows what else, why should not the same principle be applied in nationalised industry? If it is good commercial practice for great companies to have all manner of diversified activities and alternative sources of revenue available to them, all under the umbrella of the great conglomerate, why should that principle not apply to a nationalised industry which is serving the public good and is at least answerable to the House in the final analysis in a way the others never are?
  I have, perhaps, taken longer than I should, but I have waited a long time. I fear that this will be only the first of many similar exercises in handing back national undertakings to private enterprise for private exploitation. The House is being asked to do something against the best interests of the country. Such an exercise should have no kind of priority in face of the great problems of unemployment, inflation and the threat of civil war now confronting the country.
  I beg the Government to have second thoughts about it. If they do not, I warn them, on my own responsibility, that if this industry and others which are targets for the handling over of loot—yes, loot; that is the right word—to the commercial friends of the Conservative Party are denationalised, I for one, if I am still here—many of my hon. Friends will do the same—will insist that any future Labour Government not only take them back but, against all our better instincts, take them back without compensation.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rost: I, too, welcome the Bill, for I regard it as the Government's first step

  1419
  in what I hope will become a large-scale programme of denationalisation.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: Including Rolls-Royce?
  Mr. Rost: I had intended to say something about the profitability, or lack of it, of Thomas Cook, about the way profits have fallen from £2 million in 1965 to a current year's level which is questionable, to say the least—and all this against a background in which the travel business has been one of the most rapidly expanding in this country, and when other firms in the business have grown rapidly not only in profits but in their turnover and in their assets. But time does not allow me to present that side of the picture in support of the denationalisation, and, in any case, many of the points have already been made in the debate. I shall, therefore, say a few words about one aspect of the matter which concerns me, namely, the proposed method of denationalisation.
  The case for denationalisation is overwhelming, but I am not happy about the method by which, apparently, we are to sell the Holding Company and Thomas Cook. We have been told that it will be sold as a going concern. It is a going concern. It is a self-contained viable commercial unit which is able to stand as an independent unit, and it is for this reason that I regard the so-called hiving off principle as undesirable and politically unpalatable. The proposed method of selling it off to a syndicate or, perhaps, another firm in the travel business, or perhaps a bank, is unjustified. Moreover, it is undignified. The picture one gets from Press articles over the past few months of eager buyers hovering in the background like a pack of wolves in for the kill is unpalatable. We should do something far more noble. The denationalisotion should be effected by a direct sale to the real owners of this business—the public.
  I see no reason why Thomas Cook should not be put on the market with a proper prospectus. As it is a desirable morsel, it has great potential, which everyone can see—hence there are potential buyers—as a self-contained viable unit. It offers the Government an ideal opportunity to launch as a pilot scheme the first stage of what could be a major denationalisation programme. I suggest
  1420
  that the formula which should be seriously considered by my right hon. Friend is that the company is offered in the normal way through the Stock Exchange, with a prospectus, for public subscription, and that first, Thomas Cook is transferred to a nationalised industries realisation agency, and that then approximately 25 per cent. of the capital is offered by tender to the highest bidder, which would be an institution or a merchant bank. This 25 per cent. to be offered by highest tender would then provide some institution or merchant bank with the incentive to inject commercial and financial management. But the balance of the capital, 75 per cent., should be offered for sale to the public by subscription.
  The price at which the shares ought to be offered for sale to the public should be at a substantial bargain level to ensure success. To make it quite clear that the offer would be for a sale at a bargain price, allocation should be strictly limited to not more than £100 per family, and, if there is over-subscription, as I believe that there would be, the allotment of shares should be even less than £100. Employees and staff should receive preferential allocation to provide management incentive.
  Moreover, I suggest that there ought also to be provision for instalment purchase for those families that cannot afford even £100 worth of allocation. I do not see why an instalment purchase scheme should not be adopted through the Pay-As-You-Earn system. This formula for denationalisation has been successfully employed in Germany, where nationalised industries such as Volkswagen and Lufthansa have been denationalised on the basis of a small subscription on a strictly rationed basis. To avoid abuse, those receiving small allocations at bargain prices should have a restriction on sale, perhaps, for three years, or at least, if they wished to sell within a three-year period, they should be obliged to pay full capital gains tax on any capital gains that arise on their holdings.
  I have not time to develop this thesis, this formula for denationalisation, which has proved successful in Germany, could be adopted in Britain for other denationalisation in easy stages. By following this formula we can create genuine public

  1421
  ownership under private enterprise management, and we can offer employee-identification through part-ownership—a desirable objective—and at the same time we can provide a profit incentive to the management which would have the 25 per cent. stake. Not even the most doctrinaire of hon. Members opposite, if they were ever in office again, would dare expound an expropriation of shares in such a denationalisation because, by threatening to take over again the small holdings of a massive number of shareholders they would be hitting probably some of their supporters, the employees of the company and the general public.
  Mr. James Lamond: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rost: No, I must conclude because I have promised to keep my remarks brief. I urge the Government not to miss this opportunity. Those who try to argue that denationalisation is not practical because no one would be persuaded to buy the industries could be proved wrong if we adopted this formula or some adaptation of it. We can reap economic and social rewards and, at the same time, achieve denationalisation by a formula which would be politically acceptable.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: I am sorry that some hon. Members have been inconvenienced by a series of interruptions during this afternoon's debate, which did not enable us to conclude as quickly as we should have liked. Nevertheless, 11 hon. Members have spoken and I am obliged to hon. Members opposite and to my hon. Friends for co-operating towards the end.
  The Bill heralds the indiscriminate carve up of the profitable parts of public enterprise. We have had other hiving-off Bills before this one, but this is the most important hiving-off Bill to date. It mainly concerns Thomas Cook and its 5,000 employees. It is a firm of undoubted international reputation, with a total travel business amounting to £93½ million last year. It is transacting business throughout almost 500 offices in over 50 countries. It is synonymous with travel almost everywhere in the world, and it has become a famous international household name.
  1422
  The company's reputation for good will and honesty in trading has been recognised by everyone who has travelled internationally, and it has been recognised particularly by many of the international organisations, among them the United Nations Organisation, U.N.E.S.C.O., the World Health Organisation and the I.M.F., who entrust Cooks with all their worldwide travel arrangements.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) as president of the union with the membership involved, dealt with the company's activities in detail, and I shall not repeat them. It is worth while repeating to the House that its total travel business is £93½ million. It has travellers' cheques sales of £91 million. It managed an accumulative profit before tax, from 1965 to 1969, of nearly £7 million.
  Although many hon. Members opposite have talked during the debate about the profit not being enough, profit motive is not our guiding light in life. I should have thought that public service came into this. Nevertheless, the company has held its head above water and has not had constant losses. But of those figures, what rich pickings there are now available. We can see the frantic rush there now is to pluck Cooks back into the private sector. There is a consortium of travel trade operators involved. Horizon Holidays has taken an interest. So has Global Holidays, subsidiaries of Great Universal Stores; Clarksons, subsidiaries of Shipping and Industrial Holdings; Trafalgar House Investments' holiday package fleet, Cunard, Lunn-Poly and Sunair; the Thomson Organisation; and American Express. All these are now queueing up to make their bids for this big plum that is about to fall out of public hands.
  Of the publicised interested bodies two have already financed the Tories war chest in the past, as one of my hon. Friends said, and two of the bankers already publicised, Hambros and Kleinwort Benson Lonsdale have poured thousands of pounds into the Tory coffers in recent years. We shall be watching their bids with interest in the next few weeks.
  It goes without saying that I utterly deplore this hiving-off operation. If the Transport Holding Company is to be

  1423
  wound up, Thomas Cook could have been transferred to a joint B.O.A.C.-B.E.A. charter and travel service and could have provided us with a great international travel industry which would have out-rivalled American Express. That possibility should have been considered.
  The right hon. Gentleman bathed in the sunshine of the beams from all his hon. Friends as he embarked upon this denationalisation Bill. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us to what extent B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will be allowed to bid. How will the sale take place? What is the tendering practice? What rules have been drawn up for these hiving-off operations? I hope also that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell the House that this sale will be conducted in the most open and public way with full exposure of all assets, liabilities, turnover, and so on, and full information about the bidders.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman gave some undertaking to the effect that there would be no foreign takeover. We know that American Express is involved. What conditions will be imposed upon the sales? Will the Government sell it as a whole or in parts? Will those who receive it be allowed in turn to sell it off if they wish?
  On the general theme, there does not seem to be any general policy or clear guidelines for the House or the threatened nationalised industries about which peripheral activities are to be hived off. What are the criteria governing the Government's approach? The Minister for Industry has said that by and large the public sector should be concerned primarily with those activies which cannot be sensibly done by the private sector. That is no test. It is just an assertion, by which the hon. Gentleman means that private enterprise wants only those that make a profit.
  The Government cannot use the argument either that it will increase competition; for if an ancillary goes to a similar producer or firm competition is lessened, and if it goes to anyone else competition remains the same.
  That answer is party political dogma. It is a trend to satisfy influential friends. In doing so, so far no good explainable reason why the Government are creating havoc and despair among large sections
  1424
  of public industry by hiving off has been given.
  I will explain why the general policy of hiving off is doing harm. There is, first, the question of Government time and the time of chairmen of boards in denationalisation discussions—meetings with chairmen of the boards, board chairmen meeting their members, Cabinet and Cabinet committee time, the preparation of Bills and orders, then the introduction of the Bills, legislative time, and so on.
  What about the major reviews which are taking place—the major reviews of the activities of the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation's ancillary activities? Lord Melchett and Derek Ezra must be in constant discussion and argument with civil servants and Ministers. They are absorbing valuable working time and energy which should be devoted to solving many of their own present problems. What proportion of their time at present is being diverted to defending the hiving off of chemicals or brick production instead of their being allowed to concentrate on steel and coal production?
  So there is, first, a major diversion of time and endeavour.
  Second, nationalised industries are always in the straitjacket of constant Government torture. I still think that there is a case for their being granted more commercial freedom; but Governments control their borrowing, their investment and their prices. They are riddled with parliamentary inquiries such as Select Committees, borrowing powers Bills and Parliamentary Questions. Now on top of all that, they have the constant anxiety of the threat of hiving off.
  This is bound to affect their financial targets. Indeed, setting financial targets for nationalised industries at present does not make sense, because one hiving-off operation of a profitable subsidiary can make nonsense of the target. Therefore, targets must at all times be a constant worry to a nationalised board.
  Third, it is bound to demoralise the management of nationalised industries. It will curb the spur to efficiency; because, if ancillaries that are profitable are likely to be hived off, it will be a positive disincentive.
  The National Coal Board runs a contracting industry. There would be

  1425
  catastrophic social conditions if it collapsed. It is aided and abetted by some of its ancillary operations. Some of them are on an expanding basis, which helps boost the morale of management.
  Some fields of peripheral activity, such as fluidised bed experiments for power stations and chemicals of the N.C.B. and special steel work of the British Steel Corporation, or hovercraft development by British Railways, are very new developments. These are the pathfinders in industry. Their industry's growth may well depend on them. If they are cut off, the feelers for future growth are hived off and the industry will die or, as the Government seem to want it, leave behind islands of profitless inefficiency. The result is bound to be loss of morale, loss of key management, and failure of technical development.
  The fourth reason why the policy is bad is that the publicity and the Government's known sympathy with the policy of hiving off invariably lead to poor prices being obtained, and private investors make capital gains at public expense. The reasons are, first, that the price is likely to lower because the ancillary is being cut from the benefits of its parent undertaking. There is also the growing desire in the Labour Party for a future Labour Government to re-nationalise and not compensate. That, too, has an effect on price.
  Those ancillary activities which are in the course of developing and for which, therefore, there is no established record of profit, will not fetch much of a price. One or more of those factors adversely affects the price levels. The worst case of all was that of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. The routes were just hived off. It was a give-away to private enterprise with no compensation. The nearest forthcoming analogy I can think of would be if there were difficulty in developing the commercial radio stations and the Government decided to hive off the present local B.B.C. stations: there would be no payment to the B.B.C. for establishing and developing its stations.
  For all those reasons, I urge the Government at least to issue a White Paper or to make a major policy statement on their hiving-off intentions. Irreparable
  1426
  damage has already been caused in our major publicly-owned industries.
  Better still, the Government should stop this witch hunt against nationalisation and the constant pilfering of the public purse. Their disgraceful methods of reviews of subsidiaries, calling for a list of their activities, is leading virtually to a forced sale of assets at knock-down prices. If any public corporation assets are to be sold, it should be done as a result of normal commercial practices. The Government seem to be acting like an ogre, breathing down the necks of State subsidiaries and forcing them to sell too quickly and too cheaply.
  I well remember the case of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., because they were the first to suffer. This was a case of confiscation without compensation. It was an act of unparalleled political dogmatism. Everybody concerned has been warned, and this will apply generally to other acts of hiving off in that manner, that it is our intention to retrieve those routes and claw them back without any compensation. That is not as narrowly doctrinaire as hiving off or confiscation, because they will have profited in the meantime. Caledonian-B.U.A., on average profits, because the routes themselves were making profits of £¾ million to £1½ million a year, could on those routes alone and the profits there generated make £3 million to £4 million before we enact the clawback procedure.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what view the then Minister will take of the views of the staff who will not want that kind of disruption, in addition to the views of the management who will have done commercially better?
  Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge is very narrow in this sphere. He must know that, for example, B.E.A.'s and B.O.A.C.'s rates or pay, hours and general conditions of work are well in advance of the private enterprise airlines. The workers in these State Corporations do not want to be clawed out of the public and into the private sector, and that will apply when we return to office.
  I strongly deplore this new narrow, doctrinaire technique of hiving off. Across a very broad section of public industry the threat of hiving off profitable parts is very real. The uncertainty is worrying

  1427
  to all concerned. Efficiency and profit levels are being affected because, after a third degree period of torture, a Bill is introduced or an order is laid and then the speculators move in to buy at unreal, knockdown, low-price levels.
  This is at best a rotten technique. At worst it is soul destroying for thousands of workers. It is morale destroying and disheartening for the managements of publicly-owned industries. But the evil of the system is that the State assets of our publicly-owned industries are being virtually given away to the gods of greed in our society.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Would my right hon. Friend care to substitute "devils" for "gods"?
  Mr. Mason: The Conservative Government have lurched very much to the right. There now seems to be a dictatorial streak in their philosophy, epitomised by confiscation without compensation. It is thoughtless, it is without conscience and it is blundering on without any thought of the ultimate consequences. Apart from the trail of misery and harm it is doing to large sectors of British industry, it is obviously oblivious of the counteraction; the reaction—the quiet, simmering revolution it is provoking and which, in return, is demanding a lurch to the left.
  If confiscation without compensation is their creed, if damning the name of public sector success before hiving oft, thereby enabling them to sell cheap to their friends, is their religion, then let them beware, and all who consort with them in these practices, that a future Labour Government—and I warn my right hon. and hon. Friends and those who aspire to occupy the Treasury Bench opposite—and the Parliamentary Labour Party and our supporters in the country will strongly demand that the public sector he increased, that their powers against hiving off be strengthened and that all who have been harmed in this series of narrow doctrinaire acts should in some way have the satisfaction of their dues.
  It is now incumbent on Her Majesty's Opposition to start compiling their logbook—recording every denationalisation act, noting which firms have been involved and documenting the total sums of public assets that have been filched, ear-marking
  1428
  in particular those that have been confiscated without compensation.
  It is the duty of the Opposition in any democratic society to warn the Government of the day that if they overstep the mark—the dividing line between democracy and dictatorship—then we must, on behalf of the people, try to safeguard their interests and, given power, take steps to redress the imbalance. [Interruption.] Confiscation without compensation is an act of dictatorship which the next Labour Government will certainly have to redress.
  The sum looks something like this: they have pinched from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. £6 million worth of routes; already 206 State brewery pubs, State assets valued at £4 million, have been hived off; the Transport Holding Company's subsidiaries of Skyways and Lunn-Poly and the State's share in the Penarth Dock Engineering Company have all gone; on North Sea gas licences, our proviso that the nationalised industries be involved in the new consortia no longer applies; the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company is being hived off and now Thomas Cook is being thrown to the speculative wolves.
  Yet to come are the results of the major reviews of steel and coal. They have not been completed. Decisions are awaited on the retail and repair activities of gas and electricity. Many areas are still threatened and the file is mounting. The logbook looks like being thick.
  We cannot agree with this Bill. We cannot condone this Measure. It is sheer unadulterated political dogmatism. In asking my hon. Friends to vote against it, I give warning that every hiving off operation of this kind will be closely scrutinised and, where we deem it necessary, the operation will be logged and on return to power we will claw back those plundered assets once more into the public purse.
  7.27 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The expression of great good humour on the face of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) as he resumed his seat demonstrated quite conclusively that not even he took seriously his effusion.
  I have always thought of the right hon. Gentleman as a somewhat moderate

  1429
  fellow. Having sat through the whole debate, nothing has struck me more forcibly than the contrast between the lucidity of my right hon. Friend's opening speech and the way in which the right hon. Member for Barnsley lashed himself into a not very convincing display of indignation about havoc, despair, straitjackets and torture. One can only conclude that he is not certain of being elected to the Shadow Cabinet.
  On one thing the House has been agreed, namely, that the post-war generation has seen a virtual explosion in international travel. Out of this explosion huge revenues have been generated and handsome profits, not least for our balance of payments, have been earned in foreign exchange.
  Against that flourishing background the House might expect that Thomas Cook Limited would have reaped a valuable harvest. It had Europe virtually to itself at the end of the war. It had a large float of working capital and the firm possesses some of the choicest real estate and some of the best sales locations in most of the world's major capitals. I am sorry to say that in spite of those advantages, Thomas Cook has expanded more slowly and has earned a far lower rate of return on its capital than have competing firms in the private sector, whether in this country or abroad.
  The most relevant comparison is perhaps with American Express which, starting out from well behind, has now left Thomas Cook utterly outdistanced. Exact parallels are hard to draw, but the two companies' interests are sufficiently alike to enable one to compare their overall experience during the last few years.
  Since 1963 Thomas Cook's profits have had their ups and downs. Between 1963 and 1967 they fell by 43 per cent. while American Express doubled its net income and earnings per share. From 1967 to 1970 Cook's profits went down a further 50 per cent. while American Express diversifying itself, increased its net income by 50 per cent. In the first nine months of 1971 the net income of American Express went up by a further 25 per cent. and it is expected to reach 100 million dollars in this full year. In contrast. I regret to say that Thomas Cook will find it very hard indeed even to stay out of the red.
  1430
  So much for the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Barnsley that this is a plum. It has a vast potential but it has not been adequately managed within the public sector. Therefore, on this basis, I think I can say—
  Mr. J. T. Price rose—
  Mr. Griffiths: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He knows perfectly well why I will not give way to him.
  On this basis, I think the House will agree that Thomas Cook as an enterprise has gained very little from its long, if incidental, association with the State. Neither its business, its management nor its employees have gained from nationalisation. The House might find this disappointing result acceptable if the State for its part had gained from the relationship—if the taxpayer, for example, had won some countervailing social advantages for any losses which have been made. But there are no such social advantages.
  I hope that hon. Members opposite are not seriously pretending that there is some all-embracing social reason why the booking of tickets to concerts or the cashing of travellers' cheques should be conducted by a State-owned firm. The package tour business has its place. Indeed, many hon. Members, myself included, have found package tours excellent value. Unlike hon. Members opposite, however, I have never been able to persuade myself that all-in package tours are one of the commanding heights of the economy.
  I come now to the arrangements for the sale. The Transport Holding Company will be seeking, with the advice of its merchant bankers, to get the best possible bargain. It will be selling Thomas Cook as a whole. Under Clause 1(1), however the sale will require the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and under Clause 1(2) he could, if necessary, issue directions about the method of sale. In giving or withholding his consent, he will have uppermost in his mind the overall national interest, in particular the interest of the taxpayer. His consent will not be forthcoming unless the Transport Holding Company is able to obtain a high price for these potentially valuable assets.
  To put it in words of one syllable, Cooks is not going for a song. Nor is it

  1431
  going to what hon. Members have been pleased to call as asset-strippers' paradise. On the contrary, we shall ensure that it is sold only to reputable concerns able and willing to carry on and develop its national and international business. I was asked whether nationalised organisations would be able to join in the bidding. My right hon. Friend by no means rules out the participation of other nationalised concerns but this would have to be justified in terms of their existing main-line activities and would also have to depend on their financial position. I would not expect nationalised concerns would take more than a comparatively small holding, because anything other would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Bill.
  The detailed arrangements for the sale are now being worked out by the Transport Holding Company in consultation with my Department. A full valuation of the pension schemes has been made by independent actuaries and similarly the property has been most carefully valued by independent valuers. The latter includes not only a valuation of Cooks existing property interests which, as they stand, may well be worth some £8½ million, but also of the potentially greater value that might be realised if, for example, the leasehold interest of the head offices in Berkeley Square were to be "married" with the freehold. Bidders will be expected to take full account of these potential "married" values.
  Those independent valuations, together with the normal financial information, will form the basis of a prospectus which, should the House approve the Bill tonight, I expect will be issued by mid-December. Thereafter bids will be welcome from all comers, and I am confident that there will be many serious contestants. But Cooks is not for sale on the cheap. The Government would certainly prefer a satisfactory sale to be completed quickly but if, improbable as it seems, there should be no reasonable bids, my right hon. Friend will wait until there are.
  I want to mention one particular safeguard for the staff, to which the bulk of the Bill is devoted. As far as pensions are concerned, the purchaser will be required either to maintain existing pension schemes or to institute and maintain schemes which are no less favourable.
  1432
  This obligation is expected to form part of the sale contract but the Government expect to supplement it by means of orders made under Clause 2.
  It will be necessary to bring into the Cooks schemes certain employees who are now in other public sector pension schemes and to remove from the Cook's schemes a number of people no longer employed in the group. In addition to this tidying up, the Government will also safeguard by order the accrued rights of existing pensioners and members of the existing schemes.
  I do not expect that those orders will impose on the purchaser any significant liabilities beyond those implicit in the maintenance of the existing schemes, but in the unlikely event that any significant further liability arises, arrangements will be made for the Transport Holding Company or any successor body to reimburse the purchaser for the cost, assessed at the date of the order, of any such liabilities.
  I turn now to job security. We intend to make regulations to cover compensation for any loss of office. This will be done on the basis of the established Crombie Code, which has been evolved in the public sector since the last war. We are, however, adding a new obligation. While the Transport Holding Company and its successors will be responsible for paying compensation to anyone covered by the regulations, it also intends to require the purchaser as a term of contract to indemnify the Transport Holding Company against any expenditure so incurred. This will mean that while the employee has a call on—a guarantee from—the public sector, the cost of any redundancy will fall where it belongs, on the purchaser.
  Here indeed is a further answer to those who suggest that we are selling off a public asset on the cheap. The facts are exactly the opposite. I say to the staff that, on the one hand, their jobs and their pensions will be protected as effectively as it is possible and reasonable for them to be protected in any commercial venture while, on the other hand, they will benefit from the company's better prospects under a more progressive management.
  Finally, I turn to the kernel of the argument between the two sides of the House. At the heart of the matter is the simple question, who does what? In our

  1433
  view, the rôle of the State is best confined to doing those things which our people, whether as firms or as individuals, are not able to do for themselves. On the evidence there is little doubt that private industry can manage and develop a travel business like Cook's at least as well as, and probably a great deal better than, the various agencies of Government through which it has passed.
  I have with me some brochures setting out a number of Cooks' more interesting tourist offerings. For example, under the heading "French Riviera", Cooks very wisely tells us that when one visits the Casino in Cannes,
  "you may not amass a wealth of francs with James Bond panache, but you can still live like a millionaire in Monte Carlo."
  Then again, in its "Winter Sun" brochure it beguiles the potential customer with powerful advertising copy about how
  "nightly in the famed market square of Marrakesh, snake charmers, jugglers and acrobats perform."
  I have no objection to any travel agency vigorously promoting its wares in this fashion but the House can hardly accept that it is a necessary rôle for the State to sell weekends in French gambling casinos or to use the taxpayer's money to promote visits to Marrakesh.
  This Bill is a good one. It is good for Cooks, it is good for the taxpayer, it is good for the staff of the company. I believe that it will also prove to be good for what the whole House and the public as a whole want to see—the more rapid and profitable development of our travel and tourist industry.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 270.

  Division No. 16.]

  AYES

  [7.40 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Alison, Michel (Barkston Ash)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Allason, James (Hamel Hempstead)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushciffe)

  Gorst, John

  Astor, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gower, Raymond

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cooke, Robert

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Coombs, Derek

  Gray, Hamish

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Green, Alan

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Cordle, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Balniel, Lord

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Batsford, Brian

  Costain, A. P.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Critchley, Julian

  Gurden, Harold

  Bell, Ronald

  Crouch, David

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Bennett, Sir Fredrick (Torquay)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Davis, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Benyon, W.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Dean, Paul

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Biffen, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Digby, Simon Wigfield

  Haslings, Stephen

  Blaker, Peter

  Dixon, Piers

  Havers, Michael

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hawkins, Paul

  Body, Richard

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hay, John

  Boscawen, Robert

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hicks, Robert

  Bowden, Andrew

  Eden, Sir John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Edward, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hilley, Joseph

  Braine, Bernard

  Elliot, Cart. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Bray, Ronald

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

  Holland, Philip

  Brewis, John

  Emery, Peter

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Briton, Sir Tatton

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hornby, Richard

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Farr, John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fell, Anthony

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Bryan, Paul

  Fidler, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Hunt, John

  Buck, Antony

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Burden, F. A.

  Fortescue, Tim

  James, David

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Foster, Sir John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

  Fowler, Norman

  Jessel, Toby

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fox, Marcus

  Johnson Smith, G. E. (E. Grinstead)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Channon, Paul

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gardner, Edward

  Kaberry, Sir, Donald

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Mudd, David

  Speed, Keith

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Murton, Oscar

  Spence, John

  Kilfedder, James

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Sproat, Iain

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Neave, Airey

  Stainton, Keith

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Kirk, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Nott, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stokes, John

  Knox, David

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Lambton, Antony

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Sutcliffe, John

  Lane, David

  Osborn, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Owen Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)

  Percival, Ian

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

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

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Tebbit, Norman

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Loveridge, John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Trew, Peter

  McLaren, Marlin

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  McMaster, Stanley

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Raison, Timothy

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Waddington, David

  Maddan, Martin

  Redmond, Robert

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Madel, David

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wall, Patrick

  Marten, Neil

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Walters, Dennis

  Mather, Carol

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Maude, Angus

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Warren, Kenneth

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mawby, Ray

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Rost, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Moate, Roger

  St. John-Steves, Norman

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Molyneaux, James

  Scott, Nicholas

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Money, Ernie

  Sharples, Richard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

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

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Monro, Hector

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Simeons, Charles

  More, Jasper

  Sinclair, Sir George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Morgan-Giles, Rezr-Adm.

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

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  Morrison, Charles

  Soref, Harold

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Albu, Austen

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cant, R. B.

  Deakins, Eric

  Ashley, Jack

  Carmichael, Neil

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Ashton, Joe

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Atkinson, Norman

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Dempsey, James

  Barnes, Michael

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Doig, Peter

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Baxter, William

  Coleman, Donald

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Beaney, Alan

  Concannon, J. D.

  Driberg, Tom

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Eadie, Alex

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cronin, John

  Edelman, Maurice

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Booth, Albert

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

  Ellis, Tom

  Bradley, Tom

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A (Whitehaven)

  Evans, Fred

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Ewing, Harry

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

  Davidson, Arthur

  Faulds, Andrew

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  1436

  1437

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rankin, John

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Foley, Maurice

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Richard, Ivor

  Foot, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Ford, Ben

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Forrester, John

  McBride, Neil

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McCann, John

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Garrett, W. E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Roper, John

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rose, Paul B.

  Golding, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mackie, John

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Gourley, Harry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. John (Deptford)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

  Sillars, James

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Silverman, Julius

  Hamling, William

  Marquand, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Marsden, F.

  Small, William

  Hardy, Peter

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hattersley, Roy

  Meacher, Michael

  Stallard, A. W.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Steel, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mendelson, John

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Horam, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Millan, Bruce

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Strang, Gavin

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Milne, Edward

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Molloy, William

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tinn, James

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tomney, Frank

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Morris, Rt. He. John (Aberavon)

  Torney, Tom

  Janner, Greville

  Moyle, Roland

  Tuck, Raphael

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Urwin, T. W.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Murray, Ronald King

  Varley, Eric G.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Ogden, Eric

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  John, Brynmor

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wallace, George

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

  Oram, Bert

  Watkins, David

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Weitzman, David

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

  Paget, R. T.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Pardoe, John

  Whitlock, William

  Judd, Frank

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Lamble, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lamond, James

  Pentland, Norman

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Latham, Arthur

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Lawson, George

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Woof, Robert

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Prescott, John

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Mr. James A. Dunn and

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Mellish]:—
  The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 295.

  Division No. 17.]

  AYES

  [7.50 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Ashley, Jack

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Albu, Austen

  Ashton, Joe

  Baxter, William

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Beaney, Alan

  Allen, Scholefield

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Barnes, Michael

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hamling, William

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Booth, Albert

  Hardy, Peter

  Moyle, Roland

  Bradley, Tom

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Murray, Ronald King

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

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oakes, Gordon

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

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Ogden, Eric

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Horam, John

  O'Malley, Brian

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oram, Bert

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Orme, Stanley

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Paget, R. T.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pardoe, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hunter, Adam

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Janner, Greville

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Pendry, Tom

  Coleman, Donald

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pentland, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  John, Brynmor

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Prescott, John

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

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cronin, John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rankin, John

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

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

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Davidson, Arthur

  Judd, Frank

  Richard, Ivor

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kerr, Russell

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lambie, David

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Lamond, James

  Roper, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Latham, Arthur

  Rose, Paul B.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lawson, George

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dempsey, James

  Lestor, Miss Joan

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

  Doig, Peter

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

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

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sillars, James

  Driberg, Tom

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silverman, Julius

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dunn, James A.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Small, William

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Spearing, Nigel

  Edelman, Maurice

  McBride, Neil

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McCann, John

  Stallard, A. W.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Steel, David

  Ellis, Tom

  McElhone, Frank

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  English, Michael

  McGuire, Michael

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Evans, Fred

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Ewing, Harry

  Mackie, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Filch, Alan (Wigan)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

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

  Tinn, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tomney, Frank

  Foley, Maurice

  Marquand, David

  Torney, Tom

  Foot, Michael

  Marsden, F.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Ford, Ben

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Urwin, T. W.

  Forrester, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Varley, Eric G.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Meacher, Michael

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mendelson, John

  Wallace, George

  Golding, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Watkins, David

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Millan, Bruce

  Weitzman, David

  Gourley, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Milne, Edward

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Molloy, William

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Whitlock, William

  1440

  1441

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. James Hamilton

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lambton, Antony

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

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

  Lane, David

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Emery, Peter

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Eyre, Reginald

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Farr, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Astor, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n Cdfield)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

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

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fidler, Michael

  Longden, Gilbert

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Loveridge, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Balniel, Lord

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacArthur, Ian

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fortescue, Tim

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Batsford, Brian

  Foster, Sir John

  McLaren, Martin

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fowler, Norman

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Bell, Ronald

  Fox, Marcus

  McMaster, Stanley

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

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

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gardner, Edward

  Maddan, Martin

  Biffen, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Madel, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maginnis, John E.

  Blaker, Peter

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marten, Neil

  Body, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Mather, Carol

  Boscawen, Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Maude, Angus

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gray, Hamish

  Mawby, Ray

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Green, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Braine, Bernard

  Grieve, Percy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bray, Ronald

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Brewis, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gurden, Harold

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Moate, Roger

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Molyneaux, James

  Money, Ernie

  Bryan, Paul

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

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

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Monro, Hector

  Buck, Antony

  Harrison, Brian (Malden)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Haselhurst, Alan

  More, Jasper

  Burden, F. A.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Havers, Michael

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morrison, Charles

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hay, John

  Mudd, David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Murton, Oscar

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hicks, Robert

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Channon, Paul

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Neave, Airey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Holland, Philip

  Normanton, Tom

  Churchill, W. S.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Nott, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hornby, Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Cooke, Robert

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Osborn, John

  Coombs, Derek

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hunt, John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Cordle, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Percival, Ian

  Cormack, Patrick

  James, David

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Costain, A. P.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Jessel, Toby

  Pounder, Rafton

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Crouch, David

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Dean, Paul

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Raison, Timothy

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kilfedder, James

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Dixon, Piers

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Redmond, Robert

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kirk, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Eden, Sir John

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Knox, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  1442

  1443

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Wall, Patrick

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Stokes, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Rost, Peter

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Scott, Nicholas

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Wiggln, Jerry

  Sharples, Richard

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wilkinson, John

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

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Simeons, Charles

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Trew, Peter

  Worsley, Marcus

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

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Soref, Harold

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Younger, Hn. George

  Speed, Keith

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Spence, John

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Sproat, Iain

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Stainton, Keith

  Waddington, David

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the disposal of assets by and the dissolution of the Transport Holding Company, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the making out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) grants to the Company of such amounts as the Secretary of State thinks fit, and

  (b) grants to any person to whom liabilities of the Company are transferred under section 53 of the Transport Act 1968 of such amounts as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of enabling or assisting that person to discharge those liabilities;

  (2) the payment out of such moneys of any expenses of a Minister of the Crown which are attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the designation of persons as transferees of any property, right or liability of the Company;

  (3) any release of money owing to the Crown which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Sesion amending subsection (5) of the said section 53;

  (4) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums falling to be paid into the Consolidated Fund under section 29 of the Transport Act 1962.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

  PROCEDURE (SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEES)
  8.5 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
  That the Amendments to Standing Orders No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees) and No. 69 (Scottish Standing Committees), hereinafter stated in the Schedule, be made.

  PROCEDURE (SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEES)

    SCHEDULE
    Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees)
    Leave out line 3.
    Line 19, after 'that', insert—

    (i) for the consideration of any public bill certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland or of a public bill (or part of a public bill) ordered to be considered by a Scottish standing committee, the committee shall be so constituted as to include not less than sixteen members representing Scottish constituencies;

    (ii).

    Standing Order No. 69 (Scottish Standing Committees)
    Leave out paragraphs (2) to (4).
    The Motion gives effect to the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure concerning the First Scottish Standing Committee. It will be within the recollection of the House that I undertook to allow more than the normal time for this debate, and I think it will be recognised that I am doing that tonight. I will briefly set out the purpose of the Motion, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker,

    1445
    will reply at the end of the debate to answer the points raised.
    The purpose of the recommendation is to make it possible in future for the First Scottish Standing Committee to have 16 members if that is decided to be the right number. It does not in any way preclude a larger Committee if that is decided through the usual channels.
    The position in England is that a Committee of 16 is allowed, but the actual size of a Committee on any particular Bill is always settled through the usual channels. In my six years as Opposition Chief Whip I never once had any difficulty with the Government of the party opposite in getting the size of Standing Committee that I asked for. Any size I asked for was always conceded to me.
    It is important to recognise that the Motion in no way says that every Scottish Standing Committee has to have 16 members and no more. It says that, like English Committees, it is possible to have a Committee of 16 if that is what the usual channels agree, but, equally, it is possible to have a larger one if that is the decision of the usual channels after consultation.
    This seems to me to be a reasonable proposal. It is the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure. The First Scottish Standing Committee will be put in the same position as the English Standing Committees, and I have pleasure in commending the Motion to the House.
    8.8 p.m.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: I will not pretend that we are not disappointed about this. We received a promise that the various points of order which were raised when this idea was first announced would be taken into consideration and that the matter would be placed before the House. The only part of that promise which has been kept is that the Leader of the House has brought the Motion before the House. We objected to the proposal and we still object to it.
    The argument advanced by the Leader of the House, based on his experience as Tory Chief Whip when he found little difficulty in achieving the size of Committee he wanted, is not relevant. We know the background, which is the difficulty of the Conservative Administration
    1446
    in conducting Scottish legislation. This difficulty arises not from the Standing Orders of the House, but from the position in which the Government have been placed by the decision of the Scottish people. Such a small number of Tories were elected by the people of Scotland that the Government are finding difficulty in manning Committees. This was spelt out last winter and we wondered what means would be taken to deal with it.
    The Government have found a recommendation by the Select Committee on Procedure. I understand the reasons for the Committee's recommendation, but the reasons for the adoption of the recommendation have nothing to do with them and are concerned with the Scottish conditions that prevail. This recommendation does not only affect the Standing Orders of the House but is a challenge to the democratic decision of the Scottish people.
    Mr. Ian MacArthur: Nonsense.
    Mr. Buchan: We all know that that is the reason. If the right hon. Gentleman says that no difficulty has been experienced in the past, why does he now seek to change the situation? There are two new factors. One relates to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure; the other lies in the political reality faced by the Tory Party in Scotland and in this House.
    I do not accept that the Scottish Standing Committee is in the same position as other legislative Committees of this House. The Scottish Standing Committee is seen in the Scottish Press and by the Scottish people to be Scotland in Parliament. In the same way as, for example, the proceedings in this Chamber are reported in the English Press, proceedings in the Scottish Standing Committee are reported in the Scottish Press. Unlike the other United Kingdom legislative Committees, which do not unfortunately impinge to any great extent on the public consciousness, the proceedings of the Scottish Standing Committee achieve that end. It is the one Standing Committee which makes the necessary democratic link with the public. Therefore, it is important that the size of that Committee should remain as it is.

    1447
    Anybody who has served on a Scottish Standing Committee, as on any other United Kingdom Standing Committee, will know the difference. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not as good."] There is a very important difference, and I do not accept that it is not as good. The difference is that debates in the Scottish Standing Committee strike at fundamental matters of principle. They are much less legalistic, less technical and, perhaps, more political than the discussions in other Standing Committees. But surely the whole nature of the House of Commons is that it is a political body. If we lose this aspect of political discussion in Standing Committee, a whole dimension of our parliamentary democracy will have gone.
    The weakness of Parliament at present is the difficulty of connecting with the world outside. Events can take place in this Chamber which hardly cause a ripple outside because of the difficulty of making contact. Hence the demand for the televising of parliamentary proceedings. The proceedings in the Scottish Standing Committee make this kind of impact, and it is important that a broad section of the Scottish electorate and Scottish constituencies should be represented on the Committee.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that the new procedure would put the Scottish Standing Committee in the same position as the other United Kingdom Standing Committees. He said that it would be for the Committee of Selection to decide. There are other criteria for the Committee of Selection to consider according to the nature of the legislation, but by and large it decides the matter on the relative importance of a Bill. Surely we do not need to look at a particular Measure to decide the size of a Scottish Standing Committee.
    When non-controversial matters come before a Standing Committee which do not involve fundamental matters of principle, the Opposition co-operate with the Government, as happened last Session, in carrying such a Measure through without argument or difficulty, but such Bills tend to go straight upstairs. There are other Bills which affect the nature of Scottish society so fundamentally that we believe they should be debated on the Floor of the House. Therefore, we hope that the
    1448
    Leader of the House will take back his Motion and amend it. He should remember that any matter involving a fundamentally important principle is always voted upon on the Floor of the House and this must be borne in mind when considering the work of the Scottish Standing Committees.
    It will meet our requirements if the right hon. Gentleman amends the Motion to provide for a minimum of 16 members, except in the case of Bills which have been debated on the Floor of the House and voted upon, when the minimum should be 30 Members.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have looked at this matter. The problem is that under the present procedure of Standing Order No. 67(2), if 10 members object to a Motion to take a Bill upstairs and to refer it to the Scottish Grand Committee, the Bill in question must be debated on the Floor of the House. Therefore, it would be open to 10 Members at any time to ask for 30 Members on the Standing Committee simply by operating such a process. I thought that was the sort of procedure that hon. Members opposite were seeking to safeguard, but the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be very difficult to implement.
    Mr. Buchan: I am sorry, but I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is now showing that there is a political reason behind acceptance of this proposal.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No.
    Mr. Buchan: It results from the difficulty which faces the Tory Party. It is strange that at this particular moment of time the House should lay aside the existing traditions of the House which, so far as I know, have never been abused or questioned and that we should now be asked to agree to this proposal. We must ask why it is being done.
    I appreciate that some excellent work has been done by the Select Committee on Procedure, but on this matter there have obviously been a number of complaints and considerable gnashing of teeth—and teeth will be provided to the Tory Party during the coming winter. I realise that the Select Committee on Procedure feels that the practice in the Scottish Standing Committee should be in line with that in United Kingdom Standing Committees. But the Government have

    1449
    forgotten the two important factors I have outlined. The first—and I repeat it—is that the Scottish Standing Committee is seen as a debating Chamber, in the same way as this Chamber is seen as a debating chamber in English eyes. The second factor is the difficult problem which faces the Tory Party over this issue.
    For all these reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to pass off this matter as a little local difficulty but will recognise the fundamental principle involved and will come forward with a suitable amendment.
    8.20 p.m.
    Sir Robin Turton: It is quite clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Rendrew, West (Mr. Buchan) that the Scots are a very political body. However, I should point out that the Select Committee on Procedure looked at what is at present a nonsense, and now that it tries to put it right the hon. Member seems to impute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House some malevolent party content. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    If hon. Members look at Standing Order No. 62, they will see
    "Save in the case of the Scottish Standing Committees, the Committee of Selection shall nominate not less than sixteen nor more than fifty Members."
    We were alerted to look at Standing Order No. 69 and we found that of the two Scottish Standing Committees, one is of the size selected and the other has the old, unreformed size of 30 with the additional Members. Quite clearly, there must be a change. At the moment, that is an anachronism. It was caused by changes in Standing Orders made during the last five years.
    Until now, bringing in no party feeling, the House has always felt that there should be greater flexibility in the size of Committees. Bills differ very much in their content. In our Report, there is the entirely novel idea that we should go back to the 1880s and have Select Committees dealing with technical Bills or technical parts of Bills. Select Committees, of course, require very small numbers of members. That is why we believe that there should be greater flexibility, and I thought that the party opposite believed the same.
    Mr. George Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much time the Select Committee spent on this question?
    Sir R. Turton: I am afraid that I have no measure of the time. Certainly the Committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing Committee stages. Hon. Members have to remember that the Committee was sitting for a whole year on the subject. If I had been asked to time with a stopwatch every occasion on which the Committee touched on the idea of Select Committees and the peculiarity of the Scottish Committee, the total would have been very difficult to evaluate. Certainly there was no hasty decision. I also remind hon. Members that the parties were nearly evenly divided on our Committee.
    I approach this matter not from any party standpoint. I am anxious to try to make sense of the Standing Orders of the House. At the moment, the Standing Orders regarding Scottish Standing Committees make nonsense.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How?
    Sir R. Turton: I have explained that already. They are contradictory.
    Mr. Buchanan: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the consideration given to these matters by the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has also stressed the importance of flexibility, which we on this side of the House accept. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the importance of a Bill, having regard to the other Scottish aspects to which I have referred, could be determined by whether it was debated and voted upon on the Floor of the House? Would not that give the flexibility required?
    Sir R. Turton: If the hon. Gentleman suggests that more and more Scottish legislation is to be debated on the Floor of the House, I, as an English Member and one who likes Parliament to be interesting, would deplore the change.
    May I give the historical background as I see it? The old idea was that these Committees should be large in size. During the 40 years that I have been a Member of the House, I have seen

    1451
    them dwindling. The major change affecting Scotland was made on 24th October, 1968, when the last Government proposed a Second Scottish Standing Committee and that in size it should have a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 50 members. That was a wise decision of the then Leader of the House—
    Mr. William Ross rose—
    Sir R. Turton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence, even though he is a former Secretary of State for Scotland. At that time the only objection came from the Liberal Party, which made a mild protest since it felt that if the number of members dwindled further, the small Liberal Party might be excluded completely. However, all Scottish Labour Members thought that it was a wonderful idea to reduce the numbers from 30 to 20, and the Conservative Party agreed.
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman said that he wished to give us the history of this matter. However, he should get the history right. It was not the last Administration, but the Administration before that. Prior to that, there was only one Scottish Committee. It was a case not of reducing numbers but of instituting something quite new for a special purpose, to which we agreed.
    Sir R. Turton: I am told that the Second Scottish Standing Committee was set up on 24th October 1968—
    Mr. Ross: No.
    Sir R. Turton: I thought that it was done during the period in office of the previous Administration. Perhaps I have my history wrong, or possibly the right hon. Gentleman has a different history.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Perhaps I might assist my right hon. Friend. A Second Scottish Committee was first set up in the early 1960s, when a Conservative Government were in office. The change to which my right hon. Friend refers, reducing the membership of United Kingdom Committees to 16, occurred more recently during the term of office of the Labour Government.
    Sir R. Turton: I apologise to the House. Those facts must be correct if two Secretaries of State for Scotland agree.
    The major change occurred on 19th December, 1968, when the Second Scottish Standing Committee was reduced from 20 to 16 members. Judging from the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West, one would have expected loud protests. In fact, there was none. It was agreed to on the nod, and col.1698 of the OFFICIAL REPORT records that fact.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken account of the fact that the Second Scottish Committee normally is used for very different purposes? It is primarily the vehicle for processing Private Members' legislation, which is frequently not of such a controversial nature and does not require the extensive scrutiny which Government legislation involves. I was one of the beneficiaries of the setting up of the Second Committee in 1968 when I promoted a Bill concerned with the Highlands which met with agreement.
    Sir R. Turton: I doubt whether Private Members' Bills are always noncontroversial.
    I applaud the move of the last Labour Government to bring down the minimum size of Committees to 16 members. I suggest that these matters should be outside the realm of party controversy and that our aim should be to try to get good sense. When people outside this House look at parliamentary procedure, they want to see a sensible system.
    Bills differ very much in degree. In the case of legislation like the Local Government Bill for England or the Housing Finance Bill for Scotland, no one would suggest sending it to a Committee of 16 members. I have seen many odd Scottish Bills about feu rents and similar matters. I cannot believe that it would be felt desirable for all Scottish Members to take up time on these subjects. I have no political animosity. I am trying to make our Standing Orders make sense. I am trying to see that the House does not waste its time and that back-bench Members are not serving on Committees in which, because of their technical nature, they have little interest.

    1453
    Let us have big Committees where there is a lot of party controversy. If there is no great party controversy and the Committee is concerned with a technical matter, it is wrong to prevent the Committee of Selection appointing a Standing Committee with fewer than 30 members.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking as the Father of the House and Chairman of the Select Committee. Does he realise that he has already told us at least three things which are wrong? If he enters fiercely into the argument, he must not lose his non-partisanship by being wrong on so many occasions.
    One interesting point which was made earlier concerned the amount of time spent on this proposal. Many other proposals have gone through without controversy. We are having three hours on what we say is a controversial proposal. In the report there is one small part on page 14 and another on page 15. In only one small section of the Select Committee's Report is there any reference to this controversy. Yet this side of the House takes great exception to what is being proposed.
    As Chairman of the Committee, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is in the midst of a prickly situation? Perhaps he should reconsider what he has been saying. We feel that this attempt to reduce the size of the Committee is an attempt to curb the number of Members who want to speak on highly controversial Measures. It is not a matter of non-controversial Bills it is a matter of this recommendation allowing it.
    Sir R. Turton: I realise that when I talk about Scotland I am entering a prickly field. I have long experience of the fact that Scottish Members have a curious kind of skin which emits prickles at the least movement. I want hon. Members to realise that we had evidence. The fact that we had evidence is shown in our Report. The Committee, which consisted of hon. Members from both sides, considered the question of Committees and the desirability of having small Committees on small technical Measures. I cannot understand why there is lack of confidence in the Committee of Selection.
    1454
    Surely the Committee of Selection must decide the size of Committees, no doubt helped by the usual channels and by members of the Committee of Selection who are representative of the party opposite and of Scotland. Why are they so frightened of having the same discretion applied to their Committees as English Members have?
    I doubt whether the intervention by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon)—that this is the only part of our Report which is controversial—was correct. Probably there are many hon. Members, some even from Scotland, who will find our recommendations—for example, on time limits for speeches—extremely controversial.
    There is no party feeling in the recommendations. It is a mistake to have an exception to the general rule of flexibility in the size of Committees regarding one of two Scottish Committees. The House may think that the Scottish Grand Committee might be able to deal with some of the big Measures which really affect the constitution of Scotland, like the Common Market, and so on. I leave that to Scottish Members to argue, However, I beg them to try to appreciate that the First and Second Scottish Committees should have a degree of flexibility which, unlike every other Committee provided for in Standing Orders, they do not have at present.
    8.33 p.m.
    Mr. George Lawson: I am sorry that I find myself in such disagreement with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). I am sorry, too, that he took the Second Scottish Standing Committee as a means of arguing his case.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has indicated, there is quite a history in this matter. It was the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), when Secretary of State for Scotland, who introduced it. He did not introduce it without approaching the Opposition. I was part of what was called the "usual channels", and therefore, was conversant with what went on. One of the conditions laid down and agreed concerning the Second Scottish Committee

    1455
    was the need to speed up certain legislation. Both sides agreed that one condition should be that no controversial legislation—not necessarily only Private Members' Bills—should be sent to that Committee. This was a device the need for which we all recognised. We did not want, when in the throes of arguing over some highly controversial Bill, to hold up legislation which we all agreed would be useful.
    The Second Committee was set up at the request of the right hon. Member for Argyll, with our agreement. Subsequently, it was made a regular thing. It was set up initially for one year, the intention being to look at it again. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and others in the Labour Government who gave it a permanent basis. When it was put on a permanent basis, it was agreed with the then Opposition, who are now the Government, that the Committee would maintain its special form of being concerned only with non-controversial legislation, and when I was a Scottish Whip I would have done my best to ensure that that condition was observed.
    When the second Committee was set up properly, in the sense of being made permanent, the question arose whether the Liberals could be represented. One of the factors which decided us on having a Committee of 30 Members was that in a smaller Committee it would not be possible to give the Liberals the representation which we wanted them to have. I am aware that the Liberals now have only three Members instead of five and that it may not be possible to maintain the Liberal representation on the Committee, but that was our concern at the time, and it bears out the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) that this Standing Committee is different from a United Kingdom Committee. It has so much more of the character of a Scottish Committee arguing Scottish matters. It is not the Grand Committee. The kind of work done in this Committee used to be done by the Scottish Grand Committee. All Scottish Members participated in debating the legislation during the Committee stage of the Bill, and it was in order to make the procedure less cumbersome that
    1456
    the composition of this Committee was agreed to.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock was opposed to the setting up of a Standing Committee, as distinct from the Grand Committee, but agreement was finally reached, and this Standing Committee was set up. But it was always understood that it was the Grand Committee cut down to do the kind of work which the Grand Committee used to do, but in so many ways doing it so much more cumbersomely.
    I am sorry that the Leader of the House, after giving us an assurance that he would consider the matter with great care, is not even prepared to listen to our arguments.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has had to leave the Chamber for a few minutes. I have undertaken to make notes of what is said while he is away. It is his intention to hear as much of the debate as possible.
    Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman knows how concerned we are about this issue. It was no gift to me to be offered three hours in which to debate the matter. I am not concerned with debating it. What I am concerned about is not to lose the right regularly to have a Committee of 30 Members. Our approach to the Leader of the House is very reasonable. We say that for most purposes we are prepared to accept a Committee of 16 Members, but that when we are presented with a Bill which we regard as very important or as controversial, and we know that so many more of our Members want to participate in debating it, there should be a larger Committee. That is all.
    We want some kind of guarantee. We would have left it to the Leader of the House to decide the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was undertaking to consider the issue and to bring forward some Amendment to provide for what we want. I know that the Leader of the House will say that he is reasonable, and that when an approach is made to him he will agree to a larger Committee meeting to consider a Bill of importance, but that is different from what we want. We are dependent on the Leader of the House, or on the Government, saying "Yea" or "Nay". The Government will have complete power by this change in the Standing

    1457
    Order. That is very different from having some kind of guarantee.
    The nearest thing that we could find to this procedure was that which the House agreed should apply when there was an objection to a Bill being sent upstairs to the Grand Committee. The procedure is that the Members who object rise in their place to say that they object.
    The right hon. Gentleman's objection to this reasonable suggestion is that it would be abused, but apart from odd instances when feelings have run strongly on either side, it has not been abused. We regularly send Bills to the Grand Committee for a debate on the principle unless there are strong objections. This is the right of the Opposition to say. "No, we want to debate the Bill in the House." No one wants to take away this right. Therefore, if we agree to preserve it, and if there is no risk of abuse in this respect, there should be none when we are concerned with the size of the Committee.
    We would not be concerned with the size of the Committee when it was dealing with a non-controversial Bill. Perhaps once in a Session there is a highly-controversial Bill. Scottish hon. Members used to be and still are more nearly full-time than most Members. They are professional politicians with no interest except here, and it is sometimes very difficult to keep Members off a Committee. With a membership of 16, I presume that seven would be from this side and nine from the party opposite. Many of our Members would feel that, on perhaps the most important part of our duty, dealing with the Committee stage of a Bill, they would have no proper facility to represent their views.
    Sir R. Turton: We have the same problem in England, of course. We have the same flexibility, with 16 as the minimum and 50 as the maximum. But, with a controversial Bill, the selection committee appoints 45 or 50 and not just 16.
    Mr. Lawson: Not necessarily. This is not decided by the committee of selection but by the Government. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) knows the objection to this Measure. It stems from the Government's difficulties in manning the Committee. Some hon.
    1458
    Members opposite have found it a tremendous burden. Most of us on this side enjoy those Committees. Because of this difficulty, there was an earlier attempt, persumably before the Committee of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton considered the matter, to reduce the size of the Committee. All I can see is a notice to the effect that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) submitted a paper, which presumably mentioned the size of the Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Fife, East was so fed up on one occasion at having to sit through a Scottish Standing Committee that he refused to support his own side. We appreciate his desire to get out of that.
    The other hon. Gentleman who makes up what is called the Scottish representation is the hon. Member for Gla9, gow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who I do not think will challenge what I have said so far. [Interruption.] I have always had a great admiration for his integrity and straightforwardness. I should not like him to undermine my confidence in his honesty. He said a number of things to the Committee, but all that I can find that he said about the Standing Committee was this:
    "… I agree that at the present moment the size of the Scottish Committee seems to be too large. I cannot see why it should be bigger than an English Committee. It has only got 71 people to draw from, and I would have thought that a number of about 16 would be very much more appropriate when you are drawing from 71 Members."
    The hon. Gentleman talked about Closures and various other things, but that was all I could find in the evidence submitted to the Select Committee to justify its coming to the conclusion it did. I found no evidence of careful consideration such as was given by the right hon. Member for Argyll, for example, when he asked us if we could set up the Second Committee. There were comings and goings over a period, and it was recognised that it was important for us all.
    The hon. Member for Hillhead will agree that while he plays a considerable part in Committees he does not want to spend more time than he can help on them. He says a couple of sentences, and they are summed up as long and careful consideration and

    1459
    scrutiny on the part of the Select Committee. I am disappointed. The matter is dismissed on page xiv in a very small paragraph, the kernel of which consists of only three sentences:
    "Scottish Members"—
    it does not say "two Scottish Members"—
    "drew the attention of Your Committee to this point"—
    the size of the Committee—
    "and suggested that the minimum number on the first Scottish standing committee should be reduced to sixteen members from Scottish constituencies, the maximum number of 50 being retained. The Leader of the House pointed out that 'the size of standing committees is related mostly to the particular type of Bill' and thought that the Scottish standing committees should be the same size as other standing committees. Your Committee recommend that this change be made."
    I will not speak for long. It is sometimes thought that I have a fault of speaking for longer than some of my hon. Friends, but we want to come to a conclusion fairly early, so I will be brief. But I must say that the Leader of the House has been a disappointment. We thought that we had put forward a reasonable proposition, which could function, with good will. When occasion arose, we thought, we could meet our particular needs, but on most occasions the Committee would be of the smaller size. But that is not to be. We are simply having this change pushed through.
    The time given to debate the matter makes no difference. As I said before, I should have readily sacrificed the time for debate. I am not interested in that. I am interested in what is happening, and I do not like it. I regard it as most unfortunate. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dumfries—now one of the Under-Secretaries of State—should have been prepared to allow it to be done. I thought better of him.
    It is most regrettable, and I am disappointed in more ways than one. The Leader of the House talks a great deal about our paying so much attention to this matter. He shows that he has long since made up his mind and that nothing that could be said will make any difference to him. He intends to push the change through. He is not even interested in the arguments which are being advanced.
    8.56 p.m.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I had not intended to speak—I certainly have not prepared anything—but I have been provoked by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who made an excellent and carefully prepared speech.
    In my view, the fuss which the Opposition are making, the time they are taking on this matter, a matter agreed by the all-party Procedure Committee, and their presence here in serried ranks on the benches opposite this evening, all add force to the argument for reducing the size of the First Scottish Standing Committee and making it a workmanlike Committee instead of merely a talking shop. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) put his finger on the point; he wants to see his name in the papers—though nobody else does. I do not want to see it, anyway.
    Mr. Buchan: I can understand that. In view of what he usually says, there are very good reasons why the hon. Gentleman should not want his name in the papers.
    Mr. Galbraith: Not my name, the hon. Gentleman's.
    Mr. Buchan: But the hon. Gentleman also said that he did not want his name in the paper.
    Mr. Galbraith: No.
    Mr. Buchan: I acknowledge that, unless the hon. Gentleman understands the simple point that Parliament belongs not to the Members of Parliament but to the people of this country, he will not understand our argument. It is important that the people know what the hon. Gentleman says as well as what we on this side say.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman underestimates the intelligence of the Scottish people. They can take a point if it is made once, or, perhaps, a difficult point if it is made twice. The hon. Member for Motherwell reckoned that if the Committee were as small as 16, there would be seven Socialist Members on it. There is no need to have an argument repeated seven times for it to sink into a Scottish audience. They are usually pretty quick off the mark.

    1461
    The trouble is that these arguments go on and on ad infinitum, to such an extent that I am now incapable of taking in anything said by a member of the Opposition. I have trained myself to do it. I did it when I was a Scottish Whip for seven years. I was opposite number, so to speak, to the hon. Member for Motherwell, and perhaps that is why we have a sneaking regard for one another.
    The fact that it comes before a large Committee does not necessarily mean that a matter is dealt with any more thoroughly. Often, it means that it is not dealt with so expeditiously. Moreover, when the Committee is drawn from only a small number like 71, Scottish Members are not able to serve on other Committees. This is a serious disadvantage in being a Scottish Member of Parliament. One is inward looking the whole time.
    The hon. Member for Motherwell could probably make my speech better than I can myself. I can make any speech he cares to make. As for the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—when I find it difficult to go to sleep at night, I just think of him making one of his notorious speeches. We have really had too much of this.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will have no trouble about sleeping tonight.
    Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I did not intend to listen to him.
    I remember the late Colonel Walter Elliot—and I have repeated the story before—saying that the trouble with Scotsmen was that if one got them all together in a chamber which was well-heated and if there was somebody to take down every word that they said, and one paid those Scotsmen into the bargain, one would never stop them talking.
    This is the trouble with the Scottish Grand Committee and the First Scottish Standing Committee; and it would be the trouble in the House if there were not some of our kind friends from across the Border to apply a little prodding to make us get on with the work. I firmly believe that this suggestion of the Procedure Committee, which has had all-party blessing till this stage, will help our deliberations in Scotland. There is nothing fixed about it. That is made quite clear by the Father of the House,
    1462
    my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton). It gives flexibility. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West does not give flexibility, because every time it is decided that there should be a debate on Second Reading on the Floor of the House, automatically—
    Mr. Buchan indicated assent—
    Mr. Galbraith: I do not like "automatically". But automatically if the Second Reading were on the Floor of the House the Committee has to be 30; but I want flexibility. If the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who come from south of the Border have faith in the system of the usual channels and the Procedure Committee to see that in appropriate cases the United Kingdom Committees are larger than the minimum, I do not see why the Scottish Members should not, as they are Members of Parliament, have faith in the same organisation.
    8.57 p.m.
    Mr. William Small: I feel that the House has been listening to a somnambulist, a man who has been sleeping and who then wakes and discovers that he is still speaking. Such a man generally talks nonsense.
    Let us look at what is happening in terms of the recommendations for 16 men. This is a diminution of the rights of democracy in an election petition at the ballot box, that enthralling event when the choice is made as to the representative quality of members, apart from party affiliation, and the decision taken has been quite excitingly in favour of this side of the House.
    It appears that behind the Motion is a restriction on the style of debate and the nature of Committees. My hon. Friends who are musicians will know that there are eight keys in one octave and that with two hands the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. The Prime Minister must have read the report, because he has now composed the "broken melody", that is, to break the Scottish Members if he can.
    The presence of the Lord Advocate reminds me of a story. I do not normally speak in Latin and tonight I shall let hon. Members off the hook. The story is about a case which was presided over by Mr. Justice Darling many years ago,

    1463
    about someone who, peddling his wares, sold stinking fish to a parson. I quote the ruling in the advice to the jury:
    "If he happens to know that his fish do stink, he must not cry, 'Fresh fish, fresh fish', nor is he any more entitled to do so if he happens to know that his customer cannot smell."
    The electorate in Scotland can smell on this matter, and this manœuvre stinks.
    To that degree, it is partisan and political in character, and goes against every method of what we call political democracy, that if one goes to the ballot box one's rights should be evercised on the number of Members one wishes to have on a Committee. To that extent I condemn that condition and the recommendation of the Select Committee as a squalid political manœuvre.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I will not try to emulate the analogy drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) with stinking fish. I am by nature slightly more generous. Unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), I shall not say whether this is a prepared speech or one that I am making off the cuff. If ever I make a good speech, I am not too sure which is the best way of setting about it.
    Unnecessary suspicion has been aroused on this question. I shall not make any of the wider political points which have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), and for Scotstoun. It is not a wise move to try to get through a Measure about which there is disagreement at four o'clock on a Friday afternoon, especially when it was not on the Order Paper until that very day. I hope that the Leader of the House will not accuse me of being suspicious without evidence, whatever he says about some of my hon. Friends. It was sheer chance that we had the opportunity to debate this question. It is not due necessarily to the generosity of the Leader of the House; though, he having been caught out once, I give him full marks for having been generous since then in the assurances he has given.
    The case for change has not been established. I do not want to object to the change if there is merit in it or if there
    1464
    is something reasonable about it. Despite what the people of Scotland have decided at the ballot box, if there should be a small Committee of 16 Members it would be intolerable to tie down members of the Government in Committee. After all, we may be in the same position ourselves again. It would be intolerable and irresponsible to tie down as Lobby fodder three junior Ministers who should be discharging their responsibilities to the people of Scotland, even though we do not always agree with what they are doing. As I should resent being treated in that way myself, so I can understand junior Ministers resenting it.
    I cannot understand how a man with such great natural charm as the hon. Member for Hillhead can be so offensive in his arguments. He made one valid point. He finds it abhorrent to share in the work of Scottish Committees. He may be genuine in his desire to share in the work of United Kingdom Committees together with other Government backbench Members, but we on this side are deprived of the opportunity of so serving.
    I do not believe that it would do any of us any good in Scotland if we were forced to admit that we had taken a certain view on this matter mainly because the people of Scotland had shown so little confidence in the Conservative Party. This could give rise to misunderstanding outside because of the need to obtain sufficient Opposition hon. Members to man a Committee. This could arise with a Measure like the Housing Bill, not because there are party disagreements, although of course there are, but because of the need, in the interests of the legislation, to have a number of hon. Members on the Committee who are able to improve the Bill.
    It is understood that while the Opposition membership of any Committee is unlikely to win any major arguments in debating a Bill brought forward by the Government, it is able to educate the Government on parts of the Bill, whatever it is, and for this reason it is important to have on any Committee the maximum number of hon. Members, within reason, who have knowledge of the legislation being discussed. This must happen in a democracy.
    The crux of the argument seems to be that there is likely to be agreement

    1465
    through the usual channels. Never having been in those channels it is difficult for me to contest this argument. However, during the time I have been in Parliament some very peculiar things seem to have happened in those channels. Indeed, I sometimes feel that I am swimming in totally different ones from those in which my party is in consultation.
    We must make up our minds whether we want a big Committee not just because a Measure may be controversial but because of the ability of hon. Members to bring knowledge to bear on the subject under discussion. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends would have liked to have been members of the Committee which examined, for example, the Divorce Bill, which would be limited to a membership of 16 under these proposals if the Bill was considered in the Second Committee.
    What will happen if the First Committee is sitting at the same time and there is difficulty in finding sufficient hon. Members to staff the other one? Will the Government have to rely on English and Welsh hon. Members to man the two Committees, or even only one of them? While I would not necessarily disagree with that, we must accept that it could have political implications for both major parties in Scotland. Is this state of affairs within the thinking of the Leader of the House and, if so, does the Secretary of State object to it?
    I am willing to be convinced on this issue. I remain unconvinced, however, that all these matters can be resolved through the usual channels. Nor am I convinced that we will be able to get large enough Committees to deal not simply with controversial legislation but with some major aspects of legislation affecting, for example, Scotland. This could seem to be uncontroversial but in fact it could turn out to be controversial. In other words, I have fears about this, but I am willing to accept the Minister's reassurance.
    9.8 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Many of the points that I might have made have already been dealt with. It remains a fact that if we are to accept the Government's proposals, which stems from the deliberations of the Select Committee on Procedure, we
    1466
    shall be doing so on evidence that is plainly too scant.
    As far as one can see, there are three strands of evidence in support of the recommendation. One is an undisclosed memorandum from the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). The second is the opinion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), whose evidence boils down to the fact that he found being a member of Standing Committees a boring experience. I assure him that that is not a common view. [Lauhter.] It may be a common view among hon. Members opposite, but I do not think that even on that side—
    Mr. Galbraith: I have had too much of it.
    Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman has had too much of it, there are others who will doubtless take his place.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is making more of this than is necessary. My point is that it is a great pity if Scottish Members are restricted almost entirely to serving on Scottish Committees. It makes them inward-looking. When the hon. Gentleman has been in the House a little longer and has had the opportunity of serving on English and United Kingdom Committees as well as Scottish Committees—perhaps he has done so already—he will probably recognise, and I defy him to deny, that there is a difference in approach, not necessarily to the disadvantage of the English Committees.
    Mr. Maclennan: It may be that my experience is more limited than the hon. Gentleman's but I can draw my own conclusions. I am only too well aware that under the present system it is quite possible for Scottish Members to serve on more than one Committee. I sat on no fewer than four Committees at one time during the 1969–70 Session. It involved a certain amount of logistic problems on occasion, but it was possible to be an active member of all four and to make useful contributions. Even the hon. Gentleman would not seek to place too much weight on the evidence, he gave, which really boiled down to a couple of sentences in which he said that he found it boring.
    The third and, perhaps, most significant contribution was made by the Leader of the House who stated that he thought

    1467
    that Scottish Standing Committees should be the same size as other Standing Committees. That statement lacked any argument in support. It was only an assertion.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: That is not quite what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said. He did not say that they should be the same size but that the same rule governing size—that is, between 16 and 50 members—should apply to the Scottish Standing Committees as applies to the other Standing Committees.
    Mr. Maclennan: I accept that in referring to the evidence of the Leader of the House, the Select Committee compressed his arguments in a way that might have given rise to over-simplification. Nevertheless, it is plain that he was suggesting that the principal reason for recommending a change would be one of logic. In my view, that is the most unsatisfactory basis for making a constitutional change, particularly as it affects the relationship of Scottish Members to their functions in representing the people of Scotland. If we are to accept the logic of that position, we will find ourselves following extremely strange paths. It could strictly be argued in logic that Scotland enjoys a much too large parliamentary representation because we have 71 Members out of a House of 630, but no one would seriosuly argue that the logic of that position should be sustained.
    The fact is that the Scottish Standing ing Committees exercise quite different functions from those of the English Standing Committees dealing with Bills, and it is extraordinarily insensitive, to put it no higher, of the Government to fail to take account of this difference. Is not the Secretary of State aware of this difference? Can he deny that the Press takes a much more detailed interest in what is discussed in Scottish Standing Committees in comparison with the interest shown by the English Press in what is discussed in English Standing Committees? In fact, the fourth estate—the Press—plays a very intimate part in the proceedings of Parliament in this respect.
    We have in a sense taken account through the institution of the Scottish Standing Committees of the problem of remoteness from central Government, which is the penumbra of this debate and
    1468
    has, unfortunately, not been sufficiently allowed for in the Government's argument.
    This is not simply a matter of numbers, nor can it be a matter of practicalities. Suppose that the Opposition are forced, at the behest of the Government, to choose seven of their Members to serve on a Standing Committee dealing with highly controversial legislation—and let us not be confused about who makes the choice. The Committee of Selection may decide the number, but it is the Government who, in the last analysis, decide that only seven Opposition Members will serve on the Committee. That ensures that the voice of Scotland will be less clearly heard and less representatively expressed. If we look at the matter in terms of geographical representation of the different areas of Scotland or in terms of the different interests which Opposition Members representing Scottish constituences express in the Committees, we realise how limiting this proposal is.
    Government back-bench Members do not represent such a broad cross-section of Scottish life as Opposition Members. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Hillhead suggested, Members opposite face the prospect of simply repeating what another hon. Member opposite has said. Their philosophy is the same, as is the class from which they stem, their education and schools. But that is not true of the Opposition. We are drawn from every class of Scottish life, from every region of Scotland and from every conceivable background. We bring these different qualities to our debates and we regard them as enriching. That is why we resent this blatantly political manoeuvre.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Mr. Eadie.
    Mr. Alex Eadie: May I at the outset—
    Mr. MacArthur: Oh.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon: I did not see him rise to his feet. If the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will give way to the hon. Gentleman, I will call him after the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has spoken.
    Mr. Eadie: Oh.
    Mr. MacArthur: I attempted to speak several times.
    Mr. Eadie: This is not good enough.
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. Ian MacArthur: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who always claims to believe in fair shares, must allow me to say a few words on this important matter.
    I welcome this proposal because it makes utter sense; it is totally fair. There have been changes made before in the composition of the Scottish Committee. There is nothing new in changing its composition. Changes have been made in our Committee procedure. I remember that the Second Scottish Committee was set up at the instigation of right hon. and hon. Members opposite with support from this side of the House. That Committee has done admirable work.
    Mr. Buchan: Before the hon. Gentleman starts to lecture us, will he say whether he heard the arguments for and against the proposals? Did he hear the history of the proposals outlined on both sides of the House?
    Mr. MacArthur: I heard the hon. Gentleman's speech in extenso and I heard other speeches. I apologise to the one or two Members whose speeches I missed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say what I wish to say. I propose to flatter him by spending quite a bit of my speech in commenting on his remarks, which I heard completely and which I disagree with totally.
    There is nothing new in changing the composition of Committees of this House. Change is welcome if it makes sense. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) said that the Scottish Committees are rather different from other Standing Committees because they debate matters of great principle which are watched very carefully in Scotland. I think that was the general trend of his remarks, and to a large extent I agree with him. These Committees are important. They debate Scottish Bills which are important to the people of Scotland. The Scottish Committees are watched by the Scottish Press more than other Standing Committees of the House are watched by the newspapers in the South. In parenthesis I would say that I am sorry we are not reported a little more than
    1470
    we are by the B.B.C. in Scotland because a large part of the great debate in Scottish national life takes place in the Scottish Committees.
    However, I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is not so much the Scottish Standing Committee which is the forum for these great debates, but that it is the Scottish Grand Committee which debates the great matters of principle. It is the Scottish Grand Committee which holds the equivalent on Scottish Bills of Second Reading debates. It is not so much the Scottish Standing Committee which deals with these broad matters of principle to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Buchan rose—
    Mr. MacArthur: I do not want to make too much of this point. I simply make the point to the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Grand Committee is not affected by this proposal. The Scottish Grand Committee will continue, and the Scottish Grand Committee will continue to deal with the matters of great principle, having Estimates days and matter days, and the equivalent of Second Reading debates by debates on the principles of Scottish Bills.
    The hon. Gentleman also suggested that because the Scottish Standing Committee was of such importance to Scottish national life a larger number of Members should be able to take part in debates in that Committee, but I would suggest that it is not the number of Members actually on the Committee which secures this interest in the working of the Scottish Standing Committee and arouses the Press reporting and comment to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not the number of Members. Surely, it is the quality of the debates in which they engage; and I do not believe that the quality of the debates is necessarily improved by enlarging the membership or obtaining artificially a large number of Members on the Committee. I do not accept his apparent argument that the debates in the Scottish Standing Committee will arouse less interest in Scotland in the Scottish Committee because on occasions there will be fewer Scottish Members on the Committee.
    The hon. Gentleman and others have had some fun because of their claim that we on this side have had difficulty in

    1471
    manning the Scottish Standing Committee. They can believe that if they like, and if it brings them any comfort, but I would remind them that we have manned the Scottish Committee very well, very efficiently. We have had all our Members there; they have all taken part, and done extraordinarily well, and it has been a joy to us to help the Government to get through the excellent legislation which the Government have been bringing forward.
    However, I would make the point which, I think, most hon. Members would accept, that Scottish Members work very hard in Parliament. There are 71 of us, as the hon. Member remarked just now, and, perhaps, it is arithmetically, overrepresentation, but we carry jointly a very large share of the work of Parliament. That is because not only do we take part, in the great debates on the Floor of the House, and at Question time, in United Kingdom affairs, but also we deal with Scottish Bills, and we have our own Scottish Committees and our Scottish Ministers. The load we carry is certainly not less than that which every other Member of Parliament welcomes as part of his duty here.
    Indeed, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) reminded us that in one Session, which was, admittedly, a very protracted one, after the 1966 General Election—a Session which went all through the summer months and to the end of the year before it ended—there were 71 Sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Standing Committees. That illustrates the amount of work which Scottish Members handle and have handled. We all do a good deal of work, every single one of us, and because of that there are occasions when I think that perhaps we take less part than we should like to in the Committees on United Kingdom Bills. We have all, I am sure, had experience of sitting in Committee on a United Kingdom Bill—from my point of view, rather less than I would like. Indeed, I remember—the hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, point to this as an illustration of a temporary drop in our numbers on this side—sitting in Committee on a Scottish and a United Kingdom Bill at the same time—the rating Bills. It is not a comfortable
    1472
    process. I dislike having to sit on two Committees at the same time. I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that this happens to both parties, in Government and in Opposition and, even if we accept that there are occasions when we need to sit on two Committees at once, it would be more sensible for Scottish Members to exercise their influence and make their voices heard more frequently and more loudly on Committees considering United Kingdom Bills.
    Surely, the central point is that we are not by this proposal putting Scotland at any disadvantage compared with England. All that is proposed is that the same Standing Committee rule should apply to Scottish legislation as applies to legislation for the United Kingdom. I find it hard to discern from the speeches I have heard any reasons to persuade me that we should not conform to rules which work pleasantly, harmoniously, sensibly and constructively for the conduct of United Kingdom business. This is the unanimous recommendation of the Procedure Committee, which considered all the relevant arguments, and on which a Scottish Member served, and it would be unreasonable for the House to reject the proposal, which I see as sensible and fair.
    9.26 p.m.
    Mr. Alex Eadie: My job is not to refrain from embarrassing the Government but rather to embarrass and harass the Government as much as possible. However much the Leader of the House may have represented himself as a model of conciliation, I was in the House when he tried to sneak this Motion through without debate. The argument that the Government are coming before the House as a model of conciliation is condemned by their tactics in trying to get the Motion through without debate.
    Five or 10 minutes ago we experienced the kind of tactics that the Opposition have to stand when confronted by this Tory Government. I make no apology for harassing or embarrassing them or for not consoling them in their dilemma. Their dilemma is that they are a minority party in Scotland. We are the majority party in Scotland, and that means that we have a right to voice our opposition when the Government, in trying to escape their dilemma, try to sneak legislation through the House.

    1473
    We know that this is a squalid manoeuvre and the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is an attempt to solve the embarrassing position of his Government. It is no use his telling us that everything will be all right and that we shall work through the usual channels. Having had experience of Parliament, we know that working through the usual channels means consultations. We are not daft. We have been in industry. We know that consultation does not mean management and that if the Government cannot have their way through the usual channels, they will exert their right as a majority to have their way. It is a mockery to suggest that the usual channels can solve this problem.
    Many hon. Members feel that the Government have done great damage to political discussion by using the guillotine indiscriminately to curb discussion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Like the Labour Government."]—but we did not set ourselves up as a paragon of virtue. We believe that there should be more discussion, argument and debate in the House. If it embarrasses hon. Members to sit in Committee because their horizons are limited, that is too bad. There is a wide horizon of opinion in this House. We have recently debated the Housing Finance Bill, but there are some hon. Members who do not know how council house tenants live, so how can they try to make an argument in debate?
    We were lobbied today by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people from Scotland, which an hon. Member opposite treated with arrogance and contempt for people's opinions. We should thank God that they came down to Parliament, because it shows faith in parliamentary democracy. It is when they stop coming that we should worry. Some of us prize parliamentary democracy, which is sometimes a fragile flower. Some of our forbears had to fight to get it.
    Parliament belongs not to the Government but to the people. The Government are in office for only a certain period. The day will come when the people decide that they do not want that kind of Government. Before that day comes, however, we have a responsibility as an Opposition to make sure that they do not destroy the rights of the people to debate in Standing Committee.
    1474
    Scotland is a nation, not just a region. We as a substantial majority party are entitled to see that these matters are discussed. So we will oppose the Government tonight. Whatever they may say, this is a squalid manoeuvre brought about by their own difficulties, from which it is not our job to extricate them.
    9.32 p.m.
    Mr. William Ross: We have had an interesting debate. I hope that the Leader of the House will appreciate that Scottish Members feel strongly on this. May I thank him for his consideration on the two occasions when I met him in his room to discuss this, when we tried to resolve what must in the end be a question of faith and the acceptability of assurances by him or by me?
    It has been suggested that a contentious matter which was the subject of a Division on Second Reading merited a much larger Committee. The right hon. Gentleman gave his reasons, which I understand. He is prepared to trust me, because I am a reasonable man, as I am prepared to trust him, but changes take place and 10 people may rise to spoil things.
    In the same way, he must appreciate our difficulty. Our only guarantee in this Standing Order is a membership of 16, and the rest will be questions of powers. Any Motion about the size of the Committee and what hon. Members are on the Committee will be entirely in the right hon. Gentleman's hands. And it is no use trying to convince an awkward customer like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) about the usual channels.
    Mr. Harold Gurden rose—
    Mr. Ross: Yes, I know—the hon. Gentleman is going to tell us about the Selection Committee. But we are dealing with the rules under which the Selection Committee and its Chairman will have to work. Any initiative in determining the size of Committees—
    Mr. Gurden indicated dissent.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should have been here at the start to correct his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He should not have come to correct me.

    1475
    I appreciate what the Leader of the House has done and the consideration which the Select Committee on Procedure has given to this matter, but they have failed lamentably to appreciate the sensitivity of this. There is no reason why they should. It is obvious that the Committee did not send for a memorandum from the Clerk of the House on the history of the Scottish Committee. If it had, there would be no excuse, other than just a human error, for the Father of the House getting matters wrong about the history.
    Sir R. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that, on the Select Committee on Procedure we had a Scottish Member who sits on the benches opposite and who had full knowledge of the history of the Second Scottish Committee.
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) is not here at present. But my hon. Friend entered this House in 1966—
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: What better prosecution witness!
    Mr. Ross: I do not grant any accolades to professors of constitutional history, but I suggest that many hon. Members present tonight have been part of the history of the development of Committees.
    The one Scottish Member to give evidence in person to the Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), made a few remarks and has now departed. He is not interested in replies to his points.
    My first comment about the Select Committee on Procedure is that it did not give enough time to its consideration of these matters. I understand that there was a letter from the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour)—
    An Hon. Member: Where is he?
    Mr. RossI think that he is in Australia. The letter is not even printed in the Report of the Committee. Then the hon. Member for Hillhead appeared before the Committee, for some reason. The Committee wished to see him about a point related to Closures, and then he was asked, "By the way, about another
    1476
    matter …" I think that he was asked one question, and he answered it as part of a sentence. I have the evidence before me. I could read all the questions and answers in respect of this matter and it would take me exactly two minutes. That is the published evidence. It may be that the Committee spent hours in deliberation, though I doubt it very much.
    Then his lordship himself, the Leader of the House, suddenly was seized of the importance of this matter and the desire to get efficiency. I wish that the hon. Member for Hillhead were here. Out of justice to the House, I think that I ought to read exactly what took place. The Leader of the House was asked by the Chairman:
    "I would like to pass to two other short points on the Scottish side of the business. The suggestion has been made that some Scottish Bills should go to the Scottish Grand Committee or the Scottish Standing Committee for Report stage. Would that be a possibility?"
    The Leader of the House replied in his customary brief form:
    "Yes, I think it would be a possibility."
    That was that point finished. Then the Chairman said:
    "The other odd thing about Scotland is Standing Order No. 69. Whereas the other Standing Committees have recently been cut down to size, there is a very high proportion of the Scottish Members — 30 — on the First Scottish Standing Committee. Is not that now rather out of line with your other Committees?"
    That was a bit of a leading question. Having been led, the right hon. Gentleman replied:
    "Yes. We would very much like to have Scottish Standing Committees of the same size as other Standing Committees, and I do not think there is any good reason why they should not be."
    Then the Chairman asked:
    "The Second Scottish Standing Committee is, I think, the nomal size of 16?"
    The Leader of the House replied:
    "Yes. But we do not see any reason why Scottish Standing Committees should not be the same size as other Standing Committees."
    That is slightly repetitious, this advancing of cogent reasons. The Chairmen then asked:
    "Is there any difficuly in manning the two together when they have 46 Members between them?"

    1477
    The Leader of the House answered:
    "We just do not think that there is any reason why the Scotisht Committees should be different from other Standing Committees."
    It is virtually becoming tautologous now. One notices the cogency and the piling up of reasons.
    "Once they have come to Standing Committees, it is reasonable that they should all be subjected to the same test."
    He does not say what the test is. It would be interesting to know.
    The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation for being fair. He made a statement about a fortnight ago on the work of the Committee on Procedure. He felt it right to make that statement and then dealt with how it should be handled. What he did not tell the House was that he tried to slip this proposal through without giving prior notice to the House, and he put it down for a Friday. Fortunately, somebody was there just to say "Object". If he could have got it through in that way, he would have done so. I do not object to his doing it on a Friday. The great point which he made was that Friday is like any other day. Why did he single out this item to be pushed through in advance of making a statement to the House about the whole business of the Committee on Procedure? He has not told us yet. It boils down to the point that either he knows very little about the history of the Scottish Committee or, if he does, he is not concerned about it.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are 44 Labour Members from Scotland, 23 Conservatives, three Liberals and one Nationalist. When we take from that number the Ministers in other Departments, the Tories are pretty thin on the ground to do the work as it should be done. Therefore, they cut down the Committee in size. There are no objections on that side because, quite frankly, hon. Members opposite have never been all that enthusiastic about serving on Scottish Committees. I have yet to recall an occasion when we had a Sittings Motion suggesting that we should meet on Wednesdays as well as Thursdays which was greeted with enthusiasm, either now or in the days when the leader of that band of people was our friend Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley who used to delight us with speeches on this subject. I do not mind them, but
    1478
    I object to the rights of the majority being diminished and Members who are willing to serve on Committees being denied the opportunity of serving their constituents.
    The Father of the House has been misled, not only about the history of the Second Scottish Committee but about its purpose. It was made clear when it was set up that it would deal with noncontroversial, technical Bills. It is wrong to talk in terms of technical Bills in relation to the First Standing Committee. Its Bills are not technical Bills. I have always been in favour of greater use of the Second Standing Committee, which usually meets on a Wednesday and does not interfere with the other Committees, for law reform Measures, for example. There is no reason for them to be held up. It is of considerable advantage to Scottish Members who draw places in the Ballot if they bring forward purely Scottish legislation. It means that instead of waiting in a queue for the Committee dealing with Private Members Bills, their Bills can be slotted in. I have seen that Committee deal with as many as four or five in one day. It is wrong for hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Hillhead, to give a wrong impression of our approach to legislation. When it comes to major legislation, that is an entirely different matter.
    I turn now to the origin of the Committee in 1906. [Interruption.] I mean 1907. It was a Liberal Government, anyway. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here at the time. Nor was I, for that matter. Changes were made in 1922, when there was a considerable cutting down of these Committees. However, the Scottish Grand Committee was not touched. In 1948 further changes were made concerning the size of Committees. Again, the Scottish Grand Committee was left unchanged.
    It is not usual for the Leader of the House to dismiss something which is anomalous as nonsense when there is this history behind it. He should have asked why it was not changed in 1922 or in 1948. Why did this system last right into about the 1960s? When I came to the House in 1946—and some of my hon Friends came here before then, in 1945—every Scottish Member had the

    1479
    right to be on every Committee considering a Scottish Bill. Many of us used that right because, having been sent here from Scotland, we reckoned it our job to be on every Committee considering Scottish legislation. I know that it was troublesome. In those days the Secretary of State had to appear in the Committee. There was a system of pairing, which meant that a Member could opt out of the Committee to do other business.
    Reference has been made to the difficulty of having to attend two Committees. Many of my hon. Friends already serve on more than one Committee. Some of them are on the Select Committee on Procedure and on the Select Committee on Expenditure, which used to be the Estimates Committee. Many of us serve on two Committees sitting simultaneously, and we are still able to do our legislative work. Very often when an English Measure contains provisions relating to Scotland Scottish Members duplicate their work by attending the Committee considering that Measure and attend the Scottish Committee, too.
    There were some changes in the Committee procedure following the report of 1957. I gave evidence on behalf of Scottish Labour Members, as did George Willis, a former Minister of State for Scotland. It was not a case of three sentences in those days. It was Walter Elliot, whose name was mentioned somewhat facetiously, who was Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure at that time. Evidence was taken from the then Secretary of State, Jack Maclay, and from that doyen of the House, who was as well remembered as a Tory Chief Whip as Secretary of State, James Stuart. The evidence lasted for about three days, and it is interesting to note that the Scottish Committee was not brought down to the same size as the other Committees. Everyone recognised the uniqueness of the Scottish Committee, and the House must appreciate that.
    Before the right hon. Gentleman gives us the reply which has been prepared by the Scottish Office—and I know what sort of reply one gets from the Scottish Office—he should consider what happened the other night. He should ask his advisers to look at what was said by the Balfour Commission on Scottish
    1480
    Affairs about the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Committee, and the power and influence which Scottish Members have over Scottish legislation.
    I am sorry that the Liberals are not here tonight, but I see that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) is present. He will not be on the Scottish Committee unless the Tories give up one of their places. If they do, the chances are that the hon. Gentleman will vote with us and the Tories will be in a minority. Not that I should object to that.
    When we were the Government, and put through the Highland and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill, most of the Liberals were from the Highlands but, on the basis of proportional representation, I do not think that they were entitled to be Members of the Committee considering that Bill. That is what happens when the size of a Committee is reduced. The adequacy of geographical representation is reduced.
    I hope that the case we are making will not be dismissed as nonsense, or as something rather odd, because if we reduce the size of a Committee—be it an English Committee, or any other—we reduce the extent to which it properly represents the make-up of the House of Commons. The original idea was that a Committee should represent the composition of the House. This is why there should be English Members on the Scottish Standing Committee. It is a Committee of the House and they should be represented upon it.
    I believe that on this matter the Government have gone too far and I hope that the Leader of the House will think again. The Scottish Standing Committees have a significant place in the eyes of the Scottish public. The Secretary of State should reread the Tory Constitutional Committee's comments about this matter and its conclusions about our control of Scottish affairs. Yet here the Government are reducing the influence of Scottish Members, and it is we who suffer from it. Although the Government do not have a majority in Scotland, they will have a bigger proportion of their Members on the Committee to maintain their majority as a reflection of the majority in the House. We shall be denied representation to a greater extent.

    1481
    This procedure will apply not only to technical legislation. There is to be a Scottish Housing Bill the Second Reading of which will, I presume, be taken on the Floor of the House and it will then go to the First Scottish Standing Committee. That Bill will affect every constituency in Scotland. It is a vital matter and we shall need as big a Committee as we can get. The more the Committee is reduced in numbers the greater the number of people who are unrepresented.
    What is to happen on the Report stage? The Leader of the House, who knows a great deal more about procedure than I do, knows that procedure is dictated not by the size of a Committee but by what happens in the Committee and what is discussed in it. Therefore, it is not good enough to say that hon. Members will have sufficient opportunity to discuss various matters on Report, because they will not. The hon. Member for Hillhead talked about belonging to a shortened Committee, but if he looks up what was said by the former Jimmy Stuart in 1957 he will appreciate that even a small Committee of Scots can talk for quite a long time if they think they have to.
    All this is being done on the basis of uniformity. I was disappointed by the remarks made by the Father of the House. He will know that after a Second Reading in an English Committee, the Question is put forthwith on the Floor of the House. But when a piece of legislation goes to the Scottish Committee for discussion in principle and comes back to the Floor of the House, if six of us put down our names the matter has to be debated all over again. Why did not the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton) seek to change that odd practice? I hope I am not putting ideas into his head.
    One matter which the Committee on Procedure examined was that if it is suggested that a Scottish Bill should go for consideration in principle on Second Reading to the Scottish Grand Committee—that is, to a very large Committee—10 hon. Members may stand and object. This was what worried the Leader of the House a little earlier. On an English Bill 20 hon. Members must stand and object, but somehow or other history or
    1482
    something else struck the Father of the House in that regard and he said, "We will leave this alone".
    Sir R. Turton: I was a member of the previous Select Committee on Procedure and we recommended that particular procedure because, since there were fewer Scottish Members, it was only right to provide for only 10 hon. Members to object. This is why we are trying to get uniformity on this matter. On the Scottish housing Bill there can be a Committee of 50 members if the Committee on Selection agrees.
    Mr. Ross: The right to object to a Scottish Bill going to Committee for Second Reading is not a right given to Scottish Members but a right given to the House of Commons. Therefore, if it is justified for the sake of uniformity in regard to the Committee on Procedure, it is equally justified elsewhere. The Father of the House and his Committee should have been logical on this matter.
    I should like hon. Members who serve on the Select Committee to read the new Standing Order. Standing Order No. 62 states:
    "(1) Save in the case of—

    (a) the Scottish Grand Committee,

    (b) the Scottish Standing Committees,

    (c) the Welsh grand Committee, and

    (d) a standing committee for the consideration of a bill on report,

    the Committee of Selection shall nominate not less than sixteen nor more than fifty Members to serve on each standing committee for the consideration of each bill committed, allocated or referred to it."
    We amend that by replacing "Scottish Standing Committees". The Amendment is to insert in line 19, after "that",
    (i) for the consideration of any public bill certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland or of a public Bill (or part of a public bill) ordered to be considered by a Scottish standing committee, the committee shall be so constituted as to include not less than sixteen members representing Scottish constituencies;
    —that is, 16 of the possible 50.
    But the Standing Order will go on to sub-paragraph (ii), which has the proviso that
    "for the consideration of any public bill relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, the committee shall be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire."

    1483
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain this. There are not many Bills which are exclusive to Wales and Monmouthshire. But if we are concerned with a principle, how is it possible to justify that part being left in? If the answer is that there is no difficulty with it simply because there is so little legislation of that kind, it is not a satisfactory answer.
    This brings me back to the point that the matter arises from the dilemma the Government are in because the people of Scotland sent so few Tories down here that they cannot manage. They would be far more honest if they admitted it. We cannot accept a further lessening of our rights. They were diminished after the 1957 Report, and now more are being taken away. It is no good the Secretary of State speaking of the usual channels, because on the basis that the Leader of the House would not trust our word about our attitude on the question of hon. Members standing for the Second Reading principle, we cannot accept that we should be left at the mercy of whichever Government may be in power or of whoever may be Leader of the House in the future, and the possible cutting of the number to 16.
    I advise my hon. Friends to oppose the Motion.
    9.59 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): We have had a lively debate on this subject of importance to our parliamentary procedures for dealing with Scottish legislation.
    The effect of the Motion is to bring the First Scottish Standing Committee into the same position as all the other United Kingdom Standing Committees. Many of them deal with Bills covering Scotland as well as England and Wales, but some deal with Bills that affect only England and Wales. The change was a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure, which consisted of Members from both sides, including a Scottish Labour Member.
    The Standing Orders governing the size of all the other Standing Committees were changed by the House in 1968, when the last Government were in office. I do not believe that that was done for political reasons. It was done when the right hon.
    1484
    Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was Leader of the House, and I believe the reason he did it—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That the Motion relating to Scottish Standing Committees may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Campbell: I believe that, among other things, the reason was that he was setting up a number of new Select Committees, which meant that the membership of the House as a whole would be stretched in manning even more Committees in addition to the Standing Committees. But the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) seemed entirely to overlook that change in 1968 which had been made in the rules governing the size of the other standing committees. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton), the Father of the House, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, drew attention to the fact that the other Standing Committees had been subject to that change, reducing their minimum to 16, in 1968. What is being proposed now is that the Scottish Standing Committee should be treated in the same way, instead of being an anomaly.
    The hon. Gentleman suggested that the proposal now, providing for a minimum of 16 to bring the Committee into the same position as other United Kingdom Committees, had come suddenly out of the blue to meet a special situation arising from the proportion of Scottish Members on the two sides of the House.
    Mr. Buchan: Right.
    Mr. Campbell: Was that the reason why it was done in 1968 for all the other Standing Committees, in the time of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East? Of course not. It was done because, among other things, there were new Select Committees being set up by the right hon. Gentleman, then Leader of the House, including a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on which Scottish Members were asked to serve as well as on the Standing Committee and the Grand Committee.
    The hon. Member for Renfrew, West suggest that the Motion before the

    1485
    House should be amended in such a way as to tie the size of the Committee to the question whether a Bill was to be debated on the Floor of the House on Second Reading or be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. But such a new factor could upset the present considerations which influence whether a Second Reading is taken on the Floor—which does not always include a vote, as I shall point out.
    The three main considerations governing that matter at present are these. First, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reminded us, there is the right of no fewer than 10 Members to rise in their place to defeat a Motion that a Scottish Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. Then there is the question of a vote. If a Bill is highly controversial and there is to be a vote on the Second Reading—it may be quite a short Bill; it is within recent memory that a Bill of only three Clauses was highly controversial—its Second Reading is taken on the Floor of the House and it is voted on here because only procedural Motions can be put in the Scottish Grand Committee.
    There is a third important consideration which should not be overlooked. Important Scottish Bills—they may be very long—which are not controversial and which are not to be opposed on Second Reading may nevertheless, because of their significance for Scottish Members, and perhaps other Members, be taken on Second Reading on the Floor of the House. Such a Bill was the Highland Development Bill. It was agreed between the two sides of the House that it should be debated on Second Reading on the Floor although, when it was first published—we were in opposition at the time—we said that there was no question of our voting against its Second Reading. So there are three considerations, which at present are the most important considerations which govern whether a Bill is considered on the Floor of the House at its Second Reading or is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.
    The point is that if the question of the size of the Standing Committee on a Bill were also to be included as another factor, that would be a temptation for either 10 Members to get up to try to keep the Bill on the Floor of the House
    1486
    or to cause a vote, although it was not really a controversial Bill, because they were concerned to govern the size of a Standing Committee and were not concerned about the merits or about whether there should be a vote on the Floor of the House.
    The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) raised some very interesting points. He and I were both Scottish Whips for two years, on each side. I was the Government Scottish Whip and he was the Opposition Scottish Whip. We were then the Scottish "usual channels". I confirm what he said, that we were able to make arrangements extremely amicably during that period together, including the setting up, for the first time, of the Second Scottish Standing Committee.
    The hon. Member raised the question of Standing Order No. 67(2), to which my right hon. Friend referred, and asked whether my right hon. Friend was suggesting that there may be abuse of the rule whereby not less than 10 Members could stand. My right hon. Friend was not suggesting that. He was just pointing out that that safeguard for back benchers could be used in future for a different purpose. As I understand it, at present it is a safety valve for back benchers in a situation in which the two Front Benches have agreed that a Bill should be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. If not less than 10 Members rise, together they can defeat that. This was done about four years ago and it is within the memory of hon. Members that it was done by a group of back benchers, including the Liberal Members and the two Nationalist Members of that day. It was, therefore, a group of back bench Members, and not either of the Front Benches, who rose and mustered at least 10 and thereby stopped a Motion for the referral of a Bill. In reply to another point raised, they were not all Scottish Members. So there has been an occasion when this has been done. But at present, this is a safeguard in order to ensure that discussion takes place on the Floor of the House on Second Reading.
    If this new factor were introduced, the purpose of doing this, or indicating that a vote, which could be an unofficial vote, was to take place on a Bill, could be to govern the size of the committee—something quite different from the intention of the present Standing Orders.

    1487
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) was sympathetic about Ministers' positions, and said that to have perhaps three Scottish Ministers on the Standing Committee of a Bill was wasting the time of at least one of them. I thank him for his sympathy, but I am also concerned about back benchers' positions as well as Ministers' positions. Back benchers should be free to be able to take part in the deliberations on other Standing Committees and not be permanently on the Scottish Standing Committee.
    The longest United Kingdom Standing Committee sessions I have ever had were not in the Scottish Committee; they were—I was joined with other Scottish Members in this—on the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill about three years ago, which was a marathon. There were Scots on both sides. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were the Chairman of that Committee, and I need not remind you of the occasion. On that Bill, I admit that I missed the opportunity of serving on the Scottish Standing Committee, which was dealing with a Scottish Sewerage Bill. But I was engaged in very important Scottish transport matters with other hon. Members from both sides of the House.
    Mr. Gurden: I apologise sincerely to my right hon. Friend for not being present for the whole of the debate. What he is saying now has been a constant problem for the Committee of Selection, as Scottish hon. Members have indicated their wish to be on some of the United Kingdom Committees and we have simply been unable to accommodate them. Would my right hon. Friend deal with this point? Unless I have misunderstood what he was indicating, I thought that the Government Front Bench decided the size of Committees. As I understand it, as chairman of the Committee of Selection, I am always determined, at the beginning of every meeting, to ask whether it is agreed that a certain number shall apply to a certain bill. Is it the responsibility of the Committee of Selection, or is it the Government's responsibility?
    Mr. Campbell: As I understand it, it is the Committee of Selection that decides which hon. Members should serve on Standing Committees and the size of Committees. I understand that the Committee of Selection seeks advice on the
    1488
    size of Committees and that it has been possible through the usual channels for the size of United Kingdom Committees to be discussed and agreed.
    The hon. Member for Provan asked if it was intended that non-Scottish Members should be included in the composition of the Standing Committee which is the subject of the Motion. It is not the intention to call upon English, Welsh or Northern Irish Members to do this. The proposed change to the Standing Orders includes the words—
    "not less than sixteen members representing Scottish constituencies."
    With this new flexibility it should be possible to ensure that on a Standing Committee there will always be Members representing Scottish constituencies and that recourse will not be needed to other hon. Members. In the 1959–64 Parliament, when the hon. Member for Motherwell and I were the respective Scottish Whips for part of the time, there were one or two occasions when non-Scottish Members were members of the Scottish Standing Committee when that Committee was very large. This aroused no comment at the time and was accepted, but I do not think that this is necessary in the future with the flexibility that we intend to introduce.
    The position is different in the Grand Committee. Since 1919 in the Grand Committee it has been obligatory for at least 10 and not more than 15 non-Scottish Members to be added to the 71 Scottish Members. No Grand Committee which has been set up since 1919 has been without at least 10 additional Members from Wales, England or Ireland. That need not be the situation in the Standing Committee.
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman now says "need not be". A little while ago he said that it would not be the position. Is the size of the Committee which will consider a Bill, no matter the importance of the Bill—it might be the Local Government Bill—to be determined by the number of Tory Members available?
    Mr. Campbell: It is clear from the wording that it is intended that they should be Members from Scottish constituencies. I am sure that that is what hon. Members on both sides representing Scottish constituencies would wish.

    1489
    The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that the Second Scottish Standing Committee had dealt almost entirely with Private Members' Bills. When that Committee was first set up—I was the Government Scottish Whip at the time—we decided not to put Government legislation, however non-controversial, into that Committee, and we did not. It has been only very recently—in the time of the right hon. Gentleman—that two non-controversial Government Bills have gone to that Committee.
    I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say tonight that he would like that Committee to do more—for example to consider some law reform legislation. If that happens, it is even more important that the First Scottish Standing Committee should not be large, because this will be yet another Committee doing more work during the week on a Wednesday.
    As the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock said, major changes were made to the Scottish Committee system in 1958–59 following the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure which was then presided over by my predecessor as Member for Moray and Nairn, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, a former Secretary of State. It was following the recommendations of that Committee that it was decided that the Grand Committee should not be the Standing Committee for all Scottish Bills. The aim when that important change was made was clearly that there should be a Scottish Standing Committee which would work on the same lines as the other Standing Committees of the House.
    On all the other United Kingdom Standing Committees there is agreement, and I here return to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend who was the Chairman of the Committee on Selection. There is agreement between the two sides of the House through the usual channels on the size of the Committee, within the
    bracket of what the size should be, depending on the importance of the Bill and other factors of that kind.
    Unless the Scottish usual channels have become gummed up since my day as a Scottish Whip, I see no reason why that should not happen in relation to our affairs. In other words, surely we can arrange our Scottish parliamentary affairs as efficiently and sensibly through the usual channels as we arrange our United Kingdom parliamentary affairs?
    Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman must be joking. Consider, for example, what happened in the last Parliament. We found the normal channels completely blocked because of our failure to agree over one of the most important Measures ever to come before Parliament, namely, the Industrial Relations Bill.
    Mr. Campbell: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that where the United Kingdom channels are concerned, the question of the size of Committees has not been a stumbling block. In the same way, I believe that where the Scottish usual channels are concerned, there is no reason why the size of Committees should prove a stumbling block. We may disagree about the content of Bills and there will be parliamentary opportunities for obstruction. Nevertheless, this has not been a problem on a United Kingdom basis, and I see no reason why it should become one on a Scottish basis.
    The Motion simply ends an anomaly which has existed since 1968 when the other Standing Committees of the House were given this flexibility by the Labour Party on a proposal by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East, who was then Leader of the House. This Motion will end that anomaly.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 136.

    Division No. 18.]

    AYES

    [10.20 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Boscawen, Robert

    Bryan, Paul

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Bowden, Andrew

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

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Burden, F. A.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Bray, Ronald

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Benyon, W.

    Brewis, John

    Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Carlisle, Mark

    Biffen, John

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Chapman, Sydney

    Churchill, W. S.

    Jopling, Michael

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Redmond, Robert

    Clegg, Walter

    Kilfedder, James

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Cooke, Robert

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Cormack, Patrick

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Costain, A. P.

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Critchley, Julian

    Knox, David

    Rost, Peter

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Lane, David

    Scott, Nicholas

    Dean, Paul

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Sharples, Richard

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Le Marchant, Spencer

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

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Longden, Gilbert

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Loveridge, John

    Simeons, Charles

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Soref, Harold

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Speed, Keith

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

    McLaren, Martin

    Spence, John

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Sproat, Iain

    Fidler, Michael

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Stokes, John

    Fowler, Norman

    Madel, David

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Fox, Marcus

    Mather, Carol

    Sutcliffe, John

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mawby, Ray

    Tapsell, Peter

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

    Gower, Raymond

    Gray, Hamish

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Green, Alan

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Grylls, Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Molyneaux, James

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Gurden, Harold

    Money, Ernie

    Trew, Peter

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Monro, Hector

    Waddington, David

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Walters, Dennis

    Hawkins, Paul

    Morrison, Charles

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Mudd, David

    Warren, Kenneth

    Hicks, Robert

    Murton, Oscar

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Neave, Airey

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Normanton, Tom

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Nott, John

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Hunt, John

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Younger, Hn. George

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    TELLERS FOR THE AYFS:

    James, David

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Mr. Tim Fortescue and

    Jessel, Toby

    Raison, Timothy

    Mr. Hugh Rossi.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Eadie, Alex

    Lawson, George

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Ellis, Tom

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Ashton, Joe

    Evans, Fred

    McCann, John

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

    Ewing, Henry

    McElhone, Frank

    Baxter, William

    Faulds, Andrew

    McGuire, Michael

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Bishop, E. S.

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Foley, Maurice

    Maclennan, Robert

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Foot, Michael

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Booth, Albert

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Golding, John

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

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

    Gourlay, Harry

    Marks, Kenneth

    Buchan, Norman

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Marsden, F.

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

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hamling, William

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Mendelson, John

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Hardy, Peter

    Millan, Bruce

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Coleman, Donald

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Ogden, Eric

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Hunter, Adam

    Palmer, Arthur

    Deakins, Eric

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    John, Brynmor

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Dempsey, James

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Doig, Peter

    Judd, Frank

    Pentland, Norman

    Dormand, J. D.

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Lambie, David

    Prescott, John

    Dunn, James A.

    Lamond, James

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    1492

    1493

    Probert, Arthur

    Spearing, Nigel

    Urwin, T. W.

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Wallace, George

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Strang, Gavin

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Sillars, James

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Skinner, Dennis

    Swain, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Small, William

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Tinn, James

    Mr. Tom Pendry.

    Resolved,
    That the Amendments to Standing Orders No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees) and No. 69 (Scottish Standing Committees), hereinafter stated in the Schedule, be made.

    SCHEDULE
    Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees)
    Leave out line 3.
    Line 19, after 'that', insert—

    (i) for the consideration of any public bill certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland or of a public Bill (or part of a public bill) ordered to be considered by a Scottish standing committee, the committee shall be so constituted as to include not less than sixteen members representing Scottish constituencies;

    (ii).

    Standing Order No. 69 (Scottish Standing Committees)
    Leave out paragraphs (2) to (4).

    SCHEDULE
      ADJOURNMENT
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Speed.]

  SUGAR BEET, SCOTLAND
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I raise tonight the issue of sugar beet-growing in Scotland, partly because it affects the farmers in my constituency who grow sugar beet and who are extremely alarmed about the present situation and partly because it raises many much wider issues. In looking at this matter, we have to consider the background.
  We have a sugar beet factory at Cupar run by the British Sugar Corporation. This has permitted Scottish farmers to grow this very valuable crop. We must consider the impact on Scotland if this factory closes and sugar beet production ceases in Scotland. The factory has 200 permanent staff and 160 part-time staff, making 360 jobs connected with the factory. The majority of the crop is brought by lorry into the factory, so that it has an effect on the transport industry in the area.
  Sugar beet is a labour-intensive crop in which a large number of farm workers are employed and the loss of the 14,000 acres of sugar beet-growing would mean a diminution in the agricultural labour force. Altogether, 100,000 acres of Scottish farm-land are affected by the growing of this crop as a rotation crop in the East of Scotland. Therefore, in every way the cessation of sugar beet production in Scotland would have an immediate effect on the job situation and a very deep effect on the prosperity of the whole farming industry in the East of Scotland.
  In the six years that I have represented a farming constituency I have come across nothing which has caused more intense feeling in the East of Scotland than this issue. That is why I make no apology for raising this matter tonight, at a time when, in the next week or 10 days, we have to have a final decision and when, if it is not taken in an affirmative sense, sugar beet-growing ceases in Scotland.
  I would point out that at this juncture the Scottish farming industry has not got
  1496
  any ready alternative to turn to if sugar beet production ceases. Scottish farmers have been told that the acreage under potatoes has to come down; it has to be 87½ per cent. next year of the present level. So they cannot turn easily to further potato production. Again, a number of vegetable processing firms have stopped production in Scotland and the farmers cannot turn to vegetables. This is, therefore, a very serious matter for the Scottish farming industry and affects its whole confidence and resilience when we want to encourage the industry at the time just prior to our entry to the Common Market.
  I must bring attention to the fact that this immediately affects jobs in Scotland at a time when we are heading for 1 million unemployed in this country, at a time when we should be doing all we can, and when the Government say they want to do all they can, to stimulate and maintain employment in Scotland.
  Let us look at the history of this particular concern. In 1966 the British Sugar Corporation operating the sugar factory at Cupar said that if from 14,000 to 16,000 acres were grown in Scotland, the factory would be economically viable. Given these circumstances, the corporation pressed, and the Government of the day encouraged, Scottish farmers to increase their acreage of beet production to that economically viable level. They pressed and pushed and encouraged Scottish farmers, who increased the acreage under production steadily until it reached the 13,500 acres at which it stands today. Then, suddenly, in 1969 the British Sugar Corporation turned round and said that even with this acreage, it was now not profitable and that, looking ahead, sugar beet was not a viable economic industry to maintain in Scotland. As a result, the British Sugar Corporation announced the closure of the factory in 1971.
  I, along with many other Members of Parliament, took up this matter with the then Labour Government and asked them why it was not a viable industry and demanded an independent survey apart from the B.S.C. survey of the viability of the corporation's factory. I was prepared at the time to accept the argument that if it was not economically viable it should not be continued. But we were given no

  1497
  chance of an independent survey and no chance to attempt to see whether the corporation was efficient and whether it was doing the job properly. We were told that £2 million was needed to modernise the Cupar factory if it was to be made satisfactory.
  We were told, accurately at the time, that the Government had to find a transport subvention to allow transport of the sugar beet to the factory and to make production reasonably economical. It was said that no one could suggest that this area of Scotland could compete with the more fertile plains of Lincolnshire and that, in the circumstances, it was reasonable to close down the factory. I was very unhappy about this, and I am particularly unhappy when a monopoly refuses to allow any independent survey of its figures and makes a claim of that kind. Nevertheless, under the last Government, I said that if that was the situation we must accept it. Very reluctantly I accepted the position and urged it upon the farmers in my constituency.
  Tonight, when we are discussing the future of the Scottish farming industry and jobs in Scotland, I do not think we want to indulge in too many petty party polemics and make quotations from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are now members of the Government, who are now junior Ministers and Whips and Government back benchers. I will not quote the things they said at that time attacking the Labour Government and saying that this closure was unsatisfactory, that it was disastrous and that it was a total depredation of Scottish interests. I shall not bother the House with all that. I simply want to stick to the issue as it stands today and the total change in the situation which has occurred since 1969.
  What has happened since 1969 puts a totally new complexion on the situation. First, into the picture there came a consortium of Scottish farmers who said that if the British Sugar Corporation was not capable of running the factory at a profit they—the farmers—would like to look into the situation. The Scottish farmers and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland went into this in great detail.
  First, they investigated the profit and loss of a factory in France with an exactly equivalent tonnage. They went into
  1498
  this in great detail and found that a French factory with exactly the same tonnage of beet sugar available was running at a profit. They then looked around and produced a consortium of Scottish interests—retailing, banking and farming interests—which said it would look into the matter. A survey of the situation in Scotland was commissioned and was carried out by sugar refining experts who came to the conclusion that unlike the British Sugar Corporation, the consortium could make the Cupar factory pay at the rate of between £130,000 and £150,000 a year.
  The consortium said that it was prepared to take over the sugar factory and to buy it at a reasonable price agreed by an independent valuer. Moreover, the consortium was prepared to pay the transport subsidy to the farmers. It was asking nothing from the Government. On this basis the consortium was prepared to take over and run the B.S.C. factory in Cupar and allow the acreage of beet-farming in Scotland to continue. This was a totally new situation which should have led the Government to reconsider the whole position and recalculate their attitude.
  I have heard it said by certain people that the consortium was not wholly genuine and that some people behind it had ulterior motives for getting into the sugar beet refining industry. This is not true. These suspicions were not founded. I cannot on the Floor of the House reveal the precise names and amounts of money that have been put up by this consortium but it is entirely a group of reliable people, connected with Scottish farming, Scottish banking and Scottish retailing. There can be no possible suggestion that they are unreliable people who do not know what they are about. They are people who have thought about this matter with the greatest care, because if they fail the financial liability is on their own heads. If they cannot produce the goods at the end of the day, only they will lose. I hope that no one on the benches opposite will try to cast any aspersions on the genuine intention of the consortium when it set about this activity.
  Let us look at the position when the consortium offered to take over the factory, to run it at a profit and to maintain sugar beet-growing in Scotland. What

  1499
  has been the attitude and response of the Conservative Government to this offer by private enterprise to run something which was otherwise a Government monopoly and to maintain sugar beet-growing in Scotland? This is the cardinal factor.
  The Government have not welcomed it. They have not said, "Splendid, this is what we want. Let us help. Let us draw these people into discussions and bring them together. "The Government have stonewalled. They have pleaded difficulty after difficulty. I have been told again and again that the Government did not go to see the various interests involved or speak to them. Why did they not do so? Why did they not say, "This is a chance to keep this industry in Scotland"? Why did they not help these people and push them along? The Government have done nothing but create difficulty after difficulty all along the line.
  Let me deal with the three major difficulties. The first is the question of acreage. On this I am glad to say that the Government came clean very quickly. On two occasions, on 19th October and 16th November when answering Questions, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture both stated that the acreage of Scottish beet-growing was not an issue. They said, "This is quite clear. You can have the 14,000 to 16,000 acres you want for growing beet in Scotland." So we can put the problem of acreage aside.
  The second difficulty is this. Having grown the beet on those 14,000 to 16,000 acres and produced, it was expected, 22,000 tons of white sugar from the beet, will the Scottish farmers and the consortium be entitled to the overall price accepted by the British Sugar Corporation for their production?
  This matter depended on an elaborate question of the negotiated total tonnage for Britain as a candidate applicant for the European Economic Community. It was agreed that we should produce in this country 900,000 tons of refined white sugar, and that has been the position settled by the Government's negotiators in Brussels.
  Up to a certain time there was no problem about the Scottish industry because the existing acreage in England, which is
  1500
  roughly 443,000 acres, produced on average over the years 1965 to 1970 between 850,000 and 870,000 tons of sugar, or between 30,000 and 50,000 tons short of the total that Britain is allowed to produce under the agreement we have made with the Community. There was, therefore, no intrinsic problem in the Scottish 14,000 to 16,000 acres producing an extra 22,000 tons within this quota.
  Difficulty has arisen in the past year because 1970 and 1971 have produced bumper crops. In 1971 in particular the crop was so good that the total passed the 900,000 ton limit. The question therefore arose: if Scotland's 16,000 acres contributed to total United Kingdom production beyond the 900,000 ton limit, would this mean that this sugar would not be covered by the overall price guarantee? In other words, would it have to be sold on the open market, some of it at raw sugar prices? If so, the operation in Scotland might no longer be economically viable because the Scottish consortium assumed that the total tonnage that it produced would be sold at the price for refined white sugar.
  The real question, however, is that with 900,000 tons to be produced in the United Kingdom as a whole, surely the Government could have given 22,000 tons to Scotland. If the Government really believe in regional policy and in a reasonable share-out, they did not have to negotiate an extra quota for Scotland. They could simply have said, "Scotland will be entitled to 22,000 tons out of the 900,000 tons for the United Kingdom as a whole."
  Consider the figures. We are simply asking that out of 443,000 acres we in Scotland should have 16,000, and that out of production of 900,000 tons we should be allowed to produce 22,000 tons. Is this too much to ask?
  I have no doubt that the Minister will say, "The contract for beet-growing have been given out in England. We cannot go back on them." But what about the Scottish farmers who were encouraged to put more land into sugar beet production, to buy machinery and to increase output? Are they to be sold down the river at the expense of the English producers? This is the key point.
  The third difficulty is the question of the price of the Cupar sugar beet factory.

  1501
  If the Government were helpful and said that the acreage for Scotland would be allowed and that they would accept the production of 22,000 tons of refined sugar, this question would remain: are the Government prepared to allow the British Sugar Corporation factory to be taken over by the consortium at a reasonable price? This is the 64,000-dollar question, because the corporation has put a price of £700,000 on this factory.
  This matter of the price cannot be argued both ways. In the first place the B.S.C. said that the factory was derelict and needed £2 million spent on it to put it on a reasonable footing. In the second place the corporation turns round and says that it is worth £700,000. That is absolute nonsense. How can a factory be worth that much when, if it is not sold, it will have to be knocked cown? In that event the only money that would be returned would be from the machinery, which would have to be dismantled and sold south of the Border, and hon. Members can imagine how much it would fetch.
  It has been estimated that between £150,000 and £200,000 would be a reasonable price for the factory, and that is what the consortium is prepared to pay. Indeed, the consortium is prepared to pay whatever sum is suggested as a result of an independent valuation.
  On this critical point what do the Government, who are supposed to be interested in Scottish farming and regional development, say? The Under-Secretary said recently that they believed in firms taking their own decisions. He said:
  "What the consortium have asked us to do is to intervene between two commercial firms and persuade one to sell at the price the other is prepared to pay. The Government cannot interfere in this way."
  Those are the words of the Under-Secretary.
  Let us be clear about this. In a monopoly where the Government own 36 per cent. and where they appoint the chairman and two of the directors, they are not prepared to intervene. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not slow to tell the nationalised industries what levels of wage settlements they must aim at. They are not slow to tell the nationalised industries to invest more.
  1502
  Yet they will not give guidance to a firm in which they own 36 per cent. As shareholders, will not they safeguard public money by trying to get something back for the machinery which otherwise will become derelict? They could get £200,000 from the consortium but, apparently, they prefer to allow it to become derelict rather than dent the B.S.C.'s monopoly.
  The present Government are supposed to stand for private enterprise but they say "No" to private enterprise in this industry. They are supposed to be in favour of regional development but in this case they are cutting down on regional economic activity. They are supposed to be the farmer's best friend. In this case, however, they are booting him in the backside.
  The Government are turning their backs on all their promises to the farmers. What could they do now? I do not want to be harsh on the Under-Secreary. My guess is that he wanted to save the sugar beet industry. I suspect that the proposal to do so went up to the Cabinet and that the Secretary of State, the greatest loser in the business that Scottish politicians have ever known, lost in the Cabinet. As a result, the Under-Secretary now has to carry the can for him, and I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman. He has to explain why this indefensible position must be maintained.
  What could the hon. Gentleman do to dig himself out of this hole? I am not gunning for the consortium to be allowed to carry on. I am gunning for the continuation of this crop in Scotland. All that the hon. Gentleman has to do is to say to the British Sugar Corporation, "You can go on for another two years." At the end of 1974, the sugar position will be wide open. The 335,000 tons provided by Australia will be open to British producers to provide. There will be a great opening for Scottish production after 1974. We want to keep production in Scotland going until then. All that the hon. Gentleman has to do is tell the corporation that it must go on for two years. That is a minor issue compared with the directives which have been issued to public corporations on other matters. He could even ask B.S.C. to lease the factory to the consortium for two years, telling the consortium that it is its own business if it goes bust. He

  1503
  could say to the consortium, "Make money out of it if you can."
  Tonight, Scottish farmers are looking to the Government—
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: Hurry up and sit down.
  Mr. Mackintosh: If the Government are not prepared to act now, Scottish farmers are in great danger. At the moment they have vacant fields. Within a week or two they have to decide what crops to plant. If the Government are not prepared to help in this matter, they will not be readily forgiven by Scottish farmers.
  10.49 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) on raising this matter, though I must say that if he had wanted some of his points answered he could have left me a little more time than about nine minutes in which to do so.
  There has been no question of the Government stonewalling on this matter. We are equally concerned, and we believe that our policies on agriculture in Scotland show that we are far more concerned than the hon. Member's Government were when they were in power. If I may, I shall go through the record and try to correct some of the false impressions that the hon. Gentleman has left with the House. I hope that by doing so I shall help hon. Members to understand what has taken place.
  Before coming to that, I should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who has been extremely active at all stages of the matter over a number of years in trying to preserve this industry for his constituency. I also commend to hon. Members the active interest of other hon. Members. My hon. Friends the Members for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) have been especially active over this matter in recent weeks.
  I must come back to the fact, which the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian recognised, that the original decision to close the factory was taken by
  1504
  the British Sugar Corporation in July, 1969, with the agreement of the then Labour Government. At that time we undertook to take a fresh look at the decision and to review it. After very full discussions we reluctantly had to conclude that there were not sufficient grounds for reconsidering it.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of factors which influenced the British Sugar Corporation's original decision. It is right to remind the House of them to keep the record clear. First, the corporation was suffering losses at the factory at the rate of £180,000 a year. Secondly, to bring the factory up-to-date with modern equipment and make it viable for a longer period, the corporation reckoned that it would need an investment of £1.7 million, or £2 million at today's values. Thirdly, it pointed out that the average yield per acre in Scotland was about 20 to 25 per cent. lower than in England. Finally—we must remember that sugar is a sunshine crop—the sugar content of the beet in Scotland is lower than that further south. That was the position at the end of last year.
  In December last year the proposal came forward for the operation of a sugar beet processing factory at Cupar independent of the British Sugar Corporation, and the Farmers Supply Association of Scotland, Ltd., expressed a wish to undertake a feasibility study.
  The conclusion of that study was basically twofold: first, under certain conditions operations at Cupar could be viable; and second—a point which the House must not overlook—the British Sugar Corporation was right to contend that under its commercial requirements, the Cupar factory was not a viable proposition. It is important to remember this point, which came out of the consultants' report.
  The study was presented to the Government at the end of June. Although at that time we recognised that there were certain technical hurdles, we believed that there was sufficient optimism to justify asking the British Sugar Corporation to discuss the project with the sponsoring group which has become known as the consortium.
  I met representatives of the consortium on 4th August. At that meeting I undertook to facilitate discussions with

  1505
  the corporation. On 11th October, nearly two months later, I was told by the consortium that the project required three conditions: first, an adequate allocation of acreage; second, that the Cupar factory should be allowed to produce and market 22,000 tons of white sugar; and third, that the price of the factory should be in line with the figure in the feasibility study.
  I should make clear at this stage where we stand on the issue. There is no question of stonewalling or of trying to hide behind anything. The position is absolutely clear.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, I will not give way.
  On 4th August we indicated to the consortium that acreage was not a serious problem. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food confirmed this in the House on 19th October. At the meeting on 4th August I also made it plain to the consortium that concerning the production of white and raw sugar, it could not expect to operate on a more favourable basis than the British Sugar Corporation.
  On 1st November we again met the consortium and the Scottish National Farmers' Union. At that time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made it clear that viability depended on the price of the factory and the plant. As was said earlier, we believed that this was essentially a transaction between two commercial organisations and that it would not be right for the Government to intervene.
  I should like to make the Government's legal position quite clear. The corporation is a publicly-quoted company, with 65 per cent. of its shares in private hands. Apart from our belief that it is wrong to intervene in a commercial matter such as the sale of a factory, it is not possible for us to do so. We have no power to appoint an arbiter; no power to direct the corporation to undertake a particular commercial operation; no power to direct it on how it should dispose of its assets; no power to pay out of public money the differences in commercial valuations. Where we have
  1506
  power, or even a reasonable discretion, to act, we have at all stages declared our willingness to do so.
  I come to the main points of difficulty, beginning with acreage. We made it quite clear as long ago as last August that the Government were prepared to use their powers under the Sugar Act to ensure that acreage was made available in Scotland without reducing that available in the South to the Corporation.
  On the questions of the balance between white and raw sugar and the restrictions of total domestic output of white sugar from beet, I have two points on what the hon. Gentleman has said. First, the agreement on how it is split up is an agreement between the refiners, to which the Government are not a party, and the relevant international agreement is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Second, about one-third of the raw sugar produced from beet is refined by the cane refiners.
  To be viable, the consortium has told me that it would have to produce a higher proportion of white compared with raw sugar than the corporation does now. In effect, it has asked for a guaranteed output. In other words, it expects to operate in more favourable circumstances than the corporation or the other refiners. We have said that we can allocate acreage to Cupar, but what we cannot do is to create unrealistic conditions to favour the consortium. I made that clear in August.
  There has been controversy on the question of the access to the factory. We indicated last August a willingness to facilitate the negotiations with the B.S.C. This was again emphasised on 1st November, and within the past week I have asked the chairman of the consortium whether he wanted action on my part to help, but I was told that it was not needed at this stage.
  I hope that in the short time tonight I have managed at least to set the record straight and—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Tufnell Park Goods Depot
  Tufnell Park Goods Depot
  A5111 Bypass (Allestree)
  A5111 Bypass (Allestree)
  Railway Stations (Television Surveillance)
  Railway Stations (Television Surveillance)
  Local Government Reform (Lincolnshire)
  Local Government Reform (Lincolnshire)
  Rural Bus Services
  Rural Bus Services
  Palace of Westminster (Lighting of Crypt)
  Palace of Westminster (Lighting of Crypt)
  Rail Services
  Rail Services
  Employment and Benefits Offices (Public Transport)
  Employment and Benefits Offices (Public Transport)
  Luton Airport
  Luton Airport
  Housing (Tax Relief and Subsidies)
  Housing (Tax Relief and Subsidies)
  Refuse Disposal
  Refuse Disposal
  Hovertrain Service
  Hovertrain Service
  Surplus Land
  Surplus Land
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Coach Parking (London)
  Coach Parking (London)
  Fuel Burning (Sulphur Dioxide Emissions)
  Fuel Burning (Sulphur Dioxide Emissions)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Regional Housing Authority (London)
  Regional Housing Authority (London)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Motorways)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Motorways)
  Box Girder Bridges (Bristol)
  Box Girder Bridges (Bristol)
  Mercury Cell Hearing Aid Batteries
  Mercury Cell Hearing Aid Batteries
  Council Houses (Building Programme)
  Council Houses (Building Programme)
  Blyth (Town Centre Redevelopment)
  Blyth (Town Centre Redevelopment)
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Pedestrians (Assistance)
  Pedestrians (Assistance)
  Harassment and Illegal Eviction
  Harassment and Illegal Eviction
  M6 (Fog Warning)
  M6 (Fog Warning)
  Bridges and Level Crossings (Costs)
  Bridges and Level Crossings (Costs)
  Motor Cars (Passenger Safety Belts)
  Motor Cars (Passenger Safety Belts)
  Buses (Grants)
  Buses (Grants)
  St. Ives (Bypass)
  St. Ives (Bypass)
  Railway Line (North Warwickshire)
  Railway Line (North Warwickshire)
  Roads (Lights)
  Roads (Lights)
  Housing (Liverpool)
  Housing (Liverpool)
  Planning Permissions (Expiry)
  Planning Permissions (Expiry)
  Petrol (Lead Additives)
  Petrol (Lead Additives)
  Horse Guards Parade (Coach Parking)
  Horse Guards Parade (Coach Parking)
  Housing (Islington)
  Housing (Islington)
  Pedestrian Crossings (London)
  Pedestrian Crossings (London)
  Roads (Durham)
  Roads (Durham)
  Mineral Workings (Planning Permission)
  Mineral Workings (Planning Permission)
  Housing Finance (Lewisham)
  Housing Finance (Lewisham)
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Community and Sports Complex (Birmingham)
  Community and Sports Complex (Birmingham)
  Rate Rebate Scheme
  Rate Rebate Scheme
  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
  Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
  Whitehall Public Inquiry (Report)
  Whitehall Public Inquiry (Report)
  M4, Swindon (Telephone Facilities)
  M4, Swindon (Telephone Facilities)
  Non-Returnable Containers (Wandsworth)
  Non-Returnable Containers (Wandsworth)
  Foreign Goods Vehicles
  Foreign Goods Vehicles
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Machinery Noise
  Machinery Noise
  Offices (Rent and Rates)
  Offices (Rent and Rates)
  Bridport Bypass
  Bridport Bypass
  Palace of Westminster (Custodians)
  Palace of Westminster (Custodians)
  Building Applications and Appeals
  Building Applications and Appeals
  Portsmouth (Shopping Precinct)
  Portsmouth (Shopping Precinct)
  Discretionary Grants
  Discretionary Grants
  Rents
  Rents
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  Motor Vehicles (Loading)
  Motor Vehicles (Loading)
  Motor Vehicle Windscreens
  Motor Vehicle Windscreens
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Peterlee
  Peterlee
SCOTLAND
  Off-shore Islands (Communications)
  Off-shore Islands (Communications)
  Minerals Prospecting
  Minerals Prospecting
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Day Nurseries
  Day Nurseries
  Gartsherrie Site (Rehabilitation)
  Gartsherrie Site (Rehabilitation)
  Crofts (Owner-occupation)
  Crofts (Owner-occupation)
  Health and Social Work (Additional Expenditure)
  Health and Social Work (Additional Expenditure)
  CAPITAL OFFENCES
  CAPITAL OFFENCES
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Giro
  Giro
  Foreign Telephone Directories (Availability)
  Foreign Telephone Directories (Availability)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Night Flying
  Night Flying
  Newark (Employment)
  Newark (Employment)
  Affinity Group Charter Flights
  Affinity Group Charter Flights
  LAW REFORM
  LAW REFORM
ALKALI AND CLEAN
  AIR ACTS
  AIR ACTS
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Passenger Service Vehicle Drivers
  Passenger Service Vehicle Drivers
  Means-Tested Benefits
  Means-Tested Benefits
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Earnings-Related Benefit
  Earnings-Related Benefit
  Hospitals (Casualty Departments)
  Hospitals (Casualty Departments)
  Mental Illness (Research)
  Mental Illness (Research)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Staff
  Staff
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Inshore Fishing Industry
  Inshore Fishing Industry
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Jaguar Aircraft
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Older Primary Schools (Brent)
  Older Primary Schools (Brent)
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
EMPLOYMENT
  British Aluminium Company, Neath (Redundancies)
  British Aluminium Company, Neath (Redundancies)
  Batley and Morley
  Batley and Morley
  Farnworth
  Farnworth
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Nottinghamshire
  Nottinghamshire
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Licensees (Assault)
  Licensees (Assault)
  Bail
  Bail
  Licensing Law (Erroll Committee)
  Licensing Law (Erroll Committee)
  Accommodation Agencies
  Accommodation Agencies
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Tracing Services Limited
  Tracing Services Limited
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Expenditure)
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Expenditure)
WALES
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform

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

SCHOOL MILK
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follow:
To ask Her Majesty's Government in how many local education authority areas arrangements have been made for the sale of milk to children aged 7 to 11 years who arc not receiving free "medical" milk.]
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, returns from 144 of the 163 local education authorities in England and Wales so far available show that on the day of the survey 23 authorities in England and 3 in Wales had made arrangements for the sale of milk to children in primary schools. I understand from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that up to the 16th November 5 authorities in Scotland had made similar arrangements in their areas.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for a reply that can give satisfaction to no one, may I inquire whether it does not mean that the overwhelming majority of children in that age group are denied any opportunity of having a drink of milk while they are at school?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords; the noble Lord, with respect, has not drawn the right conclusion. I think it will take some little time for the new arrangements to settle down. The survey of school milk and meals was, after all, carried out only a few weeks after the beginning of this term, and I think a new survey to-day would show different
994
results. It seems to me that in his supplementary question the noble Lord has also completely disregarded medical milk and the sale of milk.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I did not completely disregard medical milk; I was having regard to children not getting it. May I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that some children in this age group have been denied or forbidden to take milk to school to drink?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords. Power is given in the circular which my right honourable friend sent out, and any school and any local education authority can avail themselves of it. If the noble Lord has in mind a particular case, it is a matter for the local education authority concerned, and I hope that the noble Lord will take it up where it should be taken up; namely, with them.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, when the noble Lord said "No", did he mean "No", he was not aware of what my noble friend had just said'? And is he suggesting that my noble friend should go to the local authority rather than to the responsible Minister?
Loan BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sorry if the beginning of my answer was somewhat equivocal. What I mean is exactly what the noble Lord said at the end of his question: I mean that the noble Lord should go to the local education authority concerned.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is it not a matter of concern to the Department (I have here a Press cutting which makes it clear that what I have said is correct) that children are being forbidden to take milk to school?
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords, it is of great concern, as the noble Lord will see if he reads paragraphs 11 to 14 of the circular which was sent out.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what reason there is for not allowing children to take their own milk to school?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think I have indicated to the House that this is for the discretion of headmasters of schools and for local education authorities.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, does the answer which the noble Lord gave to the noble Lord on the Front Bench mean that in future Members of this House will be advised to go to local authorities, and that the Department of Education and Science are not now going to answer for local authorities on education?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords. With respect to the noble Baroness, in this matter, as in many matters which, as she will remember, she has handled in the past, we have given advice through a circular. What we cannot do is to give directions to people who in the education world are academically free.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has completely misunderstood what I was asking. Is he saying that in future when we desire to know what is happening in local authorities it is not the right of noble Members of this House to inquire of the Minister to whom the local authorities are responside?—because that is so. If the is taking this attitude, is he aware that it means that we shall be able to ask very few questions on education policy.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sorry, but I think I have given the wrong impression to the noble Baroness. If she wants information about education, I am always at her disposal and at the disposal of the House. I like to think that I sometimes give over-wearingly full answers. But that is not what I am being asked to give at the moment. What I am being asked is whether my right honourable friend will give a directive; and the answer is, No.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the majority of doctors in Marylebone, which has the highest concentration of doctors in the country, including of course the specialists, have recommended that these children should be given milk, as it was given before the Government came into office? Is this recommendation going to have no effect upon the Government? Are they not considering a reversal of their policy?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords; we are not considering a reversal of policy. The take-up of medical milk,
996
into which we have now strayed, differs considerably from area to area. This is what I can tell the noble Baroness from the returns that we have so far received.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has said quite categorically that it is not for his Department to interfere with the discretion of local authorities on matters of education, at any rate in this field. Will he now say, therefore, that local authorities will be entitled to exercise their discretion as to whether or not they should provide free school milk?
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords; within the law.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, does not the Minister appreciate that in point of fact the Secretary of State for Education and Science is responsible for directing local education authorities that they must not supply free milk?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, we seem to have got so many negatives in that one question that I must say I have been unable to follow the noble Lord. May I for the last time make it quite clear that a power was given in the Bill, and not a duty. Therefore a circular of advice was sent out, and not a directive. This is the situation, and it is one that my right honourable friend deeply believes to be right in the balance between local authority power and the power of central Government.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord in effect saying that if a circular has been sent giving advice, and if that advise is not heeded in any particular circumstances, the Minister is not prepared to take any further action on representations being made to her?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords, certainly not. We should try as far as we could, obviously, to see that local authorities used their power as fully as possible; but once again it is a power and not a duty.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, does not the noble Lord appreciate that his Answer— and we have sympathy for him— has given a total lack of satisfaction, I think throughout the House?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD SHACKLETON: Does the noble Lord realise that lie has the full

997
support of the Conservative Party in denying milk to children?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, we are not denying milk to children. Milk is already being sold in schools from which it was withdrawn by the Government of the Party opposite a few years ago. This is not quite an accurate suggestion.
2.43 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many local authorities supply "free milk to children aged between 7 and 11 years, who are not receiving "medical" milk and how many are supplying an alternative daily drink to children in this age group.]
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, no local education authority in England is supplying free milk to pupils between 7 and 11 years of age who are not entitled to it on grounds of health. In Wales one authority and in Scotland four authorities are supplying free milk to their children. One authority in Scotland is supplying free milk to primary pupils over 7 who take school meals. I understand that a small number of local authorities which are not local education authorities are using their pre-decimal penny rate power under Section 6 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963 to supply free milk to children between 7 and 11 resident in their areas. To my knowledge only one authority is supplying an alternative mid-morning drink to pupils of this age group, and that on a limited pilot scheme basis.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, again while thanking the Minister for a reply that is not too satisfactory, may I ask him whether he knew that I had inquired about the number of local authorities supplying free milk and that I had in mind those who are using the penny rate to do so? I would have thought it reasonable for that information to be available. May I now ask him whether he does not think it extremely regrettable, and a denial of local freedom, that local authorities which are education authorities do not enjoy the
998
option enjoyed by other authorities; that is to say, to make the product of the penny rate available for the supply of free milk to children in this age group?
LORD BELSTEAD My Lords, I apologise for not giving the noble Lord as full an Answer as he would have wished, but his Question was somewhat equivocal. The answer to his first supplementary is that 10 out of 12 Inner London boroughs and approximately 15 to 20 non-education authorities outside the London area, are using this power. As regards the suggestion contained in the noble Lord's second supplementary, this would require legislation and it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce such legislation.
Loan GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I inquire from the Minister whether reports in the national Press are correct, that very great pressure has been brought to bear on authorities such as Merthyr Tydfil, which is one of the authorities supplying free milk, to withdraw it? Indeed, one of the national papers to-day uses the term "ultimatum".
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, we are not talking about pressure; we are talking about the state of the law which has existed since 1933 in England and Wales and since 1947 in Scotland. The situation in Merthyr Tydfil, about which the noble Lord has asked me specifically, was discussed on November 19 at a meeting between the Secretary of State for Wales and a deputation which the education authority had asked to see him; and by the wish of the deputation, and not merely by that of the Secretary of State for Wales, my right honourable and learned friend made no comment while the council was considering the matter further in the light of this discussion.

COUNTY COURT PROCEDURES INQUIRY
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in making a review of county court procedures for small claims, they have obtained the views of potential

999
litigants in person; and whether any consumer representative is to be included on the Working Party which is being set up to examine the matter.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, potential litigants in person do not as such constitute an identifiable group which can be consulted. The conference of judges, registrars and chief clerks which I convened last year and the County Court Rule Committee which is considering their proposals have taken account of the views expressed in the document entitled Justice out of Reach, and both bodies include persons with great experience of dealing with litigants in person. I have also consulted officials of the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council and the National Chamber of Trade. The small Working Party which I am setting up will be concerned only with the forms used in county court proceedings. This is a task which must be performed by people with legal training and experience of the courts, but in making the forms intelligible to laymen they will be able to seek the views of anyone with expertise in this field.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that reply. I should like to ask two supplementary questions. First, would he not agree that it is now an accepted principle that there ought to be a person specifically representing the consumer point of view on committees dealing with matters which so intimately concern them? Secondly, surely the Lord Chancellor does not think that somebody in a professional capacity can represent and necessarily appreciate the point of view of his clients, who in the main are drawn from the poorer sections of our community? Therefore, views from people who are dealing with them would be of the utmost value. No doubt people who have had experience with litigation could make suitable points before this inquiry.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in reply to the first supplementary it is all very well to talk about "potential litigants in person" as consumers; but I do not know how to identify potential litigants in person. If I did know, I
1000
should no doubt try to consult them. I doubt whether anybody could represent them because I do not think they represent what philosophers call a set or class. They are rather like Cross-Benchers in that respect. As regards the noble Viscount's second supplementary question, the first Lord Hanworth would have told him that a professional who did not ascertain the point of view of his client was a very poor professional indeed.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord mentioned the fact that where form-filling was difficult some experts could be consulted. Who are these experts who would be able to interpret form-filling to the ordinary individual?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness really understood what I was saying in my rather long original Answer. After I had read the pamphlet to which I referred, it occurred to me, both as an experienced ex-county court practitioner and as a student of the subject, and having read the forms (not that the forms themselves were difficult to understand; they were, on the whole, pretty easy to understand), that they were not best calculated to bring out the real points in the case. Therefore, bearing in mind that a good deal of the trouble, in my opinion, is that it is difficult with small claims, and particularly with litigants in person, to find out in advance what is the real point in their case, I am asking the Working Party to give them a form which would help them disclose it for themselves in advance. I said in my original Answer that obviously the actual forms must he in the hands of people who are familiar with the law; but there are people with the expertise of making forms intelligible in themselves. Sometimes lawyers use language which is perfectly precise and definite in meaning but which does not convey the meaning so easily to ordinary people. I said that although the actual Working Party must be composed of persons with experience of the county court and the law, they would be able to consult people with that kind of expertise in order to make their forms easily intelligible.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, very briefly I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor

1001
whether he would agree that it would be useful to consult those who have actual experience of litigants of the type with whom I am concerned, and that this would be almost as useful as the more difficult task of trying to locate potential litigants?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is precisely what I am doing. So far as I know, there is nobody with the same experience of litigation conducted by litigants in person as a county court registrar. The only people with comparable experience on the same scale are county court judges. They are on the Rule Committee and they are precisely the people whom I convened last December in order to discuss the problem. I also consulted the Citizens Advice Bureaux. They seem to be ideally the right organisation to approach when trying to find out where the shoe is pinching. I cannot consult potential litigants in person because I do not know who they are; nor do I think the disappointed litigant in person is necessarily very fruitful of good advice as to what Lord Chancellors should do. I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that they are not slow at all in tendering advice to me in every post.

NORTH SEA OILFIELDS AND ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS
2.55 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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, since October 21, they have initiated any discussion with other riparian States about the proposed construction of a 2· 1-acre artificial island in the high seas over the Ekofisk oilfield of the North Sea; and further, whether they are satisfied that its construction will be such as to resist damage in the event of collision, and that it will be so equipped with navigational warnings as to enable ships to avoid colliding with it.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in addition to the informal discussions, which
1002
have been held with the appropriate Nonvegian authorities about developments in the North Sea, we have recently proposed that further talks should be held in the New Year at which we intend to cover, among other things, the specific items of concern to which the noble Lord's Question refers. Norway, as a party to the Continental Shelf Convention, is required to maintain permanent means of giving warning of the presence of such structures.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind in these talks that sooner or later applications for similar structures on our side of the North Sea Continental Shelf are bound to be coming along, and that it will help them in deciding wisely on these applications if they have shown a constructive and strict interest in the Norwegian project beforehand?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are taking a keen interest in this project, and I would give him this reassurance. This is a new field on which everyone at the moment is embarking and we in this country are regarded as the leaders in so far as there is an Act, the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act, which permits Her Majesty's Government to make regulations regarding the safety and installation of these places.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this is an appropriate matter for discussion with IMCO as well? If these islands are going to be dotted around Continental Shelfs, are there not important issues raised, and do not the existing conventions adequately provide for an artificial island of this size?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, IMCO can be consulted where there is a question of traffic separation schemes. Where these islands are constructed in seas where the traffic lanes are heavily used then IMCO is a suitable forum for this to be discussed. I would reassure the noble Lord that this particular site is well away from the traffic lanes in the North Sea.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL [H.L.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESIIAM): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make new provision, applying throughout the United Kingdom, in place of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920; to make provision with a view to the accession by the United Kingdom to the United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance done at New York on June 10 1956; to make other provision for facilitating the recovery of maintenance by or from persons in the United Kingdom from or by persons in other countries; to extend the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts to hear complaints by or against persons outside England and Wales; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª. — (Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

PERSONAL BILLS COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to whom all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

V. Bledisloe,

V. Gage,

L. Cross of Chelsea,

L. Grantchester,

L. Silkin,

L. Wilberforce:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time. — (The Earl of Lislowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE SCOTTISH ECONOMY
2.58 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH rose to draw attention to the state of the Scottish economy, and to the need for the determined pursuit of policies for its fundamental improvement; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is completely by chance, though not without significance, that this Motion has found its way on to the Order Paper on the day after the considerable debate in the other place on the subject of unemployment, and also on the same afternoon as a great demonstration is due to take place on account of this cause which, alas! can achieve nothing beyond the widespread disruption of industrial activity and production. More happily, it coincides with an event this morning at which a number of your Lordships were present; namely, a service held in the Crypt of the Palace of Westminster for Members from Scotland, both of this place and of another place, conducted by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. In the course of that Service, appropriately enough, we sang in one of the hymns the words:
"When prosperous times our cities crown Our fields with plenteousness …".
Not only that, but also:
"O, hear us for our native land, The land we love the most …".
If to some of our friends from South of the Border this sounds somewhat nationalistic in character, I would only plead that we are approaching St. Andrew's-tide. I have therefore some excuse for relating my Motion to Scotland; but, in spite of some peculiar features of its own, Scotland's economy is a microcosm of that of the country as a whole and reflects in a particularly vivid way some of the problems which the whole country is facing. So I hope that the debate will be of some help not only where Scotland is concerned but nationally as well.
The first part of my Motion relates to the present state of the Scottish economy, and if I spend less time on this than on the rest it is because I believe that, in spite of the darkness of the immediate economic scene, we in fact stand at a moment of great opportunity where, with imaginative thought and vigorous action,
we can bring about a fundamental and lasting improvement in the state of Scotland and, through Scotland, of the United Kingdom as a whole. Of course, we are going through a black patch. It is depressing, after all the work that has gone into strengthening our economy, to see United Kingdom unemployment at the highest level since 1939— not far short of one million persons— even if, by consolation, Scotland's proportion of that, once as high as 20 per cent. or even over, is now down below 15 per cent. The fact that 140,000 are out of work in Scotland is very grave indeed. The attention of the world, an unwelcome attention, has in this respect been focused on the deplorable affair of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, and here I suggest that the best service we can do to the Clyde is not to indulge in recrimination but to wish well to those who are striving to re-establish a sound nucleus of shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde, and also to remind the world that on the lower reaches of the Clyde we have highly efficient shipyards employing 8.000 people and seeking still more to fulfil their orders. That is something which is frequently forgotten.
Unemployment has not been such an emotional issue since the 1930s, and the drama of Upper Clyde has perhaps obscured the real truth. Unemployment is in fact widely spread over industry and commerce, not just in the old industries but in many of the new ones, too. We know the causes. It is a combination of forces: a recession in world trade combined with rampant inflation which is bringing home the real cost of labour and the need for economy in its use. Over the years since the war we in this country, with every encouragement from our leaders, have been demanding an ever-increasing standard of living but have not been prepared to pay the full cost in terms of efficiency and work. It is ironical that the voices raised loudest about the evils of unemployment to-day include many who in the past were most critical of industry's efficiency. All of us— Government, industry, individuals, alike— must realise, as I think we do realise, that we have a great responsibility to do everything in our power to create a state of affairs where no able and willing man or woman should not be able to find a reasonable job of work.
When the tide of trade returns there will certainly be a recovery and an improvement in the employment figures, and with the amount of money that has been, and is being, released into the economy some results must show very soon. There are indeed signs that that time is not far off—though, inevitably with a consumer boom, Scotland, so dependent still on capital goods, is always slower to benefit. In the short run, till trade revives, there is very little, or comparatively little, that can be done to take up the slack. But there arc exceptions. For instance, of all the men unemployed in Scotland in the month of October no fewer than 26,500, a quarter of the total unemployed, were in the building and construction industry. Therefore, it was very good news that the Government are to carry out a programme of £60 million worth of public works within the next two years. This should bring welcome relief to these industries as well as make Scotland a more attractive place in which to live and work. The essential thing is that the period of preparation and planning of these works should be cut to the minimum, so that the work can begin on the ground.
It is also very heartening that the Naval construction programme has been advanced and will give the shipbuilders much-needed work and time to reorganise for the future. We welcome, too, yesterday's announcement of a variety of projects, particularly of an order for a hundred light aircraft for Scottish Aviation. As a further thought, in the very short run could not local authorities be given still greater encouragement and more money to start at once on schemes of clearance of those derelict areas which are still such an eyesore on our industrial scene? This is a subject which your Lordships debated last week, though, so far as I can see, entirely with reference to England and Wales. There is to-day in The Times a letter on the subject and I should have thought this was one of the quickest ways of creating short-term interim employment.
However, my Lords, important as these short-term measures are, particularly for human reasons, it is on the further horizon that we must set our eyes. As I said at the start, I believe we are at a point of great opportunity, and I say this

1007
because we have in Britain, and specifically in Scotland, a conjunction of favourable circumstances such as we have never had before in our history. First, we have the Common Market second, we have the development of ever larger ships which demand deep-water ports for the discharge of their cargoes, and third, we have discoveries of oil and gas off our shores which promise to exceed anything dreamt of a few years ago. I believe, with reference to the first, that the Market gives increased scope for the attraction to Scotland and to the other development areas of new industry from overseas. Much has been said in this connection about the compatibility of our own regional policies with those likely to be agreed upon by the Community, the views expressed depending very largely upon whether their exponent is for or against the Market. The truth appears to be— and I hope that either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness who are to reply to the debate will enlighten us on this point— that the question of common regional policies is still very much in the melting pot. We in this country rightly pride ourselves on our experience in this field, and we in Scotland particularly for what we have contributed in ideas and research. I am quite sure that on entry to the Market that contribution will be welcomed and will carry great weight. Whatever the details, the fact is that a common and vigorous regional policy is a basic part of the Common Market philosophy.
I should like to quote from a paper of the Commission of the European Communities, written in 1969. Referring to the inadequately developed regions it says:
"If a suitable regional policy does not enable us to make up the economic disparity in these Community regions and thus solve the problem of employment, in the long term they may in one way or another slow down or even halt overall economic growth."
So while we are in a position to make our mark we should take a new look at our present system of incentives. On the question of grants versus tax allowances I have had my doubts in the past but I am now convinced that in the end it is cash that talks. Liquidity has been the biggest problem of most developing companies, and cash, whether in the form of investment grants or regional employ
1008
meat premiums, is much the most effective encouragement. I believe that we should revert to the system of investment grants and that we should maintain regional employment premiums, or indeed consider increasing them.
When it comes to eligibility for aid we have a complicated system, with different rules for one area or another and one kind of industry or another. This is all very confusing to a potential beneficiary. I believe that the right answer is to have a single uniform scale for a substantial area, whether it be Scotland, whether it be Wales, whether it be all the development areas, and leave it to the Government to point out the growth areas by the development of roads, services, public buildings and everything that goes under that horrible but useful term of "infrastructure". In regional policy we must have continuity. Successive Governments have felt it incumbent on themselves to produce variations on the theme of their predecessors, or even their own original theme. Again, this is confusing. Industry does not know where it stands, and I think we could take a lead from the policy of the Italians over their Mezzogiorno district in the South, where continuity of purpose and policy has certainly paid dividends.
Finally, on regional policies there is the question of administration. A year ago the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) organised an international forum to discuss the whole question of centralisation and what could be done about it. Among the principal speakers whom we brought to the conference which was held at Aviemore (a good example of decentralisation in itself) were McGeorge Bundy, President of the Ford Foundation, and Jerome Monod, the civil servant in charge of the French Ministry of Regional Development. From him we heard about that Ministry's role, which lays down the broad policy but decentralises the specific study and action to the regions themselves. Here again we could well take a lesson. Regional policy is but one of the many responsibilities of that mastodon, the Department of Trade and Industry. With its many activities some people might call it a hydra. We should seriously think about a separate Ministry of Regional Development, with considerable devolution in Scotland's case to the Scottish Office and

1009
in other parts to other bodies, and through those to the new local government regions. So let us give our whole regional policies a thorough review while we can still do so and can influence the policies of the E. E. C.
May I next turn to the second of our great opportunities; namely, deep-water ports. Rather over a year ago my noble friend Lord Perth opened a debate in your Lordships' House on the Scottish Council's report entitled Oceanspan. The gist of that study was that the economics of transport to-day means the use of ever larger vessels to carry raw materials into the industrial centres of Europe; that these vessels need deep-water ports and safe approaches; and that the basic industries using materials tend to grow up around these ports and inevitably the secondary industries come in their turn. Till now most of this traffic has flowed into Europe through the great ports like Antwerp and Rotterdam, but with the growth of shipping, both in volume and size, the English Channel is becoming increasingly inadequate and unsafe. It is too narrow and too shallow, as recent disasters have shown. More and more the big ships will have to seek harbourage to the West or South of the Straits of Dover. Here Scotland has a unique resource in the deep water of the Firth of Clyde. Some of the materials arriving there in bulk could be reshipped from the East Coast in smaller vessels able to enter all the ports of Europe. With a supply of these materials, primary industries would grow up in the hinterland— steel, oil, aluminium, petrochemicals. The secondary industries would follow, right across the existing industrial central belt of Scotland, and then the products would be exported from the East Coast ports into the ports of Europe. We have all these assets— the ports, a developed industrial economy — everything to enable Scotland to become a great new centre of economic growth.
That report was generally welcomed in this House and, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, the Government
"accepted in principle the main idea, but with certain reservations."
Now,16 months later, the scene has changed, not least in respect of our decision to join the Common Market.
1010
A second study has been made by the Scottish Council with the help of a firm of Dutch consultants versed in this field. Appropriately on this occasion it is called Eurospan, because it looks at the whole position in the context of Europe, and this report confirms the findings of the first and rubs home the need for action soon if we are not to be left at the post.1 will not go into many figures but the report concludes that in some ten years' time from the establishment of such a project the processing industries alone could provide 18,000 jobs, and, on the experience of the Continent round Rotterdam, in turn 2½ times as many jobs in ancillary industries— that is something like 60,000 jobs in all— quite apart from the construction work, which would last many years and could employ at least another 9,000.
My Lords, we cannot afford just to talk: urgency is the order of the day. The report points out that two other outstanding sites meet the criteria and are being developed fast. One is the area between Marseilles and Fos, in the South of France, and the other is at Le Harve, in the North. At both sites work is going ahead. Eighteen thousand acres have been set aside at Marseilles and 24,000 acres at Le Havre, where they are even building an artificial island— something which may create the same kind of navigational hazard as we have heard about earlier this afternoon in the North Sea. The point is that work is going ahead, and new industries are planned and are already being built around it; and if we are not to miss out we must start to act. Private enterprise and State industry will carry the main load, but first Government must make a declaration of faith and give a firm lead. Planning procedures must be streamlined, and developing industries must not be scared away from these areas by the kind of lengthy delays which some others have suffered in recent years. The scale of the whole concept is such that I believe it requires the setting up of a completely new agency or authority, with a great deal of autonomy and funds of its own; an authority to take on the planning, the allocation of land, the development of transport and all the other facilities that are needed.
There is also the aspect of amenity to be considered. The Clyde is one of the
most beautiful parts of our coastline and we must preserve as much as possible, but I believe that the amenity and industrial aspects can be reconciled perfectly well. The ports must have the power and the funds to develop on a completely new scale. For a precedent for such an authority we can look at what the Highlands and Islands Development Board has begun to achieve, given some powers and funds of its own.
Perhaps the one most vital part of the whole scheme is the establishment of a new major steelworks, for which few better sites in Europe, certainly none in Britain, could he found— not just on account of the number of men it would employ itself, but for the magnetic effect on other industries, as can be seen from looking at any of the other great new steelworks in Europe. I know that the Steel Corporation is in the midst of a prolonged pregnancy over its plans; it is still on the cards whether it will bring forth a mountain or a mouse. It is rumoured that the decision might be that we cannot compete in the world of steel on the scale necessary to-day. I only hope that this proves false; it would be a tragedy if Britain, and Scotland, who gave Andrew Carnegie to the world, were to opt out of the big league in steel and lose all the opportunities which would come in its train.
Finally, your Lordships may well ask, particularly those of your Lordships from South of the Border: what of the cost? Where are the funds to come from for the huge spending that will be needed for Government to prime the pump and give the lead to industry? Here fortune has been kind, because at the same time as this great opportunity, we have the matching promise of North Sea oil. On this I would only quote a technical publication, the Oil and Gas Journal of October 25:
"Any lingering doubt that the North Sea is destined to play a major role in the world oil industry has been dispelled."
They were referring to the continued discoveries in the Forties Field and now the Auk Field, both off the coasts of Scotland, and richer than almost anything foreseen in the North Sea.
There are, of course, direct benefits to Scotland. Aberdeen has already been
1012
transformed by the base activities related to the exploration. Unemployment in Aberdeen is down to under 4 per cent., which is well below the average for the whole United Kingdom. Other East Coast ports are beginning to benefit too, including Invergordon, which with its existing aluminium works could become the growth point of the North. A pipeline is to be built from Peterhead to the refineries at Grangemouth. If Scottish engineering industry is quick off the mark, it can cash in on the oil equipment market. But that is not all. The Government find themselves with a rich windfall from licence fees and royalties, quite apart from the tax revenues that will accrue. Already this has become a bandwagon on which there is some competition to jump. The finds are in Scottish waters; therefore, it is argued, they should be appropriated to Scottish use. This is a seductive argument, but it could be a dangerous one with a backlash if applied in other fields. We are part of the United Kingdom and this is a United Kingdom resource.
On the other hand, I think it would be quite wrong that these vast revenues — because they will be vast— should simply disappear into the maw of the Treasury for the general taxpayers' relief. Nor should we lightly accept the proposition, the assurance, that Scotland will have something vaguely described as "her fair share". Scotland and most of the other development areas are suffering from the fact that their industries sprang from their natural resources— iron ore and coal in particular— and these resources are now nearly exhausted. Now, in oil and gas, we have found new natural wealth. We should treat these not as a windfall to be squandered but as new resources to replace the old ones that are worked out. What a wonderful opportunity to pool these revenues in a fund to be administered for the benefit of all those areas, Scotland among them, whose natural resources once built up our country to industrial greatness. I know that the earmarking of public revenues for specific purposes is anathema to the Treasury, but this is a completely new situation, and new situations demand new approaches.
To sum up, in Scotland this is not a moment of despair but a moment of

1013
hope. Two tasks confront us, and in both the Government must give a firm lead. In the short term we— that is, the Government and all of us— must do all in our power to find work for those without it, to start the vital process of restoring confidence. Looking ahead, I have tried to describe the great opportunities waiting for us to grasp. And if anyone says that these ideas are fanciful I would suggest to him to read those two Oceanspan reports. We are faced with a unique set of circumstances, which demand unique measures and a strong element of faith. I ask the Government to show that faith and make a clear declaration of intent. Scotland's morale will then be restored, and Scotland's industry and people will respond, as they always have in times of opportunity and need. The tide is running in our favour; let us take it at the flood. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the first duty I should undertake in speaking in this debate is to express thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for having given us the opportunity of discussing the Scottish economy at a time when it is most appropriate to do so. But If I do not go much further than that the noble Lord will forgive me, because I have heard him make speeches in Scottish debates which have been more appropriate to the circumstances. He will forgive me if I say that far too much of his speech took on the character of apologies for the situation rather than suggestions for its solution. That is something I have never had occasion to say before of any of his remarks, particularly when I was at the receiving end of what I often found was useful advice; but that advice was never so tempered as it has been to-day.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me, I would only say that I spent at least two-thirds of my remarks in suggesting solutions to the problems.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, and I would just remind the noble Lord of how he finished. He said that this is not a time for despair in Scotland, it is a time for hope, and then he went on to say that he hoped the Government would take
1014
steps to restore Scottish morale. One does not need one's morale to be restored if one is in a period of hope; one certainly needs a stimulus to morale if one is in despair.
I have not made a prepared speech for this occasion because I did not need to do so. I have been at the receiving end of unemployment. In the 'thirties I experienced the position of being a member of a family where no one worked, and once you have been on the receiving end of that, even for a few months, you never forget it. There are 140,000 families in Scotland to-day in that position. May I go back to the beginning of the noble Lord's speech? He said that this was a moment of great opportunity. Of course, the further one goes into the depths of despair on unemployment, the worse the figures get, obviously the greater the chance that sooner or later there will be a turn. Things have got so bad that I would make this prediction: that if within the next twelve months we reach a position where unemployment has fallen to 600,000 in the country as a whole, it will be hailed as a great improvement. But that was the figure which, when the present Government took office, was being described by present Ministers as the disastrous situation from which the country had to be rescued.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said that we were going through a "black patch". As Winston Churchill might have said," Some patch!". The noble Lord went on to say that while Scotland's unemployment had been as bad as 20 per cent. of the total, the situation had now improved; it was now only 15 per cent, of the total. I have not worked these things out; the noble Lord is a chartered accountant, and I will accept the complete accuracy of his arithmetic. But I would point out to him that the 15 per cent. has been accomplished not because any improvement has been achieved, but because the Government have achieved the almost impossible in raising unemployment to unprecedented levels in the Midlands of England. We are 15 per cent. of what is a lot worse, and that 15 per cent. of the figure for the country is a great deal worse for Scotland than was 20 per cent. of the previous figure.
While I am dealing with figures, may I refer to the debate on the Common

1015
Market, when I took exception to a remark which was made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have no doubt that he will read this in due course, and then return to the point. He said that his experience was that while places like Scotland might suffer from unemployment more quickly (I am paraphrasing what he said, and I took exception to his next observation), his experience was that the regions recovered more quickly than the country as a whole. I said that that was not my experience. In the debate on the Amendment to the Queen's Speech the noble and learned Lord came back to that point and said that I was wrong. I happened to find in papers which legitimately remained with me from my Ministerial days the figures of unemployment in Great Britain and in Scotland from 1952 to the middle of 1967. I have no reason to believe that the figures for 1967 to date are any different from those I am now going to give.
I have taken the month of February which, in most years, was the month during which unemployment reached its highest level, and the month of June which, by experience, is one of the months when it has fallen to its lowest level. In only four years out of 15 was the position as it was stated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. May I give the percentages? In these months in 1953, while the Scottish figure of unemployment fell by 27 per cent., the Great Britain figure fell by 33 per cent.; in 1954, the figure was 31 per cent. as against 39 per cent. One of the years when it went the other way was 1955, but only very marginally; there was a 24 per cent. fall in Scotland, and 23 per cent. in Great Britain. Then I have the following figures: 26 per cent. in Scotland,32 per cent. in Great Britain; 30 per cent. in Scotland,46 per cent. in Great Britain. The whole trend of the statistics shows that when there is a slump the areas which are poorest take longest to recover. I think 11 out of 15 years is a pretty fair indication of the trend. I would suggest that if the Government are basing any of their action on a belief that things will recover faster in Scotland than they do elsewhere, a little rethinking is needed.
1016
There was one part of Lord Polwarth's speech with which I found myself most in agreement, and that was when he came to the subject of regional policies. He, like myself, lays considerable importance on the continuation of these policies. I was particularly glad to hear him say that he had come round to the view that investment grants and the regional employment premium were things which should be returned to and continued with, in that order. I was surprised that he did not go so far as he did in earlier years, because it was he who originated, in relation to regional policy, the phrase "the carrot and the stick". While it is perfectly clear that in the Common Market there may well not be any difficulty in evolving policies for the use of the carrot, there is very grave doubt as to whether the application of the stick will be equally permissible or successful. I am a complete subscriber to what I might call the "Polwarth doctrine", that the carrot and the stick are of equal importance.
I do not believe that we are just passing through a black patch. It would be more correct to say that the Scottish economy at the present time is almost in disarray. Before the last Election the previous Government were being criticised for having failed to live up to their promises on employment. We had sought to establish a net increase in the number of jobs in Scotland, because what was aimed at was the bringing in of many new jobs to more than make good the loss of jobs in what has been accepted to be the declining industries of shipbuilding, transport, agriculture and so on. Some are declining in employment. It is not always the same thing: Agriculture provides fewer jobs but greater production; but shipbuilding and the railways were providing fewer jobs because they were reducing industries.
It is the fact that during the period in office of the last Government the cutback in these industries went very much faster than had been anticipated and there was a net loss, but the loss in Scotland during these years was entirely in these older industries. What is the position to-day? We are losing jobs over the whole field of industry. The new industries, such as the bright hope of Scotland, the electronics industry, have

1017
been cut back during the last 15 months to almost the same degree as some of the old industries. Take my home town of Dundee, the bright spot of Scotland for so many years. Even the brightest jewel in the crown, the National Cash Register Company, is falling by the wayside to a certain extent. Let me try to he fair— it is difficult of course when one is on political matters, but I will try. The N. C. R., over a period of years, had a time of expansion because they were heavily involved in decimalisation programmes in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and then the United Kingdom, one following on the other. There was an expanded programme for that reason. But it was the expressed hope of the company that, following on these programmes, the normal expansion of business which they had experienced ever since coming to Dundee shortly after the War would enable them to hang on to most, if not all, of their increased staff. Instead, for the first time in their history, they have been cutting back. If people have retired their jobs have not been filled; if people have left, the jobs have not been filled. Even that did not take care of the situation and there was a very considerable pay-off in Dundee this year. The N. C. R. are not exceptional. This situation applies over much of what was the new industry of Scotland.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for a moment? Am I not correct in saying that the electronics industries to which he has referred are mostly American based? And is it not a fact that the great rise of Japan in the electronics field, which has almost beaten the Americans in their own market, is the cause of the reduction in the amount of employment that is available to us in Scotland?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords, it is not. I am willing to concede that it is a contributory factor, but it is no more than that. It is one of a number of factors. The principal factor is the lack of confidence in this country.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, surely if the noble Lord looks at the whole electronics industry on the West Coast of America, he will find exactly the same thing happening. This is not endemic to this country or to Scotland;
1018
it is happening in every advanced industrial country in the world.
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords. In America the business of that nature is very much affected by the defence requirements of America, which have changed considerably during the last period. Businesses in America are suffering more than anybody else from the change in defence procurements. That does not affect the programme in Scotland at all. I happen to be a director of a Scottish-based American company and, as is usual in these cases, there is generally a sort of division of markets. The markets which are serviced either by Scottish companies or by European companies tend not to be the markets which are serviced by the American-based industry itself. One of the reasons why so many of these companies were set up in Scotland is because of the advantages of having access to particular markets. That may or may not be bettered by the Common Market— I hope it will be— but that is one of the reasons why they are there.
What has been done by the Government to deal with the situation? This is not a place where we need to make particular Party points, and it would be foolish if I were to pretend that I believed that the Government were deliberately creating unemployment. It would be equally foolish if I were to pretend that the Government had not clone anything about it. What I do suggest is that the unemployment has arisen from Government policies, and has failed to improve because the remedies which the Government are applying are the wrong remedies related to the wrong period of time. Take, my Lords, some of the things that have been done. There are the winter work programmes which are very successful and, in a way, it is a compliment to the previous Government that the present Government have carried them out. But we must remember that the winter work programmes, in relation to the previous Government, were intended to provide work specifically to combat unemployment in the building industry during the months of December to March, and were not related to a general unemployment situation in Scotland. If you have lost a job in the cash register factory, if you have lost a job in a jute

1019
factory, if you have lost a job in a shipyard, it is no consolation to know that a road programme which was to have taken place next year has been brought forward to this year. It is a help to those who are unemployed in the building and civil engineering industry, but it does not go any further than that.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the claim— and he said it yesterday, I believe— that he did not expect unemployment to rise as it has done. A claim has been made about how much has been put into the economy. It is perfectly true that a considerable amount of money was handed back in one Budget, but it went to the wrong people. Many of those people who had considerable benefits from that Budget are not translating that spending power into the grocers' shops, the drapers' shops, the furniture shops—
LORD ORR-EWING: It is going into savings.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is said that it is going into savings. That may be so. But what I say is that those people are not doing the other thing; they are not investing it in industry. The money may be being saved, but it is not being invested in industry to help stimulate the economy. It may be being salted away for a better time when the return may look a little safer. But is not this point at the root of our problems? Too many people are not investing because they are waiting for a better time, and because they have no faith in what is happening at the present time. Like many noble Lords, I have watched the programmes on television. There was a programme on "Panorama", I think the week before last, which was particularly concerned with the problem of unemployment in the Midlands, in Birmingham and so on, and, again and again, it came back to the fact that people did not have confidence in invest.
Is this a ridiculous phenomenon to have at the present time? I suggest that it is a direct result of the Government's policies. We go back to the first few months of the present Government when, for the first time, the "lame duck" policy was enunciated. The Government said that, so far as "lame ducks" were con
1020
cerned, one of two things must happen; either they must cure themselves or they must become "dead ducks". What was the first of them? It was the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. That was followed by Rolls-Royce and then by U. C. S. I do not know— nobody knows at this stage— how many jobs will ultimately be lost in U. C. S., because successive changes that the Government have been compelled to make in relation to U. C. S. may have the effect of diminishing the total number of jobs which will be lost directly in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
But the worst part of U. C. S. will not be the jobs lost directly in shipbuilding on the Clyde; it will be the number of jobs in all the finishing trades associated with the shipbuilding industry which are being lost throughout Scotland. A figure of 20,000 potential lost jobs in Scotland was attached to the U. C. S. position. There was a similar state of affairs in the case of Rolls-Royce, with the bankruptcies of sub-contractors. There were the lost jobs of all those who were subcontracting from Rolls-Royce, which were spread far beyond. Surely the position at the present time is that those who have money, which might be invested in the future improvement of their industry, are not investing it, for the simple reason that far too many of them want to hang on to their liquid resources in case, in six months' time, they are "lame ducks" who will be left to find their own way out of their difficulties.
What is needed are not public works programmes, which can affect only a very small part of the total number of unemployed, but a complete re-thinking of policy; a getting-away from the idea that Government intervention to help industry is something to be avoided as if it were a plague. I know this. A fraction of the money which the Government are now committing to palliatives in relation to unemployment could have prevented the U. C. S. position which has become the canker at the heart of Scottish unemployment and of Scottish thinking about unemployment. I do not know whether demonstrations in London by the Scottish unemployed will, at the end of the day, serve any useful purpose. I do not know whether lobbying Members of Parliament and seeking to interview Ministers will alter the situation one iota. But I cannot go along with the noble

1021
Lord, Lord Polwarth, in regretting that this takes place, because I can understand why it takes place. It is the fear in so many homes in Scotland about what was thought up to a year ago to be completely impossible. A return to the bad clays of the 1930s was something which we all said could not happen. I hope that that is still the position but, so far as Scotland is concerned, we are getting precious near it.
Noble Lords will acquit me, most of the time, of making political speeches in your Lordships' House. This, I must say, is the nearest I have come to it in a long time. But I believe that, unless the Government can find radically different policies to deal with the situation, the best advice that they can take is the advice which Mr. Leopold Amery gave to the Chamberlain Government so many years ago.
3.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, like any other noble Lord who has any connection whatever with Scotland, or indeed like any other noble Lord who has any interest in the economy of the United Kingdom itself, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for instituting this debate, and I count it a privilege to be able to take part. Unlike the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, who, it seemed to me at times, was endeavouring to qualify for a place in the prologue of "Up Pompeii" by crying," Woe! Woe! "the whole time, I myself was glad to hear the note of optimism which Lord Polwarth found it possible to strike by mentioning that this was a moment of opportunity, by making a plea for full employment, by calling us to look to the future horizon, by drawing our attention to the importance of continuity and of decentralisation, and by calling upon the Government to see the urgency of the situation. In all of this I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. I perhaps do not share with him the optimism that the Government will heed his advice— I should like to think they would— but I do not go quite so far as Lord Hughes in thinking that the situation will necessarily go on being as desperate as it may look to those of us who are concerned with the economy of Scotland.
1022
There is another reason why I am particularly pleased to be able to take part in this debate this afternoon, and that is because later in the debate we shall have as a contribution a maiden speech from my noble kinsman Lord Caithness, who is also my noble clan chieftain. I am sure that your Lordships will detect a true and sincere love of Scotland in what the noble Earl will have to say. I myself look forward to hearing him, and wish him good fortune when it comes to his turn to speak.
My Lords, last week in your Lordships' House, during the debate on the Second Reading of the Island of Rockall Bill, distaste was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and other noble Lords for the wording in the Bill, which described Scotland as,
"that part of the United Kingdom … known as Scotland".
The reason for their distaste was that they considered such a Long Title to be periphrastic, and they would have preferred to have used simply the word "Scotland". The reason why the wording was used, we were reminded, was that it was the wording used in the Act of Union. The reason why that wording was used in that Act was that the Parliaments which then agreed to merge with each other intended that merger not merely to add a union of Parliaments to the existing union of Crowns but also, by that Act, to create a new United Kingdom greater in strength and purpose than any of its parts.
All this, my Lords, makes me ask myself certain questions. Do we really believe ourselves to be part of a truly United Kingdom, or do we consider ourselves to be citizens, each of his own separate part? It is important to know in this particular debate whether we are talking about Scotland— in parenthesis, that troublesome country lying North of the Border which England is always subsidising (if you are English) or exploiting (if you are Scottish)— or whether we are talking about that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland. If we believe the latter and, unlike James Ogilvy, the first Earl of Seafield, believe that the Act of Union was not merely an end of "ane old song" but rather the opening of a new chorus, then what we are discussing to-day becomes a matter

1023
of great moment for every noble Lord in your Lordships' House, be he English, Irish, Welsh or Scottish, and a matter of paramount importance to every subject in whatever part of the Kingdom he or she may have been born or may reside. If such is our standpoint— as mine is— then the state of the Scottish economy is not merely a small parochial matter: it is a matter which touches to the root of the prosperity of the United Kingdom.
A body cannot be considered healthy if it has a diseased limb. It cannot even be comfortable in its other parts if the circulation in one limb is impaired. If, therefore, it is shown in this debate— and I am confident that it will be so shown — there is sickness affecting the Scottish limb of the United Kingdom's body, then I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not treat the matter with stoicism, saying," Grit your teeth, United Kingdom, and the pain in Scotland will soon pass"; nor treat it with some sort of political aspirin, hoping temporarily to kill the pain while the affected part heals of its own accord. I hope, rather, that the Government will treat Scotland's ills with a proper diagnosis, with a full course of treatment and with appropriate aftercare. This, my Lords, is the long-term approach which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth was asking us to have to this problem.
My Lords, I cannot over-emphasise the importance of Her Majesty's Government's employing a United Kingdom approach to problems such as I have indicated. Every part of the United Kingdom is entitled to equal consideration, and it is important to each part that every part is economically healthy. I make no difference between Scotland and Wales or England arid Ireland, nor between Clyde-side and Teesside or Caithness and Cornwall, except to use these names to diagnose where trouble may exist or show where treatment should be given. It is especially important that we should know how to deal effectively and sympathetically with the parts of the whole United Kingdom at a time when we are about to take that United Kingdom into the even larger association of the European Economic Community.
My Lords, let us have no doubt that the economy of Scotland is sick and requires remedial treatment. The symptoms
1024
are high and persistent unemployment. It is a chronic condition, with frequent relapses to an acute state, especially if any part of the body is exposed to an economic chill. Leaving metaphor aside, let us look at the facts. The unemployment rate in Scotland has never fallen below 2 per cent. since figures have been kept, and it is now as high as 6.6 per cent. I am talking not of that intractable part of Scotland where I live, but of the whole of Scotland, including the industrial belt and the centres of commerce and finance. At this time, when the whole country is concerned at seeing the total of unemployed soaring towards the million mark, the percentage of unemployed in Scotland is at its all-time high of 6·6 per cent., while in Great Britain as a whole it is only 4 per cent. and in some regions of England it is a mere 2·2 per cent. The situation, therefore, which is admitted to be serious in the United Kingdom as a whole, is shown by the figures to be 50 per cent. more serious in that part known as Scotland.
There is no doubt in the minds of those of us who sit on these Benches that a main cause of Scotland's relatively high rate of unemployment is the almost total lack of decision-making power in Scotland. It begins with a lack of political power and goes on to a lack of industrial power. Too much of Scotland's new and modern industry consists merely of branch factories of industrial concerns with their headquarters in other parts of the United Kingdom, or even, as Lord Hughes has brought to our notice, in other parts of the world. Is it surprising that when the economic climate grows chill such firms close their outlying factories first? Surely this is an area where the Government can set an example. What, for instance, has happened to the Conservative policy on Scottish evolution, emasculated though it was? Why have the Government picked on traditional Scottish industries, classing them as "lame ducks", while subsidising similar industries in England? Indeed, can the Government give us any reason at all to think that they recognise the magnitude of the problem or that they have diagnosed its causes, or that they have any intention whatever of trying to produce a solution?
My Lords, I return to my plea to recognise the equal importance of Scotland with any other part of the United

1025
Kingdom, and I re-emphasise the value to the United Kingdom as a whole of a healthy Scottish economy. Nature herself is making a grim geographical joke of the way in which we concentrate more and more of our resources and development in the South-East of these British Islands. The South-East is slowly tilting downwards into the sea while Scotland and the North-West are rising. London, like Venice, is slowly sinking. My authority for this is no less than the Greater London Council. We shall all be asked, indeed we are all now being asked, not merely to help a "lame duck" but to help a sinking duck. Two-thirds of the cost of saving London from being engulfed by the North Sea is to be found by the Government— and that means by the United Kingdom as a whole. One wonders whether the money would not be better spent on a literally solid foundation by building up and developing Scotland and the North-West.
I have no wish to overemphasise these curious geographical problems, and let no one think that I grudge London protection from the sea— so long, that is, as that part of the United Kingdom known as England will help to put up economic flood defences to protect Scotland from the buffeting of adverse economic tides. We in Scotland have lived with unemployment for so long that you in other parts of the United Kingdom are getting used to it. I therefore beg Her Majesty's Government to tell us that they recognise the seriousness of the plight of the Scottish economy; that they recognise the danger to the United Kingdom as a whole of a sick Scottish economy; and, finally, to tell us that they either have or will formulate adequate short-term and long-term plans to infuse life back into the Scottish economy.
4.3 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for the opportunity he gives us to debate Scottish economy. I listened to his speech with very great interest and, if I may say so, found it very constructive. I listened also to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I can understand his being depressing, but the only solution to our problems that I could find in his speech is that he suggested what
1026
he called more Government intervention. He did not specify it; therefore one wonders whether he is going to join Mr. Michael Foot or Mr. Jenkins and in which Lobby.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will permit me. I will not interrupt her again, no matter how much she provokes me. But I did make a second suggestion: For God's sake, go!
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I did recognise that; but I do not at the moment feel like it. Perhaps I can describe the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, as one of qualified optimism. I felt that there was, in a way, a dichotomy in his speech. At one moment he said that we must be sure to treat Scotland as a "part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland" and at the next moment he almost asked for a separate Scottish Parliament. No doubt he will resolve that in his own mind. I can assure him that as far as the Constitutional Committee's recommendations (called Scotland's Government) are concerned— on which Committee I had the honour to serve— we are hoping to publish a White Paper on the subject in the course of this Parliament, because, as we said from the beginning, we think that local government must be reformed first.
LORD HOY: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she hoped to publish the White Paper in the course of this Parliament. Does she mean this Parliament or does she mean this Session?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I specifically said "this Parliament" because we have always made it clear that we should have to get reform of local government out of the way first, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, knows, that will not be presented to Parliament until next year. May I also join with those — since I shall not have an opportunity to do so afterwards — in voicing every good wish to the noble Earl. Lord Caithness, on his maiden speech? I shall look forward to it with great interest.
My Lords, the Motion that we are asked to consider draws our attention to
"the state of the Scottish economy and to the need for the determined pursuit of policies for its fundamental improvement".

1027
It is of course true, as the noble Viscount said, that Scotland does not flourish unless the United Kingdom economy as a whole is sound. We have recently had debates on the British economy in both Houses and again yesterday in another place. Therefore, while I must refer to national policies, I shall try to concentrate so far as possible on our own affairs. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who is to wind up the debate, will deal in particular with those matters concerning the Department of Trade and Industry and questions raised by noble Lords.
I think it is true to say that all Governments try to relate successfully four main economic factors: the balance of payments; economic growth; prices; and employment. When we took office in 1970 we found that only one of those four had been tackled with success; namely, the balance of payments. Economic growth equalled only 1½ per cent. a year; retail prices were rising by 7 per cent. in the last year of the Labour Government's term of office, and accelerating fast. There was a rising trend of unemployment which by 1970 had reached 90,600 in Scotland, a rise of 70 per cent. since 1966. On prices there are now at last clear signs from the retail price index that the acceleration rate has been brought down; but, as I think three noble Lords pointed out, unemployment in Scotland totals 141,454. These bald figures conceal the statistics of young people leaving school, men and women of every skill and of none and of every age within the normal working span.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said of his personal experience, to want to work and to find oneself unwanted must be a very searing experience. Quite apart from that, it is the sheer frustration that can mask the need in a swiftly changing world to accept change and all that it implies. We all know that current technology will operate with far fewer men and women, but it can, on the other hand, generate a far wider range of jobs, both in the ancillary and in the service industries. To give one example, technical change creates its own demand for extra jobs. If you take a computer, in itself an important labour-saving device, it generates a demand for specialised services, for the provision of consultancy
1028
advice and for what I am told is technically called "software". Technical advances open new areas of demand which are very important. We are all familiar with the rapidity with which new products change from the category of luxury goods to everyday essentials. Who would have expected ten years ago that television sets would have been classified as household necessities? With increasing industrial efficiency comes higher incomes. Higher real pay is what we all want to achieve, and this also means more leisure; and that in itself opens up a whole new demand and therefore a whole new range of employment. It is because of the importance of this range of work, which extends to a large extent to the service industries, that we have already halved the selective employment tax and intend to abolish it completely. We have also extended free depreciation to the service industries in the development areas and I am glad to say that both decisions have been welcomed in Scotland.
So, my Lords, we are in the midst of profound structural change in our economy which is why the Motion urges us to pursue a determined policy for the Scottish economy's fundamental improvement. It is for this reason that we are undertaking some long-term measures designed to meet the fundamental needs of modern economy: for example, the reform of the tax structure, the reform of industrial relations, the reform of local government, housing finance, and. of course, our entry into the European Communities. There have already been considerable measures to try to tackle the short-term needs of creating a wider range of work. When we first undertook responsibilities of office, my Lords, we felt bound to try to contain cost inflation and our own expenditure so that we could, for example— as we did later— cut taxes by £ 1,400 million a year. This is without doubt a massive stimulus to investment and, as a result, the latest C. B. I. survey of industrial trends for Scotland is more optimistic about the economic outlook than in recent surveys. Apparently the main factors behind this are thought to be the reflationary measures taken in July together with the Budget.
There is also an increase in the proportion of Scottish firms expecting new

1029
orders and output to increase over the next few months, but there is no doubt whatever that the investor is still cautious and I am sure that he needs above all else an assurance that the great stimulus to invest which has already been given will not mean that later on we shall have to put on the brakes. I am sure that what any investor needs above all is stability, and therefore I say quite categorically that we are determined to get the right balance between encouraging investment on the one hand and the containment of inflation on the other.
My noble friend Lord Polwarth and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, spoke of regional incentives and they questioned the merits of investment grants against the present allowances. My noble friend says that what counts is cash. We did replace grants, not only by the tax allowance but by tile assistance under the Local Employment Act and also by considerable reduction in company taxation. We felt that if we had free depreciation for tax purposes it would be much more widely available than investment grants because, as noble Lords will know, it row applies to all mobile plant and machinery in the development areas; and, as I have just said, to the service industry too. If you take into account the reductions we made in corporation tax, a profitable manufacturing firm is very well placed under the free depreciation system. But I noticed that my noble friend said that, after considerable thought, he felt, as did the noble Lord opposite, that perhaps in the end it was the grant and R. E. P. added to it which would be the best answer.
My Lords, none of us ever says that any system is the complete or the final answer. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is visiting Glasgow in the next few weeks to hear the views locally on this subject, but at the moment we feel that the present system taken as a whole is better than grants, and we do not favour the regional employment premium because we felt that it was an artificial way to keep more people than was necessary to undertake a particular job. As a short-term boost to employment we have also spent the extra £ 60 million to which reference has been made. I should say that we felt it was a help to the construction industry. My noble friend pointed
1030
out that the unemployed in the construction industry are now about a quarter of those out of work.
We have also brought forward naval orders to help shipbuilding firms in the development areas which will total £ 50 million in Scotland. Robb Caledon will receive orders worth £ 5 million, representing 700 jobs, but the main orders will go to the Clyde. There will be three frigates worth £ 20 million ordered from Yarrow's, which represents 800 jobs, and three ships, worth £ 25 million, are to be ordered from Scott Lithgow. This contract will provide jobs for a thousand men in addition to the thousand which Scott Lithgow are at present recruiting for the expansion of their merchant shipping capacity. This increased work on the Lower Clyde will give a chance to many workers from the upper reaches of the Clyde. Do not let us forget that Scott Lithgow is only 18 miles away and if you take a bus across the Erskine Bridge it is only half an hour's journey.
Yesterday my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a further considerable sum, a two-year programme of £ 185 million, to give additional employment of which Scotland will get a good share. For example, there will be additional expenditure on a Scottish fishery protection vessel and on 100 "Bulldogs"— I mean, of course, Bulldog aircraft. There will be further additions to the public works programme, particularly on roads, and there will he increased expenditure by the nationalised industries. We shall also bring forward the payment of the amounts which were due under the former Investment Grants Scheme. This was one of its troubles, many people felt that 18 months was too long a period to allow for the repayment of these investment grants.
Also, my Lords, on Monday my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced in another place more measures to try to help the immediate problem of unemployment. Starting at once, but, all in all, going over the next four years, the Government have decided to allocate a further £ 118 million towards the improvement of health and social work services. I am glad to be able to tell the House that in Scotland this includes an additional £ 12 million together with the extra £ 11 million

1031
announced last November. This means that we are making available resources of £ 25 million, at present prices, for the Scottish services above our normal development.
These extra amounts are quite separate from the additional sum for hospital building and social work building projects which have already been approved as part of the £ 60 million additional programme to which I have just referred and which was announced in July. Of the extra £ 12 million, about £ 7½ million will be made available to the health services, primarily for the improvement of hospital facilities, especially those for the elderly and the mentally disordered. Provision is also being made for expenditure arising out of the reform of the structure of the National Health Service in Scotland. The remainder, about £ 4½ million, is intended for the further development of Scottish social work services. This will enable the local authorities to increase by £ 3½ million their building programmes of residential homes and day centres for the elderly, the mentally disordered, physically disabled, children in care and others in need of help. The balance will be available for further development of these services, including increased staffing and additional help towards services that are provided by voluntary organisations. My Department has invited local authorities, in consultation with those concerned, to suggest proposals for development of the social work programme over the next six years.
I think that we must join with the noble Lord who opened this debate and look to the future of the Scottish economy as a whole, and I should like to take this chance to welcome the Report of the Scottish Council, Oceanspan II. It is born out of hard study of national and international developments, and I would say that it is a major contribution to our debates on the future of the Scottish economy. I agree with my noble friend that it is not intended to be an exact master plan but we have already started discussions with the Council to consider the preparatory work that can be undertaken.
The key to the later Report, Oceanspan II is the same as to the first. It is really deep water and steel— in fact, Hunterston. And associated with that and Eurospan is the conversion of the economy. As my
1032
noble friend says, the Report deals particularly with primary industries which are of course mostly capital and land-intensive with relatively low direct employment. But the real interest comes in the ancillary industries which could be said to fan out from these basic capital investments. That is why the Government have supported the Hunterston Development Company, because we must have a professional and technical assessment of the practical investment and land use implications, such as sites, installations, borings, facilities and equipment.
Coming as I do from the North-East of Scotland, I am of course immensely interested in the development of the major new oilfields of the North Sea. The companies concerned are understandably guarded until further development, but it appears that oil will be available from the Northern sectors of the North Sea to the extent of at least 50 million tons a year by the mid-'seventies, and it is not unreasonable to think that it will reach 150 million tons a year by the end of the decade. As Britain uses about 100 million tons a year, it does not look as if we shall become either self-supporting or a net exporter of oil unless there are substantial finds elsewhere; but in any case it will be of very great benefit to us, both in the balance of payments and in what it can offer to our industry by reason of the opportunities provided to tender for the engineering and other work involved.
I should like to congratulate the Scottish Council, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the North-East of Scotland Development Authority and a number of other local authorities on the efforts they have already made to interest Scottish firms in the wide range of work that the oil industry presents. For instance, in the North-East there are 60 firms, employing 1,000 people, already involved in work connected with the exploration of the North Sea. There will be a continuing demand for oilrig platforms and for associated equipment, pipeline construction, servicing facilities, supply vessels, housing and for all kinds of domestic provisions for the oil industry men themselves. There is a real chance here for industry in the West of Scotland to share in the work in the East. There is also the prospect of more processing plant to handle the oil when it comes

1033
ashore, and further economic growth can be generated in the form of industries for which oil is a major requirement.
There are developments already, not only in Aberdeen but also in Leith, Dundee and the Cromarty Firth, which I saw myself on a recent visit to the North. In Aberdeen, which will be very glad of this work, B. E. A. have transferred their helicopter depot from Gatwick. They fly to the North Sea daily over our house. But sometimes these helicopters fly lower and look different because they carry magnotometers to search for mineral resources which some of the most experienced companies in the world are convinced lie beneath our North-East soil.
These major developments, my Lords, are extremely important at this particular time when Parliament has voted for entry into Europe. Earlier this month the European Commissioner with responsibility for regional policy, M. Borschette, made a tour of Scotland and my noble friend Lord Polwarth asked me to assure the House that Scotland and the other regions could carry on with their regional policies. I do not wish to repeat the two speeches on the European Community on this subject, except to paraphrase them by saying that membership of the E. E. C. will not affect our ability to plan our own regional policies. Indeed, I understand that on his recent visit M. Borschette was very interested in the Highlands and Islands Development Board as an example of what can be done to try to secure a more balanced development. To strengthen my own assurance, I should like to quote what he said after his recent visit, because it took place after our debate. M. Borschette said:
"We know that each region is a special case often requiring special treatment. We also know that it is primarily for national Governments to produce the ideas for dealing with these special problems."
My Lords, despite the present problems, not only at home but also quite considerably overseas, the recasting of the long-term structure of our economy and of the short-term stimulus to investors is hound to put this country into a strong position to seize our opportunities as the experienced trading nation that we are. I put it to this House that we have the knowledge, we have the
1034
willpower, and above all I am sure that Scots have at heart a very real confidence in themselves.
4.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF CAITHNESS: My Lords, as I rise before the House for the first time I ask your Lordships' indulgence. I shall be brief and temper some of my youthful enthusiasm for this subject. May I also take this opportunity of thanking all noble Lords who have been so kind to me and given me words of encouragement to-day.
It is over two years since a debate on this subject was held in your Lordships' House and much has happened in that time to affect our economy— in particular, the proposed entry into the E. E. C. In the consideration of the effects of this move one must not divorce agriculture from the other industries in our national economy, as both are interdependent. Mr. Rippon has assured us in glowing terms of the advantages to be forthcoming by having a bigger market for our agricultural products. However, he did not add that some problems had to be overcome and will not be easily dealt with. It has been said that hill farmers will be protected, but as yet we have heard nothing concrete about this. With the high price of beef and more stabilisation in the sheep market, the general opinion of farmers is one of complacent optimism.
On the face of it, therefore, agriculture seems to have a rosy future. Indeed, a potential market of 255 million people does sound tempting, but few realise that in foodstuffs the current E. E. C. is already 90 per cent. self-sufficient, whereas the United Kingdom is only 55 per cent. self-sufficient. Moreover, food output in the E. E. C. is increasing at a rate of per cent. per annum while the demand is expanding at only 21 per cent. per annum. Robert Burns, our great poet, said:
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!"
Is it not the E. E. C. who see us as a potential market rather than the other way round?
Where, then, is that rosy horizon? I believe that it is more in our midst than across the Channel. If we examine the sources of our food imports in 1970, we find that 36 per cent. came from the

1035
E. E. C. and potential members; 7 per cent. from the Commonwealth, which has ties with us that will continue (such as for sugar); 12 per cent. from the developing Commonwealth countries, who are likely to have Common Market ties. This leaves 45 per cent, which comes from the rest of the Commonwealth, the non-candidate EFTA countries, Austria, Portugal, Norway and Switzerland, and the rest of the world, who are likely to have no E. E. C. association because of tariff barriers. We must ensure that we capture that 45 per cent. in face of European competition, otherwise our agriculture economy will take an inevitable retrograde step.
It is known that we have a better farm size, with an average of 85 acres to 25 acres, and the protection of the English Channel (once again threatened by the development of the tunnel). But if we consider the Scottish farmers, we see the declining economy leading to the concentration of major centres of consumption in the Southern part of England. These are more accessible to the farms of France than the Lothians, Moray Firth, or Caithness. It has been proved that it is cheaper to ferry a load of grain from Liverpool to Montreal than to transport that grain from Kent to Liverpool. Paris will be only 270 miles away from London by road when the Channel Tunnel is opened, whereas Edinburgh is 386 miles away, and Wick a further 270 miles away on very much worse roads.
Furthermore, the switch of emphasis in the C. A. P. from one of high price maintenance to structural reform will favour countries like France and Italy, with working populations of 15·1 per cent. and 21·5 per cent. respectively engaged in the agricultural compound, compared with under 3 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Yet a further disadvantage is the almost genetic barrier to co-operative marketing in the United Kingdom resulting from a long history of independent farms, and at least 30 years of guaranteed prices and assured markets.
Prosperous agriculture is still regarded as essential to the nation's wellbeing. For success we must ensure that the economy as a whole is sufficiently stimulated, if necessary through regional stimulus, or any other method, to create a sound, balanced and expansive economy in Scot
1036
land to provide adequate consumption centres for farm produce near to our major farming regions. These must be secured by effective marketing structures in which individual producers can combine their productive resources and efforts to ensure adequate marketing status.
To allow the current depression to continue with its drifts in population away from Scotland will destroy not only the industry and urban life North of the Border, the language and crafts of the Islanders, but will also bring grave hardship and dereliction to our land: and that, my Lords, is our greatest heritage.
4.33 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his maiden speech. He has youth on his side. He has a great inheritance of Sinclairs who have for generations been an important clan providing Scotland with many important statesmen. I am sure that he will follow in the footsteps of his ancestors and on many occasions here make interesting speeches on subjects in which he is interested. I follow him with great pleasure since I, too, am a farmer and he clearly has that interest. I hope that we may count, as we do to-day, on another Sinclair, namely, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who has just contributed a speech. His father, too, was a great man who made a big contribution to our Scottish life. We in your Lordships' House are fortunate to have two Sinclairs joining in our debates.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Polwarth on his speech. I think it was an admirable and highly constructive speech. We know of the enormous amount of work that he has done for the Scottish Council for Development. This is now being continued by his successor Lord Clydesmuir.
I am afraid I was rather disappointed at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I have always been a great admirer of Lord Hughes, although we sit on opposite Benches. During the time when he was defending his Government's policy I often felt sympathetically towards him and thought that he had a difficult row to hoe and that he did it rather well. To-day I did not take that view. No doubt from time to time it is very agreeable to make a strong Party political speech, but to-day it did not become the

1037
noble Lord. I have known him for a long time and I know what a generous and grand person he is. Perhaps he knows the poem that was written, somewhere about 1912 or 1913, about the late Lord Birkenhead who, as F. E. Smith, played a great part in another place. If I remember rightly, the poem was by G. K. Chesterton and it had as its refrain after every verse: "Chuck it, Smith". I would recommend to the noble Lord: "Chuck it, Hughes". The methods by which the noble Lord previously interested this House were a good deal more effective than the speech that he made to-day. However, the noble Lord is entitled to his views on these matters as we all are. But I personally take the more optimistic view of the situation. I am more in line with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, although I do not want to enter into the same line of discussion as he did. He knows Glasgow very well and the industrial belt of Scotland as I do, too, since I was married for 25 years to someone who was the Member for Glasgow for 40 years, and I go to Lanark every month of my life. Nevertheless, at the moment I wish to talk about the area where I live now; namely, the Borders and, in particular, about the developments in industry and agriculture there.
There are in the Borders two major industries: woollen textiles and agriculture and forestry. I put the two together since they should, and do to some extent though not always, co-operate with each other. We in the Borders have forests stretching from Northumberland to Roxburghshire and over to Dumfriesshire, the largest forest area in the United Kingdom. We also have a large agricultural area and a large textile area. I should regard the textile situation as serious; there is a great recession in woollen textiles. I am sure the Government are well aware of this, and I hope that some of the money that is being made available throughout Scotland for various developments may find its way into the Borders to help the textile industry to recover. To some extent, of course, it is suffering from exactly what other industries suffer when they modernise and increase their production by cutting down the number of their employees and put in new machinery. It means that even if
1038
production does not go down, employment does. Therefore, one has, somehow or other, to find different methods of employing people in the area. I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will look to the Borders as an area in which investment of capital will bring a good return.
We are suffering also, as a result of the recession in the textile industry, from depopulation. This is a serious problem. People talk about depopulation in the Highlands, but I think that that has, to some extent, been stemmed by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which is doing a splendid job. In the Borders we are in some ways in the same sort of position as the Highlands and Islands are. If you were to take the map of Scotland and reverse it, you would find that if we were in the far North we should be just as isolated. But in fact we are in the South, and people have the habit of travelling through the Borders to the North: they are going to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, or wherever it may be, and they travel through. The result is that we find ourselves neglected from the point of view of industry and settlement.
In the last few years, through the enterprise of the Border consultative committees, and of burghs like Hawick and Kelso, we have developed new industries, and they are very good. We have some electronic industries, which are doing very well, but we need more in order to stem the depopulation and to develop those areas, which could very easily represent a good capital investment both for industry and for the Scottish Development Commission. We have done one thing which is very important: we have linked together four or five counties. In the Development Commission we have linked together Roxburghshire, Selkirk-shire, Peeblesshire, Berwick, Northumberland and even over to Dumfriesshire. That is a very important thing, and very good. We are still waiting— we have been waiting for a very long time— for the possible development in Tweedbank which I hope will eventually come through, after many vicissitudes, and there is a very good planned development at Berwick-onTweed. But we should like to have more development in order to stem the depopulation of the area.

1039
I believe that our transport could be improved. Your Lordships know that I was one of the people who most strongly opposed the taking away of the Waverley line. It was a most unfortunate decision and I wish that it had not been taken. However, one cannot go on regretting the fact that it has gone: one has to find some alternative. We must, I think, have an East/West road. We have North/South roads, a road going up on the Eastern edge of the Border from Berwick to Edinburgh and, of course, the road from Carlisle to Glasgow. But the link between the two is very bad indeed. I have to drive there twice a week and therefore know this all too well. So what we need is a really good road runing East/West in the Borders: it would be very valuable for industry there.
May I say just one word about forestry and its development? Since I see that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who is at present Chairman of the Forestry Commission in Scotland, is to speak, I should like to draw his attention to some of the things which are happening. The development of forestry seems to be very haphazard. I am interested, of course— and I speak as an extensive hill farmer— in preserving as much as possible of good agricultural land for hill farming. I can honestly say that in the last ten years the return from hill farming has been so poor that many people have simply sold out, because they could not make ends meet. They have sold out to the Forestry Commission and to private forestry companies. This has happened in a quite haphazard way. Realising that they could not make ends meet, people have looked round for somebody else to buy their land, and have sold out just like that. One cannot blame them. After all, it has been a very lean time, and if one had no resources other than those of the farm one had really little alternative; and so this has happened. I am sure that this is a mistake. The planning of forestry and the planning of agriculture should somehow go hand in hand. The Commission is very much more co-operative about this, and looks at agriculture and at the relationship between forestry and agriculture. But the private forestry companies buy where they can and one cannot blame them for buying land if
1040
someone is prepared to sell— indeed, nobody can stop them. On the other hand, it is fair to say that at the present moment too much land is going over to forestry quite without any consideration to whether or not good agricultural land is being taken away or the amenity value and the beauty of the Border country is being spoilt.
I should like to say one word about the Commission which is now at work, the Commission on the National Parks set up by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. An inquiry is going on at the present time in Northumberland, in that area which is the Northumberland National Park and which runs right up to the Border— in fact over the Border— to the South of Roxburghshire, from Carter Bar right down to Newcastleton. Some inquiry ought to be made on the Scottish side which could be linked with this National Parks inquiry in order to ensure that the use of land in the Borders should have some relation to the use of land in the Northumberland Border area, because they are together and one cannot tell the difference except that on one side of the sign of Carter Bar it says "Scotland" and on the other side it says "England". So I think this development of forestry should have some purpose behind it and we should know how much of the hill land we want to keep for farming. and for cattle raising and how much for forestry— not just have an absolutely haphazard use of the land on both sides of the Border.
I am one of the people who feel very confident that we shall do well in agriculture when we go into the Common Market, since I travel a certain amount in Europe and have seen the way in which European agriculture is conducted. I have no fears that we in the United Kingdom, and in Scotland in particular, are not going to be able to compete with any of the agricultural developments in Europe. Therefore I think there is a good future for farming in Scotland and I want to see as much as possible of the land used for that purpose. But it must, I think, be done in co-operation: forestry and agriculture must go together and not be run completely independently. I think we have great opportunities. I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth said about the possible development under the two schemes of

1041
Oceanspan that have fascinated me when I have been reading about them and discussing them. I entirely support, too, the developments that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, has just told us about, and the action in making money available in a very generous and constructive way for many developments in Scotland. I would simply put in a plea to her and to those who are at present running our Scottish policies not to forget that you do not just go through the Border to Edinburgh but you live in the Border in a splendid part of the world, unspoilt, so far, in a way which few other areas can equal. I should like to see that preserved, not for preservation's sake but because it is an important part of Scotland and something that attracts people, a place where people like to live and have their being. I hope very much that this aspect will he considered, as well as all the other magnificent developments in the industrial belt.
4.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for the very thoughtful and extremely well-informed speech that he has just given us. This House will always welcome people who speak on subjects on which they arc full of authority, and I hope that the noble Lord will come and speak to us as often as he can.
I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend, Lady Elliot. I believe that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was the sort of speech that we want to hear from time to time. In the constructive and thoughtful speeches in this House it is a great pity not to realise the severity of political controversy, which is an element of the life of this country. I think he was a little less fair than he could have been to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who I thought made one of the best speeches I have heard him make for a long time, and one containing a great deal of meat. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said about the terrible personal affliction of unemployment; and anyone who has known this, either personally or by association, cannot possibly have any doubts about the significance and importance of regional policies. But regional
1042
policies, of course, are not purely social: they have deep economic implications too. If I may say this on a small matter, anyone who has driven about London in the last two or three days must have realised that some form of regional decentralisation is essential. I could mention many other things, but this is an obvious one which stands out a yard.
I cannot help wondering sometimes whether the problem of unemployment should be dealt with separately from economic problems. The late Government had what they called a "shake-out" in employment, which was intended to reduce over-employment in certain industries. They were quite right to do so, because they wanted to make industry more efficient. To-day, one of the signs of modern industry is its low employment content. I went into a large factory at Ravenscraig recently— a huge building about three times the length of your: Lordships' House. For a moment I could not see anybody working there at all. In fact there were about six people working there. This is modern industry. Should we regard this problem of employment separately? There are powerful arguments for doing so, but there is a danger in trying to encourage two men to do one man's job. I doubt whether the 1930 situation could ever have been resolved except by a complete reinvigoration of the economy as a whole. I do not think that the situation we were in at that time could have been satisfactorily resolved by separate measures, or at least only very slowly indeed.
The Government are doing a great deal in the way of public work, and we have been told about some of that to-day. I should have liked to hear more about roads, for there are many roads urgently needing attention. We can encourage people into service industries. Productive industry will produce less, but the service industries are providing increasing employment everywhere. This was one of the major criticisms that we always made about S. E. T. because it prevented the development of service industries and, to some extent, curtailed them in a manner which was adverse to Scotland. I am glad to hear of the developments on the defence front: the frigates at Yarrow and Scott Lithgow; the Bulldogs which

1043
I believe are only the second Scottish-designed aircraft bought by the Government since the war. These are very important developments.
There is one other problem with unemployment: the big problem of morale. The Government said yesterday that they have increased the number of Government training centres by about 50 per cent. Of course, the project is still very small, and I think the figure will reach some 14,000 places. I know this will not be popular. Can we constrain any young man under twenty-five years of age, who is permanently unemployed, to train himself or educate himself in some field so that for, say, fifteen hours a week he had to attend certain training courses? If he did so, somebody would want him, he would not be left without anybody caring whether he lived or did not live. These young men arc going to be useful. I am certain that the situation will not continue, and this is something which could be considered. It presents a problem of education, but I am sure it could be overcome. My noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir said that we are going through structural changes, and that is so. I was glad to hear what she said about regional policies. Many people think that the French are interested in agriculture, whereas we arc interested to a greater extent in industrial regional policy. If this matter can be satisfactorily solved then well and good. I only hope that they will be less obstinate than they appear to be in the fisheries matter, which made an extremely unfavourable impression on me.
Another point I should like to make is that Scotland has always been orientated towards America— particularly North America— from the time of the Darren expendition of sad memory; the American War of Independence; the American Civil War; each of which had a violent effect of the Scottish economy. To-day, the relative slackness of the American scene has a good deal of effect on many of the industries which have a close connection with America. There is no doubt that to a great extent we have to reorientate ourselves to a European side— if possible without losing the North American contact. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made a complaint with regard to the Government and the National Cash
1044
Register Company. The company were doing work for New Zealand and Australia, and I think South Africa was mentioned. One cannot persuade all the countries in the world to go metric, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, is in China. Whether he is having any success in persuading the Chinese to go metric, I cannot say, but possibly this is a chance for the National Cash Register Company.
I should like to return to something that I have spoken about before; that is, closer personal communications with the Continent of Europe. The air services direct from Scotland to Europe are bad, and have been for a long time. I attacked the previous Government on this matter. It is no good talking about a regional policy if you cannot get there. This is a vital point. The Government have always said," We cannot do anything about it". I believe they could do something about it if they tried harder.
May I now turn to what my noble friend Lord Polwarth said about gas and oil? The position is that something in the order of 80 per cent. of the equipment used for this industry comes from outside this country. This is the experience so far. My contact with various companies, such as Esso and others, is that they are perfectly ready to purchase equipment in this country provided they get delivery dates and quality. Price perhaps is not so absolutely vital, but they must know that they are getting reliable quality and getting equipment on time. This is not an easy market to get into, for two reason: first, what is being done is pretty well to the limits of known technology. Some things are relying on advanced technology which is not yet fully developed. Secondly, this is a world market, and if you get into this market you will be selling oil rigs of this type all over the world, and it is worth an enormous effort by Government. industry, universities, and research establishments. This is where I cannot help feeling that there is a good deal in what my noble friend Lord Polwarth said: should we not try and have some authority to coordinate these people— I suspect that they are nothing like as well co-ordinated as they should be— to see that with all the resources that we have we can get into this market which presents some kind of an opportunity.
TIIE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALEYN): My Lords, may I interrupt? I was not clear which people my noble friend wants coordinated.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I repeat that I mean everybody, and I will refer to them specifically: the steel industry, the heavy engineering industries, the research departments of the eight universities now in Scotland; the Government's research establishment at East Kilbride. They could be brought closer together. My noble friend may tell me that they already meet regularly and know exactly what each can do; that there is a division of duties. I am not yet informed on the subject, but I have some doubt about it. I do not believe that you will get into the Market unless you make a major effort to use the whole technological experience of Scotland to do so. It is well worth doing.
Turning to the point of the deep-water port, this was raised first in this House two and a half years ago. My noble friend's favourable smile on this proposal was an advance on anything that we have had up to the present time. Bluntly, the raw materials in Europe are expected to double, as my noble friend Lord Polwarth said, in the next ten years. Big ships will be required, and they will not be able to get up the Channel. My noble friend has already said that there are three ports which are already developing at considerable cost. So far as iron ore is concerned, with the exception of Swedish ore, which will probably come in smaller ships, the rest comes, via the Atlantic, from Labrador, West Africa, Brazil and Australia. Who is going to say (and I am told this matter is in the minds of the British Steel Corporation) that this ore will always be brought in ships of under 150,000 tons? The Japanese are already using ships of 270,000 tons and are said to be considering moving from 300,000 tons to 400,000 tons. I am not talking about tankers— I am talking about ore ships. Who is going to say that we shall be able in the future to confine ourselves always to ships of 150,000 tons and no more? I think no one can. A ship can be built in a year, but it takes a long time to build a deep-water port, and if the deepest water port is not provided at the present time, the
1046
opportunity to build it may never occur. We know, too, that the British Steel Corporation want two major plants— they have said so; that is to say, plants producing perhaps 7 million to 10 million tons of steel a year. Where are they to go? We are told that this decision will come soon. I believe that one is going to be put on the Tees and the other in some green field. I can only say that the Clyde has a harbour access which is unique; and the Clyde has labour and land. If this is not considered enough, and if the Government want to put the plant anywhere else. I think we shall want a very full explanation from them.
If I may, my Lords, I would add this. We who speak for Scotland are sometimes accused of arguing as if Scotland were simply part of the Welfare State. It is not. The economics of Scotland are sound basically if they are developed properly. They have made a considerable contribution to this country. To pretend, as some have done, that this is a purely (shall I say?) constitutional point, trying to gain welfare for our part of the country, is wrong. I would stress again, if I may, that if we can make some proposal about training or giving education of some kind to anyone who is permanently unemployed, something to show that he is wanted to train for a job; if we can look ahead, then this difficult period— and I admit that it is a difficult period — will pass quickly.
5.2 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR or GRYFE: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his maiden speech. One of the attractions of the reform of the House of Lords which was frustrated was the fact that, had it been agreed to, young voices would have been heard more often in the House. The measure did not pass, but I am sure that all of us welcome the presence of a young voice in our midst, particularly when the speaker possesses an expertise in a field that does not attract a great deal of national publicity. I should like, too, to say a word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. I am sure he is much encouraged by the fact that 23 names appear on the list of speakers on his Motion.
One of the disappointing factors, perhaps, is the almost complete absence of

1047
English and Welsh speakers, because what we are discussing is not really a Scottish affair; what we are discussing is the question of regional policy, and regional policy has a national significance. Also, as has been pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, the question of regional policy has implications for London, as well as for the Highlands of Scotland. So may I thank the noble Lords who are not resident in Scotland but who are present in their seats this afternoon, for their encouragement and interest.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, as the noble Lord may know, I come from Wales; and I was interested in this debate to see that Scotland does not get more than Wales does.
LORD TAYLOR or GRYFE: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
My Lords, it is important that we should look at this problem in a mood of great seriousness. Those of us who came through the entrance to the Commons to-day will be aware of the deputations that were present, of the sense of anger, the sense of annoyance and the sense of frustration that exists among trade unionists and others who have gathered there to make their protest felt. Anger is not an emotion that I admire; nevertheless, I can understand it. But I think that we in this House ought to consider the facts of this situation, not in a strictly partisan sense but in a sense of sadness and in a mood of seriousness. At the same time, we must not talk ourselves into depression. Sometimes when we anticipate difficulty we frustrate the very thing that we arc anxious to encourage. We are anxious to encourage investment, and sometimes we develop a mood which defeats the possibility of investment. Nevertheless, let us look at the facts quite objectively and try to analyse what has gone wrong. Why is there this widespread unemployment in Scotland at this stage? Five headings might suffice to answer that question, at any rate in part.
First, there is the decline of traditional industries which have not yet been replaced by new industries. Secondly, in the past year, because of the pressure of inflation, most industrialists have had to look at their wage costs and to shed their fat. All of us in a period of full employ
1048
ment held on to more labour than we could justify, but now in a period of high competition, and in a period of inflation and when some of us are trying to hold to the 5 per cent. C. B. I. prices increase maximum, we have to look seriously at the labour costs and to shed labour that we cannot afford to carry. So there is a decline of traditional industries and the shedding of our fat in industry. Thirdly, there is the technological unemployment. There was some discussion earlier on the decision of National Cash Registers in Dundee, and why it became necessary for them to pay off 1,200 workers. The manager of N. C. R. said to me," We are producing our product with less labour." And this, of course, is happening in a great variety of industries. Because of new technology, companies are now able to produce as much as they did previously with fewer employees. This again is a major factor in the situation.
Fourthly, there is stagnation of new investment. Who is going to invest when he already has a vast investment in unused capacity? This is the problem that faces the industrialist. Efforts are made to encourage him to buy new plant and machinery when he already has a great deal of plant, machinery and equipment lying under-utilised because of the present situation. It is a sad reflection upon our times that the extra money that is available is not finding its way into meaningful economic activity; it is finding its way into the property boom, because property is the hedge against inflation. Or it is finding its way into the Stock Exchange. It is an interesting fact that in a period of economic depression at the moment the Stock Exchange is doing not too bady. The Financial Times reports a very happy situation on the Stock Exchange because more money is chasing shares at the moment, rather than being invested in meaningful industrial production.
Finally (a point made already), the state of industry and commerce in Scotland will always be substantially affected by the condition of the national economy. While it is no part of my brief to speak about further depression and make the situation worse, the fact is that we are moving into a very dangerous situation at the moment, and unless there can be agreement between the Ten on trade and currency arrangements, and a halting of

1049
the retreat of America into further protectionism, this may have serious consequences on the total economy, and Scotland, in turn, will suffer.
However, we are concerned specifically to-day with the Scottish situation in so far as we can isolate it. It has been said before that there are two problems here: the short-term and the long-term. Sometimes short-term economic policies in the regions conflict with long-term economic objectives, and I should like to discuss this matter briefly this afternoon. First of all, I am sure that we all welcome the steps that are being taken by the Government to improve schools, hospitals and buildings of all kinds to revive the construction industry. Of course, the problem in these matters is that redundancies are immediate, while reinvestment always takes some time to be effective. I hope, too, that the Government will look at the constant delays that are involved in planning procedures, which sometimes frustrate immediate economic development. After all, what we are doing in new public works and infrastructural grants is simply building up public investment to offset the private investment in the traditional Keynesian manner until private investment gains sufficient confidence and until sufficient purchasing power is generated so that private investment can be resumed. But when we look at private investment, a great deal has been said about the incentives that are available. I think sometimes we underestimate the incentives that are available for industry.
I had a firm of accountants take out these figures the other day and I will go over the main incentives that are available to investors in Scotland: 45 per cent. of the capital cost of all buildings; 30 per cent. of all wages and salary costs of a project during the first three years of that project; 30 per cent. of the wages bill is met by the Government; rent free factories up to five years. If you come into Scotland as an outsider you can qualify for a period of up to five years' rent free occupancy; low interest loans for capital expenditure; training grants of £ 10 a week for men aged 18 and over, and £ 7 a week for women; substantial grants towards the expense of the removal of plant and machinery; assistance for the transfer of workers; regional employment premiums of £ 1·50 for men over 18 years
1050
of age and 75p for part-time workers; tax allowances— industrial buildings 40 per cent., additional allowance for plant and machinery and so on. I could go on. If an accountant looks at those incentives and tries to attach them to a proposition, as I did the other day, on a £ 3 million investment, he finds that a company requires to put up only 26 per cent. of that investment in cash; the balance can be made up from incentives and from local authority loans. This is a tremendous figure. In many projects which can now be brought to Scotland only about 50 per cent. of the capital cost requires to be spent; the balance is made up by various forms of Government assistance.
I can see that to multiply and add to these incentives would be foolish. I think we have reached the maximum in terms of that kind of incentive. Anyone who is in business in the West of Scotland, taking advantage of these incentives, should profit. But I am wondering why these incentives, which are so powerful, are not in fact working to the extent that they should, and I have learned that the Government are now examining the whole question of these and other forms of incentives.
I am interested in a proposition that has been submitted to the Government by the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and which has apparently had some success in other countries. Most of our incentives to date are cost-reducing incentives. The basic proposition of the submission made by the Chamber of Commerce is a profit-retention incentive. Some time ago I acted briefly as a consultant in the island of Puerto Rico. Our job there was to try to bring industry back to Puerto Rico because Puerto Ricans were finding their way to New York, with consequent social problems. We developed the tax holiday. I realise that the tax holiday could hardly be applicable in a region; nevertheless, I think there is something to be said for profit-retention incentives. The suggestion is made that a firm in the United Kingdom which has a corporation tax liability, might readily be allowed 30 per cent., or 25 per cent., of that corporation tax liability to invest in a development area. This would require to be a long-term investment, otherwise it would be a form of tax evasion. It would be an investment for ten or

1051
twenty years in loans or equity or preference shares, but would cost the man who had a tax liability nothing. It would be at the expense of the Treasury, of course, and the Treasury might require that he should match some of the money redeemed from his tax commitment with some of his own money.
The attraction of this scheme is that it could be tried in a particular area. It would not require to be national in application, and perhaps there is something to be said for it. It would be risk capital. and if the investment was successful of course the Treasury would be recouped in so far as the new company would become liable to corporation tax. I think that this kind of profit-retention incentive might readily be examined by the Government, although there are many complications, on which I will not now dwell. From the point of view of Scotland, too, we must look at the possibilities of transport equalisation grants. The big thing that is argued against the steel complex and a good deal of industrial development in Scotland is its remoteness from main markets. It might be worth while to look again at the question of transport equalisation grants, which might make Scotland more attractive from the point of view of investment. In addition, the possible introduction of value added tax may even be given differential rates in different regions. These are some of the new ideas to be evoked, because I believe that the existing incentives are sufficient in themselves but perhaps are too complex. One of the things about incentives is that they should be sufficiently simple and readily appreciated, and while I would not argue against the volume of existing incentives I think the Government might look at other bases for incentive schemes.
I notice that it has been said in this debate that the regional employment premium, which is to cease in 1974, may be continued, and in one submission there was the suggestion that it might be doubled. It is in this area that we come up against the conflict between short-term and long-term economic policies. I have never believed that it is good economic policy to encourage people to put men on the payroll. I believe that the survival of Scotland will depend on her achieving maximum productivity and maximum efficiency, and I think that to
1052
encourage the payment of premiums to put people on the payroll is sometimes a disincentive to economic efficiency. In the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce Survey of 50 small or medium-sized firms in the area, only three would be profitable if R. E. P. were withdrawn. I look at the balance sheets of Scottish companies and I see Scottish companies paying their dividends, not out of their economic activities at all but out of their R. E. P. refund. I could not justify that kind of thing in economic terms, so that I am no lover of R. E. P. as a long-term incentive to efficiency.
My Lords, I believe that we have to recognise the fact that Scotland as a nation will not survive by added incentives and encouragements alone. We have to develop in our economy an efficiency and profitability which will make it go. In order to do so what should we do? I think we should clearly identify the areas of decline and the areas of growth, and concentrate on the latter. I was interested the other night to look at a film— and this will interest the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth— in which Aberdeen was referred to as "Abadan". This is some indication of achievement.
There are growth spots in Scotland, and these should be encouraged. When we have identified the growth areas in the Scottish economy we should have massive training schemes, in order to take advantage of that potential growth. Unemployment is a terrible thing because it carries with it a stigma of rejection and in our civilised society this should not be so. Unemployment should be regarded as a transitional phase to new things that workers are going to do. It is inevitable that there should be unemployment in declining industries, but we should not attach to these men the stigma that they are unwanted and rejected by our society. We should try to develop the psychology that men are still wanted by society and that society is prepared to train them for the new tasks in a new society with new enterprise. I am convinced that we have to get this changed psychology across; and this must be part of this massive training scheme. There should be, too, a reallocation of some of the Government Departments to the development areas. At present there is too heavy a concentration down in this corner of Britain.

1053
This is socially as well as economically undesirable. Then I think we have to look at some of the new investments nationally, like the Channel Tunnel, and see what are the implications of that for regional development, and see whether it would not be more healthy environmentally to fan traffic through a variety of ports from Aberdeen to Southampton, rather than have a further concentration down here in the South East of England. I believe that the environmental aspects of that particular development need to be looked at very seriously.
Finally, my Lords (I have spoken too long, and I apologise), I should like to say a word or two about an experience I had last week when I accompanied a Minister in an attempt to attract investment from Germany to Scotland. We took with us in that party an American industrialist, a man who came to Scotland twenty years ago. He runs a very large factory, and an expanding factory, in Lanarkshire. We referred to him on that trip as our "Exhibit A". Not only does that man, having come to Scotland, run a very profitable unit for his American company, but he has had only five days of strike in twenty years. How is this possible? First of all, it was a growing and expanding industry. Like other employers he had to deal with a number of trade unions, but he took the trouble to understand labour relations and to encourage good labour relations. This factory is a model of what might be in Scotland, because I sincerely believe that in any attempts to attract investment to Scotland one of the major disincentives is the bad reputation we have in this field. I think we must all contribute to improving this situation if Scotland is to be able to take advantage of the opportunities before it.
Germany at the moment has two and a quarter million gastarbeiter. Germany has absorbed, I suppose, from 10 million to 11 million refugees from Eastern Europe, and on top of that is now employing in its industry 21 million people from Spain, Portugal, Greece and so on. Switzerland has 20 per cent. of her population as gastarbeiter, people coming from Italy to work. Almost one million out of 5 million Swiss now come into that category. I think it makes much more sense if, instead of bringing workers into these countries, with all the social tensions
1054
involved, language difficulties, religious problems and so on, investments are taken to where the workers are available. And in that regard Scotland has tremendous possibilities. There are eight universities in our country, for 5 million people, highly skilled people, anxious to work.
But we must create for Scotland and the name of Scotland a better image. The field of industrial relations is one aspect of it. We must never, as Scots, get into the situation that whenever we are in trouble we march on a demonstration to London or take a deputation to a Minister. We have to stand up for ourselves. Perhaps you get rid of emotions when you pass resolutions. Nevertheles, we must try to do things for ourselves and gain some pride as a people in the future. We are a great people. In Germany last week I was trying to recruit a board to supervise our exercise. I went to the general manager of Barclays Bank in Germany; he was a Scot. I went to the manager of the Chartered Bank for Europe in Germany; he was a Scot. I went to the manager of the First National City Bank of New York in Germany; he was a Scot. This is some indication of the kind of people Scotland can produce. It should be our aim to create the opportunities in our own country for those people to find outlets for their skills and for their abilities, and try, in common with one another, to create a better future for Scotland. I hope that this debate may contribute a little towards that end.
5.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, my first pleasant duty is to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his maiden speech, a speech full of information, well informed. I look forward to hearing him on the subject of agriculture. which he obviously knows a great deal about, on many other occasions. Secondly, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for bringing this Motion before us to-day, giving us the opportunity of having this discussion. I am afraid that my views are perhaps a little biased by my early experiences as a boy. In 1929 I was apprenticed to Dorman Long making steel, bridges and so on, so that the unemployment of those days means something fairly personal to me. I entirely sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who made, I thought, a

1055
little out of character speech; but I entirely sympathise with his feelings on this matter.
Unfortunately, I am no economist, and I can only think of the economy from the standpoint of what I expect to get out of it. I think a thriving well-balanced economy must satisfy people somewhere between two extreme views— and I emphasise that these are extremes. The providers of capital want to get as much money from that capital as they possibly can, whereas on the other side— an extreme view again— the providers of labour want as much money as they can get for as many people as possible for doing as little as possible for the shortest possible space of time. Those are the two extreme views. There is one factor common to these two extremes; that is, that they both object to paying any more to the Government in taxes than they can possibly help. Somewhere in the middle, it seems to me, there is possibly the generation of a thriving economy. I am quite sure that we shall never get a thriving economy unless we gel complete trust and respect between the two parties, the two views— call it what you like. Of course, generally they are nothing like as extreme as that, but nevertheless it should be realised that they are different points of view. I think the success or failure of any enterprise depends on getting a satisfactory balance on both sides. Otherwise, just as labour can and does withhold labour, so the capitalists can and do withhold capital. Although you never hear it described as a "capitalist strike", nevertheless at times it is something very nearly approaching it.
In these days of vast combines and enormous projects, a great deal of forward planning is necessary. Oceanspan, which has been mentioned, is a very good example of that. Anybody who has read it will agree that it is a brilliant piece of work, and because it is so good, and because so many people will read it, the brochure is all the more marred by a most irritating and careless mistake. The mile/kilometre scale on all their maps is wrong. They do not appear to realise that one kilometre is approximately five furlongs, and that 800 miles is not 900 kilometres, as they show, but something nearer 1,288 kilometres. On page 39 there is another of their din
1056
grams; Glasgow to Le Havre on one scale is 630 miles, and on another is 580 miles. If you are producing a brochure of this importance you should at least check this sort of thing. It is not vital to the brochure but it is maddening when it is wrong. I just want to say that so that the point can be taken up.
There arc three points I should like to take up a little further on Oceanspan. They are, first, the economic necessity of using large transport units; secondly, the necessity for rapid decisions: and, thirdly, the trend away from labour-intensive projects. Those points are all brought out in various ways and analysed in the Oceanspan report. For a moment may we consider Scotland's largest industry, agriculture? Great quantities of material, both to and from the farms, have to be moved about the country in a year. To do this economically 22-ton load lorries are required. In the nature of things, farms are not on trunk roads; they are very often down by-roads— or "unclassified" and "unadopted" roads, which are the terms we use in Scotland. The bridges were never constructed for this kind of traffic, and it is quite unrealistic not to do something about them. District councils, who are allowed to rate to the limit of 2½ p— it used to be 6d., so I expect it is 2½p now— just cannot take on this responsibility. They have not got the money, and they cannot get the money. I suggest that a survey of these roads should be carried out. In the new local government reorganisation that is to come something should be done about these roads and they should be adopted, or whatever you like to call it. They should not be just left to get worse and worse, with nobody having the cash to pay for their improvement.
The same applies to forestry. One of the chief problems in forestry is to get big loads of thinnings away. Very often you cannot get them over the bridges because the bridges are not strong enough to carry the loads. It seems folly to me to spend a lot of money planting forests if you cannot then get the timber to a processing factory. It is really high time that the Forestry Commission or Her Majesty's Government, or both, made a survey of where they are going to take this growing produce, and what they are going to do with it. So far as I know, there is no official published plan on

1057
this subject at all, and they are just drifting along, planting a few more trees, and that is about it. They are planting good trees, and the trees are growing well. I have no criticism of the Forestry Commission on that score at all. However, I have very considerable reservations about what they are going to do with these trees, because it is coming to light in many cases that the roads and bridges will not take the loads. If you were to say," Use a smaller lorry", then out go your economics straight away.
Her Majesty's Government have produced a commendable amount of cash for roads in a crash programme to alleviate unemployment, but there are one or two matters they should look at. Producing the money is not always enough; you have also to make sure that the people to whom you give the money are able to spend it within the specified time. In our small county alone, so far as we know, four of our schemes are held up indefinitely. We do not know what is going to happen on the purchase or acquisition of land. I believe that this is due to an excessive work-load on the district valuer and on the assessor, who is also helping out on the unclassified and non-grant-earning roads. But the fact remains that here are four schemes which could give a good deal of employment in our own district, and which are held up because we cannot get values clear, and the acquisition of land finished. Whether anything can be expedited and extra help given, or an investigation made of what the real problem is, I do not know, but if this will help I hope that it can be done.
Scotland has been planned over, reported on very fully, and many factual surveys have been produced. Most of them have been excellent, and there is a wealth of information on what should be done to put the economy right. What is required now is a decision. All these plans, excellent though they are, are mouldering away, getting covered with dust, so far as one knows, and we are lacking a decision. A decision must be made before you can get going. Without decisions you will not get confidence; if you do not get confidence you will not get investment.
The last point I want to make is that there are going to be many redundancies, as well as voluntary severances and early
1058
retirements, all of which alleviate individual hardship. But do not forget, my Lords, that this means less jobs for the school leavers, while the general tendency of modern industry is to use less labour. So when we are taking the long-term view, we should consider limiting the number of job seekers. No country can go on indefinitely increasing job opportunities and in modern times, especially, it is getting more and more difficult to do this because technology itself prohibits it. Last year in Scotland, excluding Glasgow, there were 52,661 school leavers, and of these 22,008 came from families ranging in size between 4 and 17. Who says that the Scots are not virile? Aberdeen city is spending £ 16,000 a year on family planning advice— I stress that this is voluntary— but they are saving the ratepayers of Aberdeen city an estimated £ 160,000 a year. Surely that is good business, even for the most avaricious capitalist. I suggest that it really is high time that Her Majesty's Government did a little more about planning and advice. This service is taken up by all sections of the community. The figures for Aberdeen show that the idea of only one section of the community availing themselves of this service is rubbish. I maintain that this planning must be done. The work in Aberdeen is very commendable indeed.
I was asked by my noble friend Lord Lovat, who has, unfortunately, had to catch a plane in order to attend a meeting to-morrow, to make a point for him, and I agreed to do so because I entirely agree with it. It has to do with the inshore fishermen and the fishing limits. I feel so strongly on this point that if Her Majesty's Government allow themselves to be bullied by the French on this point, I shall walk into the Not-Contents Lobby, and I think that other noble Lords will do the same.
I am not pessimistic: I am optimistic. We can do the job in Scotland. We have the men and the young people and they are raring to go. They want only a little encouragement. Last spring I attended the turf cutting ceremony for a brand new up-to-date hotel, with 40 bedrooms, bathrooms, televisions and telephones— the lot. Within six months I was having lunch at the opening ceremony of that place. We can do it. As another illustration of what is being done in Scotland, in our

1059
small fishing port with a population under 5,000 we have a sea cadet unit. They won the efficiency cup and pennant for the whole of the United Kingdom three years running, and then, after another two years, they won it again last year. All we want is a bit of decision-making and a lead, and we need somebody on the Government side to thump the drum a bit. We are in a bad patch at the moment, but it is only temporary.
5.45 p.m.
Loan BALERNO: My Lords, I, too, wish to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his maiden speech, and particularly on the subject he chose, which is essential if we are to have a balanced life in Scotland. There must be agriculture to balance the intensive nature of the central belt and other parts. I knew the noble Earl's father as a gallant and very skilful soldier, and I was glad to serve with him in the same regiment. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for initiating this discussion. Obviously, from the number of speakers, it is stirring up the greatest interest in Scotland.
When we last had a debate of this nature I spoke of the dire straits of industry in the Valley of the Water of Leith. I now have to report that the situation has gone from bad to worse and that the last substantial mill in Balerno, Galloways Paper Mill, is now in the hands of the liquidator. It employs 300 persons. The Kinleith Mill at Currie, a mile away, closed down in 1966 with the loss of 200 jobs and there is virtually no other industry in the area. A contributory reason for this is dumping by Scandinavia. This is perhaps best illustrated by an example. Since 1966, the price of wood pulp which Scandinavia sends to us has increased by over 60 per cent., whereas the price at which the Scandinavians are willing to sell their paper to us has increased by only 30 per cent. Their paper is largely made from the same wood pulp as our paper; so I think that there is here a prima facie case of dumping and I commit that to the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
But the main reason for the crisis at Galloways is the most curious fact that the villages of Currie and Balerno are
1060
administered by the employment exchange in the City of Edinburgh. When the late Administration decreed all Scotland to be a development area, but excluded Edinburgh, they also excluded that part of Midlothian covered by the Edinburgh employment exchange. And so the lights of the mills in the Valley of the Water of Leith have gone out one by one.
Let me illustrate what that has meant. Galloways are a progressive firm producing high-quality coated papers. To meet demand and to produce efficiently, a decision was made to install a highspeed coating machine at a cost of considerably over £ 500,000. That machine was completed in 1967, and in planning it the directors had very good reason to expect substantial support from the Government. In fact, they had only some 20 per cent. support due to their being in the area of the Edinburgh employment exchange. Had the mill been anywhere else in Scotland, they would have got about 45 per cent. of their capital cost, as well as the regional employment premium. The blame for this state of affairs rests fair and square on the late Government. The present Government might before now have found it possible to redress the sins of their predecessors; but I would say that it is not too late. The mill is now working well. Though one of the two paper-making machines has been closed down, production is keeping up, and the new high-speed coating machine is producing the goods. The crisis is now one of liquidity, but with immediate action the situation can be saved.
My Lords, I do not want to harp on Scotland not getting a fair deal, but so long as there is over-centralisation in London and the South-East so long will we have a very legitimate grouse. Let me give your Lordships one example. Professional and scientific civil servants are paid for by the taxpayer. To collect the majority of them in one area means that you are literally mulcting the rest of the country. The income which the professional and scientific civil servants receive, which is very considerable, should be dispersed as evenly as is practically possible throughout Britain. On that argument, we should be getting 10 per cent. We would perhaps be content with 7 per cent. In fact, we in Scotland are getting something like 4½

1061
per cent. Why should we in Scotland have to contribute in this way to the prosperity of London? Why should we in Scotland be deprived of their civilising influence and their ability to raise the standards of the community? I know that the past Government tried to do something about this by setting up the Civil Service Staff College in Edinburgh. I know that the present Government are bringing the Forestry Commission up to Scotland, but the actual moving of them there is rather a slow process. Please. can the Government do something to hurry up the Forestry Commission in this respect— to ask them to get a move on?
My Lords, I come now to the main burden of my speech, and I trust it will not bear too heavily upon your Lordships. Many of your Lordships will recall the striking maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. It was given on the first day of the Common Market debate. The noble Lord told us that British scientists had been responsible for advances in knowledge wholly disproportionate in their significance to our numbers. The noble Lord then said!
"… but relative to the growth of science-based industries which has taken place in other countries of the world, and relative to the changes that have taken place in the content of science and technology, we have slipped back, not advanced."— [OFFICIAL REPORT,26/10171, col.553.]
An important supplement to this speech in the debate on the Address on November 9 by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. The noble Earl asked us to consider carefully the implementation of much of our technological capability within our own industry instead of continuing to act mostly as a supplier of advanced ideas from which the industries of other nations can and do benefit. The noble Earl continued:
"It is all very well for a rich, philanthropic world Power to supply research results to the world at large while making little use of them for its own industry, but it is sheer lunacy for ourselves in our present position."— [OFFICIAL REPORT,9/11/71, col.301.]
My Lords, if it is sheer lunacy for England, what is it like for a small, heavily industrialised country like Scotland? We in Scotland are far more dependent on the application of science to industry, and little is being done about it. We export our science to America and then seek for American firms to come and manufacture in Scotland. That
1062
is absolute criminal lunacy. To-day, the rate of change in technology is such that it is impossible for anyone other than the professionals to keep up with the pace of development, so perhaps it is not fair to blame the politicians for giving only lip service to the importance of technology— and heaven knows how much lip service they have given in the past ten years! I should therefore like to take this opportunity to educate our politicians somewhat.
About a hundred years ago the figure of Lord Kelvin dominated Scotland, and indeed the whole of civilisation. He was Professor of Natural Philosophy in Glasgow University. Not only was he one of the ablest physicists of his period, but he also applied his science to practical problems; and on his work the heavy industries of the period developed, as well as the beginning of the light industries in Scotland. A hundred years ago one man could make fundamental discoveries in science and also apply them to the practical needs of mankind. Lord Kelvin produced the absolute scale of temperature; he enunciated the second law of thermodynamics. Likewise, he determined the standard for electricity, and discovered the oscillatory character which was the foundation of the work of Hertz and so developed by Marconi. I could go on and give your Lordships more of his fundamental work, but Kelvin was also responsible for developing telegraphy with stranded cables and sensitive receivers. He evolved a tide gauge and predictor, a simpler method of fixing a ship's position at sea and, among many others, a radically improved compass— which the Admiralty would not use.
To-day, the field of science is so much larger, so much more specialised, that one man cannot himself apply his discoveries. Indeed, discoveries in science are no longer the work of one man: they are almost always the work of a team. And not even a modern Lord Kelvin could encompass discovery and its application. It is because so many of our generation have been brought up on the scientific discoveries of earlier generations that we fail to appreciate the position of the application of science to industry. It is a truism that innovation in industry is initially sparked off by discovery. That may be discovery in science, but equally it may well be a discovery in techniques,

1063
and this can be absolutely as productive as a new discovery in science. Compared with the scale of our national investment in pure research, the amount devoted to industrial and economic research in our universities and the like is relatively quite small. Our system of councils and committees is geared, despite some efforts to change it, to pure research support. A new policy on the part of our Government is an absolute prerequisite to industrial development in Great Britain, and I very much welcome the impending publication, which the noble Earl the Leader of the House is producing either to-day or to-morrow, of a framework for Government research and development. It seems to me that the Government have anticipated my speech in this matter, and I think they have also anticipated that of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who made a similar plea. But we will see the Green Paper when it comes out.
My Lords, even though the perfect Government were to put this balance right, there is still a gap which must be recognised by politicians and civil servants. It is the immediate application of discovery, on a small scale, to a product. Here it is possible to assess the "spin-off" from discovery, iron out the snags and then get it on to the production line. Facilities for this are nearly nonexistent in Britain, although we in Scotland are edging in. The University of Strathclyde has established a Centre of Industrial Innovation. This work and the earned income from this work are both running ahead of predictions. But the money for the work is running out. The old MINTECH contributed some two-thirds of the £ 300,000-odd costs, but the new Department of Trade and Industry seems to have withdrawn Government support. If this Centre of Innovation is to continue— and for the sake of Scottish industry it absolutely must continue— then the University of Strathclyde will have to call upon its own private resources; indeed, it is doing so at the present time.
Many of us had hoped that the separation by the last Government of technology from science meant that the application of science to industry would get the support that industry requires. How can the universities get closer fruitful relations with industry if they
1064
are denied the means? Or take the case of the other technologically-based university in Scotland, the Heriot-Watt. Precisely in order to get the spin-off from its scientists, the university has established a Research Park on its new campus at Riccarton. The first company is operating and another is on the way. Scientists working here will be in and out of the laboratories of the new university when it moves on to its new site some twenty months hence. This is being done virtually without Government help, by a small emergent university that is technologically minded in the direction that Scotland needs. But I beseech the Government not to deduce from what has been accomplished that no help is needed from the Government. What has been achieved has been done by scientists, some of them English scientists, who want to help Scotland get on to a sound economy based on modern, up-to-date industries. But it is also being done at the expense of other university developments.
In the world to-day, self-help will only take you so far. For complicated development you must have strong financial backing. At the Heriot-Watt Park there are designs for a 10,000 square foot multi-occupancy building which will make it possible for a high technology industry to overcome its early teething troubles. It is a nursery for emergent industries which can then move out to New Towns such as Livingston and Glenrothes, where the contacts made during the development stage can be continued and matured during the succeeding stages of growth. My Lords, I said that there are designs for this, dreams if you like, for investment in the future of Scotland. But, like Strathclyde, no money. No money from the Government. I pause to let that sink in. No money from the bankers. You can blame the Government, but can you blame the bankers? The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, said on November 9:
"Bankers also. by past injudicious investment, are beginning to consider research to be more of a money spender than a wealth creator."— [OFFICIAL REPORT,9/11/71; col.301.]
This is exactly where the Strathclyde Centre for Industrial Innovation and the Heriot-Watt Research Park come in. It is here that the worthiness of a new enterprise can be tested and its true potential

1065
assessed. Both the Government and the banks can gauge the opportunities and know that they will be backing winners. I think that that will apply also to the private investors, the lack of whose interest in industry by putting money into it has been given in this debate as one of the causes for the present recession. If only for what they can save of wasted expenditure by the State and by the banks, these two enterprises become vital for the development of the Scottish economy.
My Lords, looking at the problem of developing new industries in Scotland, industries that will stay with us, not the foreign fly-by-night factories, I think it is clear that Scotland has as great potentialities as she had a hundred years ago when Lord Kelvin and his disciples developed the technology for the Clyde. But I must add that cur present lopsided approach will make but small contribution to the long-term industrial prosperity of Scotland. The politicians have been warned. Lip service to technology must end.
6.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for introducing this Scottish debate. My second pleasant duty is to praise the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his maiden speech. The great thing was that he talked about what he knew. That is always of the greatest interest to all of us. Of the speeches that have been made so far, it is invidious to pick out any one from another. But I thought the speech of Lord Polwarth was notable for the constructive suggestions it contained. Here I would join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, if he were here. I felt similarly about the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe.
My Lords, I am not going to talk very much at all on the first part of the Motion; namely," To draw attention to the state of the Scottish economy". Others have done that. We are all aware of our tragic unemployment situation. Let me just say that I have no happiness in it. I want to turn to a particular subject, and I gave the noble Baroness warning that I wished to raise it. It concerns Cupar and the sugar beet factory there which the British Sugar Corporation is about to close. Perhaps I should declare
1066
an interest. I have 10 or even 12 acres of sugar beet— or I did have this year; but that is not what I wanted to talk about. I do not know how many noble Lords know the facts. Simply, they are that the British Sugar Corporation has announced that it wants to close, in fact is closing, the factory. The Labour Government looked at the matter and said," That is all right". The Conservatives have confirmed that judgment. A new factor has been brought into the situation. A Scottish consortium has said that they will buy the factory and use it for sugar beet from the farms. Not only is this very important to farmers but it is very important because of the employment it provides. The Government have said," Very well. You talk with the Sugar Corporation about a price for the factory".
The consortium have said that they will pay £ 200,000. My Lords, it is not worth more. But the British Sugar Corporation have said that they want half a million pounds more. The Government have said," You must settle that as a commercial matter between you". This half a million pounds is very significant. The reason why the Sugar Corporation wants the extra half-million pounds is because, by closing down the works in Scotland, it can move its quota to England for a larger throughput in its English factory and therefore make a profit from this operation which it would not otherwise do. I am not blaming the Sugar Corporation. I blame the Government, whether it be a Labour Government or a Conservative Government, because Parliament created the monopoly which made this possible and which gives this right to the Sugar Corporation to ask an unfair price for the factory for the benefit of England.
My Lords, that is not the only factor. The Government own one-third of the shares of the British Sugar Corporation. If my arithmetic is right, within this last year they have on paper made somewhere between £7 million and £8 million profit on this holding; yet they begrudge the half-million, the difference between what the consortium want to pay and the Corporation ask for the works. Surely, my Lords, this is a matter in which the Government should say," All right, this is a case where commercial factors should enter into consideration. We recognise

1067
the need of Cupar and of the farmers. Employment is what matters, and in one way or another we will meet the difference to the other shareholders." It would be easy to do so. All they would need to do would be to give up a small proportion of their holding to the other shareholders, to compensate them. It would cost nothing, but instead of having £ 3 million shares they would have 2,900,000. I am not the only one who is pleading this case. The County of Fife, the Town Council of Cupar, the National Farmers' Union, the Scottish trade unions and, obviously, the consortium itself, are all asking for the Government to intervene. I ask that they should do this. It seems to me that here is a small but important example of how the Government could help at once. When I say "at once" I mean that it is no use saying, "We will look into it a little more". Farmers have to plan, and their planning must be within the next two months.
So much for the particular, my Lords. Now I want to turn to the rest of the Motion which refers to:
"… the need for the determined pursuit of policies for its fundamental improvement."
I ask your Lordships to join me in a flight of fancy. In the winter of 1706– 7 when the Scottish Parliament debated the Act of Union, they failed to pass it, and for the last 270 years Scotland has been on its own. It has been a Kingdom on its own. We called back Prince Charles Edward to be our King and the Stuarts have ruled ever since. I am not going into the political situation in Scotland to-day, except that I might add that we have always been somewhat to the left of our Southern neighbour. But I am going to touch for a moment on the state of the Scottish economy. We have good roads and bridges, thanks to people like Macadam, Telford or Rennie. We have hydro-electric power, but we have no atomic power stations; we cannot afford them. We have a heavy industry, thanks to coalmines and the iron ore around the centre of Scotland, but that is running out and a year ago we were worried about the situation. We have radar and a good deal of light electronic works, thanks to such people as Sir Robert Watson-Watt. We have concentrated on
1068
forestry, of course, and tourism, and we have always got whisky. But, my Lords, our standard of living in Scotland is lower than that of our Southern neighbour. We are poorer and life is harder; at least it was harder until last year when a new hope arose. That hope was oil and it turned to a reality.
The British Petroleum Corporation, in which, as a matter of interest we in Scotland have always had a considerable stake, struck oil in the Forties, and since then there has been an equally important discovery of oil in Scottish waters. We are rich by any standard, my Lords. We are excited by these riches. This is the greatest thing that has ever happened to Scotland. What have our Government done? We recognised that the ordinary machinery of Government was inadequate for our purpose and we set up a special body with experts, industrialists headed by a leading Minister of the Government. It is a Government body, but a curious one, because other people have been invited to serve on it and its terms of reference are as follows: To take action to ensure that the great oil discoveries arc used for the immediate benefit of the country; to increase employment and to build for Scotland's future as a well-balanced industrial nation.
This body has also been very conscious of our unexploited assets: the deep waters of the Clyde and the opportunity for a green field steel plant of 10 million tons costing £ 1,000 million. We could never have dreamed of doing something like that until the discovery of the oil. We realise now that it is going to be at most only two years before it comes. There is to be the setting up of an atomic power station in 1975 and afterwards, and an infrastructure of roads and so forth for the development of Oceans pan. We, too, my Lords, are applying to join the Common Market. We have called on experience from all over the world to help us in what we are setting out to do. There is something else, my Lords: we have insisted that the international oil companies to whom we have granted exploration rights undertake certain things in Scotland now; that they teach us, in one way or another, to make rigs, and order from us ships and other things needed for the servicing of the oil. We

1069
have spent on these purposes some of the money we have already got from giving exploration blocks and we have insisted that at least one refinery be set up in Scotland, in addition to the one the British Petroleum said they would build at Grangemouth. In a word, Scotland has seized its opportunity; its people are active, and confident that a great era of prosperity and work lies ahead for them. There, my Lords, is the end of my flight of fancy.
But one fact remains. We have got the oil; we have struck it rich. As the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said, this event is probably the greatest thing in our economic history, and not only for Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom. What have we done, my Lords? What have the Government done? They have not set up any special body. I was struck by what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and others about there being no co-ordinated action to-day in this area. That is right, my Lords. The Government have not set up any special body to act. The Government have laid down no conditions for the oil companies, that we should help to build rigs; or insisted on our supplying ships and shipping, and refineries. The Government have left the companies to their own devices and they go their own haphazard way. I do not blame them, but at a time like this they should be directed. The Government have taken no action to utilise the wealth to come in the special circumstances for the advantage of the country. Above all, they have not considered the absolute necessity of a great steel works with all that would flow from it.
Within the last five years Belgium has spent as much on steel as this country; Germany has spent 22 times as much and Japan nine times as much. How can we think we are going to be a great industrial nation any longer, if we do not take the plunge? And we have got the money to do it. The money is coming from oil. Let us take our chance now. Let the Government think big, realise what has happened, set up a special body to act on the companies rather than have things drift, and use the great oil discoveries to build up for what must come if we are to remain the industrial nation we have been for so
1070
long. Never in our history has there been such an opportunity— curiously enough, at a time when we have the tragedy of nearly one million people longing for jobs. If we stumble for doctrinaire reasons, because we must not interfere, we shall lose that opportunity. I say to the Government that we must interfere in this case. We have never had such a unique opportunity. I would almost say," To hell with principles or socialism, or what you will! What matters now is that we should act and seize what we are offered." If we do not, the Scottish people— indeed all the people of the United Kingdom— will never forgive or forget.
6.22 p.m.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, like many noble Lords before me, I should like to welcome the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I was especially pleased to hear his mention of agriculture and the drift away from the land, and later on I wish to follow him on this very important fact, which has had little mention so far in your Lordships' debate. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for giving us the opportunity of having this timely debate on this subject. It is a debate which I think is already breaking down the wall of indifference that exists on many things Scottish, especially the economical hardships which have occurred over a number of years past. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth mentioned, very relevantly, the major projects which are on the drawing board and the push needed to get them off it. My noble friend Lord Thurso mentioned devolution and decentralisation as part of our power to look to our own future in Scotland.
So far the debate has clearly established that we have two major problems in the Scottish economy— the immediate, short-term problems and the long-term, future one. These problems need two different remedies for their solution. Many suggestions have been put forward by noble Lords so far. The poor economic situation, which has developed over the past two years into a critical one, cannot be attributable only to misguided national policies, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, implied in his words earlier this afternoon, when, in one form or another, countries all over the world are facing similar problems arising out

1071
of the background of a global trading recession and an unstable international currency market.
The first and most pressing need is to inject some life into the Scottish economy from the public sector in order to relieve the present hardship of the 141,000 unemployed. The censure debate in another place and yesterday's censure Motion drew attention to the real concern felt by all those Members with Scottish constituencies which were experiencing the full brunt of this vicious trade cycle. However, although some analyses of trade figures were given, too much attention was paid to percentages and totals in order to stress the magnitude of the problem and to make political points. It would have been more helpful if a breakdown of the categories of unemployed had emerged— for instance, skilled and unskilled, the proportions of white collar workers and those involved in technical management.
We should like to welcome from these Benches the new measures announced yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of increased Government expenditure on public works, locally and nationally, and the advance in the capital expenditure programmes of some of the nationalised industries. Although I am not aware, unfortunately, of the full details, I should like to hope for an expanded road building programme for Scotland and for an improvement of the airfield at Turnhouse, as well as for an increase in the removal of dereliction. These short-term measures should be designed to assist in building the longterm fabric of the economy which is so essential to Scotland's future.
I do not believe that capital assistance, other than the immediate efforts to relieve local hardship, should be given to Scotland (or elsewhere for that matter) unless it is spent on projects which have a longterm future beyond the next General Election. There is no lack of planned capital projects awaiting the decision of the Government; they have been mentioned already in this debate. But we still have 'the lack of assurance of capital from the Government Benches. These decisions could revolutionise the whole future structure of employment in Scotland. There is the exciting development of Hunterston, already mentioned; and
1072
if becoming a partner in the European Economic Community is to mean anything at all, a new deepwater port combined with a steel mill in the Clyde Estuary must have a major role to play in the European economy. The concept of Oceanspan, of Central Scotland as a land bridge between Europe and the Americas, is not unrealistic.
These are big projects, even by world standards, involving hundreds of millions of pounds— approximately £ 150 million a year for 15 years, but as was pointed out in an excellent article in the Scottish supplement of the Financial Times on November 8, this type of Government investment will also attract considerable financial support from the private sector. The span of time involved takes this kind of solution right outside the administration of one Government or of one political Party. These projects should become national projects, for they have the potential of generating up to 60,000 jobs in Scotland. For this reason alone, these schemes should receive all-Party support and action now. There is an urgency about them and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, mentioned this.
Regardless of what has gone before, I think that the assurance from the noble Baroness at the beginning of her speech concerning Oceanspan seems rather futuristic. If I quote her correctly, she said that the Government were preparing to consider a preparatory report. As we are talking about urgent decisions necessary for long-term capital projects and it is taking a long time to prepare a preparatory report, perhaps some assurance call be given that the capital requirement will be kept aside when the conclusions of this report are available to us.
I opened my remarks by drawing attention to the current world trade recession; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer prophesies that good times are coming for all sections of industry: and we must believe him. The Prime Minister, in his address at the Lord Mayor's banquet on November 15, said:
"What we have now … is a rare combination of circumstances. There is a clear need for a large increase in industrial investment. There are good prospects of demand for additional output that will become available. And we have the spate resources readily available for the additional investment without strain on the economy."

1073
We must believe him, too. As Prime Minister, he is in a unique position to call upon these spare resources which he says are available. He should start to invest them in Hunterston, in the Highlands and Islands Development Board and Oceanspan projects, and give a lead to the distinguished audience he was addressing, which I hope included a good representation from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce.
Could it be that some of these spare resources referred to are the mineral, gas and oil resources, also referred to in your Lordships' House, and as yet lying untapped under the Scottish soil and under the sea in Scottish waters? I sincerely hope so because, according to recent newspaper reports and what noble Lords have been saying this afternoon, they are considerable. The development of mineral resources in Scotland may yet hold the key to future prosperity; but if they are exploited with no ensuing benefit to the Scottish economy by the Government, there is a grave danger of unleashing unnecessary disillusionment and bitterness that could have severe political and social consequences. To take an example, if the offshore oilfields turned out to be workable in commercial quantities and the revenue generated went direct to the Treasury the psychological effect in Scotland would be unfortunate. I mention this— it is an administrative point— because if the revenue comes in and goes down to the Treasury, we must have an assurance from the Government that it will go back again. The feeling that Scotland has become the poor relation of England because roads, grants and local government have had to rely on subsidies from a good natured Chancellor is something that rankles in every Scotsman; this again has been mentioned during this debate. The contribution of earnings from Scotland's mineral resources to the British economy may be quite incredible and would assist greatly in the financing of these large capital projects. An assurance by the Government at this stage that a proportion of that revenue will remain in Scotland to provide a future for the young generation, would give much needed hope to those who must be thinking of leaving their homeland now, as they have done before in Scotland when things became intolerable from time to
1074
time and place to place over the past 200 years.
If I may refer again, my Lords, to the Prime Minister's speech at the Mansion House, he went on to say:
"Now is the time to commission new factory buildings, to order new plant and equipment. For now is the time when we have available the resources to meet the additional demand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a series of measures over the last year to stimulate the growth of the economy."
It takes courage to start a capital investment programme at a time when good men are being laid off and when demand is slack, but I am certain this is the time to do it in Scotland where both the management and workforce hold a reputation they are justly proud of.
An editorial of the November issue of Management Today also endorses the Prime Minister's advice by advocating a rapid increase in fixed investment to increase productivity. The argument for more capital investment was based on statistics which clearly showed the direct relationship between productivity and fixed capital investment by comparing performances between Britain and Germany in the mechanical engineering field between 1964 and 1967. In the years when the Germans invested 28 per cent. more than the British companies, their productivity exceeded their British counterparts by 31 per cent. In the years when this investment lead fell to 18 per cent. their productivity lead over the British dropped to 15 per cent. I am sure this relationship is acknowledged by any board of directors with manufacturing experience. The Government appear to recognise this, too.
As noble Lords may recall, during the Second Reading of the Investment and Building Grants Bill in this Chamber, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, explained how the Bill would assist Scottish industry and regional development through a new system of capital allowances designed to encourage fixed investment in these areas. I welcomed this at the time from these Benches, and I still do, but with some hesitation, because I think serious consideration may have to be given to reviving the capital grants system in certain circumstances. I do not believe that the capital allowances outlined in this Bill are having. a fast enough effect to

1075
relieve unemployment, or indeed to achieve the growth in Scotland that they were intended to have. Their intention was to replace antiquated machinery. However, there has been no immediate rush to do this in Scotland or elsewhere, partly because of the general lack of confidence, and partly, I-believe, because of a defect in the fiscal system which virtually taxes new investment on plant. I am no tax expert, my Lords, but I understand that when plant is replaced the tax allowances given during its life are reviewed. If old plant is sold at a profit over the written down value, those allowances are deemed to be excessive, and the excess is withdrawn by a balancing charge. In an inflationary economy there is nearly always an excess, because even worn out plant has a disproportionately high value in monetary terms; thus there is often a balancing charge payable to the Exchequer on the successful sale of old plant. This mean device, if I have it right, must act as a deterrent to management to replace plant when profits are hard to come by. If this is the case then immediate consideration should be given to waiving the balancing charge in Scotland and in other parts of the country which are struggling for economic survival.
I have tried so far to concentrate on suggestions for industrial revival in Central Scotland, but some smaller towns like Arbroath, with which I have strong family connections, and Banff, which have only one or two major sources of employment, never seem to hit the headlines. It is towns like these where the actual numbers in national terms do not amount to much, but in effect means that a majority of the menfolk of working age are without a job. The feeling of desolation must permeate everything in their life as the future must appear nonexistent. The encouragement of new industries to these areas should rate as high in any Government programme as Hunterston, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and indeed mineral exploitation. The advance factory is certainly a possibility for these areas, but the enticement of any company to set up in Scotland should not be seen to be based on empty sheds, tax holidays and low labour costs alone. Good communications, retraining facilities and avail
1076
ability of all types of suitable housing for directors and specialist management count as high, if not higher. I wonder how many good companies failed to choose Scotland as their base because they were unable to house their skilled management and technicians adequately?
Before concluding, my Lords, I must make brief mention of the rural economy of Scotland. I feel that now is the time for new Government policies to revitalise the land and prevent the drift of good men away from it. The land requires capital investment similar to the introduction of new plant in factories. Grazing land in the marginal hill areas of Scotland has become worn out through two hundred years of exhaustive economy practised by successive generations of sheep farmers; it urgently needs rejuvenation through an injection of fresh capital, and in many cases new management to ensure its future. The availability of cheap money to invest through a Government guaranteed land bank, frequently advocated by Liberals, could greatly increase the output per acre to meet the anticipated extra demand for beef and sheep meat in Europe where there are deficiencies in both these products.
The hill land in Scotland may in the future prove to be one of the most under-utilised capital assets in Britain. A sensible policy of afforestation by the same token may also prove of immense value to the British economy over the years by providing a solid base for rural employment, a saving in imports and havens of peace and beauty for the majority who live out their lives in an urban environment. Government assistance to these areas, whatever form it takes, should recognise above all else the long-term needs of the land and the sense of temporary stewardship felt by working farmers and foresters who earn their living from it. Short-term incentives such as production grants can only, in my opinion, encourage exhaustive farm policies that will not provide future generations in the country with a livelihood that is comparable in economic terms to their counterparts in the cities. I am therefore advocating for Scottish hill and upland farm problems a serious rearporaisal of the present grant system with a view to redeploying the funds available for capital support in these areas, because the existing system does not appear to prevent

1077
a drift away from the land or radically increase the gross output per acre.
In conclusion, I am asking the Government to relieve the immediate hardship in Scotland by "crash" expenditure programrncs from the public sector. But the real problems— old-fashioned industries, worn-out plant and tired land— will remain until there is a fully committed major capital expenditure programme that will take advantage of the manpower, the mineral resources, the geography and the undeveloped land in Scotland which are there for the taking.
6.39 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, first of all, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on a most sincere maiden speech. I hope that he will speak frequently in future and teach us the progressive art of estate management, preferably in Scotland, which I believe he is studying at the moment. My noble friend Lord Lovat, who was to have spoken before me, but who has had to scratch due to a meeting in Scotland, wishes me to say that he wants to see a tapered freight rate in the Highlands and in the North of Scotland. All further development may well be crippled if someone does not do something soon. The economy of our country is generally supposed to grow on some sort of Christmas tree and, because of this, has very little to do with "everyman" and, to a lesser extent, management. However, "economy" is another word, fundamentally, for manpower, and thus if men are lax and management poor (which is all too prevalent these days) then monetary circulation takes a hammering. This is not necessarily disastrous if it happens only from time to time, but no country can stand constant repetition, because at that stage its dented reputation comes on to the scene; and to recover from that kind of body blow will not be just a matter of weeks, for by that time people have begun to lose faith in the working force of the country and may well have decided to shop elsewhere, thus putting a local industry in great danger of collapsing through loss of its recent market. Thus, unemployment— and not surprising, really.
My noble friends around me have spoken about the Scottish economy as it affects the more industrialised areas out-
1078
side the West Highland sphere. They are undoubtedly well versed in their art, but I like to think that they will spare a thought for the scattered forms of employment in our more mountainous regions. It is here that the future economy of Scotland may well be increased, on a scale unthought about at this moment of debate, in the fields of mineral extraction, sport, industry, pastimes, tourism and transport, particularly railways.
I know that to ask a question within a debate which is intended to have no answer from anyone but oneself is always a dangerous move, but still I shall essay one. It is this: can the United Kingdom, let alone Scotland, be continually at the mercy of a dissident work force? My Lords, of course not. If the national economy is to prosper once more, a rapid, selfless and lively export drive should he launched by the more responsible firms in Scotland, and especially those in the Highlands. Perhaps this is all a pipe-dream; but as I wander around the Western World, including a recent visit to Canada, I am constantly asked why Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom make so little effort to show their wares abroad. I do not know the answer to this charge at first hand, but possibly the truth of it is that the home market is the easiest with which to cope and that the export one should be contemplated if there were a surplus. Can management afford to think like this?— for I believe that they do so far too often. They are probably already partially guilty of helping to cause the present situation by such ineptitude.
The United Kingdom seems to have become a victim of the same state of affairs as that which affected England towards the end of 1811. At that period, the Luddites directed their spleen against their main form of employment: the machines, known as frames, which made stockings and lace. As your Lordships will remember from your history, the Luddites destroyed the frames because of the widespread prejudice that their use produced a scarcity of labour. Apart from this prejudice, it was inevitable that the economic and social revolution implied in the change from manual labour to work-by-machinery should give rise to misery. So, despite full order books in many cases, history to-day repeats itself. The machine has superseded

1079
hand-power. Unions, men and management unbelievably fail to come to some constructive compromise, and thus we find so many workmen out of employment. The men are there; the order books are there; the management is there; the union representatives are there. What is the common denominator, apart from money, to get the whole thing moving? To blame any British Government for this sort of mess seems ludicrous, for if the order books are even partially full then, surely, the onus lies on the firms concerned, and it is their job to sort it out while they manufacture the fount of their income. When this problem is solved and the country rises from the mire of destructive inactivity, the United Kingdom will slowly regain its lost reputation and be once more a thriving industrial nation.
Perhaps it would help if Scotland gave a lead to the rest of the country by making a supreme effort to sort out its own industrial strife. As the solution must come at some time, why not sooner rather than later? We do not have many strikes in the Highlands, perhaps because we lead a harder life than those on the outside and are thankful that we have a job at all. Would the rest of the United Kingdom like to take a leaf out of our book? Apathy towards exports, after-sales service, sound workmanship and enthusiasm by British manufacturers to-day has caused great concern to the world outside our Islands. We should be wise to take heed.
Hitherto, we in Scotland have been famed throughout the world for our shipbuilding, wool products, engineering and many other skills— and yet now where do we stand? The machine is apparently master: men have lost heart. Have we not learned from the excesses of the Luddites of 1811? We must have done. We stand on the brink of yesterday and today. To-morrow may be too late to repent. We cannot afford to go back, but can we go forward? We must: we have no choice. We are British. We do not turn our backs to disaster. We meet it head on. My Lords, not only must we go forward, but I suspect that the watching world would damn us for ever if we should now flinch from the present and the future. Once more we must stand
1080
alone, fight the battle and save our country.
6.47 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for initiating this debate, and grateful, too, that some two-thirds of his speech was devoted to constructive proposals, albeit of a rather long-term nature, but none the worse for that. I thought that my noble friend Lord Hughes, although I fully sympathised with the indignation in his whole attitude, was a little hard on the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, because any Member on the opposite Benches who rises to his feet and suggests to the Government of his own Party that they should backtrack on some of the policies that have been put forward must, I think, in courtesy, attempt to sugar the pill a little to begin with. At least it would enhance the possibility of their taking note of his advice. I was glad that he had the courage to stand up and make some comments, because at times I, for one, get rather worried about the massive loyalty shown on the opposite Benches towards the Government because they share the same Party, although it is noticeable on this occasion that deep national feelings, which are a very good thing in their place, have succeeded in making this debate somewhat more objective than it sometimes is on these occasions.
Before I start the main burden of my speech, I must comment on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour. I should not mind his general strictures on the ineffectiveness of the exports of British industry, but British industry has increased its exports since 1965 from the level of about £ 4,500 million to a figure to-day which is well in excess of £ 8,000 million. I believe that is the biggest rate of increase that we have ever seen in our history, and it scarcely seems just to accuse our industry of being as ineffective as he has suggested it is. However, he may have had his mind concentrated on some particular instances and may be generalising a little too far.
The points I wanted to make are closely related to exports and in particular to exports of the heavy engineering and capital goods industries. Scotland has always been especially dependent upon these in an industrial sense. The

1081
United Kingdom has benefited very much from the way in which these industries were developed in Scotland. One of the points about these industries which has often passed unnoticed is that if you are dealing with a consumer goods industry certain industries can disappear and new ones can appear in a relatively short space of time. For instance, in two to three years it is possible to build a firm making textiles, fancy goods, furniture, or even motor cars. But if the heavy capital goods-producing industries are lost, it is unlikely that they will reemerge. A new company to make ships or capital equipment is not built simply because some entrepreneur thinks he can do it in the space of a few years. Those industries are built on a long tradition of engineering; a long tradition of acquaintanceship with their products. Overseas customers, and customers in this country, too, do not go to new firms when they want to put down a new rolling mill or buy ships and things of that sort. In such cases long experience in the industry is essential, and it is very difficult to gain that. That is why these capital goods and engineering industries of Scotland are extremely important to the economy.
If it is clear that there is no future market for the products of some of these great engineering firms, well and good; if it is a dying industry it should go as quietly and decently as possible. But when one turns to some of the things that have been happening in Scotland— for instance, U. C. S. — is anyone really going to say that there is no future for ships in the world? That is nonsense, and we all know it. Are we going to say that there is no great technological input into ships in the future? That might well be nonsense, too. I am not an expert (although I was born on the Clyde), but I can see the day when we shall have ships of great size requiring a crew of only two or three people, because the vessels will be self-steering, self-operating and all the rest of it. We know that the Japanese have conquered the shipbuilding markets of the world because of the way they have gone about the job, and not only because of low wages. We also know that Japanese wages are rising sharply; their standard of living is going up; their country has an enormous sum to spend on their own
1082
infrastructure and their own social betterment. I do not believe that the future of shipbuilding is so bleak, yet we are letting Scottish shipbuilding down with a bit of a thump, because it is going through a very bad patch— brought about in some parts by bad management, and in other parts by a great lack of cooperation from labour. In this country it is customary for Governments to see that industries that have an important future, particularly an exporting future, are given assistance, and I think that we have done the wrong thing in the case of U. C. S.
The chief theme of what I want to say this evening is that I want to criticise the Government— I hope objectively— for what I would refer to as their extraordinarily destructive attitude in the past eighteen months. An instance like U. C. S. — and there are many others— is an example of the problem which is going to arise again and again in the future of this country. Those are problems which private enterprise cannot solve for themselves. This means that we must have institutions to deal with such problems. I have listened to speeches to-day, and have heard half a dozen proposals that we should have a new body to deal with one aspect of this and another body to deal with something else. Societies, as they grow more and more complex, require new institutions. The previous Government set up some new institutions; I am not going to suggest that they were perfect, but they were sometimes very effective. I have in mind such bodies as the Prices and Incomes Board. All the built-in experience of that body would have been of help to-day in gazing at this ghastly unemployment problem, and the dreadful problem of wage inflation. Yet it has been abolished. It might have been put to different use. But why abolish it? The I. R. C. was abolished; investment grants were abolished— and I shall say more about these matters in a moment. It seems likely, too, that less use will be made of industrial development certificates. They are a very effective form of control for helping the development areas of the country. The B. N. E. C. has been abolished. It needed some reorganisation, but a successor body has not yet been appointed. Export rates have been tinkered with, and R. E. P. is to be abolished.

1083
The great feature of the current situation in Scotland is inflation. With a country so reliant upon heavy engineering as Scotland is, inflation is a much more serious matter for those industries. Nobody so far has mentioned this point: if you are dealing in the sales of capital goods, especially overseas— and many of the great engineering companies in Scotland and elsewhere have been exporting 40 to 70 per cent. of their output for nearly a century— if you are going for a contract worth £ 3 million to £ 15 million, knowing that delivery cannot be made until three years ahead because it takes that amount of time on design and manufacture of the product, then you have to predict what the rate of inflation will be over the next three or four years. Which of those companies can possibly foretell what it is going to run into at the 15 per cent. rate of inflation over which the present Government preside? If it added that provision on to its prices, it would not get the jobs anyhow. To-day, when a company has to confess that it is losing money on its existing contracts, what is the cry from the Government? It is "Bad management". I challenge some of the people on the opposite Benches, or in the other place, who make those cries to do any better with a company that faces a problem like that. This is hitting particularly at the capital goods and engineering industries. They cannot countenance the higher rate of inflation. If firms are making goods that can be delivered three months later they do not have this problem, which is a very serious one indeed.
My Lords, I turn from that to the linked problem of investment grants. In another place, in the debate on the Bill which abolished investment grants the Minister for Industry, Sir John Eden, referring to the changes of investment grants to investment allowances, said— and I am quoting from column 1380 of Hansard for May 5,1971:
"Briefly, the changes are being made because investment grants have proved to be both costly and ineffective. They have turned out to he an incentive not so much for the profitable use of new plant and machinery, as for the purchase of it."
As a generalisation, that is absolute nonsense. They have no proof that investment grants have been ineffective. If
1084
they have been ineffective the Government are damning the whole of private industry. They could not have a shred of proof without examining the capital expenditure budgets of every industrial company in the country, and I know that they have not done that. At column 1381 of the same edition of Hansard the same Minister says:
"It must be clear to every hon. Member that the pressing need today is for efficient investment, and profitable investment is efficient investment. No busines, whatever its size, can survive if it is unprofitable …".
Again, as a generalisation that is sheer nonsense. There are many companies in this country who pass through quite long periods of great unprofitability. Think back to the 1930s and consider how many companies went for long periods without making any profit at all: they made losses, yet struggled through. To suggest that every company which is unprofitable is of no use to us, and that every unprofitable investment by a company is inefficient investment, shows ignorance of the normal economic understanding of business; and this is at the root of a great deal of the legislation of this Government. As an industrial man, a man who has been in Government, I am really appalled at some of the decisions which have been taken.
Look what happens when investment grants are abolished. Heretofore, companies in Scotland and elsewhere in these heavy engineering industries, if they ran into a patch of loss, for reasons that were to some extent, as I have explained, outside their control, owing to the fact that there has been a heavy rate of inflation would have had an incentive to invest if the investment grant procedure had been continuing. Indeed, in most of Scotland they would have benefited to the extent of a 40 per cent. grant. The moment investment grant is changed to investment allowance, a company making very low profits or losses loses all incentive to invest. The very companies which might be able to get themselves out of a bad patch by heavy investment to reduce their reliance on the use of so much labour, are denied this possibility. To whom does the advantage of investment allowances go? It goes to those who are prosperous to-day— the retail establishments, the breweries. I am not criticising those industries, but the industries who are

1085
going to form in the future the most valuable part of our export drive— because it is going to be the export of the means of production which is the reliable part of our exports in the future, not the export of consumer goods— are the ones who are going to be damaged most severely by the abolition of the investment grant. So I join with the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and say that he is absolutely right. What puzzles me is that industries who are suffering from this change have made so little noise about it. I suspect that they are keeping quiet in the interests of loyalty. But one speaks to people in these industries quietly, and as man to man, and one hears the criticism. What is obvious is that the Government retained the investment grant in Northern Ireland— at that time the most hard hit of the areas of the United Kingdom— and it is an indication of their real thinking in the matter.
One other point about investment grants is this. Most Members of this House are well aware that the net total effect on the Treasury of having either investment grants or investment allowances is virtually nil. From the point of view of the Treasury it does not matter which we have, although it matters from the point of view of presentation of the Budget, because if we go over to investment allowances it looks to the public as if expenditure has been reduced by £700 million. But that has not been done in fact, because £700 million has been lost in revenue instead. That is the first criticism.
On selective employment tax, I am no great supporter of this particular way of helping development areas. I think it was costing about £ 100 million a year; I do not know what it is costing to-day. That sort of money should have produced more effect if spent in other ways. I have just this to say about it. In a time when the crisis in the development areas has deepened as a result of the Government's policies, they are in effect, in abolishing the selective employment tax in 1974, going to withdraw help to the tune of at least £ 100 million from the hard-stricken areas of this country. If they proposed to spend that £ 100 million in other ways I would have welcomed the move; I think there are many ways in which it could be spent. But to withdraw that degree of help at
1086
a time when these areas are more in need of it than they have ever been before since the war seems to me to be a policy that shows lack of sympathy with their plight.
I asked questions in the House last week about the export credit interest rate. Again, this is a special problem for industries producing capital goods, engineering industries and chemical industries, because these are the industries that have to give long-term credit. Export credit rates do not matter to consumer goods industries. Yet the first act of the Government when they came into office was arbitrarily to increase the rate from 5½ per cent., where the last Government had held it over a period of five years with a good deal of argument with the banks, to 7 per cent. I happen to be well aware that with a bit of arm-twisting 6 per cent. would probably have satisfied the banks, but the Government put it up to 7 per cent.; and now, when bank rate has dropped to 5 per cent., all they can do is to reduce that export credit rate to 6½ per cent. This may sound trivial, but it is one of the key factors in exporting capital goods from this country; I know that from experience at the Board of Trade. Many overseas countries, particularly developing countries, are more interested in how much interest they will have to pay on the credit price than they are in the price itself. It is an absolutely key factor.
When I was in industry I was in charge of a company that had a great interest in developing employment in Scotland, in the town of Kilmarnock. From 1947 onwards the plant we originally built there was continuously expanded. What was very noticeable was that if we had a Labour Government in office and we wanted to expand we were given "red carpet" treatment and were welcomed and told it was a jolly good thing; as soon as a Conservative Government came to power we had to argue every inch of our way. I do not know what the Government are going to do about development area policy— it may be that others know better than I do— but I am gravely suspicious. The whole policy with regard to the stimulation of the move of industry from crowded parts of the country, or parts that will be crowded when the promised resurgence

1087
of trade comes about, to the development areas is going to slow down in the way it slowed down during the 13 years of Conservative Government before the last Labour Government. The use of control by industrial development certificates should be under consideration now, and it should be strengthened, rather than limited, because even in the term of the Labour Government it was never operated with sufficient vigour.
I now turn to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. Had the I. R. C. been in existence I wonder whether it could not have handled the Rolls-Royce deal and got them through it without a liquidation at a figure less than £ 170 million. I bet it could! It really is unfair to abolish an institution and expect civil servants (I have no disrespect for civil servants) and busy Ministers to handle issues of that kind. I wonder whether the I. R. C. could not have been put on to the U. C. S. business and could not have handled it without all the newspaper fuss that took place. But let us look to the future a little. There are many firms in Scotland and other development areas who are suffering, for the reasons I have given— reasons outside their own control— and who will need to be kept in existence in the national good. It will be necessary not only for the sake of employing people but because these are vital industries for our future. And we shall need an instrument for handling these cases, because I think the Government are going to backtrack on their policies in the next year or two to a still greater extent, as they had to backtrack on Rolls-Royce, and if that is so they will need an institution such as I. R. C.
When the relevant Bill came before the House I argued from the Front Bench with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that it was absurd to abolish the I. R. C. He said that it would cost £40 million a year and we had to abolish it. My reply was, "It won't cost £40 million a year. That is the maximum borrowing figure which the I. R. C. may have every year. Why not keep it in existence without giving it any more money? Suggest that it revolves some of its investments— but keep the institution in being so that you have it." After all, it was manned by City men. But, now the Government
1088
have abolished it, they will have to start another organisation in order to save extremely valuable industries when these are simply going through a two, three, four or five year patch of unprotitability. To suggest that each one of these industries must be left to sink, without any reference to its effect on our total national economy, is again— I use the word deliberately— rubbish. If we are going into the European Economic Community one thing I am afraid of is that many of these great engineering and capital goods companies, which are spread throughout the country and are not only in Scotland, are going to be easy pickings for some large, similar German firms. They can be bought for a song on the Stock Exchange. Do we want that to happen because they are going through a bad patch? Who is going to save them? Can the Government go in and do it? No, they cannot. The institution that could have done it was the I. R. C. It has already saved some of our industries and kept them in British ownership— for example, the ballbearings industry. It did it very skilfully indeed. You have no instrument to do that to-day and you are going to need one.
My Lords, I could continue this tale of criticism. It sounds non-constructive but in a sense it is constructive, because what I am saying is that when you have abolished these things, for heaven's sake think of some tactful political way of regaining them!Because what you have forgotten is that if you look back through the history of this country as it developed, economically and industrially, you will find that it had to grow more and more institutions. Yet the leadership of the Government to-day is clearly saying, "We have too many institutions; we are going to abolish them. We will wipe this out, wipe that out, and wipe the next thing out." From the sociological, historical and economic viewpoint, they are wrong in principle. This whole matter must be reconsidered. I conclude by making a plea, joining with the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in asking for one specific thing: that the Government should reverse their policy on investment grants for Scotland.
7.11 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on what I consider to

1089
be an outstanding maiden speech. I find myself in general agreement with the majority of the helpful proposals for the improvement of our Scottish economy which have been made by those noble Lords who have already spoken, and particularly the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. I have no doubt whatsoever that the establishment of a steel complex, an oil refinery or some other industry dependent upon imported raw materials, either at Hunterston or some other convenient place, capable of berthing the enormous bulk carriers at present in operation, and of the still larger ships of even deeper draught which are being contemplated, would greatly help to improve the economy of our country in the long term and would also provide in the near future an additional source of employment that is much required. It may be that greater inducements than those now available might tempt firms situated in the overcrowded Midlands of England and the South-East corner of that country to move to Scotland, where from every point of view, industrial and otherwise, the most attractive sites are available, and where outside of working hours there are so many attractions for employees— far greater, in my opinion, than can be found in most other countries.
I remember asking a foreman in a factory in the North of Scotland whose native town, he told me, was Birmingham, whether, having experienced the rigours of our Scottish climate for a year or two, he would like to return home. His answer was: "No. There I would be quite unable to get a salmon within 20 minutes of leaving my work, as I have done and as I am going to do again." Scotland has many advantages of a similar kind to offer, but while it is difficult, I admit (and I have experienced it) to get a child to leave its mother, it is almost equally difficult to induce those industries which have been long established in the Midlands or elsewhere to move from the neighbourhood in which they have grown up and to leave the conditions to which they have become accustomed. We have to make the advantages that we have to offer in Scotland known not only throughout the United Kingdom and Europe, but further afield. We need not be shy about it, because what we have to offer compares more than favour-
1090
ably with what can be given to us by other countries.
However, my Lords, may I utter one word of warning? We must not keep people who are anxious to come to Scotland kicking their heels, waiting for answers to questions which they require to have answered and to which the answers ought to be readily available, whatever they may be, and in particular when they are concerned with the measure of assistance that they may expect, and indeed rely on, from Government and from local authority sources. I know to my sorrow— and my friend who sits on the opposite Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, knows also— of cases where dilatoriness in giving the information has so irritated people that they have given up the idea of coming to Scotland, and we have thereby lost an industry.
The matters of which I have spoken, while capable of relieving a situation such as that with which we are faced at this present moment, provide no permanent solution to these constantly returning predicaments, which are not fundamentally due to the Government of the day. May I suggest—and I do so with all deference — that there is something fundamentally wrong with our approach to work, and that a change of attitude is essential if we are even to preserve our present standard of living.
In other days our fellow countrymen were welcomed everywhere because they had inherited a reputation for integrity. Their word, and the product of their work, could be accepted with complete confidence; they wore trustworthy, they were not satisfied with anything that they felt was below the best that they could give; they were loyal to their work and to the organisation that employed them, and they were proud of that organisation. Often when I have been abroad, and also at times when I have been at home, when I have asked, let me say, an engineer where he had learned his trade, I have received an answer something like this: "I served my apprenticeship with Stephens of Linthouse"—that is situated on the Clyde—"and then after a year or two as a journeyman there I moved on to Fairfields, where I stayed until I came here. You know, I am very

1091
proud indeed to have worked in such great shipyards".
As a young Naval officer I had a feeling of pride— more than that, of superiority— when I served in a Clyde-built ship, because I believed that the workmanship that had been put into her was the best and the most perfect that it was humanly possible to provide. In those days I cannot remember a Clyde-built ship breaking down on her maiden voyage, nor (other than under the most exceptional circumstances) in her middle or old age. To-day, my Lords, things have changed. Abroad, where the Scot has until recently been accepted without question as having the qualities of his forbears, he is not so regarded until he has proved himself. Shipowners who for generations have had their ships built in our Scottish shipyards, mostly in those great and famous yards on Clydeside which were closely connected with my native City of Glasgow, are no longer doing so, but in sorrow— and I say that advisedly, because I have seen their sorrow— they are placing their orders abroad. When I ask them why they do so, the reply is, "Because the delivery dates are much more reliable and the prices are lower".
My Lords, why do these things happen? Sir Ian Stewart is reported as having given as one of the reasons why he retired from the Board of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders that it was because he had come to the conclusion that a week's wages were being paid for two days' work. I also read that Mr. Douglas, when giving evidence to the inquiry into the affairs of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, which was held on Clydebank, stated that when he became the general manager he estimated that the output per man per annum could be represented by 10 tons of steel plate, while under his direction it had more than doubled in a period of 18 months. It is a pity that it was found that that was not sufficiently fast to make the industry viable once more. If we are to accept such statements as being accurate— and I cannot doubt them— then there must be something desperately wrong in our management or on the shop floor, or perhaps both of them are to blame.
There is another distressing and disruptive element affecting industry not only in our country but throughout the whole
1092
of Great Britain at the present time, and that is the constant and unceasing differences between management and the shop floor. Often it seems to me, as it must seem to many of your Lordships, that thousands of men stop work for some quite: insufficient and almost childish reason, which brings distress to many of the families of those principally concerned and to others who are nothing whatsoever to do with the dispute in question, which may do very great damage to the nation's economy.
The head of one of the two great labour unions in the United States (I forget his name) was talking to one of my friends, and he said, "What do you think my job is?" Then, without waiting, he answered the question himself. He said, "My job is to get the most money and the best conditions that I can for the members of my union, but I can only get them if the organisation where my members are employed is making a profit; the more profit they make the more money I can get and the better conditions I can get for my members. And if I sense that something is going wrong in any of the plants where my members are employed, I immediately send one of my staff to find out what is the matter, and then, in co-operation with the management, get it rectified". To that reply he added one or two sentences that I would not repeat in this House, but the sense of them was this: that he and others in his position must ever be careful to do nothing which might injure, far less destroy, the bird that laid the golden eggs. I wish some people in this country would remember that.
I am frequently astonished to find people who seem to imagine that money in this country grows on trees and that to obtain it you have only to shake the branch and it falls into your lap. It seems to me that every pupil, before he leaves his secondary school, should have drummed into him the facts that govern the standard of life in this country: the fact that we can grow only half the food we require; that we have to obtain it from other countries; the fact that we can get the money to pay for it only by exporting and selling abroad goods manufactured here, and that we have to do that at prices no higher than and of a quality as high as those other countries

1093
can produce for themselves or buy elsewhere. They should also know that the raw materials we require to manufacture those goods have also to be obtained from abroad and to be paid for as we have to pay for our food. I would hope that they might then realise that our standard of life depends on our ability to manufacture and sell abroad goods in competition with other nations.
Japan has been alluded to already in the course of this debate. I am told that in the factories and shipyards of Japan there is a feeling of one-ness, of being part of a team, a feeling of loyalty to work and comrades and to the organisation which employs them. There is in fact a complete and willing co-operation at every level, and it is this very factor perhaps which enables the Japanese industry to compete with success with every country in the world and to gain markets which hitherto have been held by European nations. I would that that same spirit animated us in this country, for I am absolutely convinced that without it not any of the remedies or all of them that have been mentioned this afternoon, helpful though they may be, can enable us to obtain that higher level of prosperity and higher standard of living we all desire, and which I believe is within our grasp if only we would change our attitude to work and return again to the virtues practised and followed by our fathers which gave Scotland an influence in the world out of all proportion to her size and her wealth and won for our people the trust, friendship and admiration of every nation.
7.25 p.m.
LADY SEMPILL: My Lords, I should like to speak very briefly on the future problems and hopes of Scottish inshore fishermen, who fish out of the ports on the North and North-East coast of Scotland. The Scottish inshore fisherman has every cause to be alarmed and cautious about his future, as he knows better than most that the foreigner, particularly the Norwegian, German, Pole, Russian, and to a lesser extent the Dutchman and the Belgian, want to fish the Scottish fishing grounds for herring. Your Lordships will know that Scottish fishermen have expressed themselves against our entry into the E. E. C. Without challenging their reasons and wisdom, I venture to say that what has been said was spoken
1094
rather more from emotion than with a logical outlook on the future. I say this because once we are members of the Community there will be no permanent trade barriers against us. Our fishermen, therefore, stand to benefit immediately, because their vessels can serve our own processing factories in Scotland which are right on the doorstep of the European market. As I have said, Europe needs the herring. But, speaking as a housewife who has spent much time living on the Continent, I am often puzzled as to why the British public do not eat more herring in the many attractive forms which are available in Europe. I also wonder sometimes how many people, not only housewives, know that the kipper is in fact a herring. Certainly one member of my family did not know.
Be that as it may, the European market for herring is a valuable one, and our entry into Europe will benefit the Scottish fisherman because of the opening it will provide him in that very valuable market. Already there is an active recognition of this market. For instance, the Dutch and Belgian fishermen are buying fish at sea straight from our Scottish vessels lying in sheltered waters off our coast, the Scots having already caught the fish on their own grounds and boxed it for this purpose. This arrangement has come about because the Belgians and the Dutch do not have to pay the tariffs on entry to their own countries which we at present have to face. As a further example of the fishing industry's changing pattern and positive reaction to the future, I may say that one major British company, Associated Fisheries Ltd., is already building a £1 million processing plant at Fraserburgh. This plant is intended mainly to process Scottish-caught herring, kippering and canning them for direct export to Europe.
I therefore ask your Lordships and our industrious fishermen not to be too apprehensive about the outcome of all aspects of agreements on fishing. My Lords, there is no one more efficient than the Scottish inshore fisherman. An experienced English trawler owner and director of Britain's largest fishing company tells me that in his opinion our Scottish vessels are among the most effective hunting and killing vessels afloat. With vessels running up to 70 feet in length, they can trawl, operate together with

1095
pair trawls or independently with seine nets. Our fishermen are hardworking and skilled in the use of modern equipment and they operate with great efficiency to catch whatever fish may be in season. I have already indicated the interest expressed in this area by one of our major processing companies, and I would add this one thought for the future. So promising is the market in Europe, and so sought after are our herring shoals, that it is expected that European-based processing firms will wish to come over to Scotland and invest in our processing plants. All this means added prosperity for Scotland.
My Lords, before I sit down I should like to add my support to one other essential factor. Whatever the limits may eventually be, we must be allowed to police our own fishing grounds— particularly around Scotland. For without adequate and honest policing, the whole industry will suffer from the sorties of fishermen of certain European countries. I will mention no names, but there are those countries which still do not even observe the international agreement on net sizes to which they themselves are party. Also, there must be some mutual agreement about penalties and fines. When a British trawler, be it Scots or English, is caught off Iceland, the skipper is fined and has his catch confiscated and, as a result, stands to lose up to £ 10,000, or more. On the other hand, if a foreign trawler is caught off our shores, his fine and confiscation of catch is modest by comparison. With some of these factors in mind, I ask your Lordships to consider a more promising future for fishermen, particularly those in Scotland, than has so far been expressed.
7.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating my noble kinsman on his maiden speech. It was extremely good, and he knew what he was talking about. Secondly, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for introducing this very important debate. It is one that we could have more frequently during the year; perhaps the list of speakers might then be shorter, which would also be an advantage. Before I start my speech — and I shall not be long— may I question one thing that my noble friend Lord
1096
Perth said. Did I understand him to say that there was no atomic development in Scotland?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, what I said in my flight of fancy was that when Scotland was on its own there was no atomic power plant. Of course, in reality there is.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I was about to say that we had the first such plant in the far North, in Caithness. The English were so frightened of having the first experimental reactor that they put it in Scotland.
As usual, I shall confine my remarks to the Highlands and Islands area of Scotland where, as many of your Lordships are well aware, we have a very high rate of unemployment. This means that we get the consequent escalation in the loss of our younger people from both the rural and island communities. One bright spot is the prospect of new employment in certain areas which we hope will be provided by the North Sea oil developments, and which we trust will not only provide employment but will help to revitalise the economy of Scotland. Here I utter a word of warning to the Government. If an unfair proportion of this wealth, springing as it will from Scottish territorial waters, is all channelled to England, especially the South-East corner of it, the people responsible will run into very serious trouble indeed, and deservedly so. I think one has to bring this out because it seems to be the prospect at the moment in the case of the steel and the sugar beet industries.
I turn to the ever-present problem of communications and transport. The inability of the Government and/or British Railways to make up their minds about the future of the Kyle Railway is deplorable. As has been mentioned many times in your Lordships' House, the necessity of retaining this railway is quite evident, and if it were properly run the financial loss would be negligible. Even as it is, compared with the millions of pounds poured out for the benefit of London commuters, the loss sustained is minimal. It must be obvious to all noble Lords that this long drawn out uncertainty makes it very difficult for those of us who are trying to attract different forms of industry to the South-West

1097
corner of Ross and Cromarty. There has been a welcome, if small, increase in the grants for the improvements of our many substandard roads. I ask the Government to consider what appears to us in local government to be an absolute necessity, a White Paper on Government policy for a national planning strategy. This is particularly important in view of the effects of North Sea oil on industrial growth.
As your Lordships have pointed out many times, there is a general decline in public transport for our rural areas. That poses some very serious questions, and the Government should be keeping it very much in mind; as indeed also the caravan problem, which has been discussed in depth by your Lordships. Recently there was a conference in Dunblane, which I was unable to attend, though representatives from my county council did go. The general impression seemed to be that it was conducted in the main by officials, and apart from clichés and certain facts which everybody knew already, nothing of real value emerged. As both sides of your Lordships' House have clearly recognised, there is a real and dangerous problem here. It is high time that the Government took adequate steps to solve this problem, and the means for doing this have been suggested more than once by many noble Lords on both sides of this House.
I was disappointed to hear my noble friend the Minister say that the formation of the promised Scottish Convention is to be postponed. I think this Convention is highly desirable. There are many who consider that the various departments of the Scottish Office in Edinburgh are inclined to be "little Sir Echoes" of Whitehall and the Treasury. There is a tendency for Government Departments to brush aside requests for comparatively small sums of money to help establish vital small industries, such as those for building or reconstructing of piers, which would go far to give employment, especially on our Western coasts, where there is arising a generation of young people who are anxious to exploit the great wealth which lies inshore: I refer, of course, to the shellfish, scampi and scallop fisheries, not to mention, as has already been said, the inshore fisheries. Again, more help must be
1098
given for the provision of public drainage facilities. I am thinking especially of the Island of Lewis. More and more tourists in tents and caravans are flooding the country throughout the summer months, and the facilities for these people arc totally inadequate. I wonder whether noble Lords surrounded by the "mod. cons." of London realise the dangers inherent in this situation.
When development starts, local authorities, who often, as in the case of the Highlands, have very low revenues, are faced with having to provide for infrastructure, involving considerable delay before an industrial complex becomes revenue producing. I wish to ask the Minister whether the Government would consider some form of bridging finance, possibly through the Public Works Loan Board, from which the developing authority could borrow for a few years at little or no interest. On the development becoming revenue producing, the authority could borrow in its normal way from the market, and repay the Government fund. To conclude, many of us are most uneasy over certain aspects of the proposed reform of local government. In the case of the Highlands too many duties are being removed from the misnamed "district level" and given to the regional set-up. One has the suspicion that the lip-service paid to the formula of local government being truly local is a smoke screen to cover still more over-centralisation and government by bureaucracy. My Lords, I hope that the Minister, when he comes to answer, will be able to give me a reply to my several questions.
7.39 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has received many well-deserved congratulations, and I can only add mine to all of those. When I saw his name on the speakers' list, I found it somewhat sobering, because I believe that he is a friend of my son, which seems to date one somewhat.
As I anticipated, the underlying theme of this debate has been the unemployment situation, and though I believe this to be a temporary situation I appreciate that it is a very serious one, so I hope that anything I say from now on will not be taken out of context. I am a substantial employer of labour, employing tradesmen, mechanics, foresters, farmworkers,

1099
drivers and the like; but I find it very difficult to get good employees. I wondered whether I was a notoriously bad employer, but I made some inquiries and found that all of my neighbours were in the same position. I was interested to hear to-day that the Lower Clyde is looking for men. It seems an extraordinary situation that although there is this vast unemployment there are people who are unable to get good employees. I wondered why it was, and I racked my brains to find the reason, so I thought it might be worth while giving my views.
There is, of course, the natural reluctance to move from an area in which one has spent most of one's life. There is a belief in some quarters that we in the Highlands live in the Arctic; and, for the record may I say that that is an erroneous belief? Recently we had to import some employees, excellent people, from South of the Border, and it seems to me extraordinary that, with so many unemployed in Scotland, we have to go South of the Border to find these people. It seems that a great many people do not want to work. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde spoke on this subject, and I do not think I need elaborate on it very greatly. But some of your Lordships may have seen reports in the papers last Sunday of a carpentry firm that was advertising for employees at £ 30 a week. Endless men had come, but had gone away because they were better off on the social security, with a wife working at £ 6 a week with no tax. The fact that many men can do better in unemployment than when they are working seems to be one of the crucial points. This is a philosophy which has been engendered by the Socialists and it may take a little while to dispel it. There are some people who feel that the country owes them a living and that they really do not have to work. Unfortunately, the idle, the skivers and the rogues are often very much better off than the conscientious ones. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, laughs, but that is the case.
LORD HOY: No, my Lords, I am always amused when noble Lords discuss some workmen who apparently find it better not to work. Does the noble Lord never think that there are also many of his own friends in the nobility who seem to do particularly well without working?
LORD BURTON: My Lords, that may be, if they are in a fortunate position. But I find that I have to work a great deal harder than most of my employees.
What I find difficult is that our rural workers, earning around £15 a week, are getting only about half what industry pays, perhaps for a boy brewing tea. It may seem a strange thing to say, from this side of the House, but I believe that we shall have to pay our rural workers a great deal more if we are to get the right sort of man into the job. But if we are going to pay them more, then we shall require a higher price for the produce, and that may well increase the spiral of inflation.
A house used to be an incentive among the rural workers but, unfortunately, when the present Opposition were in power they altered the law. A good worker has no difficulty in finding work on the land if he wants it, but the majority who are on the move are the riff-raff. They get a job and when they are found to be useless they sit in the house rent-free. Since the law has been altered— and it was not very long ago— I have had no fewer than five employees who have done this. We should have checked on one of them before we took him on, as he had a long record as a burglar in the South of Scotland. We had another, a farm grieve, who sat on in the house where we had the farm telephone. The house was convenient for the farm, and it was the best house for the grieve. When we eventually got him to court, having in the interim offered him two alternative houses which he refused to take, the sheriff gave him yet another two months to sit there. We are now facing a similar problem. We are unable to take on a foreman forester because only last week the sheriff gave an absolute rogue another three months to sit in the house, and he said that he may give him even more time if he goes back to him after that.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think the noble Lord should make it perfectly clear to your Lordships that his home is in Inverness-shire and not at Peterhead.
LORD BURTON: Be that as it may, my Lords, it is very difficult.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I keep hearing references to "riff-raff" and "rogues", when the noble Lord is talking

1101
about the workers. Surely he must appreciate that what we in Scotland are trying to do is to engender some kind of spirit of enterprise and community in the big task which we have to fulfil. To talk of workers as riff-raff and rogues is not conducive to the kind of spirit that will help Scotland cut of its economic distress.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was here, but I said earlier that I hoped what I said would not be taken out of context. I said that good men had no difficulty in getting work, and that it was difficult to find good men. But what is on the move, and what we are getting stuck with in these houses, are the people who are really of no use. I am sure that the noble Lord must have found exactly the same problem in the Forestry Commission.
We are in a very difficult position. Obviously, we cannot supervise our forestry men or train young men if we have no foreman, but we have no houses so we cannot get a foreman. What is more irksome is that when these people eventually go to court they get free legal aid at the taxpayers' expense, which we are all paying for. We have to pay for going to court and, in addition, these cases consume a great deal of our valuable time. If we are to be efficient on the land, the Government must take urgent action over the tied house situation. I should also like your Lordships to bear in mind that much of Scotland depends on its rural economy. There is now another problem with which I have not personally had to deal. I am advised that some of the youth advisory officers, who advise the young before they leave school, are advising them not to go into rural work. I suppose that if they will get only half the wage paid in industry that may be sound advice, but it will be very difficult to get good rural workers if this is being said to the young.
The Government have already made a start on cutting taxes, for which they must be congratulated, but we have to cut still further our vast Civil Service. Though there are many dedicated and admirable individuals, I wonder how many there are who really help to produce the goods which keep us in existence? I hope that when introducing new legislation the Government will watch to see what personnel are required to ad-
1102
minister it. Although it may well be a very good tax, I am particularly worried about V. A. T. in this conection. The introduction of this tax may well increase the number of personnel required, not only in the Civil Service but also in the various offices gathering the money for the Government. I am a little worried that some of those who have already been cut, such as the agricultural advisory services and the pest officers, have been useful to production.
There are other quarters where cuts are possible. I have in mind the Crofters Commission, which I believe costs more than the croft rents bring in. I believe that this Commission is moving into new premises, but I am sure there is room for a cut there. The expenditure on the Highlands and Islands Development Board could well have given us a dual-carriageway from Perth to Inverness by now, but what arc they doing? The noble Baroness on the Front Bench knows my views on the advice on transport given by the Board to the Secretary of State. And, though my views are those of many of the Inverness and Ross county councillors, she will probably agree that the less I say on this subject the better. Even if people outside the Highlands are impressed with this body, many within the Highlands are depressed. Some months ago many of us were relieved that the Secretary of State discarded the Board's advice, and announced the proposal to bridge the Beauly and Cromarty Firths. This is a wonderful proposal and I think it was unanimously accepted. It can do an enormous amount to open up the Highlands. It is a splendid development and I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on this proposal.
My Lords, I am wondering what progress has been made with this. We have a meeting with the Highland Development Board on Friday, but I am not clear what these bridges are to do with the Highland Development Board. I thought it was a matter for the Development Department. They are the trunk roads authority, not the Highland Development Board and why the Board are mucking about with it now, I do not know. It seems to be only wasting further time. We want the bridges, and we want to get on with them. Again,

1103
we received no help from them over the proposal for a bridge to Skye. The two county councils, Ross-shire and Inverness-shire, got together and did a survey in the summer of the traffic which was likely to use this crossing. Working it out on the cost-benefit analysis used by the Development Department, we get a 16 per cent. return on capital in relation to this bridge. There are not many road projects in the country which would give a 16 per cent. return, so I hope it will not be too long before this bridge is available. The A.9 often comes up in such a discussion as this, and I am a little worried here that the old bridges are going to be repaired and that this will be abortive expenditure when much of the road will have to be realigned. The only consolation is that an aerial survey has been done on a good deal of this road.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned unemployment and the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that unemployment in the remote areas will be the last to come down. I think that this is perhaps not quite correct, because the percentage of unemployment— it may mean only one man in Skye— will be quite a high percentage. We hope the road works will start soon— the Government have been very generous in giving us money for Skye roads, but they have had to be planned and it takes time to work through— and when they do start the men employed on these roads will very considerably reduce the percentage of unemployment in Skye.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has misunderstood me. I was not talking about remote areas in Scotland. The figures I quoted were for Scotland as a whole.
LORD BURTON: But I think the noble Lord referred to a speech made previously by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
LORD HUGHES: Yes; which was picking up a speech which I had previously made myself.
LORD BURTON: Now may I turn briefly to the trouble we have with the railway. We find that this is most in
1104
efficient. I could give many examples but this is largely a matter for day-to-day management, and my noble friend Lord Sandford knows how difficult it is to get a reply out of the railways. Our system of waterways is another means of transport which is liable to be destroyed after 200 years. Boats are now going so fast through the canal that they are ripping out all the pitching; and the Caledonian Canal is now in a very bad state. Again, this may be a matter of day-to-day management and it may be difficult for the Government to do anything, but that is the position. However, I feel that the country has confidence in the Government. There is a look of surprise on the faces of noble Lords opposite, but one has only to lock at the papers daily to see how the stock market is going up. This is rising rapidly, and there is obviously confidence. An efficient concern is usually a happy one. People do not work as well, nor are they as happy and content, when there is inefficiency around. I urge the Government to be firm; to disregard any possible temporary unpopularity if the decision is the right one. Let us have a Government which will command respect for doing the right things. This, I am sure, the present Government are doing — and good luck to them!
7.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I must first add my tribute to those of others to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for a speech which was thorough, thoughtful, well-researched and crisp. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, referred to a fundamental, long-term and difficult problem known all over Britain in varying degrees but more so in the remote areas; namely, demoralisation which leads to people preferring— and we all know of cases— to live on what they call the bureau. This is a fundamental problem, and of the attitudes which have been expressed towards it I personally prefer that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe.
My noble friend Lord Polwarth is to be congratulated upon initiating this debate, and for, I think, claiming half a victory at the start: because the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, to whom we always enjoy listening, and who can at any time charm a bird off a tree, did give the impression that the Government

1105
are now at least half convinced about the "Oceanspan" idea. The nub of this debate, of course, is in the words "fundamental improvement". They take me to the words that were spoken from the Liberal Benches, where it was said that we have to think in terms of a strategy over fifteen years bestriding Party differences. There is no gambling like politics, and in my view what we are discussing to-night is way beyond the range of Party politics. The 10 per cent. sample of the latest 1971 Census shows that in Scotland as a whole the total net growth population was no more than 16,400 over 10 years and that Scotland over the past decade suffered a net emigration of 350,000— a figure unmatched by any other part of the Kingdom. It shows that while the population of the Highlands is roughly stable now, the Borders continue to decline at the rate of about a half per cent. per annum.
I believe we need a major departure from the piecemeal unemployment relief and limited incentive packages of the last 40 years. We need a major departure from short-term propping up. We need something much better than a temporary package of make-work projects, such as my noble friend the Lord Chancellor listed in the winding-up debate on the Queen's speech, gratifying as those measures are and gratifying as were the measures mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, this afternoon.
We need a visible strategy, without panic fits and starts, for 15 years, and we need a visible strategy for long-term change in the industrial structure. We need an industrial package of large-scale steel works, oil refining, chemical and other processing to process raw materials which now come from the Southern Hemisphere so that we can supply markets both in Europe and North America. Only a visible strategy advanced with faith and trust in the new 4 per cent. growth rate which the Chancellor and, to-day, my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir referred to, instead of the 3 per cent. used, it is said, by the Treasury in discussions with the British Steel Corporation— only such faith and trust could really capture men's hearts and minds. We should wear our faith in this and in Scotland's opportunity gaily like a button-
1106
hole. As Lord Bacon said many years ago,
"It is a certain sign of a wise Government and proceeding that it can hold men's hearts by hope when it cannot by satisfaction."
My Lords, the Eurospan document, which has been discussed to-day, calls first of all for infrastructure investment. That must mean the improvement of land communications, and the motorway from the Ayr-Irvine area to the M.74 at once comes to mind. The trunking of the road from the Borders to the Clyde, which has been mentioned more than once in this House by myself and others, and to which my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood referred, again comes to mind; the air routes to Europe, which my noble friend Lord Selkirk mentioned, come to mind. Then there is the Eurospan proposal for a pipeline link with the England and Wales grid. The Eurospan report also calls for the preparation of advance sites so that we can avoid some of the miserable mistakes which have been made on the Clyde in the last 15 months.
The prize for such a policy is a share in between 300,000 and 420,000 jobs that are going to be available in Western Europe over the next 15 years, or a share in the 20,000 to 30,000 hard-core industrial jobs available in Western Europe every year. The price is put at somewhere between £ 100 million and £ 150 million a year. Where is that money to come from? How much is to come from public enterprise and how much from private?
On private sector capital, Mr. Robin McLennan, president of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, has put up to the Government a very serious proposal which has been tried out in other countries whereby any firm would be allowed a rebate on, or a waiver of, about 30 per cent. of its corporation tax against long-term development area investment, part of it in equity, of the same volume. Such a proposal should appeal to the major private sector corporations in oil and chemicals and, linked to free depreciation, could be a catalyst. As for the public sector, and capital from that source, the same thing would appeal greatly to the nationalised industries and not least to the British Steel Corporation. Then there is the Scottish Council scheme for royalties on oil landings to be

1107
re-invested by the Government in Scotland. I understand that the royalties are of the order of 12½ per cent. per annum and if the volume expected from the North Sea by 1975 is anything like the 50 million tons a year that my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir mentioned this afternoon, that will give us a figure of more than £ 62 million a year. If the volume is going to rise by the end of the decade to 150 million tons a year, we get a figure for royalties of nearly £ 190 million a year. Supposing that these volumes are attained, and supposing that they are landed in the United Kingdom, let alone in Scotland, this is a very useful sum for British development area expenditure as a whole; and one use for it is investment in the sort of university extension operations about which my noble friend Lord Balerno gave us an account earlier.
Whatever be the precise purpose to which such sums could be put, there are also fiscal measures that might be called into play. There is the possibility canvassed by the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce with much local support, that special development area benefits should be made available to local firms as well as incomes. The questionnaire that they circulated has produced much more sympathetic replies than were expected in the Department of Trade and Industry. Then the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth—and I support him in this— pleaded for the restoration of investment grants, at any rate as a short-term pump primer; and he also pleaded, which again I support, for R. E. P. to he continued after 1974.
There has been much reference to steel and my noble friend the Secretary of State for Scotland seems to have hung his political reputation on the prospects of success at Hunterston. In an interview with the Scotsman, published on May 13, he said that he and his Department were "working flat out" to get B. S. C. into Hanterston. He said that he wanted
"to make sure that those who do take the decisions in government and in industry are fully aware"
of the opportunites. He was determined to ensure that the
"priceless asset which Scotland can contribute here is fully taken into account"
1108
and he said that he had
"great hopes for an integrated steel plant on the Clyde."
I want to emphasise what was said by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, that if we do not see a green field steel development within the foreseeable future— and by that I mean this decade— we shall have some very sharp questions to put.
There is much anxiety current now, and rightly, about the present review of the B. S. C. steel investment programme. A fortnight ago in the debate on the Queen's Speech I asked whether this review was being conducted on a basis of a 3 per cent. to 31 per cent. per annum growth rate or on a 4 per cent. to 4½ per cent. growth rate of which the Government are rightly proud. In the course of 14 days I have had no answer. I hope that I am going to get one— if not to-night, then soon. May I have an answer? This particular basis of the argument seems to mean the whole difference between green field and brown field developments for the next phase of the steel industry.
I have a second question. Do Her Majesty's Government accept the 0. E. E. C. projections for world steel demand as likely to rise by 25 per cent. in the next five years and 50 per cent. in the next 10 years?— for that, too, would have the effect of making the difference between green field or brown field development. I have a third question. Negotiations between the B. S. C. and the Clyde Port Authority for the ore terminal at Hunterston apparently were interrupted last February. Have they been resumed? If not, when will they be? I have a fourth question. Phase 2 of the Ravenscraig development seems to have receded. Are dates for its start and finish fixed yet?
On oil, I believe that enthusiasm for the implications of the North Sea is good; but enthusiasm alone is not enough. We must look at some recent mistakes. The Murphy Oil Company have gone for good so far as the Clyde is concerned. They have disposed of their Swedish marketing network which would have been served on the Clyde. Now they have little interest in looking at the Clyde a second time. So far as Chevron is concerned, the pro-Scottish lobby in that organisation is now discredited. We shall not see Chevron again here. It was futile to turn

1109
down Chevron on the grounds of its incompatibility over pollution with a still hypothetical steel plant; and all the more silly when killing investment grants made it impossible to push Chevron inland and therefore avoid this amenity and pollution collision. The opportunity now to maximise advantages for Scotland in the early stages of the North Sea oil communications lies in the opportunity to do this before the companies concerned, in the Forties field in Ekofisk, in the Auk and in the Orkneys fields firm up their own policies; especially when the Norwegian trench makes it difficult to pipe in that direction anyway.
At the present time something like 60 million tons per annum capacity of new refineries are being built in this country. But of that 60 million tons, all but 15 million tons, three quarters of it, are Ewing to the Thames, to Severnside and the Isle of Man. This argues for serious and energetic Scottish efforts to get a bigger and better share, particularly in view of the physical opportunities we have to offer.
The "Eurospan" Report calls for pipeline infrastructure. This could be a piece of public sector enterprise like railways, the gas grid or the water grid. We have already quite a lot in hand. There is the B. P. Grangemouth— Finart pipeline and an extra 12-inch capacity is available when needed. There is also the Faslane— Grangemouth pipeline of 8 inches now unused. These could be used for eastward or westward traffic, and they are usable for crude or refined oil; for liquid petroleum gas and for natural gas if brought from the North Sea across Scotland for liquefaction on the West and export to America. We have some 700,000 tons capacity of tank-age at Faslane currently let to Esso and Texaco. We could make arrangements through that net to send crude oil or refined spirit down to the West Coast of England, to the Midlands or Lancashire. This is a pipeline net and the opportunity which could be extended by public sector enterprise or by a mixture of public and private sector enterprise exists to link that with the English net which is gradually taking shape. As my noble friend Lord Perth said, the time for Government intervention on a non-doctrinaire basis is now. The Government have intervened, despite their
1110
official philosophy, in other directions that are well known.
There is another infrastructure point which arises out of the "Eurospan" Report. Flat land by even moderately deep water is hard to find anywhere in Europe. Much has been said about Hunterston. The Renfrewshire County Council have plans for a major reclamation at Longhaugh on the South Bank of the Clyde near the spot where Murco wanted to site their own refinery. I understand that Renfrewshire have asked the Government either to reclaim this land or to allow the local authority to do this, bearing in mind the 85 per cent. grant for derelict land clearance which may be won by moving colliery bings and tipping them into the sea. "Eurospan like the Oceanspan Report before it, calls for advanced industrial site provision. If the Government would authorise this particular site it would be another indication of their faith in the Clyde as a whole. By the same token, not a minute should he lost in setting on foot studies of the relevant deep-waterside reclamation possibilities, both for the Forth and the Clyde.
Finally, my Lords, I would say a word about the Borders which are losing population of the rate of one half of one per cent. per annum. When the Highlands population has been more or less stabilised, will the Government now seriously consider providing for the Borders a development board like the Highlands Development Board, of which this Government and their predecessors are so rightly proud?
My noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie has said that the Government are discussing the "Eurospan" Report and its implementation with the Scottish Council and other interests. Noble Lords in all parts of the House have clamoured for an operative, enterprising organisation to tackle these opportunities. I should like to see— and I made the proposal before, when people had not yet read the Oceanspan Report or woken up to its significance— an Oceanspan Development Corporation, with powers something like those of a new town development corporation, to tackle the job. The strategy must have the confidence of both sides of the House over the next fifteen years. I welcome the Government's seemingly partial conversion to

1111
the "Oceanspan" concept. I hope that we do not waste and miss any more opportunities like those on the Clyde in the last eighteen months. It is said, my Lords, that three failures and a fire make a Scotsman's fortune. In this matter what could be achieved is determined, as Sir William Lithgow wrote in the introduction to the "Eurospan" Report, entirely by our horizons.
8.13 p.m.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on an excellent maiden speech. I am sorry that he is not now in his place because I wished also to congratulate him on his hours of attendance during this debate. It has been said that we should not congratulate the mover of a Motion, but I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Polwarth for moving this Motion and thus giving us an opportunity to talk about Scotland. We do not often get such an opportunity. I know that the English Members get rather bored, but this is still partly our Parliament and we have to talk about our country from time to time.
My Lords, the Scottish economy is a very large and somewhat unbalanced subject. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I confine what I have to say to the district in which I live, the province of Galloway. The reason why I do this is that I am the only regular attender in your Lordships' House who lives in Galloway and, in comparison to some areas of Scotland, I feel that we in Galloway are under-represented here. I do not suppose that there is any part of Scotland which could be characterised as typical, and this is certainly so in relation to Galloway. The province is, politically and historically, part of Scotland, but economically it differs very little from other rural districts of Great Britain. Its communications with the M.6, now almost completed, are much better to the South than towards the rest of Scotland. There is an excellent train service from Dumfries, the train leaving Dumfries at nine in the morning and arriving at Euston at two o'clock in the afternoon. In contrast, the roads going North to Glasgow and Edinburgh are poor, and public transport is bad or non-existent.
1112
We are not a district which in my opinion— and I have thought a lot about it— would benefit from Scottish independence. I think that we should be even more ignored by Edinburgh and Glasgow than we have been in the past by West-minister. In fact, I do not think that the "Nats" have much of an economic case in Galloway. The principal difficulty in Galloway is the problem of retaining a sufficient population for the area to remain viable. I know, from experience of having lived for a short time in the Western Isles, that if the population of an area falls below a certain level, services such as doctors, dentists, vets and food shops and all the rest begin to pack up. I think that there is a real danger— not at present but in the foreseeable future— that this could start to happen in Galloway, for the erosion of the population is now accelerating. There is a very high unemployment rate, particularly in Wigtownshire. I tried to get the figures to-day. I think that the unemployment rate for Galloway and Wigtownshire is higher than the rate for Scotland as a whole, which is quite a serious situation. The steady fall in the number of jobs on farms, where most of the population used to be employed, is to a large extent responsible.
My Lords, I think that something ought to be done, and could be done, to slow down or halt this fall in the population. It is not as though Galloway people are frantically strike happy or inclined to take things easy on the job. The sort of people bred in Galloway are not those who were taught that the world owes them a living. They have been taught that they should do an honest day's work or they will not get food or money. Given a job, they are prepared to work. With the very much improved road communication system that we now have perhaps some industries might look to Galloway, and it is possible that they may like what they see. The people there not only want to work but they are also willing to get on with the job. They are not "clock watchers". We have at present a rather difficult problem, which I have raised before in your Lordships' House, in the shape of a projected artillery range at West Freugh in Wigtownshire. I have been told, apropos of that, that if the range does come to West Freugh the Euston-Stranraer boat-train will continue

1113
to run. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, could let us know whether that is a definite pledge or not. If it is, it would make quite a difference to the way that people look at the proposal.
There is also the matter of employment connected with the range. The question is, will local people be employed there or will large numbers of people be brought there from the South of England? It would be useful to know in fairly precise terms what effect this range will have on the serious local unemployment situation. There is a large body of people— I think I may say without going too far that they are mostly middle-class — who are opposed to the range, for various reasons. I do not propose to go into their arguments now but I think it would be helpful if the Government were to permit a public inquiry. On balance, I think that the Government would get the range because such an inquiry would find in favour of it. But if we did have a public inquiry, and if it did not cost too much or take too long, it would clear the air; and when the range came it would be given a better welcome from the local people than it will have if it is imposed on them without any inquiry at all.
My Lords, while there are people and concerns doing their best to remedy the unemployment situation in Galloway, it is unfortunate that that is not so in every case. We read in the local paper this week-end of a projected amalgamation of five creameries which will result in four of them being closed, and inevitably this will create a serious problem in some villages in the province where the creameries have been important local employers. In such a widely scattered province there are areas, like my village, where people will hardly be able to commute to the new big creamery which is being created out of the five. I do not altogether know the full facts because I only read about it on Saturday, but this sort of thing can come as a heavy blow to an area which is already (I can only put it in this way) in a state of jitters. It is a rural district, struggling to keep some sort of population and social life, and this sort of news is very worrying, even if at the end it all works out.
I am not too well up on this question but I understand that the whole of Scot
1114
land, except Edinburgh, is a development area. I think it would be a good idea if Her Majesty's Government seriously considered making Galloway a special inducement area. This at least would give people the feeling that Westminster was concerned about the situation and was prepared to do something about it.
Agriculture is still very much our basic industry, and in general it is very efficient. Our farms are well run and are as productive as the quality of the land allows them to be. I am concerned here — and I declare an interest, being a small farmer myself— with the decline in the agricultural population. It is quite clear that much of this is inevitable and that we cannot expect to employ the number of farm workers and farmers who have been employed in farming in the past. But I am not one of those who think that the bigger is always the better. I think there is a size of farm above which we should not go, and now we know that there is a size below which we should not go. Ten years ago we would have put the size at a hundred acres; now it is probably 250 acres or something like that, though I am prepared to accept a figure of about that size. But somewhere we must reach a point where it is going to stop. The relatively small independent man will, in my opinion, give the nation better value than the huge capital intensive unit. Noble Lords who have eaten eggs in London or bread from the multiple baker will know the sort of horrible food that will be available to us if we allow farms to get too big. I think that the land on the smaller farm will be better cared for, because the owner is directly involved in the work itself and is not sitting in an office all the time, emerging only to show Sunday visitors his prize bulls and heifers. Most small men of this kind are dedicated farmers, and I am convinced that the health of our land depends on the maintenance of conditions in which these men can continue to farm. If the economic conditions force them out, we shall lose not only agriculturally but also socially. We should not underestimate the value of the remaining farmers and farm workers to our society. They are an industrious, cheerful and civilised people, and the country cannot afford to lose too many people of this kind.

1115
I do not want to see a situation develop where commercial necessity and modern morality unite in forcing Naboth from his vineyard. Pressure is building up to force these people out in order to let the "big boys" get on. I think it is a proper exercise of Government in the 20th century to seek to modify this pressure. I do not at all deny that successive Governments have attempted to do this, but I do not think that they ought to give up the effort.
Nothing has hurt the smaller farmer more in recent years, I believe, than the long drawn out and vicious credit squeeze, combined with high interest rates. Farming depends more than any other industry on bank credit and it will wither and die more surely in the sort of economic blizzard we have had than under the severest assault of a March wind. In Galloway, alongside agriculture, we now have quite a large forestry industry. I think it is a pity that we do not have our own pulp mill, but this went to Whitehaven some time ago and we cannot do very much about it now, though I wish we could. Now that our forests are there one must hope that they will prove useful and prosperous. But I must say that I think the planting of the hills has gone far enough. If we continue to convert all our wild areas into parade grounds for regimented trees, we shall destroy our heritage. I am convinced that the area of afforestation should not continue to get bigger. Anyone who has seen the destruction of the landscape at present taking place in Galloway by the intensive afforestation of the wild and lonely areas ought, I think, to agree: thus far and no farther. It is enough to make one weep— and I mean that literally.
We also have a growing tourist industry in Galloway, and my prediction is that this will continue to grow. Referring back briefly to the problem of trees, it makes commercial as well as esthetic sense to leave something worth while for the tourists to see. Our landscape, I should say, is the main attraction of Galloway. It is a province of splendid views. At almost every corner one sees something new and breathtaking. Every effort should be made to preserve this. Tourism is one of the few really bright spots on our horizon, and one hopes that
1116
it will bring some money into the area without destroying its essential character. On the whole, at present the area is being developed sensibly and people are well aware of the dangers of our becoming an uncontrolled tourist paradise, such as Devon and Cornwall.
We have, as I have said, first-class communications with England but, as things are going, our main roads are not good enough to carry the heavy traffic we are now experiencing. This is particularly the case with respect to the enormous juggernauts going to and from Ireland. There is a danger here to the structure of our small towns, and I know that Her Majesty's Government are very aware of this. All I would ask in this matter is that the work of by-passing these towns should be accelerated rather than slowed down. There is a certain small town in my area, Gatehouse-of-Fleet, which Her Majesty's Government have considered with great sympathy for a by-pass, but they have said that it will have to wait for a while. If this process is slowed down at all, I can see that Gatehouse-of-Fleet, an attractive little town, will finish up by being shaken to the ground before a by-pass arrives.
Summing up, my Lords, I should like to emphasise that our problems of unemployment and population loss arc very serious ones. There is the real danger, if this continues for long enough, that our area could become depressed almost beyond redemption. I am being a little apocalyptic here; but if your Lordships were to go to the area you would not think so, and would realise that a steady erosion and attrition would eventually have this result. The situation in Galloway, if it differs in some respects from that in the rest of Scotland, is none the less very serious, and certainly is very worrying. I think it is right and proper that Her Majesty's Government should be deeply concerned about Galloway and other outlying areas of these Islands. If something is not done to halt the steady decline in population and employment in the next 25 years, there is a real danger that London and the large cities will be presiding over an Island that is half slum and half desert. I do not think it is too much to hope that enough people will be able to live and work in Galloway in the foreseeable future to enable the area to be viable and to retain the normal

1117
services that civilised life in this century needs.
My Lords, I do not apologise to your Lordships for being so parochial, because I felt that it was time Galloway had some recognition and that something was said about it in your Lordships' House. I hope that in the short time I have spoken I have been able to do something useful for the lovely province in which I live and which I hope many of your Lordships will shortly visit and learn to love as I love it.
8.29 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I first say a word of congratulation to the noble Lord who has just sat down? I enjoyed his speech tremendously. I should also like to offer my warmest congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his maiden speech. I thought that it was first-class in every way, and the fact that he dealt with agriculture found a response so far as I am concerned. I hope that on future occasions, though I know his time is limited, he will be able to come and make further contributions, perhaps on other subjects. May I also say "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for the Motion which has allowed us to have this discussion this afternoon. Indeed, one thing it proves, if I may say so to your Lordships, is that the Scots are willing to talk, as the clock shows. But the attendance in your Lordships' House to-night also proves that the Scots are willing to listen. I think that one of the remarkable things of this debate is the attendance now in your Lordships' House.
When the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, opened the debate, I thought he was a little hard on unemployed people. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Hughes had to say. I was a little surprised that the point that he expressed about anger was picked up even by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, because if one has had experience of unemployment and lived through it, one knows what it is all about. I, like my noble friend Lord Hughes, lived through it in a family that suffered very badly from unemployment. Indeed, if the noble Lord does not remember, let me remind him that families in this country were split up because of the appalling means test that was imposed on top of the unem-
1118
ployment from which they were already suffering.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, may I say that if I gave the impression that I had any lack of feeling for the unemployed, it was entirely unintentional. Indeed, if I had had the time I should have gone further into that aspect; but I should have wearied your Lordships unduly.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, may I also interrupt the noble Lord, since he bracketed me with similar indifference. I must correct that impression. I said I could well understand the anger of the unemployed, but that was not necessarily the mood in which to analyse the unemployment problem.
LORD HOY: I do not say that you always analyse in anger: you cannot. But the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, then went on to refer to the "shedding of fat" by the employers, when what he really meant was that they were disposing of workers. That is another term that I find repugnant. I should have thought that if you were going in for good labour relations, those were not the sort of terms that should be employed about people out of work in this country. They are human beings. I can remember the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, having very different views from me even during the I. L. P. days; but we found tolerance about it, even right up to the war: because I decided, long before my colleagues, that we had to go into the Army to face up to Nazism and all that it meant. My noble friend said: "I believe in peace", and he fought as a Peace candidate. Of course he was entitled to do that. But what I am entitled to say is that those of us who have been angered by these things are entitled not to forget them, because the responsibility on every Member of your Lordships' House, as well as on Members of the House next door, is to see that these conditions never come back to our country again.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord once more, but we were discussing unemployment as best we could. It was contrary to my religious beliefs as a

1119
Quaker to fight in the last war. I participated in peace relief work. I do not think it helps the debate to introduce that aspect at this stage. I should like to say that "shedding the fat" is a common expression, used in economic terminology in discussing the trouble of unemployment, and it does not imply any indifference to the sufferings of unemployed people.
LORD HOY: I do not care whether or not it is one of the chosen terms; it is still repugnant to me, and I am entitled to say that I consider it to be repugnant, because we are dealing with human beings. I am not introducing the other point for Party purposes. All I am saying is that we had these widely divergent views. We had this anger over unemployment. All I say to the noble Lord is that, along with my noble friend Lord Hughes, we do not forget it, even if we are living in circumstances in which most of us are a little better off than we were then.
I also thought there was some slight exaggeration about all the things that are available to us. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, quite rightly, because she speaks for the Government, sought to build up what the Government have done. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, also did it: he was not slow in recounting certain things that the Government have done. We have to get these things into their proper perspective. When the noble Baroness says: "We got rid of £ 1,400 million of taxation", what she did not add was that at the time when the Government were doing that they were putting an additional burden of £ 400 million on the ordinary people of this country. Just as they were giving cuts in taxation, so at the same time they were imposing increased charges on nearly every form of social service, whether it was for the supply of spectacles, of teeth or even of milk for school-children. So what the Government did at that time was to claw back £ 400 million in additional charges imposed on the people. That makes a considerable dent in the figure that the noble Baroness used. Indeed, if my figures arc correct, for this year it is not £1,400 million or £1,000 million but, inside the fiscal year, about £600 million. I do not say that that
1120
is a small figure. Indeed, when I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, even when my own Party were in power, I was continually reminding the House next door that when we were talking about public money we were talking about taxpayers' money: that Governments did not have money of their own; it was money collected from the taxpayer. We have to think of it in that way.
I think that the enormity of the problem is here. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, will have seen on the tape since he delivered his speech that the £185 million announced yesterday by the Government means, according to Mr. Victor Feather, the General Secretary of the T. U. C., that it will perhaps result by the end of 1972 in providing one job for every 1,000 unemployed. I do not say that disparagingly, but it is a measure of the problem that confronts us at the present time. I would say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir: that when we get on to comparisons of figures and the cost of living, it is the same argument over again. The noble Baroness says: "We have given you this". But what she does not remind us of is that very soon, although S. E. T. will have gone, V. A. T. will have come in, and this is another burden that is carried by the whole community—a very substantial burden, I should have thought, at the end of the day. The noble Baroness says that the cost of living was rising in the Labour Government's day. That is true, and one would not seek to deny it. But what is equally true is that in the course of the stewardship of the present Government the cost of food has gone up by 11·3 per cent. So when the noble Baroness says that we now see it levelling off, what we are seeing is it levelling off at this very high rate. That is the problem that confronts us.
I would say that I have enjoyed this debate, but for me, as for many of your Lordships, it started much earlier in the day: because, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, recalled, we attended a service in the Crypt Chapel of St. Stephen which was conducted by the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. I sang the hymn along with the noble Lord—and I thought we made not a bad job of it. But where he noted a couple of lines of the hymn,

1121
I noticed one sentence used by the Moderator in his opening prayer which I think has a lesson for many noble Lords in the House. The sentence was:
"Forgive us for being so easily pleased with our efforts."
We might take that text for to-day, and tonight so far as we are concerned—
"Forgive us for being so easily pleased with our efforts."
How apposite the words were, I thought, because at that time outside the Crypt there was hundreds of men from Scotland asking for the right to work; and surely if this debate is about anything at all it is about that.
As the debate draws to a close let us please remember once more what we are talking about. Unemployment in Scotland tonight totals 141,500 people. That figure compares with something less than 100,000 12 months ago— and for comparison I take the figures of November this year and November last year. In percentages, the total number has risen from 4· 6 to 6· 6 per cent. but those figures embrace that for male unemployment, which is appalling— it is the highest in Great Britain: a male unemployment figure of 8· 6 per cent. If one looks at the young people, one again gets a figure which is rather frightening. I will not go over all the figures. Suffice it to say that while the unemployment figures have been going up and up the number of unfilled vacancies in Scotland has been going down and down, and so you are getting to a real hard core. With the unemployment figure for November 1970 of 99,327, we had 12,305 unfilled vacancies in Scotland. Tonight, with 141,500 unemployed we have unfilled vacancies of only some 7,200.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but although that may be the figure of unfilled vacancies on the books of the Labour Exchange a great many employers do not think it is worth going to the Labour Exchange and therefore many other vacancies are not recorded.
LORD HOY: My Lords, it may well be that they are not recorded, but who is to blame? All that the unemployed can do is to go and look at the records and find what jobs are available. I should think that the position may get a lot
1122
worse because, if the noble Lord will take this from me, there is a considerable section of female labour which, when it ceases to work, does not register at the Labour Exchange. So I think there is a distinct possibility that these figures do not represent the actual numbers of people unemployed in this country.
Now within the figures there is an even greater problem, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Burton, might think of this when he is talking about the difficulty of finding employees. There is the problem of the long-term unemployed. There can be nothing more demoralising than being unemployed for a long time. As to the long-term unemployment figures for men aged between 20 and 39— and I think that every one of your Lordships will surely agree that this is a period when a man's production should be at its highest— in Scotland the number of people unemployed in this category is three times as high as in the rest of the country. What is even more appalling is that for every nine men in Scotland in this category there is only one in the South-Eastern area. So that we are carrying an enormous burden, and if at times we express some anger I hope it will be understood.
The responsibility for unemployment and for finding a solution is quite clearly that of the Government. Should anyone in your Lordships' House think that I am making a Party political point, let me quote what the Secretary of State for Employment said in another place last night. He was asked by Mr. Roy Jenkins to answer two questions, and in answer to the second he said:
"To answer at once the second of the two specific questions put by the right hon. Gentleman, we accept absolutely the essential responsibility for the level of unemployment. We accept that. We have always made it clear that we do accept it. We said in the Queen's Speech that to increase employment is our first care. I therefore answer that question quite categorically." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons,23/11/71; col.1257– 8.]
So it is not in Party political dispute as to where the responsibility lies.
If the Government accept that, we then have to ask ourselves," What then can be done? "I welcome any measure at all that the Government take, even in the short term, even the bringing forward of orders— anything which helps to alleviate the position at the present

1123
time one is grateful for. But we must always regard them not as substantial measures, much less as a cure for the problem that confronts us. To accept them as anything greater than that would indeed be folly, and it is a little ironic that the Government's only weapon for dealing with this problem is the bringing forward of these naval orders, social security expenditure, and nationalised industry investment. The Government are having to admit at this moment that the only way to deal with the situation is by way of public expenditure (which of course they said they would cut substantially) but they find that this is the only weapon which will meet the problem. When one thinks of their attacks on nationalised industry it does seem a little ironic— indeed, it is even more ironic to think that in another place to-night they are discussing the selling off of a profitable section of public enterprise so that the profits will pass from the public purse into the private purse— that the Government should be engaged in an exercise of that kind.
What has been said about the regional employment premium? I think most people have come to the view that it must be continued in Scotland. Whatever the reasons for the changes being made by the Government I do not doubt that the case for retention now is unanswerable. Indeed, I was surprised to hear it said that people had been surprised that R. E. P. represented profits in some industries. My goodness! had it not been for agricultural subsidies there would be no profits in many farms in Scotland. There would have been no net income without them, and there is not a noble Lord who would deny it.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I am not going to take up time, but I should like to point out that the subsidy is one side of the coin and the controlled price of the product is the other side.
LORD HOY: Yes, my Lords, I do not differ from the noble Viscount. Indeed we enjoyed a fairly good supply of food at fairly reasonable prices. It was because of that control, and that is how the supply took place. All I am saying is that to suggest that merely because the profit might be contained in the subsidy was never a good argument for
1124
abolishing the farms. There are social responsibilities as well. Indeed, when one thinks about dependence— I think of the figure quoted by the noble Earl in his maiden speech, that we still have to import 50 per cent. of our food needs — it may well be profitable, even though it does not come out in the balance sheet, to have these farms in existence, producing what they can. That is why I suggest that R. E. P. is one of the things that should be retained. I am grateful for what has been done, but we need something more. We have to tackle R. E. P.
Now the case for investment grants, as opposed to tax allowances, is crystal clear. We opposed the changes when they were made; I do not think anyone will deny that. I do not want to say," I told you so", but one is comforted to-night that so many noble Lords have, apparently, changed their minds. There is no influential source of Scottish public opinion that has changed its mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth said, we do not want tax allowances; we want investment grants. I believe that that is now the view of the Scottish Council. If you are going to attract industry, then obviously the cash allowance is the attraction. Industry simply cannot invest and then wait to earn profits to make it worth while. While these folk have changed their minds I can only hope— and I think the noble Baroness has said that a Minister is going to visit Glasgow— that just as others have had the courage to change their minds, the Chancellor will have the courage to change his. However, while these efforts may make a substantial contribution to the solution of the problem by themselves, they are still not enough. The benefits might be lessened if we did not take certain other action at the same time. Without discussing them, because they have been discussed for a very long time, we in Scotland must have from the Government without any further delay a decision regarding Hunterston, the oil terminal and British Steel. Do not let us pretend that without steel Scotland's future might not well be a bleak one. With it, and the other projects I have mentioned. together with changes in R. E. P. and investment grants, we should be doing something substantial for Scotland. My Lords, we cannot afford to do less.
8.53 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are coming to the end of what has been a wide-ranging debate. We have touched on almost every part of the country. I should like to start, as so many other speakers have started, by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who comes from one of the farthest points of this country, and sits in one of the farthest points of this House, for having made such good contact with the House from his distance to-day. The whole House greatly enjoyed his speech; he has received tributes that must send him home with a glow in his heart, if not his face. They were well merited, and I hope that we shall hear him often in this House. He has attended regularly; he has seen how this House works before he made his maiden speech, and he has good reason to be satisfied with the results.
In this very wide-ranging debate, it would be difficult for me, even if I wished, to answer all the questions that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, knows this problem very well: sometimes when his plane flight was a little distance off he had the goodness to reply in great detail to a great many questions. I do not think that that would be the will of the House to-night, but I will try to touch on the main points, and will write to those noble Lords whose points I do not deal with.
There are two sides to this Motion. There is the present state of the economy and the fundamental steps that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, suggested in a remarkable speech should be taken in order to put Scotland on the right way. I will deal first with the short term position because this occupied quite a large part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. May I say right away, in order to get this matter out of the way altogether, that everyone deplores the present degree of unemployment. Those who have experienced it obviously feel a great anguish in their hearts that it may go on increasing. The purpose of this debate is for us to try together to devise methods to ensure, as the Government have been doing, that unemployment will not go much higher. One knows how difficult it is during the winter period, when unemployment tends to rise. Our objective should be to make certain that as from early next year we
1126
shall see a steady fall in unemployment, even if it is not a spectacular fall right away. This has to be our objective, and we want to get on the right road.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in an excellent speech, put his finger on the reasons for the present situation. However they are expressed—and I understand Lord Hoy's reaction to the way in which they were expressed—it is a fact that in the keenly competitive situation that we are entering into at the present time companies are not likely to survive unless they streamline themselves, unless they maintain the maximum productivity. There is no doubt that that is what has been going on. Once they are in that position they should be better placed to compete, as should the country as a whole, and that should be to the benefit of the country. On that basis we ought to be able to see—and I do not take on the role of prophet—more investment and a steady rise in prosperity if we can keep our balance of payments right. This is the background to the whole situation.
May I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, whose speech I greatly enjoyed, that he is quite right in saying (I am paraphrasing his words) that although Scotland must not be treated as something entirely sperate, yet at the same time we have to consider it separately. We are not alone in suffering from a series of closures and redundancies in the primary industries. In the past decade there was a contraction of 600,000 jobs, or 40 per cent. in the primary side of production in the country as a whole. The brunt fell most heavily on the development areas, Northern England, Scotland and Wales, in which there is 42 per cent. of all employment in the country, but which lost 63 per cent. of its jobs in the primary sector. This illustrates the position that not only Scotland is in, but our neighbours over the Border, and those in Wales as well. There was a slowing down of foreign investment in this country. Whereas up to 1965 foreign companies accounted for about 18 per cent, of total movement to development areas, between 1965 and 1970 the proportion fell to 8 per cent. There has been a slowing up of foreign investment. We hope that when we go into the European Economic Community this will revive again.

1127
Then there is the point to which my noble friend the Minister of State referred. As technological advance results in fewer labour requirements in production, there is a general trend towards a higher proportion of employment in the services; yet the development areas have secured only a quarter of the growth in the service section, apart from distribution, and accounted for much more than their proportionate share in the overall loss of jobs in distribution. These figures provide an interesting background to what we are discussing to-day. It is easy to point to changes in the incidence of taxation and the like. Perhaps it would be well to remember that there has been a sharp increase in unemployment benefit as well as in old-age pensions, widows' pensions and the like; that there have been allowances for low-wageearning families; that the over-80s have received special assistance; that rent rebates are being increased, and so on. I say that only because I thought perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, gave a little too much the impression that we were handing out to one section of the community and taking away from another. What we have been trying to do is to help those who receive least in the way of income, and at the same time to give encouragement to those who are making, a considerable contribution — more than an average contribution; let me put it that way— to the economy of this country.
Of course it is true that the Government have a duty to do all they can to relieve unemployment in the short term and to provide the conditions for employment opportunities in the long term. They have to ensure so far as possible that the short-term measures they take to relieve unemployment do not conflict with their long-term objectives—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, made. And they have to be particularly careful, at a time when we have the unusual combination of a high rate of unemployment and a high rate of inflation—unprecedented, I think, in modern times—to avoid measures which will enhance the rate of inflation and so militate against the provisions of greater employment opportunities in the long term.
LORD BROWN: My Lords—
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I conclude, my Lords? It is especially important that they should take steps to ensure that where direct Government assistance is given it is not frittered away in yielding to inordinate wage claims.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord is very courteous and I am interested in what he is saying. There is a point to which I would draw attention. He has rightly said that the Government must not initiate measures now which will destroy their later plans and produce inflation which will lead us back into trouble later. This is true of the country as a whole. But may I draw the noble Lord's attention to the important fact that it may well not be true of Scotland that the Government might well be justified in taking measures in Scotland now, over and above the general level taken in the country, because there is no danger that whatever measures are likely to be taken by any Government in Scotland to-day will produce inflation in Scotland in three or four years' time.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, but within an economy it is very difficult to isolate a particular area and expect that what is done there should not have some general "spin-off" (if that is the right term) in the rest of the country. However, it is germane to point out that, of the £ 160 million of public expenditure that was announced, originally £43 million—quite a high proportion—came to Scotland, and later that amount was increased to £60 million. So there is there a valuable short-term initiative relating to projects which can be completed or nearly completed by March,1973. In addition to that— something I think worth mentioning, which has not been referred to— there is the very high level of assistance to the rehabilitation of Queen's Dock, in Glasgow, getting 85 per cent.; and to the modernisation of Glasgow's Underground railway,75 per cent., as well as the £5 million grant spread over five years for environmental work in Glasgow, and a similar amount for West Central Scotland. This is a point that my noble friend Lord Polwarth referred to, and I think this is one answer to his plea for a clearance of derelict land. I can also tell him that at September 30 last work was in progress on 32 schemes, covering

1129
1,000 acres, at a cost of £1·6 million; that 30 schemes covering 900 acres had been formally approved, at a cost of another £1 million;that 94 schemes covering 4,100 acres were either provisionally approved or under consideration, and those total over £ 5 million. I think this is reassuring in the clearance of derelict land.
On the infrastructure grants, it has been said (I am not sure which noble Lord made this point, but I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hughes) that this is local authorities' money and not Government money that is involved. That is, at best, only partially true. The expenditure on trunk roads and hospitals is met entirely by the Government—something like £7 million to £8 million—and £15 million to £16 million of the total will attract specific grant, mainly on roads. For the balance the local authorities will of course borrow, but the annual payments will be reckonable expenditure for the purpose of rate-support grant; and of course there is the reduction in interest rates, which means that the prospect of borrowing is not so formidable as it has been in recent years.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, questioned almost the desirability (I would not say the propriety) of bringing forward public expenditure, but it is wise to remember that public expenditure makes available more spending power and it does not only give jobs, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, suggested, in, say, the construction industry. There is again a carry-over into other industries and so it helps to get the economy moving as a whole.
LORD HOY: My Lords, the noble Lord had better get this correctly. I did not say anything of the kind. I welcomed the steps that were being taken. I said the only thing that was a little ironic was that a Government who were so bitterly opposed to these public undertakings should in fact use this as the only weapon they had to meet the present circumstances.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is the classical weapon to use. I am sorry if I misrepresented the noble Lord. I remember that he used the word "welcomed", but he then proceeded to question perhaps the propriety of our doing it.
1130
It has been represented that regional employment premium should be retained and that this would be a good step to announce now. After all, its end is a long way off, and I think I can only say that it does not follow that when the regional employment premium comes to an end there will be nothing put in its place. We shall have to see when the time comes what is the appropriate thing to do.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I just interrupt briefly? I know it is disconcerting to have so many interruptions in a winding-up speech, but I think the noble Lord would accept that it is not reasonable that industry should have to wait until R. E. P. comes to an end before it knows what is going in its place or whether it is going to be extended. It really ought to know some time beforehand what the future is going to be.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not suggest that the decision will not be taken until the last moment. I was merely saying that it is, after all, three years ahead. A lot of things can happen in three years: we might have a complete change in the economic climate in that time.
I now turn to the question of investment grants, which many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Polwarth, pressed should be retained. Of course there is room for a difference of opinion on this matter. One can take certain special sections of business and say that for them it would be desirable to have investment grants, but the steady stream of criticism about changes from investment grants to free depreciation usually ignores the object of the changes, which was to relate the special incentives more directly to the provision of new jobs and to put greater emphasis on help for investment that will provide a sound base for stable employment. Moreover the plant and machinery incentives are only a part of the very substantial assistance that the Government have made available to the assisted areas—assistance which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I thought, with some astonishment. But, as he said, they are extremely valuable, especially so far as the special development areas are concerned, but in the development areas as well.

1131
Reference has been made to the treatment of Scotland as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, made this point, and of course there was an area—Edinburgh—which was treated in a different way altogether from the rest of the country. We have at least modified that position by treating Edinburgh and Portobello as an intermediate area, which should help with building grants for industry in that area. I should like to say this in general about the incentives. Quite rightly and quite naturally noble Lords have pressed for the benefits available to industries coming to the special development areas to be extended to industries and services already there. Some have pressed, as did my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton, for special development areas to be extended to particular places. The Government have not closed their mind to these suggestions, but I think it right that the House should be under no misapprehension about the Government's thinking in this regard. After all, special development area status was designed to meet the problems of areas with really large-scale and persistent unemployment coupled with severe environmental handicaps. Second, while the inducements to go to special development areas or development areas must be kept under review to ensure that they are appropriate to needs, it is undesirable, as my noble friend Lord Polwarth said, to make frequent changes in the inducements available, or the list of those to whom they are available, except where there are special and unexpected emergencies.
Third, the benefits of special development area status were primarily intended to compensate for special handicaps which affect new industry coming into an area—new in the sense that there is no such industry there already. My noble friend advocated a thorough overhaul of our regional policies and indicated the sort of changes he would like to see. I can assure him and your Lordships that the Department of Trade and Industry is continually looking at our regional policies, and I can also assure him that it will pay the closest attention to what he has said, and to what has been said in other parts of the House. I should add this: that during his visit to Glasgow on
1132
September 10 the Prime Minister indicated at his meeting with the Lord Provost that the case for extending operational grants to expansions and new projects by existing industry in West Central Scotland could best be supported by evidence that firms in the special development areas were being influenced against such projects because operational grants were not available to them. At the instance of Glasgow Corporation, the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce wrote to all their members and asked whether they would consider expansion if they were eligible for operational grants. The 130 firms which replied to the effect that they would, said they could undertake expansions that would lead to the creation of over 5,000 jobs. The results of the Glasgow Chamber's survey were submitted to my honourable friend the Minister for Industry earlier this month and are now being analysed.
A good deal of reference has been made to the need for training, and again the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, placed great stress on this. Training courses of six months or more are being stepped up at the 10 Government training centres in Scotland to a level which will cater for some 2,700 trainees a year. It is of course more difficult to place trainees in jobs at a time when skilled men are being made redundant, and further consideration has been given to that aspect. Full-time refresher course of six to eight weeks are also provided to bring unemployed skilled workers up to date and to upgrade, convert or broaden their skills. This applies particularly to craftsmen in the engineering and constructional industries, and I may say that the rate of application for refresher courses has doubled since the increase in allowances was announced. Some of this training is sponsored by employers; they pay the wages and National Health contributions of the trainees, and I think this goes particularly for the over-forties. Some employers do the training themselves, receiving weekly grants of £10 for men and £7 for women. The Engineering Industry Training Board is operating a scheme for the training of additional engineering apprentices, the Department of Employment sharing the cost with the Board, including payments to the trainees. The Scottish Education Department are encouraging technical colleges to use any

1133
spare capacity for training, especially in commercial subjects.
I would say, my Lords, because I know this from contact with my right honourable friend Mr. Robert Carr, that this is something in which he is interesting himself particularly strongly at the present time; and certainly the Government are doing their very best to see that everybody does get training. I think there are difficulties about making it compulsory. I think the word "constrained" was rather delicately used; it was said that young people should be constrained to have some training when they are out of employment. I certainly think that they should be given the maximum encouragement, both by way of grants and in other ways, but I think it would be a mistake, certainly at the present time, to make training mandatory. Finally, introductory training courses of about 12 weeks have been organised for young people under 18 in engineering under the Government vocational training scheme. Other courses in hotel and catering work, for example, are being considered, and the Scottish headquarters of the Department of Employment are in touch with the Glasgow Education Authority about the nature and extent of additional training courses which might be provided in the city with Department of Employment finance.
My noble friend Lord Balerno referred to the closures in the paper industry. I sympathise with him very much in the disappearance of the paper industry from the area from which he takes his name, and in which he lives, but I think it will be some consolation to him to know that talks have taken place on the initiative of my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade. At the EFTA ministerial meeting in May last, representatives of the industry, on both sides, had discussions, and the outcome is, I am told, regarded by the United Kingdom industry as representing some improvement in the situation so far as prices in the New Year are concerned.
I should like to refer for a moment to my noble friend's point about Government research and development. The Paper to which I think my noble friend referred is in fact a Green Paper, and it was published at 2.30 p.m. to-day. No
1134
doubt it is the one I see in my noble friend's hand: I notice that it is white— he may have taken off the cover. It represents Her Majesty's Government's comments on reports made by Lord Rothschild and Professor Dainton in the field of Government research and development. Publication is intended to set off the widest possible public debate, and the Secretary of State for Education and Science is inviting comments from all interested organisations. I was extremely interested in what my noble friend had to say about Lord Kelvin and the inspiration which he gave to Scotland a hundred years ago, and his faith that the same thing could be done to-day. I think that my noble friend was not quite right in saying that the Department of Trade and Industry had withdrawn support from Strathclyde and Heriot Watt Universities. It was not a question of withdrawing support. Strathclyde was one of seven universities for which £ 1 million, in all, was provided in 1968, to cover a period of four and a half years, as pump-priming support on a deficit-funding basis. Strathclyde centre was allocated £ 251,500, and has used up the whole of it. The original conception was that by the end of the period, which has not yet ended, these centres should be able to balance expenditure with earned income. I cannot give him an answer to-day, but plainly what now needs to be considered is to what extent universities, or indeed other agencies, should support an industrial liaison undertaking in a university which has not yet demonstrated that over a period of time it can become financially self-supporting. I am afraid I cannot go further than that in dealing with "Unilink" (as I think it is called) in his own University of Heriot Watt.
May I now turn to the longer term? The objective here must be to develop the resources of Scotland to the fullest possible extent and so ensure the maximum of employment and the best possible conditions for all who live in Scotland and are capable of working. The two subjects which obviously have received particular attention to-day are oil and the potential deep-water harbours and developments that could be associated with them. As to the North Sea oil and gas finds, undoubtedly they hold good possibilities for employment in

1135
Scotland. I do not think I need add to what my noble friend the Minister of State said on that aspect, except to say that all the suggestions that have been made in connection with oil will be fully considered. I think it is worth adding that I understand that an oilrig assembly yard at Nigg Bay is under contemplation, and oilrig platform construction yards at Alness and Dalcross. There are other plants that are being considered for the coating of pipelines and the like.
Then there is the Feasibility Study of the Scottish Council Commission for the development of a deep-sea port on the Clyde and the industry associated with it. I should like to say just a word or two about that. It is now almost a year since the Secretary of State cleared the way for industrial development at Hunterston by announcing his intention, following the public inquiry, to approve the zoning of land for an ore terminal with associated stocking yards, a general user port, and an adjacent industry which might, in certain circumstances, include a steelworks. Progress since then may not have been as swift as some would like, but it certainly would not be true to say—and I do not think anyone has said this—that nothing has been happening. Regarding the steelworks, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in March that, together with the British Steel Corporation, he was conducting a deep-seated review of the Corporation's development plans and investment programme. The results of the first phase of this review, covering the year 1971–72 were announced in June and dealt with Ravenscraig, and we hope that the second phase will be completed by the end of the year. This has taken time because it has been necessary to take account of the United Kingdom's likely steel requirements, and also the amount of resources which the country can afford to allocate to the steel industry.
I am afraid that I cannot oblige my noble friend Lord Lauderdale by either confirming or contradicting what the O. E. C. D. 's estimates are in this matter. All I can say is that a completely new steelworks would cost at least £ 1,000 million, and an investment of this magnitude, like the investments of even greater magnitude for the developments at
1136
Hunterston, must be considered carefully and thoroughly, taking into account international and technological developments.
Concurrently with the review, the British Steel Corporation are considering the case for a steelworks on a green field site, and Hunterston is known to be one of the major candidates. Depending on the outcome of the review, it will then be for the Corporation to put proposals for steelworks on their chosen site to the Government. The Government have made it clear that they will be closely concerned with all relevant aspects of the Corporation's proposals, including the regional and social implications. Negotiations about the proposed ore terminal between the Clyde Port Authority and the British Steel Corporation have taken some time. They are still in progress, and meanwhile the necessary engineering surveys, including test borings, have been undertaken. The Government have joined with the Hunterston Development Company, which, as your Lordships will know, has been set up by a number of Scottish businessmen under the chairmanship of Mr. Hugh Stenhouse, in commissioning and financing a feasibility study by the leading international consultants of the work necessary to develop the full potential of the area. The first results of this study are expected in May,1972, and it should be completed by the end of October. It will identify in particular, what has to be done to establish a viable port and industrial complex in the area on the lines of similar developments in Europe. Those of your Lordships who have read the Report of the Development Department of the Scottish Office will have seen that it is in no doubt at all about the potentialities of Hunterston. I think all Scotsmen will hope profoundly that those potentialities will be realised.
I have been asked many questions from many sides and asked to develop many topics, such as roads in Scotland, but I do not want to detain your Lordships longer than you would wish. I think I can deal with roads quite simply by saying that the present expenditure for 1971–72 is running at nearly £10 million higher than expenditure in 1969–70, and provision is being made for an expanding road programme. The aim is to complete the present network of dual carriageway roads by the end of

1137
1975, and so to have provided about 310 miles of dual carriageway motorways and trunk roads. In the meantime, with the completion of this programme in sight, schemes are being prepared for the modernisation of trunk roads connecting central Scotland with the North-East, the Highlands, the Borders and the South-East which will serve development throughout Scotland. The total cost of the schemes now being investigated or prepared is over £ 115 million. At the same time, principal roads are being improved and there is an allocation of, I think, £ 14 million within the extra public expenditure allocation applying to roads.
I am afraid that in summing up a debate of this kind one has inevitably had to deal with a wide range of points, but I think I can truthfully say that the debate has been of immense use. The Departments concerned will be able to study what has been said, and this will most certainly be done. I should like to thank your Lordships very much for the contributions that you have made and— apart from one spasm of deep and understandable feeling— for the very even temper in which the debate has been conducted.
9.29 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this has been a long debate and a very wide-ranging one. At this late hour it behoves me to be brief. The debate has I think been useful, and the number of speakers is evidence of the very great interest and concern felt in all parts of the House about the problem that we have been discussing. I think there has been a fair measure of agreement on a number of pretty far-sighted, far-looking projects for the future, and I have been encouraged by at least the attitude of my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, particularly with regard to all the matters which come within the Oceanspan orbit. I am sorry, though, that the noble Lord did not feel able to say anything about my suggestions for the use of the revenues from oil and gas— a subject to which we shall certainly come back on another occasion, because I think it is one well worth considering.
I was perhaps saddened, rather than angered, by the remarks of the noble
1138
Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Hoy, who apparently impute to me a degree of indifference to the lot of the unemployed. Certainly, looking back at my speech, I cannot see anything in it which I think could be reasonably interpreted in that way. Indeed, I emphasised that we all have a great responsibility to do everything in our power to create a state of affairs in which no able and willing men and women should not be able to find a reasonable job of work. And if, as I said before, I did not expand further on the plight of the unemployed it was not because of indifference but simply because I thought it more profitable, in the time available, to try to suggest longterm and lasting means of remedying that plight rather than indulge in recrimination as to its causes.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to interrupt him very briefly? I should like to make it perfectly clear that neither in the words that I used nor in the thoughts that lay behind them did I impute to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, any indifference to the problem of unemployment. What I said was that I did not regard his speech as being in the same category as some of the other speeches which I have heard from him, on most of which — I think on all of which— I had congratulated him, although sometimes I had been at the receiving end of his criticism. What I did express was disappointment that he should have spent so much time, even though it was perhaps only a third of his speech, as an apologist for policies which I do not think are right.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, if the noble Lord interpreted them as apologies, he is perfectly entitled to do so.
My Lords, I think we can be moderately encouraged by a number of the suggestions which have been made and the way they have been received. In Scotland, we shall continue to press on the Government our views on all these subjects; we shall not leave them. I have a meeting before long, I think, with the Secretary of State on the subject of Oceanspan I think it would be wrong for me at this hour to do any more than thank all the noble Lords, from all parts of the House, who have taken part in the debate, not least the noble Earl,

1139
Lord Caithness, whose maiden speech, if I may say so, seemed to me commendable not only for its content but also for its brevity. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  FAMILY PLANNING: ADVICE AND TREATMENT
  FAMILY PLANNING: ADVICE AND TREATMENT
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  AIR FARES AND CONTROL OF GROUP CHARTER FLIGHT FACILITIES
  AIR FARES AND CONTROL OF GROUP CHARTER FLIGHT FACILITIES