Sitting of 9 March 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 21st March.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 21st March, at Seven o'clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Portsmouth (Official Visit)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans she has made to pay an official visit to the city of Portsmouth.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Judd: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the citizens of Portsmouth will be disappointed by that reply? Does she appreciate that when she is able to make plans and visit Portsmouth she will find that there are two urgent problems requiring her attention? Is she aware that the first problem is the difficulty for a city such as Portsmouth to finance its present educational programme, let alone improve it, and does she realise the burden that this places on the ratepayers as compared with other cities of roughly the
    1624
    second problem is the severe crisis in the shortage of residential and work accommodation in the polytechnic which is developing rapidly, and the stress which this is placing upon the city, which is short of accommodation for its own purposes?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We are very much aware of the accommodation problem in polytechnics and universities. I will also bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's other point, which is jointly a question for myself and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Corsbie Hall School
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many handicapped children from English local education authorities remain at the Corsbie Hall School in Thornton, Fife.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Four, Sir. I have pointed out to the local education authority concerned that I do not consider that this school is at present suitable for the placement of handicapped pupils, and am in discussion with the authority about the future education of these children.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that her information is out of date? Is she aware that I visited this school as recently as last Sunday and found that there were four children from Oldham, at least two from South Shields, and at least one from Cheshire? Can she say why these children should have to go from education authorities throughout England to a private fee-paying school in Scotland, which is charging £800 per year for each student? Is it because facilities in England and Wales are non-existent? If that is the case, will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that she will compel local education authorities to face their responsibilities?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information contained in the first part of his supplementary question. I will look into what he has said. The special education building programme is increasing, but for reasons of which he will be aware the demand tends to rise even faster than does the building programme. I would like to assure him that under both the

    1625
    last Government and under this Government there has been an increasing stress on the education building programme.
    Mr. Edward Short: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the time has come to reconstitute the Central Advisory Council, set up under the 1944 Act, and to consider the whole question of provision for handicapped children, including the training of their teachers?
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have an excellent advisory committee dealing with the education of handicapped children, which is continually coming forward with advice which is useful to my Department in considering the education of this group of children.

    Secondary Schools
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will allow local authorities to include the replacement and improvement of secondary school buildings among their proposals under the urban programme.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I think it right that most of the resources available to education under the urban programme should be devoted to nursery places. To allow expenditure on secondary schools under this programme would jeopardise that objective.
    Mr. Montgomery: I agree with the priorities of my right hon. Friend, but would she not agree that there are exceptional cases in the secondary sector? When resources are more readily available, can she give them a certain amount of extra priority?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am well aware of the exceptional cases in the secondary sector. In the two years 1972–74, 15 secondary schools are to be rebuilt or improved. I am anxious that as soon as more resources become available we should do more to improve secondary education facilities.
    Mr. Freeson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that if some secondary school replacement were provided under the urban programme it would be possible to make sites and, sometimes, buildings available for the special objective that she has stated, namely, the provision of
    1626
    more nursery places and similar facilities? I draw her attention to the Brondesbury and Kilburn secondary schools in my constituency, which are totally out of date and should be closed down as soon as possible to make available sites for other purposes.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The cost of sites is not the only factor. The cost of a secondary school place vastly exceeds the cost of a nursery school place, and it is the nursery schools which should have priority in this programme.
    Mr. Foxasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent the number of qualified mathematics and science teachers in maintained secondary schools falls short of needs.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: A recent survey indicates that though the position is improving there is a shortage of 1,600 graduates whose main teaching subject would be mathematics, 500 for physics and a few hundred each for other sciences. The shortage of non-graduates is a good deal smaller.
    Mr. Fox: From his reply the Under-Secretary is obviously aware, as I am, of the grave concern of many parents at this shortfall. What we seek is an improvement in the situation.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I hope that my hon. Friend will take comfort from the fact that over 3,000 graduates in mathematics and science are at present on postgraduate training courses. Last year the figure was about 2,200 so that shows an encouraging improvement.

    Primary Schools
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on her intentions with regard to the Derbyshire Education Committee's list of priority replacement of pre-1903 primary schools.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his Question on 2nd March.—[Vol. 832, c. 167.]
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that of the 27 replacements in Derbyshire

    1627
    two will be in the four Labour constituencies and 25 in the Tory constituencies? I do not wish to offend the delicate skins of hon. Members opposite, but is there not a party political smell about all this?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The details of the submissions made by Derbyshire are entirely a matter for Derbyshire. Application was made by Derbyshire for 15 primary replacements to start in 1974–75. My right hon. Friend has not only indicated that she hopes to include all those; she has even invited the county to make one or two further submissions for the list. It is only because of the hon. Gentleman's helpful question that I am able to bring out these facts.
    Mr. Rost: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has his priorities right in the renewal of primary education in Derbyshire, but will he ask his right hon. Friend when she visits Derby next week to look at the Barrow-on-Trent primary school, which I understand was built in 1842 and is beginning to look like it?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am only too happy to ask my right hon. Friend almost anything. I am sure that when she visits the local education authorities that is the sort of matter which will be put to her.
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children below the statutory school starting age were in nursery schools at the last available date, and how many were in nursery or other classes in primary schools.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In January, 1971, the numbers in England and Wales were 36,000 and 282,000.
    Mr. Marks: I appreciate the almost 50 per cent. increase over the last published figures in 1969 and I accept that the Labour Government's programme took considerable steps in this regard. However, would the right hon. Lady not agree that it is time to rescind Circular 8/60 on nursery schools? Furthermore, does she intend to increase considerably provision for the rising-fives in the near future?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the increase but I am not sure that I am with him on his mathematics. However,
    1628
    we can talk about that another time. I have no announcement to make in advance of the published announcements under the urban programme.
    Miss Lestor: Can the hon. Gentleman not be more explicit about the rising-fives in primary schools? If it is part of the Government's policy to increase the facilities for the rising-fives in primary schools, accompanied by or even distinct from nursery education, does he not agree that the same regulations should apply to the under-fives in primary schools as apply to children in nursery schools, where staffing and facilities are much more generous?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: That supplementary question goes rather wider than the original Question. Perhaps the hon. Lady will table a question on that aspect. The figures that I have given include 153,000 children who are rising five.

    Minor Works School Programme (London)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the financial reduction in money terms in the Inner London Education Authority minor works programme, for primary and junior schools, for the coming financial year.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his Question on 10th February.—[Vol. 830, c. 1531.]
    Mr. Cox: With great respect, when I last asked the Question I received no answer, because no figures were given by the hon. Gentleman. He must be aware of the figures relating to the cuts. Does he not agree that the cuts will present serious problems to many schools in the I.L.E.A. area, not only for the coming financial year but for a long time afterwards? Will he agree to meet elected representatives of I.L.E.A. to discuss this matter with them?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: No specific figures were given to the hon. Gentleman last time because he asked a Question to which no specific answer could be given in terms of figures, the decision being that of the I.L.E.A. I confirmed last time, and I confirm now, that there has been a reduction. A minor works allocation

    1629
    of £1 million in 1972–73 is a generous share of the available resources for an area with a declining primary school population.
    Mr. Cox: And increasing problems.
    Mr. Grylls: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Inner London Education Authority will benefit perhaps more than all other parts of the country from the modernisation and replacement programme for primary schools started by my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In two programmes 31 primary school replacement projects have been included, at a total cost of almost £4 million.
    Mr. Edward Short: Is it not a great discourtesy to the House for the hon. Gentleman to give the answer that he has just given? The Question asked for figures. The hon. Gentleman referred my hon. Friend to a previous Question and said that no figures were given in the previous answer. Is that not a discourtesy to the House?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

    Teacher Exchange
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will revise upwards the new scheme for expanded teacher exchange between the United Kingdom, France and Germany, as announced in an Administrative Memorandum by her Department to start in 1972–73.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: My right hon. Friend will be keeping the scheme under close review, but it already represents a considerable improvement on existing arrangements, both in numbers of exchanges and financial assistance to teachers, and it would be premature to consider revising it generally at this early stage.
    Mr. Duffy: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it must represent more than an improvement on existing arrangements if his right hon. and hon. Friends are in earnest about entry into Europe? Is he aware that the target figure for the 1970s could be taken up by a single region such as the Yorkshire/Humberside region, and that the target figure for the
    1630
    first year—1972–73—is equal only to the needs of a single city the size of Sheffield?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I am complacent about the programme, but he is being a little less than generous. The present rate of exchanges is probably in the range of about 20, and in the first year it will rise to a total, between France and Germany, of about 200. As he does, I very much hope that subsequent years will see a substantial improvement.
    Mr. John E. B. Hill: Does my hon. Friend expect to see a steadily rising trend? Can he assure us that financial difficulties will not stand in the way?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: It does not rest entirely with this country, but I express the strong hope that we shall see a rising trend. There has been a difficulty about the rate of grant for teachers going to Germany, and it has been possible to increase the rate per week to £8·55 as against the £5·45 which was previously announced.

    Maintained Schools (Pupil-Teacher Ratio)
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her latest estimate of the trend in the pupil-teacher ratio in maintained schools between now and 1975.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I estimate that for England and Wales the present figure of 22·1 will improve in successive years to 21·4, 21·3, and 20·7.
    Mr. Lane: Without being complacent, is it not clear from that reply that in terms of human as well as material resources the Government are making steady improvements in this most crucial area of our educational system?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir, and I am very pleased that it is so. As the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) pointed out, he should take some share of the credit, and I hope that he will be sufficiently generous to give my right hon. Friend the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, his excellent share of the credit.
    Mr. Marks: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that if the James Report recommendations are accepted many

    1631
    more teachers will be needed as tutor teachers to allow for the fact that first-year teachers will work only 80 per cent. of the time and many teachers will be away on in-service training?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, I am well aware of that, but I think it a good thing that in-service training should steadily increase.

    "Half Our Future" (Report)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will issue a statement showing the progress made on the recommendations of the Central Advisory Council's report, "Half Our Future", and if she will take the initiative in convening a conference of all interested parties to discuss the statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that a conference is needed. We have acted on the main recommendation that the school leaving age should be raised. Most of the others were addressed to local education authorities or schools and have already had a considerable effect.
    Mr. Dormand: That is a disappointing reply. Does not the right hon. Lady agree that this is not only one of the most important reports of recent years but is the most neglected report? Is it not now in imminent danger of being buried and forgotten? Is she aware that Lord Boyle—one of her predecessors—in welcoming the report emphasised that what was needed above all was a change of heart in the community as a whole. What progress has been made in that important aspect, and what action does the right hon. Lady propose to take?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman says. We have taken action, and that action was to raise the school leaving age. That was the main recommendation of the report. Whatever any Minister may do, he or she cannot single-handedly bring about a change of heart in the community as a whole, although I would be the first to realise that that is most desirable.
    Mr. Spearing: If the right hon. Lady will not convene a conference on this matter, will she undertake to inquire into the attainment of those pupils who leave school before taking public examinations
    1632
    and conduct a survey of their motivation at the time they leave school?
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir—not at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have records of examination results of those who leave school at 16, but not of those who leave at 15. I cannot at the moment agree to an inquiry of the kind that he suggests.

    School Building Programmes
    Mr. John E. B. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance she is giving to existing local education authorities to ensure that the planning and execution of school building programmes continues smoothly through the reorganisation of local government.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I share my hon. Friend's concern that educational building programmes should continue smoothly through the reorganisation period. This is essentially a matter for co-operation between the existing authorities and their successors, but my Department is available for discussions on the problems involved and will give any help it call.
    Mr. Hill: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. What arrangements are likely to be made for apportioning the existing forward building programme, especially where the boundaries of the new local education authorities may cut across existing boundaries and where the question of division may arise? In the meantime, are there any particular points to which local authorities and local education committees should have regard?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Proposals for building programmes are made by the existing authorities, and any approvals given in respect of a particular school would carry over to the new authorities.
    Mr. Edward Short: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the acute problems in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which is being completely fragmented by the Government's proposals? Is she further aware that, understandably, a number of key staff have already obtained new positions elsewhere and that if this trend continues the building programme in the West Riding may come to a complete halt?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have had a number of letters about the position of the West Riding, not all of which agree with each other. Indeed, some of the county boroughs in the West Riding disagree with some of the contentions made by West Riding. I feel that we have been generous to the West Riding in our building programme as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, bearing in mind the considerable problems in the area. I am anxious that these building programmes should be carried out.

    Comprehensive Education
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on how many occasions she has refused permission for a school to become part of a comprehensive scheme proposed by local education authorities; how many letters of protest she has received after any such refusals; and what replies she has sent.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have rejected under Section 13(4) of the Education Act, 1944, as amended, statutory proposals relating to 21 schools, where the proposals were to implement some part of a scheme of secondary reorganisation. In reply to a total of 72 letters opposing these decisions, I have explained the main educational considerations on which they were based.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that by rejecting part of the scheme she could cause chaos to the whole of it and effectively damage the overall comprehensive scheme? When making decisions does she take this significant fact into account, or does she disregard it?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I carry out my statutory duty, which is to consider each scheme on its merits. That is the duty contained in Section 13 and I must discharge it.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right: hon. Friend continue to refuse those applications where the two parts of the proposed schools are a long way apart, particularly in areas such as Derbyshire, where the result may be extremely inefficient and bad for both pupils and teachers?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Schools on sites which are a good distance apart from each other face considerable difficulties. We have
    1634
    taken this factor into account when deciding whether to give or to withhold permission.
    Miss Lestor: Can the Secretary of State explain how she squares that reply with what was said in "A Better Tomorrow" under the heading "Better Education":
    "In secondary education, a number of different patterns have developed over the years, including many types of comprehensive school. We will maintain the existing rights of local authorities to decide what is best for their area."
    Mrs. Thatcher: Many different patterns have developed. They come to me for approval. I have maintained existing local authority rights, and I discharge my statutory duty under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, as amended. I undertake to maintain the local education authorities' existing rights.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further plans are envisaged to help local education authorities in developing their programmes towards comprehensive education.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Secondary 'school projects to the value of nearly £200 million are expected to start in the next two years. These have been authorised to meet basic need for new school places, but they will also contribute to the development of comprehensive schools in those areas where local education authorities are proceeding with plans for the reorganisation of secondary education.
    Mr. Molloy: There appears to be a ray of hope in what the right hon. Lady says, but is she aware that in the past some local authorities, particularly Conservative-controlled ones, have argued that the only real answer is to have purpose-built comprehensive schools? This was not possible under the Labour Administration in one fell swoop, and it may not be possible under this Administration. However, would she be prepared to consider looking into cases where a scheme could be spoiled unless it received a little help from her Department—for example, would she examine the situation with which Ealing is now struggling?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The main programmes which exist in secondary education are

    1635
    the basic needs programme and the raising of the school leaving age programme. With so many improvement projects still queueing up in secondary education, I cannot undertake to give any special money for comprehensive reorganisation beyond that allocated by those two programmes.
    Mr. Madel: On the question of school places and reorganisation, will the Secretary of State pay special attention to those education authorities which face an above-average rise in school population, such as those in Bedfordshire?
    Mrs. Thatcher: An above-average rise in school population should be taken into account in the basic needs programme, which is aimed at meeting that kind of situation.
    Mr. Edward Short: How does the right hon. Lady square the recent decision in the Kidderminster scheme with the last sentence in a speech made in this House on 8th July, 1970, when we were discussing Circular 10/70, when the right hon. Lady said:
    "The main purpose of this circular is to honour an election pledge to reject compulsion on democratically elected local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 688.]
    Mrs. Thatcher: The decision in the Kidderminster scheme was widely welcomed locally. It was on an application by the local authority to change the character of the school under Section 13. I discharged my statutory duties under Section 13, and I note that it is the right hon. Gentleman who does not wish me to discharge my legal duties.

    Immigrant Children
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further consideration is being given to her proposals that a change should be made in the classification of immigrant children to mean all children who had one parent born outside the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I welcome the recommendations of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration that there should be further discussion on this subject. Officers of the Department are meeting representatives of the local authority and teacher associations and of the
    1636
    Community Relations Commission on 27th March for this purpose.
    Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Lady answer the Question and say whether any further consideration is being given to the suggestion that immigrant children should be classified as meaning all children with one parent born outside the United Kingdom? Further, when looking at this whole question, will she consider whether the time has not come to stop talking in terms of immigrant children and start talking more in terms of children with particular problems in education, and to seek to get away from dividing our children into immigrants and non immigrants?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That method of collecting statistics arises out of the 1969 recommendation of the Select Committee. Two different methods were put to the local authority associations and other interested bodies. Neither was acceptable to all of them, and therefore we are meeting together on 27th March to reconsider the whole problem.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the manner of collecting statistics on immigrant children has caused a great deal of bitter offence to a family in my constituency—one of whose parents comes from a country in Europe—who feel that the method by which their child has been singled out will damage its relationship with its school friends? Will the right hon. Lady ensure in future that the minimum amount of information is collected, and that it is collected with the utmost delicacy?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Naturally, in the collection of statistics one is anxious to give no offence either to parents or to children We are aware that the basis upon which these statistics are collected at the moment is not the best one. But whatever is substituted in its place must be workable administratively and humanely.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if she is satisfied with the numbers of children receiving nursery education in the Upper Agbrigg Education Division of the West Riding, and if she will make a statement;

    1637
    (2) if she is satisfied with the provision of nursery education in the Colne Valley Urban District of the Upper Agbrigg Education Division of the West Riding; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Information about parts of the West Riding is not collected by the Department. In the West Riding as a whole the number of pupils under five, excluding rising-5's, rose from 4,400 to 6,400 during 1970, and over 400 additional places in nursery classes have been approved there under the urban programme in the last year.
    Mr. Clark: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but it is extremely disappointing. Is he aware that, if he is satisfied with it the people in the area are not? Is there any chance of increasing the number of nursery school places in the West Riding?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the kindness of reflecting on the figures when he has had a chance to see them in writing. I think that they show an agreeable increase. If he asks me whether I am satisfied, the answer, of course, is "No".
    Mrs. RenéeShort asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she now has for the further expansion of nursery education for the three- to five-year-olds, either under the urban aid programme or otherwise; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Nearly 18,000 additional nursery places in England have been approved under the urban programme. Local authorities will be asked shortly to submit further proposals.
    Mrs. Short: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but does not he think that the time has come to make considerable increases in the number of nursery places being provided? Should not he give local authorities freedom to do this themselves, if they have the available classroom space and teachers, by withdrawing Circular 8/60? Cannot he bring his influence to bear on his right hon. Friend, who is being very coy with me? I have been trying for the last six weeks or so to persuade her to receive a deputation from the Nursery Schools
    1638
    Association, and she refuses all the time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices to persuade the right hon. Lady to receive us.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: May I make a suggestion to the hon. Lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] We are likely to be working late in the House, and I shall be available constantly.
    Mrs. Knight: Even at this late stage, will not my hon. Friend reconsider the proposal to extend the school leaving age at the other end of the school period by putting it on to the beginning of the period?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I understand very well how strongly my hon. Friend feels on the subject of nursery school places, but at this late stage, certainly, there can be no question of going back on the decision to raise the statutory school leaving age.

    Education Act, 1944
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with the working of the Education Act, 1944, in the light of modern educational developments and needs; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: In my view the broad structure of the 1944 Act continues to be relevant to modern conditions, but there is a need to consolidate all the Education Acts now on the Statute Book and to amend some of their detailed provisions.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is now 28 years since we had a major Education Act? The 1944 Act was based on a tripartite system of education which no longer applies, and it was passed when the concept of the middle school had not even been heard of. Does not she think that it is time we had a new major Act?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The middle school was dealt with in a separate Act for that specific purpose. The tripartite system is not a function of the 1944 Act, but an administrative arrangement separate from it. In spite of disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman's reasons, I am still hoping to amend the 1944 Act and successive Acts when we have legislative time.
    Mr. Pardoe: If the right hon. Lady is satisfied with the 1944 Act, presumably she intends to implement the recommendation about county colleges. Will she say what her policy is towards introducing compulsory part-time education for everyone up to the age of 18?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I said that I was not wholly satisfied with the 1944 Act and that I would consolidate and amend it as soon as I had legislative time to do so.

    Foreign Language Teachers
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the supply of foreign language teachers in anticipation of Great Britain's entry to the European Economic Community; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: No, Sir. The schools need many more teachers of French. My right hon. Friend has encouraged area training organisations to arrange for more teacher training places to be available for gradutes in French. In addition, there are initial courses in French for non-graduate teachers and the special programme of intensive in-service courses is continuing to expand.
    Miss Fookes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I point out to him that there are other languages than French, and that the Englishman abroad does not have a very good reputation for speaking any other language than English?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I accept that there are other languages than French, but that is the language that we teach most in our schools, and it is in that language that the greatest gaps occur at present.
    Mr. Moyle: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if this country were ever to join the Common Market English would become the major working language by virtue of its strong position? Therefore, should not we be considering how we can increase the supply of English teachers in order to spread the English language to the Common Market?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In fact, we are doing precisely that. But I hope that whatever the future holds we shall be
    1640
    able to gain much from the culture, literature and music of the French people.

    School Transport (Goole)
    Dr. Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will use her power under Section 55(1) of the Education Act, 1944, to direct the West Riding Education Authority to provide free transport to school for secondary schoolchildren who live in Old Goole.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. I would not feel justified in giving a direction to the authority in this matter, which is essentially one for local decision.
    Dr. Marshall: In view of the right hon. Lady's Written Answer of 7th March to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), will the proposed working party look especially at the case of Old Goole, where the only available route to school is by a congested and dangerous classified road which runs for six-tenths of a mile across the dock estate?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The conditions present in Old Goole are the kinds of conditions that the working party will take into account in considering the provision of transport to school.
    Mr. Fry: When considering the provision of free transport will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the many areas where public transport is almost non existent, and where the cost of sending children to school is now very high?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is right that the working party should look not only at specific provisions and difficulties but also at the statutory provisions relating to transport to school. I hope that all of these will be properly considered.
    Mr. Edward Short: May I, for once, congratulate the right hon. Lady on accepting the proposal from this side of the House, on the last occasion on which the right hon. Lady answered Questions, to set up a working party on school transport?
    Mrs. Thatcher: May I also congratulate some of my hon. Friends, who have similar views and have very much welcomed this working party? Indeed many of them have proposed it for quite a long time.

    West Riding County Council (Grant)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the amount of money granted to the West Riding County Council for educational purposes during each of the past three years; and what is the figure for the current year.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Local authority expenditure on education is met from income by way of rates and the rate support grant paid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Rate support grant is not apportioned to specific services.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will the Under-Secretary tell me whether account has been taken of the deficiencies that exist at present in the Mexborough and District and Staincross divisional education committees for primary and nursery school education, what is to happen to the dining facilities for the Swinton Fitzwillian school, and what savings have taken place by taking away free school milk for schoolchildren?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: These are pretty detailed questions, away from the main Question. Most of them are properly directed to the local education authorities concerned. The rate support grant, around which the Question centres, is not apportioned to specific services. That is why, in all good faith, I cannot give a detailed answer.
    Mr. Marks: Has the Minister had his attention called to any local authorities which may not be spending as much on education as the rate support grant anticipated they would?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: If the hon. Gentleman has a specific matter in mind, perhaps he will write to me or to my right hon. Friend. In general terms, these are matters within the discretion of local education authorities.

    Schools (Lighting Standards)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will conduct a survey to ascertain the extent to which lighting in schools measures up to her recommended standards.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: No. Sir.
    Mr. Pardoe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the standards of lighting in many schools all over the country are far below those recommended by the electrical fitting profession, by his Department and, indeed, those in shops, offices and factories under current legislation? Will he stress the responsibility of managers and governors to ensure that teachers and children have adequate conditions of work?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am not sure that the evidence supports the hon. Gentleman's contention. He probably has in mind the 1971 survey by the Society of Local Government Mechanical and Electrical Engineers, which showed no evidence that, for example, new schools are being designed to lower standards than those laid down in the Standards of School Premises Regulations.
    Mr. John Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that where standards in a school fall short of those which are analogous to the standards laid down in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, the local authority will not be debarred from spending money to bring the school up to the standards laid down in that Act?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Assuming—as I think must follow from the hon. Gentleman's question—that these are matters within the discretion of the local authority, they are entirely matters for the local authority to decide in each case.

    Government Research and Development (Green Paper)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the progress made with regard to consultation on the Green Paper Cmnd. No. 4814 of November, 1971.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Government aim to reach decisions in the early part of the summer and to publish a White Paper as soon as possible thereafter. Good progress is being made with consultations.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer. May we have an assurance that the deliberations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology will be available for her perusal before publication of the White Paper? In the interim, has she any comments to

    1643
    make on the excellent debate which took place last week in the other place on the Green Paper?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks in the first part of his question. I am far too wise to make comments on debates in another place.
    Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. Lady aware that one of the key recommendations in the Rothschild Report was that there should be a gradual transfer of funds from research councils? Is she further aware that the Lord Privy Seal, in another place, has now said that the Government are prepared to forgo that in certain circumstances and that, in the circumstances, the Opposition would like a debate on the Rothschild and Dainton Reports before there is any question of putting those recommendations into effect?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will adjudge whether he would like a debate before or after publication of the White Paper and take it up through the usual channels.

    School Milk
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children in the London Borough of Waltham Forest between seven and 11 years of age are getting free school milk on medical grounds.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The latest information available to the Department relates to last October when the number was seven.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the Secretary of State tell me whether that number is low because of lack of need—which I find difficult to believe in a place like Waltham Forest—or because there has not been sufficient time for the medical officer of health to examine the children to find out whether they would qualify?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I should adjudge the latter.

  GLASGOW
  Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Glasgow in March, 1972.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have no plans to do so.
  Mr. Douglas: I regret that answer. Will the Prime Minister concede that the University of Strathclyde has held two excellent conferences on the future of the shipbuilding industry? On 29th March it will be holding a conference on the future of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom. Would not that be an excellent opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to present the Government's view on how they may assist the industry, and to comment on the various figures which have been presented of assistance to the industry in the region of £150 million to £250 million.
  The Prime Minister: I should be very willing to take advantage of the discussions at Strathclyde. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has already made one announcement about shipbuilding which affects the Clyde. If the conference at Strathclyde has fresh ideas to offer we shall gladly consider them.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if he visits Glasgow at the present time he will find that the workers in the shipyards there are feeling more secure than they even did under the previous Government?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that that, too, will lead them to agree to reasonable arrangements for the future conduct of the shipyards.

  SCOTLAND
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: I expect to visit Scotland again later in the year, but no specific plans have yet been made.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister visit the Scottish Education Department which produced an excellent draft circular on the maximisation of primary school classes to 35, a circular which has earned the envy of the N.U.T. in England, which has been refused them? On this occasion, who is the Prime Minister backing—the Scottish Secretary or the Education Secretary?
  The Prime Minister: I have always understood that Scotland takes pride in being different from South of the Border. Therefore, it is perfectly entitled to have its own arrangements and circulars.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will always be welcome in Scotland, most of all after another Tory tax-cutting Budget, to which we look forward? When he next comes to Scotland will he consider paying a visit to Bathgate and Linwood to discuss with the employees there the way in which their representatives, aided and abetted apparently by the representatives of management, seem anxious to reverse the success of the last Conservative Government in bringing the motor car industry to Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: I have previously visited Bathgate and I am willing to go there again. The particular problems, which my hon. Friend rightly mentions, must be left to management and unions to resolve—[Interruption.] They have resolved them only after a long and painful strike which has meant great loss for those who work there, for the firm, and for our exports.
  Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister, as early as possible, pay a visit to the North-East and the North of Scotland, and the Isles of Orkney and Shetland, to see for himself the possibilities of oil and to discuss with local authorities the possibility for opening out, and the problems which they will have to face?
  The Prime Minister: We are well aware of these problems. I have discussed them with the Scottish Council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is also urgently examining whether special arrangements are required for those areas, so that the rapid development now going on can be handled in the most advantageous way to Scotland as a whole as well as to the East Coast.

  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  Mr. John D. Grantasked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his public speech about inflation to the Engineering Employers' Federation in London on 23rd February in the Library.
  Mr. Joel Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his public speech to the Engineering Employers' Federation in London on 23rd February on inflation in the Library.
  Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech which he made on the increase of pay to the miners to the Engineering Employers' Federation in London on 23rd February.
  Mr. Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech dealing with prices and incomes made to the Engineering Employers' Federation on Wednesday, 23rd February, 1972.
  Mr. Kinnockasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the Dorchester Hotel on 23rd February on wages.
  Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic matters to the Engineering Employers' Federation in London on 23rd February.
  Mr. Arthur DavidsonDavidson asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech on economic affairs which he gave to the Engineering Employers' Federation in London on 23rd February.
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policies delivered to the Engineering Employers' Federation in London on 23rd February, 1972.
  Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in London on 23rd February to the Engineering Employers' Federation on economic matters.
  Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of his speech to the Engineering Employers' Association on 23rd February.
  The Prime Minister: As I indicated in the reply that I gave last Tuesday to Questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), and Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), I did so on 24th February.——[Vol. 832, c. 306.]
  Mr. Grant: In that speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to the need for

  1647
  an understanding with the trade unions, and he is to meet the T.U.C. later today. When he meets the T.U.C., would he, first, disregard some of the more reactionary advice that he is getting from some of the back-seat drivers on his own benches——
  Mr. Arthur Latham: Disqualified drivers! [Laughter.]
  Mr. Grant: I was frightened that no one would get the message.
  While he is still at the driving wheel himself, would the right hon. Gentleman try to forget his own progress from school prefect to Tory Chief Whip, try to drop this bullying attitude of confrontation, and get into genuine consultation, which means talking to the trade unions with an open mind and without pre-conceived and rigid ideas?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the T.U.C. this afternoon will be glad to know that it will not hear anything like that.
  Mr. Barnett: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has reversed his more rigid policies on subsidies to both private and public industry, will he ignore the advice that he is being given by some of his hon. Friends and confirm that he is still prepared to give subsidies to nationalised industries, in the same way as he has done to the Coal Board, in order to restrain excessive price increases?
  The Prime Minister: We announced last summer that as the nationalised industries were members of the C.B.I. they were prepared to comply with the request of the C.B.I. to limit price increases to 5 per cent. That they have done, with the exception of the recent coal increase, when the C.B.I. itself agreed that, because of the exceptional circumstances, increases should go to 71 per cent. Naturally, the Government hope that the C.B.I. will find itself able to maintain and to justify a similar attitude towards prices. The Government hope that the T.U.C. will respond to this.
  Mr. Atkinson: I hope that the Prime Minister will not exploit my question for short-term political ends. I want to ask him a question which is very sensitive and emotionally charged for the Labour movement, and which I believe to be a very important question—[An HON.
  1648
  MEMBER: "Then get on with it."] If the hon. bonehead will give me a chance I will get on with the question.
  Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1965 Lord George-Brown predicted, on behalf of the D.E.A., that our manufacturing industries would employ 9·1 million people and that there would be a severe shortage of skilled workers? Lord George-Brown's prediction and those of the D.E.A. are one million people out. One of the reasons why that prediction is totally wrong is that they underestimated the whole business of investment in manufacturing.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now 10 per cent. spare capacity in manufacturing and that if he inflates in the orthodox way the inflation that the Chancellor is likely to give manufacturing industry will be absorbed in the extra 10 per cent. capacity, and will not effectively bring down the unemployment figures?
  The Prime Minister: This is a matter that we have discussed at previous Question Times and also in debates on unemployment. We have recognised the impact on the demand for labour in this country of technological change and also of wage increases. I should have thought that the whole House was by now agreed that additional investment in manufacturing industry is required to provide additional employment, but also that additional employment will have to be found in the service industries. In this, I think that there was another error, in that S.E.T. discriminated against the service industries in a deliberate attempt to bring down the amount of employment in them.
  Mr. Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his speech on 23rd February was a marked and welcome contrast to the spiteful, mischievous and shallow attitude of the titular Leader of the Opposition and his friends? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that he has the full support of all thinking people in this country in his efforts to cure the economy of the after-effects of six years on the poison drip of Socialism?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is right in referring to all thinking people in what was undoubtedly a colourfully phrased supplementary question.
  Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recall that in that speech on 23rd February and in subsequent speeches he has repeated variations on his continual theme of asking people to stand on their own two feet? How does he expect British industry and the trade unions to take any notice of that when, in view of current policy changes, he is standing on his own two heads?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have recognised that there is a purpose in helping an industry to reconstruct itself so that it can become a viable entity. This has often been the purpose of Governments. It was achieved with the cotton industry in the 1950s and there is no reason why it should not be achieved with certain other industries in the 1970s. What is not justifiable is to pour subsidies into industries which have no possibility of ever becoming viable.
  Mr. Redmond: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when he has met trade union leaders he has had a number of questions and suggestions from them which he has considered seriously, and that many of those suggestions and requests have incurred policy changes?
  The Prime Minister: Yes Sir. I have told the House before that, altogether, I have had eight meetings with the T.U.C. in the 21 months that the Government have been in office. It is absolute nonsense to say that we have not had contact with the trade union movement. I have had discussions with the General Council, the Economic Committee and the Social Insurances Committee. As for policy, where we have thought it right we have implemented policies which were also those requested by the T.U.C. and which I have enumerated before—the reflationary measures, the increases in pensions and related benefits, the repayment of post-war credits, the annual up-ratings of pensions, the major expansion of training facilities, and the postponement of the six-day rule for payment of benefit. One might expect, therefore, that the trade union movement, through its leaders, would also make a response to these policies.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether there has or has not been a shift in Government economic policy in the past month? Have the Government learned something, or have they not.
  The Prime Minister: During the past month the Government have taken a decision about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, which was to put forward a realistic policy for reconstruction on the Clyde, which I personally promised the shop stewards when they came to see me in July.
  Mr. Tapsell: Would it not be very much in the public interest, and particularly in the interest of the poorer sections of our fellow countrymen, if hon. Members opposite, instead of continually pressing for measures which will lead to rising prices, were to give their support to those policies being pursued by the Government which are calculated to stabilise prices.
  The Prime Minister: I agree with that, but it is too much to expect a leader and a party who are both retreating as fast as they can from responsibility ever to support policies which will be for the general good. As for this Government, I should have thought that the measures announced yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture regarding the prices of foodstuffs would have been strongly supported by Her Majesty's Opposition, if they had any sense of responsibility at all.
  Mr. Duffy: Will the Prime Minister study today's divergent forecasts by the Bank of England and the National Institute? He will then recognise a very close identification of priorities between the Bank and his own 23rd February speech. Will he therefore give the closest attention to the recommendation of the National Institute for a reflation of demand, which will bring about a serious reduction in unemployment?
  The Prime Minister: All Governments receive a great deal of advice of a budgetary kind at this time of year about the measures they should take. The Government set out their own policy, and that does not depend on the Bank of England or the institute.
  However, an important factor which the institute has brought out is the decrease in wage demands over the last year to a level of between 8 per cent. and 8½ per cent. in the public sector and 9 per cent. in the private sector.
  That certainly refutes the argument so often adduced by the party opposite that the Government's policies are directed

  1651
  only to the public sector. In fact, the institute bears out that the Government have been successful in this matter both in the private and public sectors.
  Mr. Burden: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Question No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett), refers to "inflation in the Library"? In which Library is there inflation? What does my right hon. Friend know about this?
  The Prime Minister: It is probably a somewhat inaccurately worded Question, but I took it in the sense in which it was intended.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit than he was in his speech—indeed, than he is in any of his speeches—and say precisely with what level of unemployment the British people must learn to live?
  The Prime Minister: I have always said that the present level of unemployment is too high. The measures that we have taken are intended to bring it down. What is more, we have always made it plain that we would never hesitate to take additional measures when they were justified.
  No Government have ever said that the British people should live with a particular level of unemployment, except for the present Leader of the Opposition who, in the measures of 20th July, 1966, indicated very clearly to his party that they would have to live with considerable unemployment.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that restraint in wage and salary increases is the only way to provide a sound base for growing increases in real earnings and a rising standard of living for us all? Is it not regrettable that since hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in opposition they no longer appear to support this objective?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power they tried every form of so-called incomes policy—guidelines, declarations of intent, voluntary policy and compulsory policy—and each one failed. The present Government, on
  1652
  the other hand, have had success in the past 21 months in dealing with this matter. [Interruption.]
  If hon. Gentlemen opposite really cared for the interests of their constituents and fellow trade unionists they would support a reduction in price increases from 11 per cent. to 5½ per cent. That is an achievement which we have secured but which the Labour Government could not have secured.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Instead of falsifying what I said on 20th July, 1966—as the right hon. Gentleman consistently used to falsify what Mr. Hugh Gaitskell had said earlier on the question of unemployment—will the Prime Minister quote the exact figures I gave in 1966 and say whether he is now capable of reaching the figures I then mentioned?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the declared object of his policies was to increase unemployment.
  Mr. Wilson indicated dissent.
  The Prime Minister: Oh, yes. His measures of 20th July were deliberately designed to achieve that. What is more, they succeeded, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman then had a surplus on the balance of payments.
  I am not prepared to tell the British people that they must live with the same figure of unemployment because the plain fact is that with a combination of taxation policies, monetary policy and regional policy this country, with the co-operation of the trade unions and management, ought to be able to increase its production and have low unemployment figures, just as other European countries do.
  Mr. Wilson: Instead of all this waffle, will the right hon. Gentleman now answer my question? [Interruption.] Instead of twisting my words again, will he quote the figures that I used, and what I said?
  The Prime Minister: There is no spiral of words of the right hon. Gentleman that I could twist any further, even if I wanted to. The right hon. Gentleman announced measures which increased unemployment, and he said that the country would have to live with them.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There are still two hon. Members on the back benches whose names are down to Questions which are included in the series which the Prime Minister is now answering but who have not yet asked supplementary questions, though they have indicated to me their desire to do so. I am doing my best to call them. Mr. Skinner.
  Mr. Skinner: May I bring the Prime Minister back to 1972? Is he aware that he exposes himself more than a little when he talks about curbing inflation yet is in the process of passing legislation which will double rents in the next few years?
  Getting back to his speech at the Engineering Employees' Federation, does he recall saying that a wage increase of 20 per cent. to the miners could be regarded as a defeat for the country? How does he square that with an increase in profits of 24 per cent. in the third quarter of last year—an increase which received his approval?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will never acknowledge that no firm in this country can be efficient, maintain employment and expand unless it has the resources for investment—and they can come from nowhere except profits. The Labour Government reduced profitability to such a low level that firms could not invest, and so unemployment increased. [Interruption.]
  When the hon. Gentleman talks about rents, why does he not emphasise that under the Bill he has in mind 1¾ million tenants in the public sector will be getting rent rebates, and that in the private sector, for the first time—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like to hear this because they are anxious to distort the whole position. In the sector of private rents 700,000 to 800,000 people will be getting rebates for the first time in history. This, therefore, is putting public money where it is needed, and it represents the best policy.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I express to the Prime Minister my sense of personal relief——
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Why the walking stick?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am explaining that now—that the policy on lame ducks appears to have been modified?
  1654
  May I also tell him how much I welcome the visit of the leaders of the T.U.C. this afternoon to Downing Street as a further instalment in the building up of that one nation to which my right hon. Friend referred when he first came to Downing Street?
  The Prime Minister: The meeting with the T.U.C. this afternoon is of importance, but it can be of value only if it is conducted with a frank exchange of views in which the positions of both sides are clearly made known to each other and understanding is shown. I have found in the past 21 months that it has been possible to have discussions on this basis, and certainly I shall continue to do so.
  Mr. Sheldon: The whole House knows that when it comes to the matter of retreating the Prime Minister has retreated, particularly on the subject of subsidies. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the criteria he uses, or intends now to use, as to which subsidies he will erect? Why, for example, is he intending to subsidise sugar rather than school milk, and potatoes rather than rents?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government's policy on rents has been to ensure that the people who are in need are the people who get the subsidies. That has never been acceptable to the party opposite because it believes in a policy of general subsidies. We do not. We believe in using subsidies for specific purposes. That has always been stated in our policies, and we carry them through.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. John E. B. Hill: On a point of order. Is it quite within the spirit of the rules of the House regarding Questions, Mr. Speaker, that so many virtually identical Questions should be tabled, thus taking a large part of Prime Minister's Question Time? Might not this matter be looked at by the Select Committee, as it delays other Questions?
Mr. Speaker: I was given notice of a point of order on this point. If the hon. Member looks at page 325 of "Erskine May", he will see it laid down that
"When the Prime Minister himself has made a speech on a public occasion outside the

1655
House, a question may be asked about it only in the form of asking him to place a copy of the speech in the Library."
It so happens that a good many hon. Members had the idea of asking the same Question. They were perfectly in order in doing so, and they all tabled them, more or less, at the same time. It is not unreasonable, when the Prime Minister makes an important speech, for hon. Members to seek to ask him about it, and this is the only form in which such a Question can be tabled. But I have no objection to the matter going to the Committee on Procedure.
Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order. I do not think it has been the practice hitherto, Mr. Speaker, but you have called hon. Members from alternate sides of the House, hon. Members who did not have Questions down on this particular item but who, because they were called, excluded hon. Members who had later Questions down. This is a very unsatisfactory practice.
Mr. Speaker: Even the Chair is allowed a little variety. I called every single hon. Member who had a Question on this point and wished to ask a supplementary. I was quite within my rights in interweaving other hon. Members.
Mr. Hamilton: If you examine, Mr. Speaker, the way in which you called hon. Members on this occasion, you will find that hon. Members on the Government side of the House were called who did not have Questions down on this matter. That had the effect of excluding hon. Members who had later Questions to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has been in the House a very long time. The question of selecting hon. Members for supplementary questions is entirely for the Chair. I would have been within my rights in not calling a single hon. Member for a supplementary question; but that would have been unwise and undesirable.
Dr. Miller: On a point of order. Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Prime Minister to make fewer speeches and the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to make them instead?
Mr. Speaker: That certainly is not a point of order.
Mr. Paget: On a point of order. You have just observed, Mr. Speaker, that it is for the Chair to select supplementary questions. The Chair, I believe, is under no obligation to select a supplementary question merely because an hon. Member has put down an original Question. If hon. Members were not selected automatically, would not that assist us in what has become the great nuisance of many unintellible Questions being simply put down for the purpose of asking a supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: I have very great sympathy with the point of view put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope he will help me in quelling the indignation of hon. Members when I do not call them for a supplementary question.
Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I make the point that you are establishing a new precedent in this matter because you are interweaving with tabled Questions supplementary questions, which is not the normal practice of the Chair? Is it your desire, Mr. Speaker, to set this new precedent?
Mr. Speaker: I am setting no new precedent. I am following my own example; it may be a bad one. I have done this several times. When there have been several Questions from one side of the House, I agree that it would probably be unfair for me to call hon. Members who have not tabled a Question, unless I get in all those who had Questions down—which I have done. I have called every hon. Member with a Question down who was present and rose to his feet.
Mr. Ashton: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when we reached Question No. Q3 the Prime Minister answered nine or ten other Questions with it. He asked permission to do so, but whose permission he asked no one seems to know. Would it not be of much more benefit if he did so on many occasions? Why is it that on some Tuesdays and Thursdays the Prime Minister says that, with permission, he will answer other Questions but on other Tuesdays and Thursdays he does not? Is not this an abuse of the House?
Mr. Speaker: It is a form of courtesy to say, "with permission", and I do not think that courtesy is altogether out of place in the House.

EVANS MEDICAL LIMITED
3.45 p.m.
Mrs. Castle(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the latest development in the case of Evans Medical Limited of Speke.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): Since I made my statement to the House on Tuesday, my inspectors have been making an intensive investigation of the factory of Evans Medical Ltd. at Speke. They made a preliminary report yesterday morning that a fault in the sterilization process could have caused the contamination in the bottles of dextrose solution used at the Devonport Hospital. It was also revealed that similar faults could possibly have occurred in the production of other batches of dextrose and other solutions manufactured by Evans Medical Ltd.
In these circumstances I placed an immediate embargo throughout the country on the use of any of this manufacturer's solutions until I am completely satisfied as to their purity. The inspectors also reported that during one period in 1970 and since the beginning of this year bottles of similar solutions sold by Allen and Hanbury's under the trade name of Sterivac had been filled and sterilised at the Speke factory. These solutions were therefore included in the embargo.
The House will wish to know that the first results of the bacteriological investigation indicate that a proportion of the bottles from sub-batch D 1192 C contain a growth of common airborne organisms such as would result from a sterilisation failure. It appears that this failure was partial only; two-thirds of 155 bottles examined in one laboratory were clear on visual inspection and a small sample of these on culture shows no bacterial contamination.
The investigations at the Evans Medical factory are continuing, and all production of solutions there has been halted for the time being. Ample supplies of the solutions are available from other
1658
manufacturers which are making special efforts to meet hospital requirements.
Mrs. Castle: Would it not have been more courteous to the House if the right hon. Gentleman, to deal with a large number of important points on this matter that were raised on both sides of the House last Tuesday, had volunteered that statement before holding a Press conference? Will he give an undertaking that in future when he has important statements to make he will make them to the House before making them at a Press conference?
While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's ban on this firm's infusion solutions, may I ask him, first, whether it is not very alarming that 238 bottles are still unaccounted for, and does not this strengthen the case some of us put to him on Tuesday for the need for adequate records to be kept of the product a patient receives?
Second, is it not also alarming that the previous incident in this firm also related to faulty supervision, the faulty sealing of bottles? Therefore, is not it imperative that the right hon. Gentleman tells the House exactly what he intends to do about the institution of quality control and exactly when he proposes to establish adequate inspection, in view of the delay on taking action under the Medicines Act?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House anything about an inquiry which we read in the Press he intends to hold? Will he come to the House early next week and give us details of the exact nature and scope of the inquiry and who will be in charge of it?
Sir K. Joseph: I think the House will agree that it was probably right, as new facts came to light yesterday, and as I, in the light of the new facts took decisions, to expose myself and my Chief Medical Officer to questioning by the Press so that the public should fully know the implications.
The right hon. Lady's other questions fit in very well with her last question about an inquiry. As I told the House in answer to the original Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), I was contemplating from the beginning the need for an inquiry. It now seems

1659
to me that there may necessarily have to be two parallel inquiries, one into what happened in this tragic episode and another, a wider-ranging one which may take longer, into the lessons we must learn from this episode for the inspection processes. I will inform the House as soon as possible of the Government's decision, and I hope to have a decision on the most urgent of these two urgent inquiries by the beginning of next week. I shall consult through the usual channels to see how best to make this information available.
Dame Joan Vickers: As my right hon. Friend said that if I put down a Question no doubt he would answer it, will he stick to that promise? He was absolutely right to give as wide a warning as possible, and the best way of doing so was through the Press. The more people who are warned about the danger the better, and I hope he will continue this process without frightening individual patients more than necessary.
Sir K. Joseph: In the light of the, as it were, ramifying importance of the subject I would like to consult my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport before deciding whether it would be right to give the further information by way of an answer to her or in a statement.
Mr. Ogden: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Evans Medical Ltd. has rightly enjoyed the best possible reputation for the safety and efficacy of its drugs over a long period. This is no fly-by-night operator. I have a deep personal debt to this company, for it was the safety, efficacy and availability of its drugs some years ago that helped to save the lives of my own two sons, and many other families are in a similar position. Will he also confirm that at Evans Medical Ltd., Speke, all are co-operating in every possible way with the officers of his Department to find out what happened on this occasion and make sure it never happens again?
Sir K. Joseph: I have no reason to dissent in any way from the generous and proper tribute paid by the hon. Member for Liverpool. West Derby (Mr. Ogden).
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Secretary of State aware that as a general rule the House wishes to be informed first on any
1660
matters, but there are occasions when it is more necessary to allay public fears and doubts and some of us think this is such a case. We would not wish to criticise the fact that the disclosure was made to the Press.
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the written representations he has made to hospitals in this country, but can he say whether any other persons might be in possession of this medicine? I am thinking of doctors' pharmacies. Is he satisfied that the warning he has given is sufficiently widespread to cover any that might still be in circulation?
Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first comment. On the second, my Chief Medical Officer has written to all medical officers of health, and they are the channel of communication to the other potential users.
Mr. Pavitt: On the long term, the inquiry, the steps to be taken and the announcement by the Secretary of State on Tuesday about the inspectorate, is he satisfied that the Medicines Act, 1968, gives the Committee on the Safety of Medicines sufficient power and cash to do the kind of job which this case obviously reveals is necessary? Does it not show that he was over-hasty in abandoning the MacGregor Committee? Would it not have been more appropriate for the MacGregor Committee to be retained to deal with such matters, as it would have done previously?
Sir K. Joseph: Obviously, the powers and resources of my Department and the Medicines Commission will be some of the subjects to be covered by the inquiry. As for the MacGregor Committee, I think it covered a parallel but quite distinct function.
Dr. David Owen: Is the Secretary of State yet in a position to tell the House how much of the possibly contaminated batch that was first put on the market in April last year has been used? Though he was very forthcoming about two possible inquiries, there is considerable anxiety in my area and we would want an inquiry into other deaths over the last few months which might have taken place as a result of the use of that contaminated batch.
Sir K. Joseph: It is probable, although I do not have more detailed knowledge, that a lot of the medicine bottles have been used. But I would emphasise that the first report from the Public Health Laboratory Service reveals that a proportion of the offending sub-batch was free of contamination, so that is some reassurance. The second part of the question is not one for me. If individuals seek to re-open questions of the cause of death, it is by way of approach to the coroner, which is primarily a matter for the Home Secretary.
Dr. Miller: Since contamination is always possible, even though it is a remote possibility, will the Secretary of State say how far he has proceeded along the lines of instituting a test for contamination immediately before use of the substance? It should not be difficult for a test of this kind to be developed.
Sir K. Joseph: I do not profess to have the hon. Member's medical knowledge, but my lay understanding is that bacteriological tests of this sort take at least 24 hours, so there can be no question of instituting tests just before use of the material.
Mrs. Castle: No one in the House denies the Secretary of State's duty to keep the public informed on a matter of this importance. The complaint in this case is that the right hon. Gentleman did not volunteer a statement to the House, which also has a right to hear the matters that he is conveying in considerable detail to the Press. Is he aware that on this side we would not be satisfied with the further information that he has promised being conveyed in the form of a written answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), but would expect him to make another statement in the House.
Sir K. Joseph: I note carefully what the right hon. Lady has said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for next week will be as follow:
MONDAY, 13TH MARCH.—Consideration of a timetable Motion for the remaining stages of the Housing Finance Bill.
Motions relating to Civil Aviation.
Second Reading of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Bill.
TUESDAY, 14TH MARCH and WEDNESDAY, 15TH MARCH.—Further progress in Committee on the European Communities Bill.
Mr. William Hamilton: You will he lucky!
Mr. Whitelaw: THURSDAY, 16TH MARCH.—Supply (16th Allotted Day): Army Estimates, 1972–73, Vote A. The Question will be put on all outstanding Votes.
Remaining stages of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Bill.
FRIDAY, 17TH MARCH.—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 20TH MARCH.—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Mr. Wilson: The Leader of the House will understand if I do not express at length the contempt we feel for the decision to apply the guillotine to one of the worst and most reactionary Bills this House has seen in our time. The reason I will not do so is that I want to come to another important question. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only a few minutes before the Prime Minister is due to meet the T.U.C. to discuss inflation we hear that this highly inflationary Bill is now subject to a guillotine Motion. Five million families will know that the Bill is going through only because it is being bullied through the House.
My main question concerns Northern Ireland. It is 15 weeks since I put forward in the House the very detailed programme which I thought was accepted

1663
in all parts of the House, at least for discussion by all-party talks here, in talks between Westminster and Stormont and between Westminster, Stormont and Dublin. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that once it was made clear by the Government, by kite-flying and in other ways, that they would make their own initiative, I did not press further for these talks, and said last week that there was no need to rush them, but that we expected a statement soon? Is he aware of the grave damage being done in Northern Ireland by the Government's failure to agree on a statement? Will he now tell us, particularly since the debate on Northern Ireland that we asked for has long been promised by him, a debate which must take place after the statement, when we are to expect that statement?
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman knows he is receiving the full co-operation of the Opposition on the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Bill, obviously an essential Bill, in getting the Second Reading through at a most irregular hour, after 10 o'clock, and in completing the remaining stages. I hope some of his hon. Friends will appreciate our co-operation there, which is ill-deserved in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the other Measure earlier.
Mr. Whitelaw: Without going into the merits of the Housing Finance Bill, which have been extensively argued recently at Question Time, I must say that to talk about bullying the Measure through the House is straining the facts a bit far. After all, the Bill has already been debated for 189 hours in Committee. An extremely reasonable offer of time was made to the Opposition on a voluntary basis for further discussion of the Bill, which was turned down. I cannot see how in those circumstances the Motion can he considered as other than fully justified and absolutely in accordance with the precedents of Governments of all parties and all times, certainly for as long as I have known. The right hon. Gentleman has even longer experience.
As to Northern Ireland, I appreciate the forbearance of the House. A statement has been promised. I cannot tell the House when it will be made, but I shall certainly pass on the right hon. Gentleman's expression of urgency to my
1664
right hon. Friend the Home Secondary and to my other colleagues.
Mr. Orme:What has the Cabinet been discussing?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for the Opposition's co-operation on the early introduction of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Bill, which is regarded as a very necessary Measure.
Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the House very reluctantly passed through all its stages in one day the Northern Ireland Act, and we asked for an early debate. We have not pressed the question of all-party talks, on which there has been a great deal of feet-dragging by the Government, because of the understanding that there would be an early statement. We were always told that it would be next week when we read what was put out by the Government to the Press. Will there be a statement on Northern Ireland next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: To be fair, I have never told the House that there would be a statement next week.
An Hon. Member: My right hon. Friend did not say that the right hon. Gentleman did.
Mr. Whitelaw: I know, but I wanted to put my position firmly on the record. On the question of when statements are to be made in the House, I am the person entitled to be believed, and I did not say that a statement would be made next week. I cannot say when a statement will be made. If I could, I would certainly tell the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful!"] Hon. Members may think it disgraceful, but I have given an undertaking that I will give the information to the House as soon as I can.
Mr. Stratton Mills: If there is not to be a statement on Northern Ireland by the Government, could that be made clear?
Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear on Tuesday that a statement would be made.
Mr. Orme: Is the Leader of the House aware that there has been considerable patience on this side of the

1665
House over the Northern Ireland situation, that we have pressed for a debate but have not taken the matter any further? Is he aware that there is a strike throughout the whole of Northern Ireland this afternoon, called by a Protestant organisation, and that the Government's attitude is leading to increased trouble? It might not be putting it too high to say that the Government's inactivity could be leading to deaths in Northern Ireland, and something must be done about the situation. The Leader of the House has a responsibility to see that a statement is made in the House next week.
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He would not expect me to be unaware of some of the facts to which he has referred. I am deeply aware of them, and deeply worried, as the whole House is, about the extremely difficult situation. I yield to no one in my concern about it. We all realise how desperately difficult and troublesome the situation is. I have said that a statement will be made and that I cannot say when. I cannot go further than that.
Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, because it has been said in the House, that the Prime Minister and I have discussed the question on a number of occasions on Privy Councillor terms. These discussions have not, of course, been revealed. Because of them, I held my hand, and we showed great patience about the debate and cooperated on that most unusual and irregular Act. In those circumstances, since I see no reason why there cannot be a statement on behalf of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that it will be made not necessarily by the Home Secretary, to whom he referred, but by the Prime Minister, as any measures taken may also affect defence and the Secretary of State for Defence is in another place?
Mr. Whitelaw: I naturally recognise all those matters that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I appreciate the forbearance that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have shown. In saying that I would make representations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I also said "and to my other colleagues". I realise the prime importance of the matter. I cannot say who will make such a statement, or when. I
1666
assure the whole House that I will make the strongest representations to my colleagues indicating exactly the feelings of the House, as is my duty in accordance with my position as Leader of the House, quite apart from my position in the Government.
Several Hon Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not stop Questions now, but I remind the House that there is to be an important debate on Welsh affairs. Many Welsh Members want to take part, and, therefore, I hope that hon. Members will seek to catch my eye now only for supplementary questions which they think to be really important.
Sir Gilbert Longden: Will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear that the Opposition in Standing Committee E were offered the opportunity to debate the Housing Finance Bill from Monday to Friday inclusive every week and turned the offer down? As a member of the Committee, I was thankful for that, but at least they had the opportunity.
Mr. Whitelaw: I can confirm what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Crosland: It was an outrageous proposition.
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman might remember that there was another proposal also turned down by the Opposition, which even by his standards must be regarded as very reasonable, a proposal that by a certain date, quite a long way off, the Committee might complete its consideration of the Bill sitting as and when the Opposition desired, at whatever hours and on whichever days they desired, to finish what were, after all, only 30 Clauses.
Mr. Crosland: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the offer he calls so generous was that with 30 Clauses, five Schedules, and new Clauses still to come, all that was to be completed in rather less than three weeks, and that the offer was totally unacceptable to the Opposition on a Bill so vital and controversial?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think the offer was of more than four weeks. The offer was far more generous than ever reached my ears from a Labour Government during my six years in opposition.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker:I apologise for intervening again, but we shall debate this matter on Monday. I hope we shall not continue to debate it now.
Mr. Burden: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention again to Motion No. 218 on legislation to ban the I.R.A. and to stop the continued flow of money from this country to Southern Ireland to buy weapons for use against British troops in Northern Ireland?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to make the Irish Republican Army an illegal organisation, in view of the fact that it is raising money in the United Kingdom and elsewhere with the express purpose of mounting murderous attacks upon the Forces of the Crown and civilians and thereby attempting to create a state of anarchy.]
This is a subject causing great concern. There has been a further number of collections this week and a further outflow of money for that purpose. It is time something was done to stop such collections.
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly note this Motion in view of the extremely difficult situation in Northern Ireland. I would like to say that I could give time for a debate, but I do not think I can.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Could the Leader of the House indicate whether it is his intention to make a statement next week expanding on the speech he made yesterday to the Council of the Newspaper Society indicating that it was the Government's intention to restore the statutory right for local newspapers to participate in the owning of the local commercial radio stations? Was this a clear statement of the Government's intention about the Clause which was delted by the Standing Committee considering the Sound Broadcasting Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read exactly what I said and the very careful words I used. I shall not repeat Ahem, because I might not get them right again, but I chose them very carefully to safeguard the proper position of this House.
Mr. James Hamilton: Would the Leader of the House tell us when the
1668
Government intend to afford us the opportunity to discuss local government reform in Scotland, bearing in mind that all other organisations outside this House are now having discussions on the subject? Ought not Members of Parliament to be afforded the opportunity of discussing it in this House?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid I cannot promise time in the near future. I shall not revert to my proposal that the matter might be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee, because I know that does not find favour with Scottish Members. I cannot promise to give time in the near future.
Mr. Wilkinson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he could afford time before Easter for a debate on foreign affairs? There are a great many issues of widespread concern, as instanced by Early-day Motion No. 175, which now has over 70 signatures.
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make renewed representations to the Government of Bangladesh that maximum protection be given to the Biharis and other Urdu-speaking people.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid it is clear that I shall not be able to give time for such a Motion before Easter.
Mr. Harold Walker: The Leader of the House will have seen the Prayer standing in my name and the names of other hon. Members regarding the Parochial Fees Order, 1972. Can he say when he intends to give time to debate this proposal, which relates to a massive increase in church charges of 100 per cent.?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid I cannot say that I will give time, but I shall look into the matter as soon as I can.
Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend confer with the Secretary of State for the Environment on the critical position which is developing with regard to railwaymen's wages and arrange for a statement to be made next week, in order to prevent the Government being overtaken by a position similar to that which developed with the miners' strike? Sooner or later the Government will have to intervene in this exercise of deficit financing in a nationalised industry.
Mr. Whitelaw: I think my hon. Friend knows that important negotiations are continuing, and it would be most unwise for me to make any comments one way or the other. It would not be right for me to do so. If there is any news to be given to the House, naturally my right hon. Friends concerned will come and give it.
Mr. Urwin: In view of the fact that the House will today be debating the failure of the Government's policies in Wales, does the Leader of the House realise that the problems there are similar to those in the other major development areas? Will he please try to find time at an early date to discuss the very serious situation in the Northern Region?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid I could not offer Government time, although I know this is an important subject. Naturally, I am aware of this.
Mr. Edelman: Has the Leader of the House given attention to the Motion dealing with the grave situation in the machine tool industry and, in the light of that, will he not find time, especially because of the general public disquiet, to debate this subject as soon as possible?
[That this House, gravely concerned about the crisis in the machine tool industry and, in particular about the decision of Alfred Herbert Limited, Coventry to make a further 530 workers redundant, with the serious consequences which will flow from this in wider areas, notably in the Churchill Machine Tool Company, Manchester, calls on Her Majesty's Government to use the occasion of the Bridget to make capital available, as a matter of urgency, to the machine tool industry to stop this dangerous decline, to assist the modernisation and re-equipment of British industry, and ensure full and stable employment.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I note the Motion, and I appreciate its importance to our national economy, but I am afraid I could not offer time for debate in the near future.
Mr. Cormack: Could the Leader of the House tell us when we are likely to have time to debate the proposal on the hideously soulless new parliamentary building?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the
1670
House will wish for time to consider the various buildings. They will be considered by the Services Committee first, and then we shall come forward with considerations for the House, and the House will be able at that stage to make up its mind.
Mr. Pardoe: Could I ask the Leader of the House whether he will give attention to Early-day Motion No. 247 on the tribunal to look into the Vehicle and General Insurance Co.?
[That this House notes that it is now three weeks since the publication of the Report of Tribunal appointed to inquire into certain issues in relation to the circumstances leading up to the cessation of trading by the Vehicle and General Insurance Company Limited, and that the Government has neither accepted nor rejected the Report; recognises that any further delay in arriving at a decision will impose a most unfair burden on those civil servants named in the Report; urges the Government to make an immediate statement as to whether it accepts or rejects the report and the reasons why no Ministers, either past or present, were called to give evidence; and calls for an early debate in Government time.]
Does he recognise that it is three weeks since the report was published, that there has been no acceptance or rejection by the Government and that it would be quite wrong to allow this to go on any longer because there are several civil servants with most unjustifiable clouds over their heads? Will he ensure that an early statement is made?
Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly appreciate the importance of what the hon. Member says, particularly about this affecting the staff, which is, I accept, a grave matter. I cannot say when a statement will be made, nor the time when it will be debated. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised a debate on this matter in Government time, and there will be a debate. However, I will refer what the hon. Gentleman says to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Benn: Following on what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) said about the situation in Coventry affecting his own constituents in the machine tool industry, would the

1671
Leader of the House seek, with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, an early debate on industrial policy, because there are a number of issues which give cause for concern and we would like an opportunity for the Secretary of State to explain the new policy that he is now adopting?
Mr. Whitelaw: Some of these matters are, clearly, for debate in the economic debate following the Budget Statement, but I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Speaker: I would remind hon. Members that this is an Opposition Supply Day. I shall call two more hon. Members.
Mr. Molloy: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the idea of having a guillotine debate on Monday? Does he understand that this Bill is, in our view, a very discriminatory Bill and that if it became an Act it would add to the inflationary spiral and the problems of this country? Most important, I ask him to consider the point that it makes very serious inroads, in our view, on the traditional freedom of British local government. For that reason, if for no other, he ought not to allow this issue to be subjected to the guillotine.
Mr. Whitelaw: All this can be discussed on Monday. I think that 189 hours of debate in Committee is really by any standards quite a long time and far more than most Bills have had. Secondly, the time that will be allotted under the timetable Motion will, in my judgment, be generous for what is needed. I think, therefore, that I am largely meeting this point.
Dr. Gilbert: Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up the confusion that has arisen about the exact words he used in an important passage in his speech last Wednesday. In HANSARD he is quoted as saying:
"Once it is signed, it"—
that is the Executive—
"has to come to Parliament before ratification, and that is what, with the Bill, it is seeking to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 444.]
The Times of the same day reported the hon. Gentleman's words as follows:
"Once it is signed the Executive has to come to Parliament for the legal decision of
1672
then being able subsequently to ratify the Treaty."
I raise this—and the right hon. Gentleman has had notice—because all the reports in the National Press—The Guardian, the Scotsman, the Birmingham Post and the Glasgow Herald—are virtually identical with that of The Times.
The right hon. Gentleman has given an assurance—and I accept it—that there has been no interference with HANSARD, but it would be useful for the House if we could know precisely what he did say on that occasion.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Member who wrote to me about this. I have examined the references to which he refers and I cannot see any real conflict between the various reports. On reading them, I do not think my words achieved that precision which I would naturally wish to give to the House. If that is the case I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, to the House, which I certainly do. The exact position was fully set out in the same debate by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and on other occasions by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who are much more learned than I am and whose words achieved the exact precision which mine, clearly, did not do on that particular occasion.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS
Mr. Carter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This arises out of events last Friday when my Ten-Minute Rule Bill, the Protection of Otters Bill, came before the House. An hon. Member objected to the Bill, and it was therefore deferred; and when you, Sir, asked the House on which day the Second Reading should take place, that same hon. Member—I believe it was the same hon. Member—suggested 16th June.
The point I wish to put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that if a Bill is deferred till the last possible day on which Private Members' business can be taken it has effectively been removed from the Order Paper. That removes the need for hon. Members to be present in the meantime to object to the Bill when it comes before the House. I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, if you do not feel

1673
that this is behaviour contrary to the spirit of the procedure of the House, and whether it was not discourteous for that Member to do what he did without informing me of the line of action he was taking?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice on this point. The deferment of a Bill in this way, though rare, is not unprecedented. I believe that it happened once last Session, although no complaint was made to me at the time. On 26th May, 1937, however, Mr. Speaker Fitzroy, when a similar incident was brought to his notice after it had occurred, strongly deprecated the use of this method for killing a Bill by an opponent as contrary to the established usage of the House. I entirely agree with my predecessor, and state that in future if objection is taken to a Bill the Chair will not accept its deferment to a distant date unless so requested either by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill or by another hon. Member known to be acting with his authority.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.
  SUPPLY

    WALES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
    4.21 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker: Before calling on the right hon. Member to move the Motion I would inform the House that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and other right hon. Members.
    Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move,
    That this House, noting with concern that the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government are directly responsible for a massive increase in unemployment in Wales, for a catastrophic fall in the number of Welsh jobs in prospect, for a serious decline in the number of new industries going to Wales, and for the closure of existing industries in the Principality, condemns the Prime Minister for the gross betrayal of his 1970 pledge to introduce effective regional development policies to bring prosperity to every part of our country.
    That is a strongly worded Motion but the background to this debate is the fact that Wales is now suffering its worst recession since the cruel 1930s. Not a Welsh valley or village has escaped unscathed from the horror of mounting unemployment. From Caernarvon to Cardiff, from Milford to Monmouth there comes a chorus of cries for help so that the crushing burden of unemployment might he relieved.
    In less than two years the Government have brought Wales to her knees. Our task today is to take the measure of the Welsh economic anxieties; secondly to search out the cause of our troubles; and, thirdly, to seek a remedy. Since the Prime Minister and his colleagues took office in June, 1970, Wales has known nothing but trouble. Registered unemployment has increased by 67 per cent. since the party opposite took control. Every week closures and further redundancies are announced. Redundancies appear as regularly as our daily newspapers. We can sum up our position in the words of an article which appeared in The Times

    1675
    on 2nd March by Mansel Jones, industrial correspondent of the Western Mail. He said:
    "Interest in possible fresh investment in Wales has also been at its lowest for more than 20 years."
    He went on:
    "The past 12 to 18 months, however, have see a partial undoing of the position"—
    achieved while we were in office—
    "with only the strongest and the fittest being able to withstand making redundancies, curtailing investment plans or, in many cases, effecting a complete closure of Welsh factories."
    Every age group in Wales has been clobbered in the growth of unemployment. There are now 50 per cent. of our people within the age bracket of 40 and upwards unemployed. Some 35 per cent. of the unemployed are in the age group 20 to 40, and 15 per cent. are under 20. The facts are that when the Secretary of State took office there were 33,000 unemployed in Wales and we were rightly disturbed by that. Today there are over 56,000 people registered wholly unemployed—an increase of 23,000—of whom 14,400 are males. In our development areas the percentage of unemployed is 6·;3 per cent.; in our special development areas the figure is 7 per cent.
    Welsh youth is suffering severely. There has been an increase of 130 per cent. in unemployment among juveniles in Wales since the party opposite took over responsibility for Government. In June, 1970, 1,805 young people were registered as wholly unemployed; in January of this year there were 4,222—an increase of 2,417.
    Another special category in Wales that is always on our conscience is the disabled. The Secretary of State knows that we have a higher than average proportion of disabled persons. There are 7,330 registered disabled unemployed in the Principality. On 25th March last year the Government announced that they were providing 340 extra places in sheltered workshops for the disabled unemployed. We expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give us more encouraging news about what plans the Government have, in particular for our registered disabled.
    In order that the House shall have a fair picture of the state of Wales after
    1676
    nearly two years of Conservative Government I propose to give some more figures dealing with the rates of male unemployment. Two years ago Swansea was one of our most prosperous cities, standing on the threshold of an era of great expansion. Today Swansea has 7 per cent. of its men signing the unemployment register. The City of Cardiff, the capital——
    Mr. Alan Williams: Before my right hon. Friend leaves Swansea, would he make it clear to the House that in the period during which he and his right hon. colleagues were in office the story of Swansea was a story of improvements and additions to employment? Since the Conservative Government have come to office we have lost job after job, factory after factory.
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House to a matter that affects a good many places in the Principality of Wales. Swansea, thanks to direct Government intervention in the direction and dispersal of Government offices to Swansea, was poised for a great era. Now it shares with Cardiff, the capital of Wales, a situation in which 7 per cent. of its menfolk are signing the unemployment register.
    In other parts of South Wales, Chepstow and Monmouth, the prosperous parts, 8·7 per cent. of the men in the town of Monmouth are unemployed. In Pontypool and Cwmbran nearby, 9·4 per cent. of the men are unemployed. We know from redundancies forecast that there is more trouble on the way for this part of the Principality. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) has 12 per cent. of its menfolk unemployed, wanting to work and denied the opportunity. Merthyr Tydfil, where they lost over 3,000 jobs last year, has over 10 per cent. male unemployment.
    So we come to mid-Wales and there is the same sorry story. Barmouth 10·3 per cent.; Blaenau Festiniog 12·6 per cent.; Cardigan—the constituency of my hon. Friend (Mr. Elystan Morgan) who, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be replying for us at the end of the day—9·1 per cent; Lampeter and Llandyssil 12·1 per cent. The sorry story goes right through Wales.

    1677
    When we get to North Wales, Anglesey has 13 per cent. of its menfolk unemployed; Caernarvon, Bangor, Bethesda and Penygroes—well known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—have 14·9 per cent. of their menfolk unemployed; Portmadoc and Pwllheli have 13 per cent.; and in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's former constituency, Conway, 9·2 per cent. of the men are unemployed. Even Wrexham, which was bursting at the seams two years ago, now has over 9 per cent. of its menfolk unemployed.
    That is not the end of our misery. The flow of new industries coming into Wales has been reduced to a trickle and those that were brought in under the investment grant scheme are closing down. This has been a record year for bankruptcies in Wales. The number of unfilled vacancies available for our people has fallen catastrophically. In June of 1970 there were nearly 10,000 unfilled vacancies, with 33,000 people out of work. In 1972 there is a bare 5,000 unfilled vacancies, with 56,000 unemployed.
    When we last debated the economic affairs of Wales on 10th June last year, just nine months ago, we bemoaned the fact that in Wales eight men were chasing every job that was available. In the intervening period the position has deteriorated. Today 12 men chase every job that is available. The Secretary of State for Wales blandly told us nine months ago that Wales was weathering the storm better than Scotland. A storm is an act of God, and clearly nothing to do with the Government. There is nothing more infuriating for the Welsh people than to meet with such smugness and to be told that the Scots are worse off than they are. It is like telling a man who has lost an arm that he should not feel sorry for himself because someone else has lost two arms. That is not the sort of philosophy that we expect from people with a sense of responsibility.
    Under this Administration there has been a disastrous reduction in the number of new industries coming to Wales. We measure it by the granting of industrial development certificates. In 1968, 179 I.D.C.s were granted; in 1969, 203; in 1970, 166—most of them in the first part of the year; in 1971, 83—a reduction of 50 per cent. compared with the previous year, which in itself was a 25 per cent. reduction on the year before. But
    1678
    in order that the picture shall be complete we need to examine the additional employment estimated to arise out of the new industrial approvals in Wales. In 1968, 16,510; in 1969, 16,790; in 1970, 14,650; in 1971, 5,610.
    So we see that the Government's economic policy is one long catalogue of failure in Wales. But their alibi is as unchanging as the peak of Mount Snowdon. They blame the last Government, they blame high wages, they blame an act of God; they blame everyone and everything rather than take the responsibility themselves. To give credit where credit is due, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State excel in promises and excuses, but mere excuses solve no problems. We know that to find the cure for the terrible position in which Welsh men and women find themselves today we have to search for the cause. It is a commonplace that what we call the regions, the development areas, all suffer most when the general economy slumps, although it is not equally true to say that when the economy is booming the development areas boom. It just is not true; history proves that. To get the economy in general moving we need the full resources of the regions. Areas such as Wales, Scotland and the North-East will always require special assistance. Like other areas of the country, we have our share of technological unemployment, the unemployment caused by the technical changes in industry through which higher productivity is possible with less manpower. But our indictment of the Government is that their policy aggravates that problem.
    When the Government changed their policy of regional assistance from a system of investment grants to tax allowances and free depreciation without an economic assessment and solely for obsessional doctrinaire reasons and because Labour had pursued the other policy, they started a landslide. Investment grants brought to Wales the very industries that are now cushioning us from the worst effects. They brought Borg Warner to Port Talbot, Parke Davis to Pontypool, Rio Tinto to Holyhead, the expansion of B.P. Chemicals at Baglan Bay. A long list could be given of the industries that have protected us from complete disaster since the Government took over.

    1679
    The experts are warning the Government that they should go back to investment grants. Professor Glyn Davies, the Professor of Banking and Finance at the University of Wales, Institute of Science and Technology, writing last October in the Scotsman said:
    "The present Government should admit forthwith that the change from investment grants to tax allowances has in current circumstances been demonstrably wrong and should therefore revert immediately to investment grants. Loss of face is less important than loss of jobs."
    When the change to tax allowances took place, both public and private sectors of industry in the development areas reacted immediately. Expansion plans were rejected overnight, and footloose industry suddenly became cemented where it was. The nationalised industries, our major employers in Wales, all had to revise their development plans. History has never seen a more sudden change in industrial activity in Wales. The Welsh C.B.I. and the T.U.C. appealed in vain to the Government to have second thoughts.
    The report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research urges the Government to use the Budget to remedy their mistakes. This is what I call a cultured condemnation. It is put in polite language and appears in The Times today:
    "Present policies are probably (but by no means certainly) sufficient to stabilise employment levels for a while; they do not seem at all likely to bring about a substantial reduction in unemployment."
    That is not the condemnation of the political opponents of the present Administration; it is the condemnation of an independent body which deals with any Government in power and gives impartial advice.
    The National Westminster Bank "Quarterly Review" for February of this year is also very severe on the Government:
    "If the Government wish to reduce unemployment significantly they must increase the level of investment in these regions. Recent changes have not only reduced investment returns but have also significantly reduced the comparative advantage of the development areas."
    That is a very serious charge.
    "The Government should consider whether such results are desirable."
    1680
    At the end of last month the C.B.I. issued a report making recommendations to the Government for a change in their economic policy. Everyone concerned with the well being of this country is disturbed at the way we are going. The C.B.I. called for a regional development commission thus indicating its alarm. The T.U.C. put this proposal to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last August and was told that it was being considered. When the representatives of the T.U.C. are at Downing Street today they will reiterate the plea they made a year ago for the Government to plan for a greater growth in the economy. Had the T.U.C. been listened to a year ago, we might have saved measureless misery for workers who now find themselves unemployed.
    Even the Bank of England has today made its own cautious contribution to public concern about our sick economy. The Bank of England offers a crumb of comfort to the Government in detecting signs that the economy is buoyant. Things must look different in Threadneedle Street from the way they look in Merthyr, Tonypandy and Caernarvon.
    One of the most significant and useful reports on the Welsh economy that has come forward in recent years has been produced by the Welsh Council, which was originally set up by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Welsh Council has done a very useful job of work. When I carried responsibility I found that it gave impartial advice. The Council is forthright in its appeal to the Government. It echoes the plea of the T.U.C. and advises the Government to go for a 6 per cent. growth in the economy over the next two years. It is significant that the Report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research today recommends that the Government should go for a growth target of 5 per cent. The recommendations of those two bodies are very close to each other.
    The Report of the Welsh Council is a major indictment of the Government's policy in Wales. It is an indication that the Government have failed to measure correctly the problems that concern them. I want to know what are the reactions of the Government to the recommendation about economic growth. This is of major importance to our people.

    1681
    The Welsh Council recommends that public corporation investment policy should not be determined solely by the concept of productivity or return on capital employed. This sort of advice is a breakthrough. The reports says in its recommendation (c):
    "Public corporation investment policy should not be determined solely by the concept of productivity or return on capital employed … because of the significant dependence of private sector industry and the social fabric and infrastructure on the policy of these corporations."
    I hope that the Secretary of State, who has had this report in his hands for longer than the rest of us, will give us his considered views upon that.
    The Welsh Council points out that, as income per head in Wales is only 85 per cent. of that in the rest of the United Kingdom, the high prices unleashed by the Government have a much worse effect in the Principality, and recommends a material upward revision of social security benefits throughout the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, this means that we would get greater help because we are more dependent in present conditions on social benefits. The Council also recognised that regional employment premiums should be retained. We introduced them and they were to last until 1974. The Government have leapt at that and said that they would come to an end in 1974. In view of the further appeal by the Welsh Council that encouragement shall be given to industrialists to come to Wales by the guarantee of the continuation of regional employment premiums, I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us where he stands on that matter.
    Above all, I was interested to find that the Welsh Council says that a strong body of opinion within the Council is in favour of differential investment grants and that the present system is not an adequate replacement. The Council asks for the policy of dispersal of Government offices to be pursued more vigorously. During the Labour Government 11,000 jobs were created in Wales by the dispersal of Government factories. I want the Secretary of State to tell us what plans he has in our present emergency for sending to Wales more Government offices and how many jobs he expects to create within the next two years.
    1682
    This Report of the Welsh Council asks the Government—I acknowledge it—to reverse their policy and to stand on their heads. That is not an unreasonable request to make to this Government. It is a posture to which they have become accustomed. Today the Government announced another case of standing on their heads. Anything except standing on their own feet. Today there is the announcement about food subsidies, and there was the reversal of policy over Clydeside and the nationalisation of Rolls-Royce. There is their changed attitude about public expenditure, a complete turnabout. If they can do so in those matters, in view of the plight of Wales, we have the right to say to them, "It is time you faced facts and changed your policy there as well".
    The Prime Minister, in his personal message to the country in 1970 introducing "A Better Tomorrow"—I can think of a better phrase—and indicating the sort of Government we could expect from him, said:
    "Finally, once a decision is made, once a policy is established, the Prime Minister and his colleagues should have the courage to stick to it."
    That has gone through the window a long time ago. I hope that the things they want to stick by are not those which are damaging the Principality.
    At the election, they promised us:
    "a country which makes the fullest use of all its human and material resources to build a new prosperity."
    There never was greater humbug than that sentence. Promises which won them the 1970 election will cost them the next election. They also told us that:
    "Under a Conservative Government, the gap between the politician's promise and Government performance will be closed so that people and government can be brought together again in one nation united in a common purpose—a better tomorrow."
    It must have been a joke. The trouble is that it is so hard to tell when this Prime Minister is joking and when he is not. He has devalued the politician's promise. He has gone back on the solemn promises he made. I believe that behind the camouflage of his honesty and integrity which is continually advertised by the party opposite he has played a cheap confidence trick on the British people.

    1683
    This Government have landed us in just over 18 months with a million unemployed in the country, and in Wales the highest unemployment since the 1930s, with no prospect that 1972 is going to see us back even to where we were two years ago. The fact that the jobs are not in the pipeline means that even if they could hold their own now without any more unemployment coming it would take four years to get hack to where we were when they took office.
    In his recent ministerial broadcast, the Prime Minister talked piously about the British way of life. That has a different meaning in Methyr from the meaning in Bournemouth. It is different for the pensioner than for the yachtsman. The British way of life may mean everything or nothing; it all depends on who you are and what you have in your pocket. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister said very little about the Conservative way of life, but it is the Conservative way of life about which we complain. It is that which is giving us winter all the year round, from John o'Groats to Land's End, or, to keep to the subject of the debate, from North Wales to South Wales.
    The whole country suffers and there are icy blasts for the working people. The Government have damaged Wales enough, but the remedial measures which they recite to us so often and which they have proposed so far are merely tinkering with our problems. They have enlarged the number of special development areas. What we want is an enlargement of the number of mobile factories. We want an increase in the number of jobs. All that the right hon. Gentleman did by enlarging the number of special development areas was to make it harder for those that were already special development areas. The improved operational grants, the new intermediate areas, the infrastructure expenditure which is proposed—all this is tinkering with the biggest problem that has faced any Minister concerned with the Welsh people.
    Because of that I believe that we are right in this Motion to condemn the Prime Minister, who carries major responsibility, for the gross betrayal of the 1970 pledge to introduce effective regional development policies to bring prosperity to every part of our country.
    1684
    They have brought us disaster. It is high time that the Secretary of State for Wales realised his own personal responsibility in this. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as though he was a detached observer of our problems in the Principality. If he were more involved with the life of Wales, he would know that today the name "Conservative" stinks throughout the Principality.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I beg to move to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'concerned with the level of unemployment in Wales, approves the substantial measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to stimulate long-term economic growth, and is confident that the policies of Her Majesty's Government will lead to an increase in general prosperity which will benefit the Principality '.
    Recently in the Welsh Grand Committee we debated the coal and steel industry in Wales and, in the context of the miners' strike and the steel review, I then felt and said that the choice of topic was ill-timed. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) spoke on that occasion, he failed to see the problem in context or to put it in perspective. This afternoon, though I reject the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, I have no reservations about the choice of subject. What we are considering is unquestionably the most serious problem facing us in Wales today.
    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on a powerful and extremely well-delivered speech. Nevertheless, I hope he will understand that I have reservations about the way in which he sees the problem. Therefore, I will try to set the matter in context and to give it an accurate perspective.
    Unemployment is an economic problem but it is also a human problem. They are problems which the present Government are firmly committed to solve. I know that we as a Government will be acquitted of any charge of ignoring the human, social and economic waste which unemployment entails. I am sure that there is no difference between the two sides of the House on that point. The differences between us are about how best to create the conditions of economic expansion which alone can bring down unemployment.

    1685
    I have no doubt that much more will be said in this debate about the measures taken by the Government during our 20 months in office. I have no doubt that we shall hear more from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about the further things that should be done.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to some suggestions made in the report of the Welsh Council. Before I consider these issues of policy, I believe it would be helpful to look at the nature and underlying causes of the present problem. Indeed, I thought for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman was going to do that since he began his speech by saying that he wished to do so. Therefore, the superficial terms of the motion make it all the more important that we should consider the situation objectively.
    The pattern of unemployment in Wales moves broadly in line with trends elsewhere in the country, although there have been some encouraging variants of the pattern from the Welsh point of view. I am sure we all agree that the economy of the Principality is so closely integrated with that of other parts of the United Kingdom that obviously we cannot expect to isolate ourselves from what happens in the south-east of England, the Midlands and elsewhere.
    I am sure it will be agreed that regional policies alone, no matter how effectively devised and executed they may be, cannot by themselves bring prosperity to Wales unless the national economy is buoyant and investment on the upturn. The right hon. Gentleman, by implication, accepted that in his speech. The undoubted fact is that the national economy was almost stagnant for years before this Government took office.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that the T.U.C. was seeing the Prime Minister this afternoon and would urge on him plans for greater growth in economy. That may be so, and today all people are urging growth on the Government. But during the six years when Labour were in power, the economy grew by only 15 per cent. or 2·4 per cent. per annum. In the last two years of Labour administration the growth rate was not more than 2 per cent. a year. These are the facts and a heavy price has been paid in the last 20 months for the policies which brought about those years of
    1686
    stagnation. Wales, in common with other parts of the country, has had to pay that price and those policies have had to be reversed.
    It is an historical fact over several decades that unemployment in Wales has been higher than in the country as a whole. I appreciate that in the past I have said that Wales has been weathering the storm better than many people feared. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not feel I am being smug about the situation. I am not.
    It is worth recalling that we have fared better in the economic difficulties of the last few years than have some other parts of the country. Whereas in 1966 the Welsh share of Great Britain's unemployment was 8·8 per cent., it was 6·7 per cent. in early 1970 and by the end of 1971 it was down to 5·8 per cent. I accept the criticism that is made of that sort of remark, since it is saying no more than that the Principality's experience in recent years has been somewhat less unfavourable than that of other regions. This can be regarded as being of some help. Yet whatever the relative position, it remains true that the current level of unemployment in Wales is high mainly because the national economy has been weak.
    To understand the present position in Wales, we must look at the underlying regions for this weakness in the United Kingdom economy. I repeat that the factors principally involved had their origins in the policies of the Labour Government. They can be summed up as stagnation, inflation and a thoroughly unfavourable investment climate. There was a dismal record of economic growth in the five years leading up to 1970. In particular after 1966 there was insufficient economic growth to provide for all those affected by what was then termed the "shake out".
    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned an increase in unemployment and he was right, namely a 67 per cent. increase in the 20 months we have been in office. In the 12 months alone from June, 1966, to June, 1967, unemployment in Wales jumped by 62 per cent. This might he described as the Labour way of life in Wales. The period of office of the Labour Party was marked not just by stagnation, but towards the end of that Government there seems to have been an almost total

    1687
    lack or possibly an abandonment of control over wage inflation.
    The further sharp and very disturbing increase in unemployment which we have seen over the past one a a half years certainly reflects this failure. The truth is that this Government took office at a time when inflation was almost out of control and unemployment on a well-established upward trend. Stagnation and inflation together would certainly have created an unfavourable investment climate in any event. But this was not all. There was also a consequential and serious problem of liquidity in industry.
    Faced with a shortage of cash and the growing cost of labour, and with its confidence badly shaken, British industry reacted in a way which is natural and inevitable. Investment was held back and workers were laid off.
    Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that the C.B.I. Survey which was carried out in Wales in March of last year brought out the point that one of the major reasons for this increase in unemployment was wages and prices unrest? Further, may I draw his attention to what the present Prime Minister said on 30th April before the General Election in 1970 on Thames Television:
    "I think you are being unfair to the unions and to the workers in saying that this price explosion is glued to a wage explosion."
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting in part of the speech which he hopes to make if, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he catches your eye.
    When I saw the C.B.I. in Wales shortly after I had become Secretary of State, they were making the identical complaints I have just been making. They talked in terms of a liquidity problem. They talked in terms of stagnation. They talked in terms of lack of profit. All these things I have mentioned. Take the Motion which was moved by the right hon. Gentleman which uses these words:
    "a massive increase in unemployment in Wales … for a serious decline in the number of new industries going to Wales, and for the closure of existing industries in the Principality".
    These words are true, but they are not the result of the present Administration's policy. As hon. and right hon. Gentlemen
    1688
    know only too well, events and consequences are not quite so rapid as that. Our present situation has its roots in things done and not done between 1964 and 1970. Our task and our purpose have been to effect a change before it is too late.
    As the right hon. Gentleman said, since the economic prosperity of Wales is inextricably bound up with that of the United Kingdom as a whole, the first and the most important step towards reducing unemployment in the Principality is to get the British economy as a whole marching forward again. No British Government have taken more measures designed to reflate the economy so as to create more job opportunities than have this Government in their 20 months of office.
    Effective regional policies are of major importance, and we are wholly committed to them and have introduced, as the House knows, many new and improved measures. But they have to operate within the context of an expanding economy.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to an article by Professor Glyn Davies. We can debate at length the merits of this system or that system, about investment grants and allowances, about relative differentials and the like, but one thing is certain: if the investment climate in the country as a whole is not favourable no incentives, of whatever shape and size can by themselves bring the required volume of new industry to development areas.
    I would like to remind the House of just some of the positive measures we have taken in the past 18 months. Many of them are referred to at the beginning of the Welsh Council's Report. There are the various cuts in income tax, corporation tax, purchase tax and selective employment tax, which will add up in the current year to the sum of £1,100 million, and in 1972–73 to £1,400 million.
    Bank Rate has twice been cut to the lowest level since 1964, and this, combined with the general easing of credit, means that funds are now much more readily available to industry. Term controls on hire purchase have been abolished. The "backward free depreciation concession" and the raising of first-year allowances respectively mean that plant and machinery investment in both development areas and non-development areas have been further encouraged.

    1689
    These are the sorts of things which were urged on me when I met the C.B.I. in Wales and when I met the T.U.C. in Wales. These are the sorts of things they were suggesting should be done. In response to these measures, there has unquestionably been an upturn in consumer expenditure. Many firms in Wales are already experiencing the benefits of this. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with what I have said, but we have examples in the manufacture of washing machines and other consumer durables at Merthyr and Hirwaun. Hoover at Merthyr have announced that by April of this year they will have taken on an extra 500 people. Many of them have already been taken on. G.E.C. at Hirwaun have taken on an extra 250 people, and have just announced that they are going to take on another 250 people.
    Mr. Donald Coleman: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether these people who have been taken on are males or females?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: That is a fair question. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the majority of them are female. I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are not going to show some form of displeasure in the fact that these extra jobs have become available by reason of new consumer demand, because an increase in consumer demand is the first thing one expects when one has an upturn in the economy. We hope that investment in new plant and machinery will follow. This is something which is an encouraging sign. The national retail trade index showed a steady increase throughout 1971. The economy as a whole is now expanding at about the rate of 4 to 4½ per cent. a year, which was foreseen by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen talked in terms of the growth rate. At the moment the growth rate in this country at 4 to 4½ per cent. is twice the rate achieved by the previous Administration, and Wales is sharing in this growth. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House on 28th February that he is looking forward to an improvement in manufacturing investment in the latter part of this year. This view is borne out by the most recent
    1690
    survey of business opinion carried out by the Financial Times.
    As right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may know, it is borne out by the Bank of England Report, about which they may have read in the papers today. All the indications are for a further improvement in investment in new buildings, plant and machinery. With the prospect of continued growth in the United Kingdom, the opportunities are now very real. I mentioned the Quarterly Bulletin of the Bank of England. The actual words they used this morning were:
    "the prospects for relatively strong growth throughout 1972 are favourable."
    I agree with this. Great opportunities are presented by our forthcoming entry into the European Economic Community. I have no doubt that the E.E.C. offers most substantial scope for new investment and increased opportunities for Welsh-based industry and firms.
    There has been a lag in private investment over the past year. One need hardly say that this has been a great disappointment to us all. Faced with this situation, however, the Government have responded by substantially stepping up their own capital expenditure and by making it possible for other parts of the public sector to do likewise. Wales is sharing to the full in these programmes. Under the programme of accelerated infrastructure spending in assisted areas announced in July and September of last year, additional projects costing about £21 million will be undertaken in Wales in the period up to March, 1973. This expenditure covers roads, hospitals, schools and derelict land clearance—all essential sectors if Wales is to develop an up to date and attractive infrastructure. The Special Environmental Assistance Scheme announced last month will enable local authorities in assisted areas to tackle a large number of minor schemes between now and June, 1973. All but a small part of the cost of clearing these eyesores will be borne by the Government.
    In November, I announced that an additional £9 million would be spent on various trunk road schemes in Wales in the next two years or so. This additional spending, as I explained in the course of a recent Welsh Grand Committee debate, is only a part of the major expansion of road expenditure which is to take place

    1691
    in Wales over the next year or two. I anticipate in fact that total spending on Welsh roads will rise from this year's record level of about £53 million to £62 million in 1972–73 and to nearly £70 million in 1975–76.
    Derelict land clearance is another area where we are pressing ahead with badly needed projects. Grant payments this year at £1·3 million are nearly twice the level of the last two years, and I expect there to be a further increase in 1972–73.
    It has to be borne in mind that, important as it is, the immediate creation of employment is not the only purpose behind this expansion of public expenditure. These schemes and many others such as the home improvement scheme under the 1971 Act will all bring immediate benefits to the localities in which they are undertaken. Living conditions in these places will be improved. What is equally important, the towns and villages concerned will become more attractive as locations for industrial development. This is recognised by the local authorities in Wales which have responded most enthusiastically, I am glad to say.
    This is but one part of the general strategy of preparing and cultivating the ground for a renewed upsurge of industrial development in Wales. In this connection, I am pressing ahead as quickly as I can with my proposal to develop a new town at Llantrisant. Hon. Members will know that I have recently published a Draft Designation Order and that a public inquiry will now follow.
    Llantrisant is only one element in our policy for the development of South Wales. I have more than once made it clear that we have a commitment to the valleys which we intend to honour. But Llantrisant is certainly an important part of the overall strategy. Last year we designated this area, with others, as special development areas. The quicker we can exploit the obvious potential of Llantrisant, together with that of other major industrial sites in Wales, the bigger the rewards.
    Mr. Arthur Probert: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the very simple fact that the development of a new town at Llantrisant is in complete conflict with the development of the valley communities?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I appreciate that there are people like the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) who have been concerned about the prospect of this new growth area at the mouths of the valleys. I do not mean to be offensive when I say, however, that every informed observer says that this will bring considerable economic strength to the area and to South Wales. This was confirmed by the Economic Council when it was under the chairmanship of Professor Brinley Thomas, and it was also set out in "Wales: The Way Ahead", which was published under the aegis of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes). I accept the view expressed in that document.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in our discussion of these proposals we said clearly in paragraph 337:
    "For both economic and social reasons the Government "—
    the former Labour Administration—
    "reject any policy which would assume the disintegration of the substantial valley communities …"?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: As I say, I accept the views expressed in that document about Llantrisant, and that is one of them. I reject policies which would involve the disintegration of the valley communities, because I feel that they are important. However, I do not think that the proposals for Llantrisant will do other than benefit the valley communities.
    Mr. Leo Abse: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I represent Cwmbran. Does not he understand that some of the concern and anxiety about the establishment of a new town at Llantrisant is prompted by the fact that we have an unemployment rate in Pontypool and Cwmbran reaching nearly 10 per cent.? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to establish another new town for the workless at Llantrisant?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman, despite his very effective observation. He has now drawn the attention of everyone to the difficulties obtaining in Cwmbran, of which I am fully aware. I have no doubt that Cwmbran and that area will benefit as soon as the economy moves forward, because it is extremely well

    1693
    situated, especially when one considers the new communications which have just been opened. In the same way, Llantrisant, which is also very favourably situated, will benefit. When, as I have every hope, the economy moves forward, I have no doubt that that will be a major growth area in South Wales.
    In preparing the ground for new industrial development, we must take account of human as well as physical resources. In this context the proposals for the massive expansion of training and retraining facilities announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 1st February are very relevant.
    Since this Government came to power, the number of men and women attending courses under the Government's vocational training scheme in Wales has already increased by 85 per cent. Training allowances and grants have been raised considerably. But this is only a beginning. A new Government training centre will be established in the Newport area, and a new training annexe will be provided close to the Cardiff Government training centre by utilising unused industrial premises.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that a specific decision has been taken to site this new training centre within the County Borough of Newport? He will appreciate that the original announcement by the Government was that it would be in East Monmouthshire.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It has not been taken. I do not think that I should add to what I said, which was that a new Government training centre will be established in the Newport area. I do not intend it to be thought that it will be in a specific locality in the Newport area. A decision as to the exact locality has not been taken. All that I can say is that it will be in the Newport area.
    More extensive use will also he made of training facilities in colleges of further education, commercial colleges and in employers' establishments. The new Training Opportunities Scheme, outlined in the discussion document, "Training for the Future", will not only greatly expand training capacity but provide a much wider range of courses than at present.
    1694
    The right hon. Gentleman referred properly and very movingly to the young people in Wales. We are, of course, particularly concerned about job prospects for young people. Unemployment amongst young people is always a particular cause for anxiety, and no one can be content with a situation in which school leavers find it difficult to get employment. The past year has been difficult but there are signs of improvement. The number of boys and girls placed in employment in Wales in the first two months of this year was an increase of nearly 2,000, an increase of almost 400 over the figures for the comparable period last year.
    As part of our aim is to help place in employment young people looking for semi-skilled or unskilled work, the Department of Employment is arranging short courses of limited skill training at Government training centres and colleges of further education. Employers are also being encouraged to provide courses of the same kind. All the costs of the weekly allowances to those taking part are met by the Department of Employment.
    Concern was expressed to me by one hon. Gentleman opposite when we had a meeting the other day about the reduction in the number of apprenticeships available in Wales. This is not just a Welsh, but a national problem, and a lot depends for the future on the way that industrial investment improves. We are taking steps to provide as many places for apprentices as we can in connection with the engineering, the road transport, the construction and the hotel and catering industries. So far, some 260 places have been taken up by Welsh boys under arrangements made by the Department of Employment. This is a hopeful sign.
    In all this we must not forget the service industries which have always had a part in the economic life of Wales and are taking an increasing share. These service industries are often labour intensive. We tend perhaps to under-emphasise the importance of jobs in the service industries.
    We must not ignore the fact that Wales has an important agricultural base. It is also an expanding area for tourism, with all the employment opportunities which this offers.
    In addition, more and more office jobs are coining to Wales. The Government's

    1695
    dispersal schemes—I am perfectly happy to share this with the previous Administration—already hold out promise of increasing employment; for example, the sizeable number of jobs at the new building at Maindy and the 500 jobs resulting from stage 2 of the Royal Mint development at Llantrisant. It is our hope many more jobs of this kind will come to Wales as the dispersal programme expands.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me how many new decisions have been made as regards Government office dispersals since the party opposite came into power? Will he confirm that the Ministry of Defence is reconsidering whether to go to Maindy as there is a strong prospect it will not be used for providing additional civil service jobs in Wales, but for housing civil servants already there.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Ministry of Defence was considering what Maindy should be used for. Nevertheless, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it decided to go ahead with the building at Maindy, and this is going ahead. We had to consider the matter during the time that I have been Secretary of State, and I was very pleased to be able to announce it. We are following a dispersal programme, but I am not in a position to say how many jobs will come to Wales. I hope that further jobs of this kind will come to Wales as our dispersal programme expands.
    Mr. John Morris: The Secretary of State has not answered either of my questions. Is he now saying that the Ministry of Defence is coming to Cardiff? I should like to know.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I cannot say what part of the Ministry of Defence will occupy the Maindy barracks; but the proposal is that part of the Ministry will occupy those barracks.
    I should now like to turn briefly to what has been said and written on the subject of regional strategy generally. In recent weeks I have heard the views of the C.B.I. and T.U.C. in Wales, and we have had the report of the Welsh Council. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Council for this report. Some of its recommendations fall into the area of taxation policy generally, and it would clearly be inappropriate to try to respond
    1696
    to those at the present time. The House may be assured that the report will be carefully looked at.
    I was asked about certain specific recommendations; for instance, whether we are going to continue R.E.P. after the terminal date announced by the previous Administration, which we accepted.
    Mr. Alan Williams: The guarantee was that R.E.P. would remain in existence for seven years. There was no guarantee beyond seven years, but there was no commitment that it would finish after the seven years. We did not say that it would definitely end. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It was for a period of seven years, and the terminal date is April, 1974. It is true that it was not announced firmly that it would terminate on that date; it was just for a period of seven years.
    Regarding these and other matters, as the House knows, a thorough-going look at regional policies is currently being undertaken by the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that the Government are concerned to find, wherever possible, more direct means of tackling the individual problems of particular areas, and an announcement will be made at the appropriate time.
    No Government are more aware of the need to strengthen the regional economies of Britain and to narrow the gap between the various areas in terms of employment, investment and the quality of life. I hope that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West does not feel that he has painted too gloomy a picture of the situation in Wales, because it would be wrong to suggest that there has been no movement at all. Welsh industry is very much alive. Despite the difficulties which I have mentioned, Wales is attracting new firms and providing a base where established firms can expand.
    The facts are that no fewer than 23 firms from outside Wales or entirely new to manufacturing have opened in the last year. They employ currently 1,400 persons and expect to give jobs to a total of 2,700 when fully manned. It is significant that four of these firms are from the continent.

    1697
    Reference was made to industrial development certificates. Obviously, on the figures the level of I.D.C. approvals was disappointingly low in 1971. It is, nevertheless, true that 6·5 million square feet of new industrial space has been approved in the last 18 months or so. In the last month, 12 I.D.C.s, relating to nearly 400,000 square feet and providing 800 jobs, were issued. I hope that these will lead to firm announcements later this year. Major national and international firms have come, or plan to come, to Wales; for example, Golden Ltd., and Wilkinson Sword, Ltd., to South Wales, and Dunlop, Ltd., to Wrexham.
    In the past year the prospects for the estates administered by the Welsh Industrial Estates Corporation have gone well. In particular, the major Bridgend/Waterton complex has prospects of becoming one of the major industrial estates in Europe. We should not forget the smaller, but none the less important, developments in mid-Wales in the last year, notably at Newtown and Brecon.
    Mr. George Thomas: We welcome and rejoice in every new industry which can come to Wales, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware how much less this is than was galloping in just 18 months ago. How many new jobs were created in Wales last year and how many redundancies were announced? Does not that destroy the right hon. and learned Gentleman's euphoria?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about euphoria. I hoped that I was giving the House a reasonably objective account of the situation in Wales. It is easy to talk in colourful language and to try to score party points. I hope that I have not done that in my speech. I have tried to make statements of fact. The fact is that new firms have come to Wales and there is great hope that many more will come. It is encouraging that some of those firms have come from the continent.
    The advance factory programme, for instance, continues to pay off. Since we took office, there has been a sizeable programme of factory building—three D.T.I. advance factories at Abercarn, Merthyr and Ebbw Vale, two new schemes financed by the Development Commission at Brecon and Cardigan,
    1698
    and about 20 new factories and nursery units at the two new towns, Cwmbran and Newtown.
    In this connection, I am pleased to announce that the advance factory at Aberdulais, which I believe has been empty for two years, will be taken by a firm from Birmingham. Fairitt Engineering Company Limited, which is to transfer all its operations there and will provide employment initially for about 75 people, 65 of them males, and in time it is likely to rise to about 120. This comes at a time when there is a real prospect also of several hundred engineering jobs in Merthyr.
    All this is a sign that the Government's measures to stimulate industry are beginning to have a worthwhile effect on employment. Of course, much more needs to be done before the redundancies of the past year or so can be offset and unemployment substantially reduced. We have a long way to go and many more projects are required.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the unemployment figures. They were accurate, but of course they are the latest figures, which were distorted by the coal strike——
    Mr. George Thomas: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to give the wrong impression. I was quoting January figures. I deliberately ignored February, because they were out of balance.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. When he quoted the figures, I thought that he was quoting the latest ones. If he was quoting the January figures, I apologise. I am entirely wrong. As he will appreciate, the February figures are distorted by the coal strike and presumably so will the next month's figures be, because one does not know what the effect has been.
    But there is some cause for hope in the most recent unemployment figures. There was a small decline in the number of wholly unemployed in Wales between January and February, and there was a small increase in the number of unfilled vacancies. I hope that this represents a turning of the tide.
    Mr. Alan Williams: It is important that the House should not be misled here. The figures that the Secretary of State is giving are seasonally adjusted.

    1699
    The seasonal adjustment process is a deduction of an average based on a 10-year experience. When we have an abnormally mild winter, such as we have just had, the deduction for a bad or average winter inevitably puts the seasonally adjusted figure below what it should be.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I did not wish to make too much of it, but there was a reduction of approximately 1,000, which was quite a lot and was contrary to what one would normally expect at this time of the year. I hope that Welsh Members can draw some comfort from them.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be moving from one part of his speech to another. Perhaps I could therefore put this question to him. He has conducted a review of potentialities and prospects in various parts of Wales, including South Wales, West Wales and North-East Wales, but he did not refer to North-West Wales. Has he any crumb of comfort for us in the Caernarvon and Pen-y-groes district, which, as my right hon. Friend said, has the highest unemployment percentage in the whole of Wales—14·9 per cent?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not only well aware of the situation in that part of Wales but am very concerned about it. I am very anxious to do all I can to assist in the very difficult employment situation which exists in North-West Wales. I regret that I cannot say any more today than I said in the letter that I recently sent to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Clerk of the Caernarvon-shire County Council.
    The subject of unemployment is a serious one and I can well understand the strong feelings that it arouses, but I hope that nothing said in this debate will weaken confidence in the future of Wales —whether among outsiders who are contemplating coming to and investing in the Principality or, even more important, among those who live and work in Wales.
    We should not be pessimistic about our future. As the right hon. Gentleman said, when he was Secretary of State, we must not be Jeremiahs. Wales is all the time becoming a more accessible and more
    1700
    attractive place. Every day, our communications, with the rest of Britain and within Wales, are improving. The scars of dereliction are gradually being removed. As our policies develop, we shall see its economic prosperity growing. It is a good place for people to come to and to stay in. Our confident aim is to make it a still better place.
    5.48 p.m.
    Mr. Donald Coleman: The House has just listened to an amazing apologia from the Secretary of State for the maladministration which has gone on in Wales since he has presided over the Welsh Office. It is not for me to follow him because I want to protest at that maladministration, which has resulted in thousands of our people becoming the victims of unemployment.
    The Welsh Council Report published this week, entitled "Wales: Employment and the Economy", begins in this way:
    "The overall rate of unemployment in Wales in January was 5·8% compared with 4·3% for Great Britain as a whole and 2·4% for the region with the lowest rate, namely South East England. For males, the Welsh rate was 7·3% compared with 5·8% for Great Britain and 3·4% for South East England".
    This quotation condemns more eloquently than anything which will be said in this debate the Government and the Prime Minister, because those words are expressed without fear or favour by people who have given most valuable service to Wales.
    I support the Motion, though with certain reservations. For example, it does not go far enough in its condemnation of the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular. Nor does it condemn the members of the Liberal Party, because it has been the majority of their votes which has kept what one can only call this "Tory Government of I million out of work" in power in recent weeks.
    The Motion might have mentioned in this context the Welsh Nationalist Party, which on the question of rising unemployment seems to be suffering from political laryngitis. Since the Tory Government came to power there has been hardly a peep out of the Nationalists, and particularly their leader, on this matter of vital importance to the Welsh people. I have no doubt that they will raise the subject in passing during the by-election at

    1701
    Merthyr Tydvil. But if they really cared about their country they would be raising it continuously, just as we in the Labour Party are doing.
    At the General Election we were promised that in addition to dealing with rising prices at a stroke—evidence of which, after almost two years, is still not evident; belatedly we have seen some evidence of action from the Prime Minister, though prices generally continue to rise—unemployment would be reduced at a stroke. Today in Wales 56,000 of our people are without jobs. As far as we can tell, the figure will go on rising. Yet when the Prime Minister gave his pledge to the people of the United Kingdom—not many Welsh people believed him—the number of people in Wales without jobs was 44,000 and the evidence was that the figure would fall.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman quoted from the Report of the Welsh Council but he neglected to read the final lines of paragraph 2, which stated that under the Labour Government unemployment was "on a rising trend". He said it was falling while the Welsh Council said it was rising.
    Mr. Coleman: At the time there were clear indications that it was on the downturn.
    What happened to halt the desirable trend of June, 1970, when unemployment was falling, a situation about which we were chided by the Welsh Nationalists? What converted that movement into the present trend of rising unemployment, about which the Nationalists are unable or reluctant to talk? The answer is to be found in the manner in which the Government have pursued their objectives. They have rejected everything that was done by the Labour Government, no matter how successful it was or might have been. For example, they abandoned investment grants and wound up the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, two examples of policies which were being effective and were resulting in British industry in general and Welsh industry in particular being refurbished.
    Then we had the reliance of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the lame duck ideology as a means of driving industry into a state of furious activity. Although their policies have proved tragically
    1702
    wrong, the Government have stubbornly refused to alter course. Only events have forced them to make any alteration and because of their policies the situation has been made infinitely worse.
    My constituency of Neath has suffered for these reasons. In the early weeks of December we had announcements which resulted in the loss of 1,000 jobs. The decision of the British Aluminium Company to reduce its labour force at the Rheola works at Resolven resulted in nearly 500 people losing their jobs. This came about because of the fear on the part of that company that unless, in the period of difficulty in the aluminium industry, it made economies, it too would go the way of Rolls-Royce and other companies.
    The same can be said of the brewery in the Vale of Neath. Fear of the consequences of the Government's policies has made industry generally economise in labour rather than recognise its social responsibility in areas in which firms have been operating successfully for many years.
    I was glad to hear the remarks of the Secretary of State about the advance factory at Aberdulais. This factory of 25,000 sq. ft. is in a most desirable location, has good communications with London and the Midlands and is within easy reach of the ports of South Wales. For nearly two years, since the Government came to office, this factory has laid empty because industrialists have not had the confidence to invest and expand their operations in Wales. This is proof positive that the policies of the Government have halted investment and have deterred industrialists from expanding in Wales.
    The Secretary of State tells us that a great programme of investment is on the way. That is as may be, but we have not had much evidence to give confidence in the promises and pledges of the Government and their leader. If these pledges and promises turn out to be swans rather than lame ducks we shall be delighted, but the Secretary of State knows as well as we do that the kind of industry that we are likely to get will be capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive, and this will not do much to improve the employment position in Wales. The Government know this and they stand condemned for doing nothing

    1703
    to prevent the closure of labour-intensive factories throughout the country.
    We on this side of the House are right to condemn the Prime Minister for the state of affairs that has arisen over unemployment in Wales. Before last Christmas I suggested—my hon. Friends accepted my suggestion—that we should seek a meeting with the Prime Minister to put before him the whole issue of the worsening plight of Wales because of unemployment. He tried to cast our request aside by saying that we should see the Secretary of State for Wales. We have complied with his request by asking for a meeting with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    But, like everyone in Wales who has met the Secretary of State, we feel that however sympathetic he may be, we shall be wasting his and our time because he does not have the power or authority to do anything about our problems. I therefore demand that the Prime Minister must come out of the clouds and off "Morning Cloud"and meet Welsh Labour Members of Parliament, because it is only from them that he will get a real assessment of the true situation in Wales. He certainly will not get it from his own party, which has no authority whatsoever in Wales.
    I hope that from this debate we shall at least have some sign that at last the Government realise the situation into which they have put the nation. I hope they will realise, before it is too late, that it will be the greatest disaster if we allow labour-intensive industry in Wales to close down, as it is doing. I hope that the Government will bring forward the help that is necessary to stave off the closures of plant and works such as those planned at the Rheola works and the Vale of Neath brewery.
    I emphasise yet again, as I did recently in the Welsh Grand Committee, the urgent need to expand the existing steel industry in Wales. It is no use the Government trying to hide behind the fact that the decisions that ought to be made are for the Steel Corporation. It is for the Government to give a clear lead in this matter. To behave as the Government are now behaving in respect of the steel industry is to resort to the old ways of the industry under private ownership in restricting vital investment. Unless the
    1704
    Government accept their responsibility in this matter, there will be no steel industry in Wales or, for that matter, in any other part of the United Kingdom.
    Unemployment in Wales is not a problem that can be solved in Wales alone. It must be solved by the United Kingdom as a whole. Its solution will not come from the pursuit of narrow nationalism it can come only from a dynamic United Kingdom where the determination is to secure social justice for all sections of the community. The hope that such a state of affairs will come about as a result of the efforts of the present Government is a forlorn one. We on this side of the House are right to condemn the Government, as we do in our Motion, and especially the Prime Minister.
    6.2 p.m.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State described the opening speech by his predecessor as powerful. It was powerful, but it was decidedly gloomy, as was the speech of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman). There was hardly any specific suggestion in either speech for dealing with the problems with which we are faced.
    The Opposition Motion suggests that the economic policies of the present Government are directly and almost solely responsible for the increase in unemployment in recent years. On the other hand, in our Amendment we state our concern, which is just as serious as that of hon. Members opposite, at the present level of unemployment in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and we are approving certain measures which have been and are being taken to attempt to deal with this very unusual problem—unusual in the sense that it is baffling in some respects, even to those who have had long experience in the matter of taking up slack in the economy in former years. Steps which were efficacious in the 1950s are now proving to be less so. Tax changes which sometimes used to effect a big change in the level of activity are now not having that effect. This underlines the fact that it is unwise for any Member of Parliament to be too dogmatic about either the nature of our problem or the nature of the best remedies we should introduce.

    1705
    I reiterate—I hope that this will be accepted on both sides of the House—that we all share the deepest concern about unemployment, and this has been expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend, by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) and by the hon. Member for Neath. My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that this is not only an industrial ailment but also a personal indignity and grievance of the worst order.
    The terms of the Motion are, nevertheless, somewhat misleading. Its wording implies that the Labour Government's policies of less than two years ago had nothing to do with our present difficulties. The hon. Member for Neath, who started by reading the introduction of the Welsh Council Report, neglected to include the last part of the second paragraph, which says that by the time of the Budget of 1970—which was the last Budget of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and the last Labour Budget—a major improvement had been secured in the balance of payments, but unemployment was on a rising trend. The seeds of the present difficulties on unemployment were there; not only were the seeds there, but the result of those seeds was already evident.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The hon. Member has said twice in the debate that unemployment was on the upturn immediately before the Labour Government left office and on the downturn after his party came to power. I have with me the latest issue of the Department of Employment Gazette. On page 209, in column 1, under the heading "Total Register of Unemployed", the figure for Wales in April, 1970, is shown as 39,900; in May, it was 37,900; and on 8th June, 33,000. That is the downturn to which my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) referred. On 13th July the figure had begun to rise. It rose to 34,900. In August it rose to 37,900 and in September to 40,100. That shows conclusively that unemployment, as my hon. Friend said, was on the downturn in the three months before we left office and it proceeded to go on the upturn in the three months after the Conservative Party came to office.
    Mr. Gower: Once again I merely refer the right hon. Gentleman to the last part of the second paragraph in the report. I did not attempt to deal in such short periods as one month. I was not trying to make such a petty point as that. I was saying that the seeds of the present difficulties had been established.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Where?
    Mr. Gower: When one considers the matter, it would be astonishing if it were otherwise. One cannot have emergency measures one year, devaluation next year, an attempt to introduce a wages policy the next year and the abandonment of that in the following year without having a chaotic condition in industry. One cannot have taxation increases of about £3,000 million a year without having industry in an extraordinary state at the end of that period.
    Above all, the Motion ignores the awkward fact that during that period too, as my right hon. and learned Friend reminded us, the level of industrial production in Britain fell until it was only about 1 per cent., which was the lowest rate of any major industrial country.
    Mr. Alan Williams: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact, if he says that our position was so gloomy, that in our last year in office, 1969, two and a half times as much new industry was created as was created last year under the present Government? Second, how does he explain the fact that had the rate of new industry approved in the first six months of 1970 been continued in the next six months, we should have had a record year for new industry brought to Wales?
    Mr. Gower: That was achieved against a background of the lowest production level of any major industrial country, when industry was having to endure an enormous, excessive volume of taxation. Hon. Members opposite should also recall—this is a factor I have not mentioned—that at the time of the last General Election inflation was truly beginning to bubble merrily. There was real evidence of inflation in earnings and prices alike. This is borne out by some of the remarks in the Report of the Welsh Council.
    We on this side do not disguise our concern at the difficult nature of the

    1707
    present unemployment situation. But there is one peculiar factor which is demonstrated by the unemployment figures which were cited by the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts). The February figures, which reflect the effects of the coal strike, show a remarkable divergence. My town of Barry had a slight increase of four in the number unemployed compared with January but the town of Pontypridd had an increase of 1,300. The Swansea figures increased by 4,700 and in Newtown, Montgomeryshire, there was an astonishing increase of 841, which by the end of the coal strike brought the unemployment level there up to nearly 20 per cent.
    The right hon. Gentleman's constituency of Caernarvon was another area which was badly affected at that time. This emphasises that there are still very sensitive points in the Welsh economy, and they are the same points which were sensitive 20 or 30 years ago. We would be unwise to be complacent about anything successive Governments have done, because there are still major problems. The areas where this extra unemployment occurred are some of the old areas where the first development area policies were tried.
    In its interesting report the Welsh Council makes certain recommendations. One which I consider to be important concerns the improvement of the road system. I would set this matter very high in the list of priorities. One of the greatest things that has happened to industrial Wales in recent years has been the improvement in road communications—the completion of the M4 to South Wales, the very considerable improvement to roads between Newport, Cardiff and the Midlands, and the substantial improvement in the North Wales seaboard. These are all great assets for Welsh industry for the future. They have brought industrial Wales much nearer to its supplies and to its markets.
    Every possible effort should be made to expedite road improvements even above what has already been promised. The first requirement is the westward extension of the M4 to Swansea, the need for which has been increased by present conditions. Second is the improvement to the main road across North Wales
    1708
    from east to west. I hope too that essential improvements will be made in mid-Wales to the road from Welshpool to Aberystwyth and that this will not be too long deferred. One or two sections have been improved, but further improvement deserves a high priority. I should also like to see early improvement to the Cardiff to Merthyr road, in addition to the parts already approved or contemplated in the preparation pool. These are but some of the very essential additions to the improvement of our road system.
    Full recovery of the Welsh economy will surely accompany the general growth of business and industrial activity in the whole of the United Kingdom. To achieve that general growth I am convinced that we must continue our stern battle against inflation. We must continue to be vigilant about industrial costs and we must continue to press for greater industrial efficiency.
    I do not share the total pessimism expressed from the Opposition Benches. I prefer the optimistic views of Mr. Ian Gray, the former controller in Wales for the Department of Trade and Industry, for whose services, I know, Opposition hon. Members had a good deal of regard. I prefer his confidence, as expressed in The Times on 2nd March, to the gloomy forecast we heard today from the Opposition. He prophesied that the industrial base for expansion in Wales would be strong in readiness for the new investment Wales is likely to receive as the economic cycle turns in our favour. Mr. Gray predicted that the upturn of our economy would probably start later this year and I feel sure that hon. Members on both sides will be happy to see his judgment handsomely vindicated.
    I was pleased to note my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's statement a month ago that the Welsh Industrial Estates Corporation has in hand, even under present difficulties, a factory building programme of nearly £6 million. I understand that it includes about 40 projects, some of which are new factories and some of which are extensions. This is an earnest of what is to come. I understand the reasons which caused the Welsh Council to press for more labour-intensive industry. The hon. Member for Neath expressed this view when he said that he wants labour-intensive industry for the Principality

    1709
    rather than capital-intensive industry. In the short term both he and the Welsh Council are possibly right. I suppose we need a lot of jobs quickly. But in the longer term I am not quite so sure. Wales has suffered in the past from having too few industries which have been labour-intensive. [Interruption.] There have not been very many but they have been very large and this has caused a distortion of the Welsh economy.
    While I understand the feeling that we should have more labour-intensive industries I would not like that to be the sum total of our ambitions. We would be merely recreating a pattern which would distort the Welsh economy. We need not only industries which will absorb some of the unemployed but we need variety and industries which are very new, modern and capital-intensive. We also need more service industries, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State indicated. That is why we have done a great and positive good in reducing S.E.T. particularly for those parts of Wales which still do not have development area status but where the service industries, particularly hotels, have to function. This applies particularly in areas like West Flint, Cardiff and my own constituency. The reduction in S.E.T. is doubly valuable in these parts and it may be of great benefit to those areas which are adjacent to development areas.
    The Government need not be dogmatic in their view about the comparative advantage or merits of investment grants and allowances. I do not, however, share the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West who seems to think of investment grants as a magic panacea for all our ills. They have certain attractions in the case of a new, untried industry. But in the case of an industry which is likely to remain and which already has a record of achievement, I should have thought that in many cases there would be numerous advantages in investment allowances.
    Mr. Alan Williams: If the hon. Gentleman looks at The Times of Thursday last week, which has a report of the N.E.D.C. meeting, he will see that the chemical industry, which he would not call a new industry, had expressed concern that the net benefit to the chemical companies paying corporation tax has, with the
    1710
    removal of investment grants, dropped from 24 per cent. to a mere 16 per cent. of the cost of investment, which is one of the reasons why they are cutting back their investment.
    Mr. Gower: That is precisely why I said that no one should be dogmatic about the comparative merits of investment grants and allowances. There are cases where it may be an advantage to use the investment allowance, but I cannot imagine how anyone can establish that any of our present difficulties have been due to the change. There has been very little difference in practice in the first year or two of the Government's term of office. Many firms were dissuaded from coming to Wales not by the nature of the help but by the general state of the economy. I repeat that there may be considerable advantages in having a conjunction of those two methods at different times.
    The Welsh Council and, by inference, the right hon. Gentleman advocated an attempt to achieve a 6 per cent. growth target. I should not like us to tie ourselves to a particular figure like that. Such a target might be wonderful if it could be achieved without other dangers developing. It is easier in countries developing from a low level, as in southern Italy and Japan in recent years, to achieve much higher rates than 6 per cent. than it is in a mature industrial country. That has been shown by the comparatively low rates that have sometimes prevailed in areas as mature industrially as North America and the United Kingdom.
    Nevertheless, as soon as we can be confident about resisting the dangers of inflation, as soon as we have confidence that the worst of our problems of prices chasing earnings and earnings chasing prices are behind us, we should aim at a higher growth rate. I hope it can be achieved, but a particular figure like 6 per cent. does not have any magic qualities.
    With regard to the other recommendations made in the report or mooted here today, obviously a good deal has already been done. We have had the positive benefits of reductions in taxes like corporation tax and selective employment tax. There is the advantage of a much lower Bank Rate. Let no one under-estimate that advantage for companies which

    1711
    must borrow and the advantage of easier credit for such companies. They are advantages just as positive as grants or allowances and they should be of great assistance in the months and years ahead. In consumer spending there should obviously be increasing benefits as time goes on from the relaxation of hire-purchase restrictions.
    My right hon. and learned Friend was right to remind us about the formidable contribution being made by public expenditure. I have advocated further increased spending on road communications but I am not insensible of the considerable amount that has already been done in the case of both roads and hospitals and in the improvement of the environment in some of our greatly disfigured areas. But cannot more be done to invoke the aid of the Forestry Commission and others in the work of improving the more unsightly parts of the Principality?
    I appreciate that there are sometimes technical difficulties with tree-growing in some areas. Much must be done in respect of the soil and the base, but if a long-term plan could be devised with the aid of the Forestry Commission, and possibly sometimes private forestry owners, and if all this could be added to the work that has been done in certain areas to remove the tips and the unsightly scars of industry, we could be doing something very valuable for the future industrial advance of the Principality. We cannot hope for people to come to and factories to develop in areas so disfigured as some parts of South Wales and North Wales still are.
    Let us not be despondent. We recognise that the problem is considerable but we accept that we must solve it. There must be no half-heartedness in dealing with it. In whatever part of the House we sit, we must support measures designed to reduce or eliminate unemployment. We want to bring down unemployment to a figure reflecting only temporary difficulty. We do not want many permanently unemployed, apart from those unemployed for unfortunate reasons of illness, injury or disablement. There will always be some who will be changing their jobs, and that is not necessarily unhealthy. The speeding up of retraining should be a positive advantage.
    1712
    While we shall have our partisan and party differences, which are not unnatural among politicians, I hope there will be a combination of resolve on both sides to bring about a radical improvement of the situation in the coming months and the year or two ahead.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is in difficulty. I have three Privy Councillors, one hon. Member who has not spoken this Session and six hon. Members who have spoken only once this Session whom I want very much to call from the Opposition side. I hope, therefore, that right hon. and hon. Members will be fairly brief.
    6.27 p.m.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: We are grateful for the direction you have just given us, Mr. Speaker, and I shall try to curtail my speech in the interest of other hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate.
    The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) described the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) as gloomy. My regret is that the Secretary of State did nothing to dispel the gloom. He gave us a long statement that contained very little. Now the hon. Member for Barry has dotted the i's and crossed the t's in his customary manner.
    The Secretary of State said that we should consider the nature and underlying causes of our unemployment problem, and that is what we on this side are seeking to do. Anyone who studies the Welsh political scene since the end of the war will realise that we have spent more time on and been more preoccupied by unemployment and finding work for our people than any other single subject, because it is the most important central issue. We are also concerned about the environment, education, the infrastructure and our culture. But they are relevant only if there are people to live in the environment, to be educated and to enhance the culture. The focal point of any society is the man working in a steady and worthwhile job.
    All that has been said and done in the economic field since the end of the war has been against the background

    1713
    of the enormous misery of Wales in the inter-war years. This is why a cold shiver runs down the back of every Welshman today when he sees unemployment at a higher level than at any time since the late 1930s.
    The Secretary of State cannot blame the Labour Government. In the light of what he said, I will deal with some of the facts. Successive Governments since the war have adopted measures to try to deal with the problem, with varying degrees of success or failure. The chief cause of the problem was well known. We were over-dependent on four or five basic industries—steel, tinplate, coal, slate and agriculture. As they declined, in the case of coal and slate, or as they were modernised, in the case of steel, or as the number employed on the land fell because of mechanisation, so large numbers of men in our country became redundant. This was always predictable. Governments knew what has happening and what was likely to happen over a period of time.
    In the immediate post-war years the then Labour Government introduced the Distribution of Industry Act. In this connection we should remember with gratitude the work of the late Hugh Dalton, a native of the Borough of Neath. Wales began to diversify its industrial structures. But in the 'fifties—and this is the complaint which the Secretary of State compels me to make—we lost the momentum. Virtually the whole of Wales was de-scheduled as a development area, and although there were some isolated gains in certain fields—in Cardiff, for example, a motor plant was established—we were no longer in the race. Scotland, the North East and certainly Ulster received far greater concessions from the Tories in the 1950s than Wales. In the early 1960s the record was indifferent. Again the Secretary of State compels me to recall this. It is well known that between 1961, when he was a Minister in the then Conservative Administration, and 1964 industrial development certificates were approved for only 9·5 million sq. ft. whereas between 1965 and 1969 the figure was over 36 million sq. ft.
    Mr. Gower: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hughes: No. The hon. Member made a long speech. There have been many interruptions so far in this debate. We also operated a vigorous dispersal policy between 1964 and 1970 and with new and expanded industries we created new jobs for 83,000 people in Wales in that period. To put it simply, it is no use having a splendid advance factory if it is standing empty.
    A regional policy is the framework, and I agree with the Secretary of State that if it is to be successful it must be accompanied by an effective economic policy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised our economic policy. We certainly had economic difficulties, but side by side with those economic difficulties—and this is what the House must recognise today—we operated the best regional policy that this country has seen so far, and we operated that policy with confidence and compassion. That, I would say to the Secretary of State, is "the Labour way of life".
    By contrast, the present Government inherited a healthy balance of payments, but they emasculated the regional policy and deliberately allowed unemployment to get out of hand. I would not suggest that the Secretary of State or his right hon. Friends like to see the unemployment situation which now exists, but they are responsible for it. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman chooses to forget is that we left his Government a healthy balance of payments but they took the wrong direction in their economic policy immediately following the General Election. The measures then taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were responsible for the downturn which unemployment has taken since then. We certainly had some redundancies, mainly in the coalfields, but we brought in complementary growth industries to Wales. We did not have to worry in those days, if I may say so, in my time in the Welsh Office, about Wrexham or Cwmbran. Our worries were about centres further westward, in the valleys and in Amman-ford and Anglesey. Today, however, what is significant is that we are deeply worried about Cwmbran and Wrexham. We have heard the unemployment figures there. We remember that the Conservative Government in 1963 and 1964 were about to dismantle the industrial estate at Wrexham and sell it off. We salvaged

    1715
    the industrial estate and brought new industries to Wrexham. But what is the position in Wrexham today? Unemployment is over 9 per cent.
    The Government spokesmen must be careful not to overstate their case, because what they have said is being listened to not only in this House today but also in Cwmbran and Wrexham. The Secretary of State said earlier that after he took office he would be content to be judged by the record. That is the record, and he will be judged by it in due course of time. If Cwmbran and Wrexham, with all their advantages in terms of communications and locality, are suffering, how much more acute is the problem of my right hon. Friend and myself, with constituencies further to the west? Every one, on all sides of the House, knows that even with good inducements it is not easy to get industries of substance which employ a good percentage of men to establish in the remoter areas of Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) and myself speak from long experience of seeking to induce industries to come to these areas. They have great attractions in terms of beautiful surroundings and in terms of the availability of adaptable labour, but we know how difficult it is to attract the right type of work.
    We recognised this when we created the special development areas. The Government will have to think very carefully about the need to introduce some special new incentives, not only for the benefit of the valleys but also for counties like my own, where unemployment—men and women—is currently 11·9 per cent. of the insured population and over 13 per cent. in relation to men.
    The Secretary of State referred in his speech to the Government's examination of development area policy which has been going on for some time. I hope that the conclusions will be satisfactory and not too long delayed. No doubt on 21st March we shall have an interesting Budget statement. We look forward to the Chancellor's speech. We know that nothing can be said about the Budget today, but I issue a warning to the Government that if they are planning a hand-out to the Conservative Party's friends they will be in far deeper waters than they are today. There are people
    1716
    in real need in Wales, in the North-East and in Scotland, and if cash is available it should go to assist all areas to get back on their feet.
    There are two things which I think are deplorable. The first is the Government's election pledge to create more employment in the regions followed after the election by the economic measures which were designed to do the exact opposite. Secondly, there is the Secretary of State's own record. He went around Wales criticising our policy and saying that we were spending too much money in the development areas and that his right hon. Friends could do better with less money. That was what he said: that they would do better with less money. The fact is that his own record over the last 21 months is a bad one. It reflects a total lack of understanding of the needs of the regions, and as a result of this lack of policy we have experienced the worst 21 months we have had since the period between the wars.
    What the Secretary of State's speech lacked was any indication that he had any strategy or vision for the future. The constructive points that he made we certainly welcome, but we used to do better than this when we were the Government. When we had our debate on the economy in December, 1967—I was Secretary of State at that time—we were concerned with the future demand for labour, with firm jobs in prospect for men and women, with employment trends and with the special needs of the different parts of the Principality. There was some criticism of the document which I produced at that time. I did not claim that that White Paper was the ultimate truth, but it stimulated public discussion in Wales on the future. What is significant and unhappy about this debate today is that we are so preoccupied with the grim present that Ministers are not looking ahead at all. This was the regrettable aspect of the statement by the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the Minister of State will have the opportunity to shed some light on the future as he sees it.
    Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how he sees future demand for labour in Wales? What is the form of jobs in prospect over the next three years? Can the hon. Gentleman give the male and female figures? What is the present activity

    1717
    rate? How does he see this developing over the next three years? We are entitled to know this. The Government have their economic advisers, their economic unit, and the Welsh Office is in touch with the Department of Trade and Industry, although whether that helps I am not sure. That Department is now such an elephantine body with so many Ministers that none knows what the other is doing. However, the Minister might sometimes knock on those huge doors and find out.
    The Secretary of State referred to advance factories. We are bound to concede that notwithstanding the present unemployment problem, there is no significant advance factory programme. What advance factories are there for Caernarvonshire, Merioneth, Cardigan and Anglesey? If there is no advance factory programme, it is because the Government have no confidence whatever in their economic policies?
    We built 50 advance factories in a comparatively short period of five years. There were economic constraints but we had confidence that we could find the tenants for them and we did. Now there are thousands of men and women working in them. We want to know a little more about a future advance factory programme.
    We should also be told more about mid-Wales and the rural areas. What plans do the Government have for towns in mid-Wales such as Llandiloes, Machynlleth, Ffestiniog and so on? We were promised that when the Government abolished the Rural Development Board in mid-Wales there would be a new policy statement.
    The Minister of State must bear a large part of the blame for this. He went around mid-Wales talking to people, criticising the board and promising that because the people of the area, as he said, were against the board, democratic principle would compel a Conservative Government to abolish it. When they came into office they did so. But if the hon. Gentleman listens carefully to what democracy in Wales is saying today, he and the Government he serves will resign.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): If the right hon. Gentleman had been Secretary of
    1718
    State of Wales immediately after the 1970 General Election, would he have forced the Rural Development Board down the throats of the people of mid-Wales against their wishes?
    Mr. Hughes: Coming from a Minister of the Crown, that is the most stupid question I have heard for a long time. He belongs to a Government which are forcing a series of unpalatable measures down the throats of our people, including the Housing Finance Bill, for which the Government are preparing a timetable Motion. It was not a question of forcing the Rural Development Board on anyone. There were arguments against the board in Wales but it would have brought great benefits to mid-Wales and injected capital into the area which has now been lost as a direct result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
    The Government cannot say that they have not been warned or advised. The Welsh Council has produced some worthwhile documents such as "A Strategy For Rural Wales "and "An Economic Strategy for North West Wales", as well as its last paper on "Employment and the Economy". I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West that this is a good paper. If we read between the lines of this document we can see the size of the problem and the price which will have to he paid for the Government's neglect since the election. Paragraphs 24 and 25 flash a warning light.
    The arguments on pages 33 and 34 seem to emphasise the advantage of investment grants, especially if they are paid, say, six months after the purchase of plant. We know that many small companies—and bigger ones too—do not have profits in earlier years to obtain benefit from the investment allowance or from reduced corporation tax. As to the proposal for a differential corporation tax, which is made by the Welsh Council, the difficulty seems to be that in many large companies it is not possible to differentiate between profits made inside development areas or outside them.
    I ask the Government to think again and to think hard. More is clearly needed for Wales than the reflationary measures which they have belatedly and so far unsuccessfully introduced. If they produce forward-looking policies, they can look to us for co-operation. We are

    1719
    dealing not only with economic and industrial matters but basically with men and women. Some 60 years ago Elfed wrote these lines:
    "Nid cardodi ddyn and gwaith,
    Mae dyn yn rhy fawr i gardod …
    A man needs work not charity;
    Man is too noble for charity."
    It is in that belief and on that principle that we rest our case.
    6.46 p.m.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: The contribution to which we have just listened from the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) shows how extraordinarily stupid the party opposite is in allowing a man like that to leave its Front Bench. His speech contrasted very forcibly with that of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) who seems to lose interest in our proceedings at an astonishingly early stage.
    Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Where is the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I have offered the apologies of my right hon. Friend to the House. My right hon. and learned Friend has to be in a Committee. May I also say to my hon. Friend that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) gave notice that he had to leave the debate and expressed his regret at having to do so.
    Sir A. Meyer: I unreservedly withdraw. It occurred to me. listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West, that he was laying himself open to the accusation which his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would have levelled, had he been present, that lie was selling Wales short. It was an excessively gloomy speech. I do not want to make a party political speech because we have an opportunity, as the House is considering Welsh matters—which does not occur all that often—to give some serious thought to the problems of regional policy.
    Whatever hon. Members opposite may say, I am in no sense an opponent of Government intervention in industry if this can promote local employment.
    I have already declared my support for the idea of a regional development agency which was put forward by the
    1720
    hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers). It looks, from the Government's decision on Upper Clyde, as if they have already gone well beyond this and accepted that the problem of regional development and the reduction of regional unemployment is a top priority and can be used to justify the refloating of one of the lamest ducks on the pond.
    The Government are right. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in no danger of forgetting what he really meant when he first spoke about lame ducks, which was that if all British firms are treated as lame ducks there will not be enough healthy ones to bring worms for the lame ones. I am deeply suspicious of any regional policy which rests primarily or disproportionately, as our existing policy does, on physically holding back firms outside the development areas by the use of I.D.C. controls.
    It seems to me that it would be far better—and I am sorry that successive Governments have not faced up to this—to compel firms in prosperous and congested areas to bear the full social costs which they impose on the community instead of actually subsidising such firms, as we do at the present time, by subsidised commuter travel, subsidised schemes of environmental improvement. subsidised housing and so on.
    If, for example, commuter travel in the London area is to be subsidised—and perhaps it ought to be—then the whole burden of that subsidy ought to fall on the ratepayers of that area, including the industrial ratepayers. If we could work out a formula for this it would be a much more effective way of concentrating industrial development in the developing areas of the country than physical means such as the use of I.D.C. controls. But, above all, it seems to me that we should be very wary of putting as our first priority the reduction of the difference in living standards as between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is surely not controversial to say that it is more important to ensure an absolute rise in Welsh living standards than it is to try to narrow the gap between those standards and the standards of the rest of the United Kingdom.
    This brings me to a passage in the Welsh Council's Report which causes me to have very grave reservations. It is

    1721
    the passage about the Government aiming at a 6 per cent. growth rate. It may very well be that such a figure is attainable, and I am sure we all hope it is, and it may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about to announce this in his forthcoming Budget; but I do not think that considerations of regional policy ought to be decisive in reaching this particular and fateful decision because, if to aim at a 6 per cent. growth means that the United Kingdom is liable to return or is thought by industry to be liable to return to "stop-go", then I believe this will do incalculable harm.
    It would be far better to aim at a somewhat lower rate of growth of 4½ or 5 per cent. which we are likely to be able to sustain and we are thought to be likely to be able to sustain than to aim for a higher figure and then fall flat on our faces.
    Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Member will have noticed in the report a quotation from the Economist expressing the view that even if there were a 5 per cent. growth rate in this country we should still end up with a million unemployed a year from now, in 1973. Would he agree with that view?
    Sir A. Meyer: I am not saying that the figure of 6 per cent. is necessarily wrong. What I am saying is that I think it would be wrong to settle for 6 per cent. mainly on grounds of regional development policy.
    The main point I want to try to put to the House tonight is one that has been pushed to one side rather by hon. Members on both sides considering regional policy. We really have to try to make up our minds what it is we are trying to do: whether we are trying to raise living standards in Wales or to raise employment levels in Wales, because to some extent these two may be contradictory.
    In particular, there is the proposal in paragraph 15 of the Welsh Council's report to raise social security benefits. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West supported this recommendation. It seems to me that this recommendation, above all, far from improving employment prospects in Wales, is very likely to make them substantially worse because certainly, speaking for my own area, there is already a serious problem in the Rhyl area arising from the fact
    1722
    that where the unemployment figure is high and industrial wages are low we may get a situation in which industrial wages are not very much higher than a man can get by taking a brief, well-paid seasonal period of employment in the summer, drawing wage-related benefit for the maximum period he is entitled to, and for the rest of the year drawing standard unemployment benefit plus supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is making a very serious and substantial point, namely, the working of the very low rates of wage in certain areas against an upward curve of social benefits. We are all aware of the difficulties this is producing. However, would he not agree that a higher growth rate would have the effect, among other things, of raising wage rates in those area which, in conditions of low or stagnant growth, pay very low wages?
    Secondly, would the hon. Gentleman agree that a 6 per cent. growth rate is advocated in this report in order that the difference between the 4 to 4½ per cent. growth projected by the Chancellor—that extra 1½ per cent.—should be devoted to hard-hit areas of chronic unemployment such as Caernarvon and Penygroes?
    Sir A. Meyer: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow through in reply to that, because I am going to cover very much of this ground in my next few sentences. Although I may not fully answer his questions, I am continuing in the spirit of his intervention.
    To continue with the point I was halfway through, if an individual has to take into account, in addition to the factors I have just mentoned, the cost of travel to work, which is not tax-allowable, then he is scarcely better off working than he is not working. It really does not become some of my hon. Friends who preach the virtues of the market economy at all costs to reproach such people if they draw the logical conclusion from this and decide that they are better off not working. It seems to me that if we follow the proposal of the Welsh Council and put up social security benefits all round then, in the present circumstances and taking into account the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, we are going to make matters a good deal worse. But we shall have raised

    1723
    living standards throughout Wales, of course.
    I am very much more enthusiastic about the Council's proposal to retain and even increase the regional employment premium, and I think a great many of my hon. Friends feel as I do. It seems to me incontrovertible that some sort of employment premium is an indispensable element of any effective policy for increasing regional employment. However, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that Wales needs not only labour-intensive industries, which could be the dying industries of tomorrow, but also modern technology industry and service industry.
    None the less, a regional employment premium, or some kind of premium for employment, seems to be an essential feature of any short-term regional policy. But let us be a little frank about this. We must bear in mind that the object of a regional employment premium is not to raise industrial earnings in Wales to the highest United Kingdom levels but to induce labour-intensive industries to set up in Wales because—and let us be brutally frank—they can get their labour cheaper there. That is the object of a regional employment premium, and this benefit can be entirely undone by short-sighted attempts by organised labour to ensure wage parity with the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Few things do more to increase regional unemployment than the kind of wage settlements which have been demanded by and largely conceded to car workers on Merseyside and in the Glasgow area. Here, if anywhere, there is surely a responsibility on the big unions, the T.U.C. and the Labour Party to get this message through to the shop floor. Here is the clearest of all instances of the conflict between the requirements of a fair employment policy and a policy for reducing regional income differentials.
    Mr. Fred Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir A. Meyer: I think I should not give way because, if as many hon. Gentlemen opposite as possible are to have a chance to speak, I should get on as quickly as I can.
    1724
    The Welsh Council's report will command a great deal of attention and rightly so. It is well argued, well timed, and comes at the moment when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry must be near reaching a decision about a revised regional development policy.
    Representing as I do a constituency in North Wales, I am disappointed that the report does not take the opportunity to reiterate the need for the earliest possible decision on a scheme for the Dee Estuary. A decision to go ahead with this target would have an enormous direct effect, and an even bigger multiplier effect, on economic activities in North-East Wales.
    I had also hoped to see more in the report about the contribution which the tourist and ancillary industries could make to the provision of employment. We must let slip no opportunity of raising the esteem in which the tourist and leisure industries are held, and the Welsh Council is the body which should carry out this function. If those industries had a quarter the encouragement for investment that manufacturing industries get, and if they could get the manpower they need, they could make a large contribution towards helping the employment situation in Wales. As it is, we have the ridiculous state of affairs that in times of high unemployment and in areas of high unemployment the hotel and catering industry are recruiting workers from abroad, from Italy, Greece and Spain to keep going because local people out of a job have been conditioned to think that such work is not for them.
    The Welsh Council's reports are usually well balanced. I do not think that I am being excessively touchy in detecting in this report an excessive pre-occupation with the interests of South Wales. It is true that in absolute though not in relative terms the unemployment problem is larger in South Wales than in North Wales, but in terms of percentage our problem is even more severe.
    For South Wales the completion and early extension of the M4 is of infinitely greater significance for employment than all the carefully thought-out schemes for regional incentives contained in the Welsh Council's report. I am sure that hon. Members representing South Wales constituencies will find that the completion of the M4 will transform the whole

    1725
    economic climate of the area. Much as we in North Wales desire our fair share of regional aid—and we are denied a fair share of pretty well everything; we get no aid for housing, for environmental improvement or for industry, and as a Flintshire Member of Parliament I speak with considerable bitterness in this matter—we would gladly swap the whole expensive, cumbrous and dubiously effective apparatus of regional incentives for an early go-ahead for the Dee Barrage and for an extension of the English motorway system into North Wales.
    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. Leo Abse: The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) began by paying a well-deserved compliment to my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) for the quality and character of his contribution and reproving my party for having taken my right hon. Friend from the Front Bench to the back benches. After the speech we have heard this afternoon, I return the compliment by saying that I wonder at the folly of a political party which could have taken the Secretary of State for Wales from the back benches to the Front Bench. Although the libretto of the speech contained euphoric words, the lugubrious tones in which it was uttered reflected the appalling guilt which the Secretary of State must feel at the extraordinary situation that has come to Wales after 21 months of Tory Government.
    Each hon. Member when he speaks is preoccupied, inevitably, with the problems of his constituents. My constituency, alas, is only a sad microcosm in the troubled macrocosm of the Wales of today. It is a constituency which 21 months ago felt secure and which, during the Labour Government's term of office had been given more than 3,000 jobs. Despite the inevitable changes resulting from the closure of mines and the rationalisation of the steel industry, my constituency felt that the Government were concerned and were demonstrating by the jobs that came in that people could feel a sense of emotional as well as economic security.
    But now, although situated in an area labelled as a natural growth point, blow after blow has fallen upon my constituency. In spite of all the optimism this afternoon of the Secretary of State
    1726
    for Wales, there has been a spate of redundancies which started in the backwash of the Tories' disastrous Rolls-Royce policy and has now led to a veritable torrent as the ethos of Tory abrasiveness has enveloped both large and small engineering works.
    After this short period, even while the Tory Government are announcing another new town in Llantrisant, the families in Cwmbran are now finding that their wage-earners are redundant and are being compelled to leave for England in their quest for employment. When I said in my intervention that we were in danger of having a new town for the workers, I made that intervention knowing well the situation in Cwmbran today.
    To deal with the difficulties of Wales we need to understand the real nature of the challenge that faces us in the next decade. The speech of the Secretary of State for Wales gave no indication of that enormous challenge and showed no real understanding of the special position of Wales.
    If we are to tackle the problem of unemployment and give the reassurances which Wales seeks we must see the problem against the background of the present quality of life in Wales. We are severely disadvantaged. From conception to death life is at a disadvantage in Wales. We begin at birth faced with the hazards of our infantile mortality rate—a perinatal mortality rate that still stubbornly stands far higher than in England or Scotland. Our morbidity rate is notorious. Death is likely to strike us much sooner than in England. The disparity between the two countries of the rates of killer ailments is witnessed by the greater vulnerability of our middle-aged men to all the fatal diseases such as heart disease and bronchitis which strikes us so severely.
    On our way to an earlier grave, we fall ill more frequently than do the people living in all other regions in Britain. Nowhere else, the statistics reveal, do doctors need to prescribe so many prescriptions. I hope that the hon. Member for Flint, West with his too easy and facile approach to the question of social security benefits in Wales, will bear in mind that the amount of sickness benefit Wales draws is totally disproportionate to our population. Wales accounts for 8 per cent. of the total amount distributed

    1727
    although it constitutes only 5 per cent. of the population.
    If there are cynics who will dismss these statistics with the suggestion that we are a nation of hypochondriacs, I remind the hon. Member for Flint, West when he talks about the folly of the Welsh Council suggesting an increase in social security benefits and anyone who seeks to scoff that the Welsh 5 per cent. of Britain's population draws more than 12 per cent. of the disablement benefits and nearly 10 per cent. of the industrial injury benefits that are distributed to the nation.
    Just as the grim hazards compulsorily courted by the nature of our people's work in Wales is reflected in our chastening toll of industrial accidents, so the disparate sickness figures illuminate both the physical conditions under which our parents who gave us our constitutional endowments lived and the current conditions of the Welsh environment. In Wales life perforce has to be lived more dangerously and in inferior conditions and with less ministering than in England. If we look at the stock of houses region by region, we find that no English region exceeds the percentage of pre-1891 houses still endured by us—28 per cent. of the total dwellings. No English region has a higher proportion of 1891–1918 houses and no English region has a lower proportion of post-1944 houses than Wales. Yet a glance at the number of houses demolished or closed in 1970–71 shows that we are almost at the bottom of the league table of percentages of houses pulled down for slum clearance.
    Hon. Members need no reminder, despite the passion of Wales for education, of the grim physical conditions of many of our schools. In my constituency, which is only too typical of conditions in the older part of the valley, parents are declaring—indeed they are demanding—that, although they wish for comprehensive education they insist on the 11-plus screening continuing rather than facing the attempt of mocking up within the ancient stock of schools a suitable system of comprehensive education.
    All hon. Members participating in this debate, I do not doubt, could recite a similar tale of woe. The brutal truth is that, wherever we turn, it is a fact and
    1728
    not paranoia to declare that Wales is seriously disadvantaged. If in our stresses we suffer more from mental illnesses we find that there are fewer psychiatric beds per thousand of the population than are to be found anywhere in England or Scotland. If we seek dental treatment we jostle again with far more claimants for attention than in any region in the Kingdom. Each dentist in Wales has to carry a burden of 2,000 more patients than his English or Scottish counterpart. No wonder we are a nation of false teeth. We have far less money to live on than any of the English regions with an average weekly household income of £30.45. We are not only worse off than any English region, but we are well below Scotland, and only in Northern Ireland does less money come each week into a household.
    This is the inevitable consequence not only of the structure of our wages but of the fact, rightly stressed by the Welsh Economic Council, of the large numbers of those who, although not registered as unemployed, are potentially employable if only work was available. We certainly, in the standard and quality of our lives are severely punished by our lagging behind the United Kingdom by some 15 per cent. in our employment activity rate. Puritans may think that it does not matter that each Welsh household spends less on alcoholic drink than every region in England except sober East Anglia, but no one can rejoice that each house-hold in Wales now every week spends less on food even than in Scotland, which has more than its share of troubles. The weekly expenditure of a Welsh family on the basic necessities of life catalogued in the Government's Family Survey shows Wales at the bottom of the table and able to spend even less than the North and less than Scotland. How could it be otherwise? We cannot spend what we have not got.
    So when we look at our unemployment, far more than that endured by England, we must see it against the style of life that Wales has, a style of life where its quality comes not from its economic strength but despite it. We have our unemployment problem, so exacerbated by the Government's initial public expenditure cuts and by their shift from investment grants to allowances and by their

    1729
    decision to bring the regional employment premiums to an end, in an area where the need is self-evident for vast public expenditure if Wales is to have the same standard of quality and expectation of life that has been attained in English regions. We have unemployment which is likely, as we see from the Economic Council's Report particularly, to increase in Wales as a result of structural changes. We have a huge sum available as a result of the present position of the balance of payments and we have the need to refurbish our housing stock, improve our social insurance benefits and improve vastly our schools, hospitals and health services.
    It is the task of the Government to bring together these capacities so that we can use compulsorily idle men and women and unused money in an overstocked Treasury so that both can be put to work dramatically to improve the quality of Welsh life. Only the Government's incompetence and ideology prevent this being done. The Welsh Economic Council draws attention to the fact that the private sector also has a rôle to play in this. I like this report. It has a rare distinction. Usually the Welsh are accused of sentimentality. That, perhaps, is one of our failings. This report eschews sentimentality but it shares another of our qualities, shrewdness. It does not suggest exhortation of the type which we get from the Government Front Bench—not hortatory legislation but a frank recognition, as frank as Lenin was when he cynically appealed to the Russian entrepreneur under the slogan "Enrich yourselves" as he introduced his famous New Economic Policy.
    The Welsh Council knows that private enterprise has only one interest. That is profit. That is its raison d'être. Acknowledging as it does implicitly the only dynamic behind private enterprise, it proceeds to insist that only by differential tax measures will Wales attract private industry. Who can doubt that? f do not. Small or large capitalists want to know what is their take-home net profit and everything else is subsidiary. We want to know from the Government—are we to know tonight—whether they accept this dose of their own philosophy. Will the Conservative Party chairman be prepared to fight for these impeccable Conservative dogmas in the report? Will he go to the Cabinet with them? Shall
    1730
    we be told that he is feeling a resonance between his philosophy and that which is expounded here? Will he encourage the Government to use this bait to hook the voracious English, American and European capitalists? Will there be a welcome in the hills and valleys spelled out bilingually in terms of differential corporation tax in favour of profits earned in Welsh development areas?
    Now is the time for the Secretary of State for Wales to exert his charm on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And the right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously possesses charm, even though perhaps nobody concedes to him any other political qualities. Indeed, the people of Wales believe that charm is all the right hon. and learned Gentleman has. Furthermore, the Secretary of State is in the Cabinet. In the light of the evidence put forward by the Welsh Economic Council, how hard is the right hon. and learned Gentleman pressing to make sure that something comes out of this good and thoughtful report? It is, of course, not only a question of investment by private enterprise. The challenge that is implicit in the Welsh Economic Council's report relates to the machinery which is required to mobilise public investment. I am suggesting that such investment is needed on an even greater scale if life in Wales is to have more quality and style.
    What did we get from the Secretary of State today? Did we get any of the strategy for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) was asking, in face of a challenge such as that put forward by the Welsh Economic Council and by my comments? How can I ask him to embark on a great scheme for a public corporation in Wales or for him to co-ordinate nationalisation investment together with a true regional policy? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been dithering and dancing around for months in even deciding whether to make the Cwmbran new town a development area. How can I ask him to embark on a major policy of refurbishing housing in Wales when we see the Government's pin-pricking efforts to thwart even the move by Blaenavon Council in obtaining over a longer period increased grants to improve the quality of its housing?

    1731
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was a miserable performance. It did not rise at all to the real challenge that is facing Wales. It is a chapter of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as a Welshman, cannot feel very proud. I hope that the Government will realise that there is capacity within the United Kingdom economy to take yet another major step forward in improving the style of life of Wales, as was the situation under Labour tenure of office. However, I doubt whether there is any possibility of that taking place until we have turned this Government out of office.
    7.13 p.m.
    Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has made his contribution to this debate with his usual striking vigour and style. I have often wondered why the hon. Gentleman himself lives in England, having heard his catalogue of woe today about the economic conditions in Wales.
    Mr. Abse: It is because I am aware of the imagination sensitivity and quality of life in Wales that I live in Wales, and it is because I have to endure my sojourn in this House that I also have a home in London.
    Mr. Hooson: I agreed with many of the criticisms put forward by the hon. Gentleman. I read in The Times today a summary of a report on conditions in E.E.C. countries and I would regard that report as of great importance as a background to this debate. This debate takes place at a time when we are seeking to enter the E.E.C. Those who have read the report or the summary of it that has appeared in The Times will appreciate the contrast between economic activity in a most favoured area of the Common Market, such as the area around Hamburg in Germany, and the activity in a less favoured area such as that in Calabria which lies at the foot of Italy. The differences are enormous.
    That report contains an analysis of the population growth trends in these countries and the strength of economic activity. We must face the fact that certain areas are much favoured economically and that others need a great deal of artificial or outside help. If we take this matter a
    1732
    little further, we find in that report an analysis of the trend of the movement of population, and it can be seen that the situation in France reflects a movement of population to the south coast, as indeed has happened in the United Kingdom. This has not yet happened in Italy, but there is a population movement towards Sicily. Certainly in Sweden, the United States and in California we see the movement of population towards the better favoured areas. This disparity between one area and another, even within the same economic union, can become greater and, if unchecked, is much more emphasised as economic sophistication develops.
    This disparity is equally true of our country. Wales was in the vanguard of the industrial revolution. My own part of mid-Wales in 1800 had a very much larger population than it has today. Mid-Wales was part of the first industrial revolution and, historically, this was based on water power, the woollen industry and so on. Mention has already been made of Merthyr which was in the van of this activity in the late periods of the first industrial revolution and in the van of the second industrial revolution. The industries in what is now a problem area like Merthyr were developed at a very early stage. There was a period towards the end of the 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th century when the South Wales coal miners were the highest paid industrial workers in the whole of Europe. When we compare our industrial activity and wage levels in Wales today with other areas, we realise how we have been steadily falling behind. We can see this emphasised in the situation in Ireland when we see what has happened in the Republic in terms of depopulation and unemployment. Therefore, it is obvious that special measures for special areas are necessary to deal with this situation.
    I share the view advanced in the Economist that we could increase national output by 20 per cent. without any investment. In terms of certain areas of Wales as in the country generally, it is not only a problem of unemployment but also of under-employment. Firms are attempting to keep workers in employment when they know very well that they are under-employed. This has happened, and is happening, in my area. If we

    1733
    had a 20 per cent. increase in output nationally, I believe that we could do this without investing in another single machine. There would be a 5 per cent. growth rate as a result and yet at the end of that period there would still be the same number unemployed.
    The present Government have grossly under-estimated the unemployment problem which is besetting the whole country. Indeed, all political parties have under-estimated it. This is a far more intractable problem than has ever been acknowledged by political parties.
    The present trend of unemployment began with the Labour Government in dealing with balance of payments problems. That trend has continued unarrested until now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year was completely out in his estimate of the effect of the reflationary measures he was then taking. He will be grossly out this year if newspaper prognostications are right about his intentions.
    Although the problems of Wales cannot be divorced from the problems of the United Kingdom as a whole, I believe the Government are grossly under-estimating the problems of the country as a whole as well as specifically of Wales. Since Wales is a far less favoured area and needs special measures, the position and prospects in Wales are much more serious. When there is a natural growth in the economy as a whole experience tells us that the growth is seen in the better-favoured areas first. The unemployment rate for South-East England is vastly less than it is for Wales. If reflationary measures have effect, they will have effect in South-East England rather than in Wales.
    The Government have grossly underestimated the problem of reflation especially in Wales. They were foolish on ideological grounds to take many of the steps which they took when they first came into office. They were so determined to have some change of style, some change of approach. For example, investment allowances took the place of investment grants. That was a fatal mistake as far as Wales is concerned.
    I come to mid-Wales to illustrate my point because there is a special problem in mid-Wales. For many of the firms who come to mid-Wales—the small firms
    1734
    starting without a great profit history behind them, short of capital and so on—the investment grants were an enormous help. It was a great mistake on the part of the Government to have abolished them. They did so entirely on ideological grounds.
    We have had these general speeches about lame ducks and now we have £35 million being invested on the Clyde—a complete turn around. It does not make sense. Taking that as an example, we could almost have built a brand new shipyard further towards the mouth of the river in the Clyde and had a really up-to-date ship building industry there, instead of having this ideological battle on whether they should put money in originally or not. The Government have ended up by putting in far more money than was ever needed. In the end, they have even put it in the wrong place.
    I want to come back to mid-Wales. I was sorry to have missed the Secretary of State's speech. I am told that what I missed may have blunted the edge of my criticism. I am told too that what it had in charm, it lacked in inspiration and general direction. That is hearsay, but I am told on the best authority that it is true.
    I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention the problem of mid-Wales. We not only have unemployment there, we have a masked unemployment in the form of depopulation; people do not stay to be unemployed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember his own party's attack—and I certainly joined in—on the Labour Party's proposals for a rural development corporation for agriculture.
    The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) knows full well that I have said on many occasions that the great mistake the Labour Party made was to try to bring in a rural development corporation for mid-Wales to deal with agriculture when it should have dealt with industry in the small towns. That would have been of greater benefit. I do not want to go over the whole ground again, but that corporation would at least have had an investment of £1½ million a year in mid-Wales. It was an investment entirely in the wrong direction, for agriculture did not need that kind of treatment. It was industry in the small towns

    1735
    which needed it, and that investment was not available for industry in the small towns.
    But, ever since the Secretary of State has been in power, he has said that he was going to make a statement of his policy on mid-Wales. We are still waiting. He has had delegations to see him from the Mid-Wales Industrial Association, and they have gone away disappointed. Members of Parliament from the mid-Wales area have been to see him, and we too have come away disappointed.
    What is the Government's policy for mid-Wales? The one bright spot in mid-Wales is that we have money being pumped in through the Newtown Development Corporation, and therefore Newtown is progressing. Newtown is a success. It is a modest success, but then it is a modest scheme. Mid-Wales is a modest place.
    The proposal that the remit of the Newtown Development Corporation should be extended to other towns in mid-Wales has a great deal to commend it. The expertise and the finance which would be available could be of great benefit to mid-Wales. The Government have refused to accept this invitation. They have not yet absolutely turned it down, but so far they have shown no signs of accepting it. Yet what is their own policy for mid-Wales? What is the alternative to it? In the context of the general economic situation of this country, in an area like mid-Wales—and this is broadly true of Wales as a whole—we need public investment. One cannot have growth in Wales without public investment.
    Many of the economic papers emanating from Common Market countries argue in favour of adopting regional policies such as those we have in the past had in this country. Taking a rather detached view between the Government and the Opposition, I would say that this is right; all less favoured areas depend on regionally directed help.
    One result of this Government's economic policy has been to slim British industry. Industry could not afford to carry people on an uneconomic basis. Where five men were previously doing four men's work, there are now four men doing four men's work. If the fifth is to have employment, it needs a great deal more
    1736
    Investment than this Government have ever contemplated.
    In Wales, a good deal of that investment must necessarily come from public investment. That is unavoidable, whatever one thinks about it. Whether one does it through something like the Newtown Development Corporation or through a rural development corporation, investment has to come to a large extent from the public purse. The disappointing thing about this Government is that whereas they have succeeded in slimming industry, they have shown no sign of realising the other complementary measures which are needed.
    One of the great points in favour of the Labour Opposition when they were in power was that they had good regional policies. One may have disagreed with the way some of them worked in detail—and it is possibly arguable that at times the Conservative Party may have done more in power to improve the economy as a whole—but the Labour Party did better in sharing out the good things of the economy between the regions.
    It can be argued that Labour did better for the less-favoured regions, even though it can equally be argued that the Conservatives have done better for the economy generally. At the present time, with over a million people unemployed, with an enormously high unemployment rate in Wales, it is disappointing in the extreme that the Secretary of State has no real plans for putting this matter right.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Before calling the next hon. Member, I must draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that approximately a dozen people are seeking to take part in this debate, and there are less than 90 minutes in which they can do SO.
    7.39 p.m.
    Mr. John Morris: I will curtail a substantial part of my remarks and I hope to sit down in a very short time.
    But for the personal tragedy of 50,000 and more men, women and families in Wales, one would dismiss the Government's Amendment to our Motion tonight as an unpleasant and flippant joke. I want to spend a little time looking at that Amendment. The Government say

    1737
    they are concerned about the level of unemployment, and yet the figures go up month after month and year after year. Even if they do level off in the course of the year, it will take a long time for them to come down to any acceptable level.
    Whoever penned this Government Amendment, I wonder whether at any time the Secretary of State or his Minister of State, have sat down to talk to half a dozen unemployed in Wales and realised the human tragedy of the total waste that is now going on. The Secretary of State may have a great deal of charm, but I suspect that he has not an ounce of influence in the Cabinet. My hon. Friends may ask him to visit this institution and that institution. But what is the use of doing that when he and his Government have bankrupt policies? Following their dogma, they have rejected all that we sought to do. They have abandoned investment grants, and regional employment premium is coming to an end. They are pursuing their own dogmatic interests.
    They promise improvement and "longterm growth measures."But there is a complete absence of reference to any short-term measure. That shows the Government's confidence of anything being done in the foreseeable future. They say that Wales must depend on "increased general prosperity." There is no suggestion that they have any successful regional policy to tackle the real problems of Wales.
    We all know that the Government today are a bunch of frightened men. On 21st March, we expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce a major reversal of the policies that we have had in the past 20 months. Perhaps, then, the Secretary of State will be able to visit Wales and face the real problems which are there. I am sure that he will perambulate merrily from place to place, although he has attacked all that we have done. He will sing the new song with the evangelical zeal of the Vicar of Bray.
    What is the message which will go out from this debate to the people of Glamorgan, especially to those in the Port Talbot travel to work area, where there are 2,665 unemployed men today? How right was my right hon. Friend the
    1738
    Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) when he said that in his time there was no concern about Wrexham and Cwmbran but that the problems were to the west and higher up the valleys. If there is this fundamental problem in the plains in Port Talbot and Bridgend, what hope is there for West Wales?
    Only the other day, I went to a public meeting organised by a semi-Government agency at Blaengwynfi. In the area covered by the Cymmer employment exchange, on the basis of the latest available figures, 500 men were in employment. According to the latest available unemployment figures, 262 men are out of work. Anyone walking in the streets of the three villages is liable to run into an unemployed person for every one of three people whom he meets.
    The Government may say that it is unfair to take that sort of view of the unemployment situation. They say that one has to consider a travel to work area. But even on the basis of a more generous assessment of that kind, one person out of every five is unemployed. In these three little villages, 100 men have been unemployed for more than six months. No wonder the Secretary of State ignores any suggestions that he should come and face the music in Blaengwynfi, Cymmer, Croeserw and Glyncorrwg.
    One would think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would welcome a visit of that kind. If nothing else, it would relieve the tedium of opening Tory bazaars. One suspects that the Secretary of State visits Wales today with the enthusiasm of an absentee Irish landlord collecting rents in the middle of the potato famine. It is a grave and fundamental tragedy which faces us.
    On 7th March, I tabled a Question asking how many disabled people seeking work there were in Wales and what was being done for them. I was told that 7,330 were unemployed and required work in Wales, 3,584 of them in Glamorgan and 696 in the Port Talbot area alone.
    What were the proposals of the Government? I was told:
    "The measures we have taken to expand the economy and create more employment opportunities in the assisted areas should generally improve employment prospects, including those of disabled persons in Wales.

    1739
    They should also benefit from the measures to help disabled people which I announced in the House on 25th March, 1971 … which include plans for 340 more places in sheltered work shops." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 297.]
    That is against a background of more than 7,000 disabled people who require work.
    I wish that there were more time to go into the grave problems which are being ignored by the party opposite. However, I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurances early today about the Ministry of Defence centre in Cardiff. I hope that he will examine his assurances carefully when he said that the only problem was which part of the Ministry of Defence was going to Cardiff, with 1,500 jobs involved, and not whether it was going there at all. I understand that the whole matter is in the melting pot, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the answers which were given by the Minister for Public Building and Works, because the moment that we left the Ministry of Defence there was back-tracking. Every effort is being made, I am told successfully being made, to make sure that the Ministry does not have to come to Cardiff.
    The real problem is the break down of any further decentralisation of Government offices. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say, as he did today, that he is willing to share some of the credit with my right hon. and hon. Friends. What is there to share? Why did not he answer my question? What proposal has been made since he and his right hon. Friends took office to decentralise one Government office into Wales? The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the answer is, "Not one".
    My people are deeply concerned about the need for new investment in steel at Port Talbot. Only the other day, five of my hon. Friends and a large number of local authority representatives, at a meeting instigated by the works council, were convened together to try to ensure that we could bring the maximum pressure to bear so that speedy decisions might be made on vital steel investment in the Port Talbot area. The Government have stalled. They have put back the proposals for steel investment into
    1740
    the melting pot. We still await the report of the joint steering group. Nothing has emerged so far.
    If there is no immediate hope of a large integrated steel mills for South Wales or for any other part of the country now that we are poised to go into the Common Market, we must invest in the existing steel industries in Wales and elsewhere. I hope that we shall have an early announcement before it is too late. I hope that the Ministers concerned will meet us shortly so that we can tell them what is the position, as we are concerned.
    Over the years, we have had redundancy after redundancy. My people are apprehensive that a Government which fought tooth and nail our proposals to bring this great industry into public ownership will not readily see a greater injection of public money into publicly-owned industries.
    I assure the Secretary of State that the people of Wales will not tolerate the high level of unemployment, the bankruptcy of the Government's policies, their apologies and their failure to do anything to avert the great human tragedies which occur in household after household from one end of Wales to the other.
    7.44 p.m.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I recognise that it is the traditional practice of Oppositions to castigate and blame Governments for all the troubles of the world. They do it with special relish when they are conscious that they bear some share of responsibility for the existence of the troubles. They do it with a sense of relief when they have no solutions to offer. They do it with a special venom and feeling of frustration when they see the tide of political and economic fortune turning and their own prospects of success beginning to recede into the far distance.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Put it to the test.
    Mr. Edwards: All that is understandable and well known. It calls for no originality on the part of those involved. It is just a posturing to disguise their own lack of capacity. No one is better at it than the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas). No one has greater need to be.

    1741
    If the Opposition had tabled a Motion regretting that we had not yet found solutions for the problems of the regions, they would have made a perfectly valid point and we might have gone on to discuss what the solutions should be with some prospect of at least limited success. There is no prospect at all if we start from the ludicrously false premises contained in the Opposition Motion. It is, as I shall seek to show, self-evident nonsense that our present ills are the direct responsibility of the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government. The aches and pains were there, the temperature was rising and the virus well established when the Labour Party was in charge of our affairs.
    Professor Glyn Davies, who has already been quoted in this debate by hon. Members opposite, in the course of a lecture delivered on 23rd October, 1970, while the economic policies of the present Government were still emerging from the chrysalis, had this to say about the statistics of industrial production in Wales:
    "the figures for 1969 would appear to show that the credit squeeze has hit Wales much harder than England:: for the first time in seven years Welsh output declined, even in the hitherto dynamic manufacturing sector. The increase in unemployment to record postwar levels and the continued decline in male employment, which fell by 62,000 between 1964 and 1969, demonstrate once again how easy it is to fall back down the hump and justify the question mark in the title of this paper. Thus after six years when manufacturing output increased by almost one-third—a minor miracle by previous post-war standards—growth suddenly ceased".
    The 1970 figures, published after that speech, confirmed the analysis that growth had ceased, had been killed by the policies of the Labour Administration.
    The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) is aware of the importance of growth. In the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on 28th April, 1971, he said:
    "An extra 1 per cent. of growth would mean 250,000 fewer unemployed in this country, so if we speak of a I per cent. rate of growth we speak in meaningful terms with regard to helping Wales." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 28th April, 1971; c. 77.]
    We could argue about the exact relationship of growth to employment, but the hon. Gentleman was right in the principles of his analysis which is amply
    1742
    supported by the Welsh Council Report "Wales: Employment and the Economy". Yes, when we speak of growth we speak in meaningful terms, and the Government in which the hon. Gentleman served destroyed that growth.
    Other indices confirm the shattering consequence of Labour policies. There was the fall in the rate of growth in real consumer expenditure which helped to create the frustration and inflationary wage pressures to which the collapse of other Socialist policies gave full rein; there was the fall, by over one-third, in the number of new company formations; and there was the increase in unemployment, from 25,000 to over 40,000, deliberately engineered in the period after 1966. The fact that it was deliberate was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in the debate before Christmas when he intervened in a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson).
    The Economist highlighted another feature of the inheritance when, on 1st January, it declared:
    "Britain's long investment slump was an inevitable consequence of the Labour Government's war against profits."
    The House may. therefore, treat with some derision the terms of the Motion and get on to the important matter of consideration for the real problems which face us.
    I personally regard with some optimism the prospects for achieving and sustaining the higher levels of growth which we all accept are essential. This general optimism, which does not ignore the more uncomfortable realities, was borne out by the O.E.C.D. Economic Survey in December, which said:
    "when viewed together, the initiatives and measures so far taken form a consistent initial strategy for dealing with the entire group of problems, and for breaking out of the 'vicious circle' in which the United Kingdom has been caught in the past. The hopes raised by larger markets within the E.E.C., and some recognition of the challenge which competition within the market presents, may assist in bringing more positive and dynamic responses to opportunity. Policy can help this process by providing buoyant demand conditions and dealing with market imperfections. A start has already been made; the need now is to maintain the momentum both in the struggle against structural problems and inflation and in the effort to improve longer term economic performance".

    1743
    That is in itself a total rejection by an independent body of the case advanced by the Opposition.
    Earlier the report had rightly referred to the need for imaginative policies to deal with regional problems. For that reason I entirely concur with the opinion of the Scottish Council that the
    "Government should accept regional policy not as an instrument to afford kindly help to the regions, but as a central—an axial—part of British policy as a whole."
    I do not believe that it is a question of setting one party's regional policy against another. I take the view that both have been far from perfect, that the differences can have had no more than a marginal impact and that a period of economic' stagnation is the worst possible time to compare the results of incentives which are designed to function in a growth situation.
    In the climate in which we have lived since Labour stopped growth dead in its tracks, changing regional incentives could have meant no more than tinkering at the margin—a judgment fully confirmed by the Welsh Council in paragraph 27 of its report. That is one reason why the Labour attack is wholly misdirected.
    It is a fallacious argument that the current sluggishness in industrial development in Wales is due to changes in regional incentives. It was absolutely right that during this period of hard pounding the Government should prepare for the break-out by concentrating on a massive expansion of infrastructure and environmental improvement. But now we are coming to the moment when we need new policies to exploit a unique opportunity, and I want to examine some of the possibilities.
    Before doing so, I should simply say about the Welsh Council's demand for a 6 per cent. growth rate—that to move to a higher growth rate that is sustainable is no easy matter. For that reason, the objective may well be in conflict with the very sensible belief expressed by the Council
    "that a stable rate of growth of demand over a period of years is as important as availability of finance and short run consumer demand".
    The Welsh Council makes a number of proposals for regional policy. It
    1744
    suggests a material upward revision of social security benefits over all the United Kingdom and states that this would have a greater incidence in Wales due to greater dependence in Wales on such benefits. This argument would be more convincing if it had told us what the effect of the additional cost of these benefits would be on demand as a whole and if it had related this proposal to its request for an examination in depth of the structure of Welsh unemployment. I suspect that the increase in social security benefits could have a disincentive effect and actually add to the high unemployment and low activity rates in some areas
    In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), if indeed the situation is as bleak as he painted it, it does not seem to me to be a reason for applying an increase in social security benefits over all the United Kingdom. Surely it provides a reason for picking out the groups in greatest need.
    On regional employment premium I retain an open mind, though it is disturbing that so high a proportion—I think more than 50 per cent. in some regions—of firms which moved into the regions during the period since 1967 are still making profits less than the premium which they receive. The attraction of a special tax allowance in respect of wages and salaries is worthy of serious consideration.
    I then come to what is surely one of the great contradictions in the Welsh Council Report. It argues that there has been an over-emphasis on incentives, slanted towards capital expenditure, and, perhaps quite reasonably, it thinks that we should concentrate:
    "the weight of any new measures which are taken upon employment-related incentives."
    A "strong body of opinion" in the council argues the case for investment grants. Yet the argument against investment grants, apart from the fact that they are wasteful, has always been, as the council's own figures show, that they attract capital-intensive industry.
    This point was spelled out clearly in the National Institute Economic Review in November, 1968:
    "…the effect is systematically to segregate the most capital-intensive industries in the assisted areas and the labour-intensive ones outside them. Since the development areas are the places where labour is less scarce than elsewhere, this does not seem to be a desirable effect; nor does it seem appropriate

    1745
    to re-equip them preferentially with the modern equivalents of the heavy cyclically-sensitive nineteenth century industries which, in their twentieth century decline have been a source for so many of the development areas' woes."
    The argument, I confess, is not conclusive, because the capital-intensive industries tend to be the growth industries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) pointed out. But what we need is a proper balance of incentives.
    The O.E.C.D. report concludes a discussion on this very point with an interesting and highly relevant comment:
    "…recent changes in fiscal incentives, notably the decision to abolish regional employment premiums, in 1974, may be open to question. But the replacement of investment grants by increased depreciation allowances available to the service—as well as the manufacturing and extractive—industries in investment in immobile plant and machinery may serve to speed up the employment multiplier effects of new capital investment. In addition, substantial improvements have been made in the grants and loans available to industries under the Local Employment Acts, and these are tied to the provision of jobs."
    If that is true, the Government may not be anything like as far out in their regional strategy as the Opposition have contended.
    I suspect that they have got the right skeleton, to which they now have to add sinew and muscle. It may take the form proposed by the Scottish Council and others—free depreciation of capital equipment for several years. That would provide a much-needed boost to the makers of capital equipment and would give companies all over Britain more cash now.
    If any development area policy is to be effective, we cannot afford to ignore the importance of the growth point concept, whether it takes the form of an industrial complex of the type found in Southern Italy and Central Lancashire and envisaged in the Oceanspan concept in Scotland, or the more limited shape of a new town. But new towns have played a key part in the successful development of a number of areas. All the evidence suggests that the growth rate in such places is higher than where development is indiscriminate.
    That is why I believe that the Government have taken one of the most important and hopeful of all their long-term decisions for Wales in deciding to proceed
    1746
    with the Llantrisant new town. My own fear is that they may not have been ambitious enough in deciding the scale and may not be vigorous enough in pressing on with the development.
    Those who see Llantrisant as the death knell of the valley communities are blind to the realities of the situation——
    Mr. Probert: Nonsense.
    Mr. Edwards: I entirely concur with Professor Davis in the importance he attaches to the project and in his belief that
    "the population of most of the valley communities will inevitably decline and if the vigorous mobile youngsters do not move to Llantrisant they are likely to move to England or overseas. The developments at Llantrisant are a means of retaining population and increasing incomes in the valley communities and in Cardiff, Barry and Cowbridge over and above what they otherwise would be".
    I say to the Government, "Press on with all speed".
    I make two other pleas. I hope that the Government will not ignore the fact that tourism is one of the major growth industries in the world and brings in over £100 million a year to Wales. It deserves encouragement, it needs every incentive to improve its all-too-often inadequate facilities and to extend its season.
    The other matter I have raised at Question Time and in correspondence with my right hon. and learned Friend and with the Minister for Industry. I do not believe that we are being flexible enough in the type of Government factory that we are prepared to erect in rural areas. I cite the example of St. David's Assemblies, a highly successful company which wishes to expand. I cannot understand why it is possible to meet its requirements in Scotland but not in Wales. I will not be satisfied until this situation is reversed.
    By their ineptitude the Labour Government set in motion a whirlwind and left a ruin. What they should be engaged in today is an act of penitence and contrition and a prayer that what they so singularly failed to achieve may be brought to fruition by the present Government.
    8.7 p.m.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas

    1747
    Edwards) accused the last Labour Government of creating unemployment. I wonder whether he has heard of pit closures. The Labour Government induced many new industries to come to Wales, but this unfortunately was counteracted by pit closures. In their 13 disastrous years of office, the Conservative Government originally took the decision to run down the mining industry. Many people would argue today, of course, that that decision was a mistake, particularly due to the flop of nuclear energy.
    I appreciate that it is a long-held view that the cure for unemployment in Wales was to erect new manufacturing industries, but it is realised now that capital-intensive industries with high productivity consequently have a tendency to cut back on labour requirements. The Welsh Council Report shows that it too has now come to this conclusion, but it is certainly not a new concept.
    I should like to see a greater share of one sector of manufacturing industry go to Wales—that is, the motor industry. It is highly capitalised, but it is a substantial employer of labour in highly remunerative employment. The additional argument for Wales is that we produce the steel which is so basic to the manufacture of motor cars.
    In addition, we are now creating excellent road links both with the Midlands and the South-East, the traditional areas for the motor industry. We can now become more integrated with those areas and our people will benefit as a result. The new communication links with the Midlands and South-East could offset the conclusion which Lord Stokes, Chairman of British Leyland, recently reached. He is quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying that it costs his company no less than £7 million a year to locate its factories in development areas. However, these new links of communication in areas like South Wales mean that such areas can becomes more closely integrated with the traditional areas of the motor industry, so offsetting his argument.
    The Welsh Council Report also calls for additional financial inducements to labour-intensive industries. It is worth considering in this connection the excellent harbour facilities at Milford Haven. Millions of pounds have been invested in
    1748
    the area, which nevertheless still has a very high level of unemployment. Unfortunately this can be said of the whole of the region about which I am speaking, because since the war there has been a build-up of capital intensive industries.
    Even in the traditional coal and steel industries there has been a big drop in manpower, not only as a result of closures but through technological innovation. For example, the East Moors steelworks in Cardiff are totally different from the Spencer works at Llanwern, basically because of technological innovation.
    It is against this background that one wonders why the Government are doing away with the regional employment premium in 1974. Some sort of wage related supplement is obviously necessary in view of the situation in Wales. As the Welsh Council says, we could make provision to ensure that capital is retained rather than distributed, and it seems that there are precedents in our taxation law for doing this.
    The argument for reintroducing investment grants is obvious. After all, the Government's decisions on R.E.P. and investment grants have undermined the confidence of business men and consequently have had a sad effect on the level of investment. I particularly emphasise this because the Motion refers to the failure of Government policies. On these two issues their failure is obvious and I ask the Government to think again.
    Good industrial relations are essential for a sound and prosperous economy. Why did the Government push through their iniquitous Industrial Relations Act? All the major trade unions have refused to co-operate with that legislation.
    I am a sponsored hon. Member of the Transport and General Workers' Union and I am proud of my trade union connection. Some time ago I received some correspondence from the General Secretary of the T. & G.W.U., Mr. Jack Jones, one being a letter which somehow got into his hands. It had been addressed to an employee of International Computers and was from the Conservative Central Office. Perhaps I should make it clear that I have given the Secretary of State notice of my intention to raise this matter. At the top of the paper appears the title:

    1749
    "Conservative and Unionist Central Office—Chairman of the Party, the right hon. Peter Thomas, Q.C., M.P."
    Dated 18th January, the letter reads:
    "David Lane has sent me a copy of your letter of 12th January in which you ask for advice on the establishment of a breakaway union from the A.C.T.S.S. You suggest that this union should be called The International Computer Association. Might I suggest that you interpose the word 'Operators' between 'Computer' and 'Association', which would then become ' The International Computer Operators Association '? It would certainly be a very much better union from the negotiating angle if it were non-political and registered. The creation of a new union is in reality a very simple process. It only requires that there should be a meeting of interested persons to pass a motion declaring that the new union should be established, and thereafter preliminary steps should be taken to frame the rules and objects of the Association, together with the necessary financial support that such an Association would require."
    It goes on:
    "I do not think you will have very much difficulty in establishing a new union, providing you get sufficient support for the object in which you believe."
    The letter is signed by Mr. J. McDonald Watson of the Industrial Department.
    Mr. Jones then sent me a copy of a letter which he had sent to Mr. Victor Feather, General Secretary of the T.U.C. dated 8th February. The letter stated, among other things:
    "The reason I am sending on this letter to you is that it clearly indicates the deliberate intention by the Conservative and Unionist Central office to encourage breakaway trade unions."
    The Secretary of State for Employment was quoted in The Times on Tuesday of this week as denying any intention by the Conservative Central Office to encourage breakaway unions in this way, but I was not convinced by his reply.
    It so happens that before I came to this House I was a member of the national committee of this section of the T. & G.W.U. I therefore wrote to the Chairman of the Conservative Party asking him to investigate the matter. Up to now I have received no reply, but it is clear from the correspondence I have that the intention of the Conservative Party and of the Government is to try to weaken the trade union movement and to encourage the formation of breakaway unions. I was interested to note that under the heading
    "I.C.I. snubs new union law"
    1750
    in The Guardian today it is stated by Keith Harper:
    "An agreement signed by I.C.I. and 10 unions representing 60,000 workers in effect cocks a snook at the Industrial Relations Act."
    Later he writes:
    "They are convinced that the most effective system of industrial relations is one based on voluntary agreement."
    Mr. Harper goes on:
    "The statement signed by both sides makes it clear that the firm is not likely to encourage the forming of rogue staff associations within the company to oppose established unions who may otherwise be unregistered under the Act."
    It is clear that our big companies realise the folly of this Act which the Government have introduced into our voluntary system. I am glad that the Labour Party have decided that one of their first acts as a Government will be to remove this iniquitous Act from the Statute Book.
    The debate is about the failure of the present Government's policies. They have certainly failed in my part of the world. Newport and the surrounding area has been traditionally a prosperous area. I referred to it once as the Birmingham of Wales, because it used to be a veritable hive of industry. But now nearly 3,000 men are unemployed. The situation is even more dramatic in Monmouthshire as a whole, with over 8,000 men unemployed. The position is equally tragic for young people. In Newport the closures of two very important factories are under way, British Aluminium and the Stewarts and Lloyds tube works. Some 1,500 jobs for men are involved. It is worth pointing out that Stewarts and Lloyds is no lame duck. The workers at the tube works are resolved to fight the proposal of closure in any and every way that they can.
    Newport certainly needs development area status at present. It provides employment for not only the citizens of Newport but for those of much of the surrounding area. But, as the Welsh Council Report points out:
    "The Council considers that a fundamental pre-condition to the successful application of a development area policy is the existence of a buoyant confident economy and a pre-disposition to investment. It does not consider that inducements in the absence of these circumstances have, at best, more than a marginal effect."
    I agree with those sentiments.
    We are now in the pre-Budget period, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has

    1751
    gone into purdah. We wish him well in his endeavours. To transform the present situation in Wales he will need all the qualities of the old magician Merlin, especially to arrest the catastrophic unemployment created in Wales by the present Government. He needs rather more than the incentives of last year's Budget which proved nothing more than a give-away to the better off sections of the community. The envisaged increase in investment did not materialise. I hope, therefore, that he will this year start the other way around by giving a substantial increase to the old people. After all, they need it most. Furthermore, they will spend it in the shops and assist in keeping our people in employment and in creating the vitally necessary new jobs.
    8.23 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Roberts: It is not my intention to speak at great length, not only because I am concerned that other hon. Members should have an opportunity to speak but also because I am finding it difficult to project my voice.
    I have listened with great interest to the speeches of hon. Members on the Opposition side. There has been that usual mixture of concern and compasssion. But I wish they would not think that this was their prerogative alone. They feel no more compassion for the unemployed than I and my hon. Friends. Hon. Members opposite have no right to assume that the concern for the unemployed is theirs and not ours. They would have greater force, in terms of credibility, if they admitted to bearing some of the responsibility. But not a bit of it. We have the constant argument, time after time, that the responsibility is entirely that of the present Government because of their failure. There is no mention of the fact so forcibly brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) that the growth element had ceased towards the end of the Labour Government's rule. There is no recognition that the profitability of industry had fallen in the six years of Labour Government to the point at which there was not the money in industry to invest to create the necessary employment on which we all depend.
    Gone are the days when one could simply say "Let us pump more money
    1752
    into the economy." It is, of course, necessary to do that. But gone are the days when one could suggest that merely by pumping money into the economy all would be well, because there is the element of structural unemployment. This was put, in terms, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he spoke in the debate on unemployment three or four weeks ago, when he said that more was produced by every 19 workers today than previously had been produced by 20 workers.
    I was very moved—particularly because of the state of my voice—by the words of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) when he said that the Welsh Nationalist Party was suffering from political laryngitis. I am sure that when he made that remark he was thinking particularly of the forthcoming by-election at Merthyr Tydvil. But I must warn the hon. Member, in case he was not in the Chamber when his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) spoke, that the Welsh Nationalist Party will soon recover its political voice.
    The hon. Member for Pontypool, in a long, reasoned lament for the people of Wales, pointed out many of the disadvantages we suffer. Amongst some of the matters to which he referred was the fact that we have far fewer doctors and dentists in proportion to the population than has England. What surprised me greatly was to learn for the first time that we are almost at the bottom of the beer-drinking league. I would not have suspected that, from casual observation; but apparently it is true. I point out to the hon. Member for Neath—no doubt the hon. Member for Pontypool is well aware of it—that if that is so, it is no indictment of a Conservative Government who have been in office for a matter of 18 months. It might well be taken as an indictment of the previous six years of Labour government. I am quite sure that when the Welsh Nationalists recover their voice they will use it as ammunition and I am sure they will use it in the by-election at Merthyr.
    The right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) referred to male unemployment in Swansea and the 7 per cent. rate of unemployment in Cardiff. One of the reasons for high male unemployment in the Cardiff area was the introduction of S.E.T. The tax

    1753
    was intended to shake out people from the service industries but in Cardiff no manufacturing industries could take up the labour that was shaken out. Cardiff is one of the most under-industrialised cities in the country. We have just heard that the proposal to establish and extend the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology has been turned down on the Buchanan site. I can well understand why. It would have involved a great deal of social hardship and the disruption of a large number of houses. I was one of the very few to give evidence at the inquiry poiniting out the disadvantages in social terms, particularly to the old people whose homes would be disrupted in the area north of Cathays Park.
    It is essential that a new site be found quickly in the city for U.W.I.S.T. because it is part of the plan of the city authority to have such a university of higher education so that we can generate further employment in the area.
    There is an aspect of structural unemployment in the Cardiff area which concerns our major industrial enterprise, the East Moors steelworks along with the G.K.N. works. We frequently hear discussion about steel industry development on new green-field or brown-field sites. They are more efficient and therefore workers in the less sophisticated and older steelworks face the possibility of losing their jobs. We have great hopes in Cardiff that the East Moors works will be safe and that iron and steel smelting will continue in the area as a result of what we trust will be successful negotiations with the G.K.N. company.
    I do not take a gloomy view of the prospects of the next few months. We can achieve a high rate of growth and we can get rid of much of the unemployment which now affects Wales. One of the most important requirements is to establish effective retraining facilities. In the early nineteenth century South Wales depended on the export of coal based chiefly on unskilled labour. By contrast the skilled labour content in Germany and the U.S.A. was much higher and the facilities for technical education were far better. Britain at that time was cushioned by imports paid for by interest on overseas investments and the nation's backwardness in technical education reduced
    1754
    both the supply and the demand for highly-skilled technicians. The Government are placing great emphasis on retraining and, like hon. Members opposite, I attach great importance to it also. The Labour Government pursued a similar policy when they were in office.
    In addition to this great retraining drive, we have a tremendous improvement in communications. Hon. Members have already referred to the developments of the M4 and M5 and the proposed rapid introduction of a bypass north of Cardiff. This gives us a tremendous opportunity to link up with the motorway network. It is also an opportunity for local authorities in South Wales to promote the interests of the area by drawing the attention of the rest of the United Kingdom to the advantages we can offer. That is why I welcome local government reform. An essential part of successful development for South Wales is strong local authorities that will work in co-operation so that we can attract industry into South Wales. It is very important that we do not wait until the Local Government Bill becomes an Act but that we encourage the existing local authorities. Although their remaining existence is short, they should seize the opportunity now, because it is vital that in the next two years the advantages of South Wales are drawn to the attention of the United Kingdom generally.
    We have a strong structure of local government in preparation, and we have the tremendous potential of good communications throughout the United Kingdom. Thirdly, we have the probability of major building programmes in South Wales. First, there are the major building programmes that will be necessary in the central development area of Cardiff. Then there is the major building proposal tied up with the Llantrisant new town. I am very doubtful about some of the advantages of a new town in Llantrisant, but I want a tremendous drive in the construction industries in South Wales because it will provide a greater fillip for industry and employment in the area. I should be very happy to see some refurbishing of the valley towns and to see capital poured into them and into the coastal towns, like Cardiff. What is essential is the development of the construction industry, which will have a spin-off effect throughout South Wales.

    1755
    I expect an increase in general investment throughout the country. If it happens, I am sure Wales will attract a reasonable share of that development.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Mr. Roderick.
    Mr. Alec Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are the chances of being called directly or indirectly related to the length of time a Member has been listening to the debate?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question of who is called is entirely a matter for the Chair.
    8.37 p.m.
    Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall curtail what I have to say to a few minutes. I begin with a quotation:
    "The problem of sluggish demand and under-investment is, of course, not confined to Wales. I am confident, however, that the measures taken by the Government last October and subsequently—and in particular the Budget—will help to boost demand and thence investment generally. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised to the representatives of the T.U.C. recently in Cardiff, the rôle of the Government was to create the conditions for a growth in the economy. This has been done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 8th April, 1971; c. 8.]
    That was said by the Secretary of State. He said "This has been done", but we have not seen the follow-up to those activities in terms of extra employment. The money has been made available, but we have not seen the extra investment. No safeguards were produced when the measures were taken to make sure that the investment would take place.
    I pointed out at that sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee that I was concerned about the trend, that unfilled vacancies in Wales were dropping while unemployment was rising, that the Government were not creating jobs fast enough to keep up with the pace at which existing jobs were being used up.
    The trend was such that if one imagines every unfilled vacancy being filled from the ranks of the unemployed, the net unemployed remaining in March, 1970, numbered about 30,000, which went up by March, 1971, to 36,000, a shift of 20
    1756
    per cent. If one continues this exercise to January last, one finds that the figure is now 51,000. That is to say, over the period when the unemployment figure has shifted by 40 per cent., this trend has shifted by 70 per cent. That is the danger I see—using up the vacancies and not creating the jobs while unemployment soars. We have had 17,000 redundancies in Wales. We saw under the Labour Government a rise in unemployment, but a factor which was then present and which is not present today was the massive increase in pit closures.
    What concerns me is that we have had such optimism from the Secretary of State at all times but the policies he is pursuing are wrong. We have produced the figures. I urge him to change his policies. He says that regional policies are not enough; we want an expansion in the economy. I respectfully suggest that an expansion in the economy is not enough. We also need an effective regional policy. We note from the Development Corporation for Wales a plea for the retention of the R.E.P. We note from the Welsh Council a plea for the retention of the R.E.P. or something similar—some kind of employment incentive in the regions.
    I do not wish to touch on the Mid-Wales Development Corporation, dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I come to the last point I wish to make. It is something I asked in the Welsh Grand Committee in February, to which I did not receive a reply. I hope that the Minister can give me a reply to it. I refer to the cost of entering the E.E.C. on the coal and steel industries in Wales. We have forcibly to control the expansion of the industry. We need this expansion. It is said that the British Steel Corporation in its plan for 1971–81, which has been discussed earlier, takes E.E.C. entry for granted and assumes that any major steel expansion would have to be sited in South-East England or North-West Europe. I would need to be very clever to work out the effect on Wales.
    Secondly, a report in The Guardian said that the N.C.B. representative at the Brussels negotiations was instructed not to raise the question of assistance to coal and steel by the single price policy—that is, the policy whereby the same price would reign throughout the country,

    1757
    regardless of transport costs of coal. One can readily imagine the disastrous effects of transport costs on an area such as South Wales, which is far from the consumer areas.
    We would welcome a statement on these two aspects of entry into the E.E.C. This is causing a great deal of concern in South Wales.
    8.44 p.m.
    Mr. Alec Jones: I appeal to my hon. Friends not to be hard on the Secretary of State. I know that many hon. Members felt that the only virtue in his speech was that he gave us a proper definition of the word "complacency". It is not his fault any more than it is the fault of other Ministers. It is the direct result of a policy directly propagated by the present Prime Minister. I begin with a quotation from that pathetic television performance by the Prime Minister on 28th February, when he said:
    "In the kind of country we live in there cannot be any 'we' or 'they'. There is only 'us'; all of us."
    I must say that that is nauseating hypocrisy coming from the Prime Minister, because we have more than 1 million unemployed in the United Kingdom, more than 55,000 in Wales and 2,281 in my own constituency of Rhondda, West.
    There is the vast army of the unemployed who are saying that they were berayed by this Government, who were elected on a false promise to reduce unemployment. They have achieved the opposite. Throughout the country, as my hon. Friends have said, the Government have established monthly records of high and increasing unemployment. In 1971 in Wales we began the year with 42,266 unemployed and ended the year with 51,035. In 1972 we began in Wales with 56,000 unemployed and the fear reverberating through Wales is, "What is the figure likely to be by the end of this year?". Yet the Secretary of State told us in the Welsh Grand Committee on 9th December, 1970:
    "During the Labour Government term of office, unemployment rose nationally to levels unknown for 30 years."
    We have known a lot more about that since June, 1970. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say about his Government:
    1758
    "…we reject the shameful waste which has occurred in the last six years in terms of unemployment and migration—a waste of the talent and skills of Welsh workers."
    I ask the Minister of State, if "shameful waste" are the words used to describe the lower level of unemployment under a Labour Government, what words will he use tonight to describe the higher unemployment achieved under his Government? Furthermore, what will he do about it? In the same speech in Committee the Secretary of State went on, presumably speaking of the Government again:
    "…we are determined to follow new policies, policies which will be more effective in securing the development of the Welsh economy and improving the quality of life for the Welsh people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 9th December, 1970; c. 16–17.]
    It is much more difficult to find out what are these new policies. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here, but he told us time and again, talking of the rise in public expenditure under Labour, that such a rise in public expenditure was a basic obstacle to a satisfactory rate of economic growth. Now we find the right hon. and learned Gentleman and a series of Ministers leaping over that obstacle with the zeal of converts, and in speech after speech reading out figures for increased public expenditure. We welcome that conversion but wish to goodness that we could see some conversion in other areas where action is urgently needed to solve our unemployment problems.
    The Secretary of State is fortunate that he has been helped in his search for new policies by the publication of the Welsh Council document "Wales: Employment and the Economy." The party opposite has never been very interested in unemployment. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Michael Roberts) suggested that the party opposite was desperately interested, that it cared passionately about the unemployed. Let the Minister of State take a look round the Chamber. If his hon. and right hon. Friends are so interested and concerned, where are they now when the subject is being debated? There is only one hon. Member opposite and that is the P.P.S. to the Secretary of State.
    There are two important features in this Welsh Council document. The first

    1759
    is the vindication of the type of policies which the Labour Government pursued, namely investment grants, regional employment premium and dispersal policies; and the second is that a clear way is pointed as to the steps the Secretary of State should be pressing inside the Cabinet if the unemployed of Wales are to have any hope of returning to employment.
    In the last Parliament the Prime Minister, offering his remedy for dealing with the problem of unemployment in a speech on economic affairs, said it could best be done by providing training and increasing mobility. No one quarrels with training. The Labour Government did more than any other in this respect. We welcome all the announcements that this Government have made about training and retraining schemes. At the end of the day however training is not and cannot be a substitute for work.
    It is no virtue for Wales to have the best-trained army of unemployed in the dole queues. There are hon. Members opposite who still toy and play with the idea of mobility. I am sorry he is not here but the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is one who believes that mobility is the answer to unemployment. He told us that we could build bigger and better Sloughs as a means of solving unemployment in Wales. If mobility is to be used, as it was prewar, to compel the young and active in Wales to leave their homes and families and communities then it is not on. The price for such forced mobility is still being paid by the people of the valleys of South Wales and the other neglected parts of the United Kingdom.
    But this Government have undoubtedly made mobility somewhat less attractive, for where are the unemployed of Wales to go for a job? If they go to Scotland, they find 9·3 per cent. unemployed; to the North of England. 9·1 per cent. unemployed; to the West Midlands, a previously prosperous area, a wholly unemployed figure of 6·7 per cent. This spread of unemployment to the previously prosperous areas carries with it a further threat to the development areas, because we are now hearing repeated calls for the extension of development area policies to other parts of the country.
    1760
    A recent article in The Guardian referred to speeches made by the Chairmen of the East and West Economic Planning Councils, and by the Surrey Planning Officer, asking for the spreading of industrial incentives over other areas and the relaxation of I.D.C. policies. These speeches were described as nudging development area policy on to a slightly different course. Similar views have been expressed in this House, and if development area policy were nudged in that direction it would be a disaster not only for Wales but for all the development areas of the United Kingdom.
    Development area policies have already been seriously weakened. Doctor Rhodes of the Cambridge Department of Applied Economics has calculated—and this calculation was not challenged in this House—that changes in investment provision have reduced the differential incentive of over £100 of investment from £12 to £2. If the regional policies are further diluted or weakened it will mean that if—and it is a big if under this Government—and when full employment returns to the rest of this country the older industrial areas, the development areas, will still lag far behind. The Government have a special responsibility in this. Some review of regional policies is apparently taking place. The Government must ensure that nothing is done to delay the correcting of the imbalance in job opportunities between the development areas and the rest of the country.
    The Secretary of State for Wales has a special responsibility to the people of Wales in this, for unless he speaks and acts for Wales and asserts the rightful demands of Wales inside the Cabinet what we shall see is a continuance of the two-nation policy which has been the historical record of the Tory Party in Wales.
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. Tom Ellis: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Michael Roberts) claimed that the Government were as concerned and as compassionate about the unemployed as the Opposition. I do not question their concern; but I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) in this respect because, apart from any other reason, their political future is at

    1761
    stake. What I question is their competence, and I do not mean to imply that the record of the previous Labour Administration was impeccable—far from it; but it was never so profoundly misconceived as the attitude of this Government when it took office in June, 1970. If I have time, I will enlarge on that later.
    It is ironic that we should be debating the Welsh economy and Welsh unemployment at a time when the House is preoccupied—a litte tediously some of us feel—with the European Communities Bill, and when strong speeches from both sides proclaiming the sovereignty of the House and of British institutions are still ringing in our ears. The irony arises from the acceptance by almost everyone that the greatest single determinant of the condition of the Welsh economy is the condition of the greater whole of which it is a part, and the Secretary of State went out of his way to make this point at the beginning of his speech. Sickly though the British economy is, there is no doubt in my mind that it is healthier than would be the sum of the parts taken individually. Wales benefits from her association with England as much as England benefits from her association with Wales.
    So any consideration of the economic affairs of Wales must start with the British economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has fired his starting gun on numerous occasions since last July when the Government abruptly, though not a second too soon, completely abandoned their original economic posture—I can hardly dignify it, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) with the term "policy". However, there now seems to be general agreement that at long last the country is on the edge of expansion, and that the Government should aim to make the rate of expansion a high one.
    We in Wales this week have received from the Welsh Council an excellent document on the Welsh economy, happily in time for this debate, in which the Council argues cogently that:
    "…it is a matter of imperative importance to Wales that the overall growth rate target should be at least 6 per cent. for two years."
    I am sure that no hon. Member on this side of the House will disagree about the importance to Wales of that figure of 6 per cent. It is based on the assumption
    1762
    that the level of unemployment in Wales would be reduced to an acceptable figure within 12 months.
    There are two points about that figure which have to be borne in mind, one of which the Welsh Council has been at pains to stress. First, if the economic history of Britain over the last 27 years, let alone the last 21 months, is to be regarded as any guide, 6 per cent. is a wildly optimistic figure to sustain for any length of time.
    The Secretary of State claimed that the 4 per cent. growth rate in the 21 months of the Conservative Government was double the growth rate of the previous Labour Administration. This is absurd because a 21-month period is too short; it is doubly absurd in that minutes previously the Secretary of State had disclaimed responsibility for unemployment which he said was a legacy from the previous Labour Adminisaration; and it is trebly absurd in that if a particular feature is immediately responsive to Government action, it is unemployment rather than growth rate.
    It is a telling indictment against the Government, and the sheer desperation of the unemployment situation in Wales has driven a body of the eminence of the Welsh Council to talk of the imperative importance of achieving so improbably high a figure as 6 per cent.
    The second point spelt out in the Welsh Council Report, and a second indictment of the Government, is the overwhelming importance of business confidence as a factor in the economy. That a Tory Government with its built-in presumption of concern for business men should have so rapidly evoked the biggest loss of business confidence since the death of Helen of Troy is a remarkable fact that we now have to record and deplore. The great tragedy is that the money which in their panic the Government have since had to pour into the economy has done nothing so far to undo either nationally or regionally the great harm already done.
    A Government can pump away furiously at the economy, as this Government have done in an effort to retrieve the mess which their early doctrinaire bigotry got them into, but until they can set out sensibly a long-term course and follow it sensibly, and firmly adhere to it over a long period, business confidence will be an elusive entity. So long as

    1763
    people continue to regard the Government as an obdurate lot, the prospects are forbidding. The present Government, alarmed at the unemployment situation which they have contrived, have stimulated consumer demand, but have failed in the far more crucial matter of capital investment in manufacturing industry.
    I want to try to be constructive because I am a kind-hearted man and I feel sorry for the Government which is at sixes and sevens and in a terrible mess. I want to make a constructive suggestion —[AN HON. MEMBER: "That they should resign."] Apart from the suggestion of my hon. Friend that they should resign, which would be perhaps the most constructive suggestion, I propose to look at one of the issues raised by the Welsh Council in its document, "Wales Employment and the Economy ".
    The Council suggests three factors which have adversely affected the building up of confidence. I want to consider one of these which in my view is far and away the most important. It is the
    "influence of changing policies of inflation and deflation over an expensive period of time "
    as the Council calls it, or stop-go, as it has been more graphically called. I think many people would accept that this perhaps is the single most decisive influence on confidence. The remedy clearly is to break into the virtuous circle of steady permanent expansion, building up confidence, leading to steady permanent expansion and so on. This is the only hope of our becoming more competitive and achieving adequate growth to reduce unemployment and to do all the other things that need doing in Wales and elsewhere.
    The Welsh Council suggests one way of doing this—of stimulating order-book confidence, as it so rightly calls it. That is for the public corporations firmly to accept long-term investment commitments at stated levels. Apart from the slightly question-begging nature of the proposal, I accept this as a step in the right direction, but I cannot see it of itself having anything like the fundamental long-term effect we are looking for, because this is not actually the problem. It is not a question of knowing how to press the "go" button, or at least it was not so
    1764
    until the bludgeoning of what confidence there was by this Government's economic crudities made even that operation difficult.
    The question is how to avoid having to press the "stop" button once the economy has got under way. At the moment we are in an exceptionally favourable position for expansion with an all-time record balance of payments surplus, with improving terms of trade and with substantial, although disputed, spare capacity. Here again the Government are completely exposed. We have had all manner of ingenious monetary and fiscal devices invented during the last decade or so and put to the work of economic steering, but we have not yet developed such a mechanism for safeguarding the balance of payments with anything like certitude under a truly expansionist policy.
    I think most people would agree, thanks again to Government crudities, that the omens for an effective long-term and equitable incomes policy, say—only one of the pre-conditions for sustained growth—are hardly propitious at the moment. Our social engineering, which has always lagged behind our economic engineering, now under this Government lags even further behind. It is because of all this that I believe we have a case which can be strongly argued internationally, justifying our use of physical import controls.
    I hardly dare hope that this Government will do anything intelligent about it, but I wish that the Welsh Council in its chapter "Demand, Growth and Employment" had gone into the crucial need, as it appears to me, for physical controls on the limitation of imports. I am well aware that all kinds of international consequences arise, and I am not advocating a "beggar my neighbour" policy. I am asking for a serious attempt quickly to legitimise the internationally agreed use of what I believe would be a truly effective tool of economic management in an area where no satisfactory tool now exists. Without this effective control on the balance of payments, business confidence will never be such as to aspire to a growth rate of 6 per cent., and in that event Welsh unemployment will no more respond to the tinkerings of the present Government than would pigs fly.
    9.7 p.m.
    Mr. Neil McBride: I have only two and a half minutes in which to talk about the problems which affect the City of Swansea. It is well known that in Swansea every job has many applicants. With the advent of a fast inter-city train service, we are afraid that British Rail's Eastern depot will be closed and the 200 employees there will become redundant. Plenary powers which were granted yesterday to the industrial sub-committee of the city council will support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and myself in retaining these jobs. The serious position in the city can be shown by the fact that seven people are chasing every vacancy. No new industry of any comparable size has come to the city since the advent of the present Government. How can we hope for anything in the future when only five advance factories have been notified for approval in Wales since the Government came to power?
    I should like to draw attention to the recent report of the British Road Federation on the ports of South Wales. It would appear that the Secretary of State for Wales, despite what is happening in the Common Market, steadfastly refuses to say anything about the use of the South Wales ports generally and particularly the Port of Swansea.
    I charge the Secretary of State for Wales with dereliction of duty in terms of the Housing Finance Bill. By not taking a place in the Standing Committee he has failed completely to discharge his duty to the Welsh people. A total of 270,000 local authority tenants look to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is the Member for an English constituency, and they look in vain.
    The Housing Finance Bill will increase cost inflation in Wales and will induce massive wage claims. The imposition of an additional 50p in April will lead to a monthly increase of £1 in October. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
    The Prime Minister has invited the Trades Union Congress leaders to see him at Downing Street. If the Secretary of State for Wales is on terms of confidence with the Prime Minister, he must tell him that that legislation is resented throughout the Principality. The Bill will
    1766
    introduce means-testing of the Welsh people on a scale which they have never before seen. It will increase the cost of living and, in turn, will depress the standard of living.
    It will be effected and connived at by the Secretary of State who, along with his Minister of State, has refused to take a place on the Standing Committee which is considering that Bill, as it was their bounden duty to do. As a result we have been left with Ministers on that Committee who do not show very much interest in Wales. One of them even owned up to some Welsh blood, and I told him that it must have come through an Englishman who came to live in Wales.
    I must bring my remarks to a close. I conclude by saying that the rent increases which will flow from the Housing Finance Bill will severely affect the economy of Wales. The Welsh income is only 85 per cent. of the national average.
    In another respect Wales is a low wage area. Low wages and low rents go together. Paradoxically, the surpluses from these areas will be creamed off to help to finance the larger conurbations. This viciously anti-social, anti-working class Bill should have been condemned by the Secretary of State, and I charge him with abandoning all interest in the Welsh people by failing to defend them in this matter in which socially and economically the Welsh people and the Welsh nation are interested.
    9.10 p.m.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: We are not the first generation of Welshmen to debate unemployment in this House. Although the general economic policies and the Government's attitude towards development areas are matters which are of general relevance to Britain as a whole, the debate we have had today is more fundamentally pertinent to our nation than indeed to any of the other countries and regions of the United Kingdom.
    Unemployment is one of the dread words of the glossary of modern Wales. The mere mention of this problem nowadays causes people in Wales to ask themselves whether it is that Wales is yet again going to re-enact in part or in whole one of the terrible tragedies which it has suffered in this century. The physical scars of unemployment, as every

    1767
    Member of this House knows, show themselves in many scores of our communities. They will be there for a long time to come, but the scars which this experience has left upon the mind and spirit of Wales will remain for much longer.
    In the 20s and the 30s—those two miserable decades—there were periods when as many as 40 per cent. of the insured population of Wales were unemployed. It was during that period that our little nation, with a population of only 2½ million, lost no fewer than 500,000 of its population by migration. This Diaspora and dismemberment of a nation community were brought about by the ruthless and untamed forces of economic ruin. Although it is not for us as Welsh people to live in the past, nevertheless we well know the proverb that those who forget the past are sometimes indeed forced to re-live it.
    It is against such a background that we consider the dreadful facts of this situation which we are debating today, with unemployment the highest for 40 years—5·8 per cent. of the insured population. In some areas, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), it is as high as nearly 15 per cent. male unemployment. Of the 56,000 persons unemployed in Wales at the present moment, no fewer than 36,000 of those have been unemployed for a period of longer than eight weeks. The hard core of unemployment is getting much bigger. This is something which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might reflect upon. The nature of the unemployment we are now dealing with is different from, and far more serious than, that which it was our lot to experience in years past. At the same time, we saw in 1971 no fewer than 17,600 redundancies notified in Wales. What is more horrifying than that total itself is where those redundancies occur. No fewer than 1,960 of them occurred in mechanical engineering, 1,570 in electrical engineering, 660 in aerospace equipment, and more than 4,000 in the steel industry. At the same time, the number of job vacancies in Wales fell to the pitifully low level of 5,000.
    Frightening though they are, these figures reveal by no means the whole truth.
    1768
    As we have heard already, with activity rates for males and females in Wales down about 15 per cent. compared with the average United Kingdom figure, we have the phenomenon of under-employment which in terms of a community's capacity to produce has exactly the same effect as unemployment.
    Again, as hon. Members from rural areas are well aware, there is the factor of outward migration. It is no doubt the claim of the Government that in past years this has slowed down perceptibly, certainly when taken in net terms. But it still means that the young, the robust, the able and the virile leave, and older people come back to Wales to retire. All welcome to them, but it is a poor swap in terms of the strength, virility and future of a community.
    In a debate of this nature, it is a great temptation to indulge in out and out vilification of the party opposite. Heaven knows, it deserves it. It is a temptation in Wales which we manage to abjure when we are at home. In Wales, the Tories are almost totally irrelevant in political terms. Ever since the ballot was made secret in 1871, the Welsh people in their wisdom have consistently rejected the blandishments of the Tory Party in every election.
    It is not only right for us to look at the statistics of misery. I believe that we have to look also at the philosophies which govern this whole issue, and to consider what must be done in future if we are to rid ourselves of the malady of heavy chronic unemployment. The Government must be judged by their acts. I say clearly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is no part of our case that he has an innate malevolence towards the country and nation of Wales. However, dainty sympathies are of no earthly use. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be judged by the policies that he has pursued or failed to pursue. There is a yawning abyss between the pledges of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and the miserable results that they have achieved so far, and they are results which are the direct and inevitable consequences of their acts.
    In the Election in June, 1970, the prospectus of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen

    1769
    opposite was quite clear in this regard. It was a clear pledge to bring about an immediate fall in the level of unemployment. Irrespective of whether some people like the Minister of Agriculture might not have believed such pledges, it remains the fact that millions of people did believe them. They did not view them in such a cynical light, and it was on that basis that they subscribed their support.
    One can say a great deal in defence of the Prime Minister. At that time he may have had the certainty that it was impossible for him to win the Election. It may be that in utter and abject despair, with his own failure only days away, waiting for the high priests to drag him as a failure to the sacrificial block, he thought that there was nothing to lose in giving such a pledge. Nevertheless, it was a solemn pledge. It was a pledge incapable of fulfilment and, therefore, a deliberately fraudulent misrepresentation.
    The severest indictment which can be brought against the Government is that, when these promises were given, not only could they not have been fulfilled, but those giving them had not the slightest intention, if by some freak or fluke of fortune they achieved power, ever to carry them out. Indeed, I suggest that they had every intention, if such a contingency should occur, to act wholly to the contrary.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on the 28th October, 1970, was one of the greatest acts of betrayal in modern British politics. It set in train policies which achieved the twin results of creating, on the one hand, a general stagnancy in the economy and, on the other, a wanton destruction of regional policies.
    Despite searing regrets, embarrassing public recantations, and a growing crescendo of substantive and presentational measures designed to stimulate growth, they are unable completely to avoid the harsh consequences of the October measures. They have sown the wind, and soon no doubt they will reap the whirlwind.
    Nowhere is the Government's failure more apparent than in Wales. At a time when the Welsh economy was going through a process of painful and delicate readjustments—readjustments consequent
    1770
    upon the run-down of its basic industries and the broadening of its economic base—they decided to change the whole pattern of assistance towards our country and nation.
    This need for assistance from outside, as we all know, was very considerable. The natural forces of decline in Wales have been moving by inexorable process for a very long time. It is right for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that there were many matters in which we failed when we were in Government. Of course we failed. We failed within the short span of six years to put right that which had accumulated through the neglect of many centuries. It was these very forces of decline and decay which they were unwilling to combat in Wales.
    If one wishes to bring about the ruin of Wales, all that one has to do is to do nothing at all; one merely has to sit back, to recline in doctrinal detachment, rejecting the meddlesome planning which some people found so bound up and intolerable under a Labour Government. All that they had to do was to allow market forces their full and untrammelled play.
    Nowhere is this attitude more clearly shown than in the person of the Secretary of State for Wales who maintains an astral distance between himself and the fundamental problems of the Principality. Each big redundancy, each catastrophic closure, each serious rundown, he announces as if it were an act of God and the Government had no more responsibility nor possible influence in relation to it than they had upon the weather.
    In the development areas the Government have deliberately abolished the most attractive allurements. At the same time, they have reduced the differential between the development and the non-development areas to a ludicrous nothingness.
    As we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) this afternoon, the decision to abolish investment grants was not the product of a lengthy and deeply incisive study; it was the ritual slaughter of a form of assistance which was anathema to Tory theology.
    The wrecking was complete with the announcement that R.E.P. would be

    1771
    phased out in 1974. This measure certainly had the tendency to keep prices fairly low and output and employment relatively high in those areas which it was intended to sustain. It was a form of assistance which, of all the forms of assistance, had the most direct and immediate effect upon employment.
    Not only has the scope of regional assistance been greatly curtailed but, most fundamental of all, the differential between the development areas and the rest of the country has been virtually abolished. This of course, in practice, brings development area policy to an end. I have made a calculation of the differential values between development and non-development areas of assistance to developers on the basis of £100 invested in manufacturing industry. In the period 1966–70, in a development area the benefit would have been £57·80. In a non-development area it would have been £48·70. The differential was 12·1 per cent. In the period after 1971, in a development area it would be worth £37·40 and in a non-development area £35·60. The differential has shrunk to 1·8 per cent. That is what I meant by a ludicrous nothingness.
    Mr. John Rhodes of the Cambridge Department of Applied Economics puts it succinctly in this way:
    "The value of the Development Area differential investment incentives for manufacturing industry is now very small compared with the grants systems operating in 1956–67".
    Not only is Wales losing vis-à-vis the development areas; it is also doing very much worse than before in relation to the other development areas.
    According to some figures given me by the Welsh Office today, the total square footage allowed in the Welsh development area from 1st January, 1969, to 30th June, 1970, the last 18 months of our Administration, was 10·1 million, representing 21·9 per cent. of all development which went to development areas. The amount from 1st July, 1970, to the end of 1971, under the present Administration, is 5·2 million—just over half, representing no more than 16·2 per cent. Therefore, there is a fall in absolute terms and in relative terms.
    The moment of truth has arrived for the Government over unemployment and regional policies. On 24th January the
    1772
    Prime Minister accepted responsibility for this matter. It was the honourable thing to do. He must now stand up manfully and say what short-term and long-term policies he is willing to operate in this matter.
    In that debate on 24th January, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put forward a considered statement dealing with 12 separate points of policy. They deserve a detailed answer. Tonight our concern lies with the Secretary of State, who has said hardly anything relevant to the question of the short-term plan to combat unemployment. Of course it is beneficial to Wales if new roads and hospitals are built and derelict land is cleared, but in the main they have little effect upon the level of unemployment, because they are highly capital rather than labour-intensive. It has been calculated that, due to the very expensive equipment used on them, jobs on trunk road works cost £130,000 per job. Such matters have little or no relevance to tackling unemployment.
    We want to know the attitude of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to investment grants and R.E.P. Has he pleaded for these matters in the Cabinet? If not, does he intend to do so? Will he use his special position as Chairman of the Conservative Party or will he be nothing more than a "Marshal Yea" of the Prime Minister? Does he intend to deal in detail with the deep and incisive analyses made by the Welsh Economic Council in its report? Does he intend to say in which matters which fall within his province he sees merit and which he rejects, and will he tell us the reasons? Will he publish his views in a document which we can study and discuss?
    There are a great many matters to which I should like to refer but time does not permit me to do so. I must, however, mention advance factories. The Secretary of State spoke lightly of them this afternoon, as if there was no difference between the programme which he has announced and that which was announced by the Labour Administration, but let us consider the facts.
    In the 20 months tenure of office of the present Administration the right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced five advance factories, three under the Department of Trade and Industry and two under the Development Commission.

    1773
    Under our Administration we announced 52 under the D.T.I. and 10 under the Development Commission. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to retain a shred of credibility, it is imperative that we have full answers to the specific questions that have been put to him today.
    I had hoped to have time to mention, if only briefly, Mid-Wales. I can only say that having withdrawn—and having withdrawn for political reasons—the Mid-Wales Rural Development Board, there is a complete vacuum in an area which has particular problems and which has been regarded by successive Governments as being worthy of special treatment.
    Where is the comprehensive development which the party opposite promised for Mid-Wales? What will happen after reorganisation when the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association is broken up among the three new authorities and when there will be many towns with no local authority with any power from the point of view of development?
    The Government Amendment to our Motion reads:
    "That this House concerned with the level of unemployment in Wales, approves the substantial measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to stimulate long-term economic growth, and is confident that the policies of Her Majesty's Government will lead to an increase in general prosperity which will benefit the Principality."
    The vital word there is, of course, "general", for it is not averred by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they will indicate, let alone have, any specific policies to deal with unemployment in Wales.
    The Amendment bears the imprint of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is appropriate that their names should be appended to it because they are the architects of the despair which now threatens Wales.
    It is appropriate that they should be in the dock and it is not necessary to apply any binding conditions on them other than those which they have themselves laid down on previous occasions. For example, when speaking in Dundee on 9th September, 1969, the Prime Minister said:
    "We cannot tolerate the waste of human and economic resources brought about by their
    1774
    uneven use in different parts of the country. We refuse to condemn large parts of the kingdom to slow decline and decay, to dereliction and to persistent unemployment in pursuit of old-fashioned 19th century doctrines of laissez faire."
    The Secretary of State for Wales, speaking in the Welsh Grand Committee in December, 1970, said:
    "We must reject policies which have prevented Wales from contributing her wealth to the national economy ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 9th December, 1970; c. 17.]
    "Amen" say we to those brave pronouncements.
    The record of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side has made our criticisms of their election policies appear mildly complementary. Their doctrinaire delusions have lured them into the most spectacular errors, from Rolls-Royce to Upper Clyde and from Belfast to Bulawayo. From a situation of inherited strength, they have managed to achieve abject failure. They succeeded to the most massive balance of payments surplus this century, but by their genius they have used it to create stagnation, a stagnation which they have little hope of reversing in the term of this Parliament. Twenty months ago they were the beneficiaries of the most dedicated and determined effort ever made to achieve regional growth. They garotted it in the name of a sterile dogma. They have amassed a catalogue of ruin, and they call it prosperity. When they speak of confidence, clearly such can only be the confidence of blind arrogance or a florid dementia.
    I trust that every right thinking Member of the House will support the condemnation of the loss and despair which the Goverenment have needlessly inflicted upon thousands of homes in our country of Wales.
    9.36 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): We have had a closely argued debate, and I believe that the House will wish to support the view that the discussion has been timely and has provided the opportunity to ventilate the problems of Wales in a broadly constructive way. Although I shall not follow the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) in everything he said, I hope that at the end of my speech he will not accuse me of suffering from

    1775
    any doctrinal delusions; nor, for that matter, do I intend to address half my speech to his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), because that would upset him a very great deal.
    Be that as it may, I agree that much has been said in the House today with the general objective of improving the economy and employment position in Wales. I believe that many of the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite have been over-gloomy, but it is in the nature of Oppositions to be gloomy. No one on either side of the House underrates the importance of the high figure of unemployment which Wales suffers today and the challenge that presents to the Government. It is my belief that much greater emphasis needs to be given to the positive indications for the future which we can see in Wales. This was one of the points about which the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) asked. He asked what the positive points for the future are. During the course of my speech I hope to refer to some.
    It is agreed by all that the economic prosperity of Wales is bound up with that of the United Kingdom as a whole, and that the first and most important step towards reducing unemployment in the Principality is to get the British economy on a sustained period of growth. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, no British Government have taken more measures to reflate the economy designed to create more job opportunities than the present Government. No right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite has sought to deny this during the debate. They can hardly have failed to recognise the massive strength of the economic measures that have been taken. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred to them. They include cuts in taxation amounting to about £1,100 million in the current year and in 1972–73, to £1,400 million, two cuts in Bank Rate and a general easing of credit. All this must improve the liquidity position in industry.
    A great deal has been said in the course of the debate about the recent Welsh Council Report. It has certainly criticised the Government but equally it has praised them. The report covers a wide field and there is a broad range of
    1776
    suggestions covering fiscal issues, nationalised industry policy, office dispersal, communications and so on. Some of the suggestions in the report are already reflected in Government policy and they will all be carefully examined. But the Welsh Council wholly underlined what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the importance of overall national and economic prosperity. If anything, it puts it more strongly than he did. Paragraph 27 says:
    "…a fundamental pre-condition to the successful application of a development area policy is the existence of a buoyant confident economy and a pre-disposition to investment."
    This is what we have been saying and this is what the Government's measures are wholly directed towards. My complaint is that the previous Government's measures produced neither a buoyant, confident economy nor any predisposition to investment. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite laugh——
    Mr. Alec Jones: It is enough to make anybody laugh.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Not one hon. Member opposite is particularly proud of their record of industrial investment while the party opposite were in office.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Is the Minister of State suggesting that he is particularly proud of the increase achieved under his Government?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I do not think we shall get very far if we are going to play tit-for-tat. I do not believe the Welsh Council is very far wrong when it says that a buoyant, confident economy and a predisposition for investment are needed. It has wholly recognised the enormous range of measures the Government have taken to expand the economy. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the report are a vast catalogue of positive measures taken by the Government in 18 months. Hon. Members opposite should read them again. The council recognises them as a large measure of reflationary action and sees welcome signs of a revival in consumer demand. I believe it is right and I am not alone in this.
    The Government have made more flexible the arrangements for allowances towards new plant and machinery investment in both the development and non-development areas. We have done a great

    1777
    deal to improve the infrastructure of our country. I stress that the Special Environmental Assistance Scheme, announced last month, will enable local authorities in assisted areas to tackle a large number of minor schemes between now and June, 1973. All but a small part of the cost of clearing these eyesores will be borne by the Government and local authority reaction has been very good.
    As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we shall continue to give the highest priority to the roads programme. This is not limited to spectacular schemes such as motorways. We are developing the road programme to cover trunk and principal roads as well. The additional £9 million to be spent on various trunk road schemes in the next two years announced by my right hon. and learned Friend will form part of a record spending of £60 million in 1972–73 and £70 million in 1975–76.
    The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) referred to the possibility of the junction of the motor industry in South Wales with the motor industry in the Midlands. This underlines one of the factors that must encourage industrialists to Wales, namely, that South Wales stands at the apex of an triangle of motorways between London, South Wales and Birmingham. Any employer thinking of coming to South Wales will realise that he has, first, easy access; secondly, a good choice of factory sites; thirdly, excellent ports with an excellent labour relations record; and fourthly, employees second to none. Firms bringing employees or executives from outside also have the greatest possible advantage that in off-duty times those employees and executives can go to the Brecon Beacons, the Gower or Pembrokeshire, which is an area of such great beauty.
    Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The hon. Gentleman is accurate on all those counts. Wales has certain paramount advantages, but in the past 20 months the number of factories coming has halved. Fewer jobs are in prospect and fewer are being created. Therefore, if we have all the advantages the hon. Gentleman spoke about, the Government's policy of dismantling investment grants, coupled with their other disincentives, is the reason for the decay.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I was trying to show that the Government had played their part, a significant part, first in increasing and improving the transport and roads to South Wales, and secondly in increasing the speed at which the countryside is being reclaimed. More money is being spent this year and next year on the reclamation of land than has ever been spent.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us something about the future of railways in Wales, which are part of the infrastructure, the communications system? The Transport Users' Consultative Council for Wales has come down for the second time in favour of the retention and development of the Cambrian coast railway. Is it now the Government's intention at long last to accept the unanimous and firm advice presented to them by their own statutory advisory body?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that question. It is a matter we discussed on another occasion in the Welsh Grand Committee. Other railway lines in the Principality have been given an extension for at least two years. The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the Transport Users' Consultative Council has made its report on the Cambrian coast line. The report has been made only this week, and it is obviously something that will have to be taken into consideration. Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I is in any doubt of the high priority the railway has in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and many others.
    I turn now to another aspect of employment that has not been touched on in the debate. Throughout the greater part of Wales, employment does not rely upon big industry as we have been discussing it; it relies on the continued economic well-being of the market towns, which is inextricably bound up with that of the farming community.
    Against that background, it is fair for us to judge tonight which of the two major political parties, the present Government or the previous Government, has contributed more effectively to the prosperity of these areas, because the facts of the situation are that after six years of Socialist Government agriculture was on

    1779
    its knees. Government had ebbed away in the absence of any clear direction. By contrast—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may not like it, but it is true. By contrast the present Government, by three successive and timely cash injections, have recreated confidence and provided the conditions for expansion on the threshold of our entry into Europe.
    If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not believe me, let them look at the markets and at the state of the farms. Quite clearly, hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to get mud on their boots. The fact remains that if any of us asks the stock farmers of Wales today whether they are doing better under this Government than they did under the last, they will give a pretty quick and definite answer. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman speaks from a seated position. Would he like to interrupt?
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Yes. The point I was putting, very shortly and pertinently, was that there was no unemployment in agriculture in Wales, nor has there been, over the last two years.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I was talking about industries which give employment, and I understood that was what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had been talking about all the time. What I am saying, and I think with some support, is that as far as the vast country areas of Wales are concerned they can look in vain to the Socialists but in the last two years we have helped them very considerably.
    Let us continue on the countryside for the moment before we return to the main economic argument. That is not to underestimate the importance, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) referred, of the biggest growth industry in Wales, the tourist industry. There is no town or small village which is not benefiting from the increasing revenue brought by the growing number of visitors who seek the beauty of our Welsh hills and valleys. It is no wonder that the standard of hotels and catering is rising so dramatically. Under the present Government the tourist industry sees the relaxation of the Selective Employment tax imposed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under this Government,
    1780
    it has also seen the amount of spending on the Welsh Tourist Board rise from £512,000 in 1970–71 to £1,294,000 this year and even to £1,810,000 in 1972–73. This shows a confidence in tourism in Wales which will have its effect also upon the craft industries in the smaller towns.
    There are one or two other points which have been raised during the debate which I should like to answer. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) asked about the approaches which had been made to the Prime Minister about a meeting to discuss the problems of unemployment in Wales. My right hon. and learned Friend, together with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and other colleagues, is ready to meet and discuss the employment situation in Wales with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when a mutually agreeable time can be found.
    My next point refers to the European Economic Community. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) was concerned about the prospects for steel and coal. The leaders of both these industries are confident that entry into the Community offers considerable opportunities. They will remain in control of their own enterprises, a point well made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in winding up the recent debate on coal and steel in the Welsh Grand Committee. He said:
    "The British Steel Corporation will however remain in control of its own industry. It will be for the British Steel Corporation to run the industry in the United Kingdom. It will not be the responsibility of any other body or organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 24th February, 1972; c. 103.]
    What is true of steel is equally true of coal. I accept entirely the constructive view of the Welsh Council on the implications for United Kingdom regional policies of entry into the Community.
    Many hon. Gentlemen will be aware of the recent visit of Mr. Borschette, the E.E.C. Commissioner in charge of regional policies, to South Wales where he met a number of people and set many fears at rest. The Welsh Council says of the E.E.C.:
    "The evolution of common regional policies in the Community is still at an early stage and as a member of the Community the United Kingdom will be able to exert substantial influence over their developments.

    1781
    There is nothing in the existing situation which need arouse concern about Welsh interests."
    I turn now to Government policy towards mid-Wales. This is a matter at which my right hon. Friend and I have looked carefully. My right hon. Friend has had talks with local authority representatives, the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Corporation and hon. Members opposite most concerned. There was strong pressure to extend the remit of the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Corporation and to make an immediate change in our growth policy. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to review what has been achieved at Newtown in the course of the year.
    During this debate hon. Members opposite have tried to put the blame for the present position on the Government. There is no mention in this Motion of the growth element in the economy which had gone by 1970. There is no mention of the profitability of industry that had gone down over the six years before this Government took office. It is only 20 months since the party opposite left Government and it is trying to forget its past and bury the worst part of it. I should now bury its Motion.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 270.

    Division No. 78.]

    AYES

    [9.59 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Costain, A. P.

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Critchley, Julian

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Crouch, David

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Crowder, F. P.

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Curran, Charles

    Hastings, Stephen

    Astor, John

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Havers, Michael

    Atkins, Humphrey

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hawkins, Paul

    Awdry, Daniel

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen. James

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Dean, Paul

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Heseltine, Michael

    Batsford, Brian

    Dixon, Piers

    Hicks, Robert

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Bell, Ronald

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Bennett. Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Holland, Philip

    Benyon, W.

    Dykes, Hugh

    Holt Miss Mary

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Eden, Sir John

    Holdern, Peter

    Biffen, John

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hornby, Richard

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Blaker, Peter

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

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Emery, Peter

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Body, Richard

    Farr, John

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Boscawen, Robert

    Fell, Anthony

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Hunt, John

    Bowden, Andrew

    Fidler, Michael

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Bray, Ronald

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    James, David

    Brewis, John

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Fortescue, Tim

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Foster, Sir John

    Jessel, Toby

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Fowler, Norman

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Fox, Marcus

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Bryan, Paul

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

    Jopling, Michael

    Buchanan-Smith Alick (Angus,N & M)

    Fry, Peter

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Buck, Antony

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Gardner, Edward

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Burden, F. A.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Kilfedder, James

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Kimball, Marcus

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

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    King. Tom (Bridgwater)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Goodhart, Philip

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Channon, Paul

    Goodhew, Victor

    Kirk, Peter

    Chapman, Sydney

    Gorst, John

    Kitson, Timothy

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Gower, Raymond

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Gray, Hamish

    Knox, David

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Green, Alan

    Lambton, Lord

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Grieve, Percy

    Lane, David

    Clegg, Walter

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Cockeram, Eric

    Grylls, Michael

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Cooke, Robert

    Gummer, J. Selwyn

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Coombs, Derek

    Gurden, Harold

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

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

    Cordle, John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Longden, Sir Gilbert

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Loveridge, John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Luce, R. N.

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    MacArthur, Ian

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Sutcliffe, John

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Percival, Ian

    Tapsell, Peter

    McLaren, Martin

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Pink, R. Bonner

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

    McMaster, Stanley

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

    Tebbit, Norman

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Temple, John M.

    Maddan, Martin

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Madel, David

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Raison, Timothy

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Marten, Neil

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Tilney, John

    Mather, Carol

    Redmond, Robert

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Maude, Angus

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Trew, peter

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Mawby, Ray

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Waddington, David

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

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

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn.(Worcester)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Moate, Roger

    Rost, Peter

    Wall, Patrick

    Molyneaux, James

    Royle, Anthony

    Money, Ernie

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Walters, Dennis

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Monro, Hector

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

    Warren, Kenneth

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Scott, Nicholas

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    More, Jasper

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Sharples, Richard

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Morrison, Charles

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Wilkinson, John

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Simeons, Charles

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Murton, Oscar

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Neave, Airey

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

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Soref, Harold

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Speed, Keith

    Worsley, Marcus

    Normanton, Tom

    Spence, John

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Nott, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Onslow, Cranley

    Stainton, Keith

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

    Osborn, John

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Stokes, John

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Dunn, James A.

    Albu, Austen

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Eadie, Alex

    Allen, Scholefield

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Cohen, Stanley

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Ashley, Jack

    Concannon, J. D.

    Ellis, Tom

    Ashton, Joe

    Conlan, Bernard

    English, Michael

    Atkinson, Norman

    Cooper, A. E.

    Evans, Fred

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Ewing, Henry

    Barnes, Michael

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

    Cronin, John

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

    Beaney, Alan

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dalyell, Tam

    Foley, Maurice

    Bishop, E. S.

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Foot, Michael

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Davidson, Arthur

    Ford, Ben

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)

    Forrester, John

    Booth, Albert

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn Arthur

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Bradley, Tom

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Deakins, Eric

    Garrett, W. E.

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

    Delargy, H. J.

    Gilbert, Dr. John

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

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Dempsey, James

    Golding, John

    Buchan, Norman

    Doig, Peter

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Cant, R. B.

    Driberg, Tom

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    1784

    1785

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Mackie, John

    Roper, John

    Hamling, William

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Rose, Paul B.

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Hardy, Peter

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Sandelson, Neville

    Harper, Joseph

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Marks, Kenneth

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

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Marquand, David

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

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Marsden, F.

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Horam, John

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Sillars, James

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Silverman, Julius

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Meacher, Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Small, William

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Mendelson, John

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Millan, Bruce

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Milne, Edward

    Stallard, A. W.

    Hunter, Adam

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

    Steel, David

    Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

    Molloy, William

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Janner, Greville

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Stoddart David (Swindon)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Moyle, Roland

    Strang, Gavin

    John Brynmor

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Murray, Ronald King

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Swain, Thomas

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

    Ogden, Eric

    Taverne, Dick

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    O'Halloran, Michael

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

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Tinn, James

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

    Oram, Bert

    Tomney, Frank

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Torney, Tom

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Orme, Stanley

    Tuck, Raphael

    Judd, Frank

    Oswald, Thomas

    Urwin, T. W.

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Kerr, Russell

    Padley, Walter

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Kinnock, Neil

    Paget, R. T.

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

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Palmer, Arthur

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Lambie, David

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Wallace, George

    Lamond, James

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Watkins, David

    Latham, Arthur

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Weitzman, David

    Lawson, George

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Pendry, Tom

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Pentland, Norman

    Whitlock, William

    Leonard, Dick

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Prescott, John

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Probert, Arthur

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Rankin, John

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Reed, D. (Sedegefield)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Woof, Robert

    McBride, Neil

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    McCann, John

    Richard, Ivor

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    McCartney, Hugh

    Roberts, Rt. Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Mr. Donald Coleman and

    McElhone, Frank

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Mr. James Wellbeloved.

    McGuire, Michael

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

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 268.

    Division No. 79.]

    AYES

    [10.12 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Biffen, John

    Bryan, Paul

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Biggs-Davison, John

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

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Blaker, Peter

    Buck, Antony

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Astor, John

    Body, Richard

    Burden, F. A.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Boscawen, Robert

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Bossom, Sir Clive

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

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Carlisle, Mark

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Batsford, Brian

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Channon, Paul

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Bray, Ronald

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bell, Ronald

    Brewis, John

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Churchill, W. S.

    Benyon, W.

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Clegg, Walter

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Percival, Ian

    Cockeram, Eric

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Cooke, Robert

    Hunt, John

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Coombs, Derek

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Cooper, A. E.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Price, David (Eastieigh)

    Cordle, John

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    James, David

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Costain, A. P.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Critchley, Julian

    Jessel, Toby

    Raison Timothy

    Crouch, David

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Crowder, F. P.

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Curran, Charles

    Jopling, Michael

    Redmond, Robert

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Dean, Paul

    Kilfedder, James

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Kimball, Marcus

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Dixon, Piers

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kirk, Peter

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Kitson, Timothy

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Eden, Sir John

    Knox, David

    Rost, Peter

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Lambton, Lord

    Royle, Anthony

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lane, David

    Russell, Sir Ronald

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

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Emery, Peter

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

    Farr, John

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Scott, Nicholas

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Fell, Anthony

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

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Longden, Sir Gilbert

    Sharples, Richard

    Fidler, Michael

    Loveridge, John

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

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Luce, R. N.

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Simeons, Charles

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    MacArthur, Ian

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Fortescue, Tim

    Foster, Sir John

    McLaren, Martin

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

    Flower, Norman

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Soref, Harold

    Fox, Marcus

    McMaster, Stanley

    Speed, Keith

    Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)

    Spence, John

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

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Sproat, Iain

    Fry Peter

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Stainton, Keith

    Gardner, Edward

    Maddan, Martin

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Madel, David

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Stokes, John

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Marten, Neil

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mather, Carol

    Sutcliffe, John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maude, Angus

    Tapsell, Peter

    Gorst, John

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Gower, Raymond

    Mawby, Ray

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

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Gray, Hamish

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Green, Alan

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Grieve, Percy

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Temple, John M.

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Grylls, Michael

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

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Gummer, J. Selwyn

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

    Gurden, Harold

    Moate, Roger

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Molyneaux, James

    Tilney, John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Money, Ernie

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Halt-Davis, A. G. F.

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Trew, Peter

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Monro, Hector

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    More, Jasper

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Hastings, Stephen

    Morrison, Charles

    Waddington, David

    Havers, Michael

    Murton, Oscar

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Neave, Airey

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Wall, Patrick

    Heseltine, Michael

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Walters, Dennis

    Hicks, Robert

    Normanton, Tom

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

    Nott, John

    Warren, Kenneth

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Holland, Philip

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Osborn, John

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Hordern, Peter

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Hornby, Richard

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wilkinson, John

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    1788

    1789

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Worsley, Marcus

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    McGuire, Michael

    Albu, Austen

    Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'hamLadywood)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mackie, John

    Allen, Scholefield

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Foley, Maurice

    McNamara, J, Kevin

    Ashley, Jack

    Foot, Michael

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Ashton, Joe

    Ford, Ben

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

    Atkinson, Norman

    Forrester, John

    Marks, Kenneth

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Marquand, David

    Barnes, Michael

    Freeson, Reginald

    Marsden, F.

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Beaney, Alan

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

    Meacher, Michael

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Golding, John

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Mendelson, John

    Bishop, E. S.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Millan, Bruce

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Booth, Albert

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Milne, Edward

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Molloy, William

    Bradley, Tom

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Hamling, William

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

    Hardy, Peter

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Harper, Joseph

    Moyle, Roland

    Buchan, Norman

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Murray, Ronald King

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Oakes, Gordon

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hooson. Emlyn

    Ogden, Eric

    Cant, R. B.

    Horam, John

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Carmichael, Neil

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    O'Malley, Brian

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Oram, Bert

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Orbach, Maurice

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Orme, Stanley

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Padley, Walter

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hunter, Adam

    Paget, R. T.

    Conian, Bernard

    Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Janner, Greville

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Cronin, John

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Pendry, Tom

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

    John, Brynmor

    Pentland, Norman

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

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

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Prescott, John

    Davidson, Arthur

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

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Judd, Frank

    Rankin, John

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Deakins, Eric

    Kerr, Russell

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Kinnock, Neil

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Lambie, David

    Richard, Ivor

    Dempsey, James

    Lamond, James

    Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Doig, Peter

    Latham, Arthur

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lawson, George

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

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Roper, John

    Driberg, Tom

    Leonard, Dick

    Rose, Paul B.

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Dunn, James A.

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Sandelson, Neville

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-underLyne)

    Eadie, Alex

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lipton, Marcus

    Shore,Rt.Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lomas, Kenneth

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

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

    Ellis, Tom

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    English, Michael

    McBride, Neil

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Evans, Fred

    McCann, John

    Sillars, James

    Ewing, Henry

    McCartney, Hugh

    Silverman, Julius

    Faulds. Andrew

    McElhone, Frank

    Skinner, Dennis

    1790

    1791

    Small, William

    Taverne, Dick

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Thomas,Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Spearing, Nigel

    Tinn, James

    Whitlock, William

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Tomney, Frank

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Stallard, A. W.

    Torney, Tom

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Steel, David

    Tuck, Raphael

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

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

    Woof, Robert

    Strang, Gavin

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Wallace, George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Watkins, David

    Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. James Wellbeloved.

    Swain, Thomas

    Weitzman, David

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House, concerned with the level of unemployment in Wales, approves the substan-
    1792
    tial measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to stimulate long-term economic growth, and is confident that the policies of Her Majesty's Government will lead to an increase in general prosperity which will benefit the Principality.

  POST-WAR CREDITS
  10.20 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move:
  That the Post-War Credit (Income Tax) Regulations 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.
  The House will remember that on 14th December last my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer delighted the country by announcing that all outstanding post-war credits would be repaid beginning in April. It is fair to say that the fact that all the post-war credits created between 1941 and 1946 have still not yet been repaid more than 25 years later has been a source of increasing irritation and disappointment. I am glad that the end is now in sight.
  It is interesting to recollect how the post-war credit scheme started. Its origins lay in the proposal made by the late Lord Keynes in his now celebrated paper "How to Pay for the War", that part of people's earnings should take the form of deferred pay. In this way, he argued, people would postpone that part of their consumption attributable to their increased war effort and so help to pay for the war, while the purchasing power could be released when the war ended and mitigate what he then feared would he a substantial post-war slump. Accordingly, in the Finance Act, 1941, when certain of the personal allowances were cut, it was provided that the additional tax levied on each individual in consequence would be recorded as being credited to him for repayment and
  "on such dates as may be fixed by the Treasury being a date so soon as may he after the termination of hostilities in the present war".
  "So soon as may be" has been rather a long time coming. As the House knows, progress has been painfully slow. By successive steps taken between 1946 and 1962 various categories of claimants became entitled to repayments, and, at some risk of oversimplification, these now include men over 60 and women over 55, widows entitled to credits in their own right, the personal representatives of deceased credit-holders and a fairly restricted range of credit-holders suffering
  1794
  various kinds of hardship, including prolonged unemployment or sickness, certain types of disablement, and so on. The categories entitled to repayment have not been widened since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the last liberalisation in 1962.
  Of the net amount of £740 million originally created, a sum of the order of £130 million remains unpaid. We anticipate that some 5 million credit-holders out of the 17 million taxpayers in whose favour credits were originally created will submit claims.
  The repayment scheme falls inevitably into two parts. There are those who will be able to produce their post-war credit certificates and for whom, therefore, repayment is a relatively simple task. There will inevitably be some who have long since lost their certificates and in respect of whom there must be a much more laborious tracing process before repayment can be made. These regulations cover only the first category of repayment; that is, those who can produce at least one certificate. The remainder will be covered in due course by separate regulations.
  It is proposed that claims by those who can produce certificates should be staggered over the six months beginning on 1st April. The staggering will be on an alphabetical basis by reference to the first letter of the surname appearing on any post-war credit certificate which the claimant produces. Thus, those with certificates with the surnames beginning A-C should submit claims during April; D-G during May; H-L in June: M-O in July; P-S in August; and T-Z in September.
  Already many people have begun to make inquiries as to how and where they should claim. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) at Question Time on Tuesday asked for more information about this. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it is proposed to launch a substantial publicity campaign, and this will begin in about a week's time. Preparations include the distribution of claim forms posters for display at Post Offices and other publicity material. It is essential for the smooth working of the scheme that those who possess their certificates should claim during the

  1795
  appropriate month. But if someone happens to slip past the end of the month, his claim will not necessarily go to the end of the queue.
  Experience in recent weeks has shown that an increasing number of inquiries come from non-residents overseas. Hitherto they have not been able to claim the repayment where the conditions have to be certified by a United Kingdom authority. They, too, will be entitled to reclaim under these regulations if they can produce a certificate, and claim forms are, therefore, being sent to British Missions abroad for this purpose.
  Before I sit down, I would say a word about the administrative arrangements, and I would preface my remarks under this head by paying a very sincere tribute to the staff of the Inland Revenue for the way in which they have devised this repayment scheme and for their readiness to take it on board despite the very substantial burdens now facing them as a result of unification and other tax reforms.
  As my right hon. Friend told the House last December, exceptional measures are necessary to undertake this task. He has authorised the engagement of about 2,500 additional temporary staff, of which some 2,300 have already been recruited. Treasury Ministers have received a number of approaches from hon. and right hon. Members from both sides of the House asking that the repayment centres might be located in their constituencies where in many cases there is at present high unemployment.
  The Inland Revenue has gone to great lengths to ensure that as many as possible of the extra staff are located in development and intermediate areas. About 1,000 staff will be stationed in special repayment centres at Cardiff, Llanishen and Pontypridd in South Wales, in Bootle and Salford in the North-West, with a few at two small centres in the South-West at Portsmouth and Bristol. Just over 1,300 extra staff will be stationed in existing tax offices which will deal with their own post-war credit work. Of this total, about half are located in development areas. All the Scottish work will be handled by staff located at the Scottish tax offices spread throughout Scotland and not at Centre
  1796
  No. 1. Thus, it will be seen that about 70 per cent. of the temporary staff will be located in development and intermediate areas.
  However, regional unemployment could not be the sole criterion. The Inland Revenue also had to have regard to the availability of suitable office accommodation which could be fitted out in the short time available and also—I stress this—the availability of supervisory staff. It is for these reasons, in particular, that it was not possible to locate temporary offices in the areas, where P.A.Y.E. computer centres have had to be suspended, such as Washington and Shipley. I very much regret that it was not possible to offer what would have been a temporary alleviation of the disappointment which I know was felt in these areas when I announced the P.A.Y.E. suspension last September.
  I turn now to the draft regulations. I think they are for the most part self-explanatory. I should just note on Regulation 3, first, that at least one post-war credit certificate must be produced, and, second, that this special repayment scheme does not in any way prejudice the normal repayments under existing provisions. In other words, a person entitled to claim on, for instance, age or hardship grounds may do so in the normal way without waiting for the qualifying date under these regulations.
  Regulation 5 refers to building societies. This is perhaps a slightly interesting quirk in the scheme. During the war special arrangements were made to reflect the fact that when the individual personal allowances were cut the special composite rate of tax paid by the societies was correspondingly increased. Extra-statutory undertakings were given that the difference between the tax at the increased composite rate and what the tax would have been if it had remained unchanged would be credited to the societies and repaid when post-war credits were generally released. This extra-statutory arrangement was made statutory by the 1959 Act, which provided that repayment might be made as prescribed by the Treasury. Three-fifths of these credits were repaid in 1962. Regulation 5 provides for the balance—estimated at about £1 million—to be repaid.
  Finally, I remind the House of what was said by my right hon. Friend about

  1797
  interest. Although the credits will be repaid at differing times, we propose to credit them all with interest down to a common date; namely, 30th September, 1972, which is the end of the six months repayment period. This will produce a uniform addition of 38 per cent. to all credits and thus greatly simplify administration. The necessary legislation for this will be included in the Finance Bill.
  This special operation represents the beginning of the end of what has been a long drawn out and somewhat unhappy episode in our fiscal history.
  I hope that I have sufficiently explained both the background and the purpose of the regulations. I believe that they will command the warm acceptance of the whole House. I shall be very happy to deal with any points which hon. Members may have if, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I catch your eye towards the end of the debate.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: I welcome the repayment of what was originally thought to be a temporary loan.
  The tax, as the Financial Secretary has pointed out, was first introduced by Sir Kingsley Wood on 7th April, 1941. At that time Sir Kingsley Wood said that the fund of post-war savings would be for the taxpayer and his dependants; and he went on to say that it would not be possible to claim or use the credit while the war continued. He did not say that it would not be possible to claim it for perhaps another 30 years after the end of that war.
  The tax threshold then was very different from today's. A married couple with no children started to pay tax at £200 a year, with three children at £350 a year. A single person started paying tax at £120 a year. So the credit for the average industrial worker in 1941 was not particularly high, especially, with average industrial wages at that time ranging between £3 and £7 a week. I notice that in the debate then Mr. Willie Gallacher said that the average wage in his constituency was about £3 a week. But for the average man with three children earning £350 a year the average credit was £17 6s. 8d., with a maximum of £65.
  Most of this £130 million of post-war credits still outstanding goes to people
  1798
  over the age of 50 who were earning above the average at that time. I do not say that because I feel that it should not be repaid; it should be: this is, of course, not a tax or a tax relief but a repayment of what was was described as a temporary loan.
  When the present Home Secretary was Chancellor, on 13th October, 1962, and the payment was made for men of 60 and women of 55, the Economist was alone in being a little churlish. It said that this was an earlier-than-expected hand-back to those who had paid most taxes 20 years before. This was a rather churlish view about repaying money to people who were led to believe not that it was a tax but that they were loaning something for the duration of the war. Certainly now, 30 years later, it is a little unfair. So I welcome the repayment.
  In answer to a Question on Tuesday the Financial Secretary referred to about £110 million being repaid in the 1972–73 financial year. Is that figure an estimate relating to those who have certificates, or does it include the new regulation for those without certificates? I should have thought that it was impossible to know how many of the 5 million people still have their certificates after all these years. I appreciate the administrative problems for the Inland Revenue when certificates have been lost, but even where they are provided it will surely still be necessary to check the files showing the tax paid at that time.
  I assume that a check will be made of pretty well all the claims whether there is a certificate or not. The Financial Secretary said that a claim would lie even if there was only one certificate available out of five, so presumably every claim would have to be checked. If this is to be done, it will be very difficult to trace where tax was paid particularly where a firm has gone out of business.
  Why is it not possible also to pay those who do not have their certificates? The Financial Secretary told us of this new regulation. Presumably the majority of claims will be made by those who have lost their certificates. Many people do not keep documents of this kind for a great length of time.
  I am particularly concerned about the position of those who have lost their certificates. There is a reference in the instrument to the evidence that the Inland Revenue may require. May we be

  1799
  told what sort of evidence that might be? If someone writes in saying "I worked for XYZ Ltd. in 1941 and paid tax", will that be sufficient evidence; that is, if the firm has gone out of business and what was its head office was not in the district of the applicant's address so that it is not possible to trace the files?
  How will the payment of credits be made? May we be assured that there will be no confusion with any current tax liability? It was not made clear in a parliamentary answer last Tuesday whether the Inland Revenue would take this opportunity in the event of an underpayment of tax—in other words, where some tax is owing in respect of the current year—to say "We will recoup this out of the credit which is due to this taxpayer." May we take it that these payments will be considered entirely separately from any tax liability?
  Can we be told the approximate number of people who will be involved in the £130 million to which the Financial Secretary referred? At the top end, how many are likely to receive £65 a year for five years, making a total of £325? Will the vast majority of claims be for very small sums?
  I appreciate the administrative difficulties to which the Financial Secretary referred, and my hon. Friends, many of whom represent development areas, welcome his statement that wherever possible the extra staff will come from those areas. It was originally estimated that about 2,500 extra staff would be required, I think, for about six months. One assumes that they will be mainly female staff. Has a later estimate been made of the length of time for which they will be required?
  Despite the considerable publicity that will be given to this matter—I was delighted to hear the Financial Secretary say that possible claimants will be given substantial publicity—thousands of people will be late in making their claims. While the files cannot be kept open indefinitely, it is important to recognise that this money was borrowed by the Government some 30 years ago and that it would be rather hard to say "Although we borrowed this money from you originally, if you do not reclaim it by a certain date you cannot have it back." To say
  1800
  that would be hard on those who have lost their certificates.
  I suggest that to overcome the administrative problem of keeping the files open, instead of the files being thrown away after a certain date they should be placed at a central point so that repayments can be made even years hence. It seems terribly unfair to fix a date, whether it be one or 10 years hence, and say "Beyond that date you cannot have the money you loaned to us." There are bound to be marginal cases. All of us, as Members of Parliament, will receive innumerable requests from constituents saying, "It is most unfair. I was unaware of this, for some reason, and did not claim. Because I am a day late, or whatever it is, I now cannot have refunded the money I lent during the war."
  If the Financial Secretary cannot say anything about that matter tonight, I hope he will at least consider the question. I recognise the administrative problems and the desire of any Administration to close the files at some time. But the Government should consider the fairness that one must balance against administrative difficulties.
  Perhaps the most serious consequence of the non-payment of these post-war credits has been the economic consequences, for it has destroyed the chance of using this as a further method of managing the economy. At present we are in the happy position—or, in one sense, an unhappy position, because of the level of unemployment—of wanting to increase consumption. But as in the past, and as will occur again under all Administrations, there will be a need to reduce consumption, and a compulsory form of tax saving would be less unpopular than a straight tax increase. I understand that Sweden has such a form of deferred spending which is used to stimulate industrial investment. This would be of use in this country, where the level of industrial investment has been so low. We could release this deferred spending power when and where most needed to deal with industrial investment or to counter a slump or encourage consumption. But if we did such a thing it would have to be made absolutely clear that there would be a firm commitment to repay within a fixed time, or earlier if required.

  1801
  I conclude by welcoming the regulations, but my welcome is inevitably tempered by the thought that there are many other ways in which I should like to spend £130 million. However, we are honouring a clear pledge, and we are right to do so.
  10.48 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Cockeram: I suppose that over the past quarter century hundreds of Members of Parliament must have asked a Question of the Chancellor of the day suggesting that he should repay post-war credits. I was surprised, therefore, that when I tabled such a Question for oral answer last December my right hon. Friend the Chancellor replied "Yes, Sir". That answer gave great delight to many people outside the House.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to convey to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the congratulations and thanks of many millions of people. The job of repaying these post-war credits is a formidable administrative task for the Treasury. I am sure that when the point was first raised the Chancellor was advised of the difficulties of the administrative task of performing this function. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend was resolute and determined to see that post-war credits were repaid. It is to him and his team of Ministers that we owe congratulations on that answer.
  I ask the Financial Secretary three questions. Can he confirm that the amount outstanding is not merely £130 million but that this is the face value of the certificates to which must be added interest of 38 per cent., giving a total repayment of £180 million, and that this is the extra purchasing power that will be injected into the economy over the six-month period?
  Can the Financial Secretary give a little more guidance about what will happen to those who cannot find their certificates? Are there likely to be arrangements to help them in the coming financial year or is their claim likely to go even further into the distance?
  Among the new centres which have been set up to make the repayments is one which I am glad to say will be established in Bootle. How many extra staff will be required for the centre?
  1802
  I repeat my congratulations to the Government on their bold step and say how much I support it.
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: I join those who have proferred their thanks for this very welcome measure and express my appreciation of the work by the Inland Revenue in this remarkable exercise. Far too often it becomes almost a public joke to poke fun at civil servants. Perhaps this is the time to point out their real value. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for the tribute he paid to the staff of the Inland Revenue.
  There is the problem of holders of post-war credits who after a lapse of 30 years have lost their certificates. It is common for people to lose important documents like birth certificates. Postwar credit certificates were issued at a time of great stress during the last war. I cannot imagine anything more mean than to spoil this wonderful gesture now by telling certificate holders who made their contribution during a time of great stress that if they have lost their certificates the obligation will not be honoured.
  I hope the Financial Secretary will realise this and will not spoil things by insisting that certificates must be produced by a certain time. I hope the Treasury will show as much patience to these people as these people have shown in waiting for the return of what they gave the nation.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: I welcome the repayment of post-war credits. There was considerable hope in the Bradford area that a centre for repayments would be situated there, within the new local government area. Shipley is within the new local government area of Bradford. The last Government promised to establish a computer centre there employing, 2,500. The plan was scotched by the present Government, whether for good or for bad reasons, and this caused serious disappointment, particularly when unemployment was rising rapidly.
  Unemployment now stands at about 7 per cent., but because Bradford is not officially classed as an intermediate area we shall not be considered as a site for a repayment centre. But there was a

  1803
  feeling in the West Riding that a centre for repayment would be set up in the area simply because it was felt that the Government had an obligation to set one up in the light of what happened at Shipley. Unfortunately, that hope has been dashed.
  The next time the Chancellor announces a scheme involving the large-scale recruitment of labour I hope he will remember the condition of towns like Bradford, that he will not consider narrowly what is an intermediate area and what is not, and that he will decide to bring to Bradford and such places the opportunities of fresh white-collar employment which they so badly need.
  10.55 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I add my congratulations to the Government on this occasion, particularly as I was in the House when the post-war credit scheme was introduced. Over the years we looked forward to the time when our indebtedness would be honoured, and I am grateful to the Treasury for having taken this action.
  Have we any repayment centre on the North-East coast? We look for every possible chance of increasing our employment there.
  Can my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary say something about the problem of women who had their post-war credits aggregated with those of their husbands? In 1941 women were concerned mainly with trying to help to win the war, but now some women whose post-war credits were aggregated with those of their husbands face difficulties. For example, one of my constituents had to divorce her husband some years ago. He married again, and on his death the second wife, who had nothing to do with the post-war credits, obtained them. There must be many women with similar problems. I do not think anyone in those days thought that all these years would pass before the post-war credits were repaid. I gather that women had the right to say whether they wanted the post-war credits in their own names, but with the passing of the years a great deal of disappointment has been caused to some of those who chose instead to have them aggregated with those of their husbands.
  1804
  Many of the certificates may have disappeared, and people have forgotten what they did in 1941. If my hon. Friend cannot do anything about the people who are feeling bitterly disappointed because they cannot claim their post-war credits, which they undoubtedly earned, it would be gracious if he would explain so that the position is on the record. If he cannot find any way of dealing with the problem, perhaps he will just pay a tribute to those who registered their post-war credits and explain the position, so that at any rate those who are bitterly disappointed will realise that the matter has been raised in the House, that the Treasury knows about it and that he can explain what happened in 1941.
  That is all I would like to say, but it is as well to have it on record so that people who will have forgotten what happened in 1941 will know the reason. I have seen several letters in the Press drawing attention to this and it would be helpful to have a little explanation so that people will know the situation when they claim their own post-war credits.
  Otherwise, like everybody else, I think this is an important occasion. Many will be grateful that the Chancellor has been able to find the money to meet the undoubted obligation the Treasury has to those who had post-war credits in 1941.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: I express my gratitude to the Financial Secretary for having taken into consideration the claims of the County Borough of Bootle. It may be paradoxical or a little bit of justice because Bootle in 1941 was one of the most bombed areas in the country. In those days we had no work such as the hon. Gentleman is now sending to my constituency.
  I want to express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman because employment is needed in that part of the country, where we have a high unemployment rate. My constituents remember the war because of what Hitler did to us when he hit nearly one in five of the houses in the town. But now we have a new claim on society and attract new types of employment. We hope that the generosity of the Government will not stop here, but that they will continue to ensure that those parts of the North-West are still

  1805
  viable places which need this sort of employment.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to be generous about this. When the town was bombed in 1941 people lost not only documents but their homes. So I hope that when they make their claims the Treasury will be as generous as possible. People in my constituency lost not only their homes but their sons, daughters and families. It does not need me to overplay this.
  We made a great contribution to winning the war, and I welcome the fact that belatedly the Government are now repaying what Governments should have repaid many years ago.
  11.3 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I support what the hon. Members have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has expressed the case for women better than I could. I hope notice will be taken of what she has said.
  Plymouth was equally badly blitzed and many people have no idea where their certificates are. Not only houses but whole streets went. This will create considerable difficulty.
  My hon. Friend said he was trying to find places in development areas and intermediate areas, so why did he choose Bristol, which is neither? Bristol is a flourishing city. I have been in correspondence with him about Plymouth, where we have plenty of office space. There is Plymouth North Road Station, built at a cost of £1 million, which has office space which could be used. Bristol is an area with pretty full employment, whereas Plymouth is not, especially as the other Government Department, the Admiralty, is cutting down on the Civil Service.
  If my hon. Friend is taking on a number of people, can he consider the over-fifties and others who have to retire at 60 and cannot get another job but do not draw their pensions until they are 65?
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. James Lamond: I join in the congratulations to the Government. I accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for
  1806
  Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) that if we were to examine all the possible ways of spending £130 million or possibly £180 million we might come up with a scheme which would assist the recovery of the economy more than this. However, it must be particularly satisfying for the Government to be able to take this step.
  As the Inland Revenue searches for long-forgotten certificates it may come across long-forgotten tax liabilities. I am sure we have all had cases of people expecting some small sum, perhaps £25, who have been bitterly disappointed because a tax liability of £20 has been discovered and the sum they received has been much smaller than expected. This is an important thing for a pensioner.
  While the Government have acted generously in calculating the interest rate as 38 per cent. it is not so generous when considered over a period of 30 years, particularly when we think of the decline in the purchasing power of £130 million today compared with 30 years ago. There is room for the Treasury to say that long-forgotten liabilities will not be deducted from the final payments.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. David Knox: I, too, join in the congratulations to the Government for enacting this long-overdue measure. The argument against repaying post-war credits on this scale in the past has been that such a move would be inflationary. This was a legitimate argument. It is for that reason that the present moment is a particularly appropriate time to repay the credits.
  Last July certain substantial inflationary measures were introduced by the Government but the trouble with such measures is that they take from 12 to 18 months to be effective. It seemed to me, as I said in the debate on the Gracious Speech last year, that measures such as repaying post-war credits, which would create additional demand of a non-recurring nature, could be particularly helpful. The timing of this is, therefore, good.
  Can my hon. Friend give us some idea of the demand effect of the repayment. It is extraordinarily difficult to do this. He has given an estimate of the total value of the post-war credits plus interest. I appreciate that lie cannot know exactly

  1807
  how many of the credits will be reclaimed, nor can he have other than a rough idea of how much of the money that is reclaimed will be spent and how much will be saved. But I would like to know whether the Treasury made an estimate of this. If so, will the Financial Secretary give us some indication of how much will be spent.
  I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) about not having a fixed period for repayments. This money was a loan to the Government many years ago. It is hard that people should have to reclaim a loan, let alone sacrifice it if they do not reclaim it within a fixed period. The records should be kept for a long time so that the people who do not claim within a specified period can do so later.
  My final point is that in an inflationary situation the public generally would prefer the idea of deferred spending to tax increases. The history of post-war credits will make it difficult to introduce a similar measure in the future. Nevertheless, I hope the Treasury will not automatically dismiss this concept in any inflationary situation which -may arise. I am not so sure the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton was right that repayment in such a scheme should be on a fixed date. One can be certain that the end of the fixed period would be a time of further inflationary pressure with the problems that involves.
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am grateful for the warm welcome that has been given to the regulations by both sides of the House. I am particularly grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Cockeram) which were directed towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to them.
  I will try to deal with the large number of questions raised as shortly as I can. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) asked about the £110 million. It is an estimate, and is approximately the amount we expect to be paid, excluding interest. The point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington was that the 38 per cent. interest is additional. We have found
  1808
  from past experience that 85 per cent. of the claims are supported by certificates. Only 15 per cent. of the claimants have lost their certificates. That figure includes the people who have reached qualifying age and those who are claiming on grounds of hardship. If that percentage applies to the whole we shall be left with relatively few claimants who will not be able to produce certificates.
  I cannot say now when the next set of regulations will be produced. This must to a large extent depend upon how successful we are in the next six months in getting claims repaid to the people who can produce certificates. On the whole, they will be the younger people. They may be able to produce their certificates more easily, and the percentage may be higher.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: Can we take it that if the repayments to those with certificates is completed at the end of six months the Government will introduce payments for those without certificates?
  Mr. Jenkin: I would prefer not to commit myself. I must preserve the freedom of action of the Revenue to deal with the situation in the light of all the circumstances. It would seem to me that the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis is not unreasonable because we want to get the exercise finished. In regard to those who cannot produce certificates, there is no question of there being any intention of depriving them of their rights. The Revenue now pays a substantial number of post-war credits—15 per cent. of the total—where there are no certificates. All it needs to be able to do is to trace the war-time employment of the claimant, and all the records exist to enable this to be done.
  The trouble is that people find it difficult to remember by whom they were employed at different periods as long ago as 1941 and 1942, but provided that people can give the Revenue some clue so that the records can be traced it will be possible to do so. But the essence of the present scheme to which these regulations are directed is the speedy repayment over six months to the great bulk of those who can produce their certificates.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that if we were to get the scheme through at all we had to make a distinction. Although

  1809
  I appreciate that this is a disappointment to those who have lost their certificates, their turn will come, and I hope that not too long a time will elapse. On the question of what will happen at the end when we have done stage two, we shall have to wait a bit. We shall have to wait to see what proportion we are left with after we have done the second stage.
  From the point of view of administrative convenience, the right answer would be to have another great publicity campaign and then to wind the thing up and say that after such-and-such a date no further claims may be made, but I take on board the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that this would have disadvantages for people who have not been aware of what is happening or who have not got round to doing anything about it. We shall consider what has been said in this debate.
  I confirm that there will be no question of confusing the repayments with any question of current tax liability. That would be impossible. The temporary staff in the tax repayment centres have no knowledge of the current taxation position.
  In regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) about the tax liability at the time, the credits represent additional tax borne as a result of the extra liability in 1941 and in the years following. To the extent that tax was not paid, the additional tax was not borne. That is bound to remain the position. However, I have no doubt that in a scheme of this nature where a great many repayments will be made over a short period of time one can leave it to the good sense of the Inland Revenue to organise the whole exercise so that it goes as smoothly as possible.
  I was asked about the number of taxpayers in the different ranges of scales. Information about holders of post-war credits can be found in the latest Inland Revenue report for the year ended 31st March, 1971, in Tables 41 to 43. The short answer to the point is that there are very few who could claim the full £65 for five years. The average must be about £20 based on 5 million applicants and a figure of £110 million, and there will be many near that average.
  How long the extra staff will be employed will depend on what we do with
  1810
  the second scheme. How many will be needed for the second scheme we cannot tell until we know how many will have to be covered. As I have said, 2,300 have already been recruited.
  On publicity, I emphasise that it does not matter if someone who is within this scheme and can trace a certificate does not claim in the right month. His claim will be dealt with if it is sent in accordance with the instructions in the publicity material. We hope that as many as possible will choose the right months for the letters of the surnames on the certificates that they are producing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) raised a very important point about the division between husband and wife. Where it was the wife's earnings and she was separately assessed, the certificates will be in her name. Where she was not separately assessed and her husband was liable for the joint tax, the certificates were made out in his name. In the great majority of cases where the marriage subsists or a claim has arisen on widowhood the claim can he paid. Where the marriage has broken up, there is a difficulty. If the wife had the earnings, she should be entitled to the credit when it is repaid.
  Application for division of the credit could be made within three months of the date of the certificate
  "or such further time as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may allow."
  In those circumstances, the credit was divided as the parties agreed or, failing agreement, by the inspector, subject to a right of appeal. In practice, the Revenue has not accepted late applications for a division of the credit simply because the wife reached the qualifying age of 55 for women before the husband reached 60. But late applications are accepted from either party where there has been a divorce or the parties are separated permanently, provided that application is made before the credit is paid. If there are women who are now separated or divorced and believe that their ex-husbands hold their credits, they should apply without delay for a division of the credits issued in their husbands' favour, giving as much information as possible about their own and their husbands' wartime employments. I do not deny that there may be difficulties in this, but the initiative must lie with a deserted or

  1811
  divorced wife to take action to ensure that she gets her share of the credits which at present are in her husband's name.
  A number of hon. Members raised the problem of where we were to put the repayment centres. I dealt with it in opening because I anticipated that it might come up in the debate. I referred to the Shipley position and the difficulties of no suitable premises being there and of recruiting supervisory staff. I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington said. The number of staff at Bootle will be 266. It is only temporary, and I think that everyone appreciates that. But it will be a welcome temporary additional employment for those concerned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about recruiting the over-50s. As I have said, 2,300 people have been recruited already. It has been left in the hands of the local managers to decide the people appropriate for this kind of work.
  I have sympathy for those whose constituencies were not chosen. I mentioned the South-West, Bristol and Portsmouth. It was only a matter of 70 people between the two centres, and the number represents a very small addition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington asked about interest. I think I have answered that. If it is a total of £130 million for the credit, it is £180 million or thereabouts including interest.
  I was asked about the effect on demand, and how it will act on the economy. I do not expect the repayments to have other than a small effect on the gross national product in 1972–73. In so far as there is an impact on demand, it is a once-for-all operation, and there is virtually no hang-over to succeeding periods.
  I think I have answered most of the questions which hon. Members have asked. I believe that this scheme is widely welcomed. Although only 5 million or so people will benefit, it has been a long source of complaint that this matter has hung on for so many years after the war in complete contradiction to the expectations that people had at
  1812
  the time. I am glad that we have been able to clear up the matter now. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the regulations.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Post-War Credit (Income Tax) Regulations 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.

  POST-WAR CREDITS

    AGRICULTURE (LIVESTOCK RESEARCH)
    Resolved,
    That the Livestock and Livestock Products Industries (Payments for Scientific Research) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.—[Mr. Anthony Stodart.]

    COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES
    Ordered,
    That the matter of the style and title in this House of the honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed be referred to the Committee of Privileges.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

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

  FAR EAST PRISONERS OF WAR (PENSIONS)
  11.26 p.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall be brief to enable other hon. Members to speak in this debate. Therefore, at the outset I will content myself with two very brief points of fact.
  I am a war pensioner in a minor way, but I am not a Far East prisoner of war pensioner. My information on the matter comes from F.E.P.O.W.—I think that most people know what that means—and in particular from Mr. Adams of Poole, Dorset, and Mr. Harrison, the welfare secretary of the Leeds and district F.E.P.O.W., who came and talked to me about the problem.
  My concern tonight is the "over seven years" rule, which is the basic provision—Article 5 of the Royal Warrant—under which entitlement to pension is considered where a claim for disablement or death

  1813
  is made more than seven years after service in the Forces is ended. For periods less than seven years, to which Article 4 relates the rule is that
  "in no case shall there be an onus on any claimant under this Article to prove the fulfilment of the conditions"
  —for award—
  "and the benefit of any reasonable doubt shall be given to the claimant."
  To paraphrase it, after seven years there is no presumption in the applicant's favour. The view which I put is that, because of the particular hardship of F.E.P.O.W.s—the absence of personal records and the lack of check-up on prisoners when they return to this country, unlike the case in Australia and in the United States—they should always be treated as coming under Article 4.
  The Under-Secretary has pointed out to me that, in the absence of records, other reliable evidence will suffice—for example, war diaries and evidence from investigations at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton. Of course, F.E.P.O.W.s get the degenerative diseases common to middle age, and the view of the organisation is that conditions are worse for them. This seems to be the case from evidence in other countries.
  An interesting article in the General Practitioner, which I have before me, states:
  "The KZ Syndrome (concentration camp syndrome), the long-term effects of stress and starvation, is not officially recognised in Britain as it is in the Scandinavian countries. Holland, Belgum and France are beginning to take the effects into consideration when awarding war pensions but Britain lags behind."
  I should like to mention a point, of which I have given notice to the Under-Secretary, which must be cleared up concerning the survey at Queen Mary's Hospital by the trustees, of whom, by the nature of a former office, I am a former honorary president. The hon. Gentleman has said that this is not a survey of degenerative diseases and that it does not show that F.E.P.O.W.s are any more liable to the diseases looked at.
  An allegation has been made to me which must be cleared up. Figures are given on the first page of the introduction of the report issued by Roehampton. It has been put to me that page 1, para. 3(a), of the published report refers to cardio-vascular "symptoms", but in the original, of which I have a copy, the
  1814
  reference is to cardio-vascular "sequelae". In para. 3(b) it refers to "symptoms" again, and the original referred to "sequelae". There is a great difference between symptoms and sequelae. It is interesting that there has been no alteration to a later reference to psychiatric "sequelae". It is the same phrase in the final report.
  The hon. Gentleman has written to me to say that the summary represents the considered views of the three doctors who carried out the survey. At the very least—I do not make the major case—there was some discussion in the penultimate report as to whether the word should be "symptoms" or "sequelae". From a pension point of view there is all the difference in the world between the two.
  Because I want to be brief, I will not go back over the article in the General Practitioner of 4th February, 1972, on the surveys done on Australian prisoners of war.
  Why not end the seven-year rule, not just for F.E.P.O.W.s but for all war pensioners, now? For obvious reasons, as I have said before, the number of pensioners is declining. This is one reason for having a Royal Commission on war pensioners. We should review all claims, especially from war widows. In the absence of records, they cannot prove what happened. All medical boards should have doctors with a knowledge of tropical diseases and of the case that F.E.P.O.W.s have put forward. The hon. Gentleman has said that he will meet F.E.P.O.W. This is an admirable step. Given the evidence which is now forthcoming, the case of the Japanese prisoners of war in particular should be looked at again.
  11.34 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison (Eye): I must declare an interest because I am one of these F.E.P.O.W.s. The only other one who is a Member of the House is my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South East (Mr. Peel), who is abroad.
  One out of three of those taken prisoner died in captivity. Of the other two, one has always been rather sick, has not got on well in life, and has been passed over for promotion, and only the third seems to have been a good citizen. All these men are now aged 49 or more.

  1815
  I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) for raising this subject, particularly after the recent report. We are not treated as are our counterparts in other countries. From my experience of investigating this matter as an hon. Member, I have discovered that many men who suffered shellshock and so on during the First World War seemed all right for perhaps 30 years and then suddenly broke down when in their early sixties. We are getting cases now of F.E.P.O.W.s who are breaking down physically and mentally. For this and the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Leeds. South, this matter should receive further attention from the Department.
  I have been concerned about this whole issue for a considerable time. Indeed, 18 years ago I raised it in an Adjournment debate. At that time I spoke of the need to have these cases examined by doctors who were familiar with tropical diseases. A great deal has been done by Roehampton and we are grateful for the efforts of the people there, but many men in the provinces fear that their local tribunals of doctors do not fully understand their cases.
  Is it too much to ask that the Department should enable these men to come to London to attend a panel of specialist doctors who are fully conversant with tropical diseases and this whole problem? It would mean these men receiving only a few extra pounds to make the journey and they would have satisfaction that their cases were being properly judged by men who understood what it was all about.
  I make this plea on behalf of these men and the widows of men who were in this position. I am, of course, referring to men who die probably at an earlier age than would be the case had they not gone through this experience. I hope that the Under-Secretary will get his right hon. Friend, who is a man of great sympathy, particularly in specialist cases, to look again at this group of men.
  11.37 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I am grateful for this opportunity to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir
  1816
  H. Harrison) have said from personal experience of this problem.
  I recently put some Questions to the Secretary of State on this subject and, frankly, I was thoroughly disappointed with his answers. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that his comments were quite out of character with the Minister, who normally adopts a sensitive approach to problems of this kind. I can only assume that there was an administrative difficulty over which he had no control. I hope that that difficulty has now been overcome.
  I want the Under-Secretary to accept that F.E.P.O.W.s and their widows deserve special treatment. We are speaking of men who have suffered torture such as cannot be imagined. The terrible conditions which they somehow survived are beyond description. When I was in Singapore a few years ago I was told stories that not only astounded me but made me wonder how these men managed to survive at all. Their deprivation evokes from the nation a spontaneous response in support of their case, and bearing in mind that it is so long after the war it is clear that we are speaking of very small numbers.
  We in this country are not so poor that we cannot overcome this problem. At least we must come up to the standard of treatment that the counterparts of these men receive in other countries, including Australia, America and Canada. A good case has been made and these men have the sympathy of the nation. Those who have experienced what these men went through, those who are connected with them and those who have not had firsthand experience of the problem have all responded in their favour. We look tonight for a similar response from the Under-Secretary.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the Minister would like to catch my eye at 11.45 p.m. The debate must end at 11.56. This means that back bench hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate can all do so, if they each confine themselves to approximately 1¾ minutes. Dame Joan Vickers.
  11.40 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: Thank you for that hint, Mr. Speaker. I want to mention two points.

  1817
  First, I went to Singapore in 1945, so I have absolute knowledge of what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has been talking about. I saw the men in the camps and hospitals. In many cases they were almost too brave; they wanted to come home to their families and get on with the job.
  I pay tribute to Brigadier Sir Jackie Smyth, who is one of those who have fought very hard for them. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and myself are now proud to be trustees of the Far East Prisoners of War Fund. I hope that reconsideration may be given to the conditions, and I support the point about the widows. There are quite a number of them in my constituency. It is very difficult to prove that their husbands died of the treatment they received in the Far East.
  On Saturday last I attended a dinner for people in Macassar. One could not have had a more loyal band of men serving this country. They continue their friendship and they continue to help each other. I hope that the Government will in turn give them the extra help they need.
  11.41 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). We have both had the privilege of representing Her Majesty's Government as trustees of the Far East Prisoners of War Fund. We are as generous as we possibly can be. I hope that the Minister will respond to the plea made in such eloquent terms by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) for those brave men who served us so faithfully in those far-flung days.
  I should like to express my gladness at being associated with the people with whom I served. I was not a F.E.P.O.W. but I am a pensioner of long standing. I remember the gallantry of those men. I am happy to be associated with them tonight.
  11.42 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: The one point I underline to my hon. Friend the Minister is that every one of the concessions which have been pressed upon him by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees)—who has done so well to bring this matter to the atten-
  1818
  tion of the House, as have other hon. Members who have spoken—is without exception already standard practice and common form for the other countries most closely concerned, the United States, Canada and Australia.
  Many hon. Members will have received letters from former Far East prisoners of war. I received a letter from the Secretary of the National Federation of F.E.P.O.W. Clubs and Associations. The last sentence of that letter, which I read with the greatest sadness, was this:
  "The treatment and consideration accorded to the British Far East prisoner of war fell far below that which had been received by their counterparts in Canada, Australia and the U.S.A."
  I hope that after we have heard my hon. Friend the Minister this evening it will not again be possible to write those words.
  11.44 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) for raising this important subject. He mentioned that he is a war pensioner. So am I. Every one who has spoken in the debate has a very real personal interest in this problem.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) mentioned that he is an F.E.P.O.W. himself. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) do excellent work as trustees of the Far East Prisoners of War Fund. I am glad of the opportunity, too, to clear up perhaps a few misunderstandings and to inform the House of the action I am taking.
  First, I assure the House that we intend to give every help we justifiably can under the war pension scheme to F.E.P.O.W.s and their dependants, and to all others who have served elsewhere. We are conscious of the hardship and deprivation that F.E.P.O.W.s endured. We are alert to the possible effects on individuals years afterwards. The minds of doctors and laymen are open to the results of research and diagnosis, both that which we have already and that which we shall have in the future. Every case will be looked at with sympathy and a keen desire to give the benefit of

  1819
  any doubt to the claimant. But we must work within the war pensions scheme as laid down in the Royal Warrant. The whole system of preferential rates of benefit for disability pensioners and widows rests on a causal connection between disability and service. Public support for the preferences, especially among the younger generation, could quickly dissolve if we departed from these principles.
  I know the president and the national officers of F.E.P.O.W. and many of their members and realise, as has been brought out in the debate, that there are matters which are troubling them. I have been studying this matter in consultation with my senior medical officers and I have suggested to F.E.P.O.W. that we should meet to discuss the matter. I am sure it will be useful for both of us. I do not want to prejudge that meeting by being dogmatic and saying a great deal today because I want to keep an open mind until I have had a full opportunity, after having medical advice, to hear exactly what they wish to tell me.
  I recognise that F.E.P.O.W.s feel at a disadvantage in trying to prove that disablement which perhaps took place a long time ago was attributable to or aggravated by war service. There are clearly problems in their minds as to how this can be done, not only for the man but more so for the widow, and it is this which gives rise to the criticism of the so-called seven-year rule. This is contained in Article 5 of the Royal Warrant under which entitlement to pension is considered where a claim for disablement is made or death occurs more than seven years after service has ended. In such cases it is for the claimant to show that this disablement is related to service. However, if he produces reliable evidence which raises reasonable doubt whether his disablement is related to service he is entitled to succeed.
  The evidence does not have to consist of official records. Article 5(5) says:
  "Where there is no note in contemporary official records of a material fact on which the claim is based, other reliable corroborative evidence of that fact may be accepted."
  This can, of course, be of particular importance to F.E.P.O.W.s where medical records are often not available for the period during which they were prisoners.
  1820
  Further, we know enough about the conditions they had to endure to accept that the claimants suffered. They do not have to prove that they endured bad conditions. We accept that immediately.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, South said that all claims should be accepted under Article 4. This deals with claims made not later than seven years after service has ended. For claims made within seven years Article 4 relieves the claimant of the onus of proving that the injury on which the claim is based is related to service. It must succeed unless evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt that the injury is unrelated to service. This would be a very substantial change to make in the war pension arrangements and could very well undermine the basis on which the preferential arrangements rest. Furthermore, I do not think that the rule under Article 5 presents an undue obstacle to the claimant. We estimate that there are about 7,000 F.E.P.O.W.s and some 2,700 of their widows and dependants already receive war pensions. This means that a much higher percentage of ex-F.E.P.O.W.s are getting the war pension than of ex-Servicemen who served elsewhere.
  The changes that the Government introduced last September mean that widows of badly disabled men who were in receipt of constant attendance allowance at normal maximum rate or higher at the time of death are automatically entitled to war widow's pension without having to prove direct attributability.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye asked whether there could be a specialist panel for F.E.P.O.W.s. I wonder whether the House has sufficiently realised the distinction between what the boards do and what is done at the centre at Norcross. The medical boards do not decide on entitlement. They advise on the appropriate percentage assessment for any disablement that is discovered, but entitlement is decided by the specialist doctors, in conjunction with lay officers, who work at Norcross at Blackpool. It is here that an enormous range of expertise and experience has been built up. This concentration of expertise in Norcross is perhaps more important in dealing with this aspect than the actual composition of the boards.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, South, has asked me in particular about some

  1821
  of the wording in the Roehampton report from Queen Mary's Hospital on the results of the survey into the effects of captivity on the neurological and hepatitic systems of F.E.P.O.W.s who passed through the hospital from January, 1946, to the autumn of 1968. I think I can clear up his points to his entire satisfaction.
  It was recorded in the draft report originally circulated that 599 cases appeared to have had definite cardiovascular sequelae since release. However, as there was nothing in the body of the report to link the cardio-vascular condition with captivity, and as no special study was carried out of this aspect, the authors amended the words "cardiovascular sequelae" to read "cardiovascular symptoms" in the final proof copy as being more scientifically accurate. They have recently confirmed that the published summary is an accurate reflection of their considered views. Perhaps I should add that two of the three authors of the report are not on the staff of the Department.
  Whether the final report said "sequelae" or "symptoms" in no way affects the treatment of individual war pension claims, since if in any individual case it can be shown that there is a link between the cardio-vascular trouble and war service the claim is accepted. I hope that this reassures the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) mentioned the experience in other countries. I readily admit that in some respects other countries treat ex-F.E.P.O.W.s more favour-
  1822
  ably than we do. If, however, the benefits and the services available overall are taken into account, there is probably not much difference. However, I am studying very carefully the experience of other countries, and there is no doubt that we shall go on learning in this field. I do not claim that we know everything about it. We certainly do not. We have had valuable information from the studies.
  The American and Australian reports both showed a significantly higher than expected mortality rate from traumatic deaths during the immediate post-war years and I have made clear in the light of those reports that we are prepared to look again at any rejected claim which may be affected by those findings, if we are sent details of the cases concerned.
  I assure the hon. Member for Leeds, South and hon. Members who have raised this matter that our minds are not closed on the point and I look forward very much to having a personal and detailed talk with representatives of this most excellent organisation. I hope that in dealing with it, it will be possible to meet some of the points that have been made. I clearly cannot make any commitment tonight, and the House will not expect me to in advance of seeing those I am to meet, but I have demonstrated our good will and determination to do our utmost to see that F.E.P.O.W.s get every help they can under our war pension arrangements.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  Comprehensive Schools (Headships)
  Comprehensive Schools (Headships)
  Further Education
  Further Education
  School Building Programme (Newham)
  School Building Programme (Newham)
  Dyslexia
  Dyslexia
  Universities (Student Residence)
  Universities (Student Residence)
  School Leaving Age
  School Leaving Age
  Rutherford and St. Marylebone Grammar Schools
  Rutherford and St. Marylebone Grammar Schools
  Maintenance Allowances
  Maintenance Allowances
  Teachers' Aides
  Teachers' Aides
  Comprehensive Reorganisation
  Comprehensive Reorganisation
  Minor Works (London)
  Minor Works (London)
  Medical Schools
  Medical Schools
  Immigrant Pupils
  Immigrant Pupils
  Boarding Education
  Boarding Education
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
  Primary Schools (East Suffolk)
  Primary Schools (East Suffolk)
  Cumberland
  Cumberland
  Northumberland
  Northumberland
  Old Primary Schools (Upper Agbrigg)
  Old Primary Schools (Upper Agbrigg)
  Research Councils
  Research Councils
DEFENCE
  Buccaneer and Phantom Aircraft
  Buccaneer and Phantom Aircraft
  B.A.O.R. (Honest John)
  B.A.O.R. (Honest John)
  Civilian Employees (Scotland)
  Civilian Employees (Scotland)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Widow's Pension
  Widow's Pension
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Murder
  Murder
  Welsh Language (Court Proceedings)
  Welsh Language (Court Proceedings)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Driving Incident, Russell Square
  Driving Incident, Russell Square
  Police Officers (Investigations)
  Police Officers (Investigations)
  Courts (Clerks)
  Courts (Clerks)
EMPLOYMENT
  Company Directors
  Company Directors
  Stockbrokers
  Stockbrokers
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Dismissed Employee (Peterlee)
  Dismissed Employee (Peterlee)
  Vacancies (Kent)
  Vacancies (Kent)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Foreign Diplomatic Missions
  Foreign Diplomatic Missions
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  North East
  North East
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Shipping (Rochdale Committee Inquiry)
  Shipping (Rochdale Committee Inquiry)
  Butter (Imports)
  Butter (Imports)
ENVIRONMENT
  Toxic Waste
  Toxic Waste
  Flexible Housing
  Flexible Housing
  Humberside
  Humberside
  Inner London (Land Cost)
  Inner London (Land Cost)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Public Transport
  Public Transport
  Housing Finance Bill
  Housing Finance Bill
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mobile Home Parks (Rents)
  Mobile Home Parks (Rents)
  Houses
  Houses
  Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838
  Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838
  Road Accidents (Alcoholism)
  Road Accidents (Alcoholism)
  Development Commission
  Development Commission
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  MALTA
  MALTA
  NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS (MEETING)
  NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS (MEETING)
  POWER SUPPLIES (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  POWER SUPPLIES (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  SCHOOLCHILDREN (NUTRITION)
  SCHOOLCHILDREN (NUTRITION)
  PRIME MINISTER OF LUXEMBOURG
  PRIME MINISTER OF LUXEMBOURG
  PRIME MINISTER OF NORTHERN IRELAND
  PRIME MINISTER OF NORTHERN IRELAND
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (MEETING)
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (MEETING)
  MERSEYSIDE
  MERSEYSIDE
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  COAL INDUSTRY
  COAL INDUSTRY
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS (MEETINGS)
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS (MEETINGS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cheese (Imports)
  Cheese (Imports)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Singapore
  Singapore
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
SCOTLAND
  Homosexual Offences
  Homosexual Offences
  SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION
  SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health Service (Staff)
  Health Service (Staff)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Industrial Injuries
  Industrial Injuries
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Supplementary Benefit (Legal Aid Payments)
  Supplementary Benefit (Legal Aid Payments)
  Homeless Persons (Accommodation)
  Homeless Persons (Accommodation)
WALES
  Farm Price Review
  Farm Price Review
  Fertiliser
  Fertiliser
  Senni Valley
  Senni Valley

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

AID TO VIETNAM
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what medical and economic aid they have offered to Vietnam since the closure of the British Pædiatric Unit in Saigon, and whether any additional aid is contemplated.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I regret that we have been unable to recruit a suitable pædiatrician, and therefore we have not been able to offer further medical aid in this field, although the Vietnamese authorities have been invited to suggest alternatives. We are, however, currently engaged in a number of technical assistance projects in other fields, and the number of Vietnamese students coming to this country is on the increase. Furthermore, the Government of Vietnam has accepted an offer which we made last year of an interest-free loan of £1 million to be spent on British goods and services in connection with a project or projects which are still to be agreed between our two Governments.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware of the desperate needs of Vietnam, both North and South of the 17th Parallel, for outside help on a purely humanitarian basis, regardless of any political or military considerations? Is he further aware of the acute shortage of hospital and orphanage accommodation, and could our aid be extended on as wide a front as possible, especially in the field of rehabilitation?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are, of course, fully aware of the needs to which the
206
noble Lord, Lord Segal, has referred. I would only assure him that we are prepared to consider any kind of request for assistance which may come from the Government of South Vietnam.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Earl say what was the obstacle which confronted the Government in the appointment of a pædiatric doctor?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Government have tried to find somebody who was willing to go there, but such a person has not yet presented himself.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I press this point? Was it a question of remuneration and conditions of service, or the fact that such doctors are just not available?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is in fact that such doctors have not yet come forward to say that they would be willing to go to Vietnam to undertake this particular appointment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it a question of the conditions—in other words, that if the conditions were better such a doctor could be found?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I may say so with respect, I think that would be slightly hypothetical—
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
EARL FERRERS: I think it is, because the Government have advertised and canvassed to try to get a pædiatrician to fill this post, and nobody as yet has been prepared to accept it.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would the Government consider approaching neighbouring countries, such as Thailand, and also the American authorities now in Vietnam, with a view to some concerted effort towards increased medical aid to Vietnam?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Americans have a unit at this hospital. But I would again assure the noble Lord that we have intimated to the Vietnamese Government that they should put forward any suggestions they may have as to how we can help in this respect. We therefore look forward to hearing what they wish.

EIRE: PROPOSED SOVIET AND POLISH EMBASSIES
3.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Irish Government are negotiating with the Soviet Union and Poland with a view to establishing Embassies in their respective countries; what steps they are taking to ensure that these new Embassies will not be used as bases from which Soviet agents may re-enter the United Kingdom, thus nullifying Her Majesty's Government's ejection of such agents from the United Kingdom; and whether there is any possibility of excluding them under the present no-passport regulations.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, we have been aware of these possibilities for some time, and have naturally considered most carefully the implications for this country's security. The matter will continue to receive close attention.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his Answer, may I ask whether it is the fact that Her Majesty's Government, having had difficulty in the past in controlling Soviet agents inside the United Kingdom, will find it doubly difficult to control the infiltration of such agents from abroad? Is it not high time that a passport system was introduced between Ireland and the United Kingdom?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the noble Earl has of course drawn the attention of the House to a most important point and one which I can assure him has not been lost on Her Majesty's Government at all. He will realise that this matter involves questions of security, and of course these are confidential matters. I really cannot go into them at the present time. I take the noble Earl's point, and assure him
208
that the matter is being very carefully attended to.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that diplomats in Moscow are subject to very close travel restrictions, and that as a result we impose similar restrictions on Soviet diplomats in London? Is it not probable that if Ireland were to open an Embassy in Moscow their representatives will be subject to similar restrictions, and that the same will apply in Dublin; and would not this solve the noble Earl's problem?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that is quite likely; but it is not for me to say whether that will be so or not.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, could the noble Marquess say how a person, of whatever nationality, accredited to an embassy in Dublin would be able to use Irish nationality to come into this country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, of course I should not be able to.

HARBOURS (LOANS) BILL
3.13 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Its purpose is to provide for loans to be made to port authorities which, though clearly viable, encounter difficulty over the renewal of their capital debt because of unfavourable market conditions. Under Section 11 of the Harbours Act 1964 ports can already borrow from the Government for capital development purposes, and some £83 million has so far been lent for those purposes. But loans cannot be made under the 1964 Act for re-financing capital debt. The need for such loans has arisen because for many years the earnings of some ports have been too low and they have relied on short-term or fixed-interest borrowing which may have to be renewed when market conditions are unfavourable.
The Government are giving the industry freedom and encouragement to tackle its problems. The threat of

209
nationalisation has been removed and the ports have been encouraged to adopt realistic commercial attitudes so that they can, like other businesses, be self-supporting and competative. Last year the Minister for Transport Industries strengthened the National Ports Council so that they could play a major part in formulating with the port authorities a programme for establishing realistic financial policies, strengthening management, controlling costs, developing realistic charging policies and rationalising facilities.
Progress is being made. The Government do not intend to allow further progress to be jeopardised and hindered by temporary re-financing problems of ports which are clearly viable in the long term. So this Bill will enable loans to be made in such cases. But, as the White Paper explained, the loans will be made on a basis which encourages ports to continue to borrow on the market where they can or, where they do borrow from the Government, to return to the market as soon as possible.
Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to make loans, for the purpose of assisting debt payment or the repayment of other loans, if the financial prospects of the port authority justify it. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will consult the National Ports Council in all cases. The Council will carry out a detailed analysis of all the authority's forecasts and plans, its proposals for improvements in board and management structures, and its internal procedures. The Council will recommend a loan only if they are satisfied on all these matters and will recommend conditions to be attached to any loan. The loans will normally be on a long-term basis and at interest rates commencing some 2 percentage points above the Government lending rate and rising progressively. So the terms will not be easy ones. The object is to put pressure on the authorities to seek alternative sources of finance where they can. The terms will result in strict financial disciplines and improved profitability, which in turn should strengthen the authorities' ability to return to the money market.
Your Lordships may wish to know that Clause 1 excludes fishery harbours and marine works from assistance under the
210
Bill because they are the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Their exclusion from this Bill is consistent with their exclusion from the Harbours Act 1964. Clause 2 applies for the purposes of the Bill the powers which the National Ports Council already has under the 1964 Act to obtain information to enable it to carry out its functions.
Clause 3 relates to any loans made before the Bill is passed. Such loans were envisaged in the White Paper, and in fact loans have already been made to the tune of just under £5 million to the Clyde Port Authority and about £3½ million to the Forth Ports Authority. They were made by the Secretary of State out of money advanced for the purpose from the Contingencies Fund. Under Clause 3 an equivalent amount will be issued out of the National Loans Fund to the Secretary of State, who will then repay the Contingencies Fund.
Clause 4 sets a limit of £200 million, which can be increased to £300 million with the consent of another place, on the aggregate amount of loans that can be made "after the passing of this Act" for debt repayment purposes under the Bill and for capital development purposes under Section 11 of the Harbours Act 1964. We are thus taking the opportunity of setting a limit which will not only cover the new loans under the Bill but also future loans under the 1964 Act. Clause 4 avoids specifying separate limits for the two types of loan, because estimates of requirements are necessarily broad at this stage.
My Lords, I hope with that explanation I am able to satisfy your Lordships of the purpose of the Bill, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford.)
3.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I heartily endorse the principle of this Bill as a rescue operation of a strictly limited kind for port finance to enable the ports to re-finance themselves when necessary. Certainly a surprising number, considering the high quality of their management, had taken to borrowing

211
short in order to re-finance long; no doubt they had been forced to do so, as the last report of the National Ports Council suggests, because with little or no profit in prospect under the threat of nationalisation that was in fact all they could do. This borrowing short to refinance long was perhaps the only hope of the ports at that time while awaiting the protective umbrella of State ownership to be added to the State vetting of their investment plans. So with the purpose of this Bill as an immediate short-term enterprise I, for one, am highly content.
But as its Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, the Bill is intended to give effect to the proposals in the White Paper, Financial Policy for Ports, and this is the first time that your Lordships' House has had an opportunity to consider that publication. While the White Paper addresses itself to the immediate short-term problem in a manner which can be considered adequate, it certainly cannot be considered adequate in all other respects. It is perfectly true, as paragraph 3 of the White Paper states, that the problems of the ports will not be solved by subsidies. But neither will they be solved without assistance enabling them to match their European competitors. It is a full two years since the National Ports Council published a study on the subsidisation of port developments in Europe—notably Rotterdam, Hamburg and elsewhere—but there is nothing in the White Paper, nothing in its pert, confident, anti-lame duck tone, to suggest that the message of the National Ports Council's own study on port subsidisation abroad has been taken to heart; least of all, when—if the Government get their way—we shall be within the Common Market inside of a year. So I take this opportunity to ask whether the Government are willing in the longer term to consider matching the heavy subsidisation of port development on the Continent with something at any rate comparable in this country?
If it is said that the problems of the ports cannot be solved by subsidy, neither can they be solved by private enterprise alone—save perhaps in the North or North-East of Scotland where consortia are already busy thinking up ideas for an oil/natural gas terminal and servicing
212
bases for drilling and production rigs in the North Sea. There is not much of a "come hither" look on the Government's part to attract private investment. As matters stand now, private enterprise gets mighty little welcome when it seeks to undertake an overdue development. An example which comes to mind, in which I must declare an interest, is the proposal to develop Bathside Bay at Harwich. In that case, the promoters have been kept waiting as long as six months on a planning inquiry even though the National Ports Council could not have been more helpful.
Since neither private enterprise nor Government aid is, by itself, the sole answer to port development problems, may we know something of the Government's long-term thinking about collaboration between these two sources of investment? Perish the thought that the Government's thinking should still be permeated with the complacency of the White Paper's second paragraph, which stated that our ports "have been substantially modernised"—which is true—"and equipped with facilities which compare favourably" (I stress the word "favourably") "with those in other countries". Where now, or where yet, are the maritime industrial development areas which the National Ports Council has been advocating since 1965—seven long years ago? Now that the Government have refused to entertain a MIDA as well as a deep-water port at Maplin, are they willing to consider one, let alone to encourage one, on the Medway? And what has happened to the admittedly low-level, part-time inter-departmental study into the industrial/commercial demand for MIDA facilities, which the Government set going last spring in the Department of Trade and Industry? It was to report by Christmas we were told. Now we are nearing Easter. When is it coming?
Finally, there was a disagreeably complacent and superficial note about the opening sentence of the White Paper, and it, alas! sets the tone for much that follows. The White Paper told us that the ports:
"… have been regarded as a service to be made available without adequate regard to costs, profitability or long-term financial health."
The single word "adequate" in that paragraph just saves the Government's

213
bacon. The ports are a service, and every bit as much a service as the railways and the roads. Hundreds of millions are being poured into the roads—and thank goodness!—but the return envisaged is calculated not in terms of financial profitability but in terms of cost/benefit. Many millions are going into other elements of the regional infrastructure without regard to profitability—the new towns are an obvious example—but on cost/benefit calculations. Surely in the long term it is national cost/benefit rather than mere financial profitability which we should look for in port development.
As I said at the beginning, I gladly support the short-term interim measure proposed by this Bill. But after reading the White Paper and fruitlessly questioning the Government from time to time, I can only say that I cross my fingers about the apparent lack of any long-term view; least of all about the development of deep-water facilities and adjacent provision for industrial development for the industry of the future which I believe to be so vital to our economic future. The mood of the White Paper reminds one of that helpless prophecy of doom:
"Sea girt island thou hast been,
Ocean's mistress and her queen.
Now is come a sadder day,
And thou too must be its prey."
I should hope that we could be assured, if not to-day then before long, that the Government's maritime philosophy would be better expressed by that seventeenth century poet, Thomas Campbell, who wrote:
"Ye Mariners of England,
That guard our native seas,
Whose flag has braved, a thousand years,
The battle and the breeze.
Your glorious standard launch again
To match another foe."
3.28 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for the way in which he introduced this Bill. He was brief but he certainly covered the essentials of the Bill which, like the Transport (Grants) Bill with which we dealt on Tuesday, is a Money Bill and is narrowly drawn to deal with only one aspect of the finances of harbour undertakings. As such, I do not think it is a Bill which lends itself to a wide-ranging debate over the whole
214
of ports development and of Government policy in relation to such development. So I am not going to embark on a discussion of what is left out of the Bill, although, as we know, one can always do that on a Second Reading.
I am not going to talk about the possible inclusion in such a Bill of provision for massive support of the sort given by certain countries to foreign ports which are in competition with ours. But I must say that I agreed very much with some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who preceded me in this debate. Certainly it seemed to me that what he was aiming for was complete nationalisation of the ports. That is the only way of solving the difficulties they are in at the moment, but, clearly, this is not the occasion for a debate on the nationalisation of the ports. I do not think that this is either the time or the place for the sort of speech which one might have made. But because this is a Money Bill it does not mean that it is not deserving of the attention of the House and of a reasonable examination of its provisions.
As both the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, have said, the Bill is drawn to give effect to the White Paper, Financial Policy for Ports, which dealt with the difficulties of some port authorities when they run up against the problem of renewing their capital, or of paying off an overdraft or any borrowing that has time-expired. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, from his intimate knowledge of this matter, has told us how much money has in fact been borrowed on a short-term basis at very high rates, and of course these repayments will have to be made within, perhaps, a very short time. In paragraph 10 of the White Paper we read that
"… the loans will normally be long-term ones, for 10 years or more (the periods being subject in all cases to the recommendations of the Council). The Government will, however, be entitled to repayment on demand should the port authority fail to meet the relevant conditions, and the authority will be entitled to repay loans at any time, either from normal market borrowing or from their own accruing internal resources; … the initial rate of interest will be a high one, in the region of 2 percentage points over the Government lending rate and will be increased progressively over the life of the loan".
My Lords, there is nothing in the Bill making any provision, either for the

215
period of any loans, or for the progressive increases on the rate of interest, or the limit of such progression. I take it that this is to be left to the responsible Minister, and is, I suppose, the common form in such matters.
But there are some questions that I must put to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Can he tell the House whether, if the loan is granted for the ten-year period, there will be the possibility of an extension of that period if the National Ports Council should, during the period, make such a recommendation? Will the noble Lord tell us what is meant by the words in that paragraph of the White Paper:
"and will be increased progressively over the life of the loan."?
There is, my Lords, such a term as arithmetical progression", under which the progression rate is 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and so on; and there is also a geometrical progression with a rate of 2, 4, 8, 16 and so on. Will it be either of those, or will the Minister have the power to decide and to vary in accordance with a recommendation of the National Ports Council? I should very much like an answer to that question when the noble Lord comes to reply, for certainly the Bill does not tell us. It says only that the Secretary of State may make the Authority a loan.
The White Paper also tells us that:
"… the initial rate of interest will be a high one, in the region of 2 percentage points over the Government lending rate …"
My Lords, we have been told that the purpose of the Bill is to help a harbour authority out of the difficulty of repaying its loan capital when it falls due; that is to say, if its circumstances are such that the market has doubts about its liability and the authority is unable to raise the required amount on the market.
My Lords, the first and important requirement of such an authority, when it seeks a Government loan, is to satisfy the National Ports Council that the authority's financial prospects are sound. Having satisfied the Council in that regard, it then gets a Government loan at 2 per cent. over the current Government lending rate and faces the prospect of progressive increases in the interest rate over the life of the loan. Already, it seems to me, such an authority will be only marginally viable, and it also seems
216
to me that what this Bill proposes is designed to tilt the balance against an authority rather than to help it out of its very immediate difficulty. It seems as though, if the authority's head is just above the water of the dock, 2 per cent. plus progressive increases in interest charges will serve only to push it under.
The charge of interest on port revenues is already, in the case of most of them, a very heavy one indeed. I have not been able to check these figures as they were given by an honourable Member in another place, but I understand they come from an official Digest of Port Statistics for 1971. The figures are: in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board (of unhappy memory), the net interest charge was about one-fifth of its revenue; in the case of the Forth Ports Authority, about one-quarter; and for the Milford Haven Conservancy Board about four-fifths of the revenue had to be devoted to interest charges. I do not know whether any of these authorities will be in the category of those to be dealt with under this Bill, but I imagine that there are very many in this country similarly placed, and to add a further obligatory high interest rate to the charge upon their revenue is, it seems to me, just to pile Pelion on Ossa. It is bound to increase their difficulty. What chance will such authorities have to improve their position to such an extent as to enable them to carry out the purpose of the Bill; namely, to raise money to renew capital on the money market? The Government's lending rate at the moment is 6¼ per cent. Add 2 per cent. to that, and you are about at the peak which we reached when struggling out of our massive balance of payments deficit—and then, on the top of that 8¼ per cent. will be superimposed a progressive increase in interest charges.
I know that the purpose of the Government is to cause a borrowing authority so to conduct its affairs that it will get out as soon as possible from under the intolerable burden of perhaps 9 or 10 per cent. interest to be paid to the Government. But you are not going to give it much of a chance, are you? For what most of such authorities need is sufficient left over from their unavoidable payments out of revenue to enable them to improve chiefly their equipment to such an extent as to convince the market that to lend

217
money to them would be a sound gilt-edged investment. It is all very well to subject such an authority to a stringent financial discipline, but it is certainly a bit thick to subject it to a crippling rate of interest, the only effect of which will be to add further to the number of lame ducks which we have in this country. In this case, the ducks will be lamed by the Government's action under the Bill, and in the long run they might have to be rescued, as Rolls-Royce and the U.C.S. have had to be rescued, by the injection of considerable subsidies from the public purse.
I hope that the mind of the Government is not too firmly fixed on the terms of the loans to be made under the Bill. The exceptionally high rates proposed in the White Paper are not contained in the Bill. The Government have, therefore, some room for manæuvre, a certain degree of flexibility, and they might try a 1 per cent. over the Government lending rate and make the rate of progression, if any, a very low one; and then, in the case that I am now talking about, if the Ports Council sees that the borrowing authority is not really trying to improve its position, steepen the rates in an attempt to bring those responsible to their senses. To do that would be to at least give the authority a chance, and not to discourage it by giving it an impossible task.
My Lords, although, as I have tried to point out, the Bill has some doubtful aspects, it is essential that some such rescue operation be mounted at this time, and it is certainly not my intention to ask this side of the House to oppose this Bill. But I hope that before this Bill receives its Second Reading we shall have an answer to some of the points that I have put in this connection.
3.40 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for pressing me on the question of the nature of these loans, because if I had given the impression that there was any lack of flexibility here I think the whole proposal would have been subject to very justifiable criticism. I certainly did not intend to give that impression and I am glad now to confirm that in fact the Bill as drawn, and the proposal as my right honourable friend intends to apply it, point exactly in the opposite
218
direction. There will be full flexibility as to the rate of the loan and the rate of progression in the increase of the interest rates, and there will be flexibility as between one port and another. There is no doubt that to get the figure right in both these respects my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will not act until he has had advice from the National Ports Council, based on the detailed analysis of each port's proposals, plans and so forth, as I set out in my opening speech.
It is necessary to have this flexibility because, on the one hand, this is an operation designed to help the ports over difficulties in re-financing their debts (and these will vary from port to port and from time to time) and to provide them with breathing space in order to increase their earnings and reduce their costs. This will take a different length of time in each particular case, depending upon the existing state of the port's finances and on the development of its future plans. On the other hand, it is our intention—and I am sure that the House will agree with this—to provide an incentive to particular ports to get back into the market for their finance and also at the same time to avoid any adverse market reaction towards the ports generally. In order to balance all these factors this flexibility as to the initial rate, the timing of the programme and so on, is essential. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pressing me on that matter and for giving me the opportunity to make it clear.
I was also grateful to him for not making this an opportunity to embark upon a wide-ranging debate, either about nationalisation in general or the ports industry in general. Both he and my noble friend mentioned European ports. It is the case at the moment that, generally speaking, they do not have the policy we are aiming at: that of producing a viable ports industry. An extensive range of subsidies is available to European ports but there is not at present any general port policy for the European Economic Community. One of the things that we shall have to embark upon if and when we enter Europe is a discussion with our colleagues in that organisation on the formulation of a ports policy. My noble friend mentioned the Bathside Bay scheme in Harwich. I suppose that he

219
was referring to the application by the company of which he is a director. In that particular case I can say that the result of the public inquiry held last August is expected shortly. I am not in a position to say anything else at the moment. My noble friend also mentioned the question of progress with the studies of a MIDA. I do not think he was quite correct in saying that the possibility of a port on the Maplin Sands had been ruled out. We have invited the Port of London Authority to make proposals to us, though not of development on the scale that my noble friend probably had in mind.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. What I said was that the Government had ruled out a maritime industrial area there for primary industry, and not a port. I wondered whether they would welcome one on the Medway.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad to have had that point cleared up. My noble friend also mentioned certain proceedings within the Government. I will not accept any of the epithets he applied to it, but I shall be glad to confirm that it has proceeded according to plan and has now been completed. I hope that I have answered the points raised by noble Lords.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to effect a number of useful reforms in the law regarding the administration of justice in Scotland. The Bill is designed to make it easier to obtain and preserve evidence both before and during litigation, to allow a right of appeal to the House of Lords in certain civil actions where no such right exists at present, to allow appeals from decisions of arbiters on questions of law, and to amend outdated legislation relating to the rate of interest to be allowed on monetary awards by the sheriff court.
220
The provision concerning the disclosure, recovery and preservation of evidence is contained in Clause 1 of the Bill. At present, the courts will in general make an order concerning the production or inspection of documentary or other evidence only after the closing of the record in any action; that is to say, when the written pleadings of the parties have been finally adjusted. While there are exceptions to this rule, there is, I understand, dissatisfaction with the present law and practice and, in particular, with the courts' powers in this respect. The proposed reform is directed towards making as much relevant information as possible available to the parties to litigation at a sufficiently early stage to enable them to prepare their cases properly and to expedite settlements and trials.
The Bill would extend the powers of the court to order the inspection of property, the recovery of documents before the closing of the record, or indeed, before proceedings have been started, if the circumstances so warrant. Safeguards are incorporated to prevent abuse of the proposed new procedure—for instance, by using it to engage in what is termed a "fishing diligence"; that is, to recover documents in the hope that they will reveal that a party has a case. Parties applying for an order must satisfy the court that the property or document about which an order is sought is relevant to existing proceedings or to proceedings which are likely to be brought. Present rules in relation to confidentiality and privilege of documents, for instance, are of course retained.
Clause 2 of the Bill would remove present restrictions which prevent an appeal being taken to the House of Lords from an interlocutor of the Court of Session granting or refusing a new trial in civil jury cases. The matter is at present governed by Section 6 of the Jury Trials (Scotland) Act 1815, which allows appeals to the Court of Session on a variety of grounds; but the section goes on to provide that the decision of that Court shall not be subject to review by appeal to the House of Lords. The Government feel that it is wrong in principle that appeal to the House of Lords, which is available, generally speaking, over the whole field of civil actions, should be excluded in the case of actions

221
tried by jury, for questions both of liability and quantum can arise in jury trials and a litigant ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of having such questions considered by the highest tribunal, particularly since so many of the cases which come before a jury will have arisen under the Factories Acts and related legislation which ought to apply in the same way throughout the United Kingdom.
The Bill would establish a right of appeal to the House of Lords on the same grounds as those at present available in the case of an appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session as provided by the 1815 Act. The proposed provision would also confer on the House of Lords the power, at present confined to the Court of Session, simply to reverse a decision of the lower court if they were satisfied that the verdict under review was contrary to the evidence and that they had before them all the evidence that could reasonably be expected to be obtained relevant to the action under consideration.
My Lords, Clause 3 provides that any question of law arising during the course of an arbitration, or after the arbitral award has been made, may be referred by way of a stated case for the opinion of the Court of Session. While accepting that the relative speed and finality of arbitration proceedings should not lightly be discarded, it is the Government's view that where an arbiter has made a patent error in law it should be possible to correct that error on appeal; but in order to preserve so far as possible the present advantages of this method of settling disputes, the provision is expressly confined to questions of law. On questions of fact the arbiter's award is, and would remain, final. Certain Scottish statutory arbitration codes, for instance the code under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, and statutory arbitrations in England, make provision for such appeals. The clause therefore brings Scots law into line with these statutory codes.
Lastly, my Lords, on the question of interest rates, Section 9 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Extracts Act 1892 provides that where interest is included in a decree or extract decree, it shall be deemed to be at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum unless otherwise stated. The prescribed rate of 5 per cent. seems no
222
longer suitable as a general rule, and Clause 4 of the Bill would enable the Court of Session to direct that Section 9 of the 1892 Act shall be amended so as to substitute a more appropriate rate of interest than that specified in that Act.
My Lords, we have consulted widely on these proposed provisions and we are satisfied that the Bill will be welcomed by the legal profession in Scotland. Therefore I invite your Lordships to support the proposed measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
3.52 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I frequently start my remarks when following those of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, by saying that I am grateful to her for the explanation that she has given. In this case I can say that with the very greatest sincerity. I have read this comparatively short Bill, not in its entirety, but I got quite a long way through it and recognised, with one exception, that there were no particularly difficult words; yet I got to the end of Clause 1 without really knowing what the thing was about. Although the words are simple, when they are strung together (for example, in Clause 1(3) where we have 16 lines and more than 170 words without the intervention of a single period; but with one semicolon) you need to read them through two or three times before you begin to get the hang of the sentence. And when one does not have any legal knowledge to begin with, the task is made still more difficult.
However, my Lords, I must confess that I abandoned reading in detail when I got to Clause 1(4), to the second line, when I saw a word in line 27 of the Bill which is very often used in conversation in Scotland as a substitute for the word "blethers". I do not know how it is pronounced in a legal context but we read in line 27:
"… practice relating to the privilege of witnesses and havers …"
Only the Scots will appreciate that word. I have no doubt that it may not be pronounced in the same way in the context of this Bill, but I do not know how it is pronounced. When I reached that point I recognised that I was completely out of my depth.

223
I am, therefore, reassured by the statement of the noble Baroness that the Bill is widely welcomed by the legal profession in Scotland. I do not expect to be moving any Amendments at the next stage of the Bill; but I have one doubt about Clause 2 which extends the right of appeal to the House of Lords, in certain cases where it does not exist at the present time, and also the reference to the fact that the House of Lords may alter a decision in relation to the amount of damages. I should like to consider that aspect of the Bill. It may be perfectly sound from a legal point of view that everyone should have the same ultimate right of appeal in Scotland as they would have were they South of the Border. But one recognises the fact that a right of appeal to the House of Lords is a not inexpensive process, and one which has been held sometimes to favour those who are better able to take the risk of art unsuccessful action. I would, for instance, like to be certain that trade unions, who are frequent supporters of litigation in this section, are as happy as the legal profession that a successful case decided in Scotland might be the subject of an appeal to the House of Lords say, on the question of the reduction of damages.
With that slight note of query I am quite happy to be associated with the Second Reading of the Bill; and if I find that others than the legal profession in Scotland are quite happy about the Bill, I shall not regard it as part of my duty to prolong the proceedings on the Committee stage.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, in spite of the mild criticism of the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I am sure that your Lordships' House will realise, after the explanation given by the noble Baroness, that the content of the Bill effects improvements in the law of Scotland, and as such should be welcomed. I hope the House will accept this and will give the Bill a Second Reading forthwith.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I feel that I should try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. First, I should like to thank him and also my noble friend
224
Lord Strathclyde for supporting the measure. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that there are some very interesting words within this Bill, such as a "haver", which after all is one who has or has not and which I should have thought a very literal interpretation. The noble Lord was not quite happy, or perhaps he wondered a little, about Clause 2, regarding an appeal to the House of Lords; and in particular he wondered about it in connection with the question of damages.
My Lords, I understand that there has been considerable criticism in recent years of the absence of the right of appeal to the House of Lords against decisions of the Inner House of the Court of Session granting or refusing a new trial. It is for this reason that this provision is in the Bill. To give one example, in the case of McCallum v. Paterson in 1968–69 two successive jury trials were rendered abortive by successful motions for a new trial, on the ground that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive. I understand that there is recent evidence of a change of approach by Scottish judges towards the question of damages awards, and so it may be that much of the need for the proposed right of appeal to the House of Lords in such cases could he regarded as having been removed. However, it seems right, in view of the previous criticism, that jury trials should not be excluded from the general available right of appeal in civil actions; particularly since many such cases are based on United Kingdom legislation. With that assurance I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ADVISORY SERVICE BILL
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is a short but rather complicated measure and it has, I think, an unusual history, in that it was introduced in another place by the previous Administration as Part I of the Employed

225
Persons (Health and Safety) Bill and was in Standing Committee at the time of the Dissolution of Parliament in June, 1970. It has been reintroduced by this Government and is now before your Lordships for the first time, so your Lordships do not have the advantage that Members of the other place have of having seen the Bill before. Perhaps, therefore, it would be helpful if I first gave a brief outline of the origins of the Bill before making some general comments, and then briefly explained the most important clauses.
The appointment of "certifying surgeons" (as appointed factory doctors were then known was first authorised by the Factories Act of 1844, so that the appointed factory doctor service is one of the oldest public health services in the country. The duties of the service have varied from time to time, but for over a hundred years appointed factory doctors have been responsible for medically examining young persons as to fitness for work on taking up employment in factories. As noble Lords will know, appointed factory doctors now have two main functions. The first is to undertake the statutory medical examination of every young person—that is, under the age of 18—entering factory employment, and thereafter to carry out a further examination every year until he reaches 18. The second function is to carry out the statutory examinations required under the Factories Act 1961 and under regulations for persons working in hazardous processes and trades. Although appointed factory doctors are general practitioners appointed by chief inspectors of factories, they work as independent contractors and are paid fees for their examinations by the occupier of the factory. Any factory which has its own works medical officer may have him appointed to carry out examinations under the specific code of regulations which apply to that factory.
The Secretary of State for Employment is advised on industrial health matters by the Industrial Health Advisory Committee. In 1964 a sub-committee of that Committee was set up to look at the appointed factory doctor service. The C.B.I., the T.U.C., the B.M.A., the Society of Occupational Medicine and the Royal College of Physicians were all represented on the sub-committee, together with other bodies interested in industrial medicine. The sub-committee
226
considered the work of appointed factory doctors in the light of the social conditions of to-day. This Bill has its origin in their report. When examinations by the appointed factory doctors started in the last century, and for many years after that, there was no doubt that they did a great deal of good so far as young persons were concerned, for often the appointed factory doctor was the only doctor whom the young person saw. But now that we have the school health service and the National Health Service it seemed to the sub-committee that it was no longer necessary to examine all young persons entering factory employment. It was considered that a selective system of examination should be evolved instead, under which the school health service would identify those school-leavers who were not unconditionally fit for employment, and that they alone should be given further medical supervision. The other main duty of the appointed factory doctor, the periodic examination of persons engaged in hazardous trades and processes, would of course have to continue. The sub-committee recommended that both the selective medical examination of young persons who were not fully fit and the statutory examination of persons engaged in hazardous trades should be undertaken by a small expert group of doctors and that the appointed factory doctor service should be abolished.
The Bill which we now have before us embodies these recommendations of the sub-committee. It also takes them a step further, as a result of further discussion within the sub-committee. It sets up an employment medical advisory service which will have the duty not only of carrying out the functions recommended in the sub-committee's report but also of advising the Secretary of State for Employment, and anyone else who has an interest in the subject, on medical aspects of all employment problems. This means that the appointed factory doctor service will no longer exist, but we are confident that most of the fine traditions of the service will be carried forward into the E.M.A.S. The nucleus of the E.M.A.S., if I may go on calling it so, will be the medical services division of the Department of Employment, which exercises professional control over the work of doctors employed by the Department. These doctors are the former medical inspectors of factories (now

227
known as medical advisers), doctors in industrial rehabilitation units and Government training centres and regional medical consultants. In numbers they represent the equivalent of about 50 full-time doctors.
Having given this brief outline of the origins of the service, I should now like to comment on two matters which have given rise to some concern in connection with this Bill. The first is one which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords during the debate on the reorganisation of the National Health Service on November 29 last year, namely, the relationship between this new service and the National Health Service. We are determined that the service shall work in close co-operation with the National Health Service. The proposals for this service have been worked out in the closest collaboration with the Health Department. It is because of this determination that we are arranging for the joint use of laboratories to encourage co-operation in the field. In addition we have lanned an extensive publicity programme to come into operation once the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Not only will the programme include publicity specifically directed at the medical profession, but to ensure that all doctors in the health service know of the existence of the E.M.A.S. the Health Departments have agreed to send a special letter about the organisation and functions of E.M.A.S. to all doctors in the Health Service. The letter will stress the need for the closest possible co-operation between the new service and the general medical services of this country. If, at some future date, the Government of the day thought it desirable to transfer E.M.A.S. to the Department of Health and Social Security there is nothing in this legislation to preclude such a transfer. At the moment, however, we think it right that the service should remain with the Department of Employment, as the Department responsible for employment matters.
Secondly, there is the question of the relationship between the service and private works medical officers. Is E.M.A.S. the beginning of a comprehensive occupational health service? First let us define our terms. For most people a comprehensive occupational health ser-
228
vice means more doctors in more factories—doctors who, among other duties, will carry out treatment. E.M.A.S. is not, and is not intended to be, such a service. It is intended to be primarily a medical detective service, which will serve as a focus for the development of occupational medicine in this country. It will not provide treatment. To do so would duplicate the work of the National Health Service. We estimate that at present about one-third of the factory population have their own works medical services. To cover the remaining two-thirds would, we estimate, need some 2,000 doctors and cost about £20 million. The doctors are just not available. However, the service will work in the closest co-operation with private works medical officers, and the sub-committee of the industrial health advisory committee, which I have already mentioned, is discussing the best way of ensuring that the State service and the private services work together in harmony. We see the two Services not as competing but as complementing each other.
I should now like to turn to the Bill itself so that your Lordships can see how the recommendations of the sub-committee have been implemented and the scope of those recommendations enlarged. Clause 1 is the most important clause. Subsection (1) sets out the purpose of the Bill, which is to establish and maintain an employment medical advisory service to ensure that the Secretary of State and others concerned with the health of employed persons and persons training for employment can be kept informed of, and adequately advised on, matters of which they ought to take cognisance concerning the safeguarding and improvement of the health of those persons. Under subsection (9) of the same clause, persons training for employment include persons attending industrial rehabilitation courses and the phrase "others concerned with the health of employed persons" is to include organisations of employers or employed persons and associations of such organisations.
This subsection also gives the Secretary of State power to appoint persons to be employment medical advisers. As I have said, there are already the full-time equivalent of some 50 full-time doctors in the Department of Employment, and

229
it is estimated that the equivalent of about another 50 full-time doctors will be required for the operation of the Service together with about 110 supporting nursing, executive, clerical and secretarial staff. At a rough estimate, we think that when the Service is fully operational there will be some 78 fulltime doctors and 42 part-time, but that must be an estimate. Officials of the Department of Employment are at present discussing what should be the exact duties of the nurses, of whom there are expected to be 12, with the Royal College of Nursing.
The service will be organised in eight regions with a regional employment medical adviser at the head of the team of E.M.A.s at each region. The regional boundaries will be the same as those of the Department's regional organisation. The field organisation has been worked out on the basis of the distribution of industry, the location of Government training centres and industrial rehabilitation units and the spread of the estimated work load.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to interrupt? Did he say that the boundaries would coincide with the existing boundaries of his own Department's services? Is there no question of their coinciding with the regional boundaries which will be set up in the National Health Service under the Consultative Document?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we have to work with what we have, and this seems to be the best way of organising it at the present time. The full-time advisers will be based on the main centres of industry and population. The less industrialised parts of the country will be covered by part-time advisers. Within this general structure it is proposed that there should be substantial groups of full-time advisers in the major conurbations, that is, Central London, Birmingham and Glasgow. This will allow the development of a degree of specialisation among those advisers which will be of considerable benefit to the Service as a whole.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power to commission research and provide laboratories for the purposes of the employment medical advisory service. For the most part the
230
employment medical advisory service will carry out its own investigations into problems connected with its work. But there will also be cases where the best course would be to commission some outside body to investigate a particular problem. As for the laboratories which E.M.A.s will require, the Medical Services Division of the Department of Employment, which is to be incorporated in the E.M.A.s, already has its own laboratory, which will undertake many of the tests for the London and South-Eastern area and act as a central reference laboratory. Other routine work for the E.M.A.s will be carried out in national health laboratories which have been designated for the purpose. We attach the highest importance to these arrangements. They will encourage close working between the E.M.A.s and the National Health Service. That is essential if the service is not to develop in isolation from the main stream of medicine.
While we are on the subject of laboratories, I should mention the Industrial Hygiene Laboratory of the Factory Inspectorate, which carries out environmental tests such as dust counts and is the biggest in Europe. The E.M.A. will be working closely with the Factory Inspectorate, so that medical findings can be related to environmental conditions. Also, there are five university-affiliated occupational hygiene laboratories which undertake both environmental and biological tests. As the industrial hygiene laboratory of the Factory Inspectorate does not undertake routine testing of environment, we see an increased role for university-affiliated laboratories in providing this service for occupiers. So far as biological tests are concerned, the Department will not seek to interfere with private arrangements between occupiers and university-affiliated laboratories. University laboratories have said that they were "greatly reassured" by a discussion between their representatives and officials of the Department of Employment. The powers of the employment medical advisers are set out in subsection (5) of Schedule 1 to the Bill. Noble Lords may have noticed that employment medical advisers will not have all the powers which are given to Factory Inspectors since the Employment Medical Advisory Service, as it names implies, is an advisory service and E.M.A.s should have only

231
those powers which they need to enable it to carry out its statutory duties under the Factories Act.
Subsection (6) of Clause 1 gives statutory backing to the new arrangements which I have already briefly mentioned about the follow-up of young persons who will be identified as in need of further medical supervision by the school health service. The school health service already identifies from records, or by means of interview or examination, school leavers who are not unconditionally fit for all types of employment, and they notify the careers officers of the youth employment service of each of these school leavers by means of a standard form, Y.9, which simply gives in lay terms the restrictions laid down on his employment—for instance, that he must not work at heights or carry heavy weights. In future the school health service will send this standard form not only to the careers officers but to the E.M.A. and to the family doctor. In this way there will for the first time be a direct link between the school health service, the employment medical advisory service and the youth employment service. It is hoped that this form will be completed by the school health service at the beginning of the young person's last year at school. Then it will be possible for the careers officer and the E.M.A. to consult together during the whole process of advising these pupils and placing them in employment. The subsection also empowers the E.M.A. to ask the school health service for such other information relating to a young person's medical history as he may reasonably require for the efficient performance of his functions, but forbids him to disclose such information otherwise than for the efficient performance of his functions, for instance, to the career officers. If disclosure is wanted for any other purpose, for instance to a prospective employer, the consent of the young person must be obtained.
Clause 2 abolishes the position of appointed factory doctor and makes various consequential amendments to the Factories Act. The most important of these is that in subsection (3). Under a number of codes of regulations the chief inspector of factories is at present authorised to approve medical practitioners other than appointed factory doc-
232
tors who may carry out statutory medical examinations for the purposes of the Factories Act and regulations made under it. This subsection enables similar powers to be given to the chief employment medical adviser and his deputy or deputies so that they can authorise works medical officers to carry out these examinations.
Clause 3 looks long and complicated but in essence it is quite simple. Under the Factories Act, medical inspectors are empowered to carry out medical examinations. We shall no longer have medical inspectors and so employment medical advisers must have the power to carry out medical examinations if they think them necessary since an E.M.A. may go into a factory where work not covered by regulations is carried on and where he thinks it advisable to examine some of the workers concerned. The clause is directed towards the occupier and requires the occupier to permit the medical examination of his worker. The workers themselves are free to refuse examination, and there is nothing in the Bill which can force them to be medically examined.
Clause 4 carries into effect the recommendations of the I.H.A.C. sub-committee that a doctor should no longer have the power to suspend a worker when he considers that his work is adversely affecting his health. While the sub-committee considered that the power of suspension was necessary, they thought that it should not be the responsibility of a doctor, since his function is to give medical advice, not to take action in pursuance of that advice. They therefore recommended that, in cases where the E.M.A. came to the conclusion that continued employment in a particular process of a worker whom he had medically examined was inadvisable, he should not have power to suspend the worker but should formally advise the employer and the worker in writing of his conclusion. On receipt of such a notice it will no longer be lawful for the factory occupier to employ the person concerned.
Noble Lords may wonder why this clause deals only with women and young persons employed in any process involving the use of lead compound. The explanation is that all the powers of suspension except one are contained in Regulations or Orders made under the Factories Act and will be dealt with by

233
amendment to the Regulations. The reference to suspension in respect of women and young persons employed in lead compounds, however, is in Section 75(2) of the Factories Act and it has to be dealt with by amending the Act. I should add that the change in the procedure for suspension under the Factories Act will not result in any change in the practical effect; it merely removes the responsibility for suspension from the doctor.
Clause 5 requires the occupier of a factory who engages a young person to notify the careers officer within seven days after he takes a young person into employment. The careers officer will then be able to check these notifications from the factory occupier with the form Y9 which he has received from the school health service and in appropriate cases he can discuss with the E.M.A. whether the notified employment is suitable for the young person. This formal system of notification applies only to factory employment, but the E.M.A. will be willing to advise on the medical aspects of any employment problem. Clause 6 deals with the revised arrangements for payment by occupiers of fees for the statutory medical examination carried out under Regulations. In the past, these have been paid to the appointed factory doctor. In future, the occupier will pay them to the Secretary of State. These I think are the vital clauses of the Bill now before us and I hope that, with that explanation, noble Lords will be willing to accept this Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
4.22 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who gave a characteristically thorough and detailed explanation of the Bill, and if I do not follow him in many of the points he has made it is simply because nothing more needs to be said. Certain aspects, some of which raise difficulties, he explained clearly and I shall concentrate on those areas where we still see difficulties. First of all, I think it would be right to pay a tribute to the work that has been done in the past by appointed factory doctors whose services will now he discontinued by the Bill.
234
Many of them have served the employees and the firms very well and we should acknowledge that service. None the less, these new proposals, as indeed the noble Lord himself said, form part of a Bill which, after very thorough discussion, was introduced by the previous Government. Although for the most part it does not raise controversial issues, and therefore we certainly welcome it, there are some important issues, and there are some difficulties. Furthermore, it provides an opportunity to discuss some of the wider matters of industrial health. Such criticisms as I have to make of the Bill are for the most part concerned with detail, and some of them relate to certain changes which the Government have made in comparison to our Bill, which, though small, are not insignificant.
I am bound to say that I still much regret that the Government have not seen fit to include what in some ways was the more important part of our original Bill on the subject of safety. It is quite startling—and I am sure that noble Lords who are interested in this subject will agree—how complacent we all seem to be about the heavy loss, the suffering, indeed the death, that still arise in British industry. Our original Bill made some important provisions, which were strongly backed by the British Safety Council, by the Trades Union Congress and the trade union movement generally, for a proper involvement of workers in this area through worker representation on safety committees.
I would have wished to go into this theme at some length, for we attach great importance to it, were it not for the fact that in another place, only a month ago, a Second Reading was given to the Employed Persons (Safety) Bill which had been introduced by Mr. Hattersley. The importance of this measure, which deals with the particular area I am touching on, is such that I hope very much that the Government will give a fair wind to it, notwithstanding—and this is the answer which I think we may be given—that the Robens Committee are dealing with this subject and will be reporting in due course. I admit that the Government have a logical argument here; but looking at the practice in legislation, looking at the pressure we always have on our timetable, and even bearing in mind that Robens may be reporting this summer,

235
the fact is that it may be two, three, or even more years before we have a comprehensive measure. Meanwhile, more people will be killed and injured; more family life will be disrupted, and great suffering caused to individuals. If the passing of Mr. Hattersley's Bill saves only one life it would be worth while. In my view, it could do a great deal more.
Furthermore, I would say this to the noble Lord. The Robens argument is not entirely valid, because the Robens Committee were set up by the previous Government and notwithstanding that, we decided to press on, not only with a Bill such as that before us to-day—and we are grateful to the Government for proceeding with this matter; they may have been a little tardy, but I am not going to complain about that—but, at the same time, with another matter to which we attach great importance. The noble Lord cannot give us a definite assurance on this, since the Bill I am referring to is not before us. I had indeed even thought of incorporating in it some of the provisions of the old Bill, on the subject of safety and workers' representation, even at the price of delaying a measure which we welcome; but I hope the Government will be willing to give it a fair wind if that Bill comes up to us. A great deal, of course, depends on progress on Committee stage in another place. Although in a sense I am getting dangerously near to being out of order, and certainly in another place I should be out of order, this matter ties in importantly with the Bill now before us, and indeed with our attitude towards this Bill.
Let me comment briefly on some of the provisions of the Bill. As I say, we welcome the proposals, even though they create some awkward interfaces between the medical services which the best firms themselves have and indeed—as was implicit in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate—the organisation of the National Health Service. I do not doubt that the noble Lord will have something to say on that, and I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may be able to comment on it. But the specific points which I should like to draw to the noble Lord's attention, and to which we are likely to return on Committee, are the following. First of all, I
236
am bound to say that the penalties for breach of some of the provisions of the Factories Act, particularly the penalty for obstructing a medical officer in his capacity as an inspector, are inadequate. A penalty of £20 is really absurd to-day. If it was right at the time of the 1961 Act (I do not think it was, and I think perhaps I might admit that my colleagues in a previous Government would express regret that they had not done something about it), it certainly is out of date now by reason of the advance of inflation. It may be argued that this Bill is not the right one for amending the provisions of the Factories Act. It is a self-contained reform. I am glad that the Government have continued with the Bill, despite the rough edges and anomalies which are inevitably created by this sort of measure, and I hope they will be sympathetic when we come to arguing the question of penalties.
There is another point which concerns us and which we should like the noble Lord to answer. As the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum reveals, the Government propose to spend, in real terms, something like 30 per cent. less on this new service than we had originally intended. According to the Memorandum it is going to be £850,000, instead of the £1 million which we proposed two years ago. This is a cut, in real terms, of about one-third. Linked with this there is a proposal to have a smaller number of doctors. Admittedly there is a proposal to provide some additional nursing staff, and having seen nursing staff in industry I would not want to criticise this. I may have missed what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said the nursing staff are going to do. He said that the Government would be having talks with the relevant nursing authority, but surely it would have been reasonable for the Government to decide this before they adopted this solution. Perhaps we can be given some more information on this point, and on the particular ultilisation of nursing staff.
I think we are all inclined—the Government and the rest of us—to underestimate the real size of the need. Some of us remember that when the National Health Service was introduced the view of the cost was grossly out of relation to the reality, and I remember Aneurin Bevan pointing out that none of us knew

237
just how great the needs were. What is proposed now is an important development, but perhaps I may give one example of the kind of situation which makes me wonder whether the numbers are right (I am referring to the numbers of qualified personnel, including doctors) and whether it is right to be saving money. We see reported to-day in the Guardian that work on motorway box girder bridges throughout the country may be halted while checks are made of the risks of lead poisoning. Merely taking into account the number of box girder bridges where people will be working makes one wonder whether the 100 in full-time equivalent will in fact be adequate to monitor and carry out the tests. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on this situation in his reply.
My Lords, these doctors will carry heavy responsibilities, and we certainly wish them all luck; and we wish the new head of the service good fortune. But I suspect that they will have to devote quite a bit of time to further training. This is not a reflection on them: it is the pattern throughout all industry for managers, and certainly for the medical profession, where more and more time is being spent on refresher training on new hazards. Indeed, one hopes they would have the time to learn something about the problems of industrial management and the trade unions. So I make as powerful a plea as I can to the Minister to think again whether the amount of money proposed is enough. I hope that it may be possible to review this and if the numbers are not adequate that at an early stage the necessary recruitment will be done.
There are other matters which some of my noble friends will be raising but I want to deal with a subject which is close to my heart; and in this matter I would draw attention to the views of the British Medical Association and other bodies who have expressed fears that the introduction of this new service will have certain deleterious effects. I do not myself necessarily wish to give credence to these fears, but it will be helpful to have assurances. Anxiety has particularly been expressed that the creation of E.M.A.S.— the employment medical advisory service—under the Ministry of Labour may make more difficult the development of proper occupational
238
health provision. There is a fear that what is proposed here will perpetuate another point that has been made; that is, the isolation of the person valuable to limited occupational health services from the mainstream of medicine. I do not necessarily go along with these criticisms, but they need to be met and therefore I should like to say a few words about occupational health.
My Lords, quite a high proportion of industry has some form of medical service backing, although the quality and extent of it vary a great deal. The best firms have developed it to an extent where it provides not only valuable service to the employees but also valuable help to management. In one way or another such industrial health schemes, paid for by the firm, in my experience pay for themselves; and perhaps I may speak briefly on this matter from my own experience. I make no apologies for referring to my experience when I was on the Board and concerned with personnel management of the John Lewis Partnership, although I may say that I have no connection with that organisation to-day and therefore do not declare an interest.
Partly from principle and partly from the fact that there were no equity outside shareholders, the John Lewis Partnership did not shrink from spending money in fields where they thought it was important to the happiness of the workers, but the important thing is that I am quite sure that the spending of money on medical health added to the profitability of the business. Indeed, I myself found good medical backing essential to good personnel management. Each branch had its own medical sister; the smaller ones were visited regularly, and there was at least one first-class senior doctor (and sometimes two) who was fully integrated and working in the personnel department yet at the same time retained full professional independence. I found that a large number of individual personnel problems at all levels—at management or shop floor level, and including industrial work as well as department stores—had some medical angle. Sometimes it was of a psychological kind, and even when there was no pathological condition the advice of the medical side was absolutely invaluable in particular cases because of the additional communication that it supplied, the fact that the medical and

239
personnel side met regularly, and in some cases daily. While the medical side were strictly enjoined to preserve proper medical confidence, they were always able to give good advice, aided by a certain detachment from direct management responsibility.
So often when an individual's work falls off it is not due just to wickedness but is due to some specific reason, and sometimes the medical side can provide a clue. The falling-off might be due to health reasons; it might possibly be due to the development of some serious and slow-acting chronic condition; it might be due to family reasons. But at least the consultations provide management with the essential information and the worker with an opportunity of protection, provided that there is strict control in management. Another important point that we always had in mind was that people should not be sacked for medical reasons that were not true; nobody should be sacked without a doctor's certifying a true medical reason. This has some bearing on the Industrial Relations Act. Sometimes medical treatment was called for; sometimes it was an extra period of leave; sometimes even a bonus; sometimes a "rocket"—all sorts of things.
May I make this point to the noble Lord? I realise that he was not dealing with an occupational health service, but he slightly implied that an occupational health service, as understood by some people, involved treatment. It will be the minor treatment that it is proper to give on the spot for a minor ailment. But the important thing is the close cooperation that will be possible with the National Health Service. It can be of assistance to the general practitioner, as well as reducing some of the time that is wasted through people having to queue up for some relatively minor ailment. I regard this as a very important field of development. Furthermore, doctors and sisters were able not merely to judge whether there was any "lead-swinging"; they were very often able to judge that a person ought not to be at work at all when he or she was still struggling to stay there. This brings me to another point in the Bill to which we may want to return at a later stage. Some firms have very good sick pay schemes; they pay full rates and take into account bonus and
240
overtime earnings. But there are not many such firms. We may want to look to see whether the existing provisions for compensation for time off are adequate.
I have stressed that such a medical service should not in any way replace the National Health Service; it will be complementary to it. I apologise to the House for taking up time on this aspect, but I have been wanting to say this in this House for a very long time, because in my experience it is a matter of the greatest importance. In some ways I would say that we could press on further within the Government service, and I am bound to say that the Civil Service gets some very fine doctors. It was one of the areas in which, had I remained in office, I was intending to bring more pressure. Indeed, my last act as a Minister was to write a Minute on this point. Some of the causes célebres I had to deal with as a Minister arose from decisions which had been taken many years before. If the right medical advice had been available at the time, it would have avoided endless trouble for particular individuals. In industry, there is, for example, the problem of girls' having illegitimate babies—the sort of case that can be picked up quickly by the medical side and help given. I appreciate that there could be a danger of a degree of duplication, and therefore it would need to be tied in very closely; this again brings in the question of boundaries and correlation with the National Health Service.
I think industry ought to pay for a good part of it, but certainly I hope that such a service would come under the general direction of the National Health Service. The time lost in this area of industrial ill-health is vastly greater, as the noble Lord knows, than anything lost through strikes. I am bound to say that progress in this field would have been infinitely more valuable than the Government's wretched Industrial Relations Act. Fifty to a hundred times the amount of time lost through strikes is lost through ill-health in industry. It is interesting to see from the report of the Office of Health Economics the extent to which this problem also relates to management. Of those never sick, 96 per cent. said that they enjoyed their jobs, while only 46 per cent. of those frequently sick did so; 18 per cent. of those frequently sick said that they disliked their jobs, and only 2 per cent. Of

241
those who were never sick disliked their jobs. This, therefore, is an important issue for management.
It would be tempting to go into the work of people like Herzberg in this field, but I will refrain. I do not, of course, expect the Government to announce a national occupational health service today (and I appreciate that the previous Government decided to go ahead with this small but important measure, and I appreciate that it will call for extra medical services), but I hope very much that they will indicate that the steps they have taken will not preclude the development in due course of a national occupational health service of the kind which is being increasingly recognised as necessary. My Lords, I am sorry to have taken so long, but this Bill is of interest. We certainly hope to see it on the Statute Book, but it is likely that at the Committee stage we shall want to move some Amendments, and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to them.
4.47 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the extremely clear way in which he has explained the purpose of this Bill. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the very interesting way he has spoken about a great deal in the Bill. He said a number of things which I might have said not quite so well and concisely; so I shall be able to cut down my remarks to your Lordships quite considerably, which is probably an advantage. Before I begin to comment on the Bill I wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in paying tribute to the work of the factory doctors for the very valuable work they have done in the past.
When I read this Bill I was rather disappointed in it, because I was hoping that it might contain something which would lead to the foundation of a comprehensive national occupational health and hygiene service. What I mean by that is I think probably accepted by everybody. Roughly it can be divided into two parts. The service should begin in the supervision of the work environment and study of the effect on health, at the same time—and this is what is done now very well—making an assessment of the individual's fitness to perform certain work without harm to himself or to others. On the
242
supposition that that is accepted, it seems to me rather surprising that the present Bill should set up a service to work under the Department of Employment and Productivity, even though only for the time being, rather than as part of the National Health Service.
I was very pleased indeed to hear that contacts are going to be very close between the two services, but one would have liked to see this become part of the National Health Service. In that event it would be far easier to exchange information about disabled people, sick people and the like than is possible with two separate services. But it is of great advantage that the reports of the school health service will be available to the youth employment service so that they will know what kind of work a disabled person can do and something about his past history. I think that will be very encouraging, and I am pleased to see it. But are we waiting, then, for the reorganisation of the National Health Service before bringing in occupational health? I quite realise that this is not a question for the Department for which the noble Lord is responsible, but I wonder whether he could give me an answer to it, because I have talked to your Lordships on more than one occasion about the existence in various Government Departments of little health services which exist by themselves. One thought when the National Health Service first came into being in 1948 that it would mean that those services would be gradually absorbed, but I do not think they have been.
In commenting on the 50 new doctors, I should like to inquire, with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whether they are going to be given special training—that is, these more or less full-time doctors—before they start their work. I should also like to ask, with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, what is going to become of the nurses. What are they really for? Are they going to work by themselves, or are they going to work with the doctors? I wonder whether the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, could say a word about it. What I am not quite sure about—and what I heard a moment or two ago did not make it any clearer—is whether this occupational service will be done on an industry basis, as I should think it surely must, and not on a

243
regional basis. One must get similarity between the services available for the various industries. There may be a difference between the regions, and the various industries there would get a different service.
There are two further points to which I should like to refer. One is post-graduate training. Three universities have departments of occupational medicine and three others use their departments of social medicine for that—and there I thought of the University of Dundee for I saw in The Times to-day that they are engaged in work on a disease called "farmer's lung". I am sure that that is where the occupational health service can become a great preventive factor in medicine, although not for a vast number of people; but it can control a certain number of diseases, and I am thinking particularly of the processes which can lead to cancer. I saw a rather sad thing in a report the other day: 39 new cases of cancer of the scrotum have been notified during the past 12 months. This form of cancer is almost entirely caused in the beginning by contact with hot oil from mule spin-flings. It is a form of cancer which should not occur at all now, and one can say that there were 39 totally unnecessary cancers. One hopes that when this service gets going there will be very tight control on processes that can lead to cancer.
There are just two further points. I see that the C.E.M.A. can carry out surveys. I take it that the employers cannot appeal against paying the costs of the surveys, and that if a medical officer considers that a survey is necessary he will be able to decide when and where the tests are to be carried out. Perhaps the noble Lord could just make that quite clear. Finally, I think that one or two of the sections or clauses of the Treaty of Rome refer to the importance of preventives occupational medical services. One finds that in some of the European countries they have occupational health services. They are not the same as we have, but they do have services which contain factors from which we could learn, and it might be worth while finding out what are the first-class points in the foreign services and adopting them into our own service. Apart from those
244
few words, I am very pleased indeed o support the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.55 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his clear exposition of this Bill, and especially for his going into the previous history of what one might call, in the widest sense, industrial medicine, which I had not fully understood on reading the Bill. I understand that in this instance considerable consultation has taken place with the medical profession, both by this Government and by the previous Government, who were planning a Bill of this kind. I understand that, on the whole, the profession is satisfied that the provisions are for the good of the health of the individual in industry.
Having said that, I should like to comment briefly on three matters. In the first place, I would ask the noble Lord, in his reply, to say something about the reaction of the medical profession to the question of confidentiality. I am a little worried, and a little surprised, about Clause 1(6) where it says:
"It shall he the duty of every local education authority … to furnish, on the application of an employment medical adviser, such particulars of the school medical record … as the adviser may reasonably require …"
The subsection goes on to say that the adviser may only use the particulars for his own purposes, and that they may not be disclosed to anyone else without the consent of the person concerned. I am a little worried about this, as we are with all aspects of confidentiality at the present time, when records can be so easily kept, maintained and discovered by computer methods, and so on.
All kinds of things may happen to people in infancy, in adolescence, and so forth, which should not follow them for the rest of their lives. I am not merely thinking of delinquency which, after all, is a phase which some young people go through and come out of perfectly well; I am thinking of the kind of person whose doctor once found a murmur in his heart, which probably long ago has been proved to be quite an innocent murmur but which is nevertheless in his records for all time. A quick look through the record would disclose this. Perhaps an entry may be found, "query epilepsy" where the child has had some little attack that nobody

245
quite understands. Is he starting epilepsy? The doctor writes, "query epilepsy", and it is on the child's records for the rest of his life. It can have two ill effects. I have already stated one; that is, that it may influence people where it should really have been washed out long ago. The other is that the more we know that our records may be looked at by other people, the less shall we put down in them. You hesitate to make quite rude remarks about patients—which I have put on their notes from time to time—if you think that they will be made available to all kinds of other people.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, who is on a very interesting point? I must say that, as one who has been a personnel manager, I would never have expected to see medical records, and would regard it as quite wrong to do so. That is why I hope that the professional standards of the doctors involved will safeguard them.
LORD PLATT: Yes, my Lords. I fully understand that, and I fully understand that my own records will be sent to another doctor if I move away to another district: but that other doctor to whom they will be sent will be a person of my own choice, whose sole business it will be to look after me and my interests. But there is nothing in the Bill to say that the records shall be sent only by permission of the person concerned. It is stated that they cannot be shown to anybody else without permission, but they can be, and must be, supplied if the employment medical advisory doctor asks for them. It may be that I am making too much of this, and I am quite prepared to hear that people think I am, but it seems to me that the Government might look again at the wording. If it were simply stated that the employment medical advisory doctor may request the school medical service to furnish a report on aspects which might influence the employment of a person, that would be a safer form of wording than just asking for the whole of the records to be passed on. That is my first point on which I should like a little clarification, and I should like Her Majesty's Government to think a little more about the wording of that part of the Bill.
246
Secondly, I should like to add my little praise and compliment to many of the appointed factory doctors of the past, and to inquire whether any kind of compensation will be offered to them for the loss of their jobs. I believe that many of them act only in a comparatively small, part-time capacity and no doubt their loss of income will not be too serious. But others have given a considerable amount of time to the factory service, and I wonder whether the Government have it in mind to provide some kind of compensation for them. My third point, which has been adequately covered by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, concerned what we really need to aim at; that is, a proper national occupational health service closely combined with, and in fact part of, the National Health Service.
5.3 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I should like to extend a general welcome to this Bill, but I regret that it has been divorced from the more comprehensive Bill on general health and safety measures which was presented by the last Government. My welcome goes only so far, because there are quite a number of matters about which we shall want further explanation before this Bill finally passes through your Lordships' House. I hope that the Government will not present any difficulties about getting on the Statute Book Mr. Hattersley's Private Bill, which comprises the second part of the Bill which the last Government proposed and which has now had its Second Reading. May I say at the outset that, if I do not get the 6.20 p.m. train from Kings Cross to York, I shall be very late in getting home, so I hope that I shall be acquitted of any discourtesy if I leave before the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, winds up.
I listened with very great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said about the additional doctors who will be appointed to this service. He said that, including the present 50 doctors under the Factories Act, this Bill will bring the number of full-time doctors up to only 78, with 42 part-time doctors. The Bill gives the impression that there will be at least 50 additional doctors appointed. Of course there will be additional doctors, but the difference between part-time and full-time is very material indeed.

247
I was also very interested in the noble Lord's definition of the regions. I completely share the approach of my noble friend Lord Shackleton on this matter. If we want properly to safeguard the health of the workers in the type of structure which trade unions and others are bringing about, then this service should definitely be linked up with the National Health Service as a whole. One could see complications when the noble Lord said that the eight regions would coincide with those of the Department of Employment, and not with those of the National Health Service.
He spoke about the close relationship which there will be between the advisory service and the Health Service. It is only in London and the North-East that the present factory inspectorate has its own laboratories, and it appears that the rest of the country will he sharing laboratories with the National Health Service. This appears to be a weakness in the Bill because, according to Clause 1, the main function of the service is to inform and advise the Secretary of State on matters concerning the safeguarding and improvement of the health of employed persons. That clause also enables the Secretary of State to
"… investigate or assist in the investigation of problems arising in connection with any such matters … and … to maintain … laboratories and other services".
When I heard the noble Lord speak in the way he did I recalled how, in the past, when we have tried to interpret various Acts of Parliament, we found escape clauses which did not represent exactly what we thought.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton pointed out that there is a reduction of some 30 per cent. in what we suggested previously, bringing the figure down to £850,000. Offset against that, it is expected that there will be £100,000 coming by way of receipts. That therefore reduces the Government expenditure to a figure of £750,000, which is a quarter of a million less than we had visualised. If one takes into consideration what should be involved by reason of this Bill, one very definitely queries the financial approach of the Government in this matter.
Will this amount be sufficient for the important lines of investigation into pollution and into the other matters that are
248
industrial hazards? For instance, my noble friend Lord Shackleton referred to the box girder bridge trouble that they have down in Bristol at the present moment, at Avonmouth. The union has had to take out an injunction before the Bristol magistrates to prevent any further work taking place on these box bridges until proper breathing apparatus is provided and there are proper means of ventilation. One would have thought that, bearing in mind the development that we were hoping to see, this was the type of thing into which the service itself would have been conducting researches and investigations, through its laboratories and in other ways.
It is mentioned that 110 nurses and secretarial staff will be appointed. I think we are entitled to a little further explanation as to the type and nature of the duties which these secretaries and additional staff are going to perform, because the usefulness of this scheme in itself, in my submission, rests upon additional research taking place into many of the hazards that there are in connection with our industrial life at the present moment. The Schedules to the Bill define certain types of additional developments, as it were, which are covered by the terms of the Bill. I make just two suggestions that may already be covered—and I am subject to correction here. I wonder whether railway shops could be brought within the purview of the Bill. One understands how difficult it is to get the Factories Acts to operate in so far as railway shops are concerned. Some little changes have taken place in recent years with which I am not fully acquainted, but I think that such places as railway shops should be covered. I know there is not so much lead poisoning to-day, with diesel engines, as compared with the days when we had the old steam engines; but in the paint shops and elsewhere there is still the difficulty of lead poisoning, which is covered by these provisions. I would also ask whether lorry drivers will come within the purview of this particular service, because the fumes and so on are very injurious indeed to health.
As to the argument that we should await the issue of the Report of Lord Robens on safety and health at work, I hope that this Bill will not be used to delay the implementation of anything that that Report may ultimately recommend.

249
One knows that the question of these occupational health services has been very seriously considered, and it is not a matter about which one can expect a Report quickly; but I sincerely hope that this Bill will not in any way jeopardise any recommendations that might be made in that Report. Then there is the question of expenses for employees who have to attend for medical examination. The Bill says that
"travelling or subsistence allowances or such compensation for loss of earnings"
will be paid. What might that loss of earnings be? One can understand that the travelling and subsistence allowances may be in accordance with the appropriate scales, but I hope the Government will be a little more forthright in telling us exactly what the payment for "loss of earnings" will be. Will it be base rates, or will it be the gross earnings for the time the person is away on these duties? There is a big difference here, and it is a difference which can arouse quite a lot of controversy in this particular matter.
My Lords, the last point I want to make—and it is an extremely difficult one, I accept at once—is that the Bill lays down a fine of £20 for anyone obstructing an inspector. This is all linked up so very carefully and closely with the Factories Act; and in the other place, when efforts were made to bring more reality to this question of a fine on anyone who obstructs an inspector in this direction, all kinds of excuses were made. I thought it was deplorable when I read that the Minister of State in another place said:
"In the Fire Precautions Act, the fine for obstructing an inspector is £50; in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill, which is currently before the House, the fine for obstructing a water bailiff is £100; in the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956 it will be £100".
My Lords, surely it is not in accordance with your Lordships' desire that a man who is catching salmon or trout and who obstructs a water bailiff should be liable to a fine of £100, and yet in the case of anyone who obstructs the operation of these provisions where a person is seeking such medical attention as is necessary the fine is limited to £20. Surely, in this day and age this House will not agree to that. I suggest that there will be some Amendments coming along here.
250
If I may digress for just a moment, I remember a case many years ago in which a signalman on the railway, working on a Sunday night—his box closed at 12.30 a.m. and opened again at 3 a.m.—booked off and took the opportunity to go into a plantation and steal a pheasant. He got a pheasant. He was up before "the beaks", and he was sentenced to six months. He appealed, and of course the sentence was quashed. At that selfsame court a few months later, before the same set of magistrates, a farmer was charged with adulterating milk and was fined £2. Here we have a £20 fine for obstructing something intended to prevent a real danger to health, and yet for netting salmon the fine is £100. I see that in the Committee stage in the other place £75 was mentioned so far as a pheasant is concerned. I am certain that justice will be done in this House, and that this anomaly will be corrected. I am certain that we shall have a good deal to say about that point.
I generally welcome the provisions of the Bill. My only regret is that it does not go as far as I should like, but I think it is a step in the right direction. We must pay more attention to the health of people engaged in industry. We all know of the great number of days lost through injuries to workpeople incurred in industrial conditions, many of which are probably inherent, and it is necessary that research should take place to obviate them. We have only to compare public reaction to the (shall I call it?) slaughter consequent upon industrial injuries and compare it with the public outcry and excitement associated with a national disaster such as a main-line railway accident. Surely, in 1972 it is time that we approached this matter on different lines. I generally welcome this Bill.
5.21 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, like all speakers before me I give this Bill a welcome, albeit qualified, as the intervention which I made earlier will show and as I hope to show later in my speech. It seems to me that the Bill can be described as a good little Bill, a nice little Bill but not a very revolutionary Bill. It reshuffles some duties and reinforces some powers—and I agree with the noble Lord that the penalties are probably inadequate. It gives a new name for an old

251
service. The only snag I find is that it is introduced (I say this with great respect to my noble friend) by the wrong Minister. I should have preferred to see the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, introducing this Bill and seeing to it that the Secretary of State, who is not named in the Bill, is the Secretary of State for the Social Services. For the last 22 years the question of occupational health service has been a bee in my bonnet. The bee is quite long in the tooth now, and I have already allowed it out for a flight round your Lordships' House on a previous occasion. You must forgive me if this elderly bee has another run for its money this afternoon.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Dale Committee on the industrial health service reported 21 years and one month ago and the Report was warmly welcomed in all quarters. If I may, I will quote from that Report. It said:
"For the most beneficial development of the National Health Service, public health services and industrial health services must be co-ordinated."
Twenty-one years and one month later, absolutely nothing has happened except for the setting up in 1954 of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee, referred to by my noble friend, and this little Bill, which I think the doctors would describe as a placebo to keep us quiet for a little time. My noble friend said that there is going to be co-operation, collaboration and co-ordination—I think those were the words he used—with the National Health Services. My Lords, these are three blessed Whitehall words to cover a multitude of sins or nothing at all.
What is really important is the ultimate Ministerial responsibility. The achievement so far is not what the Dale Report asked for. We all know that to-day we do not have an occupational health service; we do not have—and shall not have, as a result of this Bill—a framework, or even a skeleton of one. We do not have the Ministerial backing. In another place the Bill was described as "a focus for the development of occupational medicine". This, like those other words, is a fine phrase which can mean anything or nothing. I think it is a piece of jargon at this stage. But I must make my position clear. No one can expect a nation-wide occupational health service
252
to come about overnight, or even in the course of a generation. We do not have the resources; it will be a long time before we have them. To some extent an occupational health service, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and other speakers have said, has happened of itself and it will grow of itself.
I would go further and say that there are few firms of any size, standing or repute who do not provide such a service. Why? They do not do it for any other reason than the fact that it is beneficial and profitable—which for me is the best of all reasons, saving the remarks of the noble Lord who seems to think that if you did not have equity shareholders you could not have an industrial health service. I was brought up in a firm which had elaborate occupational facilities. For this reason I wish to see these extended.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has misinterpreted what I said. I merely pointed out that it is easier to spend money freely on employees if all the money goes to them anyway. I am not attacking the equity principle, nor would I agree that there is anything approaching an occupational health service in most firms.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I said most firms "of any size". I realise the difficulties for small firms; but I will willingly withdraw anything that I have said to which the noble Lord takes exception. I only know that in a firm entirely owned by equity shareholders we pursued an occupational health service a very long way. Meanwhile, the E.M.A.S. is all we have. My only complaint is not that it is itself inadequate or inefficient, but that it will never develop further when it is in the hands of the wrong Department.
I studied all the debates in another place, and when the matter was raised there an assurance was given (which my noble friend repeated to-day) that nothing in this Bill prejudices the issue of what arrangements might be most appropriate in the long run for occupational medicine. Then, in a most illuminating passage, we were told that these matters were fully discussed with the Minister concerned. I should have liked to be a fly on the wall during those conversations and to know why the Department of Health has been defeated in taking the responsibility for this Bill—because

253
I am sure that it would like to have it. Is there any reason why responsibility cannot be transferred? It is not a very large part of the Department of Employment and Productivity, and it would be very simple to integrate it into the Department of Health and Social Services at the present time. I would point out that my interruption during the speech of my noble friend was illustrative of this.
There are, I think, 13 or 14 Regional Boards in this country. There are to be 8 under the Department of Employment and Productivity. I have a feeling that the boundaries are not going to be coincident at any stage. We have never been given a good reason why responsibility should not be transferred forthwith. I suppose we shall be told that it must wait until the reorganisation of the National Health Service is complete; but I must remind your Lordships that that reorganisation has been in train for eight years and we have still another two years to go before the necessary Bill is passed. No doubt we shall then be told that the moment is not ripe and that we ought to give the National Health Service time to settle down.
The fact is, my Lords, that under the Consultative Document, and under the Act which will ensue, the National Health Service is going to be revolutionised. If we are to have a revolution we might as well go the whole hog. If your Lordships will look at the Consultative Document you will realise that it is going to set up area health authorities—which is a revolutionary concept, far more revolutionary than anything contained in that rather conservative Act of 1948. We may disagree—some of us do—about the duties and composition of the area health authorities and some of the consequences which may flow from their being set up. Most will accept it in principle as a new concept. The area health authority assumes responsibility for all public health, all general medical services, all hospital services—but not occupational health. This one curious little empire in St. James's Square survives intact; I wish I could find out why. To go back to the area health authorities, I would remind my noble friend that the National Health Service is at the moment the largest single employer in the country. In many of the
254
areas the health authority will be one of the biggest employers. It will have this vast range of health services, but it will not have anything to do with occupational services.
My Lords, if I may digress for a moment, before I heard the lucid speech of my noble friend I thought it might be as well if I found out more about this Bill which does not tell one what it contains in the way of functions and duties. So I furnished myself—not for the first time—with a brief from the Conservative Central Office which I found cogent, lucid and helpful. It sets out the ten main duties to be undertaken by the E.M.A.S. Seven of those already exist; one is a follow-up to the school health service, and there are two apparently new ones, so far as I can ascertain. The first is liaison with general practitioners, hospital staff, works medical officers and others interested in occupational medicine. The other is medical advice to general practitioners in connection with their patients' work. Those two functions, my Lords, are part of the National Health Service, and this makes it the more mysterious to me why the new area Health Authorities are not to have this extra function tacked on to them. It may be that, for some reason about which my noble friend will tell us, it is not the right moment. I might point out that the Department is being examined, I think by McKinsey, the efficiency experts, to see what its duties should be under the new set-up. I should have thought this the right moment to make a categorical declaration that on the appointed day the duties will be taken over by the Department of Health and Social Security. We cannot afford any longer the fragmentation of medical resources which, unfortunately, is implied in this Bill.
5.32 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, I find myself in the most unusual position of being able to say that I entirely agree with everything he has said. I got a little confused when he embarked on something about equity shares, which I did not realise was relevant to this debate. I am glad that he and I are not enthusiastic about the Bill. Indeed, I regard it as a puny measure quite unfitted

255
to be related to the most important subject which we are discussing; namely, the health of the workers of this country. I regard it as an emasculated version of the Bill which the former Government introduced and it impresses me only because of what is omitted.
My Lords, to-night I shall deal particularly with the provisions which were included in the last Bill, designed to decrease the number of accidents in industry. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, have talked about safety in industry, and I should like to remind the House that we have had years of propaganda by organisations concerned with accident prevention. Yet this Bill, which purports to be a preventive measure, fails even to provide for safety committees representative of the workers and management. I have always felt that only the workers and management can discuss the details of preventive machinery and defective organisation in their own factories.
Other figures have been quoted, but I want to put on record again that why I consider it a failure not to include safety in the Bill may be judged by the fact that in 1970—these are the latest figures we have—the number of fatal accidents was 556 and the number of notified nonfatal accidents was 304,595. Unhappily, many accidents which are legally notifiable are not notified. It is common for a doctor to have a patient come into the surgery or to have to treat the victim of an accident, and, when he asks whether the accident has been notified, for the patient to say, "No, I cannot be bothered." The only encouraging feature in this ugly picture is the existence of the good employer; and indeed the good employer does exist. In my opinion the factory inspector is gravely inadequate but the best firms set a standard which is unsurpassed in any other country. Therefore, the objective should be to exercise control over the bad employers. It is among the people who run the factory, or manage the mine, or control chemical reactions that we find the guilty men.
I am not speaking simply from academic knowledge. For many years I was the Member of Parliament for an industrial constituency in the North and the factories and the work carried on
256
there are absolutely familiar to me. I should like to draw to the attention of noble Lords from Wales an article which appeared last week in the Western Mail, in which it was stated:
"Accidents in work which result in absence from work happen at the rate of two every working minute, and many of them can result in a claim for injury or disablement benefit."
Investigations by the Consumer Campaign, one of those organisations which devotes itself to investigating these matters, show that getting your entitlement can cause more or as much distress as the accident. Yet, my Lords, the Industrial Injuries Fund amounts to £350 million. We are still dragging our feet over our treatment of these people, for the most part inarticulate, who are injured in our factories. I am glad to see that a noble Lord who hails from Wales is listening to me, for the problem is particularly acute in Wales which has the highest rate for industrial accidents and disease of any region in the country.
This indifference, which other noble Lords have mentioned and which I am stressing, is reflected in this Bill for which we have waited, and which entirely ignores these matters. It does not mention the question of safety or accidents. That inclines me to think that there are those in authority who have the, "I'm all right, Jack", approach. They think, "It cannot happen to me"; and indeed it cannot happen to them. We go on, as one noble Lord has said. Twenty years ago we had a specific Statement on this question and parliamentarians believed then that a measure would soon be introduced. But here we are to-day, my Lords, with this miserable little Bill dealing with this very important subject, and we get no further. What excuse is given? Yes, my Lords, an excuse is given. It is that we must wait for yet one more report, although the shelves in the offices of various organisations up and down the country are crammed with reports on the studies and recommendations on the subject which have been made over the years.
One of the latest and, in my opinion, one of the most important, comes from the researchers at the National Institute of Industrial Psychology and consists of an in depth study of more than 2,000 accidents. This very important Report describes the situation in which accidents are the result of the way work is carried

257
out and the lack of communication between employers and workers. Who will read it? Unfortunately, few people, apart from those concerned in management, will read this important piece of research. They are interested only in keeping on the right side of the law. They will leave the problem of safety at work and the prevention of accidents to some hard-pressed juniors who have little time or inclination to read such reports; and so no doubt to save face this will be introduced into the factory and perhaps put on a shelf where it will collect dust. This apathy concerning the safety of the workers is responsible for the high incidence of accidents—apathy, lack of interest by those who are there on the spot and who should be showing more interest. Yet the penalty for this callous disregard for those in their employment is entirely inadequate: the maximum fine for criminal negligence is only £300. We have heard tonight of the inadequate fines: but that is the maximum for criminal negligence, for risking the life and health—permanent health—of a worker in one's factory.
In this House we have over the years had some interesting debates, generally on Unstarred Questions, regarding industrial accidents and diseases. I remember a most interesting debate, initiated by my noble friend Lord Taylor, on deafness in factories. In the constituency in which I worked, workers came to see me on Friday nights, some of them men of 40 or 45, who could not hear me when I spoke to them in a normal voice. I had to shout at them. I would say, "You should not be deaf at your age", and the answer I received was often to the effect, "Oh, my father went deaf too, and he was employed in the same factory." There was this sort of fatalism. Premature deafness is a serious disability—
A NOBLE LORD: Hear, hear!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: —about which most employers are entirely indifferent. I think we should all be glad, and particularly the noble Lord who said, "Hear, hear!", to learn that Mr. Justice Ashworth last week ruled that an employer was responsible for a worker's deafness because that deafness arose out of the man's employment. At last we have heard a voice of authority on the subject.
258
This ruling, I am glad to say, will alert the bad firm more effectively than a hundred debates in Parliament, for the only way to get some employers to protect their workmen is to inflict a penalty which will seriously reduce their profits.
From the Bill I see that economies are to be effected. In this puny little measure they have decided to reduce the number of doctors overall and to introduce 12 nurses—although people disagree about this number. I feel that the medical profession will be very shocked to hear that nurses are to be a substitute for doctors. I am not at all shocked by the substitution of nurses for doctors. If it is necessary to economise in doctors, I would give a few hundred capable nurses a course in industrial medicine and hygiene and let them invade our dirty, inefficiently-run factories, and allow the knowledge, experience and social conscience of these splendid women full rein. The noble Lord talked about training. We already know that under the Bill the doctor in a factory is not there to give treatment. It will be quite possible to teach these conscientious women the kind of things that they should know when they go into these factories. Perhaps we might have a revolutionary change.
It has been said again and again—it was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate; and indeed I find it very difficult to understand—that although the Bill is concerned with the health of workers, its provisions are going to be administered by the Department of Employment rather than by the Department of Health and Social Security which possesses a wealth of knowledge and expertise. When I listened to the noble Lord who opened the debate talking about the extra laboratories and facilities which would have to be established in the administration of this Bill, I was astonished. My Lords, they are all there. What a gross waste of public money it is to transfer the provisions of this Bill away from the Health Service to a Service attached to the Department of Employment. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, said about this: what Ministerial or Civil Service brain could sit round a table and suggest such stupidity? If we have a vast National Health Service which is the admiration of the world, to set up another Service and administer it

259
by another Department and expect them to build more laboratories to serve it, is sheer stupidity. It was as long ago as 1961 that the Medical Services Review Committee recommended, as the noble Lord said, a comprehensive occupational Health Service as an integral part of the National Health Service. It is not a question of our debating this only to-day: this has been discussed ad nauseam over the years in committee room after committee room.
My final word about this Bill is this. My fear is that by passing this miserable little Bill and putting it on the Statute Book we are giving those people who are dragging their feet another excuse to prevent the bringing in of a comprehensive medical health service in this country which is what the country urgently needs.
5.47 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, it has been a pleasure to listen to this debate. I have enjoyed every speech that I have listened to: they have been very authoritative. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, that I agree with everything he said because I know of his experience in this area. Like other noble Lords and the noble Baroness who has just spoken, I welcome the Bill and I like the use of the word "placebo" which has been applied to it, because nothing very much happens when a placebo is used during clinical trials. Nevertheless we shall welcome the Bill and I hope that during the Committee stage this House will work to improve it and to give it some "spikes". Like the noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Platt, who spoke with great authority and professional knowledge, I can omit a number of points from my speech which therefore need not be too long. That will please your Lordships' House.
I hope that we shall not talk all the time about Europe or the Common Market. We had certain commitments particularly in relation to the International Labour Organisation, long before the Common Market, and we were pioneers in industrial and trade union legislation. When I worked as a Minister in the 1964 Parliament, I had first-hand experience of the Industrial Injuries Act and of diseases such as pneumoconiosis, asbestosis and the new types of diseases afflicting workers due to the rapid development
260
of modern technology. It was my duty to go all over the country in connection with these health matters and I visited the marvellous pneumoconiosis centre at Euston. Here, may I pay a tribute to those doctors who have given such devoted service in relation to diseases of the lung.
We have regulations for the factory, but we have to remember that sometimes hazards arise in the kitchen. The housewife is often forgotten. Let me give an illustration to your Lordships. When I was a Minister we had a case of a housewife who died after eight months' exposure to asbestos. Asbestosis is a killer. Her husband was a docker; he had been shifting asbestos in the docks. Her only contact with asbestos was that she had regularly to clean his clothes, his trousers and turn-ups, and that girl died within 18 months from cancer and asbestosis. In other words, there is a job of work to be done here and these hazards have to be watched by the new Factory Inspectorate.
We should push home to the public, and remember it ourselves when we are talking about strikes, that for every day lost through strikes 10 days are lost through industrial injury diseases. For every day lost by strikes, a hundred days are lost through illness. Consequently, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton and the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, indicated, there is an economic credit in forthright progressive firms seeing that they have first-class occupational therapy and first-class doctors working in their factories, because even from the acquisitive point of view there is a return. This Bill—and it was very difficult to get this measure: I do not know why—grew out of a report by a sub-committee of the industrial health advisory committee. This sub-committee was established in November, 1964—you see we are a long way off and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.
The sub-committee's terms of reference were to review the appointed factory doctor service and to make recommendations. I will not bore the House by reading masses of the recommendations, because the House is well informed, but it will not hurt to recap a little. They said that the factory doctor service needed polishing. It is true that the medical examinations of young persons are to be looked at to save wastage on the use of

261
doctors. There was also the matter of the medical examination of adults and the duties, organisations and powers of a reform service—we have had some of that in this Bill. The extension of arrangements to premises other than those covered by the Factory Acts were also included in the terms of reference. There was a summary of about 32 recommendations at the end of that sub-committee's report. They had five sittings to produce this report. I wish the Bill that the Labour Government introduced in another place before the Election had had a run for its money and had been brought into effect, because, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill mentioned, it covered the safety aspects.
I want to ask a question about the laboratories. I was delighted that two noble Lords referred to them. There is no natural boundary for the setting up of these laboratories. Some committee should be established to see that money is not wasted by the Department of Employment, building monstrosities that look like match boxes with glass and steel around them, and setting up expensive instrumentation. I know something about the equipment in laboratories because I have an interest in very expensive equipment in laboratories that make pharmaceuticals and drugs. Some of these instruments, and some of these modern machines—and there is a brand new one for measuring the micrograms of lead in human blood—are expensive.
I suggest that we have a good look at this aspect before we talk of building new laboratories. We should support our universities and give them a good sum of money to expand their present buildings and use the material that they have. I am sure that the Government, over a period of time, could save many millions of pounds by using services that are already there and improving them by way of Government grants; and those benefits could be brought into the occupational service. I should like to make an appeal here. I hope that when the Government look into the centres where they are going to establish the laboratories they will have a "double take". I hope that Wales will have one. I notice that Stoke-on-Trent again is left out. There is a first-class university and a first-class hospital there, with marvellous services. The Potteries area is an island of industry
262
in a sea of agriculture. It has steel and coal, and there are many of the industrial diseases in which the medical profession are interested.
There is another point of paramount importance. My noble friend Lord Popplewell pointed out the paucity of the number of doctors in this field; but this work requires a particular kind of training. My noble friend Lady Phillips was saying yesterday that everybody is always looking into the teaching profession and suggesting changes. It is a fact that the gamut of modern medicine is so great—even the electronic engineer comes in now, with the radioactive isotopes that are used in the operating theatre—that an expert in one area may not be expert in another. I will not name the specialist because he would be ashamed, but I knew a dermatological specialist who failed to diagnose measles in his own child. In other words, he became so specialised. This can happen to a man who has dedicated his life—and it is not a laughing matter; it shows the necessity for a first-class general practitioner who is still at the base of the pyramid of medicine. He should be brought in to co-operate fully and be made to know what is going on in his area in factories and elsewhere. I speak as a person who has a "Guinness record" so far as the Houses of Parliament are concerned. I introduced the biggest Private Bill in the history of Parliament—and I am not saying this; it was said in a report on Private Bills which is extant. I introduced a Bill in the other place on the Gowers Report on safety in industry. It started lots of other Bills, although many people did not acknowledge it, and to-day we should be taking a broader canvas than this little Bill.
I should now like to bring out what I think is a point worthy of note. There are some places where healthy conditions for the eating of food are impossible. A collier has to eat his food sometimes stripped, sometimes naked and sometimes sitting in water and in dust and dirt. There is no beautiful white napery for a miner, or those working on haulage or at the coal face. They have to eat where they are. There are no facilities for human needs, no lavatory accommodation; you cannot have that in a mine. No matter what safety measures or what health measures you introduce, there are

263
certain industries in which it is impossible to introduce complete health measures, and one of them is the industry where the man is cutting coal at the coal face.
Hazards are also growing in farming. The modern young farmer also needs a knowledge of engineering; he is using sharp and keen tools. It will be necessary to bring in country general practitioners and town general practitioners about every quinquennium for a sabbatical together with the occupational therapists, and doctors to have a two months' course at a university to keep up with the new acids, the new combines, the new machines and tools that enter into modern technology. I think some things like this could be introduced. The nation would not be wasting money in letting our general practitioners and other medical people attend these symposia. As a layman although I am not always able to follow the medical terms that are used in discussions, I have had the privilege of listening to symposia, and I have never seen a more keen audience than masses of highly qualified specialists and consultants when they are at these general symposia. Money spent by the Government, rather than by private firms, to encourage this kind of thing over a quinquennial period would be money well spent.
Now, having spoken for nearly ten minutes, I will make my last point. It was sad—I do not know whether Private Eye has been mentioned in the House of Lords before or not—that it was Private Eve who drew the attention of the world to the dumping of cyanide and factory waste. This is a side of this Bill for which the factory doctorate and others should have some responsibility. I can think of nothing more socially irresponsible than factory owners, whoever they are, dumping up and down Britain tons and tons of cyanide and other materials which poison and can destroy life. The fines for doing that should be very heavy indeed. During the Committee stage of the Bill in another place one of the doctors there said that Dr. Faulkner-Hudson, the medical officer of the Imperial Smelting Corporation at the Avonmouth works, made recommendations, but he is quoted as saying that they were not taken up for political, administrative and economic reasons. I
264
do not know what authority that gentleman has to say that, but I hope to goodness that factory inspectors will use their powers when things like this happen and will ensure that a court order is applied for so that during the period of investigation the factory can be shut down. We must give this provision "teeth" for it to be really effective.
I was delighted to hear what was said on the question of noise. All of us now suffer with decibels. When my granddaughter puts the radio on I nearly suffer deafness myself with the modern sounds we get on this machine; it is put on every morning when she gets up. This is the price we are paying for modern technology. A last point. It makes me sad when I think the medical profession made a huge mistake in the Willink Report, which years ago I studied deeply. They limited the number of students going to universities. My noble friend Lady Summerskill, herself a doctor, was nodding her head on this point, and I was glad to see it. Many more doctors are needed. The Health Service is being undermined. Hardworking general practitioners are only human-beings and if they have masses of patients their work cannot be done. More people should be allowed to get into the universities; the doors must be opened. In this way we could double the number of people in the medical profession. I am sure that the talent and love of the job are available if people were given the opportunity to qualify. If we want to make a success of this, the small number of doctors can be increased—and it will take at least ten years to get a good doctor out of this system in which we live—only by opening the doors of the universities and the hospitals to enable more young men—
A NOBLE LORD: And women!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I thank my noble friend—and women, who are devoted, to go into this profession. My Lords, with those moderately brief remarks I welcome the Bill; and, of course, I always welcome the excellent way in which that hard-working Minister opposite brings his case to this House.
6.4 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's last compliment. I feel a bit like a placebo myself now at the Box. The

265
Bill has been welcomed—I am not certain I could say, "with open arms". It has been regarded as too small and not perhaps comprehensive enough. I think it is generally the case that Governments are accused by the Opposition, when the Opposition basically agrees with what they are doing, of not going far enough. So I do not feel unduly depressed by the reception of this Bill. I shall deal with what my noble friend and others said about a much wider conception than this Bill is designed to engender. But may I first of all deal with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I quite understand his regretting that Part II of the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill was not included. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, associated himself with this. But to judge by some of the speeches we have heard to-day, certainly that of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, if it had been included I think we should have been accused of going not nearly far enough in that particular direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me what the Government's attitude was, and I think I cannot do better than quote what my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place. He said:
"The Government are favourably inclined to the underlying objectives of the Bill, but, as I have stressed, they have considerable reservations about the wisdom of introducing its provisions at this time. However, this is a Private Member's Measure and it is up to the House to decide how to treat it"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 4/2/72, col. 883.]
And the House gave it a Second Reading. I do not think I should go further than that because I think exactly the same applies in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord went on to draw to the attention of the House what he described as the startlingly high rate of industrial injuries. He said that it might be two or three or more years before Robens comes into operation. We expect to receive the Robens Report in the summer. As the House will be aware, the noble Lord's Committee have said that the passage of this Bill will in no way interfere with the recommendations that they expect to make and that they regard it as a constructive measure.
The next point the noble Lord made was in regard to the penalty for obstruct-
266
tion—and here again the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, referred to this. He said that the penalty of £20 in the Bill was absurd. The point here is that the penalty for obstruction, in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, is the same as that which applies to obstruction of the factory inspector, and as the Schedule contains a quotation from the Factories Act it is not possible to alter it. It would be awkward, to say the least, to have a much larger penalty in respect of obstructing a medical adviser than in respect of obstructing a factory inspector, say, in the same factory. The two services are so closely linked together that it seems only reasonable that the penalties should be the same. I might mention that the penalty in the case of an occupier causing an obstruction to a medical adviser, or for that matter a factory inspector, is at present £60; and that is not altered in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, then went on to speak of the cost of the Bill, which he said was £850,000 instead of £1 million. One of the reasons for this is the introduction of the selective system of examining young persons. If I remember aright, the original Bill represented a continuation of the system of examining all young persons entering factories. There is also a saving involved on the laboratory side through better co-operation, which is being arranged; I shall come back to that point in a moment or two.
Then he asked me what the nurses whom it was proposed to employ would do; and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also posed this question. I may say that we are not consulting the Royal College of Nursing because we do not know what the nurses should do; we are consulting them in order that we may pool our ideas on this and get the best possible use of the nurses, and the best possible arrangements. What they will be doing is interviewing and assessing young persons identified by the school health service as requiring medical attention; assisting in medical examinations and subsequent supervision; assisting in the periodic examination of workers exposed to toxic and other hazards; advising on the employment problems of disabled persons; assisting in the undertaking of surveys among occupational groups. And, after training, selected nurses may be asked to scrutinise X-rays and to carry

267
out tests as part of survey projects so that the X-rays may be compared with the international standards. They will also be required to participate in professional activities and to keep abreast of current occupational health trends. They may have to travel, and to visit factories and other places of employment. It looks to me as though they are going to be very fully employed. I mention these points merely to show that this is something that has not escaped attention.
The noble Lord asked whether the numbers we are proposing to have in the service are right and whether they will be adequate to carry out the tests. It is not intended, of course, that they will carry out all the examinations on hazardous occupations. In parts of the country—indeed, perhaps in all parts of the country—it is possible to authorise works medical officers to carry out those particular examinations. It is not proposed to delegate other functions to works medical officers.
As to whether the numbers are right, this really goes into the whole concept of what the service is supposed to be doing, and I think one has to be pretty clear about this. I described it earlier as a detective service. The employment medical advisers will have the responsibility of examining young persons and carrying out the periodical examinations at intervals which vary from two weeks to fourteen months, according to the nature of the processes carried on in the factory. They will be doing that in hazardous occupations. They will also be going into factories where they have good reason to think that there is a danger to health, or that health is being adversely affected; but most of their time is likely to be taken up with the detection work. I think one can conceive of this work best by regarding is as a function which is being carried out by a fairly small group of experts, closely linked throughout the country: finding out where the hazards lie, trying to anticipate casualties, trying to anticipate the possibility of people being affected by those hazards, both in the sphere of the environment and in the sphere of the individual. This will be a painstaking piece of investigation carried out in close co-operation with laboratories to try to improve the general
268
health and to try also to anticipate where dangers may arise and to take the necessary precautions to prevent them.
My Lords, this will be one of the major functions here, and I would say to my noble friend Lord Reigate, who advocates that this should all he brought within the purview of the National Health Service (and this point was mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell), that this is something which has been closely associated with the Factory Inspectorate; it is something which is specialised in that direction. What the noble Lord is asking us to do is to carry out something of a surgical operation and to separate this service altogether from the Factory Inspectorate and bring it into the National Health Service. It is separate, but that is not to say that there will not be the closest possible links. There will be links with the family doctor. Indeed, under the Factories Act at the moment it is necessary for the family doctor to notify the medical service of the Department of Employment of adverse effects on the health of a particular patient which lead the family doctor to suppose that there is something wrong in the factory. This already happens and this close link will be maintained.
There is also a link with the social service side of the Department of Health and Social Security—through the national industrial injuries insurance. If a claim for an industrial disease there is successful, the notification of that claim goes not only to the National Health Service but also to the Department of Employment. This is a closely integrated business and it will be possible to build up data in this way, with the experience of the employment medical advisers, throughout the country. They will each have their own regional teams. In the three places that I mentioned—London, Birmingham and Glasgow—there will be a nucleus of experts who will be able to co-ordinate this work and to give expert advice throughout the country; and at the centre there will be the laboratory, which will be used as a reference laboratory for the service as a whole. Whatever the powers given by the Bill, it is not intended to use those powers to build a large number of new laboratories all over the country for this service. This central laboratory already

269
exists. Apart from that, it is the intention that the National Health Service laboratories shall be used for the normal routine tests, and where the National Health Service is not able to carry out a particular form of test then no doubt it will make use of the universities as well. Also, of course, the universities can be used by individual "factory occupiers", to use the term in the Bill, in order to follow up particular lines of inquiry.
So, my Lords, it seems to me that when we are dealing with the whole question of health in factories and environment in factories, the combination of the Factory Inspectorate and the medical advisers makes a good partnership. It is a partnership which it is better, at any rate at this stage, not to break up; it is better not to take the Employment Medical Advisory Service away, at any rate at this stage, and integrate it with the National Health Service, which is itself at the present time being reorganised.
I was asked a great many questions but I do not want to detain your Lordships too long. Perhaps I may deal with just a few more of them. I was asked about the training of the E.M.A.S. It is of course intended to start with a nucleus of the medical advisers (of whom there are 21) of the medical services branch of the Department of Employment, and then to recruit doctors with higher qualifications or previous practical industrial medical experience, or who hold special qualifications in industrial health or public health. Once they are recruited they will probably serve alongside regional medical advisers and will be attached to the medical advisers so that they can obtain planned experience of their work. There will be courses, academic refresher courses, and they will also be provided with the chief medical adviser's notes of guidance. So there will be a body of people who start with skill and aptitude and will then become specialists in their own range.
The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, referred to the fears expressed by the B.M.A. about these developments and wondered whether it would make it more difficult to develop a proper occupational health service, which, as he said, might take a generation to develop. I think I can give an absolute assurance about that. There is nothing in this Bill or in the organisa-
270
tion it is proposed to set up that would preclude the integration of the service at a later date with the National Health Service if that was considered to be the right thing to do. I think the most that would be required would be a transfer of functions order, nothing else.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, asked whether the service should be organised on an industry and not on a regional basis. To some extent, of course, industries tend to concentrate in certain regions. But I think the one does not preclude the other. Although for administrative reasons the service must be organised on a geographical basis, I do not think there is any contradiction there. The noble Lord asked about surveys and who would pay. They would be paid for by the Department of Employment. He asked about the Treaty of Rome. Some recommendations have been made already under the Treaty of Rome, but recommendations are forms with which each member country should conform according to its own habits and legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, asked about confidentiality. This is an important matter and it is one which has been given considerable study. I should like to say a little more about it than I said in my opening speech and to explain what Clause 1(6) intends to do. Under Section 118(9) of the Factories Act the appointed factory doctor has a right to obtain from the local education authorities particulars of the school medical record of a young person, and such other information relating to the medical history of a young person as he may require to assist him effectively to carry out his duties. So that right already exists. The present right is absolutely necessary if this job is going to be done properly.
It is not expected that the medical adviser will need to have recourse to his right because it is expected that there will be the closest co-operation between the school medical service and the medical adviser, in the interests of the child. If the medical adviser receives form Y9 (which gives a list of the kind of things that particular young person ought not to be allowed to do) and if he wants further information on that score before or after seeing the person and examining him, then he can have recourse to the medical history in the school records. This does not seem to be unreasonable,

271
and I should not myself have thought that professional men would put in their records anything that could reflect badly on the child or adversely affect his future, the more so since there will be this close personal connection between the school medical officer and the medical adviser. I do not think that the noble Lord need worry on that score.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, then asked whether there would be any compensation offered to appointed factory doctors. Appointed factory doctors do not work under a contract of service, so there is no right to compensation. They are not employed by the Department, but they receive fees from factory occupiers. Most of them of course—indeed, the greater majority of them—are part-time. So it has been decided that this is not a suitable occasion on which to pay compensation. It is not really appropriate where remuneration is by fees.
I have detained your Lordships quite long enough, and any further points can well be dealt with at Committee stage. I hope that as this Bill works out, when it becomes an Act, it will belie the epithet that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, attached to it; that it is a puny measure. I do not believe it is; I think it is a robust measure, even though a small one, and I hope that your Lordships will now give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIR NAVIGATION (NOISE CERTIFICATION) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1972
6.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) (Amendment) Order 1972, laid before the House on February 17, be approved. I shall speak very briefly to the terms of this Amendment Order. It is the intention, subject to approval, that the Order should come into effect on April 1, 1972, the date on which the Civil Aviation Authority assume their major functions. The Order is purely a procedural one; it does not involve any transfer of responsibility for policy on noise certification of aircraft;
272
that remains with the Secretary of State. It provides, by amendment of the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1970, for the transfer from the Department to the Civil Aviation Authority of the executive function of certifying aircraft for noise purposes and of ensuring that the conditions relating to certification are complied with. The Authority will, of course, by virtue of their former Air Registration Board component, possess all the expertise necessary for this task. This Order tidies up the original Order by substituting the words "Secretary of State" for the words "Board of Trade" in those provisions which relate to the making of regulations, and it increases the penalties for failure to comply with the provisions of the Order, to bring them into line with the penalties for breaches of Airworthiness Regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) (Amendment) Order 1972, laid before the House on February 17, be approved.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
6.29 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in switching from the one subject to the other. I cannot quite follow the reason why he adopted such a different tempo. Is he suggesting that this is less important than the previous business? If so, I am not at all sure that he is right. However, I do accept that in the main this is consequential legislation to the legislation which established the Civil Aviation Authority. The opportunity has been taken to increase the penalties for this form of pollution. What the noble Lord has not done is to satisfy the doubts that were expressed in another place and and have been expressed elsewhere as to whether the increases in the penalties are adequate in the circumstances now prevailing. I can well understand that there ought to be some correlation between the penalties for breach of the noise certification regulations and those for breach of other airworthiness regulations; but since that correlation was originally established there has been a significant change in the public attitude to noise and to pollution generally. Against the background of that change I am, myself, not convinced that the present penalties are adequate, and I should like the noble Lord to explain why it

273
was not possible to meet the very reasonable criticisms that were made and do something, or at least undertake to do something in the future, about the increase of penalties.
6.31 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord will recollect that the really major penalty involved in this case is the power to prevent the aeroplane from taking off at all, which is in paragraph 10 of the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order. That is the major penalty, and for that reason it was not thought that it was necessary to do more than we have done in the present Order. It is always a question of judgment as to what the right penalty should be, but these penalties are really in line with the penalties that are imposed in the various legislation that is at present extant, and there does not seem to be any real reason to increase the penalties on this score.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord said "in line with other penalties provided for by other legislation". Will he give me an example of the sort of other legislation he has in mind? Is he referring to legislation connected with airworthiness, or is he referring to regulations connected with pollution? May I ask him a particular question? There will be a new Bill, I understand, in the next week or two relating to pollution, and there will be penalties in that Bill. Can he really say that the amounts provided for in this Order are in line with the other anti-pollution legislation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the penalties are increased quite substantially in this Article.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is not the question I asked.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, they go up from £10 to £50, and from £20 to £100, as related to penalties in the original Order, and this is the kind of increase that we have seen recently in legislation. I cannot give it chapter and
274
verse, but I am sure that the noble Lord's own recollection will bear out that this is the kind of increase in penalties that we have made—with the one exception, of course, of oil pollution, which is a totally different matter. The noble Lord perhaps wishes to interrupt me again, because of course he cannot make another speech.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not asking even for chapter and verse; I am asking for the book. In which Act connected with anti-pollution are the penalties in line with these? They are really out of line with current thinking.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what I said—and I hope I conveyed this—was that it was in line with the current level. We have been operating penalties at about this kind of level. That is what I am saying. An increase as provided here from £10 to £50 and £20 to £100 is at the sort of level that we have seen in legislation that we have been passing in the last year or two. It seems to me that this is perfectly reasonable. I know that some noble Lords have in mind the kind of special penalty that arose in connection with oil pollution, but that is really a quite different subject altogether. Oil pollution can cause a very great deal of damage. We are here dealing with two things: first of all, with the failure to have a certificate, and, secondly, with a contravention of that certificate. If you are not able to produce the certificate, it is not in any way in the same class of offence as oil pollution. As to the contravention, the main penalty, as I said before, is the restriction on the aircraft from taking off if it is not complying with the terms that are laid down in respect of that particular aircraft in the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order. I think that really the noble Lord is reasonably satisfied with this.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, let me just say I should have been had it not been for the last sentence.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

H.M.S. "EAGLE"
6.35 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING LORD ORR-EWING rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the strong views expressed in both Houses of Parliament in favour of retaining H.M.S. "Eagle" in maintained, or even in unmaintained reserve, they will now not send this aircraft carrier to the scrapyard. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Carrington became Minister of Defence in his early days he said:
"First, we are remedying a real weakness in our naval forces which would have resulted in the 1970s from the policy of the previous Government to phase out the aircraft carriers before providing the necessary alternative weapons."
The problem I am discussing, and seeking to draw to your Lordships' attention, is the gap; the gap which must exist if aircraft carriers are to be phased out in the early 1970s and there is no substitute weapon and no substitute ship until the late 1970s. It is my submission that in the last 18 months since that statement was made this gap has certainly not narrowed.
The through-deck cruisers which we have heard about in this year's White Paper cannot be ready until 1978, and your Lordships will recognise that no new ship, no new weapon, no new project, ever comes through exactly on time; and it invariably slips to the right and takes longer than expected. Moreover, of course, through-deck cruisers are not of themselves any use unless they have the suitable aircraft to go on those cruisers. The maritime Harrier decision has still not been taken. The White Paper this year, at the bottom of page 10, underlines the very considerable problems which still exist about the maritime Harrier, despite its acceptance by the United States Defence Forces. It underlines both the time that will be taken to develop such an aircraft, and the cost—which will be undoubtedly large.
Therefore on both the scores, that the cruiser is not coming until 1978, at the earliest, and that still no decisions have been taken about the maritime version of the Harrier, I think it would be unwise—at least this is my submission—to destroy what we already have. Policies change; Governments change; Ministers change;
276
and the attitude and capabilities of our allies change. The reliability of our allies changes. Only two things, in my submission, remain absolutely constant. The first is that all new weapons and ships cost more and arrive later; the second is that the magnitude of the threat to the supply lines of the United Kingdom and all Western Europe increases as the U.S.S.R. pour more and more effort into creating the largest and most up-to-date maritime capability and nuclear submarine capability that the world has ever seen.
In these conditions, I urge my noble friend the Secretary of State not to destroy any effective ships until their replacements are actually operational. We do not want paper ships; we do not want paper promises. Nor is it wise to rely entirely one one's allies. I feel that it would be most unwise at this stage to send "Eagle" to the scrapyard. I personally should like to see "Eagle" kept in maintained reserve, maintained by a mixture of senior technical rates and civilians from naval dockyards, or even by civil shipbuilding firms, if this can be arranged. Many civil firms have vast experience in building naval ships. I find it difficult completely to accept my noble friend's quotation that it would take 350 to 400 Navy men to maintain this ship. As he rightly said in his speech in our Defence debate, that would be the equivalent of 1½ frigates at sea. But why is it necessary to use Navy men in this work? Surely there could be a combination of senior technical rates very experienced, who are desirous of spending time ashore, or at least close to their families, as they end the period of their service. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who knows much more about this aspect than I do, will have an opportunity of commenting on it during our debate.
In winding-up our Defence debate on February 22, my noble friend said at column 492 of Hansard, that he would "read and ponder again". The Daily Telegraph of February 25 published a most sensational picture showing
"A 260 feet long girder bridge built by the Royal Engineers at Portsmouth Docks to facilitate the unloading of thousands of tons stores from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier, Eagle, 43,000 tons, which is to be scrapped."

277
So the message about "pondering" had not quite got through there; although I fully recognise that she will have to be de-stored, and I hope only that is going on. I hope that what is going on is not destroying her or destroying her capability.
My noble friend also told us in that same debate (column 491) that it would cost between £1½ million and £2 million a year in Naval personnel. But I believe that if we used civilian personnel the cost would be less than that, because we should not then have the same family, educational and other social responsibilities for civilian manpower. But even if the figure is £2 million a year, that is a drop in the ocean compared with the size of our Defence Budget, which in NATO terms is given in the White Paper as £3,000 million for the coming year. My Lords, is it really not possible to find between £1½ million and £2 million to undertake a task which must be of such considerable importance to the safety of our ships and of our merchant fleet? Of course I recognise that in all Defence matters there is a question of priorities, but that figure of £2 million is less than 0·07 per cent. of our Defence Budget; and, incidentally, it is less than 1 per cent. of the Supplementary Estimates in the current year, which total £227 million.
Also, I submit that one aircraft carrier is never able to be operational for more than 65 or 75 per cent. of the time. Refits are essential, and sometimes long. In addition, of course, there is the working-up time as the ship is recommissioned, and the training time. So why not keep "Eagle" in either maintained or unmaintained reserve? The object would be to help bridge the gap, to which I referred earlier, in case of accident to "Ark Royal", possibly in case of a long refit to "Ark Royal", should one be necessary, possibly because of the need in some unforeseen circumstances to deploy the Harriers or Buccaneers when "Ark Royal" was not available. I would accept that at this stage it may not be economic to "Phantomise"—that is, to make "Eagle" suitable for the deployment of Phantoms. I would even accept that "Eagle" might be a second XI ship. There are so many instances in this century when second XI ships have been of inestimable value in keeping the peace in different parts of the world. I do not
278
think we should neglect the fact that when my noble friend and I were serving in the Admiralty we had such ships as the "Loch" class, 20 or 25 years old, serving a very useful purpose in the Persian Gulf and helping to keep the peace in that part of the world. Furthermore, at 43,000 tons, "Eagle" must be worth £50 million of anybody's money at this moment; and no wise man destroys a ship worth £50 million if there is any possible alternative.
I shall not pretend to understand exactly the manner in which, and the degree to which, "Eagle" might be maintained, but obviously cathodeon protection of her hull would be essential. I should have thought that some areas could be cocooned, although in other areas it might be better to leave the complicated equipment in situ and to arrange for local air-conditioning. If her own air-conditioning is becoming old and unserviceable, there must surely be a great deal of air-conditioning equipment available from H.M.S. "Lion", a large cruiser which is shortly due to be scrapped. In any case, if there is a will there is a way, and I am sure that it is not beyond the ingenuity of their Lordships at the Admiralty and of the Ministry of Defence to find some method. I would remind your Lordships that 50 U.S. destroyers built in World War I helped to save our nation 25 years later. I suggest, too, that if the TSR 2 had not been sawn up and scrapped, and if the jigs and tools had not been destroyed by a previous Administration, that fine modern aircraft would be of tremendous value to us; and, incidentally, as a result of the failure of the F.111, would be selling in all parts of the world.
It is surely unwise to destroy a worth while asset. It is surely unwise to destroy a ship which gives our defence policy the flexibility which is so essential in this day and age. If the money cannot be found within the present Defence Budget of £2,976 million in NATO terms, as given in Annex B of the White Paper, this is surely a subject which could be put in the first Supplementary Estimate. We are bound to have a Supplementary Estimate as the Services get their new pay increase. They had an interim one last year but are due for a pay increase in April this year, and that will necessitate a Supplementary Estimate. I hope that my noble friend

279
will think it worth while if there is no other way of scraping up a few million from the £3,000 million, to add "Eagle's" cost to this Supplementary Estimate.
My Lords, last month, H.M.S. "Eagle" was a modern fully operational aircraft carrier. It cannot be right four weeks later to send her to the scrapyard.
6.49 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like to add briefly to what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has been putting before you in his Question. We are really coming towards the end of what has been a long battle of over 10 years. Mr. Healey is reported as having said in another place during the past week, that the carrier Lobby was getting going again. What is happening is that the anti-carrier Lobby is at last getting its way. The anti-carrier Lobby has been in operation since the late 'fifties and it has done very well. Among other things, it captured Mr. Healey and with him the entire last Administration. Their argument some six years ago, when I saw fit to leave the Navy at my own request in protest at there policies, was that the carriers could be replaced by island bases across the Indian Ocean. It did not require much in the way of imagination to see that that was not going to be a starter. It was going to be most unlikely that that solution would come about; and this, in the event, was the case. In fact, all the principles on which the "anti-carrier lobby" based their premises were themselves proved to be wrong within two or three years of their being declared.
The point, my Lords, is this: why do we need a carrier? The Government—as when we last debated this point I had cause to mention—recognise that we need carriers. They are keeping the "Ark" in being. We need carriers even if we forget any possibility that we may require to deploy our fighting forces around the world to help keep the peace in areas beyond that covered by NATO. Even if we forget that, even if we assume that during the course of the next ten years there will never be cause for the deployment of forces, we have a need for sea-based air power in our own back-yard. If your Lordships look at the Statement on the Defence Estimates, you will see
280
that it says on page 2 that the Soviet Union has 1,400 inter-continental ballistic missiles as well as some 700 medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. This is clearly a threat which cannot be ignored and which, it is not hard to see, is posed at the land bases of NATO. Surely the sea-based air power which is needed in order to make sea power credible can be the only solution with that sort of power ranged against us.
Your Lordships may say that this is a world of cloud-cuckoo land; that people will not go swopping ballistic missiles and the like. But warfare and defence planning are all a business of providing a credible force which can be deployed against any potential enemy so that he may be deterred from attacking you. That is what it is all about: and there is really no point in anybody having ballistic missiles if you do not believe that. What we require is enough strength to be able to stand on our own feet with such allies as we can acquire. Our allies in NATO suffer in the main from the same shortcomings as we do; that is, their air bases can all be likely targets for the potential opposition. As to our American allies, I hope that we can rely on them. I hope that we will see them supporting us, through thick and thin, as time goes on. However, things change. Who would have thought, even two years ago, that one would have heard of an American President going to China in the early months of this year? We know that the SALT discussions are going on, and we wish them well; but the occasion could well arise when commitments were entered into to which we and the rest of NATO would not be a party and in which we could not necessarily be sure of the support that we have had in past years. Therefore, to rely on our one sea base for aircraft is surely a very narrow and limited insurance policy.
As my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing made so very clear, as we have this expensive, well-built, almost entirely modern ship at our disposal, surely it is crazy to get rid of it when for a relatively small sum of money we could keep it going until we were sure of its replacement. This is the nub of the argument. Your Lordships will have seen recently in the Press that the "Ark Royal", the one carrier which is to be retained, was in difficulties in the approaches to New York

281
in a gale of wind. This may have been something that was "blown up" by the Press, but it was surely an awful warning to us that this sort of thing can happen; and it is possible that our one carrier could be out of action through no foreseen cause, such as a refit, for which possibly alternative arrangements might be made, though I am doubtful of them. It could well be that our one carrier could be out of action because of some unforeseen disaster. It really is a case of having all one's eggs in one basket. Therefore, it is surely wise to keep at least one other hull which can be used as a possible alternative.
I fully appreciate the arguments that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence has put, to the effect that, unless one is sure one needs it, it is probably not worth converting the "Eagle" for operating Phantom aircraft so that she can be a true alternative replacement for the "Ark Royal". Though the sums of money involved, measured against the total Defence bill, are still quite small, one can see that this is getting a little much. But this is not necessary if we are not going to need the ship; and, as to the rather gloomy note in the White Paper which suggests that the through-deck cruiser will not be with us until the end of this decade and which casts grave doubts upon the Harrier being able to be operated from it. it could well be that in (shall we say?) two years' time this particular problem will have been overcome and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence will be reasonably certain that he is going to have an operational replacement for the "Ark Royal" in a reasonable length of time. But at this moment of time, if one is to believe what is said in the White Paper, that is not the case. So surely it is reasonable to retain this carrier for at least two years—review her, position annually, if you like—and to do so on the basis that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence himself suggested when he said:
"We could have kept 'Eagle' in reserve, as she now is, with some refitting …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/2/71; col. 491.]
That, surely, is the solution until we can be sure of a replacement.
The noble Lord went on to say:
"… this would have locked up 350 to 400 men, the equivalent of a ship's company of one and a half frigates."
282
As a statement of fact, of course, that is true; but it is not really fair to compare the 350 to 400 men with one and a half frigate crews. As my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said, the sort of people required to maintain an aircraft carrier are not the same in every detail as one and a half frigate crews. In fact, I would suggest to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence that there is a very good case, if only he and his advisers had the will to do it, for seeing how this ship could be maintained in some other way. It is quite easy to see that it could be done by naval ratings, in which case I would suggest that the comparison should not be with one and a half frigate crews but with so much of a percentage of the people in the schools and the barracks who are doing their shore-time, anyhow.
The ship could be used for a certain amount of training. It would not be the first time that that had been done. But however it is used, I should like to suggest that comparing the sort of people who keep a carrier of that sort in a maintained state with the people in operational small ships gives a misguidance to your Lordships, and that is not really fair. If it has to be a case of comparison with seagoing ships, if it has to be a case of sacrificing seagoing ships, it would possibly be better to sacrifice, and deliberately, "Tiger" or "Blake", both of which are most unfortunate experimental hybrids of ships which do not really provide the sort of support to the Fleet which everybody hoped that they would. They are likely to be much more the type of ship which we can do without during this interim period until we can be sure that we have the capability to provide a credible seagoing unit wherever we wish and whenever we wish.
We are left, in fact, with the problem of asking that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his advisers give consideration to changing their minds. I know that it is very hard to do this, because one gets committed. That is why we are in this trouble: the previous Government got themselves committed. My Lords, I earnestly urge that this be seen as some means of bridging a two-year gap—it may be it will be only a one-year gap, though personally I think it would be more like a three-year gap—of having the will to do it, and of devoting the great intellect which is

283
available for this purpose to the business of solving the problem rather than of finding ways to avoid meeting it.
7.2 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, merits our congratulations for his zeal, persistence and enthusiasm; although I find very little merit in his objective. It is only a couple of weeks since we had our debate on Defence and the noble Lord raised this matter in the course of his very interesting speech. Why he has raised it again in the form of a Question, and in a very limited form, I fail to understand. We are not having a debate on whether we should build carriers or not build carriers, as apparently the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, appears to think; we are not having a debate of carriers versus anti-carriers. We are merely having a discussion, so far as I can understand it—and certainly we ought to be having a discussion—on the limited point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. And what is that?
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to ask him whether in fact I did not concentrate most of what I had to say on this single point of the retention of "Eagle", which is the substance of my noble friend's Question.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, with respect, it appeared to me that the noble Lord raised the general question of the carrier policy. However, I let that pass for the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, speaking with what appeared to me to be some confusion, referred to the gap and to whether we could close the gap; and at the same time he asked that "Eagle" should be retained and reserved for a period of time. I could have understood it if he had gone out full throttle for the retention of the carrier, for its recommissioning, so that it might be of some value, but to place "Eagle" in reserve, with the volume of manpower that would be absorbed, with the expenditure that would be entailed, all for the purpose of having a carrier, uncommissioned and maintained in reserve for no immediate use or no use in the foreseeable future, appears to me to be
284
quite unwise—and I am putting it very mildly.
It appears to me that at some time we ought to have a debate on carrier policy; that we ought to consider the carrier policy in the context of strategic defence. What is it we want in the way of defence? What do we envisage in the future? What do we envisage as regards the possibility of another conflict? Would it be a war in the oceans or a war on land, or a combination of both? What kind of weapons do we require in either context? We ought to have a debate on that and—if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, because he criticised the previous Administration—we ought to have regard to the opinions of our advisers. I should not be at all surprised if the present Government seek to ascertain the views of their naval advisers, the Lords of the Admiralty, the First Lord, the Second Lord and the rest of them—and quite properly. That is precisely what the previous Administration did, and what previous Administrations, the Administrations which preceded the last Administration, sought to do. It was done in my time when I was Minister of Defence.
It is not the politicians who decide these matters. They base their decisions and come to their conclusions on the basis of the advice rendered them by experts. That is the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances. What are we faced with now? It is whether we should spend a couple of millions or so in order to prevent the carrier "Eagle" from being sent to the scrap yard. I am bound to say that it appears to me to be very largely emotional. It never occurred to me that Lord Orr-Ewing, who was a colleague of mine in the other place for several years, was an emotional character. I never suspected anything emotional or sentimental in his observations; but this does appear to me to be a matter of sentiment—to retain something for sentimental reasons. What use "Eagle" is going to be to the United Kingdom in the context of the future of our country I really fail to comprehend. Therefore I am bound to say (and I hope that by so saying I shall not find myself in difficulties with my Party) that I am on the side of the Government in this matter.

285
There is only one qualification I wish to make. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence, in the course of the debate that we had recently, said that he was not opposed to the carrier policy. I do not go so far as that. My view is that the carrier policy must be set aside. What is much more important—and the noble Lord the Minister of Defence himself said this—is that instead of retaining the carrier "Eagle" it would be far better to concentrate on five frigates which would cost precisely the same amount. I should prefer frigates, or at any rate a smaller type of vessel, adequately armed with modem missiles in order to meet an emergency should it arise. I hope that it may never arise. That is the kind of policy which I should be inclined to support in the context of defence; and I believe that defence is necessary in the kind of world in which we now live and in which we are likely to live for some time yet. So I beg the Secretary of State for Defence to reject the suggestion made by the noble Lords, Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Mottistone, and to say, "We are very sorry about this carrier. It has been a very fine vessel. It has rendered excellent service. But we see no use for it in the future and we intend to concentrate on the kind of vessels which, in our judgment, are likely to be more adequate for our purpose."
My Lords, I repeat that it seems to me that there might be a purpose in having a debate on some future occasion, even a mini-debate, the kind of Wednesday debate that has been envisaged, in which we could discuss the general question of strategy. What is it we want? Is it sea power we require? Is it more ground troops for conventional purposes? Or more air power? Or increased nuclear strength? What is it that we want? Is it a combination of all these things? That is the kind of debate we might have, and in the course of it the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would be appropriate. I may not agree with them, but they would be appropriate in the circumstances. But, for the moment, it seems to me that no value is likely to accrue to anybody concerned: to the Board of Admiralty, the Ministry of Defence, the United Kingdom Government, or even the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and his friends of the Navy League, if the Navy League
286
still exists, or the relic of the old Navy League. I recall a period, way back in the First World War, when we heard the slogan, "We want eight and we won't wait". It was eight Dreadnoughts, although what use they were going to be in the context of that war I failed to see. So I prefer to support the Government in this connection, and hope that the Minister will say unyieldingly, "I will not agree to retain something which, in my judgment, is no longer of any value or likely to be of any value in the future."
7.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, it is indeed an unexpected pleasure to be allowed to follow such a distinguished former Minister as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, particularly in view of his once enthusiastic support, I think I might almost say, for keeping ships and a maintained Reserve. I believe that he had as many as three or four times more ships so kept in his day as there are now. One grows older and one gets wiser, perhaps, or one thinks one does. And perhaps one gets a little more bored. I feel that I can detect a slight vibration of patient resignation from my own Front Bench and it seems to be emanating from my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence who says—I do not pretend to quote him—that he thinks he has heard already everything that there is to be said about H.M.S. "Eagle". I imagine, a little fantastically perhaps, that a nail might make something of the same remark when listening to the boring repetition and the repetitive noises of the hammer. None the less, it is the hammer that gets the point driven home, and a lttle repetition, provided that it is sound repetition, is not always a bad thing. However, it is not necessary, or even wise, for me to repeat too much.
My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, or my noble friend Lord Mottistone—I am not qualified to do that for both noble Lords are experts, although in this connection my noble friend Lord Mottistone is the expert on my side from the professional point of view—and ask the question: why do we need carriers? The question to which I would address myself is: why do we need to scrap this carrier? It is not quite the same thing and not quite the sane argument but it leads to the same conclusion; and, after all, as was pointed out by the

287
noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, it is the object of Lord Orr-Ewing's Question.
My Lords, it is a question of some urgency. This is not an academic debate being carried out in a vacuum. "Eagle" has already been paid off and is actually awaiting removal to the scrapyard. The White Paper says that this ship will be scrapped. All my noble friend's Question does—it may be quite a large question—is to ask whether the Government will reconsider, and not send the ship to the scrapyard but maintain her or, at any rate, keep her in reserve. There are three lines of argument for scrapping H.M.S. "Eagle". They may reasonably be stated as follows: want of men; want of money, and want of usefulness. A comparison has been made by both my noble friends, and here I make the smallest possible tap with my little hammer of repetition in this connection—a comparison between one and a half frigates and one aircraft carrier. Both my noble friends have cast doubts on this comparison. I should be ready to accept it as true if I thought that one and a half frigates were likely to be sent to sea with a crew of dockyard mateys. Here I am being deliberately repetitive but in a somewhat different form. Bluejackets, sailors, man and fight a man o' war. A man o' war is designed, built, fitted, rigged, armoured, victualled, repaired and re-fitted by civilians. Why, then, is it necessary to have bluejackets to perform the single, and comparatively simple, function of maintaining a ship which is lying at anchor?
The other comparison which I think neither of my noble friends has mentioned or has criticised in depth—although I am not sure about this—is the comparison between five frigates and one aircraft carrier; that is to say, the choice that has to be made, or it is alleged has to be made, between five frigates with the Fleet or one aircraft carrier in reserve, and potentially with the Fleet. I will accept this comparison as just if I can get a definite, categorical answer from the Secretary of State to a question. My question is this: Is this a true choice? Will there in fact be in the Fleet, in service with the Fleet, at some predictable point between now and the end of the 1970s five frigates whose existence will make it impossible to re-commission
288
H.M.S. "Eagle"? If the argument of the comparison between the five frigates and one aircraft carrier has value, the answer to that question must be, "Yes". If the answer is, "I do not know"— and I am certain that no one can—then that comparison is, in my opinion, a highly dubious one.
The next question, I think I said, was one of money. I am not going to say too much about money, except that probably £1½ million a year would be a better investment than £25 million on the Upper Clyde. But the Ministry, represented in this case by my noble friend the Secretary of State, must cut their coats according to their cloth. Naturally, they have to do the best they can with the money they are given. This is not true of Governments. Governments decide the allocation of the "cloth". We might well bear that in mind. Secretaries of State, Ministers of State, may say, "We cannot do better than this because we cannot get the money out of the Treasury." But unless it is the Treasury that gives the orders to the Government, Secretaries of State cannot say that, because they are part of the Government who decide how the money shall be allocated. I think it may be well to bear that in mind.
On the question of usefulness, one of the great arguments revolves round this question of whether this ship is ever again likely to be useful. The key quotation on which I fix here is from my noble friend the Secretary of State in the recent Defence debate when he said this, looking to the future—I think the future pluperfect, if I may use that phrase:
"Had we brought 'Eagle' out of reserve in the 'seventies her operational capability would be no better than it is to-day. In particular, the Sea Vixens would not be a proper match for the threat which we must expect to confront us. They are old aircraft, even now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/2/72; col. 491.]
That appears, on the face of it, manifestly true; in fact so true that we might accept it without a second thought. But I think we should look at it a little more closely. It speaks of the Sea Vixen (and by implication the ship herself) as not being
"a proper match for the threat which we must expect to confront us."
But what is the threat? Presumably the threat is not the same thing as an attack.

289
Clearly, the NATO forces in Europe are not able to match a full-scale attack by Soviet Russia. Do we then think them useless, or are they matching the threat? We like to think—and I believe we are right—that they are.
Now war is one thing, of course; the threat of war is quite another; and the purpose of all the forces of war in peace is not necessarily to be ready to fight, but to discourage attack. Broadly speaking, there are two ways of doing this. One is to be strong to make a would-be attacker think it not worth while, and the other is to be weak enough to make an attack quite unnecessary because you can get what you want without fighting. A defence policy I take it, must be something between these two.
The question might then reasonably be asked: how can a more or less obsolete aircraft carrier fit into that pattern? We might also ask—at least it would be helpful to do so at this point—what would another major war be like, and with what weapons would it be fought? These are questions which can never be answered in full; nobody has ever been able to answer it; nobody with any sense would. One thing which is quite certain so far as Great Britain is concerned is that the war would be—not might be—fought in part by the Merchant Navy and by the ships of the Royal Navy that protect them.
Who, then, is the enemy of the merchant fleet? For fifty years now it has been the same—the submarine, which has brought us within an ace of defeat in two world wars. The submarine has changed out of all recognition: it is nuclear powered and can stay under water for great lengths of time, and it is faster. Anti-aircraft techniques represented by the Nimrod, and so on, have, we hope, caught up with those developments. But, of course, ships have changed as well, and if there were a war in seven to eight years' time our life's blood—by that I mean oil—would be coming to us halfway round the world in 300,000 ton tankers. A ship of that size is probably worth the expenditure of a very great deal of money to sink it, not necessarily by a nuclear bomb, because by that time you can probably get it with one iron bomb, at least if you know where it is. How do you know where it is? You have "spy in the sky"—a spy satellite, A
290
nuclear submarine can travel under water at three times the speed of a surface ship and sink it in any ocean of the world. Therefore the first thing on the outbreak of war would be to shoot down the spy satellite. But we are not talking about that at the moment. What we are talking about is what is now the key word in all defensive thinking and that is "surveillance": knowing what the enemy is up to. There are two classic examples in connection with this word, both American. One is of non-surveillance and the other is of surveillance. The classic example of non-surveillance was the failure to observe the Japanese fleet approaching Pearl Harbour, and the classic example of surveillance preventing warfare was Cuba. By seeing what the Russian fleet was up to, the American President was able to send out a fleet and stop it.
My Lords, I ask again: what is the threat? This time I ask it with a different significance. There are various ways of finding out what the threat is. A "spy in the sky" is not open to us, but one way is to send an aircraft carrier, this mobile air base, which can range the oceans and cover a vast field quietly and perform its functions in peace. We are apt to think of the usefulness of men-o'-war and all the forces of war as being confined to war itself; but they are not. The primary object of all forces is to prevent war, and as has been said on a number of occasions by a very distinguished admiral (Admiral Morgan-Giles has been known to say this in print), bombs or torpedoes can fight wars but airplanes can prevent them, and the means by which they can prevent them is surveillance. That is the kind of service for which an aircraft carrier can be useful and for which it might reasonably be kept in reserve, ready to be brought up, not as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell seemed to think my noble friend Lord Mottistone was proposing, as a kind of sentimental trophy to hang flags on on Trafalgar Day but an activable, recommissionable ship which can be brought out as the threat develops and can also be brought out if necessary if or when the "Ark Royal" goes aground in New York Harbour.
It is unquestionable that this particular ship, quite apart from the carrier and anti-carrier lobbies, has a useful function to perform, and no one can say with any

291
certainty that it cannot do it. I concede that it would not be able to fight in a major war, because I do not believe there would be a place for aircraft carriers. That is not a reason for getting rid of it. Sitting on the highest point in Cyprus there is a radar station—of course there are plenty of them but this is particularly conspicuous. It looks like a golf ball, tee-ed up ready to be hit. It can "see" Turkey to the upper end of the Red Sea; anybody can work out how far it can see if one knows the height of Mount Olympus. It can see from Asia Minor almost to the Eastern end of Crete. That golf ball can be knocked off with one iron bomb. Do we therefore say that it is useless or that it is a waste of money to keep it there? Certainly not. This is a peacetime operation of surveillance, and the fact that it would be instantly blown to bits on the outbreak of war is absolutely no reason for scrapping it now. I submit there is no reason whatever for scrapping H.M.S. "Eagle".
Better reasons must be found, and I am not convinced that the reasons that have been put forward that we cannot afford it and that we have not the men and that the ship is not very useful any way make out a case for her to be scrapped. In a few years time, probably at this side of the end of the 1970s, what operational requirements will there be for a ship of this kind? I am not postulating war, but still peace—and the answer is that we do not know. What will the threat be then? We do not know. What will the manpower position be? We do not know. What will the financial position be then?—we do not know but we hope it will be better than it is now. Some noble Lords may be familiar with the book entitled The Riddle of the Sands, which is one of my favourite books. The hero of that book, a man called Davis, had a yacht called "Dulcibella" cruising in the Baltic; and he had a mania for throwing overboard everything that he did not want. He had a new cooking-stove because the old one was not good enough, and when his friend bought him a new stove, the old one went straight "into the drink". He felt the toothpaste was no good; he did not want it, so overboard it went.
I do not think we ought to expect our Ministry of Defence to operate on this
292
principle simply because we do not have any particular use for something at this minute. We hope—we certainly do not know—that we are not going to need it next year or the year after. But it cannot be right to throw it away. Nor can I believe that that is necessary. I believe that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was right in paraphrasing a not particularly unfamiliar statement where he said, "If there's a will there's a way". My Lords, I believe that there must be a way, and it has to be found.
7.31 p.m.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, after what we have heard so far I do not want to be accused of playing the same tune, albeit on a slightly younger fiddle; but we are resurrecting the ghost of a battle which was fought and is over. This was a battle that was fought with considerable intensity and emotion a long time ago and, despite the boiling over of numerous cauldrons of Naval blood, was lost. I do not believe in last-ditch stands when there is not much hope of winning. The battle that was fought had no winners; it had only losers. There was a big gap, as my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has said, which was left and which needs to be filled.
If our Naval commitments were limited to the North Sea, the Bay of Biscay and the Mediterranean, as some people might prefer, there would be little cause for concern, and we might claim that our Navy was modestly but adequately equipped for this day and age. But, my Lords, we have far wider commitments, and for reasons of history, and an expansionist international policy, which I wholeheartedly support, we must play our role in far-flung places. Here is the gap, and after the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I should like to take this further. I accept the claims that our ships can be provided with adequate air cover when within 650 miles of land. But I am concerned about their defence against air and missile attack when further out to sea or away from the comforting shores of Western Europe. It is here that the fixed-wing carrier played its most important role.
In the debate on the Defence Estimates my noble friend Lord Carrington said:
"Our plan has been to reprovide for the capability of aircraft carriers in other ways—as indeed was reflected to some extent in the

293
proposals of the previous Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/2/72; col. 489.]
This to me is the "crunch" point. If adequate provision has been made or can be made, or, preferably, has already been made, then I do not support my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. If it has not, then I have a tendency, although reluctantly, to share his views.
I should like to elaborate a little, but I do so with some caution since, naturally, I do not have other than published facts, and I am conscious of the dangers of drawing the wrong conclusions without them. My Lords, if the Queen's ships are at sea in an ocean war, do they have adequate defence at the present time? I know that with the new through-deck cruisers and missile systems we shall be protected in the future, but the question is, what is the position now. We have to recognise the power of the Warsaw Pact systems. Their Cosmos satellite (to which my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery referred) for detection, coupled with missiles such as Kangaroo, S.S.N., Whisky/Longbin, plus the launching systems of Blinder, Cresta and W.E.2, and so on, are very advanced. These apparently far outrange what we have. We must recognise, too, the need for our aircraft to be able to deliver our missiles at a range of over 650 miles out at sea, and this is not possible without long-range fuel tanks on Buccaneer, which means that it could carry only either air-to-air or air-to-surface missiles.
My noble friend Lord Carrington has, I know, heard all the arguments and can understand them far better than I can. My real concern is whether, if we pursue an independent foreign policy, we can claim to have a fully independent Navy at the present time. If not, we should recognise this—and by this I mean that either we have a fully independent Navy or we do not. If we do not, then perhaps we can agree openly to rely upon our good friends the French, or our equally good friends the Americans. There is this major defence gap and I am not sure how it is being filled at the present time. It is a danger against which keeping "Eagle" in reserve could be regarded as an insurance policy if that insurance could not be adequately provided by our allies.
The carrier battle is lost, and the role of the carrier has been replaced by a new
294
policy. I hope that we can satisfy ourselves that that policy is adequate. To keep a carrier in reserve is expensive. It may be only £10 million over ten years, but it is still £10 million; and it is akin to keeping a wasting asset. But there is a gap which must be recognised and must be filled. If it cannot be filled by any other means, let us keep "Eagle" in reserve. If it can be filled, then may we know how? Finally, may I urge as rapid building as possible of the through-deck cruisers and the development of adequate missile systems. I know, my Lords, that my noble friend Lord Carrington will continue to look upon the Royal Navy with the kindly benevolence and realism which he has always shown since his time as First Lord.
7.36 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing for asking this Question. I only hope that the support which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has given me for the line that I am going to take will not damn me for ever in what, strangely enough, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, seemed to think was his sentimental eye. My noble friend and I have had a good deal to do with the subject of aircraft carriers over the years, and I know that there is one thing that both he and I—and, I imagine, everybody in the House—agreed on; that is, the importance of the Royal Navy and of its need to be able to defend itself. As I explained in our debate on February 22 I have been listening to arguments about the future of aircraft carriers in general, and H.M.S. "Eagle" in particular, for a good many years now. My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery took me to task for having said that there was nothing new to hear about this. If I may say so, in passing, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on daring to speak in a debate which has been exclusively, or nearly exclusively, the territory of ex-Naval officers. In some of his observations I detected something of the tone of his formidable forbear, the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Cork and Orrery, who was equipped with an exceedingly powerful and aggressive armament of which those who had to answer him in this House used to be very frightened.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I hope my noble friend does not think I intended to take him to task. I wished to do no such thing; I was expressing sympathy.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have not quite finished with that point. My noble friend was expressing sympathy because I had said that I had heard nothing new about "Eagle" and did not think there was anything new to be said. I must regretfully say that, having heard the speeches this afternoon, I must honestly say that I still hold to that view. I have heard it all before; but I have seldom heard it more elegantly expressed than I have this evening, and, in particular, by my noble friend Lord Selsdon, who made a notable contribution to this short debate.
As I promised, I have studied carefully everything that was said by noble Lords on the occasion of the Defence debate two weeks ago, and in the corresponding debate in another place. I have also listened attentively to the speeches that have been made this evening. I appreciate—and I think your Lordships know this—the strength of feeling which exists in this House and elsewhere on this subject. Of course I recognise the sincerity of the views of those who wish to see the retention in some form or another of H.M.S. "Eagle". As I said on another occasion, as former First Lord of the Admiralty who devoted a great deal of time and effort in the early 1960s trying to retain a carrier force, I hope that your Lordships will also accept in return my real regret that, in my view, "Eagle" can no longer be kept in commission. I have now nothing new to say, and I must in all modesty say, having reread what I said the other day, that I found what I said then was exceedingly convincing.
It is always a sad occasion when a ship reaches the end of her life, and the more so when her passing is felt in some respects to mark the passing of an era. I think, too, that the general position on fixed-wing carriers for the Royal Navy is fairly well understood in the House. If I may for just one moment be allowed to trespass on the House's indulgence—though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that this is not the object of the Question—the late Government in the 1960s came to the conclusion that Britain could not afford the enormous cost of
296
embarking on a new generation of aircraft carriers and that the existing ships should be phased out—first of all they decided in the middle of the 'seventies, 1976 or so, and then subsequently they advanced the date to 1972. This would have left a serious gap in the capability of the Fleet; and when we came to power in 1970 we reviewed the position and we decided that, while our resources would certainly not permit the construction of a new series of carriers, two steps should be taken to reduce this gap. The first was that the strike capability of surface ships should be improved by introducing as soon as possible a surface launched anti-ship guided missile system, the EXOCET. The second was that "Ark Royal" should be retained until the late 1970s to cover the period while the new ships and weapons were coming into service.
My Lords, the limitations of a single aircraft carrier are obvious, and my noble friend has raised them. But we must, I think, regard "Ark Royal" as a contribution to NATO naval forces as a whole; and so far as possible her deployment and refits will be co-ordinated with our allies. The Government therefore considered whether the life of the second carrier, H.M.S. "Eagle", could not also be extended to provide a second carrier for part of the time and to ensure the availability of one aircraft carrier while "Ark Royal" was undergoing refits. After a very thorough and careful study of the problem we came to the conclusion that, for the reasons which have been mentioned, manpower reasons and financial reasons, it was not practicable to run "Eagle" on after 1972. We made that decision known publicly more than 18 months ago and I must say that I thought it had generally been accepted. Our view then was that, even if manpower could have been provided for her, the cost would have been prohibitive. She would have needed a major refit if she was to operate Phantoms—and this really would have been the only sensible course, in spite of what my noble friends say, in the 1970s—special adaptation would have been needed, and that would have brought the cost of her refit to between £25 million and £30 million. Not only that, but aircraft and manpower would also have had to be found for her; and, as some of my noble friends have mentioned, 1,400 men would have

297
been required for the ship's company, which is the equivalent of about five frigates' companies.
My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery asked whether I could say to him that if "Eagle" were kept in commission there would not consequently have been five frigates. What I am saying to him is that if the manpower situation remains as it is now it would have been necessary to pay off five frigates, or something comparable, in the "teeth" section of the Navy. It was a question of priorities on which I and my advisers had to make a decision.
We judged that the period of useful life left for "Eagle" before the entry into service of the new cruisers (the first of which is due in 1978) and the other naval weapons—EXOCET, Sea Dart, new torpedoes and new helicopters—would not have been long enough to make this expense worth while. In answer to my noble friend Lord Selsdon, I would say that if I had a lot more money I would not, I think, seek to keep H.M.S. "Eagle" in commission; what I would seek to do is to speed up the entry into service of those new weapons, because I think that that is the right thing to do in the present circumstances.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I should be most grateful if in dealing with our reply he would bear in mind that not one single person in this debate or in the earlier debate suggested that "Eagle" should be kept simultaneously in commission with "Ark Royal". We merely said that the complement of "Ark Royal" should on occasions be shifted to "Eagle" if an accident arose.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, there has been a great deal of talk about keeping "Eagle" in full commission, and I think it only right on an occasion like this to deal with the whole subject of H.M.S. "Eagle" once and for all, so that if any of my noble friends are unconvinced by what I say, they may at least know the case which the Government are putting forward.
On the question of full commission, the Government's views on this matter remain unchanged, and nothing that I have heard in the debates on this subject since 1970 has led me to believe that I
298
was wrong. I regret it, but one must be realistic about these matters. Defence planning is a matter of priorities. Within the sort of defence budget which is likely to be available, and bearing in mind the need to bring into service new ships and new weapons, we simply cannot afford to keep "Eagle" in commission as an operational carrier. The Fleet which we shall be building up this decade will I think be effective in both ships and weapons.
My Lords, it has been suggested that if we cannot keep "Eagle" in commission we should keep her in reserve. I believe that the arguments against that also are conclusive. The main item in the cost of maintaining the ship in reserve would be an initial refit of some six months costing between £2 million and £4 million, and similar refits every three or four years if the ship was kept in reserve for some long period. The complement of some 350 to 400 men—and I am advised that it would be very difficult to use civilians for this purpose because, among other things, the ship would have to be taken to sea every so often to see that everything is all right—would be the equivalent of one and a half to two frigates, on the same basis as the five frigates which my noble friend was talking about, and would cost something over £750.000 a year. In addition, there would be support costs ashore and further resources would be needed to maintain a reserve complement of Sea Vixen aircraft, since, as I have said, "Eagle" is not adapted to operate Phantoms. This would involve buying additional engines, additional spares and keeping a squadron of Sea Vixens operational ashore ready for work-up at sea. It would be difficult to keep the ageing Sea Vixens operational for very much longer. And I do not think I share the view of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery that it is right that the Royal Navy should possess, and should ask sailors and airmen in the Royal Navy to fly, obsolescent and obsolete aircraft in the face of opposition with modern equipment. At best we should have an aircraft with declining effectiveness in the environment of the 1970s. Even in the most favourable circumstances, the period needed to bring the ship forward from maintained reserve and make her fully operational would be something in the region of four and a half months.

299
So, in the event of an accident, it would take four and a half months to bring her out of maintained reserve. To have incurred these costs and penalties simply to cover two short refits of the "Ark Royal" would not seem to me to be in any way cost effective.
There is of course a problem—and I do not deny it—when "Ark Royal" is being refitted; but, as I have indicated, her availability will so far as possible be phased in with that of other NATO carriers. And, of course, while she is being refitted her aircraft when disembarked will be able to operate from shore bases. The "Eagle", on the other hand, could not replace "Ark Royal's" Phantom capability and would fall far short of being an effective substitute, even if the Sea Vixens could be run on.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Would it not be right to consider the possibility that the replacement will not be ready in time, and that therefore, though perhaps now the ship should not be refitted and brought up to a Phantom capability, if things do not work out right in, say, two years' time it might be the only solution, if we are to provide something in the next fifteen years?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think I am right in saying, although I say it in a rather hesitant way because one gets a great deal of technical advice, that when I last inquired about this particular point I was told that unless a ship was refitted or kept in reserve in some way she would deteriorate in such a short time that she really would not be of any further use. Therefore it would be necessary to spend a good deal of money now in order to save the ship at all. If I am wrong about that I will publicly apologise, and anyway I will write to my noble friend.
I was saying, my Lords, that I think the premium for all this is quite simply too high, and the value of the insurance would be greatly reduced by the notice
300
which would be required to bring the ship back into commission. Therefore I must tell your Lordships with great regret—and it is genuine regret—that our plans for Eagle must remain unchanged. But in saying this I should perhaps make it clear that the ship is not now on her way to the scrapyard. She will be towed to Devonport dockyard later this year when certain of her equipment will be earmarked to support the "Ark Royal". At the appropriate time, probably not before the end of 1973, a decision will be taken as to when she should be disposed of for scrap. Although the process of removing stores and equipment from her, which was mentioned by my noble friend, will continue, for the time being she may not be very far removed from what my noble friend Lord Mottistone has suggested: a ship in what he described as "unmaintained reserve". My Lords, if circumstances should change between now and the end of 1973 we could of course look at the matter again; but for reasons which I have explained to your Lordships this evening I really do not see how we could have come to any other decision.

BRITISH LIBRARY BILL [H.L.]
7.51 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Eccles, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish the National Library for the United Kingdom under the control and management of a new board, and incorporating the Library of the British Museum; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

OXFORDSHIRE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  LATIN AMERICA AND BRITAIN
  LATIN AMERICA AND BRITAIN
  B.B.C. AND "THE BRITISH EMPIRE" SERIES
  B.B.C. AND "THE BRITISH EMPIRE" SERIES
  CONTAMINATED DEXTROSE
  CONTAMINATED DEXTROSE