Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 454: debated on Wednesday 21 July 1948

House of Commons

Wednesday, July 21, 1948

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

Civil Aviation

Flying-boat Bases

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what decision has been taken regarding future flying-boat bases, following the Pakenham Report.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) on 26th May last.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what are his plans, if any, for the Saunders-Roe S.R.45 flying-boat when it comes into operation? Where will these machines operate from?

Discussions have taken place with the R.A.F. and the Admiralty and the present indication is that, pending the availability of a permanent base, these aircraft will operate from Calshot.

Aircraft

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether a decision has yet been reached regarding the types of aircraft with which B.O.A.C. is to be equipped.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement regarding the provision of aircraft for B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A.C.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to inform the House as to the Government's plans with regard to the utilisation and development of Tudor aircraft.

Air Transport Advisory Council

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is satisfied that the public is making full use of the facilities afforded by the Air Transport Advisory Council; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the Air Transport Advisory Council has so far only received a very small number of complaints. It is the duty of the Council to consider representations from members of the public about the adequacy of the facilities provided by the Corporation or their charges. This duty is laid down by Statute and is designed as the means for ensuring that the reasonable needs of the public are met, subject to financial and other overriding considerations. I welcome this opportunity of drawing attention to the duties of the Council in order to make them widely known.

What more has the Parliamentary Secretary done, besides simply making a statement in this House, to make known to the users of our aviation services that this is a body through which they can make not only complaints, but constructive suggestions?

Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider doing something to inform passengers travelling in these services of the steps they can take if they are dissatisfied or wish to make any suggestion or complaint, so that they may know to whom to make it?

I think I am right in saying that every passenger on every flight is asked by the Corporation, in a printed postcard or form, to make such complaints or suggestions.

Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the kind of suggestion which they are invited by the Corporations to make is a detailed one on the day-to-day running, which should rightly go to the Corporations, whereas this Question concerns an invitation to make suggestions over a wider field, including policy?

This is a consumers' council and the consumers comprise a very restricted field. We will look at the point which has been raised to see how we can make it more widely known.

Roumania (Requisitioned Villas)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the violation of the property of British Legation personnel in Roumania, although the villas concerned had correct rent agreements in the name of the British Legation itself; and what steps is he taking to see that proper compensation is made for the stolen sheets, blankets, fuel, food, etc., and for the return of the villas.

I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) on 14th July.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 14th July the answer was in the future tense—that compensation would be given—and that from his reply today I understand the villas have not yet been returned; and is he aware of the steps taken by the Turkish Government under the same conditions when the Turkish villas were returned within four days?

I have sent to our Ambassador for further information on the whole matter.

United Nations Assembly, Paris

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date he will announce the composition of the British Delegation to the Assembly of the United Nations meeting in Paris next September.

This matter is at present under consideration and I cannot yet say when I shall be in a position to make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what special steps His Majesty's Government will take to ensure publicity, particularly by broadcasting, of the proceedings of the forthcoming Assembly of the United Nations in Paris.

I am anxious that the fullest publicity should be given to the Assembly. As my hon. Friend will realise, His Majesty's Government have no direct responsibility for publicising the proceedings, either by broadcasts or newspaper reports, but I understand that the United Nations Department of Public Information and the B.B.C. will make every effort to ensure a good coverage, and His Majesty's Government will assist in this as far as lies in their power.

Would my right hon. Friend consider suggesting informally to the B.B.C. that during the period of the Parliamentary Recess, which would cover most of the period of the Assembly, that they might use the time now devoted to "The Day in Westminster" for reporting the Assembly?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last time the Assembly met in Paris no one knew of it at all? All the publicity that was sent out was about the national sweepstake in Paris. Will he see that if there is any broadcasting of the Paris sweepstake that it takes place at a different time from our broadcasting?

I think there is some misapprehension. Speaking from memory, I do not think the Assembly ever met in Paris.

Having lived through that, I really think the sweepstake was more interesting.

Russian-Born Wives of British Subjects

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further attempts he is making to persuade the Soviet Government to permit Russian-born wives to join their British husbands in this country.

I have decided, with regret, that no useful purpose would be served by making further representations on this subject in Moscow at present.

This is a policy of despair and defeat, and surely it is not beyond the wit of His Majesty's Government to devise some suitable pressure which can be applied to the Soviet Government to force them to do this act of justice?

I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member suggests that I should declare war or something of that kind, but I have used all the pressure I can on this matter.

British Subjects, Palestine

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many casualties have been sustained by British subjects on either side in the Palestine fighting since our evacuation on 30th June.

As far as has been ascertained by His Majesty's Representatives in the area, no casualties have been sustained by British subjects fighting on either side in Palestine since the date mentioned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what arrangements exist for notifying the next-of-kin in cases where casualties may arise?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to secure the release of the five British subjects who have been kidnapped in Jerusalem by the Irgun Zvai Leumi.

As the House knows, our information is that the five British subjects have now been handed over by the Irgun to Haganah and are believed to be on the territory administered by the Jewish authorities in Palestine. The agent of those authorities in London has been informed of His Majesty's Government's requirement that the five men should be returned to the United Nations Truce Commission, under whose protection they were working when they were kidnapped. Sir Alexander Cadogan will raise the matter in the Security Council at the earliest opportunity.

In view of the anxiety which is felt by the relatives and friends of these five men, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the matter will be raised very soon in the Security Council and that he will do everything possible to secure their release?

I certainly will. I think this is a very bad start for the proposed new State.

Germany

Air Transport Service, Berlin

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered using the transport planes now carrying food and supplies to Berlin for the purpose of systematically evacuating all Germans whose presence there is not essential in order to ease on a substantial scale the whole supply problem.

Any such large-scale evacuation is not at present contemplated, since many of these people would not wish to go, and movement on this scale would slow down the turn round of aircraft. The movement of Germans normally resident in the Western zones, who are now stranded in Berlin, has already begun.

Arising out of that Question and answer, will the Secretary of State take up with the Government the lessons which have been got from the use of this method of supplies for the purpose of getting food and materials to the Western Highlands of Scotland?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what objections have been raised by the Soviet authorities to the supply of the British, American and French sectors of Berlin by air.

In view of the reports that the Russians have today given a warning that Yak fighters would be saturating a section of the British airline between Hamburg and Berlin, is my right hon. Friend quite clear that we have an unimpeded right of access by air to Berlin? Will he give some warning in advance at the highest diplomatic level?

We have had no such warning, but the Press keeps saying things. The agreement on the air corridor is explicit in the minutes of the Control Council and has not been abrogated.

Has there been no modification in the attitude of the Soviet Union since the hon. Member for King's Norton advertised the fact that he had joined the Forces?

Has any decision been reached as a result of the discussions about Berlin to get another Four-Power Conference to consider the whole question?

That is a different question. This Question deals only with the air corridor.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British sector of Berlin can be adequately supplied with food, coal and other necessaries by air alone.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 20th July.

Ruhr Miners' Rations (Alcohol)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will reconsider his decision to supply brandy as part of the additional ration of sugar, coffee, tobacco, fats, etc., issued to Ruhr miners.

Schnapps is available for purchase by the Ruhr miners under the Miners' Points Scheme. This scheme was inaugurated by the Coal Production Committee in order to discourage absenteeism, and the list of goods obtainable under the Scheme is drawn up by that Committee—an entirely German body—after consultation with German trade union leaders and miners' management representatives.

In view of the fact that British miners are discouraged by the Coal Mines Acts from taking alcohol into the pits, how does the Foreign Secretary find it possible to encourage the consumption of brandy, which in some cases has already led to extensive illegal operations on the black market and has led to drunkenness as well?

I know I am responsible for a good deal in Germany, but I did leave this to the Germans to decide and I do not think it would be wise for me to interfere.

Is it not a fact that there is a bigger output from the Ruhr mines than from the British?

Capital Equipment (Dismantling)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made in the dismantling programme for German industry; and what reply has been given to the suggestion made to him on behalf of the Ruhr and North-Rhine-Westphalia industrialists that certain of the steel mills should be retained for use under the Marshall Plan.

Of an estimated one and a half million tons of capital equipment scheduled for dismantling in the British zone, 356,500 tons had been dismantled on 30th June, 1948. Regarding the second part of the Question, I have received no such suggestion.

When my right hon. Friend does receive the suggestion, and my authority is a leading article in "The Times" this morning which says that it was put forward by the Ruhr industrialists, will he adopt the principle that there should be no reconstruction of Germany which takes priority over reconstruction in countries devastated by Germany?

Our policy is quite clear, we have agreed to assist in the rehabilitation of Germany, but it must not be in advance of the countries which were invaded.

Now that quadripartite control of Germany has virtually ceased, does not my right hon. Friend think there is a real case for reconsideration of quadripartite control in the light of altered circumstances?

I have had to make statements on this before in the House. It is not Russia alone which is affected in this dismantling; it is the Western Powers—France and other countries which were invaded—and I am not prepared to wipe out obligations to those countries because of the dispute with the fourth country.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I was not suggesting that Russia alone was affected, but that the economic needs of the Western countries should also be considered?

That is quite right, but, supposing there is plant in Germany taken out of France. France is also in the Western Union and it would, therefore, be our duty to see that France is satisfied, as well as Germany.

Anglo-Soviet Relations

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider issuing a White Paper on Anglo-Soviet relations in Germany during the last three years.

I have informed the House very fully on the subject from time to time. I do not think that the present moment is an appropriate one for issuing a White Paper on this subject.

While I apologise for raising this matter at a time when the Foreign Secretary is so busy, may I ask him whether he is aware of the Press suggestion of such a White Paper for the education of the public, whose memory tends to be short?

I have had it in mind for some time but things are delicate and I have to consider which contributes most. I think that it would not be quite the appropriate moment to begin digging up everything at this moment, when other things are happening, or, we hope, are happening.

Without pressing the Foreign Secretary at all at this moment, in view of the excellent summary in today's "Daily Herald," which I am sure will have a good effect, will my right hon. Friend bear this in mind so that if at a later stage he thinks it useful we shall be in a position to give full publicity to the facts?

Transjordan

Demonstrations, Amman

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the anti-British demonstrations in Amman.

There were two minor demonstrations before the announcement that the Arab League had agreed to a new cease fire. There was some shooting and windows were broken, but there do not appear to have been any casualties of serious damage.

Would it not be more in keeping with the prestige and dignity of Transjordan as an independent State if the British taxpayer were relieved of all future responsibility in this matter?

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that there seems something wanting in our handling of this situation when we appear to have fallen foul of Tel-Aviv, Amman and New York?

British Subjects

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain from the Transjordan Government the terms of pension and disability awards to be made by them for British subjects engaged in their service who are injured in the Palestine operations.

No information has reached me that any British subjects engaged in the service of the Transjordan Government have been injured in the Palestine operations. The Question does not, therefore, arise.

Colonial Empire

Newsprint (Restrictions)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to save dollars now expended on newsprint for newspapers in the Colonies by imposing restrictions equivalent to those in force in this country.

Some Colonies buy their newsprint from this country and these supplies are controlled. In the other Colonies which import newsprint direct from hard currency sources, the imports are restricted through import licensing. The colonial authorities are fully aware of the need to economise in dollar expenditure. The newspapers have generally been reduced in size, although not necessarily to the same extent as in this country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Jamaica, for example, daily newspapers give an issue of 14 pages compared with four in this country? Since in both cases we have to draw upon dollar resources should there not be equality of sacrifice throughout the British Empire compared with this country?

I am dealing with that matter. The papers referred to have already been reduced and I think that there is room for further reduction.

Would it not be better, instead of reducing the newsprint, to see that the paper is used for the manufacture of books to meet the need there is in all the Colonies?

Could the Colonial Secretary say what is the expenditure of dollars involved in the purchase of newsprint for the Colonies?

There is another Question on this subject on the Order Paper and I believe that information is supplied.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good thing to bring British newspapers up to the same size as those in Jamaica?

Economic Organisation

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a full statement concerning the economic organisation of his Department, showing not only the boards and staffs concerned but also the purpose of each and the work so far done by them.

As the answer is necessarily long and detailed, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether in this statement it is made clear that, in so far as the economic aspect ties up with the defence aspect, both the Dominions and the Defence Committee are frequently consulted by the various boards concerned?

I am afraid that my statement does not convey information in regard to the strategic needs or defence requirements of the territories, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that, in regard to our development plans, that aspect of the problem is always kept in mind.

Following is the answer :

The Economic Division of the Colonial Office is in the charge of one of the two Deputy Under-Secretaries of State. Under him there are three Assistant Under-Secretaries of State who cover respectively the following three broad fields of economic activity:

(1) Commercial relations; the international aspects of Colonial primary products, in particular rubber, tin and sugar; communications; and measures for saving dollar expenditure in Colonial territories.

(2) Production and marketing questions, relations with the Colonial Development Corporation; and Research.

(3) Finance and the administration of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act; Economic Intelligence and Planning; and Supplies. The Division consists of seven Departments, namely.

(1) Commercial Relations and Supplies Department, dealing with all aspects of commercial relations and international trade negotiations as far as they affect the Colonies, and with measures necessary for procurement of essential supplies for the Colonial territories.

(2) Communications Department, dealing with communications generally, but more particularly civil aviation and telecommunications.

(3) Economic Intelligence and Planning Department is responsible for maintaining touch with United Kingdom economic planning organisations, and for keeping in view the implications in Colonial territories of general United Kingdom economic policy. The Department has also

(4) Finance Department, which advises on the management of Colonial finances and currency questions, and is concerned with the administration of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.

(5) and (6) Two Production and Marketing Departments dealing with all aspects of the production and marketing of the produce of Colonial territories, industrial development and relations with the Colonial Development Corporation. One Department deals primarily with agricultural and forestry products, the other with minerals.

(7) The Research Department which deals with all research matters, lies somewhat apart from the rest since not all its work is economic.

The Division is also assisted in many of its spheres of work by the Secretary of State's Advisers. Those whose work brings them into particularly close contact with the Economic Division are the Advisers on Agriculture, Animal Health, Co-operation, Labour, Education, Fisheries, Forestry, Geological Surveys and Inland Transport.

The Division is assisted by the Colonial Economic and Development Council which advises the Secretary of State and the Office on the framing and subsequent review of plans for economic and social development in the Colonial Empire, and on questions of general economic and financial policy; also by the Colonial Advisory Council for Agriculture, Animal Health and Forestry, the Colonial Advisory Fisheries Committee, the Advisory Committee on Co-operation, the Colonial Research Council, the Committee for Colonial Agricultural, Animal Health and Forestry Research and various Committees and Sub-Committees of these bodies.

It is not possible within the scope of a Question and answer to describe the work so far done by the Division, but I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the Report on the Colonial Empire for 1947–48 (Cmd. 7433), and in particular to chapter IV thereof.

Malaya

Tin and Rubber Industries (Wages)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement giving the average weekly or monthly wage of native labour in the tin and rubber industries of Malaya; and the average weekly or monthly salaries of the British employees in these industries.

In April the standard wage of unskilled male workers in the rubber industry varied between 73 and 94 shillings a month. Tappers could in addition earn a bonus of up to 42 shillings a month. In December, 1947, male workers in the tin industry earned from 79 to 315 shillings a month according to the type of work performed. In both industries there were also substantial emoluments in kind. I am asking the Acting High Commissioner for up-to-date figures and for information about salaries paid to British employees and will write to the hon. Member later.

Is it not the case that there is a great disparity between the wages paid to native labour and the salaries that are paid to European employees in the tin and rubber industries?

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than half the rubber production in Malaya belongs to native producers?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what claims have been made by the native workers in the tin and rubber industries of Malaya for increased wages or changed working conditions; and if these workers have a right to hold public meetings, organise demonstrations, or take strike action to secure their demands.

I am obtaining from the Acting High Commissioner the information requested in the first part of the Question and will write to the hon. Member later. The answer to the second part is "Yes, subject to observance of the law."

Can the Minister tell us whether the law protects these workers if they organise public demonstrations? Is it absolutely legal for them to organize public demonstrations, and will the law see that they are protected when they do so?

The right of assembly is enjoyed unless it is used for criminal intent.

Motor Cars

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the motor cars supplied to British Advisers in Malaya are British and how many are American.

Of the 11 motor cars supplied to British Advisers and Resident Commissioners in Malaya, five were manufactured in the United Kingdom, four in Canada and two in the United States of America.

Would it not have been possible to have supplied British cars to all these people?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British and American cars, respectively, were imported into Singapore and Malaya in 1947.

Three thousand eight hundred and four passenger cars were imported into Singapore and Malaya in 1947 from the United Kingdom, 865 from Canada and 960 from the United States of America.

Surely, it would have been possible for these to have been supplied from Britain instead of America and thus to have saved a large amount of dollars?

There is some control in regard to cars coming in and, of course, some regard has to be had to the type of car required, the price of the cars and the urgency of delivery.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the dollars earned by the export of British cars to America are being largely off-set by the enormous imports of American cars into the Dominions and Colonies, particularly the Colonies?

That is another question, but obviously it is a problem which is constantly in our mind in dealing with these import problems in our Colonial Empire.

Would the Colonial Secretary explain what he means when he says that "there is some control"?

Yes, that import licences are issued in regard to the importation of cars.

If the policy of "Buy British" is being abandoned in the air surely we can keep it on the road? Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that people here cannot buy American cars, and it is right that they should not be able to do so? It is in the national interest that we should not waste dollars, and should there not be reconsideration of the matter in an attempt to stop this sort of thing?

This matter is under constant consideration. It must be kept in mind that Malaya is one of the largest providers, if not the largest provider, of dollars to ourselves.

Imports

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the value of goods purchased with American dollars imported into Malaya and Singapore in 1947.

I cannot give exact figures on this subject, as the trade returns for 1947, which are available, show imports by countries of origin and do not specify the currencies in which they were purchased. The Governments of the Malayan Union and Singapore could no doubt supply precise figures after some research, but I do not suppose that the hon. Member would wish me to trouble them about a matter like this at the present juncture.

If the Minister cannot provide precise figures can he provide general figures to give some idea of the expenditure of dollars for this market?

Bandits (Arms)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies from what source the bandits in Malaya have obtained their arms.

Arms were dropped from aircraft for the use of the resistance movement during the Japanese occupation, and many others were abandoned by the Japanese when they surrendered. In view of the nature of the country, it is thought that a residue of these have remained unaccounted for despite the exertions of the authorities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able now to give an assurance that no further arms are reaching the bandits in Malaya?

We are taking every safeguard to prevent the importation of arms either by sea or by land frontiers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if at any time in the past two years he called for a report showing whether arms have been returned, and whether any effort was made to collect them.

Yes, Sir. A great deal of effort has been made to collect them, and reports have been furnished to me as to the result.

Situation

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the situation in Malaya.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say, first of all, when the new High Commissioner is likely to be appointed? Does he realise the seriousness of the situation in Malaya and that, unless things improve, it may be impossible to keep the rubber planters on some of the estates?

I appreciate the point made in the latter part of the supplementary question; I am very alive to it. In regard to the first part, I am not at this moment in a position to make an announcement, but I hope that an announcement will not be long delayed.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of the cable received in this country yesterday from the Incorporated Society of Planters in Malaya? It is of a very despairing character, saying that the situation was being completely under-rated in this country and was extremely serious; and that unless far more was done than was presently contemplated the situation would develop to a most disastrous degree. Has he seen that cable, and what is he going to do about it?

I have seen the cable, and I am fully alive to the seriousness of the position. We are taking every possible step to assist local governments in the enormous tasks which they have to discharge, and I do not think that anyone can suggest that we have not been forthcoming at this end to assist those administrations in every possible way.

Police (Recruitment)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to recruit members for the Malayan Police Force; and with what results.

In the Federation, the regular police force is being increased by 3,000 constables, who are being recruited locally, and 88 officers, some of whom are being obtained by local appointment and promotion, and others from this country. Recruitment of both officers and men is proceeding. In addition, a full-time paid Special Constabulary is being raised up to a strength of 12,000, of whom over 5,000 have already been enrolled. To help in training the Special Constabulary, 35 officers and 270 noncommissioned officers are being recruited in this country. It is hoped to obtain the greater part of these men from among, former members of the Palestine Police.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that, with the forces he has and those going to Malaya, there will be sufficient police to deal with the present critical situation?

We are acting as the result of most careful consideration by the Malayan Administration, and in consultation with Colonel Gregg, who has been there and has a considerable experience, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, in this kind of work. They are acting in consultation and trying to meet all the requirements which have been put to them.

Will the Minister say how many men have actually been recruited or to what extent the figures which he has announced are just paper figures, in view of the fact that this trouble has been going on for some months?

At least 5,000 special constabulary have already been recruited, and we are aiming at 12,000. In the other services, recruits are coming in fast.

Will the Minister say whether the police are under one or two authorities in the Federation and in Singapore?

Yes. At the moment, the Singapore control is apart from the Malayan control, but part of the work of the last few months has been to build up a very close liaison.

Northern Rhodesia (Race Segregation)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that it is the practice of some commercial firms in Northern Rhodesia to refuse to serve African customers over the counter and instead to serve them through a hatch while they stand outside; and what action is being taken by the Northern Rhodesian Government in response to complaints about this custom by the African Provincial Councils.

The Governor is aware of the practice referred to and a meeting between representatives of the African Representative Council and of the Associated Chambers of Commerce was held in March, 1948, to discuss this practice and complaints of a similar nature. The Governor is hopeful of some improvement in the position as a result of this discussion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the 32 post-offices in Northern Rhodesia which provide a common entrance for Europeans and Africans are chiefly small outstation offices; and what action is being taken by the Northern Rhodesian Government to establish common entrances in post-offices on the railway line and in the main towns.

The reply to the first part is, "Yes, Sir." With regard to the second part, the possibility of effecting structural alterations in order to provide common entrances in all other Post Offices has been under examination by the local Government since April last, and the Governor is expecting an early report from the Postmaster-General. A new Post Office at Chingola was altered recently during construction to provide common entrance facilities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many Government administrative offices in Northern Rhodesia Africans habitually use a side-entrance and Europeans the main entrance; and whether he is satisfied that there are no local regulations compelling the use of separate entrances.

I understand that persons having business with African clerks normally use the entrance provided to the clerks' office, which is frequently a side-entrance, and those having business with the administrative officer normally use the main entrance.

African Colonies

Stock-Fish, Nigeria

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how stock-fish is distributed in Nigeria; and what firms receive allocations.

Import of stock-fish into Nigeria is virtually uncontrolled and there is no system of allocation. Distribution is in the hands of the importers.

Salt (Imports)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who controls the import of salt into West Africa; and what steps he is taking to make this commodity more freely available to small firms engaged in buying produce as Government agents.

The import of salt into the West African Colonies is subject to control by the import licensing authorities there, but the Nigerian authorities have issued open general licences for import from the United Kingdom. In the Gold Coast there is an open general licence for importation of salt from easy currency countries. Importers are, therefore, free to buy and import as much salt as they wish. In these circumstances, I do not see what more I can do to meet the wish expressed by my hon. Friend in the second part of his Question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that applicants attempting to buy salt in this country to import into Nigeria are told that the export of salt to Nigeria is being confined to pre-war channels? If this is a bluff will he expose it; if it is a monopoly, will he break it?

If my hon. Friend has information on this matter I shall be very glad to have it. I know of certain difficulties which we are trying to remove.

Will my right hon. Friend agree to the larger importation of salt to British West African Colonies?

The West African Colonies are free to import as much salt as they wish.

Uganda Cotton and Hard Coffee Fund

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to consult local opinion on the disposal of the funds of the Uganda Cotton and Hard Coffee Fund; and what steps are being taken to close the fund.

As the reply is long and contains a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer :

Proposals for the closure and disposal of these funds were placed before the Uganda Legislative Council in April but were withdrawn by consent to give interested parties an opportunity of making representations.

I understand that the proposals were agreed to by the Council on 30th June, but I have not yet received a full report from the Governor. The Council resolved that the funds be closed as at 30th September, 1948, and disposed of as follow:

SCHEDULE.

£

1. Price Assistance Fund (any part of which may be available for allocation to other objects at the discretion of such marketing boards or other authorities as may be set up in respect of the Cotton and Hard Coffee industries)

3,925,000 *

2. Cotton and Hard Coffee Development and Welfare Fund—

£

(i) Central Food Storage

100,000

(ii) Agricultural Loans (Machinery and Plant)

50,000

(iii) Co-operative Societies (Loans)

100,000

(iv) Land Bank and Building Society

500,000

(v) African Housing

500,000

1,250,000

3. Grants to Native Administrations from Coffee Fund

250,000

4. Grants to Reserve Fund for Post-war Development Schemes and General Social Services including Community Centres

4,625,000

5. Reserve for projects outside Development Plan (not necessarily Government)

500,000

TOTAL

£10,550,000

* Plus any balance available. Plus any balance available.

Railway Rolling-stock

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to give an exact schedule of the proposed delivery dates for the locomotives and wagons on order for use on the railway between Mombasa and Nairobi.

I am informed that the manufacturers of the 18 locomotives now on order hope to start delivery from their works by the end of January next, and to complete the order at the rate of four locomotives monthly. The wagons have only recently been ordered, and I am not yet able to give an exact schedule of delivery dates for them.

Sierra Leone (Paramount Chief)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why no permanent chief has been appointed to be Paramount Chief of the Yengema area in Sierra Leone; and when it is proposed to make an appointment.

I have asked the acting Governor for a report and will communicate with my hon. Friend when it is received.

In view of the importance of this appointment since the last Paramount Chief died more than five years ago, will the Secretary of State do everything in his power to expedite the appointment of a permanent official in view of the importance of the relations between the people of the district and the diamond company?

Yes, Sir, the local Government is fully aware of all the obligations of this, and I think it is in fact acting with some wisdom.

Could not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster usefully add this to his various functions?

Would my right hon Friend see that no permanent appointment is made until a candidate with suitable qualifications can be found?

Mass Education, Nigeria

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what approaches have been made by the Nigerian Government to the Nigerian National Union of Teachers to enlist their voluntary assistance in the mass education movement in Nigeria; and with what response.

I have asked the Governor for information on this matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend later.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of voluntary workers doing an excellent job were somewhat discouraged when they found that payment was being made in other parts of the territory for the same kind of work, and, as a large number of voluntary workers are needed, will he ask the Nigerian Government to look into it?

I will bring the point which my hon. Friend has raised to the notice of the Nigerian Government.

Civil Services, East Africa

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to make any recommendations arising from the Report of the Commission on East African civil services.

The Report of the East African Salaries Commission was recently considered at a Conference in London attended by representatives of the Colonial Governments concerned and of the Colonial Office. With certain modifications, the Report was generally endorsed by the Conference. The modifications have been embodied in Sessional Papers, which, together with the Report, are being laid by the East African Governments and the East African High Commission before the Legislative Councils and the East African Central Assembly for their approval.

Could my right hon. Friend say how long it will be before these recommendations are implemented?

The Report will be taken at the next meeting of these assemblies, and I think that the recommendations will be put into operation quickly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to introduce into the East African civil services the principle of equal pay for equal work plus repatriation allowances for British persons serving overseas.

The East African Salaries Commission took the view that for professional and similar posts the expatriation pay system, which has been adopted in West Africa, was not practicable as yet in the different circumstances obtaining in East Africa. They also reached the conclusion that the time was not ripe for the introduction of common scales of salaries for Europeans, Asians and Africans. The reasons for these recommendations are set out in full in Chapter 3 of the Commission's Report. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend's Question No. 60, the Commission's recommendations are being considered by the Legislatures concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Report of the Commission, and is it not true that he has stated his sympathy with the principle?

It is obvious that this step must be taken before the full implementation of proposals similar to those adopted in West Africa, but, for the moment, the matter is before the Legislative Council, and I must await their decision.

Sarawak (Resolutions)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the resolutions passed by the Sarawak Dayak Association and the Malay National Union of Sarawak on 1st July, 1948, have been considered by him; and what reply he has sent.

I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) on 15th July.

West Indies

Chain Stores, Jamaica

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what recommendations were made by the committee of inquiry into the operation of chain stores in Jamaica which reported in April, 1947; which of these recommendations have been implemented; and what action is being taken by the Government of Jamaica to deal with this problem.

The report of the committee set up in Jamaica to consider this question has received, I understand, the preliminary consideration of the Executive Council. I am informed that it is expected that a final decision in the matter will be reached in the near future.

Has my right hon. Friend received any direct representations from the Jamaica Dry Goods Retailers Association on the subject, and is he aware that protests were made in the House of Representatives at the undue length of the deliberations of the Executive Council in this matter?

I am not aware of that fact, but this problem is one essentially for the Jamaican Government. They have a very real degree of local responsibility with which the home Government have very little concern.

Trinidad (Constitutional Proposals)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Trinidad section of the Caribbean Labour Congress has expressed support for the constitutional proposals made in the minority report; what other bodies have expressed to him their support for either the minority or majority reports: and when a decision will be taken.

A conference recently held in Trinidad under the auspices of the Caribbean Labour Congress, supported the proposals in the minority report. The Legislative Council have adopted the majority report with certain amendments. Before publication of the reports I received resolutions from the Port of Spain city council, two borough councils and five of the seven county councils in favour of responsible government on the lines recommended in the minority report. The East Indian National Council of Trinidad have passed a resolution expressing grave concern at the implications in both the majority and minority reports. Resolutions, the purport of which I do not yet know, are on their way to me from other bodies including the Chamber of Commerce, the Petroleum Association, and the Trade Union Council. A decision must wait until I have considered all these representations.

Are the amendments referred to by my right hon. Friend in any way designed to bridge the gulf between the two reports.

Armed Forces

Poles

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a detailed statement on the Polish officers and men in each of the three Services, stating how many have volunteered for service with the Armed Forces; how many are awaiting repatriation; how many are members of the Resettlement Corps; how many are awaiting discharge because they have chosen neither to be repatriated nor to join the Resettlement Corps; and how many others there are who do not fall into any of these categories.

I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing the position at 30th June.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the large numbers who have for months and months been awaiting either repatriation or discharge and will he ask the Service Department to speed up the administration in this case.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is correct, as indicated by recent answers, that if these Poles are

Category

NAVY.

ARMY.

AIR FORCE.

Officers.

Ratings.

Officers.

Other Ranks.

Officers.

Other Ranks.

1. Volunteers from the Polish Resettlement Corps accepted for service with the British Forces ( a ))

3

1

30

355

71

369

2. Awaiting repatriation

3

35

8

41

3. Serving in the Polish Resettlement Corps

( b ))

( b ))

9,968

18,399

749

2,545

4. Awaiting discharge, who have chosen neither to be repatriated nor to join Polish Resettlement Corps

( c ))

( c ))

1

93

5. Other categories

12

142

1,565

NOTES.—( a ) All entries to the British Forces have been made through the Polish Resettlement Corps,) All entries to the British Forces have been made through the Polish Resettlement Corps,

( b ) The Naval Wing of the Polish Resettlement Corps has been absorbed by the Army organization.) The Naval Wing of the Polish Resettlement Corps has been absorbed by the Army organization.

( c ) All members of the Polish Naval Detachment in this category were transferred to the Polish Land Forces in December, 1947.) All members of the Polish Naval Detachment in this category were transferred to the Polish Land Forces in December, 1947.

Pay Code

asked the Minister of Defence on what levels of cost of living and Income Tax, respectively, was the 1945 pay code based.

The 1945 pay code was not related to any specific level of cost of living. Income Tax at 1946 rates was taken into account where necessary.

Would not the Minister agree that there has been a considerable increase in the cost of living since these pay codes were brought into force?

There have been variations in the cost of living, but in the case of the Services, part of that is, shall I say, cushioned by the fact that there are emoluments in kind. In relation to the cost of living. I should not think that hon. and gallant Members opposite, with experience of the Services, would want

discharged but have not gone into the Resettlement Corps, they are placed in jobs through the ordinary machinery of the Ministry of Labour; and if so, what is the advantage in the whole elaborate apparatus of the Resettlement Corps and what is the advantage to those Poles who did agree to join it?

I think that question should be put to the Minister of Labour.

Following are the figures :

the basis of pay always to be related to the cost of living only; we are taking a long-term view of the pay code.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a previous Secretary of State for War told the House that it was assumed, when the pay code was made out, that Income Tax would go down to 7s. 6d., and that it was on that ground that he justified the taxation of allowances?

I say that the code was based on the basis of Income Tax in 1946, although it was issued in 1945, because of the announcement made in the second Budget of 1945.

Is the Minister aware that the present arrangement bears very heavily upon those officers who are frequently compelled to move from one station to another and pay very high rent, and could he see that that aspect is looked into?

We have been considering matters of that kind and they are still under consideration. I do beg hon. Members to recollect that there are a great number of people in this country at the present time who also have a very severe financial strain imposed upon them.

Reinforcements, Malaya

asked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware of the heavy strain presently imposed upon our troops in Malaya; and whether he can assure the House that large reinforcements are being despatched.

I am well aware of the conditions imposed on our Forces in Malaya in operations of the present type; we shall continue to do all we can to bring those operations to a successful conclusion. Reinforcements for current operations are being sent to Malaya.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an increasing concern in Malaya at the situation, which is getting graver and graver, and that the idea is that the Government have underrated or not been adequately informed in regard to the increasingly serious situation? Could we not have a stronger assurance than the right hon. Gentleman has given that he has the matter in hand? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman could assure the House in stronger terms than he has done?

I deprecate on this occasion, as I have on certain occasions in relation to other theatres, Members of the House of Commons attempting to give me advice which should come from the Commander-in-Chief. I take my advice from the Commander-in-Chief. I am meeting his requests in every respect and I think that hon. Members will do far better, instead of raising trouble, to leave it to the Commander-in-Chief to advise me.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order for the Minister to censure me in this way when I asked a perfectly legitimate question about which hundreds of thousands of people are deeply concerned?

When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the Commander-in-Chief, doubtless he means the Commander-in-Chief of Malaya—the officer commanding the troops actually in Malaya. Can he give an assurance that all the troops asked for by that officer have been despatched from other places?

The troops available for the phase of the operations which have been going on, and which are contemplated, are, in the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, adequate. His recommendations in regard to any further phases are being met from our resources here when required. We rely upon his advice. He is a most able and competent officer and I take his advice.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the House the extent of the Forces now in Malaya and the extent of the reinforcements?

In the present state of circumstances in the world, we do not give particulars of our strength in any overseas theatre.

Will the Minister of Defence consider putting his principles into operation and allowing the Malayans to have independence: then he would not need any soldiers there at all?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general consensus of opinion is that local chiefs, both Service and civilian, have entirely underrated the seriousness of the situation; further, will he tell the House at what date reinforcements from Hong Kong were ordered to go to Malaya? May I have an answer?

In view of the most unsatisfactory replies of the Minister, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Released Personnel (Recall)

asked the Minister of Defence whether he is satisfied that all officers and men who left the fighting Services under the release scheme are aware of their liability to recall; and how will they know where to report if they are recalled.

The position of officers and men who left the Army under the release scheme was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in a reply last week to the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys). Former members of the other two Services are under a similar obligation, and were so advised at the time of release. Detailed instructions concerning recall would be issued should the occasion arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer by his right hon. Friend last week was not given much publicity and that this is not generally known; further, would he not agree that the organisation for recall is of the utmost importance, because this country has no other resources than these well-trained men referred to in the Question?

I observe that this matter has been raised several times in the House, but I would say that, of course, the actual facts, stating his responsibilities, were inside the cover of every soldier's discharge book when demobilisation was taking place. The information has now been given in the House on at least three separate occasions. It has been well reported in the Press. The hon. Member can rest assured that the Government are fully aware of what would be required in the circumstances he envisages.

Food Supplies

Cakes and Pastries

asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the fact that the large shifts of population cause unevenness over the country and result in many areas having insufficient supplies of cakes and pastries, he will now make an announcement altering the basis of distribution of bakers' sugar and fats from the 1939 datum.

Allocations based on use in the datum period of 1939 are now being adjusted to take account of changes in the distribution of the population since that date.

When will the adjustment take place, and will it be based on the allocations to bread bakers?

The adjustment is a continuous process. My hon. Friend may rest assured that it will continue and that as population changes take place it will follow them.

Could not confectionery be adjusted so that it falls into line with bread?

Will my right hon. Friend see that the result of any adjustment is not that certain firms are left doing the less profitable and more unattractive work of baking bread whereas other firms are able to get a greater allocation for making more profitable cakes and pastries?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but this concerns the adjustment between different areas.

Slaughterhouses

asked the Minister of Food to what extent instructions have been or will be issued to licensed slaughtermen who slaughter animals in private slaughterhouses authorising them to use the humane method of captive bolts.

All slaughtermen must comply with the provisions of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, on humane slaughter. Local authorities are responsible for seeing that the Act is complied with and I have no authority to issue instructions on the subject to slaughtermen in private slaughterhouses.

Will my right hon. Friend consider issuing suggestions to local authorities that they could take advantage of this system in view of the most unsatisfactory arrangements now operating in private slaughterhouses?

asked the Minister of Food in how many cases where the existing slaughterhouses are considered unsatisfactory but new premises cannot be erected at present owing to shortage of men or materials have plans for new buildings been prepared.

Plans for new slaughterhouses are usually prepared by local authorities. I do not know how many have already prepared plans for the erection of new buildings when circumstances permit, but some 50 local authorities have approached my Department for advice and information on the subject during the past three years.

Will my right hon. Friend obtain the information so that when conveniences can be offered for the building of new slaughterhouses, there will be no further unnecessary delay?

I do not think that there is any difficulty about inducing local authorities to go ahead as soon as we can permit them.

New Ration Books (Collection)

asked the Minister of Food how many new food ration books have so far not been collected; and to what extent delay is due to the loss of identity cards.

By 17th July, over 99 per cent. of the ration books for which we had budgeted had been collected. I am afraid we do not know how many of the remaining one per cent. are delayed by people having lost their identity cards.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to make any relaxation in respect of the rations of those who have not yet had their ration books, in view of the hardship which will be caused if they do not get them?

If such people will apply to food offices, I think that their cases can be adjusted.

Food Trades (Hygiene)

asked the Minister of Food if he has considered the reports of the proceedings at the Congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute and at the annual conference of the Sanitary Inspectors Association attended by his officials, at which the need for a campaign to improve the standards of hygiene in the food trades was urged; and whether he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir, I have seen the reports referred to. With permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full statement on the measures which we are taking to improve the standards of hygiene in the Food Trades.

Following is the statement :

Statement on Measures Being Taken to Improve the Standards of Hygiene in the Food Trades

Under the Transfer of Functions (Food and Drugs) Order, 1948, which came into operation on 1st March, and the several Public Health (Amendment) Regulations which came into operation on 1st June, my Department has taken over from the Ministry of Health the central responsibility for food inspection and food hygiene generally.

It is my intention to seek the co-operation of local authorities and their officers, the food trade and the public in a concerted effort to combat the dangers to health which result from the preparation, storage, or handling of food in unclean or otherwise unsatisfactory conditions.

Unfortunately, shortage of essential equipment and of building labour and materials hamper immediate improvements in many directions. I believe, however, that existing legislation can be made more effective by voluntary and more detailed codes of practice applicable to particular trades, and by stimulating amongst all concerned a more positive attitude to food hygiene generally.

In these matters my Department will work in close consultation with the Ministry of Health, which remains responsible for measures for dealing with infected food and food poisoning, and with the local authorities concerned with the enforcement of the relevant provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and of the Regulations made thereunder.

I feel sure that I can rely upon all concerned—and not least the general public—to give their whole-hearted support to this effort.

Individual Rations

asked the Minister of Food if he is now able to give some relief to persons living alone and who are not able to afford meals at restaurants.

I fully realise the difficulties of people who live alone and who cannot afford to make use of catering facilities. I am afraid, however, that neither I, nor my Department, nor any of my predecessors have ever been able to find an administratively practical way of applying a differential ration to such cases. How are we to define what constitutes living alone? It would really mean examining each individual case on its merits, and for that my Department has not the staff or resources.

Would it not be possible for these people to get a statement signed by a clergyman, a member of a local authority or a justice of the peace certifying that they were living alone, so that they could take it to the food office and get authority?

We have considered all those suggestions. It is a question of degree—for instance, whether a person is living alone at one particular address—and I am afraid that from a legal point of view, it is almost impossible of definition.

Is the Minister aware that one of the most deserving groups of people are widows who are not receiving more than the 10s. pension per week and who are over 65, and can he enter into some arrangement with the Minister of National Insurance to cover these people?

I do not myself think that differential rationing is the answer to that problem.

Will my right hon. Friend encourage the local authorities to use their power of instituting mobile canteens to serve very cheap food for old people?

I should think that possible amelioration could be found on that sort of line, rather than on the ground of differential rationing.

Plum Crop

asked the Minister of Food whether, in connection with the exceptional urgency of the plum growers and this season's crop disposal, the Government can undertake to make their promised pronouncement before 24th July, 1948.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 19th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), to which I cannot at present add.

Does not the Minister realise that the Ministry of Food have had adequate notice for months of the crisis which is now taking place, and is he not further aware that, if it is left indefintely, the plum growers and the jam manufacturers will not know where they stand, and that great waste will take place? Is he not also aware that I can do anything he can do, but very much better?

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the reply to which I referred, he will see that we are by no means doing nothing.

As the reply to which my right hon. Friend has referred only held out a rather vague hope that this year's crop would not be wasted, is it likely that he will soon be able to make a statement indicating some more drastic step, such as taking plum jam off the ration altogether?

In view of the Minister's failure to do anything, I beg to give notice that I will endeavour to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Royal Navy

Review, Southsea

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty who provided the horses for the Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, for the recent naval review on Southsea Common; and under which Admiralty regulations or instructions an Admiral has authority to detail a Royal Marine to precede him on horseback carrying his Admiral's flag at such reviews.

Four of the horses were kindly lent without charge by Mr. Webb, a neighbour of Lord Fraser at Portchester; one was hired by the Admiral at his own expense. With regard to the last part of the Question, there are no provisions in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions on this subject.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this has already become a standing joke throughout the Navy—this modern version of the "Horse Marines"—and will he take steps to try to stop these exhibitions, which only bring ridicule to the Service?

No, Sir; I will do nothing of the kind. I can see no reason why we should object to a little ceremony which adds a certain amount of colour to our lives.

Is horseback the only method of progression left to our naval officers since the Government gave away all the ships?

Dartmouth Cadets (Entry)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many of the 484 candidates not found suitable for the first new scheme Dartmouth entry were failed on interview and written examination, respectively.

Of the 500 candidates who actually completed the written examination for the 29 vacancies at Dartmouth, 437 failed; 33 failed at the interview.

Television Service (Extension)

asked the Post-master-General, in regard to the survey as to the possibility of extending television to the north, whether it will be possible to site the proposed station to serve both Lancashire and Yorkshire, or if he will give an assurance that the duel developments will take place simultaneously.

I hope television can be brought to South Lancashire and a substantial part of Yorkshire simultaneously, but it will be some time before we know just how this can be done.

While I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, as a Lancashire man representing a Yorkshire constituency—I do not want to introduce a War of the Roses—may I ask him if he will please give special consideration to the wonderful city in South Yorkshire—the city of Leeds?

Post Office Savings Book (Retention)

asked the Postmaster-General why Savings Book No. 70632 was retained at Walham Green Post Office on 7th July; when it will be, returned to the depositor; and whether this was done with his authority.

The bank book was retained at the post office in accordance with instructions designed to ensure the check of Savings Bank books against the central ledgers at reasonably frequent intervals. In this instance it was found necessary on examination to retain the book longer than is usual, and a letter to this effect was sent to the depositor on 10th July. The book was returned to him on 14th. Instructions to post offices regarding the conduct of Savings Bank business are, of course, issued with my authority.

Can the Postmaster-General say what were the special reasons for this book being retained, and whether it was because he was a poor man that he could not sue the Post Office for robbery with violence?

It is the custom for the bank book to be sent periodically to the Central Office in order that it may be checked.

Business of the House

May I ask the Leader of the House if he has a statement to make about Business?

Yes, Sir. On Thursday, 24th June, I gave the House an indication of the likely dates of the Summer Recess and of forthcoming Sessions of Parliament.

It may be convenient for me to inform the House that if all outstanding Business is disposed of, the Government now propose that the House should adjourn for the Summer Recess on Friday, 30th July. The House is aware that power already exists for Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date if such a course should prove necessary in the public interest. We had hoped this year to return to the proper practice and prorogue, but perhaps this will be possible in future Sessions.

The House will meet again on Monday, 13th September. It is expected that Prorogation will take place on that date, and that a new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 14th September.

A message is expected to be received from another place today about the Criminal Justice Bill. We propose to ask the House to consider the Lords' Reason for insisting on certain of their Amendments to the Bill tomorrow (Thursday) at the end of Business.

On Friday, we hope that it will be agreeable to the House to take the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Bill [ Lords ] through all its stages. As the House is aware the Second Reading has already been announced for that day.

We shall also ask the House to consider the Motion to approve the Cold Storage (Charges) (No. 2) Order.

Perhaps I may just say about the arrangement for the Summer Recess that we on this side of the House welcome the Government's decision to adjourn and not to prorogue. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we feel that course to be more appropriate in present conditions, and we are glad of the Government's decision in the matter.

Civil Aviation

Tudor Aircraft (Government Decision)

As hon. Members will have seen from the statement on the Khartoum trials of the Tudor II, issued concurrently with the Report of the Courtney Committee on the Tudor II, the preliminary trials of that aircraft have proved unexpectedly disappointing. His Majesty's Government have decided, with great regret, to abandon the Tudor II and Tudor V as a separate type. As a result, both B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. are faced with a serious gap in the aircraft which they have available until the post-war British types—the Comet and others—can be successfully completed. The only new British landplane suitable for trunk routes which is expected to become available meanwhile is the Hermes IV, of which 25 are on order for B.O.A.C.

After a most careful review, His Majesty's Government have decided to authorise B.O.A.C. to negotiate the purchase of 22 Canadair Fours to fill this gap, B.O.A.C.'s 16 Tudor IV's being transferred to B.S.A.A. to enable that Corporation to operate a unified fleet. As the House knows, the Canadair Four is fitted with Rolls Royce engines. Thanks to the good offices of the Canadian Government, the necessary dollars will be found through the postponement of certain obligations to the Canadian Government for the redemption of debt, thus enabling the dollars that would have gone towards meeting those obligations to be applied to the purchase of these aircraft. Consequently no immediate dollar outlay is involved. The net dollar earnings of this fleet will be available to supplement our dollar resources.

In spite of the financial loss on the Tudor II's the financial saving to the country by operating these Canadairs instead of Tudors should be substantial. It is better to face the immediate financial loss involved in not using the Tudor II's as passenger aircraft rather than that the Corporations should be forced to operate these aircraft at an additional loss.

Negotiations have been opened for the conversion of 21 of the Tudor II's into Tudor IV pressurised freighters for use by B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. Meanwhile the Government have given an instruction to proceed with the conversion into unpressurised freighters of 10 Tudor II's. This will avoid delay in the commencement of the work, and minimise any dislocation of employment for the workers. The Ministry of Supply will also require a number of these aircraft for experimental purposes.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give the House an assurance that the decision to buy Canadairs is in no sense a permanent abandonment of the "Fly British" policy, and that they will be used only to fill a temporary need and will not be used in preference to any suitable British types?

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Tudor IV, which he said has not been tried on the North Atlantic route, has been operated regularly by B.S.A.A.C. on the North Atlantic route, and, while I reserve the right to criticise the decision in detail, will he say what will be the effect of this decision on the employment of factory workers, and why the proposal to adapt the Tudor II into the Tudor IV is not being proceeded with.

With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, I am afraid some rather rash statements have been made. After all, the ordinary Dakota can fly the Atlantic, but it cannot regularly fly the Atlantic with a passenger payload. Tudor IV's flying the North Atlantic fly via Iceland. I am sorry to have to make these statements, but the hon. Member presses me to do so. The only time that the Tudor IV has flown direct from Shannon to Montreal has been when it has had a very strong tail wind and an extremely light load. In fact, it has not operated with passengers at all, but only with a certain amount of freight on fuel consumption trials.

So far as employment is concerned, there are 16 Tudor I's to be converted into Tudor IV's for the British South American Airways, and 10 Tudor II's to be converted into Tudor IV's. This programme should afford, if we get the co-operation from the manufacturers, as I fully expect we shall, sufficient work to ensure that there will be no dislocation in the employment programme for the workers in the factories.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say, first, when these Canadairs will be built and how long that will be before the Hermes are ready, and, secondly, does not this tragic muddle over the Tudor II and what the Courtney Committee yesterday called the "Government's failure to discharge its own responsibilities" prove that the present system of ordering aircraft is all wrong; and when will the Committee of private businessmen set up to consider this matter tender their report?

So far as the Canadairs are concerned much depends on whether standard aircraft are ordered or whether there are alterations in the specification. If standard aircraft are ordered, the promise is that the first aircraft will be delivered in eight months and a total of 15 within 12 months of the date of the order. The Hermes is promised for 1949, to be operated in 1950. That is the promise. In so far as the ordering procedure is concerned, the Courtney Committee's Report is not a criticism of this Government alone; it is a criticism of three Governments—the Coalition Government, the Caretaker Government and this Government. This Government has followed this procedure, but it is hoped that the business advisers who are now looking into the question will report to the Prime Minister very shortly.

Let us get the record right. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Coalition Government placed no orders for civil aircraft, as they were wholly engaged in winning the war?

The Coalition Government made all the arrangements for the Brabazon Committee, and that Committee sat and completed its report in 1943. The orders were actually placed in April, 1945, and I think that in April, 1945, the Caretaker Government was in office. If it was not the Caretaker Government, it was the Coalition Government.

Is the Minister aware that the past vacillating policy of certain persons concerned has caused grave damage to our aircraft industry and that the engineers in Manchester and the northern districts are highly indignant at what has taken place? Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government are determined to profit from past experience? Further, will the Minister assure the House that the aircraft workers will be kept fully employed on future orders?

The Courtney Committee's Report is a criticism more of a system than of individuals, and a revision of that system is now taking place or is under consideration. With reference to aircraft workers, one cannot give an assurance that there will be no unemployment among them anywhere. As for the general allocation of work within the aircraft industry, I do not want to "pass the buck," but that is really a matter for the Ministry of Supply.

May I move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of grave national importance?

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that all this delay, muddle and loss arises from the fact that there is no authority to place orders and adjudicate between all the Ministries and Corporations concerned with these orders?

There is a degree of truth in that suggestion, but my own view is that the "cost-plus" basis of the contracts is more responsible for that state of affairs.

In view of the Minister's statement about the "cost-plus" basis, can he give any indication of the cost of converting these 16 Tudor I's to IV's which, presumably, will be borne by public funds, and will he obtain a firm price and depart from the "cost-plus" principle? Would he not agree that the "cost-plus" principle is one of the reasons why the firm readily and somewhat irresponsibly accepted the modifications suggested by the Corporation?

The major part of that question is much more the concern of the Ministry of Supply than of my Ministry. So far as this work is concerned, the Government's contribution towards keeping the employees at work in the factory has been the placing of an order under the existing terms of contract with the Ministry of Supply with a view, whilst that work is proceeding, to securing from the company a firm price for the conversion of the remainder.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the controversy, many hon. Members would like to express their appreciation of the very generous action of the Canadian Government in meeting the dollar difficulty?

Could the Parliamentary Secretary say how long the conversion will take, when deliveries of the aircraft will be made, and after conversion has taken place and delivery has been made, what will happen to the workers?

I take it that the hon. Gentleman's question refers to the conversion of Tudor II's to IV's?

From my experience of the industry, I would not like to give any undertaking as to what will happen at any time.

In view of the very deplorable Report, will not the Parliamentary Secretary accept the advice which I have been giving him for a long time and employ the very high skill of the Scottish engineers by getting the Government to set up an aeroplane factory in Scotland?

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give one more assurance—that this decision to buy Canadairs will in no way affect the orders for the Hermes?

No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman reads the reply I have given, he will see that there are, in fact, 25 Hermes IV's on order by B.O.A.C., followed by other orders for the D.H.106, the M.R.E. and the S.R.45. All subsequent orders are, in fact, for British aircraft, and, as I have said, 25 Hermes IV's are now on order with Handley Page for operation by B.O.A.C.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the second Courtney Report made only this criticism about A. V. Roe, that they had been too co-operative with B.O.A.C., and, bearing that in mind, will he tell the House whether it is the intention of the Ministry of Civil Aviation to consider a future Tudor programme or future development by A. V. Roe of civil aircraft, and what is the Ministry's intention with regard to this factory in the future?

The question of the utilisation of the aircraft industry is outside my province and questions should be directed to the Ministry of Supply.

When these Canadair aircraft are in operation, to what extent will the enormous losses of B.O.A.C. be reduced and possibly converted into a profit? In the meantime, who is the over-riding authority to sort out this muddle and chaos in the Government Departments?

Taking into account the additional capital cost and the writing off of the losses arising from the Tudor programme, the anticipated profit will be £5 million over the five years. So far as the future is concerned, I thought I had made it clear—but if not I am glad to take this opportunity of doing so—that the Prime Minister himself is receiving advice from a group of experts on ordering procedure.

If this is a temporary phase in the production of British aircraft, will my hon. Friend say how long this temporary phase may last? Is it the case that something like 10 years will pass before we can put on the market anything equal to the Douglas D.C-6?

Certainly not. The Hermes IV will be an aircraft of which we as a nation will have every right to be proud.

Reverting to the question of payment for Canadairs, the hon. Gentleman said that there was no immediate call for dollars because the Canadians had generously agreed to postpone certain payments. Can he tell us for how long that postponement operates? Will we have to pay next year or the year after, or when?

My information is that payment due on certain debts is being taken for the aircraft instead of for the debts. I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to put questions about financial arrangements to the Treasury, because they have conducted the negotiations with the Canadian Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the figure of £5 million profit to which he has referred is a net profit or an operating profit?

Bread Rationing (Abolition)

I am glad to be able to tell the House that the present system of bread and flour rationing, together with the restrictions on the serving of bread in restaurants, will end on Sunday next, 25th July. The Government have not been able to end bread rationing before because the prospects for our supply of wheat were not sufficiently assured, either from the point of view of the quantities of wheat available, or of our ability to buy these quantities. I must warn the House, in the plainest possible terms, that even today both the quantity of wheat available in the world and our ability to command the foreign currencies necessary to buy it, are strictly limited.

For these reasons, His Majesty's Government do not now propose to return to the unrestricted sale of bread and flour for any purpose—whether for human or for animal consumption—which the purchaser may choose. To replace the present system of rationing, we have introduced a scheme under which the delivery of flour from Mills will be controlled administratively by my Department in such a way as to keep the rate of offtake as from 18th July at approximately the rate of the past 12 months. The scheme will be operated flexibly so as to take account of seasonal and local variations. Detailed instructions are being sent out by my Department to divisional and local food offices and to the trade explaining the exact provisions of this scheme.

The rate of offtake permitted—approximately, I repeat, that of the past 12 months—will be amply sufficient to provide all the bread and flour needed for human consumption. But His Majesty's Government are determined to do everything in their power to prevent the use of bread or flour for the feeding of livestock. For there can be no justification for this mal-practice, either from the point of view of the wheat supplies of the world, or from the point of view of the British balance of payments.

In addition, therefore, to limiting the total offtake of flour to approximately the level of the past 12 months, an order will come into force tomorrow which will prohibit the sale or purchase of more than 28 lb. of flour by retail at any one transaction. This order has two purposes. It is intended to assist the retailer in preventing the purchase of flour by his customers for livestock feeding. I am quite sure we shall enjoy the co-operation of the bakers and grocers in this important objective, and I believe that this new order will strengthen their hands in preventing the misuse or waste of flour. Secondly, the new order will stop the retail sales of flour in quantities of over 28 lb. by millers, importers, and other flour distributors for animal feeding purposes. An appreciable amount of wheaton flour was misused in this way before bread rationing, and we have no intention of allowing this practice to re-appear. I realise that this new order must be applied with care and discrimination, particuarly in remote areas where housewives are accustomed to lay in stocks of flour for home baking, and the order provides for full powers of exception and discrimination for my divisional and local food officers in these areas.

The figures of flour offtake during the two years of bread rationing show that very appreciable savings were made in the first year, which was the most critical period for our supplies. In fact, there is little doubt that without rationing we should have suffered a breakdown in the supply of bread to the population, with all the exceedingly grave consequences which that would have involved, in April or May, 1947. Even in the second year of bread rationing, when rationing was probably having little effect on the level of human consumption, it still served to limit the feeding of bread and flour to animals. The proof of this is that the total offtake remained, on the average, between 1,000 and 2,000 tons a week below the pre-rationing level.

I must emphasise to the House that it would not be possible to end bread rationing even now, if this involved a return to the feeding of bread and flour to livestock such as existed before the rationing period. We are only able to get rid of the vexatious restrictions involved in rationing because we are confident that the administrative arrangements which I have described will, with the co-operation of the trade and the public, serve our purposes as well or better.

In conclusion, therefore, I appeal to the milling and baking and flour distributing trades, and to the public, to co-operate with us to the full in making the new arrangements a success.

Of course, we are all very glad to hear the confession and admission of error which has been made.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of what has been the cost to the public of this disastrous procedure which he adopted two years ago—the financial cost? Can he also tell us how many staff were added; what was the addition to what I will call the ill-employed for the purpose of carrying out the functions under this procedure; and how many of these persons will be provided for by the afterthoughts which the Minister has just given to the House as to the many new forms of employment which will be found for them on this occasion?

First of all, I should like to challenge the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to produce one word of admission of failure in the statement I have just made. The right hon. Gentleman invents that out of whole cloth himself. As to his questions: the number of staff involved was some 1,500; I cannot give him the financial cost, and I think it would be difficult to do so, because they were engaged not exclusively in bread rationing activities, but in others as well; and I cannot tell him the exact number who will be dispensed with now, because the number had already been reduced to 750 today.

But surely, if 1,500 new people are taken on to start a great scheme and system of control of this character, which we said at the time was unnecessary, and which has proved to have been unnecessary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense"]—and if now the scheme falls to the ground, having long lapsed in any practical effect, and is brushed away on the admission and confession of the Minister—or on the announcement of the Minister—how many of these 1,500, or 750 if you like, that are remaining are to be put to some useful employment? Or have we got to go on finding excuses for keeping them all quartered on the back of the British taxpayer, who is largely the wage earner at the present time? How long are they to be kept going in this situation?

Are we to keep 750, for whom there is no need? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] What do you mean, "Order"?

I am particularly glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has reminded the House today, and has thus saved me the trouble of doing so, that on the introduction of bread rationing he and his party said that it was quite unnecessary. I have just been able to inform the House that in the event, as we now know, and from our figures of supplies and consumption, had we taken his advice at that time the entire bread supply of the country would have broken down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Certainly. And in view of that fact—and it is a fact which can be established—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Certainly the fact can be established—the House and the country should take note of the right hon. Gentleman's reminder that he and his party would have produced that breakdown in the food supplies of the country. As to his question on what is to happen to the 750 employees of the Ministry remaining on the duties of bread rationing, it had naturally occurred to us that when we were able to abolish bread rationing we should be able to dispense with some or all of their services, which surely is a very good thing. The House will note the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to twist the announcement that we have been able to abolish one of the rationing systems of the country into some kind of admission of the failure of a Government Measure.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether in his new arrangements he provides for the imposition of suitable penalties upon those who deliberately infringe the new set-up by feeding bread and flour to livestock?

With regard to the new arrangements proposed, has the new scheme for limiting the issue of flour been agreed with the trade as practicable and suitable, or has it been devised without the assistance of the trade? With regard to the limit of 28 lbs. on the sale of flour, as there are, of course, large numbers of people who have perfectly legitimate reasons for buying more, will they have to get permission individually to buy more, or will there be some order issued which will give a general permission in certain classes of cases to allow those people to get what they need without having to go to a food office, which may be far away, in order to get a permit? As the right hon. Gentleman has himself admitted that there has been no saving at all during the last 12 months—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—he said so—and as he is now limiting the amount of issue to what has been issued during the last 12 months, what conceivable reason has there been for keeping on bread rationing for the last 12 months?

I will take the last part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question first. I think he misheard my statement. As I said, even during the last 12 months there has been an appreciable saving of between 1,000 and 2,000 tons per week in the current off-take of flour. The actual saving works out at 6 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is the fact: the saving was 6 per cent, during the last 12 months; the usage and off-take of flour was 6 per cent, less [HON. MEMBERS: "On what?"] On the pre-rationing period, of course. What else could it be? As to the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question, was the trade consulted, the answer is: Yes, they were consulted, and informed of the new arrangements, which will be worked in conjunction with them. I think I may say that they are perfectly satisfied as to its practicability. As to the second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, as to how we shall work the exceptions to the new order on the 28 lb. limit, as I said in my statement, people living in remote areas or home-baking areas can seek from their local food offices a licence to purchase in one transaction quantities of over 28 lb. After all, 28 lb. of flour at one transaction is a fair quantity.

Has not the 6 per cent. saving, alleged to have been made per month for the last 12 months—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why 'alleged'."] I say alleged to have been made. Oh, well. we know how figures can be foxed.

On a point of Order. A serious statement has been made by a Minister of the Crown on a particular subject, and he has given to the House a series of figures in connection with that subject. It is now stated by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) that those figures are "foxed." The only interpretation of the word "foxed" that I have is "faked." May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Order for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that those figures have been faked, and, if it is not in Order so to suggest, whether you will direct him to withdraw?

After all, it is hard for one to interpret the exact meaning of "foxed" or "faked." I have heard it said that figures can be used to prove anything. The fact of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the figures. He is entitled to take that view.

Is it in Order on a Ministerial statement on a certain subject, namely, that bread rationing is to come to an end, for the House now to indulge in a Debate as to the merits of that scheme of rationing?

I hope we shall not go into the whole history of bread rationing at the present moment. I know it is the month of July, and that Parliaments are apt to be a little less cautious at such a time than they are earlier in the year.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I remind you of a well-known quotation?

"There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics."

I am not attempting to give it any application to the current colloquy. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether what he alleges to have been a 6 per cent, saving in the last 12 months, during which we have consistently pressed for the abolition of bread rationing, amounts to one twenty-fifth part of the immense gift of wheat which was squandered by the Lord President of the Council, and which was one of the reasons which made bread rationing necessary?

On the two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman I will only say, as to his suggestion in which he throws doubt on the veracity of the figures—

Unquestionably, the right hon. Gentleman is throwing doubt on the veracity of the figures when he says that he knows how the figures can be "foxed." I would only say on that, that the right hon. Gentleman in this speaks from a wealth of experience which I could not hope to rival. On the second point, in which he alleges that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council made some gift of wheat to somebody on some occasion, I would say that that is simply a piece of misinformation which has been contradicted time and again.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long the present controls and regulations on the low quality of bread will be maintained, and how many civil servants are used on them?

Is the noble Lord referring to the extraction rate? We should like to lower the extraction rate when supplies make it possible to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the rather synthetic indignation which his statement causes the right hon. Gentleman opposite is due to the fact that he has now robbed the Leader of the Opposition of most of the material of his week-end garbled speeches?

Can the Minister give the House any hope that the extraction rate will be lowered by even as little as 2½ per cent, before the expiry of the summer months?

Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention that customers should continue to register with a single baker in future?

In that case, what is to prevent a customer from buying 28 lbs. of flour at more than one shop?

Will some other conditions as well as remoteness be taken into account, because inaccessibility during the winter months is an important consideration in those regions where people are likely to be cut off by the weather?

Certainly. The habits of the district in the way of home baking will certainly be taken into account.

The right hon. Gentleman has several times spoken of "off-take" and "rate of off-take." Does this expression occur in the order? If so, will it be defined? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of this obscure jargon?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this order to which he has referred will be tabled? Will it be tabled before it comes into effect, and will it be subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure?

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept as an epitaph for his sorry scheme: "No flour by request"?

Will the Minister give urgent consideration to an appropriate order in connection with the issue of oatmeal where formerly oatmeal flour and ordinary flour were interchangeable? In the remote districts of Scotland, oatmeal is what is wanted and not flour. Will there be orders about that?

Oatmeal raises the question of points rationing, and I cannot anticipate alterations in the points rationing scheme.

Can the Minister say whether under this order it will be permissible to feed bread and flour to vermin or less?

The right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed new offences against the law. Would he consider answering his hon. Friend's question as to whether new punishments are to be introduced, or whether punishments are to be imposed?

Where we have new offences and new punishments, there will, of course, be penalties.

Will the Minister say whether prosecutions pending for breach of the regulations now being abrogated, are to be proceeded with or abandoned?

May I ask the Minister about the timing of this announcement? What new factors have come to light recently which enabled him to make his announcement today and which prevented him from making it two or three months ago?

We know more about the Northern Hemisphere harvests now than we did two or three months ago. I should have thought that the hon. Member might have realised that.

Business of the House (Supply)

Ordered:

"That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock."

Ordered:

"That the Proceedings on the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill and on the Public Registers and Records (Scotland) Bill [ Lords ] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[ Mr. H. Morrison. ]

Orders of the Day

Supply

[24TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Civil Estimates, 1948–49

Class I—Scottish Home Department

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £599,630, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Scottish Home Department; expenses in connection with provisional orders and statutory orders subject to special procedure; a subsidy for transport services to the Western Highlands and Islands, etc.; grants and expenses in connection with services relating to children and young persons; a grant in lieu of land tax; grants towards the expenses of probation; grants in connection with physical training and recreation; grants for coast protection works; and miscellaneous services arising out of the war." [Note: £243,000 has been voted on account. "]

THE LATE Mr. JOSEPH WESTWOOD

4.14 p.m.

Before proceeding to the discussion of Scottish affairs this afternoon, would you permit me on behalf of the Prime Minister, my colleagues and myself and, I am sure on behalf of the Committee as a whole to express our profound sorrow at the sudden and tragic death of the right hon. Joseph Westwood, former Secretary of State for Scotland.

His life was spent in the service of Scotland and its common people. Almost as a boy he was moved by the hardship and suffering which surrounded him in the Scottish coalfield, and, being at all times articulate, he was soon marked out to be the spokesman of his fellow miners. His power to help them was greatly increased by the fact that in addition to being a good fighter he was also a good miner. He was, therefore, respected by both his fellow workers and his employers as a man of high character and great courage.

His record in public service can hardly be surpassed. From the beginning in local government, he threw himself into the campaign for more and better education. He was a pioneer of the idea of school feeding and persuaded his county council to adopt the principle of completely free education in all council schools. As a member of Fife County Council he was able to play a part in the realisation of many of his ideals. As a member of the Coalition and later of the present Government, he was able to embody in legislation policies for which he started the struggle nearly 50 years ago.

In his personal life, Mr. Westwood lived for his home and his family and he was strictly temperate in all things. I lived and worked with him during the war and at all times found him a loyal and helpful friend. Today, we all feel the shock of his death as a personal loss and would desire to place on record our respect and grief at the tragic fate which brought about his premature and untimely end. All of us, in our own ways, will carry on the torch of progress, which he has been compelled to drop. We should like, with your permission, Major Milner, to take this opportunity to associate ourselves with the words of Mr. Speaker, in the sympathy which he, on behalf of the House, extended to his family in their hour of grief.

4.17 p.m

May I and my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House associate ourselves with the tribute which has been paid to the late Mr. Westwood by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, and also with the message of sympathy to his friends and relatives. The Secretary of State has spoken of Mr. Westwood with the intimate knowledge which long years of work can alone bring, but we on this side of the Committee and I myself in particular knew the late Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs as a Parliamentary opponent—as an antagonist—but what we feel today is the loss of a colleague from Parliament and of a friend—and very keenly of a friend—from our circle. The tragic suddenness of his death came with an equal shock to the whole House, and it serves to remind us all of a famous phrase of a famous Parliamentarian:

"What shadows we are and what shadows we pursue."

There are some things which are not shadows: Work, courage, sympathy, sincerity. By those sentiments, men can add to the great influence and renown of these Houses of Parliament. It was in those virtues that the late Joseph Westwood made himself eminent in the service of Parliament and in the service of his country, and it is by those qualities that the late right hon. Gentleman will be remembered.

4.19 p.m.

I should like to add on behalf of the Scottish National Liberals in this House and in Scotland a few words to what has already been said. To everyone of us it came as a real shock to hear of Mr. Westwood's tragic death. Most of us, as my right hon. and gallant Friend has said, at one time or another during the last few years have had occasion to argue with Mr. Westwood on the Floor of the House or in private on points of principle or of detailed administration. Only a few days ago, I found myself following him in the Scottish Grand Committee, after what, to the sorrow of all of us, proved to be his last speech in Parliament. From that speech, as from other discussions, I came away not necessarily in agreement with Mr. Westwood but always with a feeling of personal regard for a man who was invariably sincere in his concern, above all, for the human side of every problem which came his way. We shall all of us miss the familiar, friendly sight of Mr. Westwood, perhaps in a more personal way in the Scottish Grand Committee than on the Floor of this House. Our sincere sympathy also goes out to his relatives and friends and particularly to his son, who has gone through this terrible experience.

Trade and Industry, Scotland

4.21 p.m.

Perhaps we may now come to the Business which is before us. We have put down on the Votes such Ministries for consideration as will lead us to be able to discuss and consider the White Paper, Cmd. 7459, on Trade and Industry in Scotland. We welcome this opportunity and we believe it is for the convenience of the House that we should have treated the Debate in this way, because it is a matter of surprise as well as criticism that there has not yet been an occasion since the General Election when the Government have allotted time in the House to the consideration of trade and industry in Scotland. It is true that Scottish trading problems reflect, though perhaps in a smaller mirror, the same problems as those which apply to British trade in general, but in addition' we have specialised problems of our own, such as the ratio of unemployment in Scotland, the Highlands and Islands problem, the development of hydro-electric power, and the claims and arguments of the Scottish Nationalists.

I would like to congratulate the Secretary of State on this White Paper, his new child, and the child of his predecessor, who has been so tragically removed. Last year this review babbled; this year it has become more voluble in 90 pages, but there is throughout it a certain smugness as though it were going to say, and it does say, "See what I have done in 1947; just see how clever I have been." It very conveniently slips past the many failures which occurred in the same period of time. We look for and we miss any clear-cut, defined, programme for the future.

In this it is in considerable contrast with the Government White Paper known as the Economic Survey for 1948. We look in vain in this review for a chapter of conclusions, telling us what is in the mind of the Government as an objective for the future. The Paper is very suitably known and referred to as a review. Hon. Members opposite will have heard—if they do not remember—of a famous review held in Edinburgh by Queen Victoria at the end of the last century which became known as the "Wet Review." This review is not as wet as that, but in places it is pretty damp. We see drawn up the serried ranks of Scottish industry waiting for inspection in state by the Secretary of State. In front are the leaders—coal, shipbuilding, iron and steel and agriculture—and behind are the remainder of that body which goes to make up the whole of Scottish industry, and as we are led past these various industries there is a point here about a tunic that does not fit or there a weapon that needs cleaning or boots that need repairing.

But what is a review but a preliminary to action? Where is the objective behind all this? What is the object of the exercise? On this the Paper has, alas, too little to say. It tells us, among other things, that there were 77,000 more people in employment in the year under review than in 1939, about which it seems to be rather pleased. What? Only a 77,000 increase between 1939 and 1947? A mere increase of 4½ per cent., and that from a time about which hon. Members never tire of saying that the worst possible conditions existed in the country and that we should forget the dreadful inter-war period. Yet all that has been achieved is an increase of 77,000, and I would like to ask the Secretary of State how many of those have found their way into Government and national employment, that burden of unproductive work from which this country is suffering at the present time? The review puffs out its chest that there has been an increase in the production of coal, iron and steel. What would reasonable men expect at a time of buzzing international industrial activity, when the world is crying out for goods almost from anybody, almost at any price? Only a master of sabotage could have prevented an increase of output at a time like that.

There is much that happened in 1947, shown in the review, which is interesting and much that is gratifying, but what all in Scotland want to know is what is to happen in 1948 and 1949 and how is it to be brought about. In that there are many gaps in the review and it shall be my endeavour to try to fill some of these gaps, in spite of the difficulty that the Opposition always finds, in that it has no access to Government Departments with which to fortify its knowledge. It has been said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, but the Government are no angels so perhaps we are not fools to tread, either.

There is one thing about which there can be no doubt, and that is the undercurrent of anxiety and criticism throughout Scotland about the position of Scotland and her treatment. If there is unity about the criticism, however, there is no unity about the cure. The review makes every possible attempt to meet the pretensions and allegations of one section of Scottish Nationalist thought: I refer to the intense, all-out nationalists who believe that Scotland would be better off if it had an economic life separate from England, more or less completely detached. They say Scotland would be in a better shape, that our standard of life would be higher, that Scotland's exports to England and elsewhere, after deducting imports, would leave her with a better balance of trade than Great Britain as a whole.

Let us consider that for a moment, leaving out those important considerations such as contribution to the Defence Services and the service of the National Debt, and questions of prestige, and let us consider the point from a purely trading point of view. What do we find on this important question? The review says, referring to the interlocking of Scottish and English trade: the Home Rulers with their long programmes and their short tempers proceed to fulminate, and from the other side of the Atlantic comes Mr. McCormick with offers of sanctuary under the star-spangled banner or isolation under the "Chicago Tribune": and the nonsense goes on.

What can we abstract from this review in the way of major policies as seen by the right hon. Gentleman? A number of bodies have been, or are being called, into being, to advise on, economics. The Scottish Council for the Development of Industry has done eminent work, and it is now to be part of a Scottish Economic Conference. But cannot the findings of this Scottish Economic Conference, which has already met, be made public? The right hon. Gentleman has said not, because it is a non-executive body. Quite so, but are not the findings of dozens of non-executive bodies made available to the public? What about the committees set up to inquire into and report on every subject under the sun?

Unemployment was a major disease between the wars, a disease which all parties had their share in bearing. Unemployment reached its peak in 1932, when it was 27.7 per cent, of the Scottish insurable population, a very short time after the second Socialist Government had closed its unhappy attempt to govern the country. The ratio of unemployment in Scotland has invariably been higher than is the case in England. Today we see in this review that the ratio is 3½ per cent., which is a gratifyingly low figure, but in Great Britain as a whole it is only 1½ per cent. This extra unemployment burden which Scotland has borne for generations has given food for much anxiety and thought. It is out of this anxiety and thought that the theme of Development Areas and diversification of industry was born. The conception was, and there is much in it, that heavy industry concerns itself chiefly with the provision of capital equipment, and that when a slump comes along the first thing upon which economies are made is the provision of capital equipment. And so, it was argued, if we could diversify industry in Scotland we should iron out, as the planners said, the ups and downs of unemployment during booms and slumps.

What success have we had? In Table 1 of Appendix 2, we find that in 1929 the basic heavy industries gave employment to 34.1 per cent, of the employable population, that in 1946 the figure was 36.1 per cent, and in 1947 36.6 per cent. It is interesting to note that these figures are slightly lower than the ratio for Great Britain as a whole. Therefore, in the attempt to reduce the proportion of those employed in heavy industries we have made absolutely no progress, but rather the reverse.

What happened in regard to the consumer goods industry? Members will find in the same table that in 1929 the figure was 27 per cent., and that in 1947 it had fallen to 19.2 per cent. And so, there is a very considerable drop in those very industries which the Government were seeking to augment. Power, transport and distribution remained constant, and miscellaneous trades and services rose from 9.4 per cent, to 16.5 per cent. It is perhaps noteworthy that in that category are included all that non-productive assembly of people who are employed in national or local government. This policy may be right or may be wrong, but I am not trying to argue the merits of the case. All I am saying is that there has been absolutely no progress, as shown by this review, along the lines which were sought and contemplated.

I believe there is a danger of being too blinded by the Development Area schemes and the heavy industry theme. What would be fatal would be to abstract men from trades in which we have an international reputation, trades where the men are skilled and known to be skilled, and put them into some new type of industry in which we may or may not excel, and which may or may not endure. Yet that is exactly what is happening, as shown by the review, where it states that the shipbuilding industry is suffering a shortage of shipwrights, joiners and plumbers. Let me point out that the shipbuilding industry provides hosts of other requirements in addition to steel, such as portholes, paint, ropes, furniture and so on. The right hon. Gentleman should pursue a policy of modernising and perfecting those industries which have shown themselves to be indigenous to our country, so that they can meet with confidence the lowering cloud of competition which is coming over the horizon. Let him get on with the £30 million scheme for modernising the steel industry.

Let us turn our attention now to the new trades which have come to Scotland, as shown by this review. I am all in favour of new industries being set up in Scotland, provided we are satisfied that those industries which are indigenous to our country and are old-established are as efficient and as modern as they can be. We find that these newcomers present a curious assortment. For example, we find that no less than 56 per cent. of the Government-created jobs are provided by offshoots of concerns which come from outside Scotland.

A New Industries Panel has been set up to advise the Minister and the Government as to which type of concerns should be approached in England in order to persuade them to establish branches and offshoots in Scotland. But what is going to happen to those offshoots when the times of slump come? Is there not a grave danger that these newly-established branches of old-established industries in England will be the first to suffer? Would it not be a case of last in first out, which is the policy adopted by the Government in other directions? I would advise the panel to choose, if the choice is open to them, those industries which propose to set up in Scotland branches to manufacture components required for the whole of their output, wherever that output originates.

Let me give an imaginary example. Suppose that Vauxhall Motors wanted to establish in Scotland a branch for assembling their vehicles in the same way as they are assembled in England. It seems to me that when the slump comes along it is very likely that that Scottish branch would be the first to be closed down. On the other hand, if Vauxhall Motors proposed to establish a branch in Scotland for the manufacture of the whole of the shock absorbers or carburettors for all the cars they manufacture, the Scottish branch would continue to get a fair share of the trade in times of slump.

I notice, too, that one or two offshoots of American concerns are interested in setting up in Scotland. This is a very interesting situation. The great problem which is facing America—and it is an enduring problem—is how they can continue to be an exporting and a creditor country at the same time. They are beginning to realise just how difficult of solution that problem is, and in the meantime they have solved it by giving us Marshall Aid and handing back to us, for virtually nothing, the produce of their exports. But they are beginning to realise that to breathe in it is also necessary to breathe out. That is one of the enduring problems. One of the solutions to which they are turning their minds is the possibility of using their surplus capital to develop industries in other countries of the world. We have had examples of that which have done great good to our country—the Singer Sewing Co. at Clydebank and the Ford Works at Dagenham. It may hurt our amour propre but it employs our people, it contributes to the Government's needs in taxation, it provides capital and often technical experience which we have not got at our disposal.

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question to which I hope he will reply, because it is considered important by a number of people in Scotland. How is Scotland represented in the talks which are going on now on the provision of American capital? For instance, is the New Industries Panel in direct or indirect contact with Mr. Hoffman to show what advantage there would be in American capital providing for the construction of industries in Scotland? Has Scotland anyone representing her on the planning committee which was set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and over which, for a time, at any rate, Sir Edward Plowden presided? I understand there is no one, but Scotland's place in the industrial set-up and picture of Britain entitles her to such a voice, and that that voice should be able to be constantly heard.

Having said all this, I remain convinced that the best chance of future prosperity for Scottish industry lies in modernising the industries which are already established in our country. The Government have great powers in this matter; they can license construction plans and the obtaining of raw materials; through the Capital Issues Committee they can allow or prevent the raising of new capital; and under the Town Planning Act there is put into their hands a new and powerful weapon in the shape of the elimination or reduction of development charges in areas where industry ought, in our view, to establish itself. Are these powers being wisely used, and will they be wisely used in future. I hope so. Let shipbuilding get the steel it requires; let the whisky trade be fairly treated and its interests watched in negotiations with foreign countries; let the jute industry know what protection will be given to it.

The Minister knows that a working party, which is practically a Government committee, reported that the jute industry should have three things: first, protection; secondly, that it should combine itself into medium-sized economic units; and thirdly, that it should modernise its plant. But how can the right hon. Gentleman expect it to go ahead with the two last-named essential steps until the industry knows how it stands with regard to the first? It is hopeless to imagine that the jute industry, until it knows from where it will get supplies and raw materials, and what protection it will have, can be expected to modernise itself.

After all is said and done, however, we on this side think that the most satisfactory step of all would be for Scotsmen to establish their own industries. We are sometimes accused of lagging behind, which is a curious allegation. Scotsmen have never lacked enterprise; they still flood abroad to seek their fortunes. For instance, Scottish Aviation, denied the right to employ its aircraft by flying over routes in Britain, are flying for the profit of Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece. That is not evidence of lack of enterprise; it means that enterprise was stifled at home. Is it surprising, therefore, that men of commerce hesitate, in present circumstances, to venture what may be the whole of their earnings? If those ventures are a success more than half the profits are taken by the Government, but if they are a failure nobody comes to their aid. All the time they are subjected to frustration and delays which are most discouraging.

I will give the Committee an instance which illustrates exactly the sort of thing that is happening. A firm, James Blain & Co., in my constituency, which manufactured animal feedingstuffs, was burned down in 1941. After some time they managed to rebuild two-thirds of their factory. That was all that the demand for their products would then justify. Now the demand for animal feedingstuffs and grain for planting is insistent, and they are anxious to rebuild the remaining one-third of their factory. The Ministry of Agriculture recognises the urgency of this question, the Ministry of Food recognises the importance but not the urgency, but the Ministry of Works refuse a permit to rebuild the remainder of this factory because it will involve 30 tons of steel, of which 10 can be procured secondhand. Is it surprising that when that happens people are disgusted and that enterprise and initiative should be crippled and finally die?

A word or two about hydro-electric power. I believe the Government are right to give the development of hydroelectric power in Scotland first priority, but they must make it absolutely clear that the power produced from Scottish schemes will go first to Scottish industry and Scottish homes. That should be a sort of Scottish Monroe Doctrine. After all, "Monroe" is a good Scottish name. I believe that industries can be established alongside cheap power, but it must be cheap power. There are distressing and insistent rumours in Scotland of waste going on in connection with these schemes, about the delays, the hordes of officials and many photographers who visit the schemes to photograph their progress once a week. I ask the Minister to satisfy himself that that is not happening. If the capital cost of hydro-electric development is excessive it cannot be recovered, except by charging high prices for the units which are produced. High prices will not attract industry.

Let us remember that we have another great advantage today in the equalisation of rating. That was a constructive step, and it makes it possible to plan for or encourage industry in parts of Scotland which previously might have been killed by the high burden of the rates. As I have said, the Minister has considerable power in his hands through the development charge Sections of the Town and Country Planning Act. The distribution and variation of industry presents a very considerable advantage; it presents strategic, employment and psychological advantages, and I should like to instance what I mean by psychological advantage when I draw attention to the way in which mining communities have grown up in separation from other industries, with a different outlook, all living with their own thoughts in a world which, in the past, they rarely met. The impingement of public opinion, which does so much to colour other men's views, still largely passes by the miners.

I believe that that is one of the fundamental difficulties that the Government have to meet at present—the psychological misunderstanding of the importance to their fellow-men of what coal means.

Those are the thoughts that occur to me after reading this survey, and in all I have advocated, and in all that we on this side of the Committee will advocate, we must look to the Secretary of State to urge, argue and press for Scotland's welfare. He is the custodian in whose hands the future of Scottish industry for the moment lies. We regard his as K.C., policeman and diplomat. It is a stern task, and his whole ambition will be, and I believe is, to advance the future of Scottish industry as best he can, but the ambition must be made of sterner stuff than we have seen in this report. I urge the Government to interfere as little as possible with industry. The postwar history of industry has been a triumph of improvisation by free enterprise over the shackles of planning. Some planning is necessary, and we admit it, but it should be reduced to its simplest expression, to control at a high level, and the rest should be eliminated.

How much of our recovery has been due to iron and steel, which is now threatened with nationalisation? Contrast the progress of coal and of iron and steel in these years. To coal, every concession is given; to iron and steel, every threat has been offered. Coal missed its target last year and looks like missing it this year; iron and steel established all-time records. The National Coal Board makes a staggering loss; iron and steel makes a profit. The National Coal Board contributes nothing to the national taxation; iron and steel, very large sums. Coal is 140 per cent. over its pre-war price; iron and steel, only 70 per cent., and yet hon. Gentlemen opposite threaten it with nationalisation. What crass folly.

I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to go into the varying merits of these two questions which may involve legislation. He must also restrict his remarks to the position in Scotland for which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has responsibility.

I did not appreciate that I had in any way led on to legislation, but I thought it was legitimate to be able to distinguish and to show how Scottish industry had to depend on iron and steel in this matter. Since you have said what you have said, Major Milner, let me conclude by saying that when the next review comes out, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who is no doubt the main author of it, will see that more emphasis is laid upon the necessity for efficiency and work. It is only mentioned laconically at one place in the whole of this review, when it should be underlined, inherent and implicit in every page that is written.

Our social services, our standard of living, the prosperity of the country and of our people in the long run depend on that, and on nothing else. The storm clouds of the end of the seller's market are approaching. Economics cannot be cajoled and controlled by the right hon. Gentleman or by anybody else, and when the day of trial comes—and it is rapidly approaching—if we in Scotland cannot produce articles of quality at prices which are competitive, we can roll up our Health Bills, tear up our power plans, burn our steel production programme, because they will not be wanted again.

4.55 p.m.

The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) said that it is a long time since we had a Debate on Scottish industry. It is, in fact, some six years since a Scottish Supply Day was devoted to Scottish industry. I must say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to me not to have made the best use of his opportunity this afternoon. On every occasion he said "It is said in Scotland," "I have heard it alleged," " Fears have been expressed," and there was only one thing that he told us, and that was that he was convinced that what was wrong in Scotland at the present time was that the Ministry of Works had not granted a licence to someone in his constituency to put up a building. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also told us what everybody else on that side of the Committee was going to say in this Debate.

He did not, however, bore the Committee with statistics extracted from the White Paper, and neither shall I; but may I refer to his challenge that we had omitted from the White Paper a paragraph that might have been added setting out the conclusions? The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that, of course, the Opposition had to depend on the Government, because, after all the Opposition have not got the knowledge on which to base any conclusions. I offer them the White Paper—90 pages of information. If the Opposition are unable to formulate any kind of policy on the basis of the information contained therein, I do not know what other information they want. In any case, I should think that it would not have been difficult for the hon. and gallant Gentleman or the Opposition to tell us whether they think that it is to the economic and social advantage of Scotland for the Government to take an interest in and responsibility for the economic development of Scotland.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman said something in his concluding remarks about leaving industry to work out its own salvation. I do not think those were his exact words, though he wanted industry to be free, but I thought that the earlier part of his remarks, if they meant anything at all, meant that we really had a very great responsibility to plan a proper balance of industry in Scotland. He said that, in the example of some imaginary firm, or of Vauxhall Motors, if they came to Scotland, they should not make the whole of their article there, in order that, when the draught came, that part of their undertaking would immediately be brought to an end, but that they should only manufacture a part of the full paraphernalia of the little bits and pieces that are produced in the making of a whole motor car, so that we should suffer only our share of the reduction in production that would follow from trade fluctuations.

I have let a lot of things go past that do not coincide with what I said, but I must put the hon. Gentleman right on this. I said that, since a National Advisory Committee had been set up to advise on what trades it was desirable to attract to Scotland, if choice was open, they should choose those types of trades to which preference would be given. I instanced these and I gave the imaginary example of Vauxhall Motors.

Unfortunately, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's examples were all too imaginary, and left us still wondering whether he wanted the Government to interfere with private industry or not.

Now we know. Hon. Members opposite want industry to be free; we want fewer and fewer non-productive workers employed. I think the White Paper shows that it will be difficult to give the precise effects in Scotland, apart from England. Nevertheless, we should employ the people that would enable us to get over the difficulty. He wants us, for instance, to sift out and to assess the value of English carpets exported from this country that contain a certain amount of jute backing that comes from Dundee. That is the sort of information he wants us to extract. I do not know how many unproductive workers would be required to extract information of that kind.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman said there was evidence of smugness in the White Paper. I should have thought nothing of the kind. The White Paper is a document full of facts. If the facts are to be controverted let them be controverted. If conclusions are to be drawn from the White Paper let them be drawn. Unfortunately, the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not even endeavour to draw conclusions from the White Paper.

I listened to it today. I shall also read it tomorrow.

I should like to say something about the picture that I think the White Paper presents to the "man in the street" in Scotland. First of all, it asks us to look at Scotland before the war, when Scotland was over-dependent on two or three heavy industries: coal, steel, shipbuilding. There was then great unbalance of industry. That is admitted by hon. Members on all sides of the Committee. We had heavy unemployment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman sought to prove that we have not achieved very much by the process of diversification in which we have engaged, because the percentage of persons employed in certain industries had not changed very much. It was no part of our business to take the persons in employment in Scotland and to redistribute them over a wider range of industry. The numbers of persons employed in Scotland in the inter-war years in individual industries is not such an important figure as the number of persons unemployed, who were insured workers and were registered at the employment exchanges as being attached to those industries.

Those figures are not given in the Government's review. How could we refer to them?

They have been given in other reviews. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman likes to put down a question to the Minister of Labour he will have no difficulty in getting an answer—but I am afraid the answer might be slightly embarrassing to hon. Gentlemen opposite.

What we wanted to do in providing this diversification was to provide more jobs for females in Lanarkshire and other parts of Scotland than was the case in pre-war years when I believe there was one job for a female to every three jobs for males. In Lanarkshire there was only one job for a female for every five jobs for males. That was the sort of thing we wanted to overcome by this policy of diversification. In addition, we had to bear in mind that very many menfolk do not have the physique to engage in heavy industry, but in many areas of Scotland there was no other sort of industry for such people. Therefore, they went into heavy industries for a short time, were found to be unsuitable, and joined the ranks of the unemployed. We are trying to provide new industries and new employment for those people. If the White Paper does nothing else, I think it shows that considerable success has been met with in providing employment for just those people.

At the same time as we have been trying to bring about a better balance in industry, we have borne in mind the desirability of maintaining the highest possible output in the long-established industries—shipbuilding, iron and steel, and coal. There was heavy unemployment for long periods in those industries in the inter-war years because of lack of demand. There is no lack of demand now, but we have to look a little to the future and to concentrate upon manning-up the long-established industries, as well as providing the better balance. This diversification can only be in the best interests of Scotland as a whole.

The important thing is that here we are, as a Government, assuming responsibility for the economic wellbeing of Scotland. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite say from time to time that we ought to free industry from all these controls that are imposed upon it at the present time, nevertheless when things seem to go wrong, whether because of Government interference or not, hon. Gentlemen express the view that the Government should step in and do something about it. I should have thought that, in this day and age, hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee would agree that the Government of the day have, in fact, a responsibility for the economic wellbeing of the country.

Yes. Hon. Gentlemen have said it time and time again. Governments in the past have had a responsibility for the unemployment and misery that were endured by the workers in Scotland in the inter-war period.

Let us face up to it. The Labour Party were in office for a short period in 1924, and again in 1929–1931, but the Labour Party never had a majority of Members in the House of Commons in the inter-war period.

Does the hon. Gentleman say that at no time, during the Labour Party's periods of office, did they have full power to deal with unemployment?

We never had a majority of hon. Members in the House of Commons. It does not seem to dawn upon hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Government of the day can only carry through a policy which a majority of Members going through the Government Lobby permit them to carry out. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said: "Yes, of course, the Government have a responsibility for economic development," yet in the inter-war period we find that five-sixths of the industrial development of Great Britain took place in the Metropolitan area. Whose fault was that? Whose responsibility was it? Tory Governments would say: " It is not our responsibility. We did not send them there." No, but they did not stop them. They did not then accept the view that the Government had any responsibility whatsoever for the economic well-being of the country.

At a time when London was getting bigger and bigger and when Dagenham increased its population by 1,100 per cent, in 10 years, the workers of Scotland were languishing in unemployment. Their lot was a miserable one. I do not want to weary the Committee, but I could tell them something about those hungry years in Scotland. I should not have to draw upon my imagination or upon information contained in the reports of Government-appointed Committees. I was part of it. I lived through it. I was brought up in it. The workers of Scotland, hundreds of thousands of them, who came through those difficult years of long periods of unemployment, know whether they want the Government to assume responsibility for the economic well-being of the country or not. They know whether our present policy is successful or not.

At the present time we have far fewer unemployed people than we have ever had before. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, "That is nothing to be so very proud of because it is not so very much less." It is far less than it has ever been. We have far more people employed in Scotland than have ever been employed there. Yet the Opposition pushed that aside as of no importance.

I did not say that. What I said was that the mere increase of 77,000 jobs in seven years was not of very great importance. I did not say anything about unemployment.

Surely it is important to get the figures of employment and unemployment. They are the only figures that really matter. The provision of a certain number of new jobs would be of no advantage to us if it was accompanied by the discontinuance of an equal number of jobs. I do not think it is desirable merely to have regard to numbers of new jobs in particular occupations or in a particular way. The really important figures are the numbers of people unemployed and employed. The figures for Scotland are better than they have ever been.

The White Paper also shows quite clearly that Scotland's record in production in these post-war years is a good one and one of which Scotland can be proud. We see order and movement in industry and increasing production in the interests of Scotland and of the whole country. During the inter-war years the workers often felt—and it was the fact—that harder work and more production meant more unemployment and more misery. Today the workers of Scotland fully appreciate the position—if any do not, I implore them to believe it—that more work and more production will not result in unemployment in present-day circumstances, but in more work and more prosperity. That is the difference, and it is a very important difference.

It is true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that there are still pockets of unemployment. He mentioned some parts of industrial Scotland and the Highlands and Islands. The reason for the different categories of unemployment is undoubtedly neglect in past years. It is only because of neglect in past years that we have such heavy unemployment in certain parts of the Highlands and Islands with which we are trying to deal at present. It is only because of neglect in the inter-war years that we have pockets of unemployment in the industrial areas. Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen opposite do not appreciate the reason for pockets of unemployment in the industrial areas. Let me tell them. In the inter-war years there was very heavy unemployment in those areas. Frequently 50 per cent, or more of the insured population were unemployed for long periods, which meant that all the insured wokers had a period of unemployment.

There was under-nourishment and malnutrition on a very large scale, and many of our men who are now 25, 30, 35 and 40 years of age were in their formative years during that hungry period when they were underfed and under-nourished. I would even go so far as to say that they were so under-nourished and underfed in those years that they were not able to take full advantage of the school education which was available to them. What is the result of that? They went into heavy industry for a very short time when they left school and they were found to be physically unsuited to the task and so they were cast out. They are not fit for heavy industry at present. They are described as secondary labour.

Almost as important is the fact that the mental backwardness which is the direct result of their under-nourishment when they were youngsters at school and adolescents, has rendered them unfitted for many of the alternative types of employment which have been made available to workers in the industrial parts of Scotland today.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to state the position fairly. Is it not a fact that the rations consumed by those wretched unemployed between the wars had a higher calorific value than the present rations of the workers?

I am exceedingly glad to have that interruption. I have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite—I do not think I am doing the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) any injustice when I say that I have heard him say it—make the assertion that the calorific value of the food consumed by these people in those years was higher than that of the rations today. What a fallacy it is. Who knows what the families of the unemployed were consuming in those years?

The butcher does not know. He never had visits from some of these families in those days. They were not customers of the butcher because they had no money.

I am trying to be strictly accurate. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the answer to what he has said is in scientific reports which have been open to investigation for years. The accuracy of those reports has not been denied. The reports were the result of the most careful investigations by very public-spirited bodies.

I am sorry, but I have tried from time to time to get the information which I am now saying is not available. I say that it is not available because I have been unable to find it. I will merely say that I happen to live in a mining area. I happen to be the eldest of quite a large family and my father was a miner. After I was old enough to go to work in the mines, I happened to suffer a spell of unemployment. I know how these families lived when they had to exist upon 23s. a week. At one period they received 1s. a week for each child. I certainly know how the people lived in those days. When one bears in mind that they had to try to pay their rents, fuel and other bills, it does not need a scientific committee to tell one that they had not enough to purchase foodstuffs in sufficient quantities to feed them reasonably or to enable them to avoid malnutrition. I do not want to dwell on that too long because I feel too strongly about it. Unfortunately I know too much about it.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman called attention to the new developments which were taking place and the danger of some of them being merely branch units of industries with roots elsewhere which would proceed temporarily and then, when trade fluctuations required some diminution of productive effort, those Development Areas would be deserted again. The Government and the Board of Trade are fully alive to the danger. At all times we seek to secure that the new industries which are coming into the Development Areas, and indeed the new industries which are coming to other parts of Scotland where there is comparatively high unemployment, are industries which are not likely to leave those areas when trade fluctuations require a diminution of productive effort in that industry. The fact that we are alive to this and the fact that the Board of Trade have had to preach this doctrine themselves over and over again, should give us some little measure of confidence that the worst results will be avoided and that the Development Areas will not suffer the full brunt of any trade fluctuations resulting in any measure of unemployment at any time in the future.

However, I would say that, given a fair chance, Scotland with her native skill, her enterprise, and capacity for work, has nothing to fear. Scotland has long since earned honourable mention in the story of Britain's economic development. It is true that in the inter-war period there were many of her people unemployed and some, no doubt, have a little apprehension lest those days should come again. I repeat my appeal to them that any effort of theirs towards increased production cannot have that result now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about the enterprise of certain persons being stifled. Let me say that we would have had even more honourable mention in the story of Britain's economic development, if the enterprise and capacity for work of the workers and technicians had not been stifled over a long period. We believe that their fear to engage their skill in productive work in the interests of Scotland as a whole today is less than at any time in the past.

Mention was made of hydro-electric development. It is difficult to overstate the importance of hydro-electric development to the social and economic life of Scotland. The Hydro-Electric Board have estimated that in the next 10 years they hope to be generating as much electricity by water power as would be the output of a power generator plant consuming 14 million tons of coal. That is a tall order, and I do not know whether it is fully justified or not, but even the schemes that are proceeding at present, when completed, will have a capacity of over 800 million units a year, as is set out in the White Paper, which represents the product of half a million tons of coal. It should not be necessary to impress upon people how important it is to have this power produced otherwise than by the use of coal, and it is not necessary to impress upon hon. Members how advantageous it will be to Scotland and, indeed, to Great Britain to have this power, representing the power to be generated by so many millions of tons of coal, generated without the utilisation of any coal at all.

Forestry, the fishing industry, and agriculture are also good native industries in process of expansion in the interests of all Scotland, and I need not weary the Committee by quoting anything about them contained in the White Paper. May I say, in conclusion, that the great importance of agriculture is not always appreciated. It is not always appreciated that agriculture employs more workers than any other single industry in Scotland, and there is no surer way of promoting national well-being than producing more food at home. I need not assert further that we are doing all we can to assist these great industries in Scotland. At the top of the list let me mention agriculture. The other industries of shipbuilding, iron and steel, and coal are mentioned in the White Paper, and it will be interesting news for the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow that the nationalised coal industry in Scotland did not make a loss at all but a profit.

So the White Paper should be accepted as a cheering document. There is no smugness about it, there is no self-satisfaction. We were asked to present the economic facts of Scotland. Here they are. We are not telling hon. Members the conclusions they must draw from these facts; we shall draw our conclusions, and they will undoubtedly draw theirs. My only regret is that in the opening speech the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not take the trouble to draw any conclusions whatever, but no doubt before the Debate comes to an end some of his colleagues on that side of the Committee will take the opportunity of doing so.

5.25 p.m.

Before coming to the subject I want to discuss, may I follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) on the matter of jute, so that the Scottish Secretary may, if he is good enough, give us an answer to our questions if that is possible. He knows that the jute industry had a working party, as it were, imposed upon it. The working party met, considered at great length, and reached unanimous conclusions. It was a party representative of workers, employers and others. The essence of those unanimous conclusions was that without some security against imported jute it was impossible for the jute industry to take the next two steps which the workng party thought essential, namely, grouping and more efficient production.

The Board of Trade was represented at Dundee by the President himself a few weeks ago. The right hon. Gentleman said plainly that the Government regarded the jute industry as of strategic importance to the country. What the jute industry really wants, workers as well as employers, is some clear indication from the Government as to the level of the strategic importance, because that is vital. Until the industry knows at what point the Government puts the level of strategic output, they obviously cannot operate their business. The question was put to President by one of the speakers at the meeting in this way:

The subject of this Debate—the economic position of Scotland—is of such complexity and of such wide range, that I cannot find it possible to approach the matter in a party spirit, and I regret a little—although I understood his sentiments—the somewhat partisan attack which the Minister made. After all, it is the Government who should lead in this matter. There are, I know, occasions when one has to take a party line. We can, and do and, indeed, must apply party examination to subjects like nationalisation, because there matters of principle are engaged and it would be dishonest not to recognise and express them.

Today, no single, sharply defined issue is at stake at all. It is not one industry we are discussing; it is all Scottish industries; and, disputatious race as we are, I really do not think it is possible for us to argue and contend about every single industry this afternoon at the same time; nor do I think it would be proper to do so, nor the kind of thing that our countrymen would desire. As I see it our duty today is to survey the broad problems of our nation, not as party politicians but essentially as Scotsmen, infused with a single desire to contribute constructively to our common welfare. It is in that spirit that my hon. Friends and I address ourselves to this matter.

There is an added reason for a non-partisan approach on this occasion. The chief problem of the Scottish Minister and his hon. Friends is not one of economics—upon which, admittedly, there is room for difference of opinion; still less is it one of politics. The chief problem of the right hon. Gentleman in Scotland is one of administration; and in no sphere of Scottish activity is that more evident than in the Highlands, and it is to the Highlands that I wish to direct my remarks.

Consider the various activities of the Highlands. In its broad development there is no longer any conflict on economics or politics about, for example, the hydro-electric scheme. In principle the country is agreed upon the policy for hydro-electric development; all it asks is that the policy shall be pushed forward as fast as possible. Save for minor details, there is no divergence of view about afforestation, either in the House of Commons or in the country. The general plans of the Forestry Commission are approved and it remains only to operate them. I think the same may be truthfully said about Scottish policy for agriculture and fishing and for the main urban industries in the North of Scotland.

The fact is that out of the stress of war and the strains of recent years, and after a good deal of argument, conflict and so on, we have evolved in Scotland—certainly in the Highlands—national policies for nearly all the chief occupations of men and women. What we have not done is to correlate those policies and administer them as a single compact whole, without which the needs of the Highlands cannot possibly be satisfied. Those are the essentials—correlation and efficient administration. Our problem, therefore, is one of administration, a subject upon which little or no party feeling need be engendered, but a subject, nevertheless, to which we can and should direct our most earnest attention.

Let me illustrate to the Committee the directions in which correlated, effective administration is lacking. In what I am going to say I hope the Committee will realise I am not attempting to criticise the Government. The complaints I am about to make could be applied equally to other Governments of by-gone days. I am criticising, perhaps, ourselves—the whole nation—and am seeking the way out. I will give the Committee two examples of maladministration and lack of co-ordination.

It is recognised by, I think, everyone that one of the most effective methods of stimulating life in the Highlands is by developing light industries—everybody is agreed upon that. But what do we do? In practice we seem to go out of our way to strangle potential new enterprises in the Highlands. That is something which I can prove. I understand that today there is a large and growing demand for tartans in the American market; it is not a new demand but it takes a new form. The old, heavy materials for kilts and skirts are now out of fashion. Lighter texture is needed and the answer is worsteds. But can we get worsteds for new factories in the Highlands, where the tradition of tartan-making exists and skilled labour is available? No, we cannot get worsteds. Unless a firm was established before 1939—before the war—no allocation of worsteds is permitted. Surely, that is incredibly stupid. Does the Committee realise that tailors in the Highlands, I am told, have actually to import tartan from the North of England, and sometimes from Italy, to make up light quality kilts to export to America? That is the height of absurdity. Surely, all of us together should be able to overcome discorrelation of that kind.

Will the hon. Member tell us who manufactures Macaroni Tartan?

Not in public; but I will tell the hon. Gentleman in private. The White Paper talks of "concerted and co-ordinated action" but what I have been describing could not possibly be called by those words.

I will give the Committee another example, on a much wider scale. With a great many other people who have studied the matter, I believe that the development which holds out the best hopes of all for early, widespread and lasting prosperity to the Highlands is the tourist industry. I put that very high. Properly administered, there is no limit to the possibilities for this industry. I think I have the assent of most hon. Members in this. By the gift of nature, we have unsurpassed scenery; we have space and peace to satisfy the most troubled spirits who may visit our country; we have romance to kindle, as it has kindled, eager spirits in every part of the civilised world; we have sporting facilities, gentle and vigorous, sedate and adventurous, of a nature and variety which no similar area in the world can offer—and all these combined, in overflowing measure, in a compass of about 1,000 square miles, within one hour's flying distance of the Scottish capital.

What have we done with these unique assets? How have we used these exceptional gifts which the Lord has given us? Until recently—I am being critical, as I was in bygone days; hon. Members who were here between 1933 and the war well know that I was very critical on these matters and offered the same advice as I am about to offer today—until the other day there was literally no concerted, deliberate effort by the nation as a whole to exploit these extra-ordinary resources. Yet how greatly the whole nation might have benefited today, in this time of economic strain, had the Highlands been developed as the magnet for international travel such as they ought to be.

I give the Government credit for the establishment of the Tourist Board. It is not a new idea; it is really nothing more than the extension of the old Tourist Association of Scotland, which laboured so well, with little encouragement and under great difficulties, in pre-war years. I was a member of it and know, with some pain, something about it. Although I am not greatly impressed with all the work of the new Tourist Board—there is a certain what I might call "caucus-ballyhoo" about some of its publications that I find sometimes a little distasteful—nevertheless it represents a new initiative, is a live organisation and, therefore, is to be welcomed. But how difficult we make the labours of the new Tourist Board and how incredibly we cramp their style. What sense is there, for example, in trying to attract thousands—the right figure of course should be a million—of visitors to the Highlands when within the Highland area there is neither adequate transport to convey them, hotels to house them, food to give them or any effective organisation to entertain them. It does not make sense.

Does the hon. Member think that he is assisting the tourist industry by making these adverse criticisms?

I have a little more guts than has the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have enough courage, I hope, to face our problems bravely and to admit the facts. I do not need any advice from a Welshman—or Irishman—who occupies a Scottish seat. We shall never get out of our troubles by hiding our heads in the sand. We must face the facts and try to do better in the future. This field, which offers such golden opportunities and advantages, from which all the country might benefit, is an outstanding example of the lack of co-ordinated and imaginative administration which lies at the root, as I think, of the whole Highland trouble.

It is not enough, when facing this tourist problem or anything like it, for the Tourist Board, the Secretary of State for Scotland, or any of the local authorities, to appeal to and plead with the Ministry of Transport to provide more roads, with the Ministry of Works to release material for more hotels, with the Ministry of Food to provide facilities for the production of eggs and poultry, and so on, with which these hotels ought to be supplied, with the Board of Trade to reduce its controls, and with the Treasury to loosen its death grip upon new enterprise. It is the very multiplicity of separate demands from the Highlands upon a multiplicity of separate Departments that causes the trouble and stops progress. Yet unless and until effective action is taken in all these many directions—transport, housing, food, agriculture, and so on—only some of which I have mentioned, we shall continue merely to potter with this business.

The Secretary of State knows all this very well, and that is why I suppose he set up the Advisory Panel last year, "to secure," as he put it, "concerted and co-ordinated action." But I think, with respect, he denied himself and the panel any hope of success by the words that he added to those, as it were, terms of reference, for the full quotation is: many-headed octopus bestrides the Highland scene. That is what the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) was telling us in the Scottish Grand Committee not many days ago.

I beg to move that the word "headed" be deleted, and that something more appropriate be put in its place. None the less, I think the Committee understands what I mean.

I observe that certain organisations within the new Scottish Economic Conference have been invited to prepare what is called a "comprehensive scheme of Highland development." I hope profoundly that that scheme is a good one, and that it is effective; but I must say I would almost bet that, whatever the scheme, it will fail to achieve its object until the whole administrative machine for the Highlands is fundamentally changed.

I want to tell the Committee plainly the directions in which I suggest changes should be made. It is no use being critical without offering constructive suggestions, and I ask the Committee to bear with me while I modestly offer my own suggestions. In my view, concerted and co-ordinated action is possible only when the concerting and co-ordination take place at the top; it is not enough to do it at the bottom. The time has come to regard the Highlands as a single problem of government, to declare it a special Development Area, and to establish a Highland Area Development Board with real executive power, authority to speak and act for the Highland people, and with really substantial funds at its disposal. I think in terms of nothing less than £25 million for immediate development purposes. That is the general view that I take, and I offer the Committee these proposals for consideration.

I do not, of course, seek to escape from the criticisms that are bound to follow from such suggestions. The first among many criticisms would be that it is a revolutionary step. That is quite true. Again, it will be said that the proposal raises the difficult question of status among local authorities. That also is true. It might also be objected that it represents planning to a degree that has never yet been applied in any part of this country. I accept all that as a criticism; I recognise all those likely objections. Yet I say: if I were Secretary of State for Scotland—which seems very unlikely to happen—I would, with all the power at my disposal, press proposals along these lines upon my Cabinet colleagues, because I believe that by no other means is this great Highlands area properly to be developed. I see no other practical way of attaining concerted and co-ordinated development, without which the Highlands cannot live.

What wonders might be attained by such a board, representing, as it would, local authorities, the Tourist Board, the Hydro-Electric Board, and all the other large interests, with, of course, a small effective executive at its head? I see such a board making, for the first time, a real balance sheet of the Highlands; counting up on one side what might be gained by a comprehensive policy from, shall we say, the visits of a million friends from abroad, from perhaps a thousand new small industries, and from perhaps one or two very large major industries based upon hydro-electric supply, each great industry in turn sustaining a number of ancillary industries. That would be one side, the possible income, if really active steps were taken.

On the other side there would be the expense thereby involved. It seems to me too petty to think, for example, of new roads in terms of the croft or the village that the road is to serve. As I see it, new roads in Scotland are needed for a great, broad strategic advance. That is the real purpose of roads—to open up that whole great country—and it is that broad view which I myself would seek to take.

I have listened very carefully to the point the hon. Member is making, but I cannot for the life of me see where we are getting. Is this £25 million which he suggests for the development of the Highlands to be spent in industrial development, or simply for making roads so that tourists may travel over them? What is the £25 million to be spent on?

I was trying to concentrate my remarks, because it would not be fair to take up too much time. The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) must give me credit for thinking that the £25 million, for which the suggested Highlands Area Development Board would be responsible, would be for the whole of the activities in the Highlands.

I am giving the tourist, industry as an example of maladministration. Tourists, agriculture, hydro-electric development, railways, and roads—everything would, I hope, be involved in the enterprise embarked upon by the new board. I do not think that £25 million would be by any means too much to start making this great part of our country really effective. I have no doubt myself that a sober estimate of new resources, based upon a really imaginative programme, would over a period of years far more than meet any expenses. I am now trying to get the Committee to agree that we must get away from this idea of going to the Ministry of Transport and asking on our knees for a road to some little croft, or some little harbour. That is the wrong approach. I am seeking a much broader approach.

Would the hon. Member make clear to the Committee exactly what he proposes to do with this £25 million? Is this £25 million to be a new fund, overriding any others; and from it has the cost of all development in the Highlands to be undertaken?

I am obliged to the hon. Member. At the moment, as he knows, if we want a new road in some part of the Western Highlands a grant has to be obtained from the Ministry of Transport. I would take all these grants, actual and potential, and expenditure needed for the establishment of 100 or even 1,000 new hotels, for new railway lines and the hundred and one other things required. Let us begin by having a fund at the disposal of this new board. Since Parliament would ultimately have to exercise authority over that board my suggestion, would be that there should be a new appointment to the Scottish Office—an Under-Secretary responsible directly to this House for operations in the Highlands.

May I take it that from this fund of £25 million the hon. Member proposes to finance Highland development? Is he aware that at the moment £40 million is being spent on hydro-electric development, which he apparently includes in his £25 million?

The hon. Member must give me credit for a little sense. I am talking about future progressive development, quite apart from what we are already committed to—that is, £25 million more than we are now getting. I hope that I have made myself clear. I want to put energy and therefore new capital in the Highlands.

That, at any rate, is how I would approach this problem. I feel that by so doing we should not be seeking selfish aims. I hope that I am not taking a selfish Highland view or even a selfish Scottish view in this matter. The right view is that the Highlands, properly developed, could make a tremendous financial, spiritual, cultural and, if one likes, a trading contribution to the whole of Great Britain. I believe that the Highlands want to make that contribution. They cannot do it now for a variety of reasons. I want to release the springs that are there. I believe that in advocating a scheme of this order I am doing something not only to ennoble the Highlands but something to bring wealth and prosperity to the whole nation, of which we are citizens.

5.53 p.m.

I was rather surprised when the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) criticised the report which is the basis of our discussion today. In my opinion, this form of presentation is absolutely necessary for us fully to appreciate the position in which we may be in respect of other countries and the competition into which we must enter. We live in a changing world, and it is becoming more and more complex year by year. It is highly organised in production and so far as markets are concerned, and it is very highly organised in the control of raw materials. Therefore, it is necessary that we should have a pattern showing clearly the economic and productive position we are in, and these reports are of immense value to us in allowing us to make up our minds as to what it is best to do for the country in general.

The hon. and gallant Member tried to imply that the business men of Scotland have been rather chary of sinking money into Scottish concerns because of the attitude of this Government. As a matter of fact, it is many years since the inclination of Scots business men to send their money out of Scotland instead of putting it back into Scottish industry displayed itself. As one who is so well versed in production history, the hon. and gallant Member should not have made a statement of that character.

When we are endeavouring to foster industries and bring them to Scotland, we should foster that type of industry that fits best what we as a nation can give to meet their requirements. The natural resources of Scotland may have peculiarities that fit certain types of industry better than others. It is most desirable that we should endeavour to draw to us industries to which we can give better service than others. We have a splendid opportunity. For six years Scotland was practically an arsenal. We are in process of retracing our steps and endeavouring to build the pattern for peace-time production. We should look to the industries which can be looked upon as basic in Scotland. I was glad to hear the Joint Under-Secretary attach such importance to the hydro-electric schemes. The more speedily they can be brought into production the better, because manufacturers are at present looking for places to go. They will not wait too long and, therefore, the more speed that can be put into the development of these hydro-electric schemes so that they can transmit their power, the more speedily shall we be able to see that power utilised by industries.

I will not deal with coal but there can be no doubt that Scotland is pre-eminent so far as steel and iron is concerned. There is also engineering. When we consider that Scottish steel and iron concerns employ, directly and indirectly, at least one in six of the insured Scottish population, we have no difficulty in determining that that is a basic industry. When we also realise that nearly 16 per cent, of Britain's total steel output comes from Scotland, that fact further supports that view. General engineering in Scotland employs one in ten of the total in Great Britain; in constructional engineering one in six of the total in Great Britain are employed. Workers employed number 106,000.

Because of that I am pleased to note there is to be located in Scotland a special organisation for research in order to cope with the needs of that industry. In previous years I was in the position of seeing what help can be given to large and small concerns through the medium of a research organisation. There were many instances in which the Ministry of Supply research organisation were able to give direct help to concerns in production difficulties. I have no doubt that this research organisation in Scotland will help. I hope that it does not keep its research solely on a high technical level. I trust that it will be able to help small organisations as well as highly capitalised undertakings.

Merchant shipping is one of the things we must continue to retain in Scotland. I refer to it specially because I desire to see the ancillary industries that fit into the needs of our basic industries give greater help than before by coming to Scotland. It is interesting to note that in their pretty good report the Clydesdale Bank have in terse form put the position dealing with merchant shipbuilding and the difficulties in delivery that sometimes apply. The report states:

With regard to the very helpful figures on factory production, I am pleased to see them, but I would be a little hesitant on allowing that to grow too much. I would rather see us going with a little caution in the production of these factories because, while the world at the present time is short of many things, I have no doubt that there are great possibilities of a glut in production coming, and I rather dislike looking forward to the sight of empty factories that have overstepped the possibilities of catering for the needs of the world. It is bad enough to have economic warfare between countries, but economic warfare between firms in our own country is just as bad.

With regard to the effect on Scottish trade of the costs of freight, we are in the position in this country today that we have nationalised industries which have great requirements, in addition to the Army, Navy and Air Force. I know that Service and other Departments do not like to see anything put forward that increases the Estimates which they have to get through the Committee. I know, therefore, that they will be reluctant to have the proposal I am going to make foisted on them as Departments, but I suggest that the view I am expressing might be met if the Treasury were to have a special fund to meet freight charges. I would like to see this, because it would advantage Scotland to a very great extent; it would advantage England as well, but it would be a just form of competition to have every firm catering for a Government Department having their tender accepted free on board at works or the nearest railway station. If that were done, every contractor or every production unit throughout the country would be in fair competition on efficiency alone. Efficiency in a factory would determine their costs and not where the factory was or where the goods were required. I ask the Secretary of State to press in the proper quarter the possibility of creating a special fund in the Treasury in order to exclude the antagonism of Departments as such. This fund should be held for the service of the freight charges and so allow Scottish contractors to escape the difficulty they have been in for many years of being shut out of contracts because of freight charges.

6.4 p.m.

As against the attitude adopted by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) I wish to say that I appreciate very much the production of this document. It is full of facts and it permits of Debate here today from almost any angle. I make no apology for the fact that I shall probably take a line that differs from that of many of my colleagues. I was more than surprised at the non-political contribution of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). As a seasoned Member of this House and as a man regarded as being much experienced, it was child-like of him to present a case for £25 million for the Highlands. Where does he get the figure of £25 million? He just made a guess and wished us to regard it as a serious contribution to the development of Scotland.

I notice in the White Paper, proposals to increase the productivity of Scotland, and two bodies are operating at the moment to assist in that direction. First, we have the Development Council which takes a broad view of economic problems. Then we have the Board, which largely comprises industrialists, trade unionists and commercial people. We have here a report of what they were able to do last year. I do not make the criticism in any small way but I think the work could have been enlarged considerably. The Board has done a little to forward production especially in such matters as the staggering of working hours and other measures, the turn-round of railway wagons, the shortage of material and so on. Surely that must not be regarded as a very important contribution to improving the productive powers of Scotland. I have been looking at some of the figures on pages 74, 75 and 76. There is room for considerable improvement in the number of people employed in what might be regarded as essential but non-productive work.

If we take transport alone, we discover that in every phase of transport there is an increase in the number of people employed. I do not know of any industry where we have greater waste or loss of energy than in transport. On the railways in 1939 we had a little over 14,000 people employed. In 1947 that went up to 35,000. We all know there is room for considerable overhaul of the passenger transport service not only in Scotland, but in England, but it is Scotland about which I am concerned. If we look at the bus transport service we discover that the total employed in 1939 was almost 28,000. In 1947 it was almost 33,000.

Surely this is a phase of passenger transport service which requires some examination. One need only look at the suburban railways in every part of the country to find tremendous waste. Trains are travelling empty, largely because of costs, and in an attempt to meet the losses that are being encountered, the charges are increased, which still further reduces the number of people travelling. There is another aspect which is important, the need to get rid of the many passenger vehicles on the road and transfer many more people to the railways. In that way we would not only reduce costs, but it would be a very great saving so far as the community is concerned.

If we turn to the road transport we find the same problem of enormous increases. The manpower has increased from 16,000 to 20,000 over the seven years. I do not know the authority which the Secretary of State can employ in this regard, but I suggest that if he has no executive powers, there is need for some kind of a committee to be kept in being which would represent the interests of both rail and road transport. There is need, first, for a considerable overhaul and then for the adding of a great deal of traffic to the railways by taking it off the roads. Apart altogether from the importance of that matter in regard to transport, it would take many people out of an unnecessary industry and they could be drafted into more important productive industries, which would help to solve one of our biggest problems.

The same sort of thing is to be seen when we look at the Government and local government figures. Again, there is a tendency to increase the administrative staffs all over the country. There are two dangers in that policy. The more we enlarge on the administrative and distributive side, the more we encroach upon the productive efforts of the country. Then there is the other aspect. It is a source of surprise to me that in recent years the powers of local government have been reduced. As we reduce those powers, we increase the administrative duties. There is a great danger that as we reduce the ordinary democratically elected people and add to the numbers on the administrative side, we are encroaching to a serious extent on democratic government. There is a need for the Government and for local authorities to examine their administrative efforts and the constantly increasing personnel. If that is done, then I think we could throw more people into productive work.

Let me turn to the subject of increased production. I have never heard so many speeches on the importance of increased production as I have heard in the House of Commons. It would appear that we are the greatest authorities on increased production that can be found in Great Britain. One of the most vital industries in this country is mining. Everybody admits that mining is a most important industry. On examination of the facts, one discovers that education and culture are always at loggerheads with production and economic development. That may seem a strange statement to make, but when examined it will be found to be correct. The more we advance education and develop culture, the more people decide that it is essential to get as far away as possible from the productive side of industry.

There are fewer people in Scotland today engaged in mining than there were in 1939. Why? It is because the whole economic foundation of our way of life is false. How often has it been argued that the cost of coal has gone up? People say that we have no right to increase the cost of coal. The miner, and all the other people in the basic industries, are regarded, even now, by most people as the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. We have had in this country a political revolution. I do not suggest by that that we have had a party revolution—that we have gone from Tory to Labour. I emphasise that in the last 25 years the people have decided quite definitely that they want to live in a much better way than ever they have lived in the past. They want a far bigger say in the affairs of life. The miner wants that and he demands an increase in his wages.

Why is there a quarrel between the cultural or educational side and the productive side? Everyone knows that an intelligent young fellow from a mining village who is given opportunities by his father—there are several examples on these benches—does his best to get away from mining. The further away he goes from real production, which is the source of all wealth, the better is his chance of living with economic security in comfort which is denied to the miner. I know that that point cannot be settled quickly by any examination, but I suggest that the decline in manpower in many of the basic industries is caused by our educational facilities which make young men, wisely, get away from those industries. They will do that until the industries are recognised as being of more importance in the social life of the community. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the answer?"] The answer is to revolutionise the economic approach to the people engaged in industry. Instead of constantly telling miners and shipbuilders that they are asking too much, we must regard them as having the first claim on industry; instead of paying more attention to the people at the other end of the social scale we must first consider the workers. I am not painting an imaginary picture when I say that a person can be employed in football pools and have a far higher standard of living than a person employed in production in the mines or in some other industry. The sooner the community begin to recognise these things, the better it will be.

Some hon. Members have suggested today that we could debate this subject in a non-political, non-party atmosphere. I disagree entirely. It is impossible for the economic life of the country to go on without the direct interference of the Government. No economic life is possible without the direct interference of the Government. The noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord William Scott) intervened and said he wanted all Government controls broken down or taken away. I see that he nods his head in assent. Let us see how far that takes us. Social services are being expanded. We are improving educational facilities. We are improving the health service and the insurance provisions—

The hon. Member must not take me to approve of the removal of educational, health or other services. I wish to see Government control limited as far as possible.

Already the noble Lord has started to retreat. First, he said that we should take off all controls. Then, when we draw his attention to certain aspects of our social development, he discovers that he must qualify his statement.

The hon. Member accused me of saying a lot of things. Originally, I merely nodded my head.

I thought that the nod of the head was a sign of intelligence. If it was not—I leave it at that.

The economic and political life of the country and the social needs of the country cannot be divorced. The Government will require to interfere more and more with the industrial life of the country and with the trend of economic events; more and more, politics will require to enter into the question. If we are to tackle this problem in any serious way in order to get the best results for the people of Scotland, we must recognise that those who engage in the heavy, arduous and unpleasant tasks must be put on a higher social plane when we make up the Budget. That has not been done in the past.

I welcome this White Paper. I hope that it will be only the beginning of the steps to be taken for a complete overhaul of our economics in Scotland.

I would say to those hon. Gentlemen opposite who have already spoken that they are just cheese-paring, merely nibbling at the problem. One was annoyed because they did not get enough steel for a firm in one part of Glasgow. Somebody else was disturbed about the tourist trade. I do not decry the tourist business or the visitors to the country, but it is a terrible reflection on our intellect to suggest that the most important industry is the tourist industry. I want people to come to Scotland because it is a beautiful country and I think that we are a decent people. They can learn much from us and we can learn much from them. I want the people of Scotland to visit other parts of the world so that they may learn the ways of other people. If we did that on a large scale, there would not be the misunderstanding and the hatred which exists today. But we should not say that it is our most important industry to bring the people of other parts of the world—many of them exiles who were driven out—to spend their odd dollars in Scotland after having earned them in the Pittsburg steelworks and such places. I want them to come, not so that we shall be their servants and menials while they are here but so that we can mix with them and exchange knowledge in happy relationship. The tourist industry does not occupy a very big or significant place in the economy of the country. The future of Scotland depends on the productivity of the people of Scotland and their ability to co-operate in distributing and producing things. I hope that this report will not only be discussed, but that it will put greater power in the hands of the Government so that our economic resources will result in the spread of wealth amongst the great mass of the people.

6.21 p.m.

We have listened to an odd speech from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael). He must have mixed his speeches and delivered here today the one he keeps for Saturday night at Bridgeton, for he made some rather astounding suggestions. One was that somehow or other, people should be switched from travelling by road to travelling by rail and vice versa. How is that to be done? By putting a couple of mice in a railway compartment to frighten the women out of it or by pulling a man out of the carriage by the scruff of his neck and telling him, "You must travel by bus today and not by rail." No doubt, this would be done by another inspector, another superfluous cog in the bureaucratic machine. One wonders about the mentality of people who would devise such a system to direct our affairs.

The subject on which I wish to speak is the White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland, which is rather like the Mona Lisa smile of the Secretary of State—it means little but promises a lot. There is a persuasiveness about this White Paper and no doubt it is soothing, as it is intended to be. It is like a good dose of bromide, which was probably the purpose the right hon. Gentleman had in mind when he drafted it. After considering some of the superficial smugness, as was mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), one finds there are some queries which present themselves. I should like to put those queries to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Lord Advocate, and I should like to give the answers myself in case I do not get very good answers from whoever replies for the Government. I imagine that my replies will be considerably more convincing than any given from the Government Front Bench.

I want to know why the Secretary of State does not insist on doing his job more completely and why he is not more free from Whitehall control in doing it. In my opinion, the Secretary of State should insist on directing certain activities connected with our Scottish affairs instead of permitting them to be directed from London. I refer, as everyone must who thinks about the matter at all, to the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It was recognised that these great Ministries during the war had to be run from Whitehall, for a great deal of concentration was indispensable to our national effort. Now that we are supposed to be at peace, it would be in keeping with the Scottish spirit and outlook if these great services or Government Departments were administered in Scotland by the Secretary of State.

Every hon. Member will be aware of the frustration with which he frequently meets when he puts in an application to the Ministry of Food on behalf of a constituent for a permit to open a fried fish shop. The Ministry of Food write back from London and say that as the locality is adequately served, the licence cannot be granted. If the Secretary of State himself were responsible for that and had his own local people on the spot who would be able to advise him, we should have a far better chance of getting justice. I believe that it is a wrong policy altogether. It is concerned, we must remember, with the employment of our people. It would be much better to allow these ex-Service men to have their licences to run a lorry or permits to open a shop. If they were successful, then it would mean that the locality was not adequately served before, or success might be due to the giving of better service. If they were a failure, the men could blame no one but themselves, and would have no cause for resentment against the Government of the day for refusing them an opportunity to make a living. The Minister should think this matter over.

I am not going to make a political speech in that I am not going to attack too severely the Government Front Bench. That will be done by others with a more acid tongue than mine. As to the Minister taking over more control of Scottish interests in Scotland, many promises were given to us in 1945. In fact, when Scottish votes were necessary, everything but the kitchen range was promised to Scotland. We have not got those things. The answer which the Secretary of State has for all these queries is that we have got our Advisory Councils. What is the use of an Advisory Council whose advice is rarely sought and, when given, is rarely acceptable? What is perfectly clear is that these Advisory Councils were a political sop to those trusting voters in Scotland who are so bitterly regretting their trust.

I come now to the question of the cut in capital expenditure. It has undoubtedly hampered to a great extent the whole economic and industrial development of our country. To my mind there is something strangely ridiculous and inconsistent about it all. On one side we have the school age raised so as to make it necessary to have masses of school buildings erected, involving capital expenditure, and on the other hand capital expenditure is denied for the extension of factories, garages, shops and various things like that which mean something in the day-today trade and prosperity of the country. It is nonsense. This raising of the school age, as I mentioned the other day in Standing Committee, and the keeping of an additional 346,000 children at school throughout the whole country, is wrong when the children have not got a decent, suitable sanitary home in which to do their homework or indeed in which to be brought up.

Another question I want to refer to is the reduction of our economic life through this lowering of capital expenditure, with which other Members, I understand, will deal. There is a figure in the White Paper of the increase in our population, which is 3,500 in one year—probably the lowest in Europe. That makes one think very hard. Why is there such a deplorably small increase in our birth rate? The figure becomes even more disastrous when we consider the changes in the various groups. If hon. Members will look at Chapter 2, "Population and Employment," they will see that there is a decrease between over 15 and under 65 years of age of 29,000, which hits at the very peak of industrial productivity. In addition, those of 65 years and over have increased to nearly 6,000.

In other words, we are approaching a period when the young will have to bear the increasing burden of the old. I do not say that they will mind doing so, but it is not fair that they should, because it places an additional strain on our whole economic system. I will not say what the answer is; that is one of the answers I am going to leave to the Secretary of State. However, I do say that if our industrial and economic life is to be preserved on an even keel, something will have to be done to try to rectify the position in regard to the birth rate.

The few issues which I have raised depend upon one factor alone—the question of housing. How can young married couples undertake the responsibility of bringing a family into the world without a home in which they can live?

Knowing how voluble the hon. Gentleman is, I am sure he will get an opportunity of relieving himself of what is on his mind. There is just one final point I wish to make.

The hon. Member for West Renfrew really must not tempt me. Although, perhaps, I could not rise to the same heights as he, I could certainly keep the Committee for quite a considerable while yet if hon. Members are so keen on hearing me.

There is another very soothing, but quite deceptive, paragraph in this report. Paragraph 10 of Chapter 1 refers to the magnificent and generous act of statesmanship of the United States in giving us—I am including Scotland—Marshall Aid. As we all know, this paragraph is calculated to cloak the dangerous foundations on which our economy is based, because if we are dependent upon this extra aid from the United States instead of upon our own work, determination and efforts, then, indeed, we shall sink. The report deliberately brings in Marshall Aid as part of the method by which we shall recover our prosperity. I propose to put Marshall Aid in its true perspective. The Government are using it for three things. First, they want the wage-earner to continue dazzled by his pay packet without realising that the money in it is borrowed, and that the food which he hopes to buy with the money is also borrowed. Secondly, the Government hope to keep the middle classes adequately provided with petrol, films and tobacco so that they may say how right they were to vote Socialist in 1945. The Government also hope that with the full petrol ration suddenly restored and controls taken off, these people at the next election may possibly vote again for Old Mother Hubbard. Thirdly, the Government want time for the country to forget the arrogant and ignorant handling of the first loan by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As I have said, I think that, as far as Scotland is concerned, we should try to stand on our own feet. Except for the fact that we go on exporting them, the craftsmanship, the skill and the science are all there. That being so, why should we depend on this extraneous aid? Scotland is not like the small countries of Europe; it is the core and centre of a great Empire. Scotland was never intended to be a satellite even of England, let alone of the United States of America. I hope that hon. Members who still have some influence with their constituents—if it has lasted for as long as three years and still lives—will encourage the people of Scotland not to accept this charity from the United States, but to be ready to play their part in winning back the prosperity of Scotland which has been so long denied us.

I repeat, we may educate our children and spend a lot of money on their education—we can almost, these days, guarantee them jobs when they become adults—we can guarantee their rations and provide them with cinemas and every kind of recreation, milk in schools, and so on, but, unless this housing question is subjected to dynamic pressure by the Government, all our efforts to bring back that prosperity which we all want for Scotland will be in vain.

6.37 p.m.

The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely in regard to his discussion of the problem of population. I realise, with due humility, that many great minds since the days of Malthus have been baffled by this problem, and in the little time I have at my disposal, I propose to deal with those parts of the review which dwell upon the problem of labour at the ports, and the supplies of steel for shipbuilding and other purposes. I am glad to find in the review that preference is to be given to schemes which, in the near future, are likely to ease the situation regarding the handling of goods and hasten the turn-round of shipping. They are matters which vitally affect the port of Glasgow today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) dealt with the question of the increased number of people employed in transport. I am going to refer to one branch of transport in which the numbers have been coming down, and coming down drastically. In 1945, the port of Glasgow had 4,800 employees; today it has only 3,000. Nobody expected the number employed in 1945 to be retained; that number was linked with other large numbers, such as the 50,000 tons of goods dealt with at that port, the 200,000 acts of pilotage, and the 500,000,000 tons of shipping which were moved without serious mishap. However, it is felt that the port of Glasgow has been adversely affected by the continued war-time practice of bringing in cargoes to one particular port and distributing the goods by rail and road, which puts an extra strain on those forms of transport. It is recognised that there is a continuing need for economising shipping tonnage and that there is a change effected by the bulk purchasing of food; but the impression prevails that the outcome is needlessly harsh on local shipping traffic.

I find in a report dealing with the ports of this country in regard to the turn-round of shipping—a report issued only a few weeks ago—a recommendation, in regard to the port of Glasgow, that the National Dock Labour Board should investigate the transport arrangements and other amenities at the King George V dock. There is in the White Paper on Trade and Employment a plan for the construction of sheds in the King George V dock in Glasgow, estimated to cost £450,000, which has been authorised by the Ministry of Transport. I also find in the report on shipping another recommendation concerning the same port to the effect that the National Dock Labour Board should now resolve the uncertainty of redundancy as soon as practicable. I do not find the same direct and satisfactory answer in the White Paper concerning this problem of employment in Scotland, which is very urgent.

I want to pass to the other point regarding supplies of steel. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) has dealt with the importance of the shipbuilding industry and has referred to the great part played by that industry in world economy. Perhaps it could not be stated more clearly than it is in the Economic Survey for 1947, in which we are told that the shipbuilding industry, as an earner of foreign exchange, is of the same importance as an industry producing entirely for export. According to the review, the output of shipbuilding last year was slightly less than in 1946, due, we are told, to several factors, including the fuel crisis, the shortage of steel and timber and the scarcity of certain grades of labour. The review goes on to develop the point concerning the shortage of steel, and we are told that this shortage will continue to be the principal factor limiting output, but it is hoped that it will not be necessary to reduce allocations of steel for shipbuilding purposes below the current level.

This takes us to the position of the steel industry itself. There are several points in this review concerning the steel industry which are very encouraging. It is encouraging to find that the one European country which is producing more steel than before the war is Britain. We also find that the production in Scotland since pre-war years has increased both absolutely and relatively. Indeed last year we had 148 tons of steel produced in Scotland out of every 1,000 tons for Britain as compared with 143 tons produced before the war. While the position in Britain was almost static as compared with 1946, the output in Scotland last year went up by 7 per cent., despite the effects of the fuel crisis.

This review has something very encouraging to say about what is being done for different steel plants in Scotland, such as the newly-completed blast furnace at Clyde Ironworks which is making a valuable contribution to the production of pig iron. We also have the tilting furnaces at Clydebridge which will use hot metal from the Clyde Ironworks and will absorb all surplus oven and blast furnace gases. This is a step which will go some way towards that integration and balance which has been so much in the minds of people associated with the steel industry, both on the management side and on the operatives side. Nevertheless, the important question is: how will the steel industry square up to the demands in the next few years? During the war we had an unproductive period of six years and we have still to make good. There is a great deal of rehabilitation and reparation work to cover, and for that reason the demands will continue at a high level for a number of years. As yet there is no sign of any falling off.

We are told that there is a steel target of 15 million tons, and that is assumed to mean a target of 2½ million tons in Scotland. Those of us who have been brought up in the heavy industries will have known for many years that the ratio for Scotland is considered to be one-sixth of the British output of steel. For a number of years it has been between one-sixth and one-seventh. An hon. Member has already mentioned that it was 16 per cent, a short while ago. We in Scotland have to reach the target of 2½ million tons. As a matter of fact, the needs of the country are often estimated at 18 million tons and more, which would make Scotland's share 3 million tons. However, let us take it at 2½ million. What does it mean in terms of pig iron and scrap? This problem is viewed with great concern by people who earn their livelihood in the steel industry, and that concern is also shared by other industries. Allowing for the loss that takes place in processing, we are told that the need for scrap and pig iron amounts to 53,000 tons a week or more; in fact, I believe it is 53,750 tons.

Different people have different ideas about the relative availability of pig iron and scrap. Some people speak of 60 per cent, scrap and 40 per cent, pig iron, as put forth by an authority in the "Glasgow Herald" a short time ago. We are told in this review that supplies of scrap, particularly of good machinery scrap, remain scarce, and so far as I can see it is likely to remain so. The word "scrap" does not sound very thrilling to many of us. When I use the word I think of the things which it has meant for our people. We speak of homes, health, welfare and national wellbeing and so on, which sound far more benevolent, but these things have their economic foundation in that industrial effort which, surprising as it may seem, is today inseparably connected with this problem of finding scrap for the steel industry.

We are told that there is no likelihood of much improvement in the scrap position for many years, and we are told by people who know that we shall be very fortunate if we can obtain sufficient scrap to work on a 50–50 basis. The scrap production in Scottish works today, I am informed, is less than 10,000 tons a week out of 27,000 tons which will be needed for half the total need. The total blast furnace capacity in Scotland today is something like 14,000 tons a week which means little more than one half of the amount required on a 50–50 basis. Representatives on the management side as well as the operatives side of the Scottish steel industry tell us that one great need is four modern blast furnaces to give an average of 12,000 tons of pig iron a week in addition to the present output, That would entail the erection of additional coke ovens.

I realise that this problem cannot be solved over-night, but the longer we wait the more acute it becomes. I hope I need not apologise for dealing with this one aspect alone, because in my view it is something which stands at the centre of nearly every effort represented in this review. This is not a peep into the distant future, but an attempt to draw attention to things which must be achieved in terms of the annual target already laid down for the Scottish steel industry. Two things are needed and are very much in the minds of people connected with the industry and consequently of those connected with other industries which derive supplies from the steel industry. They are, first, a greater allocation of scrap and pig iron, and second, steps to re-organise and reconstruct the industry according to needs, especially the erection of the additional blast furnaces and coke ovens necessary to meet changing conditions.

6.53 p.m.

I hope the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. L. Williams) will forgive me if I do not follow on the same lines as his speech, as all will agree that a vast number of subjects are covered by the report and it would be impossible to deal with them all.

I wish particularly to emphasise that this White Paper seems to lay great stress on the assistance we are supposed to be getting from England. That theme occurs con- stantly in the report. It seems to me that my request a short time ago and the request of other hon. Members, for figures to bear out such statements are all the more necessary now this White Paper has been published. The Lord Advocate will recall how at a very late hour I secured the Adjournment and he kindly stayed to listen and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave a very pleasant reply but entirely failed to deal with the matter which I endeavoured to raise. I fear that the Joint Under-Secretary when replying to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) was inclined to think that getting the figures might entail a lot more officials being required. But the Departments concerned are the Treasury and the Board of Trade. The Treasury has 2,000 more officials than it had before the war and the Board of Trade has nearly 10,000 more, and I should think this a very excellent occupation for those extra people. I hope the Secretary of State will give more consideration to the request for facts and figures to enable us to see whether the suppositions put forward in the report are true or not.

In mentioning the Joint Under-Secretary, may I say that we all very much regret that the other Joint Under-Secretary is not able to be with us today. We are sorry to hear that he is seriously ill and I hope that soon he will be very much better. Apart from wishing him here officially, we cannot have too many of the Clan Donnachaidh about to forward business in the House of Commons.

I wish to call attention to the subject of research, which is of the greatest possible importance to all industries. The White Paper refers to the devolution which is taking place in locating the Mechanical Science Laboratory at East Kilbride. I think that is a step in the right direction and the first indication of reversing that policy of allocating these very important institutions to the London area. I hope that other official and semi-official institutions of this type will be established in Scotland as soon as circumstances permit. For example, I feel there should be a branch set up for the examination of the needs of Scotland's chemical industry. I understand that at Teddington there is a very "live wire show" established on these lines and I suggest that we might have a branch established quickly in Scotland.

An important aspect of research does not seem to be referred to in the White Paper. A very large proportion of the country's total research and development effort with industry is financed by Government Departments, notably by the Ministry of Supply. They place research and development contracts with industry and I am informed that the annual value of such contracts placed by the Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty alone is very nearly £30 million. Firms which receive such contracts are given not only financial support, but a great deal of technical information which is not otherwise available. Probably in the first case those contracts are initiated through personal contacts, quite rightly, with contract departments and offices located in the London area and there will always be a tendency to place such contacts in the London area. But I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will give consideration to the need for giving Scotland a fair share of contracts of this type so that her development can go forward as we hope it will.

I am not going to discuss the merits or otherwise of nationalisation but I think I am right in saying that the purchasing departments of nationalised industries have practically all got their headquarters in London. I have received no indication that Scotland is getting her fair share and I hope that at least the Minister can assure us that he is watching the situation very carefully. Then there is the question of Government purchases. Food and other controls, admittedly necessary at this stage, have resulted in the Government being the principal purchasers of food and other commodities which, I suppose, come under the Minister of Supply. There is a tendency to fail to ship Scottish requirements to Scottish ports and many cases have arisen where Scottish requirements have been landed at English ports and thereby road and rail communications have been heavily overtaxed. A very large additional cost is thus placed on the ultimate price of the article concerned. In addition to that, if the ships do not come to Scotland to unload they are not there to take away our exports which in turn have to go by road and rail to English ports. I hope we shall have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he is also watching this matter very carefully.

I do not want to deal with anything in connection with the Highlands and Islands, because they have already been fairly fully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), but there are one or two other subjects I should like to mention. The first is the matter of linen. Our linen industry is a very important industry in Scotland, and it is an important industry in my constituency. In paragraph 200 of the report, under the heading of "Linen," I see the following words:

I would very briefly mention agriculture. I was very glad to hear the Under-Secretary say that it was regarded as a very important industry. It is, of course, the most important industry of all, as I am never tired of saying—the most important of all in this country or in any other country of the world. Therefore, we have to realise that we ought not, when talking of industry, to talk of "agriculture and industry," because that expression seems to imply that agriculture itself is not an industry. I do not want to go into details, but I must observe that in the whole of Part II, so far as it deals with agriculture, I see no mention in it at all of that part of agriculture which comes under the heading of horticulture. In Scotland we ought to supply our own needs in horticulture products. There is just a mention of that on page 8, but all that is said is:

Now I want to turn to the question of whisky. I should like at the outset of my remarks to say that I never drink whisky, and that I do not like it. I think I can, therefore, speak with rather more detachment on the subject than, possibly, some other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. This, when all is said and done, is one of the most important industries of Scotland, and it is certainly one of the most important industries in my constituency. I should like to give a few facts, and to ask for the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman for this industry.

I should like first to dispose of the question of raising the price to the American market. That has been debated in this House on one or two occasions. I think it was the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) who raised this question, and who asked, "Why do not we charge far more to the American market for whisky than we are doing?" The argument is that the United States should be made to pay more than they are paying at present, and that we could thus get bigger dollar results. It is admitted that the prices might cause purchases to drop, possibly; but they say that the higher price would produce as many dollars, if not more, while enabling more whisky to be kept at home, if American sales dropped. The Minister of Food said in one of the Debates that he was confident that the distillers put up an unanswerable case for maintaining the present price. It is the conviction in the Scotch whisky industry that if the export prices had been raised a year ago, the sales of Scotch whisky in America might have come to a standstill.

It may not be generally known in this Committee that only about 5 per cent, of the whisky drinkers in the United States are consumers of Scotch whisky. That is a very narrow margin, and we have to be very particular and careful that we do not lose that trade. If we put up the price sufficiently to put off the American consumers we shall have American whisky-drinkers returning to their Bourbon or rye. When the French recently increased the price of their brandy to the American market there was a drop of something like 90 per cent, almost at once in the consumption of French brandy in America. That is a warning. Let us remember that the counter price of a bottle of whisky in the States at present, measured in British money, is round about 30s., whereas American brands of whisky range from 12s. to 20s. We are on a very dangerous wicket here and I hope the Government will give no more consideration to raising the price to the American market. The Committee will realise that I am not hoping for more for the home market myself, although there are people who wish to see more on the home market.

The industry has certain material requirements which must be satisfied if it is to carry on efficiently and effectively, and if it is to give effect to the Government's urge for the export drive. It has to be assured of a full supply of barley for the purpose of distilling. I think the Minister of Food is alive to that requirement. I hope that from this season's crop he will make an even bigger allocation. I do hope we shall not hear that we are taking the people's food and making it into whisky. By giving barley for distilling we can be certain of, at least, a seven times return in American food for what we spend from our own barley on the distilling of whisky. That is a better proposition, because in that way we can get all that extra food from America.

The industry needs not only barley, but casks, which are of the greatest importance in the whisky industry. Casks are required for the maturing of whisky, for we cannot mature whisky in bottles. We used to get large numbers of Spanish sherry casks for this purpose, and they were ideal for it, but that supply, I understand, has almost died out, and almost our sole source of supply for this very necessary article is the American market. Dollars are required for that. I think it will be agreed that dollars for this pur- pose should be supplied as part of the Government's provision of essential dollars for essential purposes. During the period of the war, and since, a very large number of the warehouses and bonds in Scotland, which used to hold whisky have been used for other purposes—for storing Government materials and goods of all kinds. Extensive re-equipment is necessary if the industry is to be put on its feet again. The Government are aware of these needs, I know. Among other things required in the industry, as in other industries, is a reasonable supply of houses for the workers in it. We want copper stills, bottles, paper for labels, and other materials—not on a big scale—but they are all essential materials if the whisky trade is to continue as it should. I do hope there will be no delay in the issue of licences for these necessary materials.

As far as export outlets are concerned—and that is our first consideration, we are all agreed, for selling its product—the Scotch whisky trade is in a very difficult situation, and the difficulties are growing. One country after another is stopping its imports of Scotch whisky, or threatening to do so. I would mention India, where total prohibition is said to be on the way. We cannot, of course, interfere with that, but we have to face up to it when considering the position of the Scottish whisky industry.

In the Argentine, a hard currency country, imports are now officially put at the sum of £350,000, or its equivalent in Argentine money, which is supposed to have been earmarked for the purchase of luxury articles in which whisky was definitely mentioned. A trade delegation has recently been to the Argentine, and I would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether they have tied up the arrangements for that amount of Scotch whisky to be received by the Argentine. I hope that the Government will tell us definitely what was the result in that respect of the trade delegation.

Whisky to the Argentine used to total nearly 200,000 proof gallons per year, and the loss of this market would be a very heavy blow, not only to the industry but, let us be frank, to the nation as a whole. There are other Latin South American countries which seem to have the same idea: Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Peru and Colombia, all of them hard currency markets, where we may hope to earn precious currency with the export of our whisky.

I would not like to deal with Russia on the subject of whisky. They have a beverage of their own, which seems to be very potent and to be all that they need. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade can give us more information on that.

I recognise that there may be obstacles to trade which the Government cannot surmount. We should not be unreasonable in this. There are other matters, as, for example, the falsification of labels. Belgium, I understand, is the latest offender in this respect where some prompt and energetic action on the part of the Government is called for. I see no reason why the frightful rubbish made in foreign markets should be labelled "Scotch Whisky." We have shown to the President of the Board of Trade a large variety of labels of the most staggering descriptions and brilliant colours, all alleging that this fearful stuff, of which no one knows the contents, is alleged to be Scotch whisky.

I would like to mention the rate of duty on whisky, because it is one of the causes of the curtailment of the home trade in Scotch whisky. It seems to me that whisky has been singled out from the other spirits which people drink for penal taxation. I would like to point out—I have the figures here—that the supply of whisky in the home market has been restricted to two million proof gallons per annum as compared with nearly seven million in 1939. There has been a severe cut there. Gin, on the other hand, which I understand has much the same effect, has not only maintained but has even increased its pre-war sale in this country. The imports of rum, another powerful spirit, have increased three-fold. I think that that shows unfair discrimination in favour of gin and rum against the whisky trade of this country, and I ask the Minister to tell us what he intends to do in that respect. I think that a case is fairly made out for a substantial—and quite honestly, I think, in view of its importance to Scotland—for a preferential duty in the matter of whisky-making.

I have nearly done, and I have taken rather a long time, but there is another point which I should like to mention, and that is that the President of the Board of Trade, whom I do not often have occasion to praise and thank, has decided that the description, "Made in Scotland" should now be accepted in countries other than those which hitherto have accepted it. I am glad to see that the French Government—or the one that was in, and I hope the one which will come in—will do the same, and accept "Fabriqué en Ecosse" instead of "Fabriqué en Ecosse, Grande Bretagne." I do not think that it is necessary to say that Scotland is Grande Bretagne, because it is the most important part of Grande Bretagne. The French have perhaps realised that, and I hope that the Auld Alliance again coming into being will have the same effect.

May I beg the Secretary of State for Scotland to try to find out which countries will not accept, "Made in Scotland" as the hall-mark of our effort, and to see if negotiations can be opened with them for that purpose; and, at the same time, to see that business people producing goods in Scotland send them out to the world marked, "Made in Scotland"? There is a foundry in the City of Perth where they make excellent stuff. I said to them, "Are all your things marked, 'Made in Scotland'?" They said, "A good deal of them, but in some cases we have to mark them clearly 'Made in England'." I asked, "Why?" They said, "We make parts of things and send them to England, and the English people say 'If you make them and send them to us, you must label them, 'Made in England'." I think there is something wrong there. It is important for our national economy that it should be recognised all over the world that there is a place called Scotland and that it makes absolutely first-class goods. If we do not say clearly that these things are "Made in Scotland" we shall lose something which is very valuable.

7.16 p.m.

The only thing in which I wish to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) is with regard to the Scottish whisky industry. He has been very well briefed, because exactly the same type of material is already under review by the President of the Board of Trade. We, on this side of the Committee, I am glad to say, have some interest in this major industry of whisky. I feel that too often we have taken this major industry too cheaply and too much for granted. I use the word "cheaply" in a relative sense. Whisky is a big dollar earner, and I urge my right hon. Friend to see that every possible assistance is given to this industry with regard to permits and licences for new buildings and new equipment, because it plays a major part in developing and expanding our export trade, particularly in the search for dollars. The more that we can export the better.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward this report, because we are now having presented to us a clear picture of what is being attempted, of the problems which face us and the steps which are being taken in order to solve them. I was inclined to view the Scottish Economic Conference rather askance, but I feel in retrospect that it has a very important part to play. I urge my right hon. Friend to see that it is given the fullest possible scope and that some heed will be paid to its deliberations.

I would like to come to the question of hydro-electric development, particularly in relation to the dolomite and bauxite deposits in Scotland. The scientific experts assure me that there are big deposits of dolomite and bauxite in the North of Scotland. These would undoubtedly be uneconomic to extract in the first three or four years, but with a fundamental supply of cheap hydro power, costs should become relatively lower with the supply of bulk electricity in order to deal with the problem of high extraction costs. Would the right hon. Gentleman say what the mineral resources committee—if that is the right name for it—are doing and what reports they have made, particularly in regard to the iron deposits, allegedly uneconomic, in the Isle of Raasay, which were used during the 1914–18 war? The metal development committee of the mineral resources committee—I do not know the exact name of it, but I understand that there is a committee—are examining the mineral resources of Scotland.

During the 1914–18 war we were told of valuable iron ore deposits in the Isle of Raasay and we were prepared to take the iron ore out of that area. What is happening there now? Is it possible to extract that mineral from the area? What is being done in regard to research in the electro-chemical and electro-metallurgical industry in that area? That is the basis of hydro-electric power. We have heard a great deal about hydro-electric power and I am glad to see that hon. Members opposite now welcome it and that they have learned the error of their ways over the past two years.

If the hon. Member had been in the House before the war, he would know that it was not the Tory Members who were opposed to hydro-electric schemes in the Highlands.

But Tory Members voted against and moved a Prayer of annulment in the House against the Tummel-Garry scheme.

If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, may I say, as seconder of that Prayer, that we said from the outset that we had no alternative but to ask to annul, because we could not ask to amend. We were not against it, but we wanted an amendment.

In any case, hon. Members voted against the Tummel-Garry scheme and they cannot explain that away. The tragedy in the hydro-electric scheme is that costs have to be based on the most efficient steam station, and that does not allow for the introduction of industries into the area. They start off with a handicap, and we do not face up to the position as we should do if we are sincere and earnest in this question of industry for the Highlands. Might I ask my right hon. Friend to have a look at this.

In some cases road surfaces do not exist. With long hauls, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), the high cost of transport all over those areas make them quite an uneconomic proposition. Charges for transport for new industries, together with those for hydro-electricity, must be considered. Decent roads are necessary, and fortunately a great deal has been done in this connection. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend what the Ministry of Transport have in mind, so far as the provision of new and better roads are concerned, in order to attract industries into those areas. What is to be done about water supplies?

Turning to the question of industry in general, I would like to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Perth on this question of research in industry. Here we come to the crux of the problem, because there is not sufficient research being carried on at the moment. Admittedly there is a good deal more than there ever was before. I hope that East Kirkbride is only a beginning. We have in existence at the moment agencies which could carry on a great deal of fundamental research, particularly on behalf of the Government, and I know that some of it is going on. I hope there will be an extension of research facilities, Government sponsored, in the universities because there we have ready-made laboratories, lacking in equipment but with the skilled personnel available to carry out adequate research. I am not suggesting that this research should be made free to the industries, because they should themselves make some contribution towards its development.

Even with research in industry we need a big advance in technical education. In some areas, particularly in my own area, we find that we have set up trades schools and a boy may go there for a year for vocational training. They are very modern and serve a very useful purpose but, having done the 12 months' training, the boy is left to find his own way to the technical colleges. There is no complete connection, or even a loose connection, between the trades schools and the technical colleges. I hope my right hon. Friend will look into this and see what can be done to balance the type of education given in the trades schools with that of the technical colleges, leading to the extra-mural courses of the university, because very often the technical colleges, particularly in the technical sense, have to undo a great deal of the learning which is acquired in the trade schools.

We find this sort of thing happening. In the trades schools it is individuals like myself—who learn their trade the hard way, the bad way, by trial and error, who have certain pre-conceived ideas as to how a piece of tube should be bent, how many wires should go into it up to a certain point, what size of cable should be used, what extent and range of horsepower should be used for a given power factor correction—who pass these things on to the young lads of the trades schools. We never gave the basic fundamental calculus used in standard measurements for electrical installations. The teaching we give these lads has, therefore, very often to be undone in order to give them the basic knowledge in the technical colleges, and I would like to see an extensive advance in technical education throughout the whole length and breadth of Scotland. I feel that the universities have to get their snob complexes and snob values completely re-orientated, and have to co-operate in this technical education scheme to a much wider degree.

It is tragic to find that a great many people, sons and daughters of working-class parents, cannot get into the universities in Scotland—not necessarily because they are the sons and daughters of working-class people, but that is a fact which makes it a little bit difficult for them, although I am open to correction on that point. Many of them would require to go back to school for a year or two years and to sit for examinations to attempt to obtain entrance to the university, but they find that their parents cannot afford to keep them going to the school for that length of time. As a consequence, a great many valuable young people are lost, which is to the technical disadvantage of Scotland and, for that matter, of England, too. We therefore need more universities, or alternatively we need more university buildings, and in this connection I need hardly say that the sooner Dundee gets university status, the better for all concerned. We have served our apprenticeship. Nottingham has just achieved the status and I think Dundee has earned it; the sooner St. Andrews wakes up to the fact, the better.

Another point with which I wish to deal is in regard to the report on docks. It is a funny thing, but in Dundee we have one of the finest harbours in the country, which made a valuable contribution to the war effort. Yet we are not even mentioned by the Ministry of Transport in their report. I mention that just to remind the Committee that there is such a place as Dundee and that it has an important harbour, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will convey that to the Minister of Transport.

On the question of exports, I would point out that heavy industry and capital equipment have been the strong suit of Scotland for a number of years. I am convinced that our approach to the export programme has to be altered. At the moment we are making all sorts of things, such as powder compacts and lipstick compacts, all of which are using valuable metals. They may all be necessary, and I agree that they are in some cases, but I would point out that steel is one of our shortest commodities, and that it is very necessary for the making of capital equipment, such as railway engines and locomotives of all descriptions, flat cars, trucks, turbo-alternators and generators, and all those other items that go towards developing the basic industries of the country.

The complete mechanisation of our industries, as well as those of Europe, can be done from this country. We require to face up to a positive shift in the manufacturing side of our exports, and to concentrate on more essential capital goods if we are to hope to breach this fearful gap in our export-import programme. I hope that my right hon. Friend will play his part in that policy, and that this change will be put into effect at the earliest possible moment. I realise that it will mean a shift in our working population from industry to industry, and that for a period it might lead to some unemployment, but that is a position we have to face in rebuilding the whole of our economic resources and in re-equipping our industries at the earliest possible moment.

7.34 p.m.

In the towns in the Border country, the major industry is woollen textiles, and in these burghs for more than a century we have produced not only the highest quality woollens, by which I mean tweed cloth, but also the highest quality worsted. We also make the very highest quality hosiery and knitwear. The high quality woollen textile industry has been considerably affected by orders and directions during the last 10 years. The woollen trade and the hosiery and knitwear trades are working to capacity, but they are likely to suffer in the not too distant future from the directions which have been given to them during the last 10 years.

The great woollen industry in the Border country has relied to a very large extent during the last half century on the export markets for its trade. At the moment there is probably no area in the country which is contributing more towards Scottish exports, but we are apprehensive that the time is not far ahead when the closing down of the sellers' market will produce very great difficulties for the woollen, worsted, hosiery and knitwear trades.

At the present time we are considerably affected by the fact that we have not the female labour that is required, and that owing to the shortage of housing we are not able to get female labour from outside to enable us to increase the percentage of our products which are suited to the export trade. Over and above that, there are certain difficulties which could, I believe, be removed, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to do all he can to support us when we are in difficulties with the Board of Trade, because these matters about which I want to speak are more directly related to the Board of Trade.

I will deal first with the hosiery and knitwear side of the industry, which is chiefly located in Hawick. The President of the Board of Trade, during recent weeks and months, has been threatening that side of the industry with a development council. The hosiery and knitwear side of the woollen industry in Scotland is far more closely linked up with the English side of the industry than in the case of the cloth trade. Both sides of the industry, and more particularly the Scottish side of the hosiery and knitwear trades, are very much against a development council. I believe that is true of the labour side just as much as of the management side. Owing to some words of the President of the Board of Trade not so very long ago, I think it is essential to put on record that the management side of the hosiery and knitwear trades in Scotland are dead against having this development council planted on them; but if they are to be forced to have a development council, then they particularly ask that Scotland should have a development council as well as England. The President of the Board of Trade suggested that the trade itself had not made up its mind and did not know what it wanted. I can assure the Secretary of State that the trade does know what it wants, and knows even better what it does not want. It does not want a development council, but if a development council is to be set up it wants a separate one for Scotland. The trade is quite prepared to have a consultative council, but in view of all the directions and charges to which it has been subjected during the last 10 years—and it is one of the most efficient and competent in Great Britain, and is still working to capacity—it seems a shame that it should have still more shackles thrust upon it.

I wish now to turn to the other side of our local woollen industry—the cloth side. We manufacture tweeds and worsteds, and in this connection I have another special request to make to the Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade. We are now reaching a stage in exports where we are having bilateral agreements, and in those agreements the Scottish business men who are making high quality tweeds and worsteds have come off extremely badly. In nearly all the agreements which have been negotiated the Board of Trade have not taken the same interest in high quality woollen goods as in medium quality woollen goods. During the last two or three years the Board of Trade seem to have fought shy of the really high-class material; it seems that they much prefer the mediocre varieties, that they prefer to deal with mediums and cut out the high quality and, I admit, rather expensive products.

I would not like the Committee to be under any misapprehension about the demand from various countries with whom we have agreements and hope to make agreements for the high quality cloth such as we make in the Border country. All we are asking is that the Board of Trade will look with a friendly eye on the Scottish aspect as they do on the North-West Riding of Yorkshire's production in this field. Some of the agreements made recently, for instance that with Denmark, have, to all intents and purposes, removed Scottish products from what have been their market for many years, and what they still regard as their rightful market.

There is another difficulty with which we are faced, and that is the very considerable pressure which is brought to bear upon us to continue the manufacture of utility products. The utility products turned out in the Border mills are very good, but they are not quite up to the same quality as those which were produced in pre-utility days. The British public are now almost entirely buying utility cloths, because they are no longer able to afford the 66⅔ Purchase Tax which is added to the price of non-utility worsted or tweed. I believe the same difficulty arises over high-class worsteds in Huddersfield and other parts of Yorkshire, where the highest quality material is manufactured. In the Border mills we are being forced to produce goods of much lower quality than those we produced in the past. While that may be all right for the present, when there is a big demand for utility cloth at home, we should realise that if the time comes when we are faced with some of the difficulties which faced the country in the past, it will be a bad thing if Border mills fail to preserve the high degree of quality which has been our saving and main source of revenue for many years. When it comes to bulk production, we are not in a position to compete with those who make the slightly lower quality goods in the South of England.

There is a further difficulty which the worsted trade has met, but which does not affect the tweed trade. In the tweed trade nearly all the yarn is spun by our own Border spinners, but in the worsted trade the great bulk of the yarn is imported from Yorkshire. Before and during the war this yarn was always very satisfactory, but during the last few months we have found that it is not up to its previous high quality. The reason is that the firms of high reputation which manufacture it cannot replace their spinning machinery because such a high percentage of the new machinery which they would like is being sent abroad to earn money from the export market. We shall pursue a short-sighted policy if we lose—as there is a danger of losing—our reputation for high quality and highly finished Scottish worsteds by not getting almost perfect yarn. It will be impossible to get it unless spinners are allowed to obtain the machinery replacements they require. I therefore hope that in this matter, too, the Secretary of State will help us when we ask for assistance.

In the last few months one of our leaders in the House has said that the introduction of the "New Look" in ladies' fashions would be a serious blow to the Scottish tweed trade. I realise that other parts of Scotland, especially those which make Harris tweed, do not manufacture cloth which is suitable for the "New Look," but I would remind the Committee that Border tweed of the lighter variety is just as suitable for the "New Look" as it was for previous types of fashion. In fact, there is no industry which is more adaptable to the changes in ladies' fashions than the Border tweed industry, and those who have any doubt about its suitability for the "New Look" should remember that a considerable amount is still going to the leading fashion houses in Paris, who accept it as being quite suitable for their variety of the "New Look."

We must have regard to the future of the Scottish woollen trade just as in the past we have relied on our export trade. During this period of the exports drive, we are doing all we can to preserve our reputation and quality, so that when this present period is over we shall not suffer for having done more than our share during the present difficulties. For that we feel we need the help of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

7.49 p.m.

It was rather interesting to hear the noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord William Scott) appealing for the interference of the Government after pleading for freedom for industry.

But this rather contradictory attitude seems to be characteristic of the Opposition, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), who opened the Debate, did not seem able to make up his mind whether he wanted controls or freedom. He pleaded for both in turn. He also did not seem able to make up his mind whether the fact that we have 77,000 more employed in Scotland today was a good thing or a bad thing. He rather swithered. One could understand this attitude when one considers this White Paper, and then remembers what happened under Tory Governments prior to the war. The unemployment figure in Scotland today is only 3.7 per cent, of the insured population as compared with 14.7 per cent, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was Secretary of State for Scotland.

We can also understand the attitude of the Opposition when we remember what is being done by the present Government as against the efforts that were made by the Tory Party to deal with the same problem. For instance, we find that between the years 1932–1936, out of 2,688 new factories opened in Britain, only 4 per cent, or 102 were established in Scotland. The total employment provided in those factories in Great Britain was for 248,000 people but only 8,000 were employed in Scotland. Only 3 per cent, of the new jobs were for workers in Scotland during the four years when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities was a Member of the Government. Of course, we can understand the lack of attack from the Opposition today when we look back at this deplorable record and this criminal negligence of the affairs of Scotland. I have not seen much of the Opposition in the Committee today. So interested are the Tory Members in this Debate that they have never been able to muster more than eight hon. Members at any time.

Quite true, what Members! The problems of industry and employment do not arise, as is seen in this White Paper, from any very large increase in the insured working population in Scotland. In point of fact, the insured population in Scotland has decreased since 1939 by something like 2 per cent. The problem arises from the lack of balance in the growth of our Scottish economy, the acute aggravation of that lack of balance during the first world war when Scotland, to use the words of the Scottish Economic Committee, and the lamentable failure of the Tory Governments of the inter-war years to correct that balance. Scotland did not get the new industries that it should have got in the inter-war period.

In fact, if we look at the figures for the new industries, taking the main new industries in the United Kingdom which grew up during the period between the wars, we find that in the artificial silk industry employment was provided in Scotland for 3.1 per cent, of the workers in that industry; in the motor, cycle and aircraft industries for only 4.1 per cent.; in the electrical industry, where we should have been to the fore, for only 2.7 per cent, of the workers; and in the clothing industries for only 4.6 per cent. Of course, that was a state of affairs that could not be healthy for Scotland, and this Government, desiring as they do, to create a balanced economy and to bring prosperity to the people of Scotland, have had to reverse that process and carry out a much greater diversification of industry. In Scotland, as was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow, we not only need efficient basic industries, but we must have other industries too, if we are to avoid the tragic events of the inter-war years.

To achieve this we need three fundamental things. This Debate has brought out two of them. We need to have certain basic systems which supply services cheaply, adequately and efficiently; adequate scientific research facilities; and a population which can operate the new industries and is in the main fully employed. I should like to say a word or two about each of them. In a Debate in the Scottish Grand Committee my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) said that if we were to carry out a successful policy in the Highlands and Islands we needed to recognise the necessity for subsidising the basic services. That is true, and we are doing it in one fashion with our hydro-electric schemes. We have to do it in our transport, and we have to recognise the urgent necessity for adequate water supplies.

I want in particular to deal with the transport system. We have nationalised our transport services. It seems a thoroughly good Socialist principle, which was accepted by the Minister concerned during the Second Reading Debate upon the nationalisation of civil aviation, that profitable services must bear the burden of unprofitable services, and that where the services are socially necessary for the wellbeing of the country as a whole, as they are in the Highlands, we must recognise and accept that such a subsidy be given in the interests of the nation. We expected this, as one of the benefits that we would derive from the nationalisation of transport.

I want to ask my right hon. Friend what steps he is taking to see that this is being done in the Highlands. Whenever we consider projects for the Highlands, no matter whether they are mining projects, such as were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Cook) or the establishment of lighter industries in connection with hydro-electric schemes, we at once come up against the question of transport costs. It is true that under the Transport Act a Transport Users' Consultative Committee was set up, and that it is mentioned in this report. I do not think that that is enough. I believe that the Government have to give directions, not only to the Minister of Civil Aviation and to the Minister of Transport, but to anybody concerned with the provision of these services in the Highlands, that the Highlands must be treated as a special area and that they must be assisted, and, if necessary, subsidised. We shall only travel the road we want to go if that is done. It is no use leaving that matter to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

What has been done regarding the recommendations of the report of the Ferries Committee? There were 15 or 16 recommendations which, as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles will agree, are excellent recommendations, of importance to the Clyde, the Forth, the Western Isles, and other places. What has been done to implement the recommendations, which would contribute considerably to the promotion of a more efficient transport system in Scotland?

Perhaps I might now turn to the question of research. I believe that new industries are established, given adequate and efficient basic services, mainly as a result of scientific research. The necessity for scientific research does not, however, apply only in the case of new industries. If we are to keep our basic industries up-to-date, as I believe it is necessary for us to do in order to be able to compete in the markets of the world, they must also receive the benefits of scientific research. I compliment the Government upon having decided to establish the Mechanical Engineering Research Station and other research stations at East Kilbride. In the first annual report of the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy we find Sir Henry Tizard saying: Interruption. ] Of course, the bulk of it was for atomic research, none of which was in Scotland. Even the remainder was spent in the Ministry of Supply's Research Department establishments, which are practically all, as Sir Henry Tizard says, widely dispersed over the southern half of England. That is not good enough.

They are not all for war. I say it is not good enough. We want the Government to recognise that Scotland needs a much greater share than that. Scientific research is not simply a matter for Government action however but for action by industrialists themselves. In the past, Scottish industrialists have paid too little attention to scientific research. There may have been very good reasons for that. I do not know, but the effect is that our industries as a whole have lagged behind England in the establishment of research facilities. Industrialists in Scotland must co-operate for the establishment of research organisations in Scotland. The Government assist such organisations, which attract to themselves grants. This would make it much simpler for industry in Scotland as a whole to receive the benefits of scientific research.

My third point is on the question of labour. The Government have reduced the unemployment figure, as I have stated, to 3.5 per cent, of the insured working population, but more than 50,000 unemployed workers is still far too many. The figure represents a considerable wastage of valuable manpower. I have frequently asked questions in this House concerning the number unemployed for longer periods than six months and always the answer has been that the figure is from 12,000 to 14,000. When we look at the report itself we find that only 1,000 people are classified as severely disabled and for whom sheltered employment is required. That means that we ought to be able to employ the remainder.

One of the significant factors about unemployment in Scotland is stated in the report. It answers the interjections of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), as to the accuracy of the statements made by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State On page 10, the report says:

The position now is that the only facilities available for training at Government training centres are 465 places. Last year, 169 people were trained in private industries. That is not sufficient. I should have thought that the training centres which had been used in the main for the training of building trade workers could quite easily have been converted without any large capital expenditure to train people for various forms of light industry.

Does not the hon. Member think that building workers are still needed in order to complete the urgent building programme, rather than transferring these building training centres to other light industries?

We need more people in the building trade industry, but the argument of the report and the Government is that because of the capital cuts which necessitated a reduction in the building programme, they must stop the training of building trade workers. What I am trying to say is that even if that argument were correct—and I do not necessarily accept it as correct—I should have thought it would have been possible, without any capital expenditure, to turn those training centres into places where those 10,000 or 12,000 unemployed could be fitted for other jobs in industry. We must tackle this question much more vigorously than we have done in the past.

It is along those lines, namely, in the supply of cheap, adequate and efficient basic services, the development of scientific research and the fullest use of the available labour forces, that we can hope to bring the greatest degree of prosperity to the people of Scotland. Faith in our future has replaced the gloom that characterised the inter-war years.

That was when a minority Labour Government was reaping the fruits of the maladministration of previous Tory Governments.

Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him this question: Whether he thinks that a Government are entitled to accept office and not accept responsibility?

All I said was that they were reaping the fruits of the maladministration during the previous 10 or 12 years. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like to hear what the Press said during those years.

That might have been very appropriate at that time, but it is not on this Vote.

Then we will bring it out some other time. While I believe that we have changed the face of things in Scotland for the good, we must see that the new faith which has been born is rewarded and that our people are increasingly able to live a happy and full life.

8.13 p.m.

If in the earlier part of my speech, Mr. Beaumont, you are tempted to wonder whether I am straying from the Vote, I would assure you that I am dealing firmly with unemployment figures and other parts of the White Paper which we have been discussing today, which are very relevant. Normally I try to approach all Scottish matters objectively, but the speech which we have just heard and the speech of the Under-Secretary, make me depart from that for a short time.

We have just heard a most astonishing statement from the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis). I tried to get it down accurately. He said, "The Government have reduced the unemployment figure to 3.5 per cent." I could understand getting that at a street corner on a windy Saturday night when the hon. Member was bellowing at the top of his voice to get a point over, but to come to the House of Commons and make a statement like that is sheer irresponsibility. The Joint Under-Secretary of State spoke on much the same lines. Normally, I expect him to be balanced and wise in his speeches in the House—I have not heard him in the country—but today he was not. Much of his speech attempted to prove, directly or indirectly, that the relatively satisfactory employment figures were the work of the Government.

They are the work of events. If the hon. Member wants the answer to that, he should turn to the first page of the report where it says:

"Now the difficulty is not lack of demand for the goods which Scotland can produce … but that of finding the manpower and materials … for production."

Do the hon. Member and the Parliamentary Secretary claim that it is the Government's responsibility—

I was in the full flight of a sentence. When I have finished I will give way. Do they claim that the Government are responsible for all the destruction in the world which has created a sellers' market which we are now having an opportunity to meet? Answer that one.

Destruction might exist and there might be a sellers' market—a great shortage of goods and a great demand for goods by a large number of people—but it does not necessarily follow that in these circumstances there will be full employment. There was not full employment after the last war after a fairly large amount of destruction.

The hon. Member is wrong. There was a temporary period of very high employment which did not last so long.

That was three years after 1918 and there was a different degree of destruction. The hon. Member will not pretend that there is not still a sellers' market, although it is rocking. This sort of thing has been going on day after day in the country and the people are being misled. Hon. Members opposite are doing a dangerous thing for themselves, particularly so far as Scotland is concerned. When talking about Scotland's economic problems, let us all remember that Scotland is more vulnerable than any other country to world trade conditions.

The Under-Secretary talked about this bad period between the wars and the hon. Member for North Edinburgh has been doing the same thing, as if it was the responsibility of any British Government that we ran through those desperate periods in the thirties. Have they ever heard of Keynes and the study of the trade cycle? Do hon. Members opposite pretend that if they had been in complete power from 1929 to 1931 and not just in office, they could have solved the world's economic problem and stopped the world blizzard? If we had not had the last war, there is a reasonable chance that we might have had a useful flattening of the trade cycle which might have eliminated the grave risks which Scotland still runs in all her heavy industries if there is a difficult period ahead. If hon. Members opposite claim credit for a very low unemployment figure in Scotland and a pretty good production ability in the country, let them pray when they go to bed tonight that they are not in power when the trade cycle does its normal function. They will have a lot to answer for if they are in power then. They have misled people too long. It is unusual for me to take this line, but I feel that it is wrong to allow even hon. Members to get away with it.

Will the hon. Member face up to this corollary of his argument? He states that employment is the work of events. Does he, then, deduce that unemployment is an accident?

What I am trying to say is that up to now we have not evolved an effective way of balancing off the trade cycle. Any nation which is particularly dependent on the heavy industries is liable to suffer very severe fluctuations of employment. While certain Government intervention about which we are learning slowly and painfully may do a lot in the future to even out the trade cycle and we may reach an ideal period when we do not wander up and down, it is a slow process. We shall need the best brains of both sides of the House in order to achieve that, and also the best brains will be needed in other countries. It is wrong for hon. Members opposite to claim that some remarkable effort by the Government has produced the low unemployment figures.

A general charge was made that there has been no opposition this afternoon. I am trying to provide an answer to some of the wrong things which have been said. A criticism which one might make on one detail is that even with this strong demand and shortage of labour in a period in which it was possible for the Government to do effective work in achieving a better balance, not only of industry within districts but a better balance over the whole of Scotland, I doubt whether they have done everything possible. What they have done—a good deal of credit has been claimed by the other side of the Committee—has been done thanks to the powers given to them by an Act of Parliament passed by the Coalition Government. The Government have merely been following through the Distribution of Industry Act in which there were powers to give special inducements.

I give the Government credit for doing a fairly useful job, but I would like to see them with the courage to use housing as the best and most effective means of attracting labour and industry—almost without tears—throughout Scotland. They have remained over-concentrated on the Development Areas throughout this period and—I know this is arguable, but I believe it is right—if they had been brave and had thought the thing out with enough vision, they could have tried not just to mitigate the conditions in the Development Areas, but to have had the population flowing back to the countryside of Scotland and to the Highlands by a proper policy of development of the Highlands, and by using housing as a painless means of inducement.

That is an easy question to ask, but not a particularly easy question to answer. We are only learning. The whole world is learning—[ Laughter. ] I am perfectly happy to answer like that because if, 100 years ago, when the industrial revolution was at its height, all of us could have been infinitely wise, we would have not any slums in this country. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that if he had lived 100 years ago, without the great experience he now has, he would have foreseen that? We want to work together to do what is necessary, not hark back all the time to who was responsible between the wars.

I have said that I accept that a lot of things did not happen that should have happened between the wars. I was not in the House of Commons then, so I cannot guarantee what might have happened if I had been.

Now may I come to the White Paper? The Joint Under-Secretary said at one point that one of the efforts the Government were making was to try to obtain the highest output in long-established industries—a very proper objective. The paper says, in paragraph 172 of Chapter 13:

The industry has, on a conservative and careful estimate of its optimum capacity—making all allowances for the proper balance of production in the yards—estimated that a reasonable output would be almost 1.7 million tons for a year for the whole country—Scotland would be working in its proportion—but the steel allocation for this year, I understand, will be at a figure which will not allow of the delivery of more than one million tons. That really is a pretty serious state of affairs, and there are some curious figures connected with it. The returns which Lloyds Register produces regularly, and which were in the newspapers this morning, show that at this moment British shipyards are building more than half of all world tonnage. They also show that at this moment the building figure is almost 2¼ million tons. Something odd is happening here, because, if one has a total tonnage of 2¼ million tons and the allocation of steel is only such as will permit deliveries of 1,000,000 tons a year, there is real evidence that ships are being on the stocks much too long.

Can the hon. Member give the authority for the statement that there is a big cut in shipbuilding steel?

No, I did not say that. My point is that the optimum capacity of the yards is about 1.7 million tons, the orders on the books are 4½ million tons, the allocation of steel, I am advised, will allow of a delivery of about 1,000,000 tons of shipping in the year. If the right hon. Gentleman checks back, he will see that is roughly comparable to last year. My point is that if the shipbuilding industry could get more steel and other essential components of which it is short—timber is one—there is a tremendously increased output possible for our yards, which are not working to anything like capacity.

I know it is a question of relative priorities, but this is so important to Scotland, because we have the Clyde, the Forth, Aberdeen, Leith, Dundee and Burntisland, that I hope the Secretary of State is in all these discussions as to what should be the allocation, under priority, to shipbuilding, and that he will make certain that of all allocations Scotland gets its full and proper share and, what is more, that the allocation is really as big as it might be. I say that because that 4½ million tons of orders on the books for the whole country can disappear if conditions change, particularly the foreign orders. They do not necessarily remain firm, so we ought to get our yards used to the maximum capacity at the moment, consistent with other priorities. I gravely doubt if, with an allocation sufficient for the delivery of a million tons a year, we are getting anything like the efficiency out of the yards which we ought. Undoubtedly ships are remaining on the stocks, and in the construction stage, far too long.

The hon. Member for Kelvingrove touched on ports. I hope the Scottish Office is keeping the closest watch on the recent report on the turn-round of ships in port, and pressing hard for improvements in ships and everything else which that report recommended for Port Glasgow and other Scottish ports. A great deal can still be done on the Clyde to improve turn-round and thereby the efficiency of our ships. Here I must repeat figures which I have given in another connection before; that today the average British ship is in port one-third longer than it was before the war, and that one-third is dead loss in earning capacity in hard currencies to Britain. Anything the Scottish Office can do to help to get the equipment needed for the Clyde and these other ports in order to get the ships turned round better—to get better allocations of steel for repairs and to try to get the flow of components going—will repay itself hands down, not only for Britain as a whole but for Scotland.

One other point which I want to mention concerns ship operation. We have heard a great deal from fairly responsible people in Scotland, including Mr. Tom Johnston, of the cry for, "Passenger ships to the Clyde." No one is more keen on that than I am—I would love to see it happen—but let us be responsible in our screams. Ships ultimately are bound to go where there is traffic and it ought to be realised that the old, great days of the Clyde as a passenger shipping centre were based on heavy emigrant traffic, which does not exist today and did not exist between the wars. I say this because if we are making claims for Scotland we must see the picture in correct perspective and not exaggerate the case and make fools of ourselves.

Perhaps when shipping is much more plentiful than at present, when passenger liners are returned from trooping and there are some surplus ships, it may be that for a short season in midsummer special arrangements might be made for running ships in connection with properly organised big tours from Canada or the United States. I am not an expert on passenger shipping, but it is only elementary commonsense that we cannot try to run an uneconomic service just for the joy of having ships sail in and out of the Clyde with a few passengers. I have no doubt that once the shipping stringency eases, the ships will come in for such a period, but we must remember that the tourist season on the Clyde is a very short one. Anybody who has crossed on the northern Great Circle route into the Clyde in anything but midsummer will know that it can be a very cold, grim, wet passage, whereas the trip to the South is very often made in far better conditions.

I am convinced that a certain amount can be done to bring more cargo ships to Scotland, but, again, let us remember that it is not the shipowner who determines where his ship ultimately goes. The ship is the servant of trade. If the cargo is moving in and out of Scotland the ships will turn up there to carry it. Inasmuch as the Government with their bulk purchases can influence such a movement, that is a proper function of the Government so long as they consider it proper to use the method of bulk purchase. But it will be very much happier for Scotland, for shipping and for everybody else if they would abandon that silly and dangerous habit—and that is putting it mildly.

I think that in the construction of the "Queens" we have the perfect example of what Scotland can do in shipping. I am not a Scottish Nationalist—I have been very open about that in all my speeches in Scotland; I am not frightened to say it now, no matter what its election implications may be. There may be much to be done in more effective devolution but this is not the time, I agree, for me to develop that line of thought.

In all our publicity about Scotland and its demands, and in claiming credit for things like the shipping "Queens"—the perfect examples—let us remember that what we did in Scotland was to exercise our tremendous skill in shipbuilding, but that in the creation of these beautiful ships we pooled together the best of what was available in the whole of the United Kingdom. I believe that we have a great future in the quality of our work, our foresight and our special aptitudes but to use them to the best advantage, I am convinced we must use them to pull the best out of the whole of the United Kingdom.

8.33 p.m.

The one thing I always fear when I hear comparisons between the post-war period and the between-wars period is the danger of complacency. But I was astounded at the attempted apology of the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) for the materialistic argument that events cause unemployment—events in the form of a trade cycle. Who is responsible for events and for the trade cycle? Forty years ago Professor Jevons told us it was sunspots. The trouble with hon. Members opposite generally is brain spots.

The sunspot theory, inasmuch as sunspots affect harvests, may have a great deal to do with it.

I did not think there was such an antediluvian Member in this House who would try to justify Professor Jevons and his sunspots and their effects on the harvest. No, men are responsible, and Governments are responsible, for trade cycles. It is because the Government do not control the men, and have not controlled the men, that we have such things as trade cycles. If we had a Government controlling exports and imports and with planned production we should overcome trade cycles.

I am concerned about the tendency to complacency. The situation in Scotland is very urgent. A plan for Scotland is absolutely and urgently necessary, and I say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that in this White Paper there is no sense of urgency, but a tendency towards complacency. There is no plan for Britain and obviously no plan for Scotland. We have a whole hotch-potch of committees and a lot of councils—advisory councils, planning councils, economic councils—which are all supposed to be doing something, but are doing nothing. They are giving advice on this, that and the other, but very little comes of it.

One hon. Member said in regard to the new meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee that these were valuable innovations. They are not; they are actually a means of preventing an innovation, which is long overdue—more power for the Scottish people. There should be much more power for the people of Scotland to determine their own affairs, but that is being held back by recent measures which have been taken. We must get to a situation in which the people of Scotland are brought in. Where, in any of these advisory councils, are the Scottish people really able to express themselves? There are one or two trade union officials, one or two co-operators and a whole lot of people in Government organisations on them, but nowhere do we get the mass of Scottish people, the engineers, railway-men, transport workers and the rest, brought into any conception of the development of Scotland on balanced economic lines. There is nothing in the nature of a plan for balancing the economy of Scotland.

The Minister makes it clear that he is opposed to anything in the nature of further power to the Scottish people or anything in the nature of independence for Scotland. It is true that Scotland is dependent on Cornwall for tin, but that does not mean that she should be under submission to Whitehall any more than that because Britain is dependent for certain goods on America she should not be independent of America. Britain should be independent of America, and it is possible for Scotland to be independent of England and yet have the closest co-operation between the two.

Today there was a report in connection with the Tudor IV. Why have we not an aircraft factory in Scotland, where we have the finest engineering skill in the world? Why is Scotland prohibited from making a contribution to this new mode of transport? I have raised this matter often, but nothing is done about it.

Surely there has been nothing to prevent Scottish industrialists from forming an aircraft company to build aeroplanes on the same terms as anyone else?

There have been various efforts in the past. The motor car industry started in Scotland, in Glasgow, and came down to England where the financiers got a grip on it and made it a profitable industry. They built it up in England and have such power that they make it impossible for any motor car industry to carry on in Scotland. The same thing applies to the aircraft industry. If we had a plan for Scotland that would be part of the plan. If there had been an independent Scotland, we should have been right ahead with the motor car industry and the aircraft industry. The motor car industry started in Scotland, it had its foundation there, it got the skill there, and that skill was taken with the industry from Scotland down to England for the building up of the motor car industry. We have not got in Scotland, with all its great engineering skill, a motor car industry, nor have we an aircraft industry. There is the Albion Motor Works, which builds wagons and trucks, and produces most efficiently, but there is no car factory.

Is the hon. Member suggesting that the British Society of Aircraft Constructors has such a close grip on the aircraft industry that they determine where production will be carried on in the country? Is the solution that we ought to nationalise the productive side of the aircraft industry?

Of course, the aircraft industry, like other industries, should be nationalised and organised in such a way as to utilise all the highest skill in the production of aircraft and the development of the air services. Scotland, which has made such a contribution to sea transport by making and sailing the ships, could make the same contribution to air transport if it made and flew the planes.

To turn to another subject, why do we not get something done about the basic industries in Scotland along with new light industries—because we need many light industries in order to bring about a balance in our economy between light and heavy industries? I would say, as regards the talk about what can be done for the Highlands that it is a pity the Highland people have not been as important as the two million people in Western Berlin. We cannot get transport for the Highlands, we cannot get roads or aeroplanes, whereas we can provide an air lift for Berlin which carries not only ordinary commodities but coal. Let us have an air lift to the Highlands to provide them with the supplies which are so necessary.

While we want new industries, it is also necessary to build up our basic industries. Steel has not been developed to capacity in Scotland. Steel production in Scotland does not amount to anything like the actual needs of Scotland. A great deal requires to be done in connection with steel. Between the wars the steel industry in Scotland was closed down; it was all taken down to Corby. We want now a big development of the steel industry in Scotland.

I turn to shipbuilding. The shipbuilding industries in the Clyde are mostly slum industries. There we have the situation of the ships which are built having to be launched in very narrow channels. The big ships could not be launched at Brown's if it were not for the fact that the old river Cart is there on the other side of the Clyde. There is danger at the present time, through the cutting down of the steel allocation, of unemployment developing in the Clyde shipbuilding industry. In a striking article in the "Glasgow Herald" this morning on this very question, the opinion is expressed that in the near future there will be considerable unemployment on the Clyde. There on the Clyde the "Queen Elizabeth" was built; we built the biggest ships in the world. What happens? As soon as they are built they are taken down the Clyde with the greatest possible skill on the part of the pilot, they sail to Southampton and the Clyde never sees them again. We have in Scotland thousands of people who want to go to Canada and America and who have to go to Southampton and Liverpool to get a boat. The Clyde is the home of shipbuilding, the greatest centre for the production of ships that one can find anywhere. Yet we cannot sail a boat down the Clyde in order to take passengers to Canada and America.

Some hope is expressed that some of the liners will be engaged in the work early next year. But why have we no berths in the Clyde for the ships we build? Docking arrangements at the mouth of the Clyde would allow the "Queen Elizabeth" or the "Queen Mary" to sail from the Clyde, instead of sailing all the time from Southampton. There could be alternate sailings. Surely there should be that development in our ship-building industry. We should not carry on just as we were in the years between the wars and before the first world war. Planning, rime, money and research should be devoted to developing our shipbuilding industry. The shipbuilding yards in the Clyde are, in many cases, disgraceful from the point of view of technique, and their amenities for the workers are absolutely scandalous.

I say to the Minister: Let us have a plan for Scotland, a planned economy between good light industries and the heavy industries. While we are trying to balance our economy let us make sure that the bigger industries get the steel required and the amenities which will be so favourable for the encouragement of the workers in these industries. Then we can build up employment and have an economy in Scotland that will ensure in the future full employment and prosperity for the Scottish people.

8.47 p.m.

Owing to the short time allotted to me I shall have to leave out many of the things with which I meant to deal. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office upon this White Paper. It has had many descriptions today. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) said it was soothing, and that it had a superficial smugness. I feel that it does detail our achievements, and they are not inconsiderable. They are achievements that we have been able to make against the greatest difficulties with which any Government have ever been faced. On the other hand, there is also outlined the difficulties and problems that are still facing this country. There seemed also to be in the hon. and gallant Member's speech a great deal of Scottish nationalism. It amuses me a great deal when I hear that type of speech coming from the Opposition Benches, knowing as I do what happened to my people in Lanarkshire and Glasgow when hon. Members opposite were ruling our country.

The figures of unemployment have been challenged by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay). He said that it was a matter of events whether there was work or not. That is just nonsense. Much work done by this Government, particularly for Scotland, has led to a far higher number of people being employed in Scotland than was ever employed for more than a generation. The figure for 1938 of unemployed among the insurable population was 14 per cent. In 1939, when we were really preparing for war, it was 10½ per cent. In 1947 it was 3 per cent.

The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs, when he could not blame us for the black picture, tried to take the credit for the good picture and seemed to make his argument completely different. He said that much of the diversification of industry in Scotland was the result of the Distribution of Industry Act passed by the Coalition Government. I seem to remember that that Act was piloted through this House by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). It was not the same at the end as it was when it was introduced. It was absolutely mutilated by hon. Members opposite. Had that Bill become an Act including all the provisions that were in it when it was introduced into this House, we in Scotland would have been in an even better position than we are today.

This is the point, and it is the only point which I have time to make. Much has been done in the Development Areas. We see growing up factory space, some of which is now used for important export industries. We know that there is space possibly sufficient to take up this unemployed figure which worries us on these benches so much; but at the present have we firms ready to go into those factories when they are ready? I doubt it. If we have not, then it is the duty of the Government to take further measures to ensure that, if private enterprise industrial people in Scotland are not willing to use initiative and to take up that factory space, and if we cannot induce people to come from England, when the factories are completed, industries, whether nationalised or not, should be put into them. I am glad to say that in my constituency we have been able to induce a very big firm to take up factory space.

Finally, I wish to say a few words on the subject of coal. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) drew a picture of the coal industry and what it was producing, and the steel industry and what it was producing. In a previous speech which he made on Scottish affairs he again hit against the coal industry. He seems to forget the subsidy which this Government and the Coalition Government have given to the steel industry for many years. Of the loss of money incurred in the coal industry, £15 million has gone in interest to pay compensation to the previous owners. Only £6 million has been lost in the working of coal, and I consider that a very small sum to the happiness we have brought. Of course, we are dealing only with Scottish affairs today, and Scotland did not lose that money. In the last three years we have had a great development in the carbonisation of coal from 1,900,000 tons to 2,500,000 tons, but many of our disabled miners would be able to have a much better life and would feel that they were of some use to the community if we could have an even greater development of the carbonisation of coal and all the by-products.

8.54 p.m.

With one eye on the clock, I will deal very briefly with not more than two points, though I had intended and hoped to say a great deal more. The hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) has spoken about coal. Let me follow her by taking as my first point opencast coalmining in Scotland. It was estimated in 1946 that there were about 32 million tons of opencast coal to be exploited. Most of that was in Scotland, though some of it was in the North Midlands. It has been found in practice that the cost of the production of that opencast coal in Scotland is about 42s. to 43s. a ton, and that the average selling price is about 39s. 7d. a ton. That shows a loss of 3s. to 3s. 6d. a ton. In comparison, deep mined coal in Scotland in the first quarter of 1948 showed a profit of 3s. 3d. a ton. In 1946 there were 11 sites in Scotland which were being operated as opencast coalmining sites.

In 1947, as we learned from the report which the Committee is discussing tonight, there were 30 sites comprising just under 3,000 acres of land which had been requisitioned for that purpose, and most of which was actually producing coal. It is anticipated that about 50,000 more acres will be needed for opencast coal production by the end of 1951 and the Minister of Fuel and Power, answering a Question in the House on 12th March, was unable to give the sub-division of that figure of 50,000 acres for opencast coal mining as between Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales, on the other hand. In so far as there must now be, surely, some kind of plan, I would ask the Secretary of State what is the intention about future opencast coal mining in Scotland between now and, say, 1951, which was the year taken by the Minister of Fuel and Power.

What stocks have been built up. At the end of July, 1947, stocks on sites or in central stocking grounds—and this is a figure for the United Kingdom—totalled 41,000 tons. A year later, by 10th July, 1948, the total had gone up to 1,170,000 tons. A very large proportion of that was in Scotland. It may be that the Secretary of State will be able to give the actual Scottish figures. It is a most alarming increase, because one of the reasons which was given at the time for the 1947 fuel crisis was that stocks lying in Government dumps and in central stocking grounds were not distributed to consumers or dealers. Is this alarming rise in stocks of opencast coal lying on the ground in the open due to transport difficulties or is it because there is no sale for this coal?

If it is unsaleable, what is the point of continuing to produce it at 43s. 2d. a ton? Is it a fact that this increase in stocks is due to the accumulation of slack after screening? Overseas markets will not have the slack and it is possible that the amount of slack is the reason for this enormous piling up of stocks.

The point I wish to make principally about this is that this opencast coal mining, this surface mining, was originally intended by the Government to expire in 1949. It is now extended until 1951 and if anyone has seen—as I have no doubt a great many hon. Members of the Committee have seen—the devastation wrought by this opencast coal mining they will hope to goodness it will be finished at the earliest possible moment. Great areas of rich agricultural land have been torn up, as desolate as the Western Front in the worst periods of the war, with the top soil removed and perhaps up to 30 feet of overburden removed before the contractors get to the four or five foot seam. I am sure we all hope that this terrible devastation will stop at the earliest possible moment.

There is one more point with which I wish to deal, because it has been mentioned by so many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee but principally on the Government side. It is the desirability of steering industrial development towards the areas where industries are most needed in Scotland. I want to quote one sentence from the report. In Chapter V it speaks about town and country planning as were located so as not only to satisfy the immediate needs of particular areas, but also to fit in with the longer-term development of Scotland as a whole. Many of us had hoped that this would have been possible through the mechanism of the variable development charges under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947.

Will the hon. Member please explain that to the Committee?

I will do so very briefly. It was said by the advocates of that Act, and it was accepted by those of us on this side, that here was a great chance for positive planning; that by lowering development charges where necessary industry could be induced to go to those areas where industrial development was desirable. The Central Land Board were to be given powers to reduce development charges, where necessary, to induce industrialists to go to parts of the country where industries were needed. That is what those of us on this side hoped would be done, and it is the sort of thing that could have been done. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and, only a few minutes ago, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) have expressed regret that during the inter-war period new industries, such as the artificial silk industry, the motor car and electrical industries, as well as the aircraft industry, were not developed in Scotland. That sort of inducement would have been possible under the Town and Country Planning Act, but it is not now possible because the power to lower development charges has now been denied us by regulations issued since the passing of the Act. There are many other points with which I should like to deal, but in view of the short time available I will end upon that point.

9.3 p.m.

All of us on this side of the Committee will wish to congratulate the Secretary of State on this White Paper, not merely because of the scope of the inquiry and the valuable information it contains, but because of at least two implications in it which will transform the whole industrial picture of Scotland. One is the assumption of responsibility by the Government for the siting and direction of industry. I do not know if Members opposite realize what this responsibility being placed on the Government really means. It certainly means a continued and possibly extended control over industry. At times during this Debate Members opposite have reminded me of the Tuscan army, with those from behind crying "Forward" and those in front crying "Back." We cannot give the Government control over the development of industry and at the same time have the usual cry of "set the people free." We welcome the unemployment figures. It is very gratifying to find them at 3.5 per cent., but it is mortifying to find that the figure for Britain is 1.2 per cent. While we can have no smug complacency, we can recognise that we have some grounds for satisfaction in what has been done.

I should like particularly to deal with one or two problems which affect the Lanark area, of which I am the representative. We have a typical example of uncontrolled, selfish, private exploitation and development in a little area which is a vast inchoate mass of people and houses, a sprawling unbalanced economy, subject to the most pitiful slumps and booms. It would be a crime to say that there has not been a considerable improvement, because we see new industrial estates springing up everywhere. We have been able to direct into the area firms of the highest repute, and our unemployment figure has been reduced to what some of us did not quite expect. But we have still grave misgivings based on our long history of past misfortunes. There is in the White Paper a calm assumption that the days of Lanarkshire as a coal-producing region are past. We are not prepared to accept that. Lanarkshire is still the major coal producing area in Scotland. There are areas in South Lanarkshire which have been unproved, and which are capable of development. From the winning of our resources we may see the results of the destructive use to which our coal has been put in the past. We believe that coal is too valuable to be used merely as a fuel; it should be treated as a raw material of the highest value, and we would like to have seen in the White Paper some reference to low temperature carbonisation plans for the utilisation of our coal resources in Lanarkshire.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) made great play with the suc- cess which private enterprise has been making of the steel industry. It would be a miracle if the steel trade was not able to increase its production. It is not due to the foresight or capacity of those who have been running Scottish steel for the last two generations that output has increased. In my lifetime Scottish steel has lived on cartelisation, restriction of output and the fixing of prices; any improvement in production today is due to the labour and energy of those who are working obsolescent plant. The people in my area will welcome the transfer of steel from private hands to public ownership, not merely because the industry is too big and too vital to be left as the plaything of unrestricted private forces, but because it will give the workers an opportunity of pulling their full weight in an industry which is valuable to the nation and will give them, for the first time in their lives, an oportunity of working modern plant in a properly coordinated steel system.

We have had injected into Lanarkshire a considerable number of new industries which may ultimately transform our economy, but we are still concerned about the hard core of 10,000 unemployed, for whom we do not seem able to do anything. We are sometimes a bit apprehensive that many of the industries which come to us are merely outposts of other industrial concerns in more favoured areas, and that with the first touch of an industrial blizzard these outposts will be closed and we shall be left with empty factories and broken homes. Already, we have had slight experience of that. We feel that we are getting an undue proportion of the industries which cater for the luxury or semi-luxury market, industries which are most susceptible to a lessening in public buying, and we should like to see industries which will stand on a firmer basis.

The last point I should like to make is that a great many of these 10,000 unemployed are industrial casualties—men who have been broken in the heavy industries—and we welcome the setting up of these four Remploy factories in Lanarkshire. We are disappointed at the slow progress towards their completion. We would welcome an assurance from the Secretary of State that these factories will go ahead as quickly as possible, because we should like to bring not merely into employment but into self-respect many of those people who have rendered services to industry in the past and who are now temporarily unfit to proceed with their job. If we could get a certain feeling of security added to the work that has been done we would feel that we were at last on the way to a complete transformation of the Scottish industrial scene.

9.11 p.m.

We have had a long and remarkable Debate. It is, of course, a strain on any of us to have to sit and listen to other Scotsmen speaking, and I have been subjecting myself to that unusual strain this evening to the extent that I have cut down the time available to me to what will be a very short period. If I trespass a little on the time of the Secretary of State, I trust he will forgive me. It is an interesting fact that while all of us find much of interest in this White Paper, on all sides of the Committee in almost every speech there have been displayed two minds about its merits. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Alex Anderson) was delighted with the White Paper and said he was in favour of planning. However, as soon as the plan touched him, it was a very bad idea indeed. On page 33 of the White Paper this will be found:

The difficulty in which we all are is that we are in two minds—and I shall return to this point a little later—as to whether we should go for Scotland as a specialised country in a vast region of planned development or whether we should go for Scotland as a unit. There are arguments on both sides. They lead us to a very sharp division of policy, which is a fundamental difficulty for all of us in discussing this White Paper. It is a statement of fact which does not resolve that question of policy. Are we to have heavy industry and the traditional work of Scotland for the last century or are we to go for a widely diversified set of industries, which, as the hon. Member for Motherwell reminded us, cater for the luxury trades and are the sort of trades which tend to be closed down if there is any trouble?

The argument which we must press on every possible occasion is that Scottish productive areas should in the first place be equipped to the full and capable of giving the utmost possible yield from the traditional industries which are established there. Fundamental in this equipment must be houses, fuel and food. On houses I find that there is an absence of that sense of urgency to which more than one hon. Member has made reference. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) made what I might call a pincer movement of considerable power against the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The grand strategy of housing in this country was that a programme of temporary houses was started, to run only during the development period of permanent housing immediately after the war. Its run-off was to be balanced by the run-up of the permanent houses. The programme of temporary houses is now drawing rapidly to a close, but the programme of permanent houses is not developing to the extent of anything like the run-up which I think is necessary for either the amount of our accumulated shortages or for those very transfers which the report envisages. In many ways the figures given, as far as I can gather, amount to something like 24,000 permanent houses a year.

The right hon. Gentleman intervenes with a more alarming suggestion still. It is true that the figure 20,000 was given by the Minister of Health in a recent housing Debate on the Floor of the House, but I was discounting it, because I know that the Minister of Health uses figures rather as illustrations than as arithmetic. If that figure is now soberly stated by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the permanent housing programme is to run at about 20,000 a year, look at the reduction which is to take place.

That absence of a sense of urgency is exactly what has been subconsciously sensed by the Committee as a whole. It depends upon circumstances, says the right hon. Gentleman. Upon what circumstances? It depends upon human will. It depends upon Government decision. It depends upon the allocation of timber and bricks, and upon the allocation—

Is it not the case that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends were approving what was said by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), when he was saying just the opposite of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying now?

I think everybody in the Committee appreciated the most powerful speech of the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay). It was one of the best speeches I have heard in the Committee tonight. The hon. Gentleman said that world conditions were not governed by the decisions of men in this House. Indeed, nobody said that more strongly than the Labour Government between 1929 and 1931. The plea of world conditions rang from that Box every time Mr. J. H. Thomas came to it.

Conditions of world slump. Do not, please, drag me away from the point. The hon. Member for West Fife went back to Professor Jevons and the sunspot theory, and then objected when anybody else followed him on that ground. I beg him not to ask me to follow him again.

The limited objective of 20,000 as against 30,000 houses for Scotland is a decision which will certainly be made by the Government in this country. The enormous engrossment of power into the hands of 20 or 30 men in Whitehall is one of the difficulties of the situation. When hon. Members on this side of the Committee are asking for Government action, they are merely asking that the 20 men who have engrossed a quarter of the national income into their direction should deal with it in certain ways. Much more desirable would be a higher degree of decentralisation which would allow a much greater proportion of that income to flow, not across the desks of 20 men, but across the desks of a much larger number of men by whom, I verily believe—and so do all of us on this side of the Committee—things would be more capably and more expeditiously administered.

The next point was fuel. The facts are clear, and it is a pity that no one has referred to them during the Debate. The output for Scotland of saleable coal in 1937 was 30 million tons. The provisional output of coal for Scotland in 1947 was 22,879,800 tons. That is a very great drop. The reduction is from something like 6.6 tons per man week to about 5.5 tons per man week. Again, there is an absence of a sense of urgency. Under these conditions it is going to be very difficult to get sufficient fuel to energise all the things about which the Under-Secretary of State and other hon. Members have spoken—for example, producing one million tons of steel to maintain the heavy industries and equip ourselves efficiently. Obviously fuel is short in Scotland.

Now the argument is that the fuel is to be supplemented by a large amount of hydro-electric power. We are going to burn rain. We have plenty of rain in Scotland. To burn rain sounds a very good idea, but again I look at the figures here in Appendix IV and I am not quite certain whether the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Cook)—in a most interesting speech which brought out several aspects of the problem in a very fresh way—whether this cheap power is going to be secured by the present run of hydro-electric developments. The great schemes, Loch Sloy, Tummel-Garry, Glen Affric, Fannich, are to cost very large sums indeed. The figures given for schemes approved by the Commissioners and submitted to the Secretary of State come to about £38 million and the schemes approved by the Electricity Commissioners and not yet submitted to the Secretary of State amount to about £17 million. That is £55 million. That must be larger than the sum required to develop all the coalfields of Scotland. It is far larger than the sum paid in compensation for the work done in developing the coalfields of Scotland. It is a substantial proportion of the compensation paid for the development of the coalfields of the United Kingdom. What will the final charges be for this fuel—this white coal—developed at the very high expense which post-war schemes are incurring?

I am most distressed to think that we did not get ahead with this development before the war. The hon. Member for Dundee challenged us on it. I have here the Division list following a Debate on 10th March, 1947. That was when Labour Members voted down this development. The hon. Member who then represented Maryhill and the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) leagued together to vote down the development of hydro-electricity.

Is that when there was a free vote of the House and when hon. Members of all parties split in different directions?

That makes it all the worse. They were not compelled to do it. They did this out of malice aforethought and out of their own black hearts. Here is the list of shame when Socialist Member after Socialist Member voted it down, including hon. Members of unimpeachable Socialist orthodoxy, such as the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Owing to what I thought was an unfortunate quarrel in Scotland—Scottish Members were divided on this, to some extent the Highlands against the Lowlands—the development was stopped and the opportunity to carry through these great schemes was held up. But the hon. Member for Dundee must not say that the Tories voted down hydro-electric schemes when Member after Member of the most unimpeachable Socialist orthodoxy joined in voting one down in the days when it really could have been proceeded with. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Cook) has come in, because I was complimenting him on a most fresh and original speech, and have been in general reinforcing the main argument he addressed to the Committee, that in the strengthening of heavy industry lies the proper line of development of Scotland in the immediate future.

The third requisite is food which, of course, includes both agriculture and fisheries. Not a word has been said tonight about fish; yet we are in danger of running down the stocks of the North Sea. The figures given in the White Paper show that for 40 per cent, more sea time in 1946 only a 16 per cent, increase in the catch was secured. I should like the Secretary of State to say, if he can, what progress has been made with the Convention for limiting fishing in the North Sea. Fish is balancing our calorie account in Great Britain just now. That gap is about to be widened, because there is a draft being made upon these sea resources greater than these resources are able to maintain.

The arguments which have been addressed to the Committee show that the most important thing we can do is to make adequate use of manpower and material. There the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) made a most interesting point which impressed all the Committee. He quoted the railway employees and said—15,000 people before the war, 35,000 today. Surely that is a staggering example of a great deployment of manpower over and above what was found necessary to carry out this work before the war. It brings up the question, which the hon. Member asked, as to whether we are making the best possible use of the most valuable and irreplaceable of our assets—manpower.

The same holds, to some extent, of material. There are certain things which we continue to carry forward because in the past they seemed desirable and urgent. I would take one point which has not been taken before, large-scale forestry. While it is desirable and important that the woodlands of this country should be increased, yet let us remember that to plant a tree is to embark upon a capital development which will not give any great return for something like 30 or 40 years and for that sheep are being turned off the hills now which would give a fleece this year, a lamb next spring, a fleece next year, another lamb the spring alter, and which are themselves eventually good food. There are a million acres of de-forested land—by hypothesis, the best land, fenced, developed, ready for planting, which it seems to me ought to be planted up before we embark upon large-scale new development involving the actual reduction of the food producing resources of this country.

I give that as an example of the necessity for making sure that our men and material are deployed with the maximum immediate effect in our time. The shelter belts which would be replaced by the planting would begin to give a result in 10 to 15 years, because trees of that age give a very good shelter belt and continue on to give a timber result after that. On the other hand, trees planted for purely timber purposes give a few results from the early thinnings, but do not give any real result for 30 to 40 years, and the main crop is not obtained for a considerable time after that. I say again that we should revise some of the programmes we have undertaken in view of this very great shortage of manpower and material which we now see before us.

I return again to the theme which has not yet been decided: do we go for an economy with multiple light trades or do we ride our luck on the heavy industries? I am for riding our luck on the heavy industries, at present at any rate. The Ruhr has been destroyed. People are arguing for a German development of six million tons or 12 million tons of steel, but this great centre of heavy industry has been for the time being practically rubbed out. The Clyde—all industrial Scotland—is still in full bearing. What is the use of our trying to compete with other people in making lipsticks, radio sets and cameras when we can build the "Queen Elizabeth" and the "Queen Mary"; when Mavor and Coulson and other firms can make such things as heavy electrical equipment for which all the world is clamouring; when firms with the inherited tradition of a century of industrial development—the people who began industrial development—can produce machines of power and quality for which any purchasing country now holds out its hands?

The great industrial equipment of Asia is only in its beginning. The re-equipment of Europe has still largely to be carried through. I would much rather see the whole weight that the Government can throw, and the whole release of permits to private industry that it can give, directed towards developing the great machines—the thoughts we have cut into steel—making the great machine tools with which we can produce the miracles of modern engineering, rather than that we should find ourselves asked to rejoice because a lipstick factory has been set up in North Lanarkshire.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a mistake. There is no such factory in North Lanark.

As a man I apologise to the hon. Lady for trespassing on the field of cosmetics, but I was using that more as an illustration. If the hon. Lady wishes I will give a catalogue of actual factories and actual sites, but that would be difficult in the time available. The light industries of which the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Alex. Henderson) and many other hon. Members have spoken are light industries of the order of luxury trades. They are things in which we have no inherited skill. They are things which are the outposts of bigger industries far to the South, and are thereby much more likely to be cut off if a slump comes. I withdraw lipstick from North Lanarkshire; all the more because—as the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) said, he did not himself drink whisky and did not like it at all—similarly I will admit that I use lipstick little, if at all.

We have had an interesting Debate but the Committee is still of two minds and is not by any means fully satisfied with the developments, encouraging, hopeful and cheerful as they are, which the White Paper shows. Every sixth ship, for instance, in the world is being built in Scotland. One, two, three, four, five, Scotland. That is the roll call of all the ships under construction in the world today on all the Seven Seas—a great thing to be proud of and a great thing to be thankful for. But we want to be sure that the best equipment and management to maintain our industries will be at the disposal of those who are to have the terrible task of grappling with the contraction of the sellers' market which will face industry in the days to come.

9.36 p.m.

I can say with Burns, not on the whole regard the result as unsatisfactory. I regard the general recognition of the progress made as a tribute not only to the Government, but to the people of our country for what they have done since the war ended. The White Paper has been criticised because it has not tabulated what we have not done. It has taken 90 pages to tabulate roughly what we have done and I could take a long time in saying what has to be done before we can be satisfied.

The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) who opened the Debate said that this was a smug, complacent White Paper. I presume he has read it and that the conclusion forced on his mind is that the mere statement of the facts struck him as not unsatisfactory. I take it that his use of the word "smug" meant that he could not find very much fault in the White Paper and, therefore, that there must be something wrong with it. If we drew the conclusions which he wanted us to draw that could be described as propaganda. I have no doubt that my colleagues will draw conclusions and describe what they think of the conclusions to their constituents, just as hon. Members opposite will draw different conclusions, but the fact that my hon. Friends can draw satisfactory conclusions cannot be considered distasteful to me.

I was surprised that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) developed into a Little Scotlander. I thought he was an internationalist, but he seems to have got "littler and littler," and wants to keep on the Clyde ships which were built on the Clyde. The "Queen Mary" was kept on the Clyde for some time and the men of Clydebank were walking the streets waiting for the day when she could sail from the Clyde. The purpose of building ships on the Clyde is to get them away from the Clyde and if all the ships built on the Clyde were kept on the Clyde it would be choked right out to the Firth. When we build ships, or make whisky, we have the same purpose in view, we want them to go elsewhere.

The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) is naturally concerned about whisky and does not want to keep all the whisky made in Perth, otherwise the people there would not live.

The right hon. Gentleman will admit that they would have a grand time while they did live.

I gathered from what the hon. and gallant Member said that he was not a judge of that, so it would not make any difference to him. It was suggested that we should consider this matter as a whole. The purpose of the White Paper was to produce the facts. Before we consider planning anything we must be clear on the facts. On the question of Little Scotlanders may I point out that I have been brought up in an industry in which we have to deal with facts. We had to deal with practical things. I can understand people who move in an academic sphere going all hot about Scottish nationalism and Scottish isolationism. They are not acquainted with facts of industrial life. When persons have to deal with industry they come up against the real facts. The world is inter-dependent and so far as my party is concerned it does not stand for breaking up the world into smaller and smaller units; it stands for unifying the world as far as possible so as to get the greatest co-operation for the well-being of all people in the world. The unity of Scotland and England has been one of the greatest contributions for the well-being of the world and it would be tragic for anyone on sentimental grounds to bring about a division of that unity. I stand and fight for Scotland but that has no relationship to being against England or any other country. I want to cooperate with England and every other country in building up the well-being of the people.

This Debate has been remarkable for the number of Members who have shown unconsciously, as the report says, the interdependence of our two countries. To take the tweed industry, we are told that it depends upon worsted coming from Yorkshire. Even the hon. and gallant Member for Perth, in dealing with Scotch whisky, which I imagine he would regard as the one thing peculiar to Scotland, wants sherry casks from Spain or oak from America in which to mature his whisky. The whole thing is so tied up that if we are to get statistics about all this kind of thing we shall have a Civil Service in Scotland alone almost as big as the whole Civil Service of this country.

I will congratulate hon. Members, if I may do so without presumption, on the number of points they managed to introduce into this Debate in the shortest of speeches. They have really flattered me. I feel almost embarrassed by the confidence which they have in me to answer all the questions put today. It shows that they at least believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland runs Scotland in all Departments. If I could answer all the questions I should feel like the man called Datas who could answer any question without notice. I confess that I cannot answer without notice some of the questions put to me today. These detailed questions concern matters which one cannot carry in one's mind. Even in the last week before the Recess they will be a fruitful source of questions to the respective Ministers who are really responsible for them.

I will touch in detail upon one or two questions which have been asked. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord William Scott) raised questions regarding the woollen trade. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has met the Scottish Council on this question of the Development Council plan for the woollen trade. The Scottish Council are very much alive to this matter. Here again there is a difficulty because while the Scottish woollen trade is in many ways distinct—I have a great part of it in my constituency and it has its own peculiar specialised development which is tremendously important because of its high quality—it has much in common in other directions with the trade south of the border. The two require to be worked together although Scotland requires separate treatment. So far as I can understand the proposition, while there will be United Kingdom consultation on matters common to the Kingdom there will be a specialised council inside Scotland dealing with matters affecting Scotland alone. The Scottish Council for Industry has this matter under consideration and it will not be lost sight of.

The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) went to the length of asserting that tartans from Italy had been brought to Scotland. So far as that is concerned the answer is that the Govern- ment do not control everything which is imported into this country, and that has been a matter for private enterprise. I will look into the hon. Member's other point about worsteds but I cannot give him an answer at the moment. In regard to the jute industry, that question is also being considered by a working party and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is awaiting the result of their deliberations.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong there; the working party report is out and mentions the three things I mentioned—protection, combination and renovated plant.

Since then my right hon. Friend the President has had a personal discussion with the members of the working party and is awaiting their comments before proceeding further.

With regard to the £25 million with which the hon. Member for East Fife was going to develop the Highlands, I can assure him that he could not spend another £25 million. There is not the labour and materials to make use of it. The mere giving of money does not produce anything. The Government are developing the Highlands with the maximum speed possible, and, as one hon. Member pointed out, they are spending up to nearly £40 million on the Highlands.

With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for East Fife, the Tory Government in 1938, after the Hilary Committee reported on the Highland problem, offered us £65,000 as a maximum, and not £25 million.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the proposal I made.

Oh, yes, I will look at it. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Cook) dealt with the mineral resources of this country, specially iron ore in Raasay. That ore was worked during the 1914–18 war, but the content of iron is not very great and since then has not been thought economical to work. But he raised one or two interesting points which I shall look into further, and if it is thought to be a fruitful source of industry we shall develop it. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth objected even to fruit coming from England. I agree that we ought to develop our own Scottish fruit, because we have some tasteful fruit. Nevertheless Cox's Orange Pippins and one or two other delectable fruits do not grow well in Scotland and, therefore, I hope we shall continue to exchange our fruit with that from south of the border.

The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) developed more heat than I have seen him develop before, and I cannot understand why, because if there was anything distasteful in the controversy, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow who started the argument, ought to have had some of the reproaches from the other hon. Members of the Committee. My hon. Friend replied vigorously from his own personal experience of the misery in Scotland between the wars, and I think he was justified in view of the suggestion that there was no such thing as poverty between the wars. Where the hon. Member for East Fife was living during that period I am not sure, because he seemed to be a bit out of touch with what was happening, even in Fife. In the case of children, for instance, no child got boots without a certificate from a doctor that he was suffering from malnutrition. To suggest that everybody was living on healthy rations was a little—

On a point of Order. I never said any such thing. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to make suggestions like that.

Prior to the war Scotland was suffering from the drift of industry to the South. New industries were springing up in and around London and the Midlands, but Wales and Scotland were being left to become derelict and desolate areas. At that time that was not, of course, a question for the Government, for the Government washed its hands of the whole affair, and said it was a matter for private enterprise. At that period the heavy industries referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were in the doldrums and nearly derelict as well. Therefore, for Scotland to be advised to build its faith only on those heavy industries will not be welcomed on the Clyde, where even today there is a fear that those times may return. While I agree that we want ships as soon as possible we do not want to build all the ships in the next two years and then, for the next 10 years, see men standing starving in the streets of Clydebank. The whole plan of the shipbuilding industry itself was to build liners immediately after the war, and then cargo ships after that, and they then planned to spread shipbuilding over a number of years. The whole purpose of Government planning is to avoid this cycle in industry. If we have these "hungers and bursts" it is that which brings about the cycle of unemployment. Our whole purpose is to level out the bumps and to try if possible not to have the booms and the slumps, but to keep industry working at a very steady rate.

There has been a lack of new industries in Scotland. That is not due to any government from Whitehall. I am sorry to say that it is due to the lack of enterprise among Scots themselves. Let us take the aircraft industry. The hon. Member for West Fife asks why there is not an aircraft industry in Scotland. I can tell him. It is because nobody started one in Scotland. Even as late as the last war there could have been an aircraft construction industry in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Scotland. He invited various firms to come together to form an aircraft industry. As Minister of Aircraft Production he offered them orders but, because of their mutual jealousies, that industry was not formed. Therefore, the reason for the lack of an aircraft industry in Scotland is not the fault of anybody South of the Border. It is due entirely to the people North of the Border who did not start such an industry. My hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) was perfectly justified in what he said in that respect.

Another point is that Scotland by itself is not big enough to support an aircraft industry. Even the whole of Australia cannot support an aircraft industry. The amount of research and development required to maintain such an industry could not be sustained by a population of 5,000,000 people. In order to support an aircraft industry one must have a population of anything from 40 million to 60 million or 70 million people with a highly industrialised background. But an industry building aircraft in Scotland could have been supported by the United Kingdom. I happen to know about this industry, because I had to do with the research and development on which it is based.

Then we come to shipbuilding which, I agree, is the backbone of the Clyde. That industry will remain the backbone of the Clyde whatever new industries we may introduce there. The shipbuilding industry in the Clyde is occupying today 225,000 men as compared with 119,000 men in 1936. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that. We are asked whether we should transfer men from building houses and other things in Scotland to building more ships—

The right hon. Gentleman has not got my point. The point I was trying to make was that, with the present allocation of steel, the Government are wasting manpower and not getting the proper flow into the shipyards. Men are under-employed throughout the industry.

It may be that some men ought to come out of the industry. If we have a given amount of steel we must decide how we are to use it. The hon. Gentleman says it should be used in shipbuilding today. In the Scottish Grand Committee the other day he urged that we should build houses. If we put the steel into houses we cannot put it into shipbuilding. The Government have to look at all these matters and to ensure that steel is properly distributed. As some hon. Members said, the Scottish yards are producing 42 per cent, of the United Kingdom output, and we can be very proud of that.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. and gallant Member for Perth, the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for North Edinburgh, have mentioned the question of research. That is one of the fundamental questions which faces Scottish industry today. I must agree with all that hon. Members have said about the reluctance of Scottish industry to make use of research in the building up of the future of Scottish industry. Nothing can be said which is too strong to urge upon Scottish industrialists the necessity for making use of this valuable knowledge. There is one hon. Member of this House whose firm was approached by another firm in Scotland on the question of the development of one of the most modern types of gas turbine. That is a machine which is entirely suitable and essential to the Clyde. That firm, perhaps for good reasons, turned down the suggestion. It may be that if a firm cannot be found in Scotland to develop that new industry, it will have to go to some other part of the country South of the Border. That would be a tragedy. I hope that Scottish industrialists will alter their attitude towards development and research. The gas turbine engine will be the engine of the future and if Scotland surrenders it at this time she may, as in the case of the aircraft factory, never have the chance again.

Our business is to try to get industry to plan itself. The Government are not taking over private industries; we are asking them to plan themselves. I have been told there is no such thing as a plan. Under this Government, for the first time in the history of this country, there has been a comprehensive economic survey of all our resources, what is happening to them, the flow of those resources and the allocation of them. It has never been done before. I do not blame past Governments for not planning. Nevertheless, the information was not available. It is available for the first time now.

We may be criticised for not distributing this or that in the proper way, but that must always be a matter of opinion; the Government of the day must decide that according to its best Wisdom and it must listen to the criticisms made on the subject. The policy of this Government can be stated in very simple terms: it is to influence the industry of this country so that we get production for need instead of production dominated entirely by the profit motive. This does not mean we shall say that nobody must make a profit in private industry; what we do say is that the mere fact of profit is not to decide what is to be produced in this country. It is what is needed that will be produced.

That would be a very simple matter to settle if we were entirely independent, but we depend, in fact, as some hon. Members have already pointed out, on foreign markets. We must buy food abroad, we must buy our raw materials abroad and, therefore, in order to buy food and raw materials we must sell our goods abroad. Therefore, to a large extent, our economy must be linked up with the possibilities of world economy and I will agree that that limits to a great extent the possibility of our complete planning. Within this limitation, however, this Government will endeavour to plan that the energies of this country will be devoted to the production of the maximum wealth for the well-being of the people in this country. I do not rule out that we will try to help other countries to the best of our ability. We must try to maintain our present standard of life and to eliminate, if we can, the trade cycle, to see that industry is kept working on a steady basis and that employment is kept at a high and stable level, as was stated in the original White Paper.

We have several organisations in Scotland to guide us in planning Scotland. The Scottish Council for Industry, which deals with development is doing a remarkably fine job in gathering material and stimulating enterprise. The Scottish Board for Industry has been helping to organise capacity, stimulating exports and doing very valuable work. In staggering the hours of industry last winter it made a much bigger contribution than some hon. Members give it credit for.

The Highlands Advisory Panel are dealing with the Highlands, but they also of course are bound by the general economy of the country as a whole and, while they may feel frustrated that they cannot run ahead of the rest of the country and the rest of the world, we are all bound by the fact that we have to cut our suits according to the cloth. The Scottish Economic Conference gathers together all the bodies which have control of executive power in Scotland over economic affairs. These bodies are not bodies to duplicate the work which is being done by somebody else. All the work is being done by somebody at the moment and what we want is to get it coordinated into a cohesive plan, so we know what we are doing in a comprehensive way. That is the purpose of it. We can multiply bodies, but we want to get bodies doing the right thing and the purpose of the economic conference is to give us guidance in doing the right thing at the right time, in order to achieve the best results for the country as a whole.

I thank hon. Members for the very encouraging contributions they have made to the Debate and I shall see that in no sense will I take the very kind words today as an encouragement to do nothing, but rather as an encouragement to go out and to see if we can do even better.

Committee report Progress: to sit again To-morrow.

Isle of Man (Customs) Bill

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Public Registers and Records (Scotland) [Money]

Resolution reported:

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the appointment of a Keeper of the Registers of Scotland and of a Keeper of the Records of Scotland and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required for the remuneration of the said Keepers and of the officers and servants appointed or transferred under the said Act to enable the said Keepers to perform the functions vested in them."

Resolution agreed to.

Public Registers and Records (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Substitution of a Keeper of the Registers and a Keeper of the Records for the Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland.)

10.2 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 2. lin 21, at the end, to insert:

"(5) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to each of the Keepers appointed under this section, and to the officers and servants oppointed or transferred under subsection (4) of this section, such remuneration as the Treasury may, on the application of the Secretary of State, from time to time determine."

This is purely a formal Amendment. The words proposed to be inserted are enclosed in brackets and underlined in the Bill, and, as the explanatory note on page 1 shows, they were left out of the Bill, as considered in another place, to avoid a question of Privilege.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[ The Lord Advocate. ]

10.6 p.m.

I have no desire to detain the House for more than a few moments at this late hour, but in view of the fact that I was unable, owing to a constituency engagement, to be present on Monday I would like to join in the general chorus of approval which, I understand, was expressed on both sides of the House for this Bill. Coming from a part of Scotland which is particularly rich in historical associations, I welcome the separation, proposed by the Bill, in the keeping of the records from the Sasines register. In the Debate on Monday my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) pointed out that we had justifiable pride in Scotland from the point of view that the very strict register of Sasines—which, for the benefit of the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) and others, who have not the same knowledge of these things as I have—

May I tell the hon. Gentleman that my mother was a Scot?

I am glad to hear that; if I have in any way infringed the ordinary rules of politeness, I apologise to the hon. Lady. For the benefit of Sassenach Members of the House, generally—and I am delighted to think that some are still here when we are discussing a matter of prime importance to Scotland—the Sasines register is simply a register of freehold proprietors. Although we have this justifiable pride in Scotland the Sasines register has not been all that could have been desired in the past. In future we shall have to speed up the time limit in regard to the registration of these Sasines. In the past we have not had that minute record that we are now to have, and there has been considerable confusion. I very much fear that in future there will have to be an increasing acreage of Scotland mortgaged as a result of legislation. I hope that there will be this minute distinction of difference in future with regard to the registration of Sasines and mortgages from which some parts of Scotland, particularly my own, have suffered in the past.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

Streptomycin Supplies

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House to now adjourn."—[ Mr. Snow. ]

10.10 p.m.

Tonight I am raising the subject of the supply of streptomycin to hospitals. First, I am raising this subject because of a personal case with which I had a good deal to do last week, also because the subject is of general interest, judging by the number of Questions put to the Minister of Health last week by hon. Members, and clearly because of what streptomycin does and the claims which are made for it, which are the subject of considerable interest outside. I want to make it clear at the outset that I claim no expert knowledge whatsoever about it. I am a complete layman in these medical matters, but what I am concerned with tonight is the efficiency of medical administration in dealing with it. I am not here to try to score any ponts against the Minister, but to give him an opportunity to make a statement on this subject about which there has been a certain amount of confusion.

I am informed that streptomycin is a substance known as anti-biotic, which I gather means it is one of those substances which retards or kills the growth of disease-producing bacteria. It is said that this discovery in 1944 was a kind of supplement to penicillin and that it poisons a number of the bacteria which are unaffected by the treatment of penicillin. The particular importance of streptomycin is that it is said to be poisonous to the bacillus which causes tuberculosis.

This substance was discovered in 1944 by three American scientists, and since 1944 a great deal of experimental work has been done in the United States and in this country in the treatment of cases with streptomycin. I gather from the annual report of the Ministry of Health recently published, and a number of other papers which I have endeavoured to study, that these experiments have shown that treatment with streptomycin has certain definite limitations and dangers, but it has produced definitely good results in the treatment of cases of acute miliary tuberculosis and tuberculous meningitis. Since 1944 quantities of streptomycin have been imported from the United States into this country, and since the war, manufacture has been started in this country by the makers of penicillin. Treatment units to use streptomycin have been established in a number of hospitals in this country under the supervision of the Medical Research Council.

The point which I take first out of that very brief survey is that it seems to be clear that the use of streptomycin is regarded by medical experts as still being to some extent in its experimental stage and having certain risks and dangers. Secondly, the treatment must be confined to hospitals under careful control and supervision so as to prevent undesirable complications. I want now to deal with the case which confronted me last week and which produced my education, so far as it has been an education, about streptomycin. At the beginning of last week a doctor in the Staffordshire Infirmary, who is a member of the Royal College of Physicians, applied urgently for a supply of streptomycin to the Ministry of Health for the treatment of a young girl who is tragically suffering from tuberculous meningitis. He was refused a supply of streptomycin on the ground that Staffordshire Infirmary is not one of those hospitals which have been authorised to have a supply under the Medical Research Council. He was told that his patient must be sent to the nearest hospital authorised to have a supply, and it was the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham. On inquiry at that hospital he was informed that although there was a supply of streptomycin, there were no vacant beds.

The girl's parents and the hospital authorities appealed to me for assistance, as their representative. Had I known at that time as much as I now know, I readily confess that my action would have been to approach the Minister himself straightaway. Instead of that, not knowing about the general position of streptomycin, I endeavoured to get to the source of supply and to those who could authorise it, as I thought. To begin with, I was confronted with the same ruling, that Staffordshire Infirmary could not have a supply of streptomycin because it was not scheduled as one of those hospitals in which streptomycin could be used, and that application must be made to the Emergency Bed Service, which would allocate a bed in one of the hospitals in which there was a treatment unit employing streptomycin.

On application to the Emergency Bed Service in London, I discovered that there were no immediate vacancies in any of the hospitals which had streptomycin and that it was therefore a question of waiting. At the same time it happened that a state-men was issued by the Ministry of Healh saying that the supply of streptomycin was now fairly satisfactory. In fact, on the day after, a written reply by the Minister came out. I want to draw attention to it in a moment. The upshot of the case with which I dealt with that after some 24 hours of discussion, a supply of streptomycin to Staffordshire Infirmary was authorised by the Minister. For that, I and those concerned are very grateful. At the same time a private gift of streptomycin was happily received from abroad donated by a generous American.

I want now to draw attention to the Minister's statement on Wednesday of last week in reply to Questions put down by my hon. Friends. The questions were directed in particular to the point whether there was a shortage of streptomycin to deal with these cases, on account of the fact that dollars have to be paid for it in order to get it from America. The Minister replied:

First of all, can he give us some more facts about the actual supply position? What is the position about the manufacture of streptomycin in this country at the moment, and how soon shall we be independent of purchasing supplies in the United States of America? Secondly, how many hospitals are authorised to have a supply and a treatment unit established, and how many more does he expect will shortly be so authorised when the regional boards have made their plans? Finally, if there are not sufficient beds at the moment and in the future in those hospitals in which streptomycin can normally be used, who has the discretionary power to send a supply to other hospitals? That seems to be the point which arose out of the case with which I had to deal last week and a point about which there is some confusion and concern outside.

It is clear that the use of this drug may save many lives and it is to ensure the most effective use of great discoveries that we have inaugurated the National Health Service. It is up to us all to help to make it work smoothly and efficiently.

10.22 p.m.

Before the Minister replies to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler), may I ask him to state whether streptomycin is now the acknowledged treatment for tubercular meningitis? Has it passed through all the experimental stages and is it now recommended by his Department for treatment? When we raised the question of the supply of streptomycin two years ago, to some extent the Minister discouraged its use in this country until it had passed through all these tests. Will he tell us whether these tests have proved satisfactory and whether he recommends it wherever possible?

10.23 p.m.

I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) for raising this matter and giving me an opportunity of making a statement, and I am also very much obliged to him for the moderate language which he has used in raising the issue in face of the sensationalism which accompanied the case to which he has referred. I do not propose to make any direct reference to that case, except to say, not only about streptomycin but about any drug of this sort, that there will always be a time lag between the discovery of a drug, its announcement to the medical press and to scientists generally, and the production of the drug and its use throughout the whole health system.

It is certainly most undesirable that where that inevitable time lag takes place there should be sensational propaganda against the administration alleging that people are dying because it is not available and at the same time raising false hopes and fears in the breasts of those who are most concerned about individual cases. This is not a field for such propaganda. I hope, and indeed I have some reason to believe, that the British Press, while they quite properly scrutinise whether administrative alacrity is sufficient, will not so sensationalise incidents as to cause a feverish atmosphere where what is required is a little calm and judicial investigation. I want to be quite clear; I do not resent the organs of publicity being brought to bear upon administration, because administration becomes lax if it is not properly scrutinised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—all administration, past, future and present. All I hope is that the Press will not be used in such a way as to cause suffering and pain to the persons concerned.

Or to expose themselves to the charge of prostitution. It is perfectly true that the use of streptomycin is still in its early stages. It is also true, as my hon. Friend says, that it has to be used carefully because it has a toxic effect; it is not like penicillin. In the second place, it is desirable that it should be administered under hospital conditions and preferably with laboratory controls. It is, however, a fact now established by the Medical Research Council that tuberculous meningitis does react in some instances favourably to the use of streptomycin. Of course we do not know yet in all these cases, until sufficient time has elapsed, whether there will be a relapse, but it is a fact that in about 31 per cent.—I hope the House will note this—in 31 per cent, of the cases hopeful results have been realised; which shows, of course, that it has still proved to be ineffective in the majority of cases, and therefore it is all the more necessary that we use moderate language in describing its uses, and not raise false hopes among those who suffer and among their relatives.

It is also true, of course, that during the time when these investigations were taking place, quite naturally the therapeutic use of streptomycin in Great Britain was restricted. This was inevitable, until we had satisfied ourselves that it was safe to use it clinically. It has now been established, however, that it is efficacious to some extent both for tuberculous meningitis and miliary tuberculosis. Arrangements are, therefore, now being made to provide treatment for as many cases of miliary tuberculosis and tuberculous meningitis as possible. These arrangements will also apply if the value of streptomycin is reliably shown in other cases. There are known to be a number of other borderline conditions where streptomycin might be efficacious, and the developments are therefore going on. The supply is being planned, and British production increased to meet all these needs.

All the regional boards have been asked to say at what hospitals and sanatoria, with adequate staff and facilities, these cases are or can be brought together. I think it will be obvious to everybody that, in order to use the skilled services of the doctors concerned, it is desirable to group these cases. That will economise the services of the staff, the physical facilities, and all the other things concerned. Twenty-six of these treatment centres have already been provided. As soon as this information is available as to where additional ones are to be established, then supplies of streptomycin will be provided for them.

Arrangements have been made to supply streptomycin for cases in other hospitals if there is no bed for them in a recognised centre. A doctor—and this is the direct answer to what my hon. Friend asked—at any hospital can get streptomycin for these types of case by applying to the Ministry of Health Supplies Division, and I will give the telephone number because these requests can be met more expeditiously if the source of information is centralised. It is Kensington 3471, extension 102. The reason I do this is because if one centralises the place where the exact information is available, it will prevent people from running round to all kinds of other centres. From 14th July to 19th July inclusive 1,150 grams of streptomycin have been supplied in response to 25 requests of this kind.

Clinical trials now suggest that cases of tracheo-bronchial tuberculosis should be brought within the treatment scheme. Regional hospital boards have therefore been asked to say which hospitals should receive supplies of streptomycin for this purpose. An expert medical committee is being set up to advise what other types of case should, in the light of clinical trials, be brought within the scheme, and arrangements will be extended on the basis of their advice. It is estimated that in order to treat all cases of miliary tuberculosis, tubercular meningitis and tracheo-bronchial tuberculosis in the country, not more than 40 kilograms of streptomycin will be needed every month.

From November, 1946, until now, including 50 kilograms which are arriving in August, 309 kilograms of streptomycin have been imported from the United States, at a cost of 777,000 dollars. A further 50 kilograms are on order. Large-scale production of streptomycin in this country is now beginning. On 8th May firms engaged in this work were asked to take all possible steps to speed up progress, to report difficulties and to ask for any help needed in getting plant and raw materials. It is expected that a total of 25 kilograms will be received, packed, tested, and ready for issue, this month, and at least 50 kilograms in August. Production should reach 100 kilograms a month by the autumn. A further plant with a much larger capacity should come into operation early next year. These supplies will more than meet the needs of all cases where the use of streptomycin is so far recommended and will enable treatment to be extended to other types of cases as expert advice favours it.

Therefore, if the extent of the therapeutic use of streptomycin is not increased between now and the end of the year, we should be in a position to meet all our domestic needs and to export. But of course, it must always be reckoned that if we do have an increased use of streptomycin, obviously our domestic claims must come first, and only that part which is surplus will be available for export. I hope that the House will be satisfied that all administrative arrangements are now in hand and that the drug can be made available where it can be of any good use.

10.34 p.m.

The Minister has made an attack on the way in which this criticism has been carried out. He said that he does welcome the administration being kept on its toes. This case was not one of any shortage of streptomycin. There was plenty of it about and there were dollars, though dollars were short. It seems to me that in a case where there was a 31 per cent. certainty—

a 31 per cent, probabilty of success and a 69 per cent, possibility of either death or of its not working at all, it was highly reprehensible that this very valuable drug was not made available by his Department at that time. I think that any attack on a newspaper for causing the Department to get really moving is misplaced. It is highly desirable in cases of this kind, where life is at stake, that the Minister should be kept on his toes.

If the hon. Member will permit me, and with the permission of the House, I must say that surely I have spoken about the newspaper concerned in most temperate language. If I were to reproduce the headlines used in that newspaper last week, it could be shown that no newspaper really concerned merely with speeding up administration, and not with sensationalism, would have used the language it did. Furthermore, the administrative arrangements were in hand, and the newspaper propaganda had not the slightest effect on what was being done. We had not administrative responsibilty for this matter until 5th July, and I think we can show that, in fact, we have carried out with considerable speed re-organisation of the hospitals concerned with the use of the drug.

I would like to say, at this point, that to say that the right hon. Gentleman's Department had not responsibility until 5th July may be true, but I understand that it was a question of dollars in another Department. The doctrine of collective responsibility in the Cabinet is very definite. I understand it was the fact that, owing to an administrative decision in one Department or another, this most important drug was denied to a number of people for whom it was a case of "heads you live, and tails you may die" either from taking the drug in a wrong case, or through the disease itself.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'Clock.