Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I would like to make a statement about the circumstances in which the recent courts martial at Hilden Camp, British Army of the Rhine took place.

On 28th January, 1962, there was an incident in Hilden Camp, near Düisseldorf, which resulted in two men being tried by general court martial on charges including incitement to mutiny and assault. The trial took place at Hilden Barracks on 30th March. Both men had legal aid and pleaded not guilty on the main charges. They were found guilty and sentenced to five years' and three years' imprisonment respectively, and to be discharged with ignominy. Both men have given notice of petition to the Army Council.

Allegations which I have read to the effect that the incident and the trial were deliberately hushed up are totally without foundation. No decision of this sort was taken either in my Department or at any level in British Army of the Rhine, and, in fact, members of the public were present throughout the whole trial.

Not only were the prescribed requirements, which are akin to those of the other two Services and to civil practice, carried out, but there was no departure whatever from the other usual arrangements designed to help the Press.

When the British Embassy was first established at Bonn, my Department, at the special request of the Press, agreed to station a military public relations officer in the Embassy there. Ever since it has been the custom, among other things, for a list of forthcoming Army and Royal Air Force courts martial to be displayed at that office. All journalists who can produce bona fide passes to enter the Embassy have easy access to this room which is close to the entrance. In addition, it is customary for correspondents to ring up the public relations officer there who gives information about pending courts martial on the telephone if asked.

I stress that these arrangements, about which there has been no previous general complaint over all these years, are additional to the formal requirements laid down in Army Council Instructions whereby notices of forthcoming courts martial are displayed in a public place outside the relevant military establishment.

As well as the notice being posted outside Hilden Camp, the usual information about this court martial would have been available to any correspondent who had inquired either from the Bonn office or from Headquarters, British Army of the Rhine.

Arising from the same incident, four other soldiers were subsequently tried by District Court Martial on lesser charges, to which they pleaded guilty and were given sentences of imprisonment varying from 12 to 6 months.

Although I am quite satisfied that there has been no secrecy in these cases, I am most anxious that the Press and the public should have all reasonable access to courts martial. I will therefore examine whether any improvement can be made even now in our existing arrangements.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement, might I ask him whether he is satisfied that the present arrangements for informing the Press are satisfactory, in view of the fact that it appears from what he has said that access to prior information that a court martial is to take place can be obtained only by someone holding a security pass? Would not it be better for steps to be taken to inform the Press direct at Bonn when courts martial of this seriousness are to take place?

Might I also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that Members of Parliament still do not know the home addresses of these men, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), for instance, who cannot be here, is very anxious to know whether one of these soldiers is a constituent of hers. Could stops be taken to inform Members on this point? Will permission be given to Members to visit these men in prison if they so desire? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that ex parte statements are not made by commanding officers on cases that are sub judice?

I will try to answer the hon. Lady's questions, and I respect her motives in asking them. The statement made by the commanding officer was made because the Press had asked for facilities to see the commanding officer and in view of the really serious allegations against the soldiers that there had been secrecy, he was authorised to give the facts of the case, but he did not discuss in any way the merits of the evidence or of the sentences.

Certainly I will give permission for any hon. Member to visit these soldiers while they are in prison if this is required. I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) does not know whether one of her constituents is involved. In all my experience, I have found that the usual custom is for constituents to get in touch with a Member of Parliament and I do not know whether this constituent wants the publicity of getting in touch with his Member or not. But if the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is troubled, I will certainly give in private the addresses of these soldiers.

It has always been the custom, and Queen's Regulations lay down, that disclosure of addresses of soldiers should be prohibited, whether they are serving or not serving. This is done to protect the privacy of the individual. Everything proper was done to let the Press know, barring spoon-feeding, but I will have another look at this. One does not have to possess a security pass to secure the information. Even in one's own bedroom one can lift up a hand to the telephone and ring up the information officer and he will give the information.

Could I have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to put several questions to the Minister?

First, will the Minister have a searching inquiry made into conditions, the food, and particularly the superior officers and the discipline at Hilden? Why did the War Office state on Wednesday night that there would be such an inquiry and this morning we have had no confirmation of it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact that this case is sub judice is preventing several hon. Members from presenting evidence which exists to show that there is another side of the case, but that this fact is not inhibiting the commanding officer who is gravely prejudicing the case by his public statement to the Press?

Lastly, does the Minister propose to take any action regarding Lieut.-Colonel Kemball, who is the commanding officer, and who was no doubt responsible for signing the charge sheet and for the prosecution and yet who can do something which is opposed to all the basic principles of justice in prejudicing the case in this way?

I will try to answer all those questions. I am asked about the conditions and the food, and so on, in Hilden Camp. I gave a Written Answer yesterday, as soon as it came on the Order Paper, to a Question by the hon. Member. I gave the answer to the House and I did not want to delay the House by giving it again today. Why I should confirm what is in HANSARD and reported in the newspapers I simply do not know. I will see whether I think it is necessary to have an inquiry and I am not prepared at this stage to cast any slur, such as the hon. Member, either intentionally or unintententionally, is casting on the commanding officer. That I will not tolerate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He did nothing that he was not authorised to do. I am not prepared to cast any slur in advance on conditions in the camp until we have had a thorough investigation to see if any inquiry is needed.

I am asked why, when the thing was sub judice, a statement was made. The question of its being sub judice is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, in this House and not for me. I will not argue that point, but I would say in his defence that the commanding officer was authorised to see the Press for the reasons I have told the House. He said, as far as I am aware, nothing more than would be known to any member of the public who had taken the trouble to attend the court martial, and therefore I do not believe that he has done anything to prejudice the situation at present. I am not prepared to have slurs of this sort cast on the commanding officer, who was only doing his duty and who was not responsible for anything more than the accusations. The whole thing has been done in a proper way. The court martial was carried out in public and in a proper manner and has been confirmed by the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army of the Rhine, but it is now subject to appeal and I must not say any more.

There has been allegations about the number of courts martial in this particular camp over the last 12 months or so. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many courts martial have been held during that period? Is there any truth in the allegations that the number has been somewhat excessive? Since the commanding officer has gone into the public Press and made some reference to the nature of the crime that these men were alleged to have committed—and I say "alleged" because the matter is again before the Army Council—can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the nature of these offences which justified so severe a sentence?

I really must not—although I am tempted to do so—answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions on that, as this matter is the subject of an appeal to the Army Council, of which I am President, and I shall have to look through all this evidence. It would be wholly wrong in the circumstances, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that at the moment in the House, since Mr. Speaker thas ruled that the matter is sub judice, I can go any further than I have done. But I should like to give an answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. In Hilden Camp over the last twelve months, 15 district courts martial have been held, involving 17 soldiers altogether. I ought to put this in perspective and say that over the last four years in B.A.O.R. the average figure for courts martial works out at approximately one per thousand men per month and I really do not think that is wrong.

These soldiers were placed under arrest on 28th January and tried on 30th March and the sentence was not promulgated until 21st May. Were the soldiers under close arrest throughout? My second question arises from that. Were they free during the whole of that period, had they so wished, to communicate with their families or with M.P.s? Thirdly, during that period were they free to make proper arrangements for their trial? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that under the rules of procedure, a court martial, being a statutory court, must be held in open court unless there is application to hold the trialin camera.Was such an application made either to the convening officer or at the opening of the court martial proceedings?

The answer to each of the first three questions is "Yes, Sir". They were under close arrest. They were perfectly free to get in touch with their parents or M.P.s, and if they did not know their Members we would have helped them to find out, and they were free to make arrangements for their trial and defence. I have already told the House that they had legal aid so to do. Since I have explained to the House that the trial was not held in camera but in open court and as members of the public were there, I cannot imagine that anyone applied for the court to be held in camera.

Without commenting in any way on the trial or casting any slurs, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very full statement he has made about the arrangements for the Press? In the light of the last few words of that statement, may I ask what steps he is taking to improve these arrangements? Will he bear in mind, when attempting to improve them, that the cardinal principle of British justice is that not only should justice be done but it should be seen to be done?

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm my recollection that in my earlier days, when I was forced to practise as a young subaltern in courts martial in this country, the newspapers were specifically informed of forthcoming courts martial and of the charges which would be laid? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind, and even though this is an overseas station, could the national newspapers be specifically informed of courts martial as one of the improvements he is considering?

Having regard to the statement he made yesterday, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), that he would consider an inquiry into conditions at Hilden Camp, may I ask, again without casting any slurs whatsoever, whether he will bear in mind the statement made by Colonel Kemball to the Daily Telegraph yesterday about the varying standards of food at different stations? Is he aware that the colonel is reported as saying that:

"It was not as good as in Plymouth, which the Battalion had left in November, but was 'above average; certainly better than at some of my earlier stations.'"?

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire about those earlier stations and take such steps as are necessary?

I am very satisfied with the standard of feeding in the Army at the present time, and if the hon. Gentleman cares to visit any units, I am sure he, too, will be very satisfied. I also notice from what Colonel Kemball said when talking to the newspapers that on the particular day when the incident took place there were six or seven choices of sweet. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can rival that in any other walk of life, but it seems to me that, on the whole, the standard of feeding in the Army is good.

I have said that I will see if there is any reason to make an inquiry, though I do not want the House to feel that I believe there is any such reason. On the question of informing the Press, I have the impression that we have done everything that we can to inform the Press. I feel there is a limit beyond which it would be wrong to go in using public money to give newspapers the information they require, but the information has always been available. We have had no complaints, and, as I say, one can get the information; it can be seen on the notice board. This applies to the Royal Air Force and the Army. I am going to see whether I am right in thinking that we are in line with practice in civil life and in the other Services. If there is something that we can properly do, I will see that it is done, but we already give notice of courts martial, what the cases are going to be and, indeed what the charges are. If we can go further than this without actually spoonfeeding the Press, which I am sure the House does not want, I will look into it.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the very circumstances of these courts martial and the statement made here in this House this morning will alert the Press, and, in fact, will very likely implement any measure my right hon. Friend might take and remove any need for increasing costs of Press public relations to the Services?

I think my hon. Friend is right. What happened is that the Press missed a trick here. They did not see it. I am sorry, but we were not trying to hide anything. I will look into it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is an important principle of the administration of criminal law that where there is no publicity there is no justice? When he is reviewing the arrangements to inform the Press and the public about forthcoming courts martial, will he consider the arrangements in the home Forces? I have heard complaints that there is a good deal of—no doubt, not deliberate—covering-up of trials and that there is some difficulty in securing advance notice. Although I sympathise with the view that there can be an excess of publicity, and I am not sure that it would be in the interests of the accused to have a massive barrage of publicity about a forthcoming trial, nevertheless does the Minister agree that it is important to see that certainly the basic minimum arrangements are made sufficient to ensure that anyone who wants to attend can do so and that sufficient advance information is available to make that possible?

Of course, I agree generally with what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. My view is that we are giving the basic minimum information required and more. The fact that we have had no complaint since the Embassy was started at Bonn shows that the fault was not in my Department. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind any particular case where he thinks something has gone wrong, he has only to let me know. He need not even put down a Question. I will then consider the matter. But nothing wrong has been done in this case. There has been no secrecy. Indeed, members of the public were there during the five days on the trial, but not the Press.

May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

Yes.

When I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question about the nature of the crimes that are alleged to have been committed, he sheltered himself—I do not use that word offensively; it is the only word I can think of at the moment—behind the principle of sub judice. I should like to put this point of order to you. Does this principle of sub judice, which we all recognise in normal cases, apply to everybody and not only to Members of this House? As I understand it, from reading the Press, the commanding officer—and I make no allegations against him—went to the Press and apparently indicated the nature of the crime which had been committed. If that is so, where does the principle of sub judice come in? If hon. Members are to be inhibited from expressing opinions or from asking questions about the nature of the crimes, and yet the commanding officer can communicate with the Press and make a statement about it, are we not in some difficulty?

Unhappily, I do not remember whether the right hon. Gentle- man was here when we discussed this precise point yesterday. I am afraid my answer to him must be that whatever be the rule of sub judice applicable in the case of commanding officers, that could scarcely be a point of order for me.

rose——

May I remind the House, as I am the oustodian of other hon. Member's business, that we really have had, if I may say so, a kind of irregular debate on this matter for twenty minutes?

On this precise point, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make inquiries as to whether the commanding officer actually made a statement to the Press about the nature of the crimes?

We are in danger now of placing the commanding officer in the wrong perspective. I authorised the commanding officer to agree to many requests from the Press that they should go and talk to him. I did so in view of these serious allegations of secrecy, and I laid down exactly what the commanding officer could properly do. He did it. All he did was to disclose what was in the charge sheet, what had already been promulgated, what could have been seen and heard throughout the trial, and as far as I know he did nothing further. I know that he was acting in accordance with his instructions. If there is any accusation to be made, it must be against me.

rose——

We must get on.

I wish to raise a question that was raised with the Secretary of State for Scotland a week or two ago about the decision of the Government to allow fishing vessels to be built in foreign, shipyards with the aid of British money. I do not want to overstate the case, but I think this decision, when it became known, caused great disquiet in all sections of the House, and today, despite what has happened in another place, it remains quite inexplicable.

The question has been asked, and perhaps I ought to answer it straight away, as to why this Question was put down to the Secretary of State for Scotland and not to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or perhaps to the Minister of Transport. The answer is very simple. The other right hon. Gentlemen could not be reached by oral Questions on the Order Paper, and we considered it of such importance that we felt we ought to have at least one Minister who was involved who could answer orally to this House. That was the reason the Question was put down to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

There are two complaints arising from this Question. First, Members on this side of the House, and I am certain many Members opposite, who served on the Committee dealing with the Sea Fish Industry Bill for 5½ months find it very difficult to understand why no Minister was able to say during these long proceedings that the Government intended to make a substantial alteration in the payment of subsidies. There certainly were plenty of opportunities. I remember on one occasion, when my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) hinted that this might be possible, he was quickly hushed by Members in all quarters of the Committee who made him understand quite clearly that these subsidies could only be paid to vessels built in British shipyards. So it was strange that, after all these months, the Government either had not made a decision or did not want to announce it to the House.

Secondly, when the debate took place in another place only the day before the Government were about to make their announcement, the Minister did not give the noble Lords an opportunity of discussing this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill. It wag not until the following day that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) placed on the Order Paper a Question for Written Answer. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman did it not quite knowing what it was all about or what answer was likely to come. It was a question put down at the behest of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is no doubt in my mind about it, and I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will not deny it. So, on a Friday afternoon, we got this answer to a Question, which was in fact a departure from the practice of the House. I still do not like the reason given by the noble Lord the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in another place, and that is why I quote him. He said, in reply to a question:

"If my right hon. Friend was trying some trickery by putting through this administrative arrangement before Parliament had a chance of discussing it, why did he do it three days before the Committee stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, when here we all are discussing it?"

The answer to that is that before the noble Lord gave this answer in the House of Lords he had in fact sought to circumscribe the discussion in another place by raising a question of privilege, because he said that this would involve finance and the noble Lords would in fact have to get the sanction of this House. He cannot have the argument both ways. I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we still feel that it was quite wrong for the Government to make the decision in this way. If a statement had to be made, it ought to have been made orally in the House of Commons, because it was a departure in practice from what had taken place heretofore.

Reasons have been asked for the decision. No Minister has been able to say which fishermen or section of fishermen asked for this change. The noble Lord was challenged in another place to state the reason, and in reply he had to say that he was unable to quote any at all, and that he would try to find out, but so far no decision had been given. The Minister said in reply:

"But we think that it would be foolish now to fix the conditions for Government assistance in such a way that this country's fishermen could not have the fullest and widest possible choice."

That was the first answer given. It is passing strange that this legislation, which has been on the Statute Book for about eighteen years and which has now moved over into its decline, should be the period at which the Minister thinks that this change ought to be made. British shipyards have never been more able than at present to undertake orders. In years gone by, when there was a tremendous rush of shipping orders, difficulties did arise, but that is not the position today. That answer, I say to the right hon. Gentleman, we just do not believe.

The second excuse given by the Minister in another place—and here I come to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman—was that we have our international agreements. We cannot find out from the right hon. Gentleman under which international agreements this decision was made. Challenged in another place, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary mumbled G.A.T.T. and E.F.T.A. If we take G.A.T.T. first, it has been in existence for a considerable number of years—I cannot remember how many years. Surely G.A.T.T. has not just at this moment decided that the British fishing industry and the Government and the Ministry of Transport have to alter all the rules and laws and an Act of Parliament at this moment. I do not believe that, and I am certain that the House will not do so.

E.F.T.A. has been in existence for two or three years. I should like to know—and I am certain that the House would like to know—why there has been a failure on the part of the Government to answer this question, as to what representations the Government had from G.A.T.T. or E.F.T.A. calling for a change in this Government's policy. When I say "this Government" I mean the British Government, because this affects the British nation as a whole.

Then it was asked in another place, if in fact these were not the reasons, who was responsible for making the decision or asking for the decision. One would have thought that the Minister in another place would have been able to answer this question, but it was not so. In reply, he said:

"I do not think I can answer that, because I cannot say."

That was said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He simply could not say who was responsible for making this decision. At a later stage, when pressed on this question, the Minister without Portfolio, Lord Mills, intervened and said:

"I think I owe it to the noble Viscount to answer his question. If I understand his question it is: 'Who thought of this? Who was responsible for it?' My only reply is that he will not get an answer to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th June, 1962; Vol. 241, c. 495–512.]

That may be all right in another place, but it will not do here. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we shall expect him to tell us who was responsible for it.

The House, I think, has disliked intensely the way in which this whole matter has been handled. The House of Commons cannot approve of a major decision of this kind being announced to it by means of a Written Answer on a Friday. As a consequence of what has happened, the House of Commons, which is responsible for the finances of this country, will not have an opportunity of discussing this change, because in another place their Lordships would not accept the Government's decision. They turned it down despite the most strenuous appeals. If we understand accurately the answer given in another place yesterday by the Leader of that House, he said that the Government proposed to put down an Amendment to amend the Amendment that their Lordships passed. In other words, he is not going to allow their Lordships to do what they have stated. He will use his Government majority to restore the Bill to what it was originally.

I must say to the Secretary of State that I do not consider this to be amusing. How often have hon. Members opposite said that their Lordships in another place deliver very cool and calm judgments? They did so this week, but apparently it did not please the Government. The Government are now to take action to put them back where they were, and, of course, we shall not have an opportunity of discussing it We ought to have put it in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, if I may anticipate him, will suggest that this might be done by Order. That is not satisfactory, because it is the Bill which is being amended and put right under which the Orders are being made. On every occasion when we were discussing the Amendment during Committee, the Minister made the excuse, "Please do not push it at the moment because you will have an opportunity of doing this on the Orders under the Bill itself." Now the Bill has gone from us. This decisive change has been made by the Government, and this House will not have an opportunity of discussing the principle of it.

All this means something not only to the fishing industry but to the shipbuilding industry in this country, and it is really difficult to understand why the Government wanted to make this change at this time. There are a considerable number of small shipyards throughout the length and breadth of this country, not only on the northeast coast of Scotland but in many ports in England as well—and this would apply to all of them—which are finding it very difficult at the present time to maintain their order books. Indeed, we have had a telegram quite recently, this last couple of days, due to another dispute, but pointing out that a number of small shipyards in Scotland have gone bankrupt and out of existence. One would have thought in these circumstances, and if the Government had been paying attention to the matter, and in view of the lack of employment in Scotland, that this might have been considered one way to give added assistance; instead of which the Government have taken the opposite rôle, and they have said, "We are still prepared to give money, but we do not mind if you build in foreign shipyards."

This seems to me to be terribly wrong at this time. I cannot find one good reason for the action which the Government have taken. I could not find in another place and I certainly have not found in this House a single Member on either side who supported the decision of the Government. I say to the right hon. Gentleman—and I have attempted to be brief because of the time—that we shall expect a better answer than we have had so far, and if he persists in this action we shall still reserve the right to take what action may be necessary.

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate because, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has pointed out, this matter arises out of a Question which was asked by me. I do not disguise the fact that I was asked to put down the Question. It seemed to me a very good Question, which was a necessary and proper one for me to ask, because, although hon. Members, and even some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, may consider the Cornish fishing interests to be quite insignificant compared with those of Scotland, or of those farther north in England, they are substantial interests to us in Cornwall. Indeed, I have one of the major Cornish fishing villages, Mevagissey, in my own division, as well as a number of boat building yards, and fishing is a matter of great interest to me. Moreover, this question impinges on the matter of transport in which, as hon. Members will know, I take a great interest.

It seemed to me, too, that the Answer was quite a reasonable one. The hon. Member for Leith can put his mind at rest: I support the Government in the action they are taking. It is no good his saying that nobody is supporting it. It is most important to us at this present time that we should keep our inter national obligations. Whether or not we go into the Common Market we are getting more closely tied up, particularly in transport, with the Continent, and one of our great complaints is about hidden subsidies, particularly in foreign ship yards. If we do exactly the same thing ourselves, that knocks the bottom out of our case and makes it quite impossible for us to make complaints about what is happening in other countries. If a subsidy which is clearly intended to aid fishermen is in fact to be used to subsidise shipping—and that was the substance of the hon. Member's remarks——

No. It is quite wrong. There is a great difference between a hidden subsidy which we suspect is being paid, and the subsidies which are paid in Britain, and which are paid under an Act of Parliament which everybody can see and understand. They are quite different things.

Yes, but if we purport to give a subsidy to aid fishermen and in fact defend it on the ground that if we remove it that is going to cause hardship to shipyards, that really comes to very much the same thing.

No. It is not.

Does not the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) realise that there is the greatest difference in the world between what are actually hidden subsidies given by foreign Governments to foreign shipyards and those subsidies which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has just pointed out, are given under an Act of Parliament?

Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman can put it that way if he likes, but I want to put it in much wider terms. There are all sorts of Government actions going on at present on the Continent—not hidden, perhaps, in the sense which the hon. and learned Gentleman is meaning, but which indirectly subsidise various forms of activities, and it is those sorts of subsidies that we ought to try and stop. This grant has operated in a similar way, and it seems to me that those hon. Members who are objecting to the Answer to my Question are really making rather heavy weather of their objection, because there is an important and substantial qualification, which came at the end of that Answer which was given to me:

"Any applicants for grants and loans who propose to have vessels built abroad will be required to provide evidence that British yards have been given an equal chance to compete."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 158.]

The effect on the smaller yards will be very small, if any, because for British fishermen to seek tenders from three or four different yards at home and abroad, one in Germany, say, would be very complicated and unlikely to happen, and so this will not make any difference to the small yards. As for bigger yards, as we all know at the present time some build specialised vessels. We all know of the publicity given to the "Lord Nelson", a vessel built abroad. I do not see why our fishing industry should not get the benefit of the grant which is intended to help fishermen if they want specialised vessels built somewhere else. The grants are to help fishermen, not shipyards, and if the shipyards are in trouble, and we know they are, some other steps must be taken to help them—direct steps, and not indirect steps taken over the backs of the fishermen.

I am sure that the House will be surprised at the astonishing speech to which we have just listened, a speech which was wrong in its facts, unsound in its reasoning, and false in its conclusions. I have no doubt that, whatever actuated the hon. Gentleman the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) in making such an unsound and ridiculous speech, the House will not be persuaded by it.

In view of the shortness of time which is allowed—we have only about one hour to discuss this—and as I know there are many speakers, I have decided not to make what would be a speech, but a catalogue of what are my objections to this Government proposal to give grants and loans to foreign shipyards. The catalogue is based upon the merits, or, actually, the demerits, of this very wrong proposal.

I object to the proposal because it is uneconomic. When Britain needs the money, it is a proposal to give money to foreigners. Secondly, it will damage the British shipyards when they are in dire need of more work and more employment for not only the owners of the shipyards but the workers in the shipyards. Thirdly, It will help foreigners to compete unfairly with British shipyards. Fourthly, it will drive out of business many British shipyards. Fifthly, it will drive into unemployment the workers in those shipyards, and it will cause, as has been indicated in letters to me from the owners of the shipyards as well as from workers in the shipyards, disastrous—that was the word they used—unemployment. Sixthly, it is shockingly unpatriotic, and it is throwing British money away, giving it to foreigners, when Her Majesty's Treasury comes to this House so frequently and says, "Britain needs money."

Seventhly, this proposal was initiated without consulting the industry and in crass ignorance of the facts. The owners of the shipyards as well as the workers concerned have held meetings, some open-air meetings, to protest against the fact that the Government did not consult them with a view to ascertaining the facts before coming to this conclusion. The Government are putting the cart before the horse in coming to a conclusion without having found out the facts upon which to base their conclusion. The plan has been the subject of protest meetings in the country, in the trade union councils, in the chambers of commerce and at the relevant docks.

Many foreign shipyards have hidden subsidies, something which British shipyards do not have. I have a letter from a distinguished firm of shipbuilders in Aberdeen, Messrs. John Lewis and Sons, Ltd., putting that forward as a first point of objection to this proposal. The letter says:

"Many foreign countries give hidden subsidies to their shipbuilders and I consider that if we are quoting against yards in these countries the competition is unfair."

There is another point which I invite the hon. Member for Truro and the Minister to consider, namely, that vessels built in foreign shipyards are often not up to British classification requirements, a point which Mr. Lewis makes in his letter when he says:

"Any vessels that I have seen that have been built abroad recently for British owners do not appear to have met the same classification requirements as vessels built in this country and also these vessels do not appear to be up to full Ministry of Transport requirements."

Only yesterday I received a telegram from the north-cast of Scotland dealing with certain unfounded allegations which had been made against British shipyards by some people who support the Government proposal. It says:

"The Fishing Boat Builders Association members at a special meeting held today considered that the recent statement in the Press of gross overcharging by North-East boat builders attributed to the Buckie branch of the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association is utterly false. The facts are that on the east coast of Scotland 35 boat building yards have taken part in fishing boat building under the grant and loan scheme. Of that total 11 yards have gone bankrupt and five have closed down leaving only 19 yards now operating under difficult conditions and keen competition. Fishing Boat Builders Association members are prepared to have their accounts examined by an independent firm of accountants in order to remove all suspicion of members overcharging their fishermen customers."

That is from the association in Aberdeen.

In those circumstances, it is nothing less than an industrial and economic crime by the Government to attempt to give British money to foreign ship yards for the purchase of ships in competition with British shipyards and British ships. I ask the Minister to reconsider this atrocious proposal and to alter it.

I have tried very hard to appreciate the Government's case for this proposal, but I remain totally unconvinced. I do not intend to deal with the method of presentation, adequately covered by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), but to discuss the merits of the case. I think it perfectly true that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not the Minister primarily responsible. I think that it is the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Board of Trade, because two reasons have been put forward on behalf of the Government for this decision—first, that it would help the fishermen, and secondly, that it is due to our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

I cannot understand how the Minister of Transport could acquiesce in this decision when the shipbuilding industry is in such acute difficulties, unless it was that as soon as the grants and loans scheme was extended to the deep-water trawlers, he was overborne by the Treasury, which thought that this might be a way of getting cheaper ships, thus reducing the amount of the grants and loans.

There has been no understanding of the depth of feeling aroused throughout the country, which is primarily a maritime nation. Our case can be summed up in a nutshell—we believe in freedom of choice for our boat builders to build all over the world if they so wish, but we do not believe that as a maritime nation we should positively encourage our owners to build abroad.

The first reason given is that this will help fishermen. It is clear that no one has asked the Government to make this proposal. I have had letters and telegrams not only from my constituency, but throughout the north-east of Scotland, protesting against the decision. The only branch of inshore producers which has appeared to favour it has been the Buckie Branch of the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has, strangely, received exactly the same telegram as I received, and which I will therefore not read out again, from the Fishing Boat Builders Association, refuting these allegations of overcharging. There can be no better demonstration of the view that the allegations are mistaken than the fact that these men say that they are prepared to have their accounts examined.

It is perfectly true that cheaper ships can be bought abroad, in Japan, for example. But to come nearer home, the Norwegians have made a speciality of a certain type of ship and a certain type of equipment, and we know that the Dutch and Germans also specialise. We do not object to our fishermen going abroad, if they so wish, to get special equipment, but we do object if they do so with the British taxpayers' money.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) mentioned the "Lord Nelson", but I remind him that our yards are perfectly capable of building specialist ships. The "Tunella" has just been built in my constituency. The only saving point about the Government's proposal, if it has any, comes in the last part of the Written Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro, in which it is said:

"Any applicants for grants and loans who propose to have vessels built abroad will be required to provide evidence that British yards have been given an equal chance to compete."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 158.]

"An equal chance to compete" is the operative phrase. I am glad that the representatives of the Shipbuilding Conference and the Minister of Transport have agreed to set up a committee to discuss exactly the question of an equal chance to compete. It is, however, clear from the fact that this has only just been done that the matter was never thought out beforehand. I should like to know how it is thought that anybody will ever arrive at a real assessment of what is an equal chance to compete in view of all kinds of hidden subsidies, including tax turnovers and long credit arrangements, which do not appertain in this country.

How does my hon. Friend get round G.A.T.T. and E.F.T.A? If we break our international agreements, how can we complain about anybody else having hidden subsidies and all the rest?

Had my hon. Friend waited, I was immediately about to say, "I now turn to the next question, that of the G.A.T.T. obligations." I have tried to divide my remarks into two points, one concerning help to the fishermen and the other the G.A.T.T. obligations, to which I now come.

We have, I understand, not only been members of G.A.T.T. for very many years, but we have been in breach of our obligations by not, apparently, allowing these subsidies to be payable irrespective of where the vessels are built. Why could we not do this before? The answer which has always been given is that we have been in balance of payments difficulties. The present is hardly the time to say that we are no longer in balance of payments difficulties. We have just come out of the pay pause to a policy of income restraint, and we still have a considerable number of credit restrictions upon the life of the country.

It is also said, for example, that organisations such as B.O.A.C. are allowed to buy aeroplanes abroad and that they receive Government money. I well remember, however, as all hon. Members will remember, when, after the unfortunate withdrawals of the Comet, and B.O.A.C. wished to buy American Boeings, what a fight there was with the Treasury to get the dollars to do so. Very soon, B.O.A.C. will be about to buy V.C.10s. I am certain that if by chance B.O.A.C. wishes to continue to buy Boeings, which have been well tried, it would have the greatest difficulty in getting the currency to do so, because, naturally, the Government wish to support the British aircraft industry. My point is that if they support one industry, why should they not support our shipbuilding industry also?

Therefore, one must ask why we have chosen this particular moment to live up to our obligations under G.A.T.T., and at a time when, as I understood, the G.A.T.T. agreements were in suspension for six months at the end of last year. That was the time when the Sea Fish Industry Bill was first presented to the House of Commons. Had the Government had any idea that they wished to alter their obligations, that would have been the moment to do it.

Quite apart from that, I suspect that this has been done as a kind of trading arrangement for some other obligation. We are told, for instance, that the Italian Government have now withdrawn the arrangements whereby Italian farmers could be helped with grant only for Italian tractors and that they now able to buy tractors from this country. Why should the shipbuilding industry be sold down the river for the car building industry? We are not bound always to remove all our obligations under G.A.T.T. There is an arrangement whereby any country can ask for a waiver for a certain industry so that it may have special provisions for reasons which are necessary to the country concerned.

In a maritime country such as ours, the shipbuilding industry deserves those special provisions, and we should have asked for a waiver in G.A.T.T. for it. We have spent two days discussing the Common Market. During that time, we have heard of the tough negotiations being conducted by the Government on behalf of many of our own and Commonwealth industries. In G.A.T.T., also, we ought to be equally tough.

I have tried to put reasoned arguments on the merits of the case. I do not believe that the Government have appreciated that there are much deeper causes of concern about their proposal. By their proposal, they have touched something that is very real to the people of an island race. They have touched a knowledge and an instinct that something which is vital to our survival, both in war and in peace, needs to be defended. Therefore, I ask them to con- sider this debate with thought and with care and to have the nerve to reverse this decision before it is too late.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has deployed the arguments from this side of the House ably and comprehensively and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been given the unpleasant task of replying on behalf of the Government, must be relying to a great extent not upon the logic of his argument, because there cannot be any, but upon the charm and pleasant manner with which he usually answers for the Government. I have a feeling that that is why he has been given the job of replying, because it is not a matter with which he has been very much connected.

The villain of the piece is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because it was he who took the rather peculiar, inept step of getting a sponsored Question, as has been admitted this morning, put down for Written Answer on a Friday, so that in an almost secret and surreptitious manner he might give a reply, which has given rise to this debate and has caused the further Questions which have led to it.

It may not be appreciated that the normal day for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to answer Questions orally is a Monday. Why on earth did he take the step of getting a Written Question put down on the preceding Friday? Was it to avoid being asked supplementary questions on the Monday? What was the urgency that caused the Question to be put on a Friday, when supplementary questions could not be asked, rather than on the following Monday, when we could have questioned the Minister and he could have justified his decision?

What was the extreme urgency in view of the fact that for the preceding five and a half months we had been discussing the Sea Fish Industry Bill either on the Floor of the House or in Committee upstairs? Only last December, a mere six months ago, we were discussing in Committee upstairs the question of subsidies for trawlers. We dealt with the matter exhaustively and we went in great detail into the question of whether there should be subsidies for second-hand trawlers and equipment. We were given assurances by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that there would be no subsidies for secondhand trawlers. Not a word was said about foreign trawlers, even though there was ample opportunity to do so.

During those debates, which are now recorded in a massive volume, we could have been told that it was the Government's intention that the subsidy should apply also to foreign trawlers as well as to trawlers built in this country. Not one of us who were members of the Committee had the faintest suspicion that this provision would be extended in that way.

It is an interesting fact that when the Minister chose one of his colleagues to put down the Question on the Friday, he chose an hon. Member who was not even a member of the Standing Committee and who had not been present at any of the sittings of the Committee during the five and a half months when we were discussing the industry. The Minister had to go to somebody who did not know the first thing about it. With all due respect to the hon. Member, while he has put up a gallant defence of his Government and of the Minister, he has shown that he does not realise the situation and the state of the industry.

One of the facts which has been brought out is that the Minister is of opinion that by giving subsidies to trawlers built in foreign yards, he is allowing British shipyards to compete. It seems a strange logic that, in order to enable British shipyards to compete with their foreign competitors, one gives subsidies to the foreign competitors. That is hardly the way to stimulate the industry in Britain.

Nobody has yet answered my point. If we do not keep our own international obligations, how can we insist that other people keep theirs? The great complaint about the foreign yards is that they do not keep their international obligations.

The hon. Gentleman must have a discussion with his noble Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), who has given an effective reply to his argument. I am sorry that he did not listen to it. He would have learnt quite a lot if he had.

Our complaint against the Government is, first, about the way in which the decision was announced to the House in this inept and rather stupid way. Subsequent answers to Questions showed that there were no prior consultations or discussions with the shipping interests concerned, which, after all, are the main parties interested, or with the fishing interests. The fishermen have not applied for any grants or loans for fishing vessels or engines built in foreign shipyards. The Minister of Agriculture told me that in answer to a Question on 4th June. Nobody in the fishing industry has asked for such a subsidy for a foreign-built trawler or for equipment. The shipbuilding interests certainly have not asked for it. We have had answers to that effect from the Minister of Transport and from the Minister of Agriculture.

This is all very strange. Before our discussions on the Sea Fish Industry Bill, when we were discussing the question of subsidies for trawlers, how many trawlers should be built and how many should be scrapped, an arrangement was finally reached that two old ones should be scrapped for one new one built. We had pages and pages of correspondence, pledges, letters and agreements between the fishing industry, the shipbuilding industry and the Ministry of Agriculture dealing with these questions. How could there have been so much correspondence and agreement before us during the passage of the Bill yet no agreement about such a major change as the one now envisaged?

The shipbuilders were not consulted beforehand. We have been told that. In other words, the man in Whitehall knows best. This has been a gibe levelled against us on this side of the House for many years, but now we find that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Transport are ready to decide, without consultation with the British shipbuilding industry, exactly how the subsidies should be applied. They have brought a storm of protest on their heads from every section of the industry throughout the country.

As a result, the Minister of Transport, after this decision had been arrived at, has had to bow his head to the storm. He has had to meet representatives of the builders of fishing vessels and he has agreed to set up a sub-committee to inquire into the various aspects of the industry and to submit a report. Are the Government resting on their oars and waiting for the sub-committee to come to a decision and submit a report? No. Yesterday, in another place, a Government spokesman said that they had decided to proceed with their proposals despite an adverse vote against them earlier in the week, and despite the fact that there is a sub-committee set up to investigate the whole matter. This is contempt not only of the House of Commons in the way the matter was introduced, but contempt of another place and contempt of the shipbuilding industry which has made such strong representations to the Government and forced them to come together with them in consultation even at this stage.

The reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport yesterday to the noble Lady and to myself was that the Minister and the industry had agreed to carry out certain detailed studies jointly. What is the purpose of those studies? Will the outcome be consigned to the waste-paper basket? Action is being taken before the studies are completed and a report submitted. The studies will be absolutely useless.

The Government have behaved in scandalous fashion in this business. They have been castigated in another place far more strongly than they have been here, but this does not mean that we do not feel strongly about the way in which the decision was announced to the House and about the decision itself.

Goole is a shipbuilding town which over 1,000 people have to leave every day to search for work outside. The shipbuilding yards of Goole and Thorne a little distance away, also in my constituency, are living from order to order, almost from hand to mouth. What is to be the future of those yards if there is to be a continuance of unfair competition from foreign shipyards? We specialise in Goole in the building of trawlers and, if I may say so, we build them very well. Our trawlers have a world-wide reputation. But what will be the future of our yards if this decision is put into effect and foreign shipyards can indulge in unfair competition against our own? It will add to unemployment in Goole, Thorne, Beverley, Selby, Aberdeen and the other places where trawlers are built. The problems of the shipbuilding districts will be increased.

From the point of view of the Treasury, not only will there be a payment of subsidy to foreign shipyards for the building of trawlers which could well be built here but, in addition, there will be additional unemployment benefit payments to our own unemployed workers. There will be subsidies for trawlers built abroad and doles for our own men in the shipyards at home. Has this been taken into account in the reckoning?

This is one of the most stupid and inept proposals we have had from this Government—and we have had a great many. I am sure that the Secretary of State, who has been given the duty to reply, must be reflecting on the fact that not a Conservative Member of this Conservative Government has been given the unpleasant task, but a National Liberal has been called in to rescue the Government and attempt to give an answer on their behalf for the stupid action which they have perpetrated. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's answer will be that the Government will hold their horses until the sub-committee which has been set up makes its report. We shall then be able to discuss the matter fully and frankly. If a case is made out, I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have the House behind him. Up to now, he has the House against him, and he had better realise it.

I am very glad to see so many Ministers of different Departments on the Front Bench this morning. This shows that the Government are paying proper attention to the importance and seriousness of the matter. I am glad to be able to follow the only other English Member—I apologise to my hon. Friend from Cornwall, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson)—taking part in the debate because I regard this matter as of great importance to every small English port, just as it is of importance to the great fishing ports of Scotland.

It has been said time and again that these grants and loans were originally intended to help fishermen. This was put very well by my noble Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place earlier this week. But the fact remains that, for many years—I make no apology for repeating what I said in the House two years ago—the fishing industry of this country and the boat building industry of this country have been an integrated unit. The boat building industry has been supported by Government payments of one sort or another from the time of Mr. Pepys onwards. In the past, the Admiralty has put out great sums of money which have enabled the boat building industry in this class of vessel to thrive and survive, but since the last war the Admiralty has not been spending money to the same extent, It is for this reason that the white fish subsidy has been very much welcomed by the boat building industry.

In our debate on 20th July, 1960, I asked the Minister then on the Front Bench what assurances we could have, now that we had gone into the E.F.T.A., that support would still remain for the boat building industry in this way. I believe that the Government, by taking this step, have made it possible to pay subsidies to foreign yards, but I do not believe that any will ever be paid. I have great confidence in that. My reason for saying so is quite simple. I look forward with confidence to this specification, which I understand is brewing up in the Ministry of Transport, or wherever specifications brew, and I am sure that the White Fish Authority will demand a really high-quality vessel built without unfair competition.

The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) made the very good point that British yards are building vessels to a high quality, whereas many yards abroad do not comply with that standard. I am confident that if we have a tight specification and if vessels built with this subsidy must conform to that specification, they will have to be built in British yards. Therefore, I see this whole operation this morning, not as a storm in a teacup, but as a probing exercise to make sure that our Government will really ensure that the British fleet is maintained at the quality to which we are accustomed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) asked why we have chosen this time to live up to our E.F.T.A. and G.A.T.T obligations. Surely the answer is fairly simple. The subsidy is now being renewed. This is the time when it is being thought of again. There has been a rethinking on the whole matter It is, therefore, suitable at this time that, if the change is ever to be made, it should be made now.

The presentational point as to why this should happen on a Friday has been made. I accept that criticism. But I believe that there are great difficulties when three or four Departments are trying to negotiate together and are trying to inform outside bodies of developments. The Board of Trade is deeply involved in this matter. The Ministry of Transport is also involved. The day-to-day responsibility for it is with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In addition, of course, we have the benefit of the wide knowledge of the Secretary of State for Scotland. So many Departments are involved that, when the decision had been taken, surely it was the duty of the Department immediately concerned to endeavour to make it known as quickly as possible. When a Department makes a decision, this House, and particularly hon. Members opposite who are interested in these matters, is the first to complain if an announcement is not made at the earliest opportunity.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can be aware that the Second Reading of the Sea Fish Industry Bill took place in the House of Lords on a Thursday and that the Answer to the Question which has led to this debate was made on the Friday. Therefore, notice of that Question must have been given to the Table prior to the Friday. Why could not the information in the Answer have been made known during the Second Reading debate in the other place on the Thursday?

I do not wish to get bogged down on the question of presentation. However, I am sure that the House welcomes the fact that the announcement was made early.

I wish to revert briefly to the specification and to unfair competition, because this is all-important to us. Shipyards overseas are operating at a very much lower wage rate. I understand that in Holland the wage rate is the equivalent of 4s., in Italy the equivalent of 3s. 2d., and in Spain it is as low as 2s. 6d. I am aware that there are certain charges in addition, and that that is merely the strict wage rate, but these figures are very low compared with the figure of 6s. 6d. in this country. I hope that when the question of unfair competition is taken into account this matter will be considered. There is also the fact that in Holland there are no demarcations of any sort and that frequently agricultural workers work in the smaller boatyards.

What is perhaps even more important is that in this country our shipbuilding regulations are very strict. I make no apology about this; I think that that is a very good thing. However, this is not so in the smaller yards of some European countries. I believe that we must ensure that, when boats are built by foreign yards in competition with our own yards, they are built on comparable terms.

It may be wondered whether we are making a great fuss about nothing. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) opposite referred to the telegram which various hon. Members have received. The House may wish to know how many yards are involved in this matter. I am given to understand that 43 members of the Ship and Boat Builders' National Federation are fishing boat builders and that ten members of the Shipbuilding Conference are fishing boat builders. In May, 1961, there were 3,100 and in May, 1962, only 1,600 employees in fishing boat building. If this trend continues, it is estimated that in six months' time, unless the subsidy is renewed, there will be as few as 250 employees in fishing boat building.

If this were to happen, it would be absolutely disastrous, because the fishing boat builders and the fishermen are an integrated whole. It is essential to the fishermen that a boat builder is at hand. I am sure that this applies in the North-East just as much as it applies in the smaller ports of the South. Fishermen must have boat builders to hand to do their repairs. Therefore, if they are to survive and if the numbers of employees are to be kept up at a realistic and safe level, I hope that the Government will so arrange this specification that we can be sure that the subsidy, although theoretically payable for foreign-built boats, will in fact never go abroad.

The assessment of this matter seems to me to lie between building boats more cheaply for fishermen and our international obligations. If we go only to places where boats can be built cheaply, this has its dangers, because my right hon. Friend might be forced to put his fishery protection vessels out to tender abroad. I suppose that possibly the Admiralty would be forced to do the same.

We should consider this matter against the background of the fact that the fishing industry is going through a very difficult time. Fishing limits are changing, and there is the possibility of our going into the Common Market and all the dangers and difficulties which that means to the fishing industry as a whole and the implications which it may have on the boat-building industry.

Hon. Members have referred to telegrams showing the reduction in the number of yards in Scotland engaged in fishing boat building. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) gave the numbers of those employed through the Shipbuilding Conference and the Ship and Boat Builders' National Federation. Last week I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland a Question from which it was apparent that in the four years from 1957 to 1960 76 boats over 40 ft. in length were built in Scottish yards. Last year this figure was down to 55. This year, 14 have been built and 16 are building. With those already given, these figures show what a falling off in boat building there has been in this country. I am sure that the maintenance of these yards is essential to our defence and to the welfare of the fishing industry if we are to have adequate repair facilities without repair work having to go overseas. When it comes to our international obligations, it seems to me that the reason why this change has been made is that we have introduced a new Act of Parliament. It is by that that we may be in breach of our G.A.T.T. obligations.

Yesterday, when we were discussing the Common Market, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was not able to state exactly what grants would be permissible if we were to go into the Common Market. Various suggestions have been made as to what help other nations give to their yards. For these reasons, the boat builders welcome the joint consultations with the Ministry of Transport. There is no doubt that foreigners do get assistance, and I have here a journal which I obtained from the Library of the House of Commons—the Fishing News International—for April, quoting the building of trawlers in France, in which it says, in dealing with the price of these vessels:

"The price has been obtained only by calculating in advance on the basis of production in a series of 10 by the fact that aid granted by the French Ministry of Merchant Marine is larger for stern trawlers than for standard vessels."

That is obvious proof that various other Continental nations are assisting their boat-building industries.

It is against this background and the changing scene in the fishing industry, together with the fact that we may be going into the Common Market, that I want to urge the Government to reconsider before it is too late the methods which they are using for giving grant aid to the building of fishing vessels for the British fishing industry. Surely, there is a real danger that if grants are made to foreign yards and there is a further decline in the work carried out in this country—we know that in Scotland the number of yards has gone down from 35 to 19—and if these 19 yards are further reduced, it will have a disastrous effect in this country, because fishermen will eventually be at the mercy of whatever price foreign boat-builders seek to charge them. For that reason, knowing the difficulties, I urge the Government to reconsider the measures which will fit into the Common Market programme, if we go into it, in regard to the grants and aid given to our fishing industry.

What has worried me more than anything else throughout the whole of this debate has been the implication in every single speech that has been made that British yards are not capable of competing with foreign yards.

No.

I am afraid it has. I understand the anxiety which has been expressed by hon. Members, who have put their case firmly, clearly and moderately, considering the strength of feeling which I know they have about this matter, but I think—and I say this deliberately—that the whole debate so far has been based on the assumption that British yards will not be able to get orders in competition with foreigners. That I sincerely hope is untrue. My own view is that the industry is extremely efficient, and I shall have something more to say about that shortly. That has been the assumption behind the speeches that have been made.

I will try to deal with all the points raised in a reasonably orderly manner, because I think that it would be helpful to all hon. Members if I try to give a fairly coherent reply to the general substance of the criticisms to which the Government have been subjected in the debate. If in the course of making that reply tidily, I miss some of the points which hon. Members have made, I shall try to catch up with them, if hon. Members will be good enough to ask me.

To get the order of things clear, I will go back to the origin of the whole operation. It was in answer to a Question in the House that the decision was made clear that grants and loans to British fishermen for the purchase of new boats and engines, which have hitherto been limited to boats and engines built in the United Kingdom, would be available also for boats and engines built abroad. This announcement was followed by a series of Questions to myself and other Ministers on various aspects of the decision, and it is out of the reply I gave to one of these Questions that this debate has arisen.

The hem. Member for Goole (Mir. Jeger) was speculating in a very interesting way on why I appear at this Box. Let me make it quite clear. I am part of the collective system of Government, and I accept full responsibility for all the actions of the Government which I support. It is just as appropriate Chat I should be here as it is for any other Minister who may be concerned. Therefore, the other more tempting reasons are irrelevant.

It was an Answer to one of these Questions which occasioned this Adjournment debate. By normal procedure, I do not see how it could be for someone other than myself or one of my junior Ministers to reply. Since that Question was asked, an interesting event took place in another place, and yesterday, the Government's intentions in relation to it were made quite clear. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Laith (Mr. Hoy) touched on this matter in his opening speech. He and other hon. Members referred to occurrences in another place. I will try to make quite clear what the position is.

In the past, this question of the subsidy and the details of the subsidy has not appeared in Bills or Acts, and they were not intended to appear in those Acts. The simple truth is, as I will explain, that they have to appear in Schemes made under Orders, and that the parent Bill, which is now being debated in another place is, in this respect, enabling legislation. There is really no reason at all why these matters should be published in the Bill. The Government are only seeking to restore the position which existed when the Bill went to another place.

The general theme running throughout this debate has been on four main points—the merits of the decision, the method and timing of the announcement, the possible effect on boat-builders in this country, and the question of our international obligations. I should like to deal first with the method and timing of the announcement, and I must give a little of the background and a certain amount of history to make it clear.

Grants and loans of this kind were first given after the war under the Herring Industry Act. 1944, and the In- shore Fishing Industry Act, 1945, for herring and inshore white fish vessels. They were extended to near and middle water trawlers, that is, boats up to 140 ft, by the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953.

None of these Acts said anything about limiting grants and loans to British-built vessels or engines. Throughout all the history of assistance of this kind, this restriction has been included not in the enabling legislation but in administrative arrangements under the Acts or, in the case of grants under the 1953 Act, in statutory schemes which have been approved by affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. What we have done in this case has been to follow exactly the same procedure in the Bill which has been before this House earlier this Session and which is now in another place. The Bill provides for the continuance of grants after 1963 when the present statutory powers expire, and enables them to be extended to distant water trawlers over 140 ft. and specialised transport and processing vessels, and I know that the House very much welcomes these provisions. These new provisions substantially extend the provisions for this type of assistance. Like its predecessors, the Bill lays down no conditions whatever as to where the vessels or engines may be built.

The Secretary of State is addressing himself to the point that under the earlier Acts the procedure was exactly the same as that which is now proposed in the present Bill, but does he agree that in none of these Acts were there proposals to give grants and loans to foreign shipyards?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has not taken the point of what I was saying. He is going on to the substance of the argument, and I was making it quite clear that on no occasion in the past were these provisions in any Act. There was no reason why they should be; they are a matter for Schemes and Orders.

Let us get this absolutely clear. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the days when there was a rush for orders, permission was refused for trawlers to be built in foreign ports.

I do not know the point to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but clearly there have been occasions in the past, and not so very long ago, when the balance of payments was definitely an issue, and the availability of finance for purchases from industry overseas. These conditions have changed, and the conditions of 15, 10 or even five years do not necessarily apply today.

What my right hon. Friend said was that we had now decided that in Schemes for grants which will be laid before Parliament after the Bill becomes law, there will be no requirement that vessels or engines should be built in the United Kingdom. Similary, there will be no requirement in the administrative arrangements for loans after the Bill has been passed. I do not understand or accept the criticism of the way in which the Government announced their decision. There is certainly no foundation for any charge, as has been hinted in the debate today or put more strongly in another place, that there was a deliberate concealment of the facts for any reason. We concealed nothing. In fact, we need not have said anything at all about it until the schemes came before the House. As it was, having reached our decision, we thought it right to announce it as soon as we could.

There was never any question of presenting the House, the shipbuilding industry or the fishing industry with a fait accompli which there would be no opportunity of challenging or debating, and I really cannot agree that the Government have acted in any way improperly in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) made it clear how he came into the issue. Of course, it is always arguable how best an announcement of this kind should be made to the House. I have all the details of the timing with me along with the days on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture could have been reached at Question Time. As I say, it is a question of judgment as to whether the statement should or should not have been made.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House and I will not go into this matter in great detail, although I agree that it could be argued whether it was the ideal way of doing it. However, I emphasise again that there was no possible intention, and that there could not have been such an intention in any form, of concealment. How could there have been when these Orders are bound to be debated in both Houses in the form of affirmative Resolutions? For that reason the charge of concealment is unfounded and, to be frank, I resent it.

Can the Secretary of State explain why the details were not given at the time of the Second Reading debate in another place—the day before they were announced in the House of Commons?

I should say that, technically speaking, that is not relevant to the Bill itself. It is a matter that must be dealt with on its own merits in relation to the Orders, when they are made.

I now deal with the merits of the decision; that is, the reasons why we reached our conclusions. We had throughout two considerations in mind, first, the interests of the fishermen and, secondly, our international obligations. I will deal with our international obligations first because it is out of a reply to a Question on this subject put by the hon. Member for Leith that this debate arises. The simple answer is that Schemes to enable fishermen to buy vessels and engines which are so operated as to favour ships and engines built in the United Kingdom over those built in other G.A.T.T. countries were in conflict with Article 3 of G.A.T.T. If the hon. Member for Leith wishes me to deal with that Article I will certainly do so, but I think that he is well aware of its provisions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it has taken him so long to make up his mind on this issue and why, in any case, he could not apply for a waiver?

I see the relevance of that question, but I also believe that the hon. Member for Leith agrees with what I said about it being in conflict with Article 3 of G.A.T.T. We could not go on indefinitely pressing other nations to honour the full obligations of G.A.T.T. when we were in full and open breach of it ourselves. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must be as careful about this as the Government have been because, after all, G.A.T.T. was signed by them. The objectives of it were subscribed to by them and they must understand that we could not go on in the way we had.

As well as G.A.T.T. there are certain other provisions of similar effect in the E.F.T.A. Convention. However, regarding G.A.T.T., we have had occasion to challenge, and successfully, certain arrangements in other countries which were prejudicial to our exports and closely resembled our present arrangements for fishing vessels.

It is true that, as yet, there has been no formal complaint against us under either the G.A.T.T. or the E.F.T.A. Convention in regard to this matter. Nevertheless, there have been inquiries which indicate that our practice has not gone unobserved. If we are to continue to safeguard our major exporting industries—and we are, after all, a nation which lives by exports—we must keep our own house in order. I feel sure that our shipbuilders would recognise the importance of preserving our freedom to challenge discriminatory practices by other countries.

Hon. Members will appreciate that the provisions of the Sea Fish Industry Bill, which permit grants and loans to be given to distant water and other specialised vessels, are new. It must also be remembered that new Orders and Schemes have to be made and that the time had come when we had to get our house in order. The hon. Member for Leith wants to know why this was not done some years ago or why it is being done now. I hope that he has realised the weight of what I have said. The new Orders must be made with new legislation coming in. We have been in breach of G.A.T.T. for a good many years and we could not continue indefinitely to be so. As I have said, new types of vessels will be coming in for grants and loans and this has been done to meet new circumstances that have arisen.

On the subject of the interests of the fishing industry and the question of consultation both with fishermen and boat builders, it is important to get the position clear with regard to the object of giving grants and loans. It was to help our fishermen. Undoubtedly the assist- ance given has also helped the boat builders—I will refer to them later—for it has certainly increased their business, although the help it has given them was incidental to the main object of helping our fishermen.

As I have said, we are by the Sea Fish Industry Bill extending grants and loans to distant water trawlers—boats over 140 feet in length—for the first time. One of our objects is to help the owners of these boats to break with tradition and equip themselves with new types of vessels, such as freezer-trawlers, which are larger and more expensive than the conventional distant water trawler.

The fishing industry is facing a time of great change and considerable difficulty and it is our aim that the trawling industry should become viable within 10 years. It is most important that those in the industry should equip themselves with ships that are most likely to enable them to become self-supporting and to adapt themselves to the new practices and techniques which that entails. In the meantime, we propose to give help on a limited scale for the building of conventional trawlers, and we are helping the industry through the White Fish Authority to build experimental trawlers of new types to discover what new kind of vessel will be best suited to meet the new conditions facing the industry. Thereafter, as indicated in the White Paper last August, we shall consider in the light of the experienced gained the extent of further assistance.

That means that we must have the widest range of possibilities: but there is no question of going the other way and encouraging owners to build abroad. What we are aiming at is complete freedom of choice which, from the point of view of the fishing industry, I am sure is right. I would make it clear that there was no consultation with the fishing industry, for the simple reason that we did not see how their interests could be prejudiced by the decision, and we still do not see this. The hon. Member for Leith said that the fishermen objected to grants and loans being made available for foreign-built vessels. There is more than one point of view about this inside the fishing industry and we have the telegrams and letters to which hon. Members have referred. But even if other fishermen do not agree and object to grants and loans being available for foreign-built ships, no one will be compelled to buy a foreign vessel. Anyone who wishes to continue to place orders with British yards will be free to do so, and my guess is that the great majority will continue to do so.

Regarding consultation with the shipbuilding industry, that was fully dealt with at a meeting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport had with the shipbuilders and which has been referred to in the Press. I need not delay the House by going into the details of this, but I would quote from a report which appeared in the Scotsman on 5th June, 1962. It says that a deputation of the Shipbuilding Conference of the Ship and Boat Builders National Confederation called on the Minister of Transport to protest. Their comments afterwards ranged from "fairly satisfactory" to "a very good meeting indeed". There is a further comment:

"As one member of the deputation put it later 'All we want is a fair crack of the whip and not to be put at a disadvantage by foreigners'."

I shall shortly deal with that in detail, but, lest there is any misunderstanding about consultation with the shipbuilding industry, I want to make it clear that this matter was dealt with in the meeting with the Minister.

But that would be after the decision had been made and not before. What was described as satisfactory was the decision later arrived at to carry out certain detailed studies jointly.

If there had been any hard feelings about lack of consultation, it seems that they were completely resolved at that meeting.

I want to make it clear that my right hon. Friends and I have agreed that British yards must be given the opportunity to tender under equal conditions. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has had the meeting with the shipbuilders to which I have referred, and has decided to set up a working party in consultation with the shipbuilders. I think that the hon. Member for Goole had that working party wrong. It is quite clear what its purpose is. It is to look at the arrangements for giving United Kingdom yards an equal chance of competing in a case where an owner wishes to place an order abroad. It is not a working party to consider the whole issue. There is no question of its reporting to anybody. It will be a working party which can meet when it needs to, under the chairmanship, I imagine, of one of the Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Transport.

I want to tell the House—this deals very much with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) which I have noted with great care—that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that where an applicant for grant or loan wishes to take a foreign tender, his intention is that the procedure should be along the following lines. The White Fish Authority will obtain from the applicant a broad outline of his requirements. With the help of the technical staff of the White Fish Authority, as complete a specification as possible will be prepared. I hope that meets the point which my hon. Friend raised. The same specification will be issued to each yard to make certain that when final tenders are received they may be assessed on a common basis. Lastly, the applicant will be required to obtain tenders from a sufficient number of United Kingdom yards, normally not less than three, to ensure that a genuine opportunity is being given to the United Kingdom industry to compete. These are the arrangements which I understand from my right hon. Friend were accepted at the shipbuilding meeting that he had, and the arrangements that this working party will help to make into a working possibility. Similar arrangements will be worked out with the Herring Industry Board.

There is no reason—I say this with conviction—why, with this kind of protection against so-called unfair competition, this change should prove disastrous to efficient British builders. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is satisfied that so long as competitive tendering is insisted upon and as long as care is taken to ensure that the tender is based on identical specifications, the great majority of the orders will continue to be placed in this country.

It is true that at one time my right hon. Friend was anxious about the ability of British builders to compete with certain foreign yards, but he has asked me to say that great change is taking place. For example, during the first quarter of the present year orders placed abroad by British shipowners dwindled to a trickle and very nearly half of the total orders which our shipbuilders booked were export orders. That is not the picture of an uncompetitive industry.

I have more evidence about this in more direct relation to fishing boats. I said earlier that the grants hitherto have not been available for distant water trawlers; there were no grants, and, therefore, no restrictive conditions applied to them. Trawler owners had, therefore, no special inducement to prefer British to foreign yards. But in the last ten years they have built 72 new trawlers, only seven of which have been built in foreign yards, and most of the seven were ordered some years ago when our own yards had much fuller order books and could offer only long delivery dates.

The Scottish yards—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) referred to the yards in Aberdeen—facing the full force of competition from abroad, have gained orders for, for instance, the great factory ships, the "Fairtrys," owned by a firm in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leith, and the new freezer-trawler "Junella", which has not yet started fishing and is in Aberdeen. If they can do this without any adventitious aids, I see no reason to fear for their future.

There are, of course, the smaller yards to worry about. I sympathise with the anxiety expressed about them because they have a difficult job. It may be that a considerable process of modernisation must go on in them, but I do not believe that the effect will be serious. Fishermen have a great many local links with boat building yards in their home district, and there are a great many reasons why they should prefer ships built there rather than abroad. We do not think it right to limit their choice. It may be that a few orders will go abroad. It may be that some owners will want to experiment with new ships and new construction of ships. But is that altogether a bad thing for the fishing industry? Do we not want to be certain that we have the right kind of ship in this very difficult time? I do not think that enough will go abroad seriously to prejudice our boat building industry.

I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said about orders abroad. Obviously, if the type of ship can be produced only in a foreign yard, the contract should go there. If the contract price is lower in a foreign shipyard, will the contract automatically go to that foreign shipyard, or will other circumstances be taken into consideration?

I do not want to give an answer off the cuff. It is a technical question which could arise in so many different forms that I might give a misleading answer. If my hon. Friend studies what I have said he will see that every step will be taken to make sure that our yards are protected against unfair competition.

Foreign subsidies are not nearly so prevalent as is so often supposed. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport assures me that that is so, and he has been studying the matter very closely. Even where subsidies are openly paid, as in France—that is the most obvious case of open subsidies—it is not an open-ended percentage subsidy automatically collected on any order which is booked. It is a subsidy for manufacture and is paid only to certain yards and only in relation to certain orders which the French Government believe it to be in the interests of the nation to secure. It seems a little unlikely that European countries would be mad keen deliberately to subsidise fishing boats of ours which will be fishing against their own boats.

I can most certainly assure the House that we can and will ensure that our grants will not be used in such a way that the competitive position of British yards will be prejudiced by competition from yards abroad which can be shown to be in receipt of a material element of subsidy. I want the House to realise that this is an assurance which we can give quite deliberately and categorically, and I think it should meet the fears expressed by my hon. Friends who have dealt with this matter so cogently.

I have a final point to make—[Interruption.] In view of the time, I would point out that we started half an hour late.

The debate has lasted for forty minutes.

There was a large number of speeches ahead of mine. I think I am finishing almost on time. I have about two minutes left.

I want to deal, finally, with foreign wage rates. I will not go into detail. It should be clear that labour costs——

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could deal with that subject subsequently.

I will write to my hon. Friend about this. I do not want to take up the time of the House. I am sorry if I have taken a little longer than I should have done, but there has been a great deal of publicity about this matter. Hon. Members opposite have been using every opportunity to attack the Government savagely about it. I think I have made it clear that they have had no justification for that.

The right hon. Gentleman is unfair.

I do not think I am. There has been a great deal of attack on the Government over this decision. I felt that I must make it clear that we believe that our decisions have been right.

One thing that has become clear in this debate is that no request was ever made from the fishermen, from G.A.T.T. or from E.F.T.A. for the decision which the Government have taken. I have not heard a single hon. Member complain about the efficiency of the British shipbuilding industry. We feel that under fair competition we can meet anything from anywhere. The right hon. Gentleman should not have lodged that accusation against our industry. If this had not been an Adjournment debate, I should, in view of the reply which we have received, have given notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I wished to raise the matter on the adjournment.

I welcome the opportunity given to me today of debating two items of paramount importance to the Youth Service for England and Wales—the need for trained leaders and the need for buildings. All people interested in this service, so vital to our nation, will also welcome the debate.

Several attempts have been made to discuss in this House the Albemarle Report on the Youth Service, but we have always been unfortunate in that our Motions have been second on the Order Paper. Today this debate will give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, who, I know, takes a great sympathetic interest in the Youth Service, an opportunity to report on the progress made since the Albemarle Report was published.

Here I should like to quote the well-known statement by Sir John Maud, a former Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Education, of Youth Service aims:

"To offer individual young people in their leisure time opportunities of various kinds, complementary to those of home, formal education and work to discover and develop their personal resources of body, mind and spirit, and thus better equip themselves to live the life of mature, creative and responsible members of a free society."

That sums up very well the aims of the Youth Service that we desire for this country.

Today youth is growing up into a changing world, and one must discuss the subject in the light of changing social and industrial conditions. Young people have more leisure, more knowledge of the world than their forefathers, more opportunities of expanding their lives not only for their own benefit but also for that of their country.

Can we provide the Youth Service with the necessary trained leaders and equipment needed to meet this challenge of youth, for in my opinion the age of 15 to 20 years is the most important of a boy's or girl's life? During that period the character is moulded and the personality is formed. Youth always wants to meet youth for friendship and fellowship in sports, games, recreation and culture. Can we in this country provide the opportunities for our young people? If we have the purpose and will to do it, I am sure we can, and I feel confident that many hon. Members will agree with that statement. The increase in the numbers of youth is taking place in the large cities and towns and the expanding urgan areas. That is where the problems are most urgent. I know that youth centres and trained leaders are needed urgently in areas in my constituency, in Feltham, Hanworth and Hounslow, and similar districts in England and Wales which have expanded rapidly in the last twenty-five years have the same problem.

I want now to raise the two main points of my subject. I strongly plead for purpose-built buildings, for in the new, expanding urban areas there is often a complete lack of suitable premises. My boyhood and youth were spent in central London. I have not seen better premises than some of the settlements built by private benefactors. One which I regularly attended and knew so well had everything—a fine gymnasium for physical recreation, a large hall with a stage for theatrical productions, many classrooms for the arts, crafts, music and cultural activities. There we had a splendid building, and it is not as though the young people who attended that settlement had much money to spend. That settlement is still active in central London. I remember that in those days—this was about 1914—a cup of cocoa was a halfpenny and a rock cake was also a halfpenny. Although we often had not the penny to buy the cocoa and the rock cake, we had very enjoyable evenings in that settlement, which was built by one of the private benefactors I believe at about the beginning of this century, and is a great social asset to the area.

I know that it may not be possible to provide such buildings today, but it is possible to provide and to construct proper and suitable premises. Often in the urban areas and cities the only premises for youth centres are huts and sheds, and surely that should be out of date in the 20th century. I plead for purpose-built buildings with proper halls and classrooms, where sports and games can be played, with classrooms for music, the arts and other cultural activities. I know that this will cost money. In my opinion, the spending of money today is often a matter of priorities. I sigh when I think of the extra £78 million for the beef subsidy last year, for no one seems to know exactly where it has gone, and I think of the number of youth centres which could have been built with that money. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) will sigh with me.

A generous, imaginative building programme is recommended in the Albemarle Report, with special attention to the design of the buildings for youth, good lighting, modern furniture, decorations and other equipment which is essential. I trust that the Government will give the building programme for the Youth Service urgent priority.

I come to my next essential point, the need for trained leaders for the youth centres. We welcome the steps which the Government have taken in opening a training college at Leicester. Again, the problem is urgent, for I have been given to understand that in some areas the Youth Service has completely broken down through lack of leaders. This should be deeply deplored. The selection of the leaders is of paramount importance.

First-class leaders are required. They must have the personality for leadership amongst youth, so that they can win their support in assisting in the activities of the service. Full-time leaders are necessary in many districts. It is most difficult for persons, however keen, to have the heavy and arduous duties of managing a youth centre in addition to carrying out full-time work in industry or commerce in order to make a living. Like the clergyman and the teacher, the youth leader takes part in a dedicated service. One does not enter it mainly for a living. But the community, knowing the devotion which these people give, should see that they are paid proper and sufficient salaries.

Part-time leaders and voluntary workers should also be trained, as they can give great assistance to the Youth Service, for it is also essential to develop voluntary service at every level, just as in the Church and other great national movements where they are guided by the clergymen and other leaders to assist their activities.

The Youth Service of tomorrow will want not only much better facilities and richer opportunities but a much greater number of workers. This is youth's challenge. Let us meet it and assist and develop the challenge. With the increase in the number of youths leaving school, for every five leaving in 1959 there will be six leaving by 1964. In 1958 the estimated population of young people aged between 15 and 20 years was just under 3¼ million. The combined effect of the bulge now coming through the schools, the ending of National Service and the lowering of the Youth Service age to 14, which the Albemarle Report recommended, will add another 1½ million, making 4¾ million in all. Let us give the Youth Service the trained leaders and the buildings so that we can offer our young people opportunities for association, training and challenge. Group or club life can provide sport, ant, music and culture, which all assist in making a good citizen.

I urge and plead with the Government to give the Youth Service top priority in finance and assistance. It is so urgent and vital to the nation that it brooks no delay. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is interested in thus matter and that he has sympathy for it, but it is the Government and the Treasury who control the money, and I therefore put these points to the Parliamentary Secretary: are the Government moving to build up our Youth Service, to expand it in the urban areas, and are they making progress? Is the Youth Service handicapped by lack of finance? How many full-time leaders have we at present in the Youth Service? How many are at present being trained at the college opened at Leicester? What is the expansion figure? How many youth centres have been built since the Albemarle Report and what is the Government's target? Since the Albemarle Report we have had the Wolfenden Report on sport, which must be linked with the Youth Service. What progress have the Government made in carrying out these recommendations?

I trust that this debate will assist our young people, the heirs to the great traditions of our nation, who are now growing up in a changing world. I mentioned earlier the splendid settlements built by private benefactors in some of our cities. Voluntary effort often has come before official action. The problem today is far too serious and far too large to depend only on voluntary action. We must have Government action now. There is an old saying which I think meets the case today—"He that wins the youth wins the future." Let us give the Youth Service all the assistance it requires so that our youth have the opportunity, in association and challenge, which will develop their characters and personalities to win that future.

We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) for raising this matter. My interest in it started when I was a member of the Estimates Committee under the chairmanship of the now Baroness Burton, which produced the Seventh Estimates Report, 1956–57. It is probably fair to say that that Report sparked off the realisation for the need for a good look at the Youth Service. Since then we have had the Albemarle Report and the acceptance by the Government of the terms of that Report. It is most fortunate that we have this discussion, for we have not had a full-dress debate on the subject except immediately after the presentation of the Albemarle Report. It is desirable that we should have an opportunity in the House to discuss it at greater length than I propose to do this morning.

I congratulate the Government on the arrangements which at long last have been made by them in connection with the fulltime leaders. The courses at West Hill, Swansea and Leicester are very satisfactory, and the probability is that the target of 1,300 by 1960 for full-time leaders will be reached. I do not want to say much more about leaders, except that I am not happy about the position of part-time leaders, some of whom we try to get by half-time school teaching and half-time club leadership, as well as from university departments and the extra-mural side of education. I am not happy that enough is being done about part-time leaders.

In particular, however, I want to refer to the question of consultation, because that seems vital to me. The Albemarle Committee indicated in its Report, at page 50, that local authorities bear the chief responsibility for co-ordinating effort and that they alone can assure that the necessary close relations are established between those working in the various educational and social services that had to do with young people—teachers, youth leaders, probation officers, social workers and youth employment officers.

My opinion is that in spite of this and of the Administrative Memorandum No. 62, which was sent out by the Minister on 16th February, which sets out in two paragraphs the methods of consultation, these methods are not being adopted everywhere—and this is quite a serious matter. I hope that when he sends out another memorandum, the Minister will be much more specific. Though I do not want to make an attack in general on the local authorities, because some are extremely good, there are also some which do not come up to the standard which is required in this very important respect.

Let me give examples. One local authority did not ask the local boys' clubs organisation to submit schemes for the 1962–63 programme. In two cases local authorities prepared priority lists without any consultation. In a third class of cases consultation took place at divisional or area level but no final list was discussed with the local voluntary bodies. In the fourth set of cases no information was given about the final local authority proposals, and in the fifth set of cases no information was given about the list which was sent to the Minister.

In this connection, it goes right against paragraph 7 of the Administrative Memorandum to which I have referred, which reads as follows:

"In many areas proper arrangements for this purpose already exist, but where they do not authorities are asked to take the initiative in making them. The Minister hopes that agreement on the programme will be possible in most cases: where it is not, authorities are asked to submit an order of priority and to send it with a statement of the extent of any disagreement."

It is obviously impossible to send an intelligible statement of any disagree- ment unless one has first seen the proposals. I suggest to my hon. Friend, and I ask him to suggest to his right hon. Friend, that a much more definite and determined effort should be made to put the responsibility for dealing with this on the youth committees of local authorities. The majority of local authorities have formed youth committees, but there are some which treat this as the Cinderella of the education services and have not even taken this important step.

I understand that the building ceiling for 1962–63 is £4 million. To my amazement I find that the building ceiling for 1963–64 is £3 million. This is a retrogressive step, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the position. There is apparently to be a cut of £1 million. The Government are not taking full advantage of the voluntary help which has been promised and which in some cases would amount to about 70 per cent. of the total amount required. It is impossible to take up this help which is being offered voluntarily unless the Government are prepared to produce the other 30 per cent. The result may well be that voluntary help becomes frustrated and disappears, and nothing is done about it, and development suffers.

My other point about this reduction in the building ceiling is that as a result ordinary developments will suffer. There must be replacement of these old places to which the hon. Member for Feltham referred. I hope that this will be given first priority. We must also provide for buildings in the new housing areas, and in addition there are the ordinary developments in existing areas. If there is a reduction of £1 million in the 1963–64 programme, it will result in delay and frustration, and a generally unsatisfactory building up of delay.

In the 1963–64 programme for boys' clubs alone it is likely that 39 schemes at a total building cost of £548,000 will have to be omitted. These are not airy-fairy schemes but the money from voluntary sources is available. This is a serious matter, and I hope that the Government will consider it carefully.

My final point is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when making an announcement about sport and recreations, said:

"I am also prepared to make available an additional £100,000 a year for capital expenditure by these voluntary bodies, in other words, an increase of £200,000 upon an existing figure of £470,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 226.]

It is not clear from that statement whether this is capital expenditure in regard to the youth services, or which may be used in regard to the youth services, or whether it is simply and solely money for sport and recreation in accordance with the Wolfenden Report. The point I wish to make is that we have to plan these things ahead, and it is no good providing an extra £100,000 on one occasion, and something else on another. These figures of building ceilings ought to be wisely considered, programmed, and adhered to, and we ought not to get to the position in which nobody knows what this sum of £100,000 is for, even though, needless to say, we are glad to receive it.

I hope that these criticisms have been constructive. I believe that the Government, thank goodness, have been doing much that ought to have been done a long time ago, but it would be a great pity if this reduction of building ceiling were made and thus put back the carrying out of the work that we all want to see done.

Until I came to this House an enormous amount of my time was spent as a voluntary youth leader, and I am therefore deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) for raising this debate. The deep sincerity of my hon. Friend shines through everything he says, and I gladly pay tribute to him, and to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), who I believe let the cat out of the bag when he said that the Ministry was proposing to reduce the building ceiling by £1 million. I hope that the Minister will have something to say to set our fears at rest.

High-powered commercial interests are eager to exploit our youth today through mass media. It is harder to be a teen-ager in the 'sixties than at any previous time in our modern history. The pressures on youth today are ugly and severe and the youth movement is therefore a life-saver. I believe that it is better for us to spend our money on the proper service of youth than to wait until youngsters have got into trouble and then have to expand our probation service. I pay tribute to the dedicated people, both voluntary and paid, who give their energies to caring for youngsters and ensuring that they know how to live with the right values in a community.

I want briefly to address two or three questions to the Minister in relation to Wales. In the Albemarle Report, Wales did not come out very well in the picture that was painted of poor youth services. We are a people with great traditions, a great national culture, and a language of our own, which nearly 30 per cent. of our people use as their first language, and I believe that the youth movement must be used to encourage and develop the Welsh national culture.

How many of the Welsh colleges which run three-year training courses allow those attending these courses to include training for youth leadership in their courses? Is this work limited to Swansea? How many at Swansea are taking part in this one-year course? It was estimated that there would be twenty, but the need will be for many more. What is the target for full-time youth leaders in the Principality of Wales? I am sorry that I did not give the hon. Gentleman notice of this question, and if he cannot answer it now, I presume that he will let me have the details later. Also, what guidance does the Minister give to local authorities on grants, on premises, on equipment, and on training? Has he had any communication with the Welsh Joint Education Committee to co-ordinate youth work so that youth services in North, South and Mid-Wales are given equal opportunities?

Will the Parliamentary Secretary also let me know how many youth centres have been built in Wales since the Albemarle Report was published? Many youth clubs meet in pokey places quite unworthy of them and of us. Many local authority youth clubs have to meet in day-school buildings. Those are not the best places for teen-agers' youth clubs. Teen-agers do not want to go back to school when they have started work. They ought to have their own youth centres. Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that there is a plan for providing youth centres other than in school buildings, particularly in the Principality of Wales?

It was estimated that 1,300 full-time youth leaders would be wanted by 1966. I believe that that estimate was very low. It ought to have been far higher, but can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether that target will be reached, and will he give an undertaking that at the first opportunity we shall have a full day's debate on youth work in this country?

A large number of Members want to speak, amid therefore I shall be as brief as possible. I would echo what has been said about this being one of the greatest problems that we face, with an all too early school-leaving age followed by a period of probably the greatest susceptibility in adolescent life. Any money spent on this service probably saves us considerable expenditure in other directions.

I should like to ask, first, to what extent, since the Albemarle Report, we have been able physically and in terms of finance to help the voluntary organisations? The great difficulty is to pay a youth leader a salary which will attract the right type of man. Secondly, I would ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Wolfenden Report on sport and the Albemarle Report should not be considered together as part of a service embracing both sport for youth and youth centres. These things cannot be dealt with separately. The Government should take both into consideration in a comprehensive plan for the education of youth.

I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) about the correlation of the services being of vital importance. The Government must ensure that the money they spend is not spent twice over and that services are not duplicated. They should see that every possible liaison takes place at county council level, possibly by youth committee, so that the money is properly spent and the services to provide both sport facilities and youth centres are co-ordinated.

I hope that the Government will also ensure that the teachers coming forward will have that extra bit of training in youth service so that they are able at a later stage to help in this important task. My own local authority is doing everything possible in an endeavour to coordinate these services, and I hope that we shall see that done throughout the country.

I join with other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) for seizing his opportunity at last to raise this subject in the House. I should like also to express my personal appreciation of the tone of the debate. When we are discussing youth there is a great temptation to make one or two exaggerated remarks which attract a good deal of publicity but do not help us in getting the essential work done—the essential work which was set out in the Albemarle Report.

I pay tribute also to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for their ready acceptance of the Report and of the earnest that they have given us of implementing it. We must remember, to quote the Report, that the Youth Service is in "a state of acute depression" and that the members of the Committee felt that they were conducting their inquiries with an unusual sense of urgency. This is why we must not be content with the progress made and we must spur the Parliamentary Secretary to further progress.

I should like to confine myself to two subjects which hon. Members have raised. I join in recognising what has been done about the training of youth leaders. I had a reply that there were 137 students at Leicester. This is an achievement. I anticipate that the Parliamentary Secretary will claim that he is keeping up to the Albemarle target, but I am afraid that this is not enough. I pay tribute to the work being done by voluntary associations and to the importance of full-time courses not only in Swansea and Westhill but also at the boys' clubs courses organised in Liverpool. This training is being successfully done and, because it is successful, we want more of it done. The Albemarle Report uses a phrase to the effect that youth service is an integral part of education. This being so, we must recognise the importance of well-qualified and well-trained youth leaders.

There is another point which was raised at Question Time the other day and has been raised previously. We are concerned here largely with mature students and there is a general feeling that the provision we have made for them hitherto has not been adequate. I hope that this will be borne in mind when there is a revision of grants for mature students. People who qualify are largely mature students and we do not want them to suffer hardship when they seek a career of this kind.

Although I know that it is a subject which is difficult to raise at present, I believe that the salaries of full-time youth leaders are due for revision this year. This is again of importance when we are considering the expansion of youth services. I also join with those hon. Members who have stressed the importance of providing adequate training for part-time youth leaders. I am told that there are precedents in other fields which could well be developed, and we might encourage diploma and extramural courses at some of the universities.

The important point that I want to emphasise, as other hon. Members have emphasised it, is that we can no longer be content with attaining the Albemarle Report target. I pay tribute to the Minister that we have taken the difficult step of establishing courses. Now we must take advantage of experience and expand those courses.

The Albemarle Report stresses the importance of a generous and imaginative building programme. Therefore, in parentheses, I pay tribute to the Ministry for the experimental work that is being done at Bristol. It is of enormous importance. Quite frequently, in discussing youth centres with those who take part in this service, I have found how difficult it often is to provide suitable youth centres on housing estates. We can provide a building which looks very good as a building but is not right for young people who have come to live on the estate from the centre of a town where they had premises which were not so grand but were better suited to a youth club. We know the good work that the Ministry has done in other fields by way of building research. I hope that it will set an equally good building standard for youth centres.

We are worried about the amount of the resources which are being devoted to building. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that this is a matter to which I have given continuous attention. It appears that, although the Minister undertook to provide for starts amounting to £3 million by the end of the financial year 1961–62, that has not happened. Although some substantial progress has been made we are even running well behind that target. We know in the case of buildings, just as we now know in the case of full-time leaders, that the demand is even greater than the Albemarle Report supposed. We know that when the Minister called for proposals he got proposals amounting to £14 million, and, as the Department itself has said, the rate of demand shows no sign of slackening. We must not be content with present progress. We are entitled to complain that even present progress is running behind what was envisaged, but apart from that, we have got to make a more imaginative and generous provision for buildings for youth centres.

Here I touch upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). I do not complain of the new approach. Representations, however, were made to me by voluntary organisations which are apprehensive of the new arrangements. The advice I gave was that if difficulties arose I would then intervene. I can only say that I have not received any further representations. In these cases, at any rate, the local authorities and voluntary organisations have worked well together, and this is what we want. It is far better that the local education authorities and the voluntary organisations should work together and should decide priorities, regretting if at should ever be necessary to refer to any disagreements. In view of what the hon. Member for Aldershot said, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will repeatedly offer his good offices so that if there are any difficulties he will be available to help to resolve them.

We want equal enthusiasm from the local education authorities and from the voluntary organisations. I think all speakers have emphasised that we are concerned here with inculcating a sense of urgency. We know the difficulties. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the criticisms to which he has been subjected as a servant of Government policy. But, in spite of these difficulties, we want a sense of urgency and a recognition that the two factors to which my hon. Friend has called attention are the key factors if we are to do anything for the young people of this country. We have to recognise, too, that here are the children of the bulge, who have suffered disadvantages throughout their childhood and in education, and who are now suffering a further disadvantage.

I hope the debate will help the Parliamentary Secretary to feel, as the Albemarle Committee felt, that we are working against time. This is important. As has already been said, the Youth Service is something which affects the shape and character of our country, although I would add that it does not do everything. It is a support for the family and not a replacement of the family. All the same, it is important. It is a greatly rewarding job. With encourgement, it can help us towards a far better Britain.

There has been reference to mass media. I hope that interest in this service will be aroused through the Press and television. I do not decry the valuable support that we get, but I hope that we shall get more. By chance I have before me a statement by the Romford Youth Council which vividly illustrates what young people can be encouraged to do. This is an exercise of and not an experiment in democracy. I hope that we shall get an annual report from the Youth Service Development Council. I do not think that the references in the Minister's Annual Report are adequate. I recognise that bulletins are issued and they are very helpful, but an annual report devoted entirely to Youth Service would be even more helpful.

At any rate, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider how he can encourage support for those engaged in Youth Service work. Some time ago some of the youth leaders in my constituency came to tell me of the difficulties against which they were working. We allow our young people today to be vulnerable to many temptations and pressures which young people have not experienced before. Probably the best way of tackling this problem is to regard the Youth Service as an integral part of education, as the Albemarle Committee did, and, in fact, quite contrary to what we have anticipated, the more we become educated the greater are the demands.

I join with those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have paid respectful tribute to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) for giving us an opportunity, after many attempts, to discuss, however briefly, the Youth Service and the situation that prevails today, some time after the publication and adoption of the recommendations in the Albemarle Report. I know how great has been the hon. Member's interest and how disappointed he has been on other occasions when he has not been able to raise the matter.

The publication of the Albemarle Report gave us not only a charter for the steps we ought to take in developing the Youth Service but it also gave us the kind of stimulus we needed and to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which he says we still need. That is perfectly true. I am very glad that hon. Members are able to commend some of the work that we have been able to do since the Report appeared, and I hope to catch up many of the points which have been raised and to explain how far we have managed to achieve some of these objectives.

The Civil Estimates for this year provide for direct Exchequer expenditure of £878,000 on the Youth Service. This money will go in grants to national voluntary youth organisations, local youth service voluntary capital projects and the training of full-time youth leaders. It compares with less than £¼ million in the year immediately preceding Albemarle.

It is still pitiably low.

If the hon. Gentleman will contain his indignation, I will show how it adds up and comes to a less pitiable sum.

To this Exchequer figure must be added the very considerable increase in expenditure by the local education authorities themselves and by the many voluntary bodies.

We have made a very good start, as hon. Members have said, towards achieving the target figure for qualified full-time youth leaders which the Albemarle Committee recommended and which we adopted. This was to increase the number from 700 in 1957–58 to 1,300 by 1965.

The National College for the Training of Youth Leaders at Leicester got off to a very good start, and 86 students successfully completed the first course last January and are now in full-time posts in various parts of the country. In addition, there are at present some 200 students in training at the National College and the four other institutions, all of which have been referred to, at present providing full-time courses. All these institutions, incidentally, the House will be pleased to hear, report an improvement in the quality and the number of candidates coming forward. These figures are in addition to those in teacher-training colleges who will be embracing this kind of course in addition to their training as teachers.

One of the main reasons for the great improvement must be the step taken last August to place full-time youth leaders on a national salary scale and to provide them with conditions, of service which will be attractive to them and will recognise them as highly qualified professional people.

I will not embark on a discussion of maintenance grants whether for mature students or otherwise, or on salary scales, for since machinery now exists for the negotiation of salary scales, salary is not likely to be a bone of contention or a difficult handicap in the attraction of students to the courses in the future.

My right hon. Friend is at present taking steps to compile a register of qualified full-time leaders, which I am sure will be useful and encouraging. He is also—and here I take up the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington)—discussing with those concerned the question of training courses for the small number of leaders who are already in posts and may have held them for many years but to whom we cannot offer qualified status under existing arrangements.

Of course, the Youth Service relies, quite properly, very heavily upon part-time workers, many thousands of them in all parts of the country. We ought to pay the most generous tribute to the work that is done by these thousands of people whose names never publicly appear except at the foot of an annual report, or perhaps they speak at a very small meeting; their service to the community is beyond all measure, and I think the House would like to go on record as expressing their appreciation of what is done in this way.

Last July, my right hon. Friend set up the Bessey Working Party to go into the question of the training which should be available to part-time youth leaders. I know that there is a good deal of training through the various voluntary courses already under way in different parts of the country, but we thought it right to get a complete picture, and the report of this working party should be available this autumn. My right hon. Friend will then be able to discuss with the other partners what action should be taken. I hope that the House will feel that although we are constantly raising our targets—there is nothing wrong in doing so—as to the task that we have set ourselves, we are making good progress in the matter of providing youth leaders for the service.

I hope that this question of part-time leaders, which is a most serious matter, will not be held up for any report. Cannot something be done at once?

There is no question of holding anything up. The services of the part-time leaders are going on as they have done for a great many years. We are simply waiting to find out what would be the best way of providing the part-time youth leaders with suitable training. I am sure that we should get the details right before we go in for some proposals which may in fact be not adequate for the purpose. There will be no delay that we can possibly avoid.

I come to the question of buildings. The Albemarle Committee reported a great need for more buildings and equipment for the Youth Service. The first response to the announced building programmes of £7 million for the years 1960–63 was very slow. Not unnaturally, the authorities and organisations required time to prepare their proposals and bring them forward. Then the tempo quickly increased and towards the end of last year the value of the projects submitted for inclusion in the programmes was greatly in excess of the allocations that we could make. We were at that time being asked to allocate about twice the money that we had. That is very familiar ground for my Department.

I must admit that the resources that we are able to make available at present for this service in the way of new buildings are not enough. The value of the proposals submitted for the 1963–64 programme is more than three times the amount available. Some areas are having a more difficult time than others. On the other hand, when we consider the total of demands throughout the national economy and all the claims that are being made on the resources available for the education and social services, I do not think that the Youth Service is at present doing too badly.

I now refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot as to how the programmes are initiated in the local authority areas and sent in to my Department. My right hon. Friend decided, after consulting the local authorities and the voluntary bodies, to introduce a system of allocations which will rest upon locally agreed orders of priority covering both local education authority and voluntary projects. This new procedure requires the local people in both fields to come together to discuss their various proposals and agree between themselves upon an order of relative urgency and importance so that the balance can be right and proposals which do not get into a programme for one year should find a suitable place in a subsequent year. I have no knowledge of disagreement or difficulty arising on this point.

The point is that these programmes have to be formulated by the local authorities under the Minister's Circular and the Albemarle Committee's Report. The local authorities are not providing the consultation that is envisaged in these two documents.

That may be so. I should be very surprised if in fact voluntary organisations were being crowded out or neglected in this way without making their views known to my right hon. Friend. We have little evidence—I shall not say that we have none—that there is any difficulty. Only four instances of difficulty have been reported to us in the whole of this exercise so far. If my hon. Friend has evidence that the system is breaking down or working unsatisfactorily to the detriment of some organisations or authorities, I shall be very glad to hear about it, and I shall certainly do the best that I can to try to get to the bottom of it and find a solution. Our evidence so far is that it works reasonably well. I shall refer in a moment to the importance of co-operation between the various partners, but surely it is here on this level that co-operation and good will are most important.

In all our considerations of the practical and logistical programmes facing the Youth Service, the underlying essential is the partnership between the local education authorities and voluntary bodies. The Minister of Education is only one partner in what is now a very big business. We can facilitate developments; only the other partners can see that they actually take place. We want to see this partnership continue and develop with the aim of providing, without waste or duplication of effort, the many and infinitely varied facilities that are needed.

Throughout the last two years we have had the benefit of the valuable advice of the Youth Service Development Council. My right hon. Friend has taken the chair at most of its meetings and its work has been in everyone's view of inestimable value in planning the steps that we have made so far. The House, I am sure, will share the view expressed about the news-sheet which we publish regularly. I believe it to be a very considerable achievement and that it has been well received throughout the country. Its circulation is now about 23,000, which, I am sure the House will agree, is a good deal, and it serves a very useful purpose in many ways.

I shall refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) concerning the interests of Wales.

Would my hon. Friend deal with the question of the allocation of £1 million less for 1963–64 as against 1962–63?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have to decide what resources are available among all the various claims upon the national resources, so far as we can. The Government decided that in this year, when some concessions on all fronts were necessary in order to achieve a stable economy and to limit the rate of growth in Government expenditure, the Youth Service programme should be £3 million. Very strong views are sometimes expressed, not least from hon. Members on this side of the House, about Government expenditure. We have to take all these views into account in trying to get our various programmes night Nevertheless, the building programmes are going on at a considerable pace at present. Young people will also benefit from the extra resources for sport which the Government recently made available. From the Department's share of the extra £1 million, my right hon. Friend has already added to the current building programme some important proposals.

Would my hon. Friend say whether the recommendations of the Albemarle Committee are being considered together and the benefits for youth looked at as a comprehensive whole?

It is not quite as easy as that. If there were some powerful central authority which ran all these organisations—youth services, coffee bars, sports centres and swimming pools—which decided by fiat what is to happen in each one of these spheres, it might be easy; but there is not. We are dealing with hundreds of local authorities, thousands of organisations of all kinds, scores of different kinds of interests, and they have all to be fitted in by agreement. It is to that agreement that we are working.

I was about to give the House some details of some of the projects which we have been able to add to the current building programme. Some of them are very important Youth Service centres. They include one in London, at Abbey Wood, at a cost of £80,000, one in Newcastle-upon-Tyne costing £50,000, and one in Stoke-on-Trent at £50,000. Another indoor sports centre is being provided in Bradford, and a large sports hall for general youth use is being attached to a secondary school in Swin-don. Extensive changing accommodation is being provided at playing fields in Rochdale which are used by schools, youth organisations and sports clubs. Other additions to the sports programme include a swimming pool in Northamptonshire and a running track in Wakefield.

In Wales an indoor recreation centre is being provided at Wrexham in Denbighshire and a covered sports area at Romilly Secondary School, Barry, Glamorgan. On the general question of how Wales is being treated, I think the House, and particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), will be interested to know that the number of young people in the relevant age group in Wales was about 5·4 per cent. of the whole, and out of the £7 million building programme for the first two years Wales has about 9 per cent. So I think that, giving and taking a little one way and the other, Wales is getting a reasonably fair share of the proposals, but of course, we shall always try to see that the resources go where they are most needed.

Some of these projects are being undertaken by voluntary bodies which will receive financial help from the Department out of the extra £100,000 which has been made available for cash grants, to which my hon. Friend referred. Another part of this money will be used to enable the Central Council of Physical Recreation to purchase its national recreation centre at Bisham Abbey and to add a residential block to the sports centre at Lilleshall. From the Department's share of a further £100,000 which is available for grants to national voluntary sports organisations for administration and coaching schemes my right hon. Friend is helping the Central Council of Physical Recreation to complete the staffing of its regional offices. These regional headquarters do a great deal to stimulate local coaching schemes and courses of basic instruction in sports of all kinds.

National associations concerned with a single sport—10 of them—already receive grants, including the Amateur Swimming Association, the Amateur Fencing Association and the Amateur Athletics Association. Out of the extra money we now have, my right hon. Friend has just offered grants for the first time to some other national sports associations; we are considering a number of other applications. We shall endeavour to spend this money in such a way as to benefit the greatest possible number of those who actively take part in sport.

I return to the Albemarle Report. This was an operational document, making specific recommendations to the Minister, local authorities and all the voluntary organisations. We are within sight of completing the administrative and financial changes recommended for the first five-year period of redevelopment.

The Report envisaged a new philosophy for the Youth Service. The Committee suggested that the broad aims should be association, training and challenge. It urged that young people themselves should be brought in as full partners in the Youth Service and encouraged to assume full responsibility for their own activities and programmes. Our task, therefore, is to see how far we can realise these principles. An over-organised, over-paternal service, "in which all basic decisions have been made", is not likely to attract substantially greater numbers, however large the resources and however efficient the administration behind it. We are dealing, after all, with young people who have more independence and initiative than any other adolescent generation in our history. To meet this situation we must broaden the scope of the service and invigorate its work in accordance with the principles I have just mentioned. This is, I am sure, the avenue to success in the next few years, and it is this for which we shall continue to strive.

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to send me answers to the detailed questions I asked about the position in Wales?

Certainly.

I beg to draw the attention of the House to happenings recent and not so recent at Hunterston nuclear power station, which is being built by the General Electric Company. It is commissioned by the South of Scotland Electricity Board.

Some remarkable features in these exchanges call for examination. So far as I know there is no contract in existence which specifies either a contract price for the job or the date when it would be completed. Nor was there any single authority on the site with whom ultimate responsibility for decisions rested. This is a very disturbing fact, rendered more serious by the knowledge that there were two bosses. The Atomic Energy Authority acted as nuclear consultants for the General Electric Company, while Messrs. Kennedy and Donkin were the engineering consultants. It would seem so far as these two authorities were concerned that East was East and West was West and never the twain did meet. We know, of course—at least, it is generally said—that two heads are always better than one, but it may well be that two heads were too many heads.

So the expected cost grew up to be quite a big boy before anybody appeared to notice the fact. In money terms the £37½ million which was the expected price has become £63 million, and for long the two heads were in polite disagreement.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to interrupt him more than once, but what authority has he for that statement?

The authority which I have for that statement derives from an article which appeared in the Economist, I think a fortnight ago; and I understand, from consultation with those who were concerned in the prior investigations which led to the writing of the article, that they acted with some firm knowledge about what they were saying.

The G.E.C. says that it has spent all these last-named millions. That may be true enough. Yet the Electricity Board appears reluctant to pay it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to talk to us frankly today and to explain this difference clearly and why this occurred. A very large sum of money is engaged in the matter.

On 30th May last the Secretary of State said that in terms of the contract the price had to be adjusted in respect of three factors. First, there were alterations to the civil engineering works arising out of the conditions at Hunterston. It was no secret that Bradwell and Hunterston were fundamentally different sites. There was clay at Bradwell, and rock at Hunterston, and expenditure naturally shot up. As a consequence, there were bound to be layout difficulties. There was also the need for different types of water cooling systems.

I hope that it is pertinent to ask whether anybody looked into these matters in the beginning. Why just go from Bradwell to Hunterston, as it were, assuming that there would be no change? Surely the absence of one single authoritative voice at this initial point paved the pay for most of the subsequent difficulties.

Secondly, there had to be modifications to the reactor design, as the right hon Gentleman said in his reply. I recognise, as we all do, that Hunterston was one of our earlier nuclear stations, the third of the first three, and that as it developed more advanced nuclear data became available. The blow-up at Wind-scale would also affect development at Hunterston, and as a result of that happening, designers and scientists would naturally think about making Hunterston safer and more efficient. One change would be suggested at one point and something else at another, and so delays would occur as a result while research and experiment were conducted. Perhaps a year could elapse in that sort of work. In the end, not improbably, nothing might be done. But the increased cost still remaining to be met.

Once again, why was there no one to deal with this aspect of development at this station and to say whether the time spent in that sort of investigation and experiment could be justified in relation to the costs and usefulness of this much needed project? It is one thing to make changes at drawing board level, and a much more serious matter to make them while the station was actually being built. Existing difficulties could be greatly increased, but that again emphasises the lack of an authority with the overall say-so in these matters.

The right hon. Gentleman himself acknowledged, and regretted, the practical and design difficulties as being inseparable from the most effective development of the new techniques which have been evolved in constructing this station. I am sure that that statement was based on top-level expert advice, but there are other views. The new techniques have not just burst upon the scientific world. Much of the development of the station was based on designs not unknown before it was started.

The Secretary of State attributed the inflated cost to a third cause, the variation in the costs of labour and materials. But he said that allowances for those were made in the tolerances granted on the original estimated price of £37½ million. I must observe that the original estimate was based on Bradwell, not on Hunterston. Thus, the financial and other troubles took root long before labour difficulties arose. But now that we are entering the mechanical and electrical stages in the growth of the station, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that discords will not further delay the completion of the station?

From what I have heard, I believe that there is now a happier relationship between the Board and the General Electric Company. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that that will result in a friendly settlement of the dispute between them about what the contractors think they ought to get for building the station and what the South of Scotland Electricity Board believes it should pay? The Secretary of State said:

"By the end of May, 1962"—

that was last Thursday—

"the South Board will have paid £36·4 million to the contractor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1962; Vol. 660, c. 1360.]

How much more does the company expect to get? I have to put it that way because I cannot ask the right hon. Gentleman how much more he expects the Board to pay. That would be unfair and I must put it in that roundabout way, although the answer will help us to estimate the other aspect.

Public money is involved in the settlement and so also is shareholders' money. The Secretary of State is guardian of the former and also of the public interest. He must not forget, as I am sure he does not, his duty in those two respects. The company is naturally concerned with its shareholders' interests. But if it be true that neither of the two parties discussed who was to pay for the extensive changes in design ordered by the Atomic Energy Authority after examination of the tenders, clearly both must be blameworthy. One may well ask what the Secretary of State was doing in those early days of 1957. I hope that he does not shake his head too dolefully because he was in office at that time. Did he know what was happening and, if so, what steps did he take to control or justify the greatly increased expenditure over the £37·5 million for which in the long run he must assume responsibility?

I make it perfectly clear that I firmly believe in public ownership, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman does not scorn it. Accepting that, it may be expressed in various forms. I want it to succeed at Hunterston and wherever else it operates, but I also want firm accountability, not only in financial matters, but also in regard to public relationships, and the Secretary of State is responsible for both. What went wrong with the commercial arrangements between these two bodies? To what extent was the right hon. Gentleman consulted? How far can we now depend upon the job being completed, as he has said, by the end of 1964? Because of the delays which have already occurred, this question is of exceeding importance.

In connection with the phasing of the contract, it is worth observing that the civil contractor finished his part of the contract, involving an expenditure of £15 million right on time. The right hon. Gentleman, like every hon. Member, will, I think, commend that performance. Even allowing, however, for all the explanations which have been given for the other parts of the project getting out of phase, it is difficult to believe that they cover a lag of nearly three years in completing those other parts of the contract. The Secretary of State should have more to say on this aspect than he has said so far.

There is little doubt that this long delay, which according to all I have read and discovered in other ways is due basically to mismanagement at top level; and has played its part in raising the price of electricity to Scottish consumers. Responsibility for what has happened must lie at Government level. The mistakes are simply being charged to the accounts for industry and for householders. Why should the costs of these financial errors not be more widely shared than is the case?

On the whole, the financial side represents bad business, particularly when thermal stations, as the Secretary of State's earlier reply showed, are being run more cheaply than nuclear stations. Whether this state of affairs continues depends upon what is paid in future for coal. If the price rises further, electricity costs at the thermal stations may increase still more. This tendency could be influenced by other developments that will take place in the thermal plants. One thing, however, which is clear is that the Secretary of State must assure us today that the nuclear stations will be able to compete fairly with those fuelled by coal. This can be the case only if the right hon. Gentleman tells us that, when all reasonable allowance is made, the failures and delays encountered at Hunterston will not be repeated.

It is obvious from what we have heard today and what has been said in the House on earlier occasions that progress at Hunterston has not been as smooth as we would have hoped. It is helpful that these delays and difficulties should be brought to the attention of the House and we are grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) for seizing the opportunity of this Adjournment debate today.

It appears, however, that in some respects the nature of the problem has been exaggerated. Indeed, the recent rumours concerning massive overspending were sufficiently persistent to cause the hon. Member only last week to state as a fact in the House that nearly £70 million had already been consumed at Hunterston, whereas the reply by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State showed that the true figure was under £37 million. I do not want to make too much of the hon. Member's overestimate of 53 per cent. because in this, as in so many other matters, he is a searcher after truth.

The hon. Member will have noticed that I used the word "consumed". It was used deliberately because it represented what had been done and what the cost might possibly be.

The fact remains that the clear implication in the hon. Member's question—I apologise if I have misunderstood him—was that £70 million had been consumed and that this figure was intended as the hon. Member's estimate of cost, whereas the true figure was £36·4 million.

Nevertheless, it is clear that there will be over-expenditure at Hunterston if one regards the original estimate as a final and firm one, which it was not. The original estimate was £37½ million and we know that £36·4 million has already been spent. It appears that the balance of £1 million will fall far short of the sum required to complete the station, because the first reactor is not expected to be in commission until mid-1964, with the second reactor coming into commission at the end of that year.

I suggest, however, that this argument is more apparent than real, because of two factors, on which, perhaps, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to comment in his reply. First, the original estimate of £37½ million was subject to adjustment in respect of alterations to the civil engineering works arising out of local site conditions, modifications to the reactor design and variations in the cost of labour and materials during the period of construction.

It is not possible, nor has it ever been possible, to give a precise estimate of total cost because of the uncertain effect of those clauses on the original estimate. These questions are, I believe, the subject of negotiation between the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the contractors and it might, therefore, be as well not to develop further that aspect of the problem at this stage.

The second factor is the basic and unavoidable uncertainty of estimating for work in this new scientific field. Contracting work can usually be quite closely estimated because of a wealth of previous experience, but in this case there was little previous experience on which to draw. As construction advanced, so modifications were constantly introduced in the light of achievement in this young and rapidly developing science which is striving to discover and to harness the very secrets of nature.

Those uncertainties were made clear in the White Paper, Programme of Nuclear Power, Cmd. 9389, published in February, 1955. I should like to read a few extracts from the White Paper, which appeared just about two years before Hunterston began, to show the way in which we were unavoidably groping for the unknown. Paragraph 21, for example, which opened the part of the Paper discussing the provisional programme, contained these words:

"The programme outlined below is provisional and must be considered only as the best indication that can now be given of the probable line of development. Types of stations, numbers and dates are all subject to change."

Paragraph 23 stated:

"British industry and consulting engineers have as yet no comprehensive experience of nuclear technology. They will be faced with a major task in training staff, in creating the necessary organisation and in designing the stations."

Paragraph 29, which discussed capital expenditure, contained these words:

"The cost of the initial charges of uranium, including fabrication, might amount to a further £40 million. The new ancillary plant that would be required within the 10-year period might cost £30 million. The concurrent capital expenditure on prototype development might be £30 million to £40 million. The cost of the ten-year programme might therefore come to £300 million."

There was continual emphasis upon the uncertainty and impossibility of making firm estimates at that time. In view of all this uncertainty, it seems unreasonable to expect firm estimates for work of this experimental nature, in which continual modification must follow hard upon the heels of new discovery.

I should like to make one other point at the risk of taking a little time. Soot-land has a big stake in this new science. Dounreay has transformed the local economy of the far North. Hunterston has provided new employment and new wealth in the South-West. Scotland has a good share of this new science-based industry, and I am grateful for it. Perhaps we are only scratching at the surface of a new and almost infinite dimension of science-based industry, and its development may yet bring benefits which the mind can scarcely grasp.

I shall not pursue the point raised by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) in his closing remarks. It is true that we have a fair share of science-based industries in the public sector. I only hope that private industry will follow the same line.

The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) for raising this matter. We are engaged here in an exercise in Parliamentary accountability, a subject dear to the heart of the Secretary of State who, in his last speech on the subject in 1960, waxed eloquent about all the difficulties facing a Minister particularly in the institution of new public enterprises.

We are considering now an enterprise the principle of which the right hon. Gentleman does not contest. He is responsible as Scotland's chief Minister for answering on the matter. I am sure that he will be anxious to set at rest many of the fears which have been expressed by my hon. Friend and by many other people, including contributors to Scottish newspapers, who have been genuinely concerned about the unhappy story of Hunterston so far. We shall be very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman if he can say when he expects the plant to be in operation. I know that it is embarrassing for him, perhaps, to deal with this question, but it is reasonable, particularly in the context of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, that he should make an effort to give a revised estimated cost for the station.

I appreciate that there must have been some major errors somewhere, but then the question comes—my hon. Friend has been very fair about it—whether all these errors were more or less unavoidable or not. If they were not unavoidable, what steps have been taken to ensure that such mistakes do not recur in comparable Government enterprises in Scotland or elsewhere? I remember the words of one of my professors at the university—this is becoming a favourite theme of mine from time to time; it shows how much I learned at university—who said, "Gentlemen, I do not mind your making a mistake, but I will not permit you to make the same mistake twice". I suggest that this is as important in relation to the body politic as it is to the body human. The Government should regard mistakes made in these matters seriously and ensure that they do not occur again. Scotland wants that assurance today. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reply adequately and in no hostile mood to my hon. Friend who challenged him at Question Time when the matter was not explained fully.

It is perfectly sensible that we should spend some time discussing these questions. There have been delays, as we all know. We have so far referred to commercial delays and technical problems, but there have been industrial delays also, some of which are deeply to be regretted. The right hon. Gentleman and I, representing respectively Port Glasgow and Greenock, have seen the difficulties there in the engagement of labour. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think it worth while to make some comment about that situation; I leave it to him.

There is no doubt that Scotland is unhappy about this project. The station will be of tremendous advantage to the country. There is absolutely no criticism of the whole principle of the public ownership, organisation and development of electricity supplies in Scotland. What we are discussing here is method—method under the stewardship of the Secretary of State, who, in the last analysis, is responsible. I hope that I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman sufficient time to explain the troubles and give us the assurances we want.

I find myself in the surprising position of being a double number on a Friday.

I think that, in the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman should have leave to speak again.

I had not thought of that, Mr. Speaker. May I have leave to speak a second time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I note with great interest that, for once, I have the unanimous support of the House.

I join with hon. Members who have spoken in expressing gratitude to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) for raising this matter. In the light of what has been said in the Press and elsewhere, it is quite right that the subject should be debated in the House. I am responsible for electricity in Scotland, and it is right that I should be asked to explain what has been happening and, if possible, set at rest any fears which have been aroused.

I turn now to the present position of the project. The Board informs me that work is progressing satisfactorily. I am very glad to say that the test of the first pressure vessel, to which I referred on 30th May, in answer to Questions, took place successfully last weekend. This marks an important stage in the progress of the work and enables the next stage of assembling the graphite blocks in this vessel to proceed.

The Board is confident that the increased rate of progress which has been apparent during the last two or three months—it has speeded up a good deal in these months—will continue and that the revised programme for commissioning the first reactor in mid-1964 and the second at the end of the same year will be adhered to or, the Board hopes, even bettered. It is impossible to be certain yet.

The hon. Member for Govan asked whether I was satisfied that the general relationships, which, I agree, have not been altogether happy throughout this very difficult period, have improved. I am assured that the relationships are such that work is now going on without some of the difficulties which undoubtedly existed at an earlier period. I am not laying blame anywhere for these difficulties. This has been a complex job, for reasons which I shall explain, and there was a period of difficulty, but I hope that the difficulties have now been successfully resolved.

In order to give the full story properly, I have to give a little of the history of the project since this is essential to an understanding of what has happened. The House will recall that in 1955 the White Paper Cmd. 9389 set out the provisional programme of nuclear power for the following 10 years, giving an indication of the probable developments up to 1975. That programme envisaged 12 stations to be constructed from mid-1957 and to come into operation by 1965. That, of course, has been modified since then, as the House knows. At that time, no decision had been reached as to the location of these stations. The South of Scotland Electricity Board asked for one of these stations to be located in its area and later, when it was decided that three stations were to be started in 1957 instead of two, it was agreed that the South of Scotland Board should build the third station. That is how the South of Scotland Electricity Board came in with one of the first three stations of the programme.

The Board's formal invitation to tender went out to the four atomic power consortia on 23rd August, 1956. This invited tenderers to submit offers by 1st November based upon the design for a station under the site conditions at Bradwell in Essex. The inquiry was made in these terms because all the necessary information about the Scottish site could not be available until later. It was recognised at that stage that the tenders would be subject to adjustment in the light of the final site information. But no great difficulty was foreseen on this score. There was a real need at the time to get on fast, and this was the method devised to get the Scottish station going as quickly as possible. It is easy, looking back, to say that it might have been better to wait, but we must remember that, in the conditions of the time, we wanted to get on.

The tender of the General Electric Company was duly received and, after certain modifications had been discussed, the Board accepted the G.E.C. offer by letter on 12th December, 1956.

To sum up the contract established by these exchanges, it is for the construction at a price of £37½ million of a complete nuclear power station based upon site conditions at Bradwell and subject to adjustments in relation to the matters which the hon. Member for Govan spelt out. I will give them again because I want the House to have the exact information. They were as follows: the altered civil engineering works as required by the Scottish site; the modifications of the original design required by the Board and the Atomic Energy Authority to ensure safe operation; other modifications if introduced during the course of the work; and a cost variation clause.

The contract provided also for the price to be adjusted in relation to these items and for the determination of matters in dispute by arbitration. It provided, too, for progress payments to the company of 80 per cent. of the work done, the remaining 20 per cent. being regarded as retention money to be retained until partial release when the two reactors were commissioned. This makes it plain to the hon. Gentleman why it is hard to get exact figures and to link them to reports which he may have had from various sources.

I now want to say a word or two about the site, about which there has been some misunderstanding. The Board's formal application to the Secretary of State for approval of the station was received on 15th October, 1956, and the acquisition of the site gave rise to considerable difficulties and an inquiry under the planning Acts was necessary. This took some time and formal consent in terms of Section 2 of the relevant Act was not given until 29th July, 1957. That is the critical date. In the end entry was taken on 21st August, but it was only a little less than two months after the date which had been originally planned. There was not a tremendous element of delay there, but two months were lost at the beginning.

I should now like to deal with the civil engineering works. The Board tells me that no great difficulty has been encountered in adjusting them to the site conditions at Hunterston, and the company, in making its offer, anticipated that the rock conditions at Hunterston would be more suitable for supporting the massive weight of the station than the clay conditions at Bradwell.

Since the right hon. Gentleman says that no difficulties have been experienced on the civil engineering side, how does he account for the appointment of a new contractor on the site?

I think that the hon. Gentleman had better let me continue. I was explaining the fact that there seemed to be some view that Hunterston was a much less suitable site than Brad-well, but, in fact, the rock site had great attractions. The main changes in this part of the contract—this is where there were substantial problems—arose because it was necessary to provide support for the substantially increased weights of some of the units of the station made necessary by the technical amendments to the original design. Some examples of the items whose weights increased substantially are the nuclear fuel charging units, the steam raising units and the biological shields. All these changes were necessary in the interests of safety and efficiency.

It may be convenient if I now say something about the nuclear design of Hunterston and about the modifications which have been introduced, because they are very relevant. As hon. Members know, it is based, as is the design of the two English stations, on the Calder Hall magnox type of reactor. The General Electric Company's design, however, has some features which are not present in the others. The principal one is that the charging of the nuclear reactor with fuel elements will take place from below instead of from above, which is the more usual method of conducting this operation, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows. Certain operating advantages are hoped for from this arrangement. In addition, there were other changes.

I now wish to say something about output because, as a result of all the changes and the work which has been done, important changes are expected in the output of the station. The output guaranteed by G.E.C. when it tendered was 300 megawatts sent out, the same figure as was guaranteed for Brad-well. It was not certain at that time that this could be achieved, but present assessments indicate that an output in excess of 300 megawatts should be obtained. The Board is confident that it will be 320, and there is reasonable hope that it may be still higher. However, the calculations to confirm this simply cannot be completed for some time. It will be seen that this is a fluid operation in many ways, if one can apply the word "fluid" to this complex matter.

I have already referred to the main modifications which were explored before the Board accepted G.E.C.'s tender. All of them required a great deal of design work and their cost could not be estimated and agreed before the contract was concluded. Furthermore, during the course of construction, various modifications have been required for very good reasons as a result of increased knowledge of reactor technology, from continuing research and development work, and also, as the hon. Gentleman said, as a result of recommendations by the Fleck Committee following the Wind-scale incident in October, 1957. Modifications of this kind were required on all three stations and not merely on Hunterston.

The hon. Member for Govan made a major point about supervision and I can understand his concern in the light of what he has read. He paid an implied tribute to the many individuals concerned with this project, and I am glad that he did so. But clearly—and I say this deliberately—one could argue that any undertaking could be managed in a number of different ways, but I do not think that either he or I is qualified to lay down exactly how the Board should organise its working arrangements, above all, when dealing with completely new techniques.

The point has been made by the hon. Member for Govan—he made the same point in a Question—that this was not a new technique, but, if I have time, I will explain later exactly why these first three stations together represent new techniques, because they are developments from Harwell. They have not just been taken straight from Calder Hall and Chapelcross.

The method of working at Hunterston was as follows. To co-ordinate the nuclear and conventional electrical engineering side of the contract, a main project committee was set up comprising representatives of the Board, its consultants, the Atomic Energy Authority and the contractor, meeting under the chairmanship of the Board's Chief Engineer. Under this Committee two panels with similar membership were set up to consider the nuclear and conventional problems respectively. Most of the work of the main project Committee centred on the panel dealing with the nuclear design. It met regularly and frequently. Its purpose was to keep under review the nuclear design and to ensure that due note was taken of advances in knowledge in this whole field. When important modifications were necessary they were all fully thrashed out with everyone concerned—the Board's engineers, the contractors, the Board's consultants and the A.E.A. That is the answer to the hon. Member's question on control. I think that his point was that there should be one individual who was overlord, master and dictator of the whole operation. As I have said, the Board's Chief Engineer was the Chairman of this Committee and was under the Board. As Chairman of the main project Committee his task was to do the job in the best possible way.

My idea was that one overall authority would be the responsible authority, but, of course, that there would be a small advisory committee functioning with it.

I have explained how the matter worked. It is easy to criticise and to say that we might have gone about the matter differently, but it is hard to say that anyone would have decided that it should have been done differently. I have no reason to believe that another method would have produced better results.

The date when the first reactor will produce power has fallen seriously back from what was originally hoped for. The debate, including the very interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), has shown that there was a combination of reasons for this. A great deal of work undoubtedly had to be done on the changes in the design, and, as the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Mabon) and I know only too well because we live near the area and our constituencies are there, there have, most unfortunately, been labour difficulties on the site. This is not a subject which would benefit from much examination, but I fervently hope that these difficulties and strikes are now over.

The problem in everything of this kind is to get a proper balance between the most modern and efficient design and the delays which may arise from pursuing this entirely admirable end. There is no doubt that the changes in the design made the work of building the station less straightforward than had been expected, but, as I have said, I am informed that the work is now progressing satisfactorily.

What will we get at the end of the day? The vital statistics of any power station, so I am told by the experts, are the cost per kilowatt sent out and the cost per unit generated. Until the station is commissioned we shall not know exactly what level of output it will achieve. Until the price adjustment in terms of the contracts have been officially negotiated, we shall not know what the exact cost will be. Furthermore, and this is Where I must resist the temptation which the hon. Member for Govan put before me, any guess I might make at the price which the Board will pay would risk prejudicing seriously its position in the difficult negotiations which have still to be completed with the company, but I will give him a minor clue.

The Board and its advisers are confident that at the end of the day, Hunterston will prove itself the equal of the other two stations in the first group of nuclear power stations. It is the Board's belief that when the station is in use, it will be found that the price per kilowatt will not greatly exceed £165 and that the cost per unit will be about 1d. Hon. Members may recall that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield-Digby) on 19th February last, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power said that Bradwell would cost about £165 per kilowatt and that the cost per unit would be about Id., so that on present information, it looks as if we are running parallel with the other stations.

Would the right hon. Gentleman like to say something about the little comparison I made between thermal and nuclear stations?

On that point, it is difficult to compare current prices with those of conventional stations. It is quite clear that in the development of the early nuclear stations it was bound to cost more than the current price at con- ventional stations. That is the penalty of moving into a new technique, and, while I should not like to be categorical, the nuclear stations will catch up to the others. I have always understood that these stations should be effective in the 'seventies. We are paying the price of moving into new fields of materials and new ranges of activities in the production of electricity, in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire said, Scotland really must be in at the earliest stage.

I have only a few minutes left in which I want to make one other important point, and that concerns the difficulties of construction. First, the hon. Member said that the problems of constructing nuclear power stations have been exaggerated. I am quite sure that the hon. Member was minimising difficulties when he said that these problems should have been easy. The Calder Hall reactor and those at Chapelcross, have as their primary purpose the production of fissile material, and heat for the generation of electric power was only a by-product. They were by comparison relatively small in size. Furthermore, their operating conditions were such that they could be closed down when the nuclear fuel elements had to be changed.

In the power stations, the circumstances are quite different. The reactors are very much larger, operating at higher gas pressures and higher temperatures, and the Whole design is aimed at the production of a maximum amount of electricity, rather than fissile material, and, in order to reduce the time that the station must be taken off-load, they are designed for the fuel to be changed while they remain in operation. All these factors led to new design problems, and, apart from them, there were also the engineering problems normally expected when a major forward step is being taken in a new technology.

I have tried to explain some of the difficulties and problems which we nave had to meet and which have led to this most regrettable delay at Hunterston. I have indicated that the Board is confident that the cost will be in line with that of the earlier nuclear stations. There has been a period of great anxiety for everybody concerned in the operation, but I am quite certain from this debate that everybody—the whole House, no matter how many hon. Members are here now—will wish well to the Board, to its new Chairman and to all its workers who are trying to make a very great success of this Scottish venture.

There were two reasons for applying for this debate. The first was to give the clearest and widest warning to mothers-to-be of the great danger to which they might subject themselves and their unborn babies should they take a certain tranquilliser drug thalidomide which is marketed in this country under the name of Distaval. The second reason is more long-term, and it is to find out from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary whether it will be possible for even more extensive tests to be made on new drugs than are made at present to find out Whether there might be more harmful Side-effects before the drugs are allowed to be put on the market, even if a doctor's prescription is required for their purchase.

I am only a layman on these matters and do not know all the technicalities that are involved, and therefore I shall have to read a certain amount in order to develop my arguments. My attention was drawn to the danger of this drug in the following circumstances. Two of my constituents, husband and wife, wrote to me and asked if I would call to see them, which I did. They then informed me of the following story, which I found quite horrifying.

This lady, before she was to have her baby, was not sleeping very well and had been prescribed this drug by her doctor under the National Health Service. Apparently it was extremely effective, and it gave her very good sleep. She had some of the tablets left over, which she kept in her medicine chest. Then she became pregnant, and for only three nights, I am told, she took one of these pills. When her baby was born, it was so ghastly deformed as to be beyond description. It had only one kidney and the liver was in a terrible state. Since then, it has been proved that this malformation is attributed very largely to Distaval. Here I should like to pay tribute to this lady, for her great courage in bringing this matter forward, in the great anguish of mind which she must feel. As I hope to be able to show, already she has been able to ease the minds of two other ladies, and I hope sincerely that by her courageous action she will help many others in this matter.

As a result of this interview—and, in passing, I should say that this drug was actually withdrawn in November, 1961—I tabled a Parliamentary Question, and my hon. Friend very kindly gave me a very full and explicit answer. As a result of that answer, a lot of publicity came about, not as much as I would have liked, but quite a lot, and again as a result of that publicity I received a number of letters. I am afraid that I shall have to read some of these, because they substantiate my case and prove how little was known and still is known about the dangers of this drug. The first reads as follows:

"In the Daily Telegraph of 15th May, I read a report of your comments in the House on Monday the 14th instant concerning the effects on unborn children of the drugs thalidomide and Distaval. On 28th January last, my daughter gave birth to her first child who was affected by various limb deformaties. During her pregnancy my daughter was prescribed certain medicines by her doctor, but we do not know, of course, what drugs they contained. There is no family history, on either side, of congenital disability, and my daughter is naturally very anxious for advice as to whether should she have any more children, they would be similarly afflicted."

There was doubt in her mind as to what the effect of the drug was.

Another letter I received reads as follows.

"My heartfelt thanks and gratitude are due to you for your Question in the Commons on Monday. For the first time I released the possible explanation of my baby daughter's heartbreaking congenital abnormalities from which she mercifully died at the age of 2 months. Although I took Distaval for insomnia during most of my pregnancy, this was in no way suspect at the time of her birth, and death last year. I understood from an employee of the manufacturers that Distaval had been withdrawn merely because patients using this drug for long periods had developed slight peripheral neuritis. I still possess a quantity of the tablets and would undoubtedly have used these again for insomnia in any future pregnancy.

I do wonder if this matter has received enough publicity. I heard the report by chance in the radio programme 'Yesterday in Parliament', and the only newspaper report which I saw was in the Daily Telegraph which referred to the product as Distabil."

These cases prove—and remember I did not solicit them, but they came to me as a result of my asking Parliamentary Questions—the grave doubt in the minds of the public about how dangerous these drugs may be.

There have been varying reports about the number of people who have been affected by these drugs. I believe that the generally recognised figures are about 40 for the United Kingdom and about 4,000 for the Continent. I saw a report in a newspaper yesterday suggesting that the figure for Britain is actually much higher, probably about 700. But there may be very many more cases concerning people who do not know the names of the drugs they are taking.

After all, is it not possible that a woman might have a little box of tablets in her medicine chest labelled simply "The tablets. Take one on retiring"? She might not know that the tablets in the bottle are actually Distaval. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for informing me that the Chief Medical Officer has sent letters to all general practitioners in the Health Service and to medical officers of health and senior medical officers in hospitals drawing attention to the danger about which I am speaking. I hope that they will do their best to bring this danger to the attention of the public and that any doctor who may have prescribed this particular drug, perhaps in years gone by, will check up to see where the tablets are now and will do their best to warn women who are pregnant not to take the drug or there might be dire consequences.

Regarding tests, I have great respect for the pharmaceutical industry, which has spent much time and money on research, and I do not think that we can blame that industry for what has happened. But I would dissociate myself from a remark made in an article in the Birmingham Post yesterday referring to today's debate. The article said:

"As purveyor of drugs to the National Health Service, the British pharmaceutical industry often has to face thinly-veiled allegations by politicians that it is the chief inheritor pf the Borgias, and that the general public is its victim or, at best, its poison-taster."

As I say, I dissociate myself from that sort of remark. It is a first-class in- dustry, well run and with much integrity. The makers of Distaval are a firm of the highest integrity, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to evolve a scheme whereby the testing of these drugs can be intensified. I realise that much is being done but in the letter from one of my constituents, part of which I read earlier, it is also stated:

"It appears that there are about 250 drug houses in this country and whilst some of them (the majority I hope!) are very jealous of their good reputations"—

Indeed they are—

"many are so small as to have neither the capital nor the facilities to perform the extensive clinical tests."

The letter was written, apparently, as the result of a television broadcast my constituent saw from which she quotes a certain doctor as having said:

"… anyone who wants to is at liberty to put a drug on the market and can keep it there until there is some trouble."

That is a terrifying thought. I hope it is not the case, although it is rather borne out by an article in today's Daily Mail which states—

"University professors Alistair MacGregor, of Aberdeen, and Walter Perry, of Edinburgh, claim in The Lancet that doctors have too little information about new drugs; only three out of every 20 products advertised in a commercial index in 1961 had been adequately tried, they say. The two professors stress that they do not want a change in the law to control drugs: this might generate a false confidence. They want a 'brain centre' to collect and disseminate information about new drugs so that their effects and side-effects can be measured."

I hope that my hon. Friend will give that matter consideration and be able to put my unfortunate constituent at ease, because she was upset at the rather alarming statement by a doctor on television. Followed by what I have just read from the Daily Mail, it is rather disquieting. I hope we may have some further assurance on that point.

There has been a suggestion that there might be some form of central committee to investigate these drugs. Having spoken to manufacturers, I gather—I think that my hon. Friend will agree—that there are very grave complications in this. I did a television broadcast on this subject in Birmingham last night and had with me the director of one of the big pharmaceutical manufacturers. We had an interesting talk. The director was most sympathetic. He was horrified about what had been done, but he said that testing was very difficult. All the same, I wonder whether something more cannot be done on these lines. Something on the lines of a central committee was set up in France and the United States, but I do not think it proved very satisfactory. I am informed that France, despite this, has accepted Distaval as a drug. So that idea is not foolproof.

We must think again and find something new. We cannot allow all these new drugs to go on the market when they may have potentially very dangerous side-effects. Quite recently eight drugs have, for varying reasons, been withdrawn. These reasons are not necessarily always dangerous side-effects, but, having spoken to a chemist, I know that two of them had very dangerous side-effects.

I thank my hon. Friend for all the help she has given me in this campaign. I want the widest publicity possible given for this, whatever media are used, and I hope that our good friends in the Press Gallery will help. This is such a terribly serious matter. As I said earlier, I believe there are many women who may have this drug in their medicine chest. It is perfectly adequate, perfectly good and perfectly safe when they are not going to have a baby, but the moment they become pregnant it becomes the most absolute killer with the most ghastly effects. I hope we shall be able to do something to ensure that further tragedies do not occur.

I am sure that we are all very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) for raising this vitally important subject. I am sure that the whole industry will be satisfied with his praise of the work that it does. I am sure that he intends no criticism of the industry. Although I am concerned in the chemical industry, I am not in any way associated with the pharmaceutical side of it and, therefore, have no interest to declare.

My hon. Friend quoted a letter which appeared in The Lancet on 9th June signed by Professors Macgregor and Perry, but I am afraid he did not quote the most important part of the letter. In dealing with this subject, the professors say:

"Nevertheless, in our view no system of control could have prevented the tragic results of the widespread use of thalidomide.";

that is, Distaval.

We are, therefore, face to face with the very serious situation that we have here a drug which has certain exceedingly valuable properties but has these dreadful side-effects which the professors themselves say no system of control could check. I would emphasise that both France and America have very close government control of the drug industry. The French authorities—this must be emphasised—have already given this drug complete clearance. They were, obviously, quite satisfied with it. There is also no doubt that the authorities in the United States will give the drug complete clearance.

It is, of course, possible—I do not deny this—that there may be some small firms operating in adverse conditions in some part of the country, but, to be frank, I do not know of any. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most progressive industries in the country, and the clinical control which is exercised over every new drug developed is something which has to be seen in the industry to be believed. For example, only one in 3,000 of the substances tested eventually survives toxicity and clinical tests and is placed on the market. That should be sufficient to illustrate the tremendous care which is exercised in the industry.

I would also emphasise that the British drug manufacturers are some of the finest firms in their industry in the world. Their reputation and integrity stand second to none. Not only do they do an amazing job for this country, but the drugs produced here and exported run into enormous figures. It does harm to the industry and to its reputation to suggest that an incident like this necessarily throws some shadow over the whole industry.

I do not wish to make a long speech about this, because this is a private Members' day when short speeches are the order of the day, but I want to put on record some of the things which have been achieved by the British drug industry over the years. Instead of throwing bricks at this industry, as some Members have done in both Houses, we ought to pat it on the back once in a while.

For example, there is no doubt that since the discovery of the first sulphonamides in 1935 the industry has been responsible for saving more lives than were ever lost in the Second World War. There has been lower mortality and big economic savings in the treatment of infectious diseases. The death rate from childbirth fever—puerperal sepsis—in mothers is 1 per cent. of that prior to the use of sulphonamides. Child mastoid operations have disappeared. Pneumonia is now effectively treated in the home at a greatly reduced cost. The chances of survival from accidents have been greatly improved. Ophthalmia neonatorum and trachoma, major causes of blindness, are controlled. Venereal disease can be effectively treated and pernicious anaemia, diabetes and poliomyelitis are now controlled. There are many more illnesses in medicine which are today effectively controlled by the use of drugs, in the main developed, researched and produced in this country. It would be difficult to exercise any system of control by a Government authority which in my view could give greater security to the people than that exercised by the industry itself.

I agree that the healing drugs have done wonderful work and no doubt will go on doing it, but I am frightened about so many of these tranquillisers and slimming drugs which are not necessary and do not perform the wonderful function which the healing drugs perform.

I am not here to defend the use of tranquillisers or slimming tablets, although, heaven knows, my wife tells me that I could do with some. Surely this is a private user responsibility. The matters which we are discussing are much more fundamental.

We are all very much indebted to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) for raising this very important matter. I do not intend to join the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) in calling for the immediate nationalisa- tion of the drug industry, so that the address which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) in a sense may not have been necessary.

As a practising doctor, I appreciate the great amount of work which the pharmaceutical industry has done, but what the hon. Member for Ilford, South said in its defence went almost to the other extreme. The idea of suggesting that the pharmaceutical industry is completely above criticism in this matter seems to me to be far-fetched. It is poor consolation to this unfortunate woman and to many other cases, not necessarily involving death or congenital abnormality, that this should be said when something goes wrong with a new drug. It seems a little unsatisfactory to be told that the reputation and integrity of these firms is beyond question and that the whole thing is an act of God. That is the question: is it an act of God or can something be done to prevent some, at least, of these tragedies?

I do not accept that because there is a system in France which is not very good, and which permitted this drug to be used, we must have a system like it or none at all. I do not accept that under the United States system, particularly having heard about it, clearance will be given to this drug to circulate in America.

The basic point about this drug is that while splendid and very commendable researches were done, they were confined, in the main, to animals and it is not necessarily true that the pattern of behaviour of the drug on the mouse or the rat, or any other creature sacrificed to the needs of medicine to find out how to treat humans, will always be the same on homo sapiens. This is the great criticism which can be laid against this drug and others about which we know there have been scandals in the past and others which, alarmingly, are still to come and from which people must suffer before this problem is settled satisfactorily.

This is what the hon. Member is trying to do and what this lady is trying to do in bringing it to his attention. She does not wish others to suffer unnecessarily. If this Adjournment debate is at all valuable, it will be in setting in process a train of events which may lead to ensuring that, while we cannot altogether avoid all these unhappy circumstances which arise by human error, nevertheless we shall reduce their number appreciably.

This is the point that Professors MacGregor and Perry were trying to make when they said, as the hon. Member quoted, that no system of control could have prevented this accident. Their comment, I submit, is qualitative and not quantitative. If there had been a system of control better than our present negative system, it is possible that, while some damage would unhappily have been done to some people, it would not have been as extensive as it was. This seems to be an eminently good reason for looking at what the hon. Member said this afternoon. The least that he has asked is that there ought to be, in the words of Professors MacGregor and Perry, some "brain centre" for collecting the facts on the effects and side-effects of new drugs.

It is fair that we should consider the question of side-effects. I remember an occasion some time ago when a new tranquilliser drug came on the market. Incidentally, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove that these are the drugs which we ought not to prescribe, or about which we ought to be suspicious. Tranquilliser drugs are extremely useful. They have revolutionised the treatment of mental health. They are in a sense almost translating into life the Mental Health Act.

But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that they can be very dangerous? These are the drugs which possibly are taken more frequently than drugs which can cure other diseases. I agree that under close medical supervision in a clinic or hospital it is all right to take these drugs, but I am terrified of these tranquillisers going into teen-agers' medicine chests.

I endorse that. I was referring to the side-effects of these drugs. There was an occasion in my own experience when the idea was put forward that a certain tranquilliser should be prescribed for a patient whose occupation was that of driving a bus. It took a long time to go round the hospitals to get the opinions of other physicians about how this tranquilliser influenced a person's judgment and technique when under stress. It seems that this idea of having a centre is very good not only from the point of view of the direct danger of the drugs, but from the point of view of the side-effects of taking them.

Like many others in my profession, I am subjected to having to read continually the recurring submissions of different manufacturers as they come across different drugs or present them in different ways. It is commendable that we should have this information, but unhappily it is not adequate. I find that in many cases the drug has not been sufficiently tried, largely because, as the hon. Gentleman said, some of the firms do not have the necessary capital, or the ability to obtain the clinical facilities to carry out adequate tests. I feel that this is particularly important in relation to drugs which could have fatal effects, and I consider that they should not be issued except under a positive system of licensing.

This is the problem which faces the hon. Lady this afternoon. I do not know what advice she has received, but I am most anxious to hear it. This is not a matter for party arguments, but we in the Labour Party have been so concerned about this that in our health programme "Members One of Another", we made a point about it and have further urged that the Medical Research Council—as happens in some of our Commonwealth countries—should be made responsible for the testing of these drugs. The hon. Lady has no doubt heard this many times, and she will doubtless hear it again, but I think that this suggestion is well worth considering along with those made by her hon. Friends.

I know that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) spoke sincerely and genuinely from his point of view, but I hope that the hon. Lady will not emulate him and say that she is satisfied that all is well in this the best of all possible worlds. We do not want this kind of tragedy to be repeated. We know that even under the best possible system mistakes could occur, but we do want to reduce the number of fatalities and any ill-health that may be caused by the premature provision of these drugs for the general public.

There is a system in hospitals whereby reputable pharmaceutical firms which are concerned about the possible effects of a certain drug propose that certain special doctors and professors should use this drug on certain patients of the physicians' own choice, and that the results should be collated by the firm. From these results and papers submitted by the selected medical men, the firm is then able to decide whether to market the drug. This is an eminently sensible way of dealing with this problem, and I am suggesting that a system of positive licensing administered by the Medical Research Council would mean that new drugs would be made available with the approval and knowledge of the Medical Research Council. If this is unacceptable, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's idea of a centre to collect the facts is a sound one, and I hope that the Ministry will look favourably at this suggestion at least. If not, I suggest that it is incumbent upon the Minister to suggest some other system which is not in practice at the moment, otherwise we shall see these tragedies being repeated again and again, and that would be a great sadness.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) for choosing this subject for debate. Modest though it is, with three contributions plus my own, this has been a useful debate, entirely in the interests of patients. I welcome the opportunity that the debate gives me to discuss this subject, because I know that there is often confusion in the minds of people, particularly lay people, between tests for toxicity and clinical trials. The two are quite distinct.

Tests for toxicity are to determine whether a drug is potentially dangerous. They are conducted in the laboratories of pharmaceutical firms, usually on small animals such as guinea pigs and rats. If no toxic effects are shown as a result of these tests on animals, the drug is then tested in the treatment of humans, on a limited scale and under very strict medical control. It has to be emphasised, however, Chat these latter tests on human beings are clinical trials to test the therapeutic efficacy of the drug, that is, in the language of lay people, to test the value of the drug in the treatment of disease.

If these tests are also satisfactory, the drug will then be released to the medical profession. This is the third step in the well-defined and graduated progress towards the general use of a drug. It is not for the Minister to judge when adequate trials of the safety of a new drug have taken place. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to decide on the extent of safety testing needed before the introduction of any drug is justified, and it is the doctor's responsibility to decide whether he is sufficiently satisfied about the safety of a new drug to justify his prescribing it for a particular patient.

In general, both the British pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession maintain a high sense of public responsibility in this respect. Doctors obtain information about the therapeutic uses of new and existing drugs through professional journals, the Prescribers' Journal, or manufacturers' literature and representatives. An independent professional committee—the Cohen Committee—classifies all proprietary preparations known to be available for prescribing, on an assessment of therapeutic value based on evidence supplied by the manufacturers. Prescribes' Journal and Cohen Committee recommendations are sent to all doctors in the National Health Service.

It is improbable that any effective therapeutic substance is entirely without side-effects. New drugs, if potent, are by their nature liable to exert also effects other than those which they were intended to produce. But these unexpected and unwanted effects may arise in circumstances which, in the light of current medical and scientific knowledge, could not be detected by means of initial testing on animals or human volunteers. It seems to be generally agreed that the risk of hazard to health in the use of new medicines would be reduced if they were all subjected to the widest possible range of toxicological studies and controlled clinical trials.

This, again, is a point that the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Mabon) made. The toxicity testing and clinical trials can never be as complete as ideally may be desired or be entirely foolproof. Carefully conducted clinical trials primarily intended to demonstrate the therapeutic efficacy of a new drug may sometimes fail to reveal some real toxic side-effect. This may emerge only in medical practice, possibly after long use in considerable numbers of patients. Thalidomide, or Distaval as it is known in this country—the drug about which my hon. Friend is particularly concerned and which I know is his main reason for seeking this debate—is an example of what I have just tried to explain.

The toxicity tests were carefully conducted and indicated that the drug was apparently safe. The clinical trials snowed it to be a very effective hypnotic and even more effective in some respects than other drugs used for the same clinical purpose. Thalidomide was in clinical use in Germany before it was made available to general practitioners in this country in 1958. It was developed by German scientists, and in this country by the Distillers Company (Bio-chemicals) Ltd., whose research and development teams consist of first-class scientists. The initial animal experimental work designed to elucidate its toxicity seems to have been done meticulously and the preliminary clinical trials of its therapeutic efficacy were carried out by doctors wholly independent of the pharmaceutical firm.

I wonder whether the hon. Lady could tell us how many of the patients involved in the preliminary clinical trials were pregnant.

No. I am sorry, but I have no figures of patients involved in the clinical trials, and the risk to pregnant women appeared much later, as I have been indicating. In fact, it was only in November, 1961 that reports came from West Germany suggesting an association between this drug and congenital abnormalities. Later similar reports came in from other parts of the Continent. Although up till then there had been no reports of similiar experience of cases arising in Great Britain, the manufacturers in this country decided to withdraw the drug, and they withdrew it, as my hon. Friend said, early in December, 1961.

My hon. Friend asked a Question in the House about this drug on 14th May, and I then stated that the Ministry was taking steps to warn women of the dangers of taking hypnotics in circumstances for which they had not been prescribed. Then, as I promised, a warning was issued through the Press with special reference to thalidomide.

On 17th May the Chief Medical Officer of my Department wrote to all general practitioners and to the medical officers of health of local health and other local authorities and to senior hospital officers asking them to warn women patients of child-bearing age who might have a stock of thalidomide prescribed before its withdrawal not to take it in any circumstances.

Here, perhaps, I may make one seeming domestic point but I feel it is important, and this again is an opportunity for me to repeat the regular general advice of my Department to patients, of which our action on Distaval was only an example, that they should not hoard unused stocks of medicines prescribed for a particular purpose but should throw them away as soon as they have recovered from the illness for which they were prescribed. This, perhaps, sounds wasteful, but I am sure that it is wise.

My hon. Friend and, indeed, all three Members who have spoken referred to this morning's comment in the Daily Mail which arose out of a letter to the editor of The Lancet, which I have read, from two Scottish professors. Some part of what I would have said has been said for me by the quotation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), but perhaps I may add one other point. It is true that this letter is critical of the present machinery for the control of drugs, but at one point the writers say:

"Tragedies will no doubt continue to occur with new remedies, and this is part of the price to be paid for therapeutic progress, because we cannot, as a community, ask for new drugs without being prepared to accept such risks. We cannot legislate ourselves out of this dilemma."

To continue with the general question, I would add that the law relating to the control of medicines is at present being examined in the Departments concerned.

New legislation would be needed to require the safety testing or scrutiny of all new drugs, apart from substances to which Part I of the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, applies, before they were introduced. I cannot develop this point at length or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order in an Adjournment debate. But even if the Minister were to take powers to establish a new central body with a view to controlling the introduction of all new drugs, it would not be possible to guarantee that every new drug was absolutely safe.

indicated assent.

I am glad to have the acknowledgment of the hon. Gentleman.

"Absolutely safe".

In the case of thalidomide, it has now been shown experimentally that it will produce deformities in the offspring of one animal species, other than humans, namely, rabbits. Therefore, it might be practicable in future for manufacturers, by devising appropriate testing procedures based on this observation, to detect the possibility of this particularly distressing side-effect in any new substances in this group which may be developed for therapeutic purposes. Perhaps I might interpolate, so that everyone may be quite clear about it, that Distaval is no longer available. But the comment I have just made does refer to substances in the group.

I have been talking to a chemist and I understand that it is still available but only for women over a certain age and under prescription. I do not know whether that is a fact, but I gathered so from what he said.

I shall confirm that point and I shall need to take medical advice to do so. The drug has been withdrawn by the manufacturers and the doctors have been told not to prescribe it. I cannot believe that it is available except in the circumstances of someone still having it on the shelf in the medicine cabinet, about which risk we have all been trying to give publicity.

Quite apart from the humanitarian aspect, it is in a firm's own interest to do all that it can by means of experimental toxicity testing to minimise the risk of side-effects in its products.

In the case of thalidomide the emergence of these distressing side-effects is a matter of deep concern on which the Minister is keeping a close watch. I am sure that it is generally accepted, how- ever, that the choice of drugs is a professional matter which should rest with the doctors and not with the administration.

To keep this matter in proportion, let me end by saying that the development of new drugs has made an inestimable contribution to the nation's health within recent years.

I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for being given this opportunity to raise the subject of the rebuilding of the north-east wing of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, in the last debate on the Adjournment for the Whitsun Recess. It is a formidable thought that I now stand alone between this House and the Recess, but I am sure that this is a worthy subject for the House to give its attention to before we disperse. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been kind enough to come here to reply to this debate, will be encouraged by the sunny prospect for Whitsun to listen with sympathy to what I have to say. I make no apology for seeking to raise this matter because, as I shall hope to show, all other means to have this matter treated as one of urgency have failed to produce action.

The Royal Hospital must be familiar to most hon. Members of this House, many of whom, indeed, live within a stone's throw of it in Chelsea. I am sure I do not need to remind the House of the beauty and fame of this building as one of the greatest and most noble of all Wren's buildings in London. Nor are hon. Members unaware of its historic association with the British Army which has been maintained unbroken for 270 years. The Chelsea Pensioners, bearing the medals, and in some cases the wounds, of campaigns fought all over the world in the service of Queen Victoria and her successors, and who still wear much the same uniform as their predecessors who fought at Blenheim and Waterloo, are also a familiar sight to hon. Members. No one privileged to be present at the Annual Founder's Day Parade last week could have failed to be deeply moved and stirred by the sight of these veterans marching past their Queen to the strains of "The Old Brigade" in the setting particularly of Figure Court, nor, I think, could they have failed to be moved by the covering words of the orders for the parade, the words at the opening, "Those able to march."

However, the purpose of this debate is not to arouse emotion, although I hope that my hon. Friend's approach will not be entirely cold-blooded or hard-hearted or hard-boiled; but I have to state the facts. In brief, the Royal Hospital sustained damage from enemy action in both World Wars. In February, 1918, the north-east wing was destroyed in a daylight air raid with loss of life. After its first destruction it was rebuilt, in 1921; that is to say, three years later. In 1944, unhappily also with loss of life, the north-east wing was again destroyed, this time by a V2 rocket. It has not yet been rebuilt, 18 years after its second destruction.

Hon. Members and others who pass that way along the Royal Hospital Road may observe the derelict gap which still so prominently defaces the Royal Hospital front. On aesthetic grounds alone, therefore, it seems to me a grave reflection not only on my hon. Friend's Department but also upon our country that a part of such a noble and historic building in the very heart of our capital should still be unrepaired and derelict so long after the war. Visitors to London may well ask, as they pass this bombed site, and with the towering materialism of the new office blocks and hotels going up round about, "Do the English really care for their heritage?"

But there are other and more practical and urgent reasons for rebuilding. There are 410 pensioners in the Royal Hospital at present, and there is a waiting list of around 100. The rebuilding of the north-east wing is urgently needed to provide accommodation of a geriatric nature for some of the more infirm and elderly pensioners, those who, perhaps, do not need full hospital treatment but who need greater care and attention than is possible in the general life of the Royal Hospital. This north-east wing, when rebuilt, will contain two air-conditioned wards and will provide accommodation for 65 of these old fellows.

But there is more to it than this. There are social aspects which extend far beyond the Royal Hospital itself. Many of the 65 old men who would be accommodated in the north-east wing are at present living in circumstances of hardship and distress in various parts of the country. That distress and hardship will not be confined to themselves alone, but may extend to and also affect those with whom they are living. The House often directs its attention and sympathies towards the problem of old and infirm people. We all know of the distress and loneliness in which old people exist if they are not cared for and what calls upon others their care involves if they are living with relatives.

Most of these old men who could be accommodated in the north-east wing of the Royal Hospital, if it were rebuilt, are certainly being cared for by others, relatives and friends, who would otherwise be employed in other work. Some of them are occupying places in National Health Service geriatric hospitals at no inconsiderable cost to the country and effort to the Health Service. Against the cost of rebuilding the north-east wing must also be set the present effort and cost to the National Health Service which is being absorbed by the care of these old persons outside.

What is the expenditure involved in this reconstruction? It is £83,000. I suppose that if this work had been undertaken when it certainly should have been, at least 10 years ago, the cost might have been £50,000 and that if it is postponed for another two or three years it may well cost at least £100,000. However, if the present figure of £83,000 is divided by 65—the number of geriatric cases which it could accommodate—I do not think that result would compare unfavourably with the cost per bed of a modern geriatric hospital building.

I understand from correspondence with my hon. Friend that the Government do not feel that this expenditure for this purpose would be justified in the present state of the national economy. So as to get this problem into perspective, let us therefore look at one or two other recent expenditures of public money. How much money is my hon. Friend's Department spending on other historic buildings, many of them in private ownership and, so far as I know, few of them, if any, contributing to the care and welfare of old people?

Grants under Section 4 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953 towards the repair and maintenance of historic buildings and their contents and the upkeep of adjoining land have run in recent years as follows: £550,000 in 1960–61; £550,000 in 1961–62; £500,000 in 1962–63, the current year. The expenditure voted for the upkeep of ancient monuments in 1962–63 is no less than £900,000. I would be the last to grudge this expenditure, which I support, but it makes a mockery of my hon. Friend's failure to spend one penny in respect of the Royal Hospital.

I will not attribute to my hon. Friend responsibility for the expenditure of public money by other Departments. To keep this comparatively small expenditure in perspective in relation to overall expenditure, however, how about, for example, the £2¼ million which has just been spent on the new Army barracks across the road from the Royal Hospital and how about the £2 million Supplementary Estimate—which, as a member of the Estimates Committee, I assisted the other day in discussing—for Government stationery and printing, on top of the £6½ million already voted by this House?

I cannot accept that this expenditure, which by Government standards is trifling, cannot be afforded; but I do not think that that is likely to be the burden of the argument of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. No doubt, he will say that it is a question of priorities, which I quite understand. The burden of my argument is that the Government have their priorities wrong.

I do not criticise the Ministry of Works for what has happened. The responsibility lies not in that Department, but in the Treasury, where the cake is out up and handed out. Whether there is a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments in dealing with these matters or whether some Ministries argue more strongly than others, I do not know. At least, I am fairly sure that aesthetic and human values do not, perhaps, rank quite as high in the Treasury mind as they should.

How has the matter been handled so far? Successive Governors of the Royal Hospital have pressed for this work to be undertaken over a great number of years. In the 1946–50 period, the Ministry of Works actually started to plan the rebuilding, but with the coming into office of the Conservative Government—I say this with sorrow and shame—a change of policy stopped the work. In 1952, the then Minister of Works visited the Royal Hospital and expressed concern at the absence of the wing and the Ministry agreed that year to tackle the problem. Nothing happened. In 1954, the then Governor visited the next Minister, who explained that available resources were being concentrated on the new infirmary. That was a desirable object, but it was not enough. Again, in 1957, another Minister of Works visited the site, but without result.

In 1958, the predecessor of the present Governor returned to the charge, this time with encouraging results. It was at last agreed that plans should go forward and provision was made for work to be started in August, 1961. In June, 1961, the Royal Hospital was informed that £83,000 was being included in the 1962–63 Estimates so that rebuilding should be completed that year—that is, this year. This happy decision was announced publicly by the Governor at last year's Founders' Day Parade and brought great satisfaction, both to the Royal Hospital and throughout Chelsea.

Alas, that satisfaction was premature. No sooner had the first sod been turned in September last than a letter came from the Ministry on 15th September announcing that the rebuilding scheme was to be stopped forthwith to meet Treasury wishes to curb expenditure There the matter rests, in distress compounded of doubt and hope many times deferred.

I have a shrewd idea of what my hon. Friend will say. I expect him to express sympathy, and I do not doubt his sincerity. I expect that he will express hope, but I doubt that he will commit himself to a promise or a date. I am not interested in sympathy. Sympathy is a very dangerous sentiment to arouse in a Government Department because it is nearly always a substitute for action, and what we seek is action. I urge my hon. Friend to tear up the brief he has brought with him, unless, by some happy chance, it contains a promise of action. I urge him to throw it away and speak, as I know he would like to speak, according to his own conviction and judgment. What a shot in the arm it would be if Ministers occasionally did this.

I urge my hon. Friend to remind his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, who not only holds the purse strings in the Treasury but is Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Royal Hospital—I wonder whether my hon. Friend realises that—that it was his own predecessor Sir Stephen Fox, the grandfather of Charles James Fox, who was the original great benefactor of the Royal Hospital 270 years ago when he gave £13,000 out of his own ill-gotten private purse for its promotion. What a happy repetition of history it would be if the present Paymaster-General, in Whose hand a decision of this kind rests, would now come forward in the footsteps of his predecessor and release the money for this work.

The reconstruction of the north-east wing of the Royal Hospital should be undertaken without further procrastination. There is an unanswerable case for doing the work. The reasons go far beyond the boundaries of the Royal Hospital or of Chelsea. I urge my hon. Friend to give me the promise for which I ask on the ground of past promises, the long overdue need to repair this structure of outstanding merit, fame and historic association, and also on the more human ground of the provision of geriatric relief for deserving old pensioners.

I want my hon. Friend to give the House a definite assurance that provision for the work will be made in next year's Estimates. If, by an unhappy chance, he has not come here armed with such a promise, I ask him to go back and ask his right hon. Friend to insist that this long-standing obligation shall be fulfilled.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield) has made an eloquent and moving plea in a matter which is of the greatest importance to him in his constituency. For one thing, he has in mind increased provision for the pensioners themselves, and I think he would prob- ably put this at the very top of the list. There is then the point that this work has undoubtedly been outstanding for a very long time, and, until the building is restored to its former glories, it will continue to be something of an eye-sore in the fair Borough of Chelsea which he has the honour to represent.

The interest of the Ministry of Works in the matter is not as obvious as might appear. If the Royal Hospital were an ordinary hospital we should not be concerned with re-building it, and neither should we if it were an Army barracks. It is because it is an historic building that we are concerned with it.

As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, this building was bombed at the end of the last war. He drew a contrast between the relative speed with which it was repaired when it was bombed in the 1918 war, which took about three years, and the failure to repair it by now following the second war. I hope he will not press that point too far, because the difference in the scale of devastation as between what happened in the first war and what happened in the second war is absolutely colossal. We were confronted with an enormous job not only in London but up and down the country. However much my hon. and gallant Friend may feel that we do not always get our priorities right, we have completed a tremendous amount of very important work since the war.

When the north-east wing was bombed, it is fair to say that the part which was completely destroyed and about which we are talking was not being used for the pensioners. In those days, the north-east wing provided six staff residences, and the proposal now on the rebuilding is to convert it into pensioners' accommodation on the lines my hon. and gallant Friend described, so that the present complement, which I make 401—I think that it is within two or three of my hon. and gallant Friend's figure—can be increased to 475, the figure authorised by the War Office and the Commissioners.

Not only war damage makes it necessary to provide this additional berth accommodation. Since the war, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, there has been a considerable amount of internal reorganisation and rebuilding in the hospital, one effect of which has been to enlarge the old berths, which were only 6 ft. by 6 ft., to 6 ft. by 9 ft. This has meant a net loss of 32 berths. I do not quarrel with that, but it has meant that the additional space required has been increased by what has been done in the hospital and not only because the hospital was bombed.

I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend did us justice when he said that not a penny—those were his words—was being spent on the Royal Hospital. He referred to other things, some of which are not the responsibility of my Department, on which money was being spent. I wish to remove the impression that the Royal Hospital has been a Cinderella in this respect, because that is not true. I have armed myself with a list of the more important items of work which we have done there since the war. While I agree that it is not complete, it adds up to a quite respectable total.

My hon. and gallant Friend was good enough to mention the new infirmary, completed in 1961. This cost about £203,000, a very considerable sum. It is, I believe, the finest infirmary of its kind in the world and is probably the best fitted. I think that the order of priority there was perfectly right. The hospital, in the dictionary sense of the word, was the part of the accommodation that needed dealing with first, and I think that we have had a wonderful return for our money.

I spoke earlier of various conversion works inside the hospital and the modernisation of bunks, which amounted to £38,000. We completely renewed the steam boiler plant for the heating. That was another £30,000. We completely re-equipped and adapted the great kitchen at a cost of £15,000. I do not want to go through a long shopping list of items.

When I used the words "not a penny", I meant to refer to the cost of rebuilding the north-east wing. I appreciate that a great deal of money has been spent on this new infirmary, though I am not aware of the details of the other expenditure. Of course, I accept that a great deal of money has been spent on maintenance and improvements.

I am glad to have that acknowledgment from my hon. and gallant Friend, because I should not want it to go out that we had done nothing for the hospital as a whole. I made a rough total of the money we have spent so far, and, including the work which is going on at this moment on the orangery, which is being converted into a Roman Catholic Chapel and library, we have spent about £385,000, to which will have to be added whatever the final cost of the north wing may turn out to be.

Over what period?

Since the end of the war. The money has been spent over a period of years.

May I now say a word on the rebuilding of the wing itself? This is not as straight-forward a job as one may think, simply because of the reason, which I gave at the start, that this is an historic building—one of the finest of Wren's masterpieces. If we were proposing to replace it by a simple, functional, concrete block, which heaven forbid, it would be much cheaper and the work could be done much more quickly. Indeed, it might even have been put in hand by now. It is not open to us to do that. We have to try to restore, at any rate, as far as the outside appearance is concerned, the beautiful building which was there before, and I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will feel glad that that is the way in which we propose to tackle it. The cost is very considerable. My hon. and gallant Friend quoted a figure of £83,000, but my information is that it is more likely to be in the region of £130,000.

I wish now to say something about the pensioners themselves. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend did not confine the whole of his speech to the bricks and mortar aspect, because, after all, the real justification is what we can do for the pensioners. I accept that those on the waiting list who will be accommodated when the new accommodation is completed—or indeed some of them—may be in National Health Service hospitals, and some may be in local authority old people's homes and other accommodation of that kind. We have no means of identifying them precisely, but it is fair to say that if we compare the situation with that, for instance, pre-war, in our national arrangements today we make vastly increased provisions for old-age, infirmity and sickness than we did before. I think it would be emphasising it too much to suggest that because these people could not get into the hospital immediately, they were necessarily not being cared for in other ways. I do not think that is the case, and I should not have thought that it was wise to suggest that it was. Nevertheless, I entirely accept what my hon. and gallant Friend says about these soldiers; if they can get into the hospital, they would prefer to spend their declining days there.

What of the future? My hon. and gallant Friend said that he hoped that I was not going to be hard-hearted or cold-blooded in my approach to this matter. I wish I could say to him that it was possible for me to give him the kind of categorical assurance of inclusion in the Estimates for 1963–64, which is what he really wants. I cannot give him that assurance and I know that he is not disposed to being fobbed off with sympathy. I can say, however, that although this work has been delayed we have been able to complete a great deal of the pre-contract work which would have to be done in any case. To that extent we are a bit further on with it.

My hon. and gallant Friend is right in saying that we had to take this out of this year's Estimates. That was done because we were under great pressure to curb public expenditure and after the most careful and detailed review of all the possibilities, including the other things on which we were spending money, we came to the conclusion that we could not keep it in. This decision was taken with the greatest regret and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, regarding next year, he will certainly have achieved something for the cause he has at heart by having raised the matter today. I cannot give him any categorical assurances, but he can take it from me that the bulk of the precontract work has been done and we are very anxious ourselves to reinstate the scheme as soon as finance permits.

My hon. and gallant Friend may feel that that falls short of what he came this afternoon to achieve, but I am afraid that that often happens in Adjournment debates, particularly when we are concerned with whether certain things can or cannot be afforded. Our pet schemes so often appear, taken by themselves, to present an absolutely unanswerable case for being carried out, but if we took the sum total and aggregate of all of them we should be biting off more than we could chew. What he has done today will, I am sure, materially contribute to the speeding up of this project which I, just as much as he, would like to see speeded up.

rose——

The hon. Member will need to ask the leave of the House to speak again.

With the leave of the House, I wish to point out that the Ministerial reply we received in relation to a previous debate today made the answer we have just heard a little surprising. In the first Adjournment debate today, the Minister then in charge was anxious to assure the House that money matters were now so much better that the Government did not even have any difficulty in providing subsidies for ships built abroad.

Since the position has, apparently, improved to that extent, it is a little difficult to understand the sort of reply we have just received. If the finances of the nation are so improved that the Minister in the first debate was able to take the steps I have indicated, why was the Parliamentary Secretary so reluctant to give the assurances sought by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield)? After all, this hospital—while it is situated in Chelsea, in a salubrious part of London and is a beautiful building in many ways—serves the needs of the nation and of the older section of our military community who have rendered great service to the country.

I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary made a little too much of the figure of about £300,000 spent on this hospital, because included in that figure is a considerable sum which is at present being spent.

About £385,000 was the figure I gave and all of that, except about £20,000 for the orangery, has been spent and a large chunk is still ahead under the scheme.

But the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that he has not yet made provision for the additional expenditure in the Estimates, so that that amount cannot deserve our consideration at the moment. If one divides the figure spent on a tremendous institution such as this since 1945 one finds that it represents less than £20,000 a year. I agree that we had considerable difficulties after the war and I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary made that admission. It would be a good thing if some of his hon. Friends realised that.

This institution arouses considerable sympathy because of the section of the community which it serves. Obviously, we should want to do what was possible for it. I was a little surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have said that he would be prepared to agree if the item were included in the Estimates. He said that there was no shortage of visits by the Minister of Works and many others of that ilk, but it was the money which was short. But I should have thought that even to have had the sum included in the Estimates would not have been sufficient. After all, the sum was included previously, but the Ministry came along at the behest of the Government and said, "In view of the financial state of the nation, we must cancel this expenditure". I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have wanted an assurance that not only would the sum be included in the Estimates but that it would be spent for the purpose for which it was in the Estimates.

Being a comparative newcomer to these things, I am naturally optimistic and fairly confident about people. I should have thought that if the sum was in the Estimates the job probably would be done. However, probably the hon. Member is correct in thinking that until one sees the job completed it is optimistic to make assumptions.

I agree with the hon. and gallant Member. He will appreciate that the sum has already been in the Estimates and has been taken out again. All I am suggesting is that not only does he want the sum included in the Estimates but he wants the money spent.

I well understand the comparison that the hon. and gallant Member made. It must be difficult for people who live in the area to watch the tremendous expenditure going on in respect of other buildings. The Minister rightly said that that was not the responsibility of the Government or of a Government Department But it is difficult for the old people to understand how these considerable sums can be spent on other buildings while this comparatively small sum cannot be found for the purpose which we are discussing.

I can only hope, along with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that as a result of this short Adjournment debate the project will be hurried forward and that the Minister and all the Departments concerned will be able to find the extra £80,000 or £130,000—there seems to be some dispute about What the total sum will be—'When they next come to make their decisions about future buildings in this service.