May I remind the House that I have prepared a carefully timed programme and that debates must not overlap into the time allocated to other hon. Members.

I am grateful for the chance of raising today two points which rightly concern those who, in the past, have served the Crown overseas. The first applies to the few who switched, at the request of the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, from direct to quasi-governmental service and are therefore now treated almost as second-class citizens. The second point concerns all who have served in developing countries of the Commonwealth and are anxious, especially if they live abroad, about their own future pensions and those of their widows.

They are also worried over the delay and expense of reclaiming Income Tax whether or not there is a double taxation agreement. The Minister will have noticed that 88 hon. Members have signed Motion No. 47 in my name and that of hon. Members on both sides of the House—

That this House, whilst welcoming the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Pensions (Increase) Bill in the present session of Parliament, urges that the opportunity be taken to include provision for payment of supplements to those overseas pensioners who were recruited on overseas terms of service for territories under the jurisdiction and control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and were subject to Colonial Regulations, yet because their employment was of a quasi-governmental nature are not held to have served under the Government of an overseas territory, and are therefore denied a supplement, and widows of these officers are likewise penalised despite the fact that all contributions towards widows' pensions were paid into a scheme embracing all officers recruited from overseas.

and that a further 57 have signed Motion No. 42 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower)—

That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government for early action to increase the pensions of those former colonial servants whose pensions have not benefited from increases granted by successive Pensions (Increase) Acts.

However, my hon. Friend's Motion, which asks for early action to increase pensions of former colonial servants who have not benefited from the increases of successive Pensions (Increase) Acts can only apply, I believe to those who have retired since 1st April, 1964, or who live abroad. The United Kingdom Government have accepted responsibility for pensions paid by former British dependent territories and pay the same cost of living increase to retired pensioners and their widows after deducting any increases given by overseas Governments as they pay to retired United Kingdom civil servants, and they also make that payment when a Government such as Tanzania defaults. But some are still left out, and I appeal to the Minister to look again at the limited number, probably fewer than 200, who have a genuine grievance.

I am not dealing with those ex-colonial civil servants who have been recruited locally, nor with those who were directly recruited overseas by a local authority in the Colonies, with the possible exception of no more than eight people who received pensions in respect of their service with the Lagos Town Council, when that was part of the then Nigerian Government's Administration. I am appealing only for those recruited directly from overseas to become members of the then Colonial Service and who were promised that, as colonial institutions evolved and they took up quasi-governmental appointments, they would not have to suffer.

Those for whom I appeal served in such establishments as the Achimota College, the Nigerian Coal Corporation, or the Interterritorial Service of West Africa, which included the Institute of Trypanosomyassis, the Cocoa Research Institute in Ghana, and the Palm Oil Research Centre near Benin. These are the forgotten few. I asked on 16th December whether the Minister would tell me

"… the number of pensioners who were engaged from overseas and not locally and who are in receipt of pensions in respect of their service with quasi-Government bodies in the ex-colonial territories … and what estimate he has made of the cost of paying them supplements as laid down in the 1962 and 1965 Pensions (Increase) Acts."

The Parliamentary Secretary said:

"I have not sufficient information on which to base reliable estimates of the numbers of these pensioners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 549.]

As to the cost, he referred to a reply which he had given to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine)—who I am delighted to see here today, since he and I have had several campaigns about overseas civil pensioners over many years—and that answer was that the cost would be probably about £1 million. Why £1 million, if the Minister does not know the numbers? It might be £50,000 or much more than a £1 million. How can he make that calculation? After consulting the Overseas Service Pensioners Association, my guess that under 200 people are involved must, it seems to me, be as good a guess as his.

May I take the case of those who served the Nigeria Coal Corporation. I have here a photostat of a letter written on 10th December, 1952, to Mr. J. M. Moran, the colliery manager of Obwetti Mine, which encloses a memorandum. It is on this memorandum that I largely base my case and the case of similar organisations.

The memorandum says:

"With the formation of the Nigerian Coal Corporation it was reasonable for Government to expect that the majority of officers on the established staff of Government employed in the Colliery Department would be willing to accept transfer to the service of the Corporation. Officers accepting transfer to the Corporation will want to feel assured that their service with the Corporation will in no respects be less attractive than if they had remained in Government service. The Corporation has no intention of inviting officers to transfer to its service with the loss of any rights or benefits to which their service with Government entitles them, and the terms and conditions offered provide for service with the Corporation to be in no respect less favourable than it would be with Government in similar circumstances."

Later, the memorandum says:

"The Corporation will preserve the personal right of each transferred officer to the continued enjoyment of salary rates not less favourable than those he would have enjoyed had he remained in the service of Government."

Later still, it says:

"The Corporation also undertakes that in the event of its departing from Government principles relating to those conditions of employment it will, if requested so to do by any officer, seek the advice of the Government on what that officer's entitlement would be if he were still in Government employment and will apply to that officer conditions in that respect not less favourable than those he would have enjoyed had he remained in Government employment."

Finally, it says:

"The Corporation will establish a Pensions Scheme modelled on that contained in the Pensions Ordinance, 1951. It is the intention of the Government to schedule the Coal Corporation under Regulation 8 of the Pensions Regulations made under that Ordinance in order to ensure that pensionable officers transferred to the service of the Coal Corporation will, on retirement in circumstances entitling them to a pension, receive the same benefits as those which they would have been awarded had their whole service been with the Government."

I submit that nothing could be more explicit. If the Government defaulted on that, would they ever be believed again?

I accept that these people are getting their basic pensions, but those in Government service are getting supplements as well because of the failure of overseas Governments to pay cost of living increases. The British Government have taken action to give those who remained in Government service a supplement and have acknowledged responsibility for 95 per cent., perhaps even more, of the overseas civil servants. Why, then, are they penalising this 5 per cent.?

May I quote from the letter of 29th May, 1968, from the Ministry to Mr. Moran:

"For the purposes of the above-named acts your basic pension is considered to be the portion of your pension which is paid by the Federal Government of Nigeria only, as you cannot be certified as an 'overseas officer' under these acts for service which is not directly under an overseas Government, such as service with the Nigerian Coal Corporation.

It is regretted, therefore, that the portion of your pension deriving from your service with the Nigerian Coal Corporation has to be excluded from the calculations to determine your eligibility to supplementary payments from United Kingdom funds under the above-mentioned acts."

But even that is wrongly calculated. Mr. Moran receives £649 10s., of which £397 is paid by the Government, on which Her Majesty's Government pay increases, and £252 10s. from the Corporation, on which he receives no supplement. He had 173 months Government service and 46 months Corporation service. As his pension represents a fraction of final salary multiplied by total wages, ½ ⅞ ¾ of his pension arises from Government service, namely, £513 and only from Corporation service, or £106 10s.

The final affront to honour was the letter which the Parliamentary Secretary wrote on 25th June this year. He explained:

"Mr. X alleges that the British Government is party to a broken promise but I cannot accept this. It is true that the Nigerian Coal Corporation promised officers when inviting them to transfer to its service in 1952 that their terms and conditions of service would be no less favourable than if they remained in Government service but, quite obviously, this promise can have no relevance to pension supplements which had not then been thought of by the British Government and were introduced in 1963 as direct payments from British funds."

Are Her Majesty's Government really saying for the world to hear that whenever we promise that A will always have equal rights with B it must be understood that if circumstances change or if we have new ideas we will not keep that bargain? If they are really saying that, who will ever believe the word of the Government again?

But they have already accepted half of my case by giving full supplements to those who were recruited to Achimota College while it was a Government Department and the employees of the East Africa Railways and Harbours Administration are eligible for supplements and receive them. Why should not similar consideration be given to those who served in West Africa, who paid into the same widows' pension fund as members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service and who, seeing that the widows of those who served in Ceylon now receive their pensions in depreciated rupees, are worried about their widows? They are particularly worried about what may hap- pen to their partial pensions should an overseas corporation default. If Her Majesty's Government refuse them supplements, will they repudiate the pensions, too?

I come to a marginal case, that of the Lagos Town Council. I am told that the Council operated as the only first-class township in Nigeria under the Township's Ordinance which, as required, was approved by the Secretory of State. Between 1916 and 1938 overseas staff were recruited by the Crown Agents and employed by the Council in posts declared pensionable by the Governor in Council, with the sanction of the Secretary of State. Their retirement pensions were payable by the Lagos Town Council in accordance with the Government's Pension Ordinance and they contributed to the Government's Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Scheme.

About six retired officers and two widows survive, and they are excluded from any supplement because the service has been held not to be with the Government. Yet the Lagos Town Council was not permitted to pay salaries over the Government scale, and the Chairman of the Council was the Commissioner of the Colony even as late as 1950. Would the Minister check that employees of the Dares-Salaam Municipality, who were engaged overseas, prior to it becoming a city council are eligible for supplements.

Do not these problems show that, unlike all other ex-Imperial Powers, we have followed the wrong system of making our ex-colonies however ill-developed some of them may still be, openly shoulder a burden of pensions paid overseas to their old masters? Of course, the majority of them accept it and are grateful for the contribution and service given to their countries in the past by these pensioners, but where there is still a democracy it is not easy to argue the case in annual budget sessions. Tanzania found this, and defaulted.

Her Majesty's Government in lieu of pensions are giving to ex-Tanzanian civil servants—not that they served a country of that name—what is called an ex-gratia loan advance. Yet Income Tax is demanded on it here. Pensions are paid by the developing countries of the Commonwealth because they are signed, on achieving independence, a public officers' agreement. Why not re-negotiate these bilateral treaties and reduce aid accordingly? It would merely be a book entry. It would cost no more than our present level of aid, of which it might represent about 5 per cent. There is no need for us to re-negotiate with the rich countries, but, once this was done, both the pensioners and their widows would feel safe, even with Her Majesty's present Government in office. I realise that, on my second point, it will take some time to discuss the matter with the countries concerned.

In a Written Answer to me on 27th November, the Minister responsible for the Civil Service said:

"… the intention is that the Bill"—

that is, the proposed Pensions Increase Bill—

"should be enacted in time for the increases to pensioners or their dependents to be operative from 1st April next … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th November, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 117.]

Thus, in connection with my first point, would the Minister see if this small body of people can be included in the Bill? It is a small and annually diminishing body who have served this country well. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) may object to any action being taken which increases expenditure, even though it is morally right that we should do so. I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government will take the same view and allow these men to be forgotten.

rose —

Order. I remind the House that this debate must end at 12.15 p.m. I understand that the Front Bench speaker will intervene at 11.45 a.m. Mr. Clark.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) always raises these matters in the clearest possible way. I agreed with every word he said, and I will not repeat the points he made. I wish to concentrate on the more general aspect of the subject.

If one looks at the level of Colonial salaries in the past 50 years, one sees that a district officer recruited in 1912 received £350 a year. When I was re- cruited in 1950, my salary was fixed at £550 a year. Despite the intermission of two great wars, inflation had not proceeded at a particularly high level between those years. But from 1950 onwards both inflation and the rate of handing over to self-government proceeded at a rate which could not possibly have been anticipated by those who signed agreements to undertake service with colonial governments.

When one hears the sort of cases which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, has outlined, one must doubt whether the Colonial Offices' establishment officers who advised these people, and their successors under the Ministry of Overseas Development, appreciated the rate of devaluation that has gone on and both the speed and acceleration of speed of change which could not possibly have been anticipated even as late as 1955 and 1956.

The small number of people with whom we are now concerned must represent the most outstandingly unjust case of which the Overseas Pensioners Association knows. This Association is an admirable body of people who conduct their affairs in a quiet and sober manner. Nevertheless, they persuaded Sir James Robinson to sign individually 630 circulars to be sent to all hon. Members. That is a job which not many people would have undertaken lightly. They would certainly not have undertaken it unless they considered that the case was really worthwhile.

The case of the Neo-Government employees in West Africa is very serious indeed and I sincerely recommend the Minister to think again on this issue. I urge him to admit that perhaps we made a mistake and to tell the Treasury in no uncertain terms that they cannot use the old argument that a dangerous precedent might be created. It would be worth creating a precedent to set right one last sore thumb concerning colonial pensions, but few Colonies are left to which such a precedent might be extended.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree raised the question of pseudo pensions being paid to Tanganyikan ex-civil servants. I agree that when the crisis came and Tanganyika defaulted the Minister stepped in speedily and there was not much delay before money was forthcoming. So far so good. But the fact remains that pensions today-are being paid in devalued £s. That does not particularly affect pensioners in this country—except that the £s in their pockets have been devalued—but it represents a drop of 14 per cent. in value in the pensions paid to those who are living in countries whose currencies have not been devalued. Tanzania has been able to maintain parity, although we have had to devalue by 14 per cent. If, as may occur in, say, 12 months, we devalue by a further 10 per cent., are these pensioners to be worse off by 24 per cent.?

I know of a few senior officers still living in Tanzania—we should congratulate them for having taken that course—who have spent their lives serving in that country and who are finding great personal difficulty because of their pensions having been reduced in value by this amount.

I took this matter up with the Minister in the summer and on 4th September he wrote to me saying:

"In making arrangements for loan advances payments it was clearly not possible to have all the payments made initially in Tanzania and in Tanzanian currency."

That was an initial and emergency arrangement to deal with the sudden stoppage of payment by the Tanzanian Government. That was fair enough, but has the Minister now considered whether it is fair that this reduction in amount of pension continue? Should not we maintain the value of these pensions at the level that they would have been had the Tanzanian Government not defaulted?

The Minister went on in his letter to explain that Tanzanian residents involved in this matter do not have United Kingdom Income Tax deducted from their pensions. What a wonderful concession. However, a number of other Tanzanian pensioners living in other parts of the world and who do not even have bank accounts in this country still find that the Inland Revenue takes its pound of flesh before the meagre amounts which they receive are paid to them. Hardship is being caused. There is no question of the unjustness of the initial arrangements. If they are purely initial arrangements, the Minister can be forgiven, but he should put the matter right.

My next point may be slightly outside the general scope of the debate, but it is something to which I must refer. This is a question, not of British officers who have served overseas but of those who have served the British Government overseas. An old and trusted friend of mine writes:

"… I saw one Fadl Aassan Aulaqi who was formerly in the Aden Civil Service in which he served from 1955 to March, 1968. He was locally recruited and after Aden obtained its independence stayed on with the new South Yemen Government. In March this year he had his former British passport taken away and was given in place a South Yemen passport and told to leave the country at once. He accordingly sent his wife and five children back to the Northern part of South Yemen from which she came, and came over here to look for a job. … He has, of course, lost all his pension rights and in this respect is but one of many locally recruited Arabs who are in the same plight. I understand that H.M.G. has washed its hands of all responsibility for these servants of the Crown which, to say the least, seems iniquitous in view of the circumstances in which the control of power passed in Aden and South Arabia."

Not only British officers, but others, gave outstanding service, particularly in Aden.

The locally recruited officers in Aden who served the Government through very difficult times and who saw in the latter years that their future would be difficult, and nevertheless stuck loyally by the Colonial Government. We promised, I am quite certain, that they would be properly looked after. What have they got? They come to this country seeking jobs. Their pensions rights at home are taken away. In this sort of case the Minister must take firm and quick action, even though we are having certain difficulties in our present negotiations with the South Yemen Government.

In the House and elsewhere we keep on talking of the country's moral obligation to give aid to developing countries. We are meeting the obligation to the tune of about £200 million a year, and frequently talk of ways and means, and of the desirability, of increasing that sum. Have we not an equal, if not greater, moral obligation to those men who carried out development in those countries long before mass international aid was ever heard of?

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said and I suggest to the Minister that the Treasury should once and for all be tackled to take over these pensions and so free the ex-Colonial countries of this unpleasant burden. I should like to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) tell us firmly that a Conservative Government will have no hesitation in telling the Treasury that it must take over the burden of overseas pensions.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), with his usual courtesy, wrote to tell me that he would refer to me in this debate. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that because of an urgent telephone call a few moments ago I was not in the Chamber when he referred to me. As a result, I now have to guess what he said and seek to deal with it.

The Order Paper shows that to his Motion No. 47 I put an Amendment. If both were to be adopted by the House, my Amendment would make no difference at all to his Motion, as it seeks only to draw attention to some five, six or seven other similar cases. If all these cases were to be dealt with, I hope that the Tory Opposition would not, as they do every day of the week, say that they would attack the Government for wasteful expenditure.

The principle of the hon. Gentleman's Motion is correct. All these people who are deserving of help ought to be helped. I want the Government to spend all they can on these well deserving people, and all others, such as the railway super-annuitants. I would like to see more Government expenditure on vehicles for the disabled and help for the old-age pensioners—

Order. With respect, I think that we will keep to this present subject.

I am trying to explain, Mr. Speaker, that while I am in favour of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion I see difficulties in operating it. If the Government were to implement his plea, and deal with all the other dozens of well deserving cases, there would be a very heavy bill. I must make it clear that I am not now singling out the hon. Gentleman's Motion—I have put down Amendments to other similar Motions on the Order Paper. I am only talking about the cost. For instance I should like to see the Government do something for the old-age pensioners whose television licences have gone up.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) hopes that if a Tory Government come back they will deal with this present matter as a moral obligation. I do not dissent but, unfortunately, Governments do break promises. That applies not only to this Government but to previous Governments. I recollect, Mr. Speaker, as you may do, the pledge made more than 20 years ago that post-war credits would be repaid after the war—

Order. I have chosen the topic for debate, and the hon. Gentleman must keep to it.

This is relevant to the discussion, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman referred to promises, and I am trying to explain the difficulties. He spoke of moral obligations and I agree that there are moral obligations, and I was using as an analogy the fact that though the parties which formed the Coalition during the War faithfully pledged themselves to repay post-war credits, once the war was over we have found that that obligation was not, and never has been met. You and I, Mr. Speaker will probably have long beards by the time that pledge is implemented.

On coming to power, Governments either forget promises or find that they cannot implement them. The hon. Member for Antrim, North expressed the hope that his Front Bench will pledge that if the Tories get back to power they will implement this present obligation, but I have been in the House long enough to know that what is said when in Opposition can be very different from what is said when in Government. I mean no disrespect to him when I say that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) may give a pledge with no thought of seeking to mislead the House but speaking in all good faith, but what will probably happen is that if the party opposite comes to power they will say, "We did not know the facts.

The figures or the circumstances have changed so that we cannot now honour our pledge. We will do it one day—perhaps next year or the year after."

I am in favour of my right hon. Friend having a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order that the money may be found to help all the well deserving cases mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's Motion and in all the other similar Motions. If he does that, I hope that the Tories will tell their leaders that they must stop this campaign about the Government's using money on wasteful things. This money must be found, and if it is the Tories must stop this attack upon the Government, who will be trying to do the right thing for the well-deserving cases which have been referred to.

As we shall be rising in a few hours, Mr. Speaker, and as this is the season of good will, I hope that I shall be in order if, on behalf of all hon. Members, I wish you and your staff an enjoyable Christmas and a restful Recess.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised the subject of Colonial pensioners. He and I have had a long association, over many years, in dealing with the interests of the Overseas Civil Service. Over 14 years ago we saw the shape of things to come in the Commonwealth and led an agitation from the back benches for a reform of the structure of the then Colonial Service. The creation of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service went only half way to what we wanted.

The dilemma was that as Colonial Territories neared independence they needed, paradoxically, more expatriate advisers and help than they did before, and the problem was how to persuade them in a situation where they were working themselves out of one job to stay on and do another.

I remember saying in the House, as long as 10 years ago, that

"The colonial civil servant is much more than an ambassador for this country. He is forging the links in a chain of understanding, trust and friendship which alone can ensure that the Commonwealth, of which Britain is only a part, can endure. On the quality of their leadership, on the example they set and the confidence they inspire, will depend whether the new self-governing States of the Commonwealth decide to stay within the family circle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1958; Vol. 580, c. 967.]

That is what we felt at the time. All the self-governing States created since then have in fact remained within the family circle. I therefore join with my hon. Friends in saying that this country, as well as the newly-independent countries of the Commonwealth, owe a great deal to the men about whom we are speaking.

I am aware of the argument that responsibility for the pensions of former servants of overseas Governments should, in logic and fairness, rest with their former employers and not with Her Majesty's Government. I also recognise that the vast majority of Commonwealth Governments have continued to honour their obligations to their former servants. But the right hon. Gentleman himself, from time to time, has expressed some doubt on the question whether this system is valid in present circumstances. On 26th July of this year he said:

"As to whether this is right or wrong in principle, it is very difficult to be certain. … I think that if we were starting anew to make a decision about what would be right most of us would take the view that we ought to follow the practice of other ex-colonial Powers and assume the pension burden ourselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July. 1968; Vol. 769, c. 1251.]

He went on to explain that he had inherited a system that had been in existence for many years.

We should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman's further thinking on the subject is, and whether a current survey is being made of the whole overseas pension position, especially in relation to our aid programme. In the sense that all these men once served the Crown, and were recruited and trained in this country, there is at least an obligation upon us to see that they are treated in uniform fashion. After hearing the powerful speech deployed by my hon. Friend and Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark), I find it very difficult to see any justification for a situation in which certain categories of such pensioners are ineligible for supplements under the Pensions (Increase) Acts.

My hon. Friend mentioned a number of cases. He quoted the case of the former employees of the Nigerian Coal Corporation, the Achimota College and the Lagos Town Council. There may be many others. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us how many people are involved, and how widespread the problem is. My hon. Friend's examples were restricted almost wholly to West Africa.

My hon. Friend made the serious charge that in the case of the Nigerian Coal Corporation assurances were given to officers which have not been kept. My information is that the Corporation, when inviting officers to transfer to its service in 1952, promised them that their terms and conditions of service would be no less favourable than if they had remained in Government service. Yet this has not applied to the supplements to pensions for some years. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government intend to honour this assurance by granting those who served the Corporation the full supplement in the coming Pensions (Increase) Bill. I also ask the Government whether they will make good any default by the Corporation as they would make good any default by an overseas Government.

I take the point raised by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis.) I shall not rise to his bait. All I say is that we are largely in the dark on this question, and it is difficult for us to take up a position until we have much more information. The purpose of my intervention therefore is to obtain as much information as I can from the right hon. Gentleman.

Surely the hon. Member can go further than that. It is not a question of bait; it is a question of fact. The Tories are continually complaining that the Government are guilty of wasteful expenditure. All I am saying is that if the Minister gives way in this case, whatever expenditure is involved, may we have an assurance that the Tories will cease the practice of clamouring about wasteful Government expenditure? Whatever sum is given, it must be Government expenditure.

I shall not be drawn down that path. If I were so tempted you would quickly point out, Mr. Speaker, that we have only a limited time.

There are several ways in which this problem could be tackled. My hon. Friend asked whether we should consider dealing with the pensions of expatriate officers by taking the money involved into account when settling our aid programme. This is a large subject on its own, and I do not intend to pursue it now. But before any of us ask the right hon. Gentleman to enter into any further commitments involving expenditure, the House is entitled to know how many people are involved and, what estimate of cost the Government have formed in this regard. If the hon. Member had been in his place at Question Time during the last year he would have known that we have repeatedly pressed the Government to reveal their hand in this respect.

So I ask again, what estimate have the Government made of the total cost of granting supplements to overseas pensioners whose pensions are paid by overseas Governments but who are at present ineligible for supplement? In answer to my Question earlier this month the Parliamentary Secretary said that about 16,500 people were concerned. Is this the total figure? Are the Government satisfied that all the categories about whom we have spoken this morning are included in that figure?

I also press for an answer to my Question as to

"the number of overseas pensioners who were recruited by the Colonial Office or the Crown Agents who are ineligible for supplements under the Pensions (Increase) Acts."

The Parliamentary Secretary answered me in this way:

"I have not sufficient information on which to base a reliable estimate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 548.]

That is a far from satisfactory answer. I do not wish to detain the House, because this is an important subject and we are all anxious to hear what the Minister has to say. He has acquired—justly—a reputation for frank and fair speaking. We respect him for this. I therefore trust that he will be able to give us a very frank and clear answer.

Mr. Speaker, may I begin—out of order—by following the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) in wishing you and the staff of the House all the very best for Christmas and the New Year.

I am very glad that we have had a debate on this subject this morning. We are talking about a group of people who performed a very considerable service, both to Britain and to the countries in which they were working. To say that, with all the emphasis at our command, is not in itself to be taken as an apology for colonialism. Many of us think that the colonial period was in many ways one of an unhealthy relationship between nations. I have always taken that view. During chat period many thousands of people, performing all kinds of jobs, rendered great service to the countries in which they were working and also to Britain. Therefore, the House is quite properly sensitive to the way in which we deal with these people, including the pensions for those who have retired or the pensions for the widows and dependants for those who have died.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) speaks with a great deal of authority in this matter. He knows a great deal about it. He has an association, as Vice-President, with the Overseas Service Pensioners Association, and he brings a great deal of concern to this subject. I thank him for his courtesy in informing me of the main points he intended to raise in this debate. This gave me the chance to consider them with particular care.

The House knows that a Bill to increase pension supplements will shortly be laid before it. I confirm the Answer which was recently given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Wavertree, that the effective date for the increase in pension supplements will be 1st April, 1969. This applies to many categories of pensioners—people who gave service in Britain, as well as Overseas Service pensioners who qualify for supplements at present.

The hon. Gentleman was very persuasive in first concentrating his argument on a very small category of people. He was persuasive on the merits of the case. He said that these people had been recruited by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and later transferred to other bodies which were not directly part of the Government machine. The hon. Gentleman was persuasive in the sense that he was speaking about a small number of people and his proposal as it stood would therefore have only a small financial effect.

I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's case, but I have nothing more tangible than sympathy to offer him today. I am sorry about that. I feel slightly in the rô le of Ebenezer Scrooge at this time of year; and I do not like that.

I want to explain to the House why I think that I am bound to adhere to the line which was drawn originally by the Conservative Government in 1962 and followed by them and by the present Government ever since, the line being that only service under the Crown qualifies for pension supplements.

May I examine for a few moments exactly what happened to the officers who transferred to the Nigerian Coal Corporation. I take this example because the hon. Gentleman took it, and it is an example of a number of other cases. The officers concerned were first seconded to the Corporation. During the period of secondment, they were still employees of the Crown. I am advised that the period of secondment with the Corporation was for an initial period of two years. In the case of other bodies in West Africa and elsewhere, the period may have been different from two years, but I think that the procedure was followed in some such fashion.

During the period of secondment, these officers were offered a choice of transferring to the Corporation or of reverting to the service of the Crown. It is fair to say that they were encouraged to transfer, because this was the job they were doing and the job that everyone wished them to continue to do. Nevertheless, they had this choice. Anyone who exercised the choice of reverting to Crown service would be found suitable employment, if it were available; or, if not, there was the possibility of being retired prematurely on enhanced pension terms.

With that went the conditions the hon. Gentleman has quoted—that anyone who agreed to transfer to the Corporation would enjoy the same conditions he enjoyed in Crown service, that this would include entitlement to pension, and the pension scheme would be modelled on the pension scheme for Crown servants. All this is clear and not in dispute.

The example we are quoting is of something that happens fairly often throughout the world. It happens in this country. It happens, perhaps, when there is a takeover of a firm, or when a firm is nationalised, or when there is a change of employer. When people make a transfer from one employer to another, it is often a condition that they do not suffer loss of any benefits that they enjoy in their old employment.

From the date on which they have transferred surely the position is this. On the one hand, they will enjoy any new benefits that accrue to them from their new employer whether these arise in salary or in improvements in pension conditions, or whatever they may be. On the other hand, they will not enjoy any new benefits that have accrued in their old sphere of employment in which they are no longer working.

In other words, a man in choosing to make this transfer takes on a whole package of pros and cons of one employment as against the other. I repeat that he does not have a claim if some new benefit arises which he would have had in his old employment and which occurs after he has transferred. This applies to the pensions supplements introduced in 1962, several years after these officers transferred from Government service to the service of the Corporation.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the position so clearly. However, it is terribly unfair, in that the Government-sponsored Corporation promised that if these officers transferred from the Government service to the Corporation they would be no worse off in future.

The Minister has very eloquently quoted cases that occur in this country from time to time. Those employed in the business and private enterprise commercial world perhaps accept its cut and thrust and receive rather higher benefits. One of the reasons why people went into the Overseas Service was, above all else, that though in most cases the salary would be small their jobs and positions were thought to be secure. People accepted very low salaries mainly because the Government offered what everybody thought was security.

Order. The hon. Gentleman can make only one speech.

I think that I understand the points made by the hon. Members. I sympathise with them and see their validity, but I am bound to make the counter-argument that I made just now to try to convince them that the case of this small number of officers—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree estimated them at perhaps less than 200—is no different in essence from that of many others who worked in the colonies in all kinds of jobs.

Therefore, the real choice which faced the previous Government, and which faces the present Government and the House, is whether to draw the line where it is, and say that pension supplements are available for those who have been in Crown service or to have a much wider definition. Of course, the officers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred get a pension supplement for that period they spent in Crown service. The hon. Gentleman argued this morning for a very small category and said that he did not intend to extend it to others. But possibly he would do so in the future if this small category were included. If he did not, others would. There would be a powerful argument. For instance, if those who worked for the Nigerian Coal Corporation got pension supplements for the whole of their service in Nigeria, whether under the Crown or under the Corporation, what would be the case for refusing supplements to those who spent their whole career with the Corporation and were recruited directly by it? A man would say, "I did the same job as my colleague for the same pay and under the same conditions. Why does he get a pension supplement while I do not?"

If one extended it to the group of organisations defined by the hon. Gentleman, what about the much larger number of other bodies in the Commonwealth? If the Lagos Town Council, why not other municipalities all over the Commonwealth? If the Nigerian Coal Corporation, why not other statutory bodies dealing with mining, water supply, electricity or whatever it might be? This is how the figures of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary were reached. The hon. Gentleman referred to Questions about the numbers involved. His Question of 16th December asked whether we could show in table form the number of pensioners engaged overseas but not engaged locally. In other words the whole category of people to whom I have just referred who were working for local authorities or statutory undertakings, but were not directly under the Crown. He wanted details Colony by Colony. My hon. Friend said in reply that we did not have that information, which is the case. It is not our responsibility to have it. We do not accept the responsibility to pay pension supplements, and therefore we have not got it in this form. If we had given an answer it would have been a guess, and we were asked not for a guess but for precise information in table form.

In his Question of 5th December, the hon. Gentleman asked what estimate we had mad; of the cost of granting supplements. The estimate we gave was, "Probably about £1 million." It was based on a guess that probably about 5,000 people were involved, and we assumed a supplement averaging £200 a year for each. I think that the figure of about £1 million is, if anything, an underestimate rather than an overestimate. Even then, the argument would proceed to further categories. A large number of people worked as teachers, doctors, nurses and in many other capacities in the colonies. Many were recruited by missionary societies under all kinds of arrangements with the Governments in those territories. They gave service there, and might argue that they have as good a claim as other categories. Beyond that there are those who worked for private enterprise organisations. They may or may not be receiving a good pension from the firms who employed them but there are many thousands of them who gave service in those territories.

Therefore, the real question of policy is whether there should be a major extension to anyone who gave service in the territories or whether we should stick to the definition decided by the Government of which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree was a member, and draw the line as between those who served under the Crown and those who served in other capacities.

I am not sure that the Government knew of the promises I have quoted when that line was drawn. Could the right hon. Gentleman say why he has accepted my argument already in the case of Achimota to those who were directly recruited as members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service or the old Colonial Service and in the case of the East African Railways? Would he also comment on the Dar-es-Salaam municipality?

In the case of Achimota, the people to whom we have agreed to pay pension supplements in full were compulsorily transferred without an option, and were given a specific guarantee related to that compulsory transfer in much more definite terms about future benefits than those the hon. Gentleman quoted in relation to the Nigerian Coal Corporation. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about Dar-es-Salaam, as I have not got all the information he asked for with me. I shall also write to him about the personal position of Mr. Moran. He gave the House a certain amount of arithmetic, and it was one of those occasions when we wished we had a blackboard in the Chamber. I shall also write to him about the specific question of the eight pensioners in regard to the Lagos Town Council, not because I want to avoid such issues but because I do not want to take too long and on this occasion the House should deal with the main points of principle rather than too much detail.

My conclusion, therefore, is that there is a broad choice before us, as there always has been, and that it is right in the present circumstances to stick to the original definition. In view of the public expenditure and economic position this is not a time when we can extend the frontiers of our expenditure. I hope that I have shown that it would be a major extension and not the minor one the hon. Gentleman has said. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that hon. Members opposite have the endearing habit—I shall not put it more strongly, for one does not want to engage in too much controversy at Christmas—of suggesting more expenditure on everything in particular and less expenditure in general. They must occasionally be brought face to face with the need to do their sums on such issues.

My right hon. Friend puts it more politely than I do. Is not the main plank of the Tories' alternative policy that they would cut Government expenditure?

It is, and I assure my hon. Friend that I have made this point publicly many times much less politely than I do this morning.

The same broad arguments apply to what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) about people who were locally recruited to service in the colonies. The line taken by the previous Government and this Government is that the responsibility rests with the Government for whom they were working. If the British Government were to take over this liability, it would be a very large liability extending to many thousands of people all over the world. I have no means of assessing how many people would be involved. I do not think that this is something which, in financial terms, could be undertaken by this country at present, even if it were right in the past—and the then Conservative Government decided that it was not right.

There seems to me to be a difference between whether one insists on pension increases and whether these people get no pension at all, as in Aden. We must use every means we have to ensure that the Southern Yemen Government take up these responsibilities.

During the discussions which we had with the Southern Yemen Government some months ago, this was one of the points urged on them very strongly by the British representative. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they have repudiated this liability.

The other main issue raised by the hon. Members for Wavertree and Essex, South-East was one which we have debated before, particularly on 26th July, namely, whether there should be a transfer of responsibility for overseas pensions from overseas Governments to the British Government. I am now talking about basic pensions, and not the supplements. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East quoted what I said in our last debate on this matter. I accept that what he said was a fair statement of my view, and it remains my view. The arguments are very evenly balanced.

On the one hand, it is fair to argue that the officers concerned worked in and for a particular country and that their services benefited that country. On assuming independence, the new Government took over the assets and liabilities of the colonial ré gime, and the liabilities properly should include the payment of pensions to ex-colonial civil servants. That has been the position of successive British Governments, and it is the position of this Government. All that I was saying—and I have no reason to modify what I have said in the past—was that, looking back on the decisions made in the past, one wonders whether they were right. Other ex-colonial powers came to a different decision.

The arguments the other way are equally well known. There is a resentment about levying taxes on the people of a poor country struggling to develop itself in order to maintain the middle class British standards of life of people who have retired and are now living in this country.

Whatever the merits of past decisions, we now have to decide whether it would be beneficial to make a change. We must consider the effects of change. I do not think that there would be any real effect on the pensioners, except in one or two marginal cases, but, broadly speaking, as the hon. Member acknowledged, if there has been default, the British Government have taken care of the pensioners.

What is much more in my mind is the effect on the developing countries. I think it would distort the pattern of aid as between countries. About 20 per cent. of the pension burden which we would assume would be in relation to countries either getting no aid or very little aid from us, or only temporary aid—for example, Singapore, which is getting special aid in relation to the military withdrawal. If we took over the whole burden and took it off the aid programme, it would be not a book entry; it would be much more serious. But it might distort the pattern. We would have to consider whether we could make a straight transfer and take the money off capital aid which is in the form of loans. This would be equivalent to giving a grant which would be difficult.

If we took it off technical assistance, what sort of technical assistance? One could not send home students who were in the middle of their courses, and one would not want to withdraw technical assistance personnel during the term of their service. The practical problems are very considerable, and I am forced to the conclusion that, on balance, a change of this kind would be damaging to development and therefore would have adverse effects on the people in the countries which we are trying to assist through our aid programme.

I remind the House that the debates are strictly timed. The debate which is about to take place will end at exactly 1 o'clock.

The title of this debate is the prevention of flooding, which may be considered by some to be a somewhat inappropriate title for the problem of flooding, since it may be asked how one prevents flooding, which is an act of God. "Act of God" is a legal term which is clearly defined in our law. If something happens as a result of an act of nature which is completely unforeseeable, that is an act of God. But if it happens time and again, it is no longer an act of God; it is an act of negligence on the part of those who have to control the forces of nature, because it is clearly foreseeable. The question then arises whether the cost of prevention is balanced by the risk involved. The problem of flooding has reached the stage at which we must now consider the latter question.

No one representing my constituency can be unaware of the problems of flooding. York is built on an alluvial plain which has been subject to flooding for centuries. The people in my constituency have grown almost used to the occurrence of flooding at regular periods. Any visitor to the constituency who sees the walls around York may think that they are not fully intact. There are large gaps in the walls where in the Middle Ages the whole area was marshland. Now that the water table has fallen and the area is dry, it looks as thought there is a breach in the walls.

What impressed me recently at one of my "surgeries" when I was considering a constituency case was that the incidence of flooding has increased both in regularity and in gravity. Since this is the pattern throughout the country, I have asked for this debate—and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of raising this subject—so that we can consider the policy on preventing flooding.

The case to which I refer came from an elderly lady who had lived in her little bungalow in York for 10 years. For the first eight years she had never been flooded from the beck which runs at the bottom of her garden. Over the last two years, on about 25 nights, she has tried to bail out the water which was rising under her floorboards. She was in indifferent health, and this constant worry about whether her home would be flooded when she went to bed was causing grave damage to her health.

There, in a simple case, is both the poignancy and the suffering caused by flooding. This is not a case of stark, grave headlines about people who have lost their lives or their homes. This is the constant pattern of life for those subject to this problem. Since the incidence of flooding is increasing, this problem must be faced.

The purpose of this debate is to ask the Government to appoint a Departmental committee or some other committee to consider the present threat of flooding, the measures which might be taken to prevent the threat, and the cost of alternative measures. Clearly cost is a relevant factor. It has been said that we can prevent any floods if we are prepared to spend the money, and it may be that the country cannot afford to put this matter very high in its order of priorities. It ought also to be done as the result of a careful cost-benefit analysis. Land in our main urban centres which is constantly subjected to flooding is so expensive that it is a matter of concern to the areas that it cannot be used for building. It would benefit them considerably to know that the threat of flooding had been avoided except at the most excessive peak periods.

One of the difficulties is that statistics are not readily available. When the problem again arose in October, I wrote to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and his letter—I hope I do not do him an injustice—suggested that he knows all and sees all but can do "nowt" about it—nothing that would be material to preventing the scale of flooding which occurred in York in October.

However, judging by the kind of information that I have obtained since taking an interest in the matter, it seems that there is a paucity of information about the degree of rainfall and the effects of alternative forms of flood prevention in different areas. I therefore have to rely on the figures for York, which I know, but it is clearly part of my case that, if a committee were appointed, it would be able to assemble statistics so that the nation would know and be able to judge. It is not sufficient for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to have the information. It is important that the country should also be able to judge what the threat is and what would be the cost of removing it, and it should be able to judge what order of priorities this should have in our public expenditure.

In York the river has risen 9 ft. above the summer level 53 times in the last 10 years. That indicates that the problem is not caused by the degree of rainfall. The number of times it has so risen in the individual years over the 10-year period is completely haphazard, and this is borne out by statistics that I have obtained from the Registrar-General's return and the Meteorological Office, which indicate that the pattern of rainfall in Great Britain over the past 10 years has not been markedly different in average from that between 1916 and 1950. The average over that period was 904 millimetres per annum, and, since then, while the figures have occasionally been higher and occasionally lower, the average has been about the same. All that goes to indicate that it is not the quantity of rain which necessarily causes the flooding.

Much more significant in the York figures is that, out of the 53 occasions when the river rose more than 9 ft., it rose above 13 ft.—this is the danger level, when houses are flooded—on seven occasions. In the years up to 1965 the river rose twice—once in three years—and from 1963 to 1965 once in two years to a height of more than 13 ft., but in 1965, 1966 and 1967 it rose above 13 ft. each year, and this year, for the first time for as long as I and most of my constituents can recollect—I suspect that it is probably unique—it rose above 13 ft.—indeed, about 14 ft. 5 in.—twice in the year. So over the years since 1958 the water has risen more than 13 ft. seven times, and of those seven occasions five were in the last three years, and of those five occasions two were in the last year.

I suggest that the problem is aggravated by the degree of run-off from the land. If water falls on ordinary agricultural or country land where there is no drainage, it tends to hold in the soil for a period and trickle through, and so the build-up in the rivers is not so quick. But as the result of the degree of drainage carried out in urban areas and on motorways and new roads—country roads are now being provided with drains so that the water does not run off into the land alongside—we are getting to a situation where the water can be in the river minutes or, at the most, hours after heavy rainfall.

Therefore, I submit that the cause is not that there has been an unusually high degree of rainfall but that we have now reached the situation where we are dealing quickly with the problem of getting rid of the rain and it is going into rivers which have been inadequately protected against a quick build-up of water. It is this which I believe is a major part of the problem. The Ministry believes that this is only a minor part of the problem; it recognises that it is a part but only a minor part. It says that, land drainage having been extended, we have dried out the land so that it is able to receive water and hold it for a longer period, so that the water does not just soak through waterlogged land. I do not accept this. I am no expert, but it seems to me, as a layman, that it is somewhat incredible. This is one of the things that I want a committee to consider. If land is not drained properly, it will dry out over the summer or over a period of dry weather, and water will, therefore, go through it in the same way as if it had been drained. The nature of drainage means that water will be removed from the land far more quickly in times of peak rainfall, and, in my view, this is causing much of the problem.

I should like to provide measures of flood prevention which will deal with this quick build-up, and I would provide them in relation to the amount of drainage that has been carried out in the area. Clearly, that requires information and a political policy about equating the amount of money spent on flood prevention with the amount of money spent on drainage. It might mean that those who want the drainage have to pay an appropriately higher rate towards the measure of flood prevention to protect other people living elsewhere who will suffer as a result of the increased drainage. All that can be done only by a properly constituted committee with power to make such decisions or recommendations.

The problem in York, for example, is that the river collects water from a vast catchment area to the north and has to pass through a narrow gap formed by the river banks in the city. There are catchment areas on the plain itself which are known as wash lands. These are areas where the river can easily overflow its banks. The water can be held on this land for a little while. I should like to see a series of balancing reservoirs up the river from York to the point where the river rises.

My hon. Friend has indicated to me in a letter that this is a possibility only up in the hills, at the uttermost point of the river. This is because, I suppose, the topography of the area and the contours would allow dams to be built there but not lower down. But he misunderstands my point. I would like to see an extension of the wash land on the low point up the river. By building embankments at the side of the wash land one could raise the level of the water that could be stored there. By diverting some of the water off the river for a period and then letting it through sluice-gates, it could be released back into the river at controlled intervals so that one would be better able to control the flow than is possible at the moment.

I was attracted to this idea by a report by the Civic Trust in York, which suggested that the nearest wash land to York, at Clifton Ings, to the north, could be turned into a marina for boating if it were flooded. This idea could be used also for flood control. This great wash land is secured, to some extent, by an embankment carrying a road which also leads to a bridge across the river. If this could be extended further around the washland, so that the whole area could be higher for the reception of water, and possibly, even, if it could be dug out so that the depth of the lake could be lowered, one would have a greater capacity to hold the water.

It is true that this in itself would not materially affect the degree of flooding in York. It would hold some of the water but it would not be enough when one is considering heights of 14 ft. 6 ins., which we have had this year. What is required is a series of such works up the river. The question is, is it worth it? Is it not better simply to pull down the 200 houses which are regularly flooded?

Of course, those in the 200 houses on the whole would prefer to keep their houses, and the unfortunate thing is that the problem is spreading. Whereas only 200 houses in working-class areas were affected and were in any case at one stage due for slum clearance, flooding is now reaching new estates of bungalows and semi-detached houses on which people have taken out mortgages, and they are not to be easily persuaded that one could simply knock down their homes. If this incidence is to increase, will we have to remove a large number of my constituents from their homes in order to compensate for not flooding agricultural areas higher up the river? I recognise that a question of balance is involved. If we extend the wash land, it will impinge on someone's land. But which is worse—to flood homes in urban areas or flood land higher up which is used for agriculture?

I would not want to make that decision on my own. That is why I want a committee, a discussion about a policy, a rational political policy for a problem that is not unique to my area but is general throughout the country. The floods of the last few years have been caused not by excessive incidence of rain but, in my view, by excessive incidence of drainage and failure to take appropriate remedial action. It is that which I want to try to remedy. I realise that this is a long-term policy, so the sooner we get on with it the better.

I repeat that I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter, and I conclude by wishing "Happy Christmas", not only to you, Mr. Speaker, but to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that, if Christmas is wet, it will not be because water is coming up through the floorboards.

I remind hon. Members that the Minister will rise at 12.45 p.m. to reply.

The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) for this debate. Not many of us are present for it but it is, nevertheless, a subject well worth debating. My hon. Friend's was an exceptional speech which I followed throughout. It was cogently argued and I shall return to some of the points he raised.

Reports have been issued recently about possibilities of forecasting excessive rainfall in future. In The Observer of 22nd September, the science correspondent, Mr. John Davy, referred to advances being made by the Meteorological Office in relation to its new computer. I have no hesitation in saying that that new computer is needed and that it will prove a major advance in forecasting and in the degree of knowledge and information that it will be able to tackle.

But those of us who have studied this matter and been in contact with it for many years know that, from time to time during the past 50 years, many articles have been written telling us of what great advances there were to be in weather forecasting. They have included cloud satellites and so forth. They have predicted a new age in which we would know where every sunbeam would alight and where every raindrop would fall. I therefore strike a note of warning.

Rainfall is perhaps the most difficult thing of all to forecast for these islands, both in timing and in amount. My hon. Friend was right in saying, however, that it is not just a question of amount of rainfall but also of allied circumstances which dictate the conditions as to whether there will be flooding or not.

Figures are issued from time to time about soil moisture deficits. This is a high sounding title. It is, however, an important factor to be considered. Obviously the danger point in all flood situations comes when run-off occurs, when the land is no longer able to absorb it. For example, if there has been a period of very dry weather, the soil moisture deficit figure is quite apparent. The land can absorb quite a lot of rainfall, but flood conditions are always precipitated where there has been a lot of rain, the land is saturated and then there is more excessive rainfall.

One does not have to have in any given area a given amount of rainfall at any single time for flooding to occur. It may be that, in one area where the land is saturated, quite a moderate amount of rainfall—say, half an inch or an inch—can precipitate a flood, whereas, in another area, an inch or one and half inches of rainfall will bring no flooding and the situation will go unnoticed. It is for these reasons that, when we get reports of flooding, it is perhaps York which catches it or, in the circumstances of earlier this year, Bristol, because these local effects all come into play at the same time.

Of all the vicissitudes that affect the way of life of our people, it may be that flooding is the most serious. Fortunately not many people lose their lives, but, for example, in Bristol hundreds of older people were affected by the floods. They have reached an age when they have ordered their existence to prepare for old age and then a terrible disaster comes upon them and they have to organise all the cleaning up. Their possessions, built up over a lifetime, have been destroyed. This is something which they have never expected. This is a human tragedy that does not lend itself to newspaper reporting and is so pitiful when one comes into contact with it. For this reason we should carry this work forward as speedily as we can.

I am pleased to see here my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. He is an amiable Minister. When I saw notice of the debate on the Order Paper I wondered who would appear before us. There are many people who are interested in this matter. The Meteorological Office comes under the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Agriculture is interested, the Home Office looks after the police and the Ministry of Transport has to keep the roads open. All these Ministries have a stake in it. I am now informed that the Department of Education and Science is also involved. It is preparing a long-term report, which we welcome and would like to know more about. My hon. Friend has recently had a conference to tackle this subject, and I hope that we shall hear about that. As so much interest has been shown, perhaps he will be able to furnish us with a report of what the conference was able to achieve.

My hon. Friend is from the Ministry of Agriculture and, naturally, he is orientated towards the farming community. As my hon. Friend said, over the years more and more drainage systems have been put in. This means that runoff occurs very rapidly. I have seen whole areas like this, acre after acre of fields; the drainage pipes all discharge, and this adds to the problem, and also to the problems of the farmers, as my hon. Friend will know. I lived in a little village in North Yorkshire and the man who had the river bottom land was always flooded because all his neighbours had put in land drainage systems with grants from the Ministry.

It is much worse when these local factors are exacerbated by the position we are in Bristol and also in York. In Bristol there is the Avon Gorge, which is very famous, crossed by the Clifton Suspension Bridge. The river is running out in exceedingly narrow confines and looping out in a bowl on the other side in circumstances where flooding can be disastrous—as it was. I should like to know from my hon. Friend when this drainage was implemented, since it cost a great deal of money, and at that time some thought should have been given to the effect of it.

If drainage is a serious matter, so is the other point. Whatever we may say about land drainage schemes, with new housing estates, the development of whole areas, if the soil does not take up water moisture very well, as of course will happen if the land is covered with acres of concrete, there will be no capacity to absorb the water. From time to time there are huge floods round our towns and major cities, and this also affects the position.

It is high time that there was an investigation into this, so that when unrelated developments occur, such as land drainage or town planning, some thought can be given to the results in terms of flooding. I strongly support the request of my hon. Friend for an inquiry, and I hope that it will be pressed forward as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) said that a tremendous number of Ministries were involved and wondered why it was left to the Ministry of Agriculture to reply to the debate. The reason is that the Ministry of Agriculture pays the piper and therefore calls the tune to a certain extent, and that is why I am here today.

In view of the events of this summer and autumn, this is a subject which is inevitably very much in the public mind. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) for presenting his case so well and for providing the opportunity to discuss flooding and the prevention of flooding. I have visited many areas where flooding has taken place, and I have seen the damage done not only to farmland and industrial properties, but to individual houses, where most of it occurred. Older people were affected and in many cases people who are less well off than the rest of the community, and I have tremendous sympathy for them.

The hon. Member for York said that floods are no longer considered to be an act of God, that it was time we appreciated this and that something should be done about them. I take his point, but the most important problem is what can be done to prevent or mitigate further flooding.

I will first say a word about the flooding which occurred this year. The hon. Member pinpointed his own area of York.

There is little doubt what caused the floods. The rainfall both in July and September was phenomenal. Over a very wide area four to five inches fell in a few hours, and even heavier rainfall in a number of places, reaching as much as 8½ inches in 24 hours. Moreover, the September floods followed an exceptionally wet summer, so that these phenomenal rains fell on ground that was already saturated. When torrential rain fell on saturated ground, flooding was inevitable, as the quick run-off rapidly overfilled many rivers. Flooding was also caused by water rushing down hillsides on its way to rivers and also in many places by the inability of surface water sewers in the towns to cope with the dramatic run-off.

Both hon. Members dealt with the point of whether land will absorb more land water if it is not drained or if it is well drained. The best technical advice I have is that if the land is well drained, particularly in a wet year, it is bound to be a little dryer and will certainly absorb more water than if it is not drained and is completely saturated. My own experience as a farmer confirms this. I took a farm a dozen years ago where there were literally no drains. I have now drained much of it, and we have seen no big difference in the amount of runoff in the streams. The land held the water at least as much after the drains had been put in as before.

Of course, different circumstances arise each year. This year the land was saturated to some extent irrespective of whether it was drained or not; it could not possibly hold any more water, and it ran off much quicker. After a drying out period in a dry summer the situation is different. If hon. Members will take up this matter with technical people I am sure that they will find that land drainage does not affect the water-holding condition of the soil.

The argument of the hon. Gentleman is that this has been an exceptional year, but the figures do not suggest that this is true. The figures for the monthly average compare favourably with the annual average between 1916 and 1950.

Monthly averages, indeed any averages, are difficult to deal with.

A chap with one foot in a refrigerator and the other in a fire on average should be comfortable. The average may not show excessive rainfall but during this period 8½ ins. fell in 24 hours.

I must say frankly that it would be almost impossible to eliminate the risk of flooding in circumstances as exceptional as those which I have described at least without expenditure which would be out of all proportion to the likely benefit. Moreover, if the money could be found, protection could be given in some areas only and, as my hon. Friend the Member for York has mentioned, at a cost of demolishing important businesses and residential areas and with considerable loss of amenity.

My hon. Friend has instanced his area in York. I can cite another area in Scotland, which I visited, where if the little stream running through the middle of the town were to be made to carry the water which fell on Southend in September this year, a wholesale demolition in the middle of the town would have been needed. Hon. Members must try to appreciate this.

That is not to say that nothing could be done, or that nothing is being done, to reduce the risk of flooding. My hon. Friend spoke about the people in his constituency having a choice—it would have to be a fairly major decision—between staying in their existing houses or having reservoirs on large areas of agricultural land outside the town. This is a very difficult subject to decide, but I will touch on it later.

River authorities and other drainage authorities which are responsible for undertaking flood prevention work have spent over £100 million on land drainage and flood protection works during the last 15 years. My Department has met a substantial part of this expenditure by way of grant. As I said earlier, that is why I am replying to the debate. Had it not been for major schemes in those years, the loss and damage would, in our opinion, have been far worse.

I cite the example of the West Country. Schemes at Tiverton, Taunton, Stoke Cannon and Porlock prevented serious flooding and, possibly, saved a lot of life also in the serious flooding in the West Country in July. Similarly in the South-East, flooding and danger was reduced or averted by major schemes on the rivers Lee, Chelmer, Crouch and Stour. Many other schemes are in progress.

There is, of course, a limit to the funds and resources available, but it is for river authorities to decide how these resources should be used in their area, and I have no doubt that in the light of their recent experiences they will be reexamine their capital works programmes to ensure that they have their priorities right. Those priorities would bring in the question of reservoirs and whether they would be a suitable form of protection considering the enormous expense and the loss of agricultural land. I am advised that in most areas where studies of the provision of reservoirs have taken place, the difference which they would make to flooding would be only minimal, a matter of inches. We must, therefore, be very careful how we spend the money in that way.

In that connection, river authorities will benefit in the longer term from a major research programme which is being undertaken by the Institute of Hydrology under the aegis of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. That is one of the Ministries that were brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West. This research will increase our knowledge of flood frequencies and enable our engineers to design their flood prevention works with much more precision and, I hope, with much greater economy. I think that everyone will agree that where it is not possible to provide physical protection against flooding, it is important to try to ensure that people in vulnerable areas are given warning of flooding wherever this is possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West mentioned the question of forecasting the weather and how, at one time, we were promised that every ray of sunshine and every shower of rain would be forecast. This has not worked out as well as we thought. I told my hon. Friend some time ago of an occasion when we considered carefully whether we should put out a flood warning one morning, but decided against it, although we very nearly did it, and by two o'clock the sun was shining.

The experience of this year's floods has shown that the flood warning arrangements worked better in some areas than in others. I know that some authorities have already taken steps to extend and strengthen their flood warning systems as a result of experience of these floods. As the House will know, I convened a conference of experts, which met only last week, to consider how existing arrangements can be improved in the light of this year's experience. The conclusions of the conference were set out in a Press notice, a copy of which I have with me, and which is now available in the Library of the House.

The most important recommendation of that conference was that every river authority should now undertake a comprehensive review of its area to determine, in consultation with local authorities and the police, what extensions are desirable and feasible in the coverage of its flood warning arrangements to meet the needs of vulnerable communities and industries throughout its area. I hope that every river authority will set about this task immediately and with great care. My officers will be only too pleased to give river authorities any help and advice which they may need in this.

My hon. Friend has suggested that the floods pinpoint the need for a national committee to co-ordinate the planning of flood protection works. I cannot altogether agree that that would be appropriate. Flood protection works must be planned, not only on a national basis, but in relation to the catchments and basins of individual rivers. My hon. Friend the Member for York gave statistics of the various floods over the last few years and of the rises in the rivers. He showed from that how necessary it was that flood prevention work should be planned locally and not on a national basis. I recognise, however, the validity of his point that if we get reports from all over the country on what could best be done to prevent what happened this year, an internal committee to coordinate those reports might be worthwhile. I will certainly consider that suggestion.

I emphasise, however, that this is why land drainage and flood prevention is entrusted to river authorities which cover specific catchment areas. The river authorities are well informed, responsible bodies, representing the local authorities and other interests in their area. It is right that they, rather than a committee in Whitehall—I know that there is always criticism of any committee in Whitehall—should decide what work should be carried out in their catchment area and determine the order of priorities. They know, however, that they can call on my officers for advice whenever they need it.

I assure my hon. Friends the Members for York and for Bristol, North-West that we certainly will do all we can to help and to provide effective flood protection within the limits of the resources that it is decided to devote to that purpose and also, as I have emphasised, to improve the flood warning services, which in some areas did not work as well as in others.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York for raising this matter and for his good wishes for this season of the year. I assure him that we, in the Ministry, have a full appreciation of the difficulties and the various hardships caused by the floods. I am sorry that my letter rather led him to believe that we knew everything and could do nothing about it; that is not quite the case. I hope that he will go away a little happier now than he was about the floods this morning.

As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just concluded, by wishing his colleagues a happy Christmas, may I begin by wishing a happy Christmas to yourself, Mr. Speaker, and to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, who has to reply to this debate. I would also like to express my appreciation of this opportunity to speak. It is not an opportunity that I can take very often, and probably it is a good thing for me that the House is as empty as it is.

I also thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for coming down to reply to this debate at short notice. As he knows, I had planned to raise another matter. I wanted to raise two matters. The other fell through, luckily for me, and that is why I am raising this problem.

Lowestoft is one of those areas which, before the war, was very depressed but since the war has been fortunate in attracting new industries and employment. This is largely due to the food industry and its effect on agriculture and fishing. But the amenities and infrastructure of the town and area are still very bad. It takes many years of full employment to put right the neglect of the past and this is very true of the sewerage, roads, municipal buildings and cultural institutions of the area. However, there are hopeful signs now that improvements are beginning to happen and that the past neglect is being put right. For this process to continue, both time and continuing prosperity are necessary. This is what forms the background to this short debate.

I daresay that the same story could be repeated all over the country—for example, in North-East Lancashire, where I was the week before last, on Humberside and anywhere in East Anglia. These areas have become known as the intermediate areas and are, unfortunately in some respects, termed colloquially the "grey areas". There are two aspects with which I want to deal—the local problem and the national problem, although they are interconnected, since one will not be solved without the other.

In all the discussions and questions and deputations of the last few months on the problem of the Lowestoft shipyards, the answer which I have received has always been the same: "We have a national problem and have set up the Hunt Committee to deal with it." I believe—this is no reflection on those who serve on the Hunt Committee, but it is on us here and particularly on the Government—that committees have been and are being used by Governments as an excuse for putting off decisions or removing from the Government for a period a direct responsibility which they alone can shoulder.

It is this attitude as much as anything else which has produced the cynicism and frustration and feeling of remoteness which colours the opinions of so many people in this nation and condemns the activities of politicians. I believe that the time has come when Governments should stop setting up committees and should make their own decisions. Therefore, I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to hide behind the Hunt Report, although, since it is sitting, I should like to know when it will report. We were told recently that it would report in the autumn and then heard that it would be a little later, before Christmas. When will it report?

I turn now to the local problem, which is the besetting problem of the Lowestoft shipyards, as well as of a number of others which also lie outside development areas—particularly Humberside, Leith, Vosper Thorneycroft and Bristol as well. Lowestoft, of course, is my chief concern. A total of 1,500 people are employed directly in the shipyards there and many more indirectly. These 1,500 represent just under 20 per cent. of total manufacturing employment. There are very few other opportunities in the area for heavy industry, and it is remarkable that, since 1951, the number of people employed in the yards has gone up from 500 to 1,500. Of course, also, the amount of sub-contracting done in the yards has meant that the increase in labour is even greater.

As for capital investment, one yard, Richards, has invested £825,000 since 1957 and the other, bigger yard, Brooke Marine, £1·4 million since 1953. These are two modern yards, therefore, and their growth potential has been demonstrated, as has their ability to obtain orders for a variety of vessels from all parts of the world.

The demand for vessels which can be built at Lowestoft exists here and overseas. It is open in most cases to any shipyard which cares to tender, but in others only the shipyards of Lowestoft, which have developed their markets by perseverance and personal contact over many years, could meet it. Should these shipyards cease to operate, those markets would be lost to Britain.

Shipbuilding in Lowestoft can continue effectively only with a fair balance between home and export orders. Brooke Marine has averaged 60 per cent. for export over the last 20 years and, at the moment, its total production is going for export. Vosper and Brooke Marine, significantly, were the only shipyards to my knowledge—certainly of their size, although I believe on a wider basis also—to be awarded the Queen's Award to Industry last year. It is also significant that both lie outside development areas.

I turn now to the position of these yards vis-à -vis their competitors in development areas. Compared with its competitors, Brooke Marine loses the regional employment premium of 30s. per week per man which amounts, since it averages 1,250 employees, to £97,500 a year. It also loses the S.E.T. refund of 7s. 6d. per week, which amounts to another £24,875, and since additional apprentices do not qualify for the £100 allowance applicable in development areas, there is a difference of another £5,000. Thus, in any one year, it is disadvantaged to a total of £126,875. In addition, there are special grants for trainees in development areas, which were given in 1968 and firms outside development areas get less money in investment grants, which, in this case, was £20,000 in 1968. Board of Trade building grants add another £4,000 and there are the sub-contractors' costs, which amounted for Brooke Marine to 5 per cent. of £400,000, or £20,000.

In all, therefore, the difference totals £193,000, at a very conservative estimate. It is equal in terms of shipbuilding to an increase in labour costs of not less than 12½ per cent. and probably nearer 18 per cent. It is a discriminatory disadvantage equivalent to 4·4 per cent. on the selling price of a ship, which means, in practice, that a ship built outside a development area will cost 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. more than one built inside.

This has led to a loss of orders. When I saw the Minister in the spring with a deputation, he asked me for examples of lost orders and at that time I could not provide them. The regional employment premium scheme had not been in operation for very long and it was not apparent at the time where shipyards had actually lost orders.

Unfortunately, there is now proof that some orders have been lost. Only the other day I heard that Brooke Marine had lost an order from Iceland for a research vessel to a German yard because it was £70,000 over the mark in an order of nearly £1½ million. The five Humberside ship builders have lost nine orders for a total of 14 vessels worth £4½ million. Brooke Marine beat three German and two Norwegian competitors, for one contract but lost to another German yard by a narrow margin. Richards recently lost two contracts to West German yards and three contracts to development area shipbuilders. Vosper-Thorneycroft recently lost an important overseas order to a development area yard and is finding it increasingly difficult to remain competitive. Charles Hill of Bristol, which has been building ships since the 18th century, has had to close its shipbuilding activities.

The effects of discrimination against the yards outside development districts are undoubtedly beginning to show up. It is no answer to say that devaluation has helped. It may have helped the shipbuilding industry as a whole, but it has made no difference to yards outside development districts from the point of view of the competition of one yard against another.

I want to stress the seriousness of the situation without giving rise to anxiety or rumour. It could be that unless Brooke Marine receives additional orders very soon it will have to pay off many men in the middle of next year. I must stress this as we are shortly to face a situation which management and unions have been warning the Government about for a long time. I have avoided publicity in the House until now because I hoped that we should reach an agreement without it, but the time has come when the stark facts must be made known.

I now turn to a possible solution, but qualify my suggestions by saying that the right answer is a change in Government policy towards development areas. The latest estimate of expenditure on them is £255 million, of which the regional employment premium is £100 million and the Selective Employment Tax refund £25 million. The scale of help is so indiscriminate, and the areas so great, that it is impossible not to cause grave distortions in the economic pattern of the regions. The disparity between development and intermediate areas is so great that it is bound to damage industry in the latter. The present policy is in danger of spoon-feeding declining and inefficient industry in development areas and wiping out efficient industry in others. I cannot see the justification for paying a premium for everyone employed in manufacturing industry in the development districts, regardless of how long they have worked in the area and whether they are in declining or expanding industries. This is not the way to encourage productivity. Moreover, industry in the intermediate areas has to help, through its taxation, its competitors in the development districts. The size of the development areas reacts against the intermediate areas, and we are merely swapping one problem for another.

I do not believe that the full implication of the present policy has been thought through. If the Lowestoft shipyards are closed down, with all that that means, the district will become a depressed area and, presumably, a development area. What a waste of resources and manpower that would mean! Yet that could be the result of the Government's policy and their failure to modify it. The proper remedy is a change in the policy, involving the abolition of Selective Employment Tax, the phasing out of the regional employment premium, and the contraction of the development areas into growth points, as they used to be. In other words, we should have a policy that concentrates on improving the infrastructure of the regions, removes the discrimination between intermediate and development areas and saves a great deal of cash, which I and my party believe is not being put to the best use.

Since I presume that the Government will not do that, I must ask them to do one of the following things. There are three possible remedies for the immediate problems of the Lowestoft shipbuilding industry. The first is to make the regional employment premium, Selective Employment Tax refund, apprentice grants and investment grant payments available to the shipbuilding industry as a whole. The second is to discount in Government contracts differentials cause by R.E.P., S.E.T. refund and so on when assessing tenders. The third is to pay a lump sum encouragement allowance to Lowestoft shipbuilders equivalent to 4·4 per cent. of the value of orders obtained. The payment could be made by instalment during the progress of the contract. I can see no other way in which these shipyards can be given the opportunity to compete on equal terms.

I hope that I shall not be told once again that we must wait for the Hunt Committee report. The problems are well known and it is obvious that the solution can be found only by easing the discrimination between development areas and grey areas, perhaps by less Government cash for one or more Government cash for the other. That is the choice the Government must make. They must make the decision. They cannot wait for the Hunt Committee to report, and then sit on it for months. It is essential that action be taken at once, and I hope that the Minister can say today what the Government are prepared to do.

It cannot be in the interests of the country, my constituency or the shipbuilding industry outside the development districts that the policy should be allowed to continue. It can only result in these yards losing orders and going out of business. If it does not, the shipyards in development districts are not doing the job they should be doing, because there should not be another order outside the development districts. If they are to have this constant advantage, they should win every time, which is tantamount to saying that the Government do not wish any shipyards to continue outside development districts. I cannot believe that that is Government policy or that it is the right policy. It is very damaging to the morale of the shipbuilding industry in the areas I have mentioned. It is very damaging to the interests of my constituency and constituents. I hope that the Government will change their policy in one of the ways I have suggested.

I am glad of this opportunity to debate this subject, albeit in a poorly attended House and when I am suffering from both a cold and cough. I therefore apologise to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) for my voice. This subject has been aired at some length in the Press and at a variety of meetings, some of them involving Ministers, during the last year. It is as well that we can set the record straight to some degree today.

The hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks with what was, in effect, an impassioned attack on development area policy. In essence, this attack was not restricted to the problem of shipbuilding either inside or outside development areas. Some of the remarks in the latter part of his speech were applicable to any industry.

If it be argued that no shipyard—this seemed to be the tenor of his final argument—outside a development area can hope to compete and that the end result of Government policy must be that all orders should go to shipyards in development areas, then the same argument could equally apply to other industries. After all, the shipbuilding industry buys out a large part of the material it uses and inevitably, therefore, labour costs do not play as high a part in shipbuilding as in some other industries. Thus, if one is to argue the matter from the point of view of, say, R.E.P., it could apply more forcefully to industries other than shipbuilding.

This is where I am in some difficulty, because the hon. Gentleman is really asking me to anticipate the Hunt Report. Perhaps a year ago he might have been justified in saying, "The Government should do something in anticipation of Hunt." But it becomes more difficult to make that argument as we get nearer to the expected date of publication of the Hunt Report. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I that we might expect the report to be available in the early part of next year. I would not forecast a precise date. It is not my Departmental responsibility to do so. We expect it in the not too distant future. That is something that we could not have said a year ago.

If the right hon. Gentleman asks why the Government insist on waiting for the Hunt Report and insist on setting up committees, there is a good answer. If he thinks that doing these things is merely an excuse for putting off a decision, he is wrong. The issue which the Hunt Committee has been and still is examining is not only a complex one but extends over many areas and industries. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government should make up their mind about what they intend to do without taking outside advice, not only about shipbuilding outside development areas, but about, for example, North-East Lancashire, the cotton areas of Lancashire, the areas of the Yorkshire and Humberside region, which also have industrial problems rather special to them, and a host of other problems.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would argue that the Government should make up their mind about these things in a way which related the solution of each problem to the solution of the others, along with the general development area policy. But there have been many occasions when Governments of whatever political complexion have thought it wise to seek advice from people outside the governmental machine, not least industrialists, about what should be done in such complex matters as these.

If we had done precisely the opposite and had announced our decisions piecemeal, each decision emanating solely from the Government machine, not only the hon. Gentleman but some of his hon. Friends would have been criticising us on two counts. The first would have been that the decisions were unacceptable, not least because one could not expect unbiased decisions. After all, they would not have been based on sound outside advice, and so on. The second would have been complaints that we had mounted a massive exercise inside the Government with the result of increasing yet again the number of civil servants. Those are two of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would have used had we operated in a different way and not sought outside advice.

There is an advantage in getting this job done by an unbiased panel of people who have wide experience of industry and other walks of life. The Hunt Committee will be reporting shortly and I hope that that report will provide a solution not only to the problem which the hon. Gentleman has raised but to many others.

The hon. Member for Lowestoft mentioned that the Charles Hill yard in Bristol had gone out of shipbuilding. In the fifteen months during which I have been connected in a Ministerial capacity with the shipbuilding industry I have faced three difficulties of this kind. One was the Charles Hill yard, but that was the least of those difficulties. The major difficulty was the closure of Furness, a large yard inside a development area. We have just been faced with the problem posed by the impending closure—I hope that we can avert it; no solution has yet arisen—of the Burntisland yard, which is also in a development area. This shipyard is not a small one within the meaning that is normally given to that term, and it was one of the shipyards to be included for consideration by the Geddes Committee.

It is the second of those two major problems with which we have been faced—inside and not outside development areas—and which suggests that the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention is not solely restricted to the non-development area yards. It might be helpful, therefore, if I went into some of the background to the matter. One important fact follows from the class of ship built by most of the yards outside development areas. Most of them build relatively small ships such as fishing vessels, harbour launches, tugs and the occasional yacht. We are inclined to think that there is a world-wide boom in orders for all kinds of ships. One might wonder, therefore, why some of the smaller yards seem not to be participating in this boom. One might go on to argue that the responsibility must lie with Government policy, particularly since ships are being ordered throughout the world.

The world demand for new tonnage has been at a high level for the past three years or so and it is naturally disappointing that the small yards have not been able to lengthen their order books. Indeed, in some cases order books have shortened. The increased demand for tonnage is essentially for large ships. This is the explanation for the boom in world ordering. This has arisen for a variety of factors, not least from the escalation in the size of tankers, a trend which stemmed, certainly in part, from the Suez Canal closure.

There is also the trend towards container ships and the need for ever larger bulk carriers, almost following the pattern of the escalation in the size of tankers.

This trend has applied to O.B.O.-carriers as well as conventional bulk carriers, and particularly to the new type of gas and chemical carriers. There is no sign of a similar high level of demand for the sort of ship which is the characteristic product of the small yards outside development areas.

The lack of orders in smaller yards outside development areas compared with the order books of yards building bigger ships tends to be attributed wholly to the effect of the Government's regional policies when, in large measure, it is due to the state of the market and the many small yards competing for available business. I do not deny that there are difficulties in Lowestoft, but the hon. Gentleman made out a case which, in essence, was meant to apply to all small yards outside development areas.

I draw attention to the fact that, taken as a whole, the Humberside yards have, in the 11 months from January to November of this year, taken rather more orders, expressed in gross tonnage terms, than they did in either 1967 or 1966 and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, 1966 was a year in which no R.E.P. was paid, and in 1967 it was paid only in the latter part of the year. That is significant. It might suggest that there is something attributable peculiarly to the Lowestoft situation rather than to Government policy as it affects non-development area yards as a whole.

Another result of the specialisation of yards outside development areas in various types of small vessels is that they are inevitably more vulnerable to changes and fluctuations in the size and pattern of demand. In the past, the least competitive yards have from time to time found themselves in something of a plight, to use the word used by the hon. Gentleman in opening this debate. But now—and this is really the change in the situation, I suspect—meeting with difficulties not altogether dissimilar from those they faced in the past, there is a natural tendency to exaggerate the effects of the lack of development area benefits. I call it "a natural tendency." I do not hold any resentment about it, and I do not blame anyone for having it. Nevertheless, it is an exaggeration.

The hon. Gentleman gave certain figures, and suggested that the effect on the cost of a ship was as high as 4·4 per cent., and might, in the final price, be expressed as being between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. I cannot make these figures add up as an average. I am prepared to concede that on certain types of ships the effect is higher than on others, but my own calculations indicate that the effect is about 2 per cent. or not much above it, on the total cost of the ship.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that the scope for improved efficiency in the small yards, as well as in the big yards, must considerably exceed that 2 per cent.; that is to say, that there is another solution to the problem. Although the proposals in the Geddes Report for grouping and re-organisation were not directed to the small yards, as I concede, and may not be suitable in detail, there can be little doubt, and I have expressed this view on many occasions in various fora, that considerable benefits could be obtained by a much closer degree of co-operation and, in some cases, by integration into groups.

The Government carefully prepared the Shipbuilding Industry Act in such a way that it should not be limited to the yards covered by the Geddes Report and thus made assistance by the Shipbuilding Industry Board available for the grouping of small yards. Hitherto, the response has not been exciting. We had the Robb-Caledon merger—one firm being inside and the other outside a development area—and we have also seen something of a grouping of small yards in another area with the creation of the Swan Hunter small ship division. It is interesting to note that that grouping included the Goole yard. Here I pay tribute to the part played by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) in the campaign to get a better deal, as he sees it, for a non-development area.

The Goole yard is now part of the Swan Hunter small ship division, the bulk of which is located in development areas. Therefore, I stress that S.I.B. assistance is available to the smaller yards inside or outside the development areas, and if more of them would prepare plans which they could submit to the S.I.B., whether for total merger or for integration of certain facilities, they might be able to improve their competitive position, not just against other British yards, but against international competition.

I should like now to refer to the examples which the hon. Gentleman adduced in support of his case. He suggested that Brooke Marine had lost an order for an Icelandic ship to a German yard by £70,000 when the tender price was about £1½ million. His argument seemed to be that this was clearly attributable to lack of development area benefit. He spoke of another order lost to a German yard, despite the fact that Brooke Marine had beaten off the competition of a German and three Norwegian yards.

The interesting thing about this argument is that in both cases the competition was essentially foreign, and the order went to the foreign yard. The hon. Gentleman did not suggest that in those two cases there was unfair competition from other British yards inside the development areas. He suggested that if the yards in Lowestoft had had the same sort of help from the Government as obtains in development areas they might have succeeded in gaining those contracts. If that were the burden of his argument, I do not question it but, if that is what he asks for, his argument is that the industry as a whole, irrespective of regional location, should receive a general subsidy from the Government. Otherwise, the argument does not stand up.

He suggests that if the sort of benefit that is at present received by development area yards were extended to yards wherever they were, those yards would be able more readily to gain orders against foreign competition. That, I do not for a second deny—

No, that is not the whole argument. If we have a firm with a home demand for shipping, as well as an export demand, and if we can keep the yard full, we can cut our overheads. The fact of the matter is that although these yards are not competing directly with shipyards inside development areas, they have to take into consideration each time the fact that their overheads are that much more. This places them at a disadvantage compared with development area yards. I am not suggesting that the whole industry should have subsidy—I do not believe that this is the right thing for the industry—but I think that the argument that it is discrimination between what is inside and what is outside development areas still holds, even when dealing with foreign orders.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would never suggest, nor would any hon. Member who is perplexed about the matter, that the proper solution is to abolish all the aid which flows from various Governmental policies to shipyards and to all other manufacturing establishments inside development areas. If that were the burden of his argument, the hon. Gentleman would be saying that all should share the same distress and the same misery. He would be saying, "Let us ensure that no yard will receive these benefits." That, on his argument—and I am not sure that I entirely accept this—would seem to demonstrate that only by virtue of receipt of these benefits can yards compete with foreign yards. If we were to abolish the benefits, R.E.P. and investment grant differentials, it would in no whit improve the position of yards in Lowestoft or Humberside. It would merely produce a commonalty of misery, if his argument is accepted, between all yards, whatever their geographical location.

There have been many suggestions for what can only be described as a general subsidy to increase the shipbuilding relief from the present 2 per cent., where it is a genuine relief for indirect taxes paid by the industry, to a level where it will match R.E.P. The argument he advanced today for giving to non-development area yards a subsidy of 4·4 per cent. on the price of a ship, is a plea for a subsidy for the industry which would be in direct contravention of all our international obligations. That is the reason why we could not accept such a suggestion.

The world-wide shipbuilding industry is a jungle of subsidies and aids. The objective of this country in international dealings has consistently been to clear away some of this jungle and not to increase the density of the foliage. It would be a profound mistake for us to act in breach of our international obligations by offering any kind of general subsidy.

I do not take that point at all. So much of the shipbuilding industry lies within development districts that the position is grossly discriminatory against those which lie outside. We are pretty well breaking an international agreement by giving so much aid to the industry as it is. I do not see what difference my suggestion would make.

I cannot accept that argument for a second—neither can the Government. The aid that we are giving to the industry by virtue of R.E.P. or investment grants stems entirely from our desire to seek to help underdeveloped and backward regions. In shipbuilding and other such industries the Government's regional policies provide help for development area firms. But in shipbuilding there is no significant evidence of a general diversion of orders to development area yards.

The hon. Member adduced one or two examples of orders having been lost by non-development area yards and gained by development area yards. It is easy to bring forward such examples, because multiple tendering is the pattern in shipbuilding. It is very easy to produce a list of orders lost to other areas, whatever their geographical location, which will prove to be a far longer list than the list of orders gained by any one yard. That is a necessary consequence of the system of multiple tendering. That evidence is very dubious, and I am not sure that it should be admitted. We should consider the level of ordering, and I suggest that although Lowestoft may be suffering from a dearth of orders, that is not the case with non-development area yards in general.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has promised to review the position in shipbuilding as part of the Government's consideration of the Hunt Report. At that stage it will be possible to consider the contribution which shipyards in particular localities make to the local economy and to assess their importance to areas in which the growth rate gives rise to concern. I give the hon. Member the assurance that that will be done.

A case for emergency action in advance of the Report can arise only in respect of an individual yard in a certain area. I am not convinced, and neither is my right hon. Friend, that where the situation is serious it can be fairly attributed, except in small part, to the lack of development area benefits, or that those benefits would solve the problem of the individual yard. In a debate of this kind there is a danger of exacerbating the very problem that we are discussing by suggesting that yards outside the development areas are facing closure. Nothing could be more calculated to reduce their ability to obtain the kind of work they need and to retain the best managers and workers on whom their long-term future may depend.

There is a continuing place in a thriving British economy and a thriving British shipbuilding industry—and the picture of British shipbuilding industry as a whole is radically different from the picture 18 months or two years ago; there has been a radical transformation of the industry—for the efficient and small shipyard outside as well as inside a development area. Firms who can integrate or form larger groupings may have the best chance of success and growth. The anxiety of many firms about future development area benefits is fully understandable, but I nevertheless hope that their attention will not be so concentrated on this single question, which the Government have promised to review, that they talk themselves into failure by neglecting the fundamental and long-term problem of improving the organisation and efficiency of this sector of the shipbuilding industry.

I wish to raise a question which is causing a great deal of perturbation in the ranks of those Members who are interested in forestry, and also in the ranks of trade unions of which forestry workers are members.

The first point to which I want to draw attention is the difficulty which hon. Members have, owing to devolution, in pinpointing certain forestry problems to certain Ministers. The subject of forestry devolves upon three Ministers—the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales. In my view, however desirable it may be for an individual Minister to discuss planting programmes and similar matters affecting his own part of the United Kingdom, some Minister should have a general responsibility to the House for over-all economic policy in respect of forestry.

In view of the large planting programme which is now taking place in Scotland, and the fact that the greater part of the programme is being carried out in Scotland, I am of the opinion that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be responsible, through one of his Ministers, for dealing with the general economic questions about forestry in the United Kingdom—and that we should get away from the division of responsibility among three Ministers. That system does not work satisfactorily. I do not wish to cast any reflection upon my hon. Friend who is to reply—a Scotsman sitting for an English constituency—who, I have no doubt, will reply today.

I wish to question the size of the Forestry Commission labour force. I have been given figures showing that in September, 1957, there were 13,040 industrial workers in the Forestry Commission and that in September, 1966, the number had fallen to 10,338—in other words, a drop of 2,702, or 20 per cent. of the total labour force. That trend has been continuing, and according to figures which I have received from the trade unions—they having received them from the Forestry Commission—between April, 1968, and April, 1972, there will be another drop of 2,000 industrial workers from the Forestry Commission.

What are the facts? I understand that most of this drop will take place in England. There is a big increase in the planting programme in Scotland, and there we have been given two sets of figures which are not exactly complementary. On 22nd June, 1966, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) was told that the number of staff employed by the Forestry Commission in Scotland amounted to about 4,600 and that about 3,000 of those were skilled industrial workers. The answer went on to point out that it was expected that there would be an increase to 4,800 by 1970, of which 3,600 would be skilled industrial workers.

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was given an Answer on 30th November, 1967, to the following effect:

"The industrial staff of the Forestry Commission in Scotland at 30th September … 1963."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 176.]

was 3,916 and by the same date in 1966 it had dropped to 3,796. In other words, the figures given a year later were rather different from those given in 1966 about the number of staff employed in Scotland.

Figures supplied to the trade unions by the Commission suggest that over 1968–72 there will be particularly heavy drops in the numbers employed in Wales and fairly large drops in all the English conservancies. The figures for Scotland are fairly level. In only one area of Scotland—South Scotland—is an increase forecast over this period. This is taking account of a very large increase in the planting programme in Scotland.

Can we have some answer about the supervisory and administrative staffs? I understand from recent Answers given in the House that there is now a retirement scheme for supervisory and administrative staff of the Commission by which they can retire at 60 or about that age with appropriate pension and lump sum. There has been a good deal of feeling among other grades of Commission employees that there have not been the same kind of cuts in the supervisory and administrative staffs as there have been among the industrial staffs generally. I should like further details of what kind of cuts are envisaged, and what numbers are envisaged as being employed in 1972, in supervisory and administrative grades in the United Kingdom as a whole.

The replacement of Commission labour by contract labour is a very important question which is creating a deal of feeling. There is the feeling that Commission workers are partly being dismissed and being replaced by contract labour. Figures given in the House showed that in 1957 35 per cent. of work done in Commission forests was done by contract labour. This figure had increased by 1963 to 58 per cent. Last year it was 50 per cent.

Most of us who are interested in Forestry think that this is far too large a figure. It is large in all areas, save East Anglia. It is particularly large in Wales. Figures given in a Parliamentary Answer on 22nd July, 1967, showed that in Wales there were 80 independent contractors and private merchants and 28 one-man firms employed by the Commission. Why this very large switch to contract labour?

One of the reasons which has always been given to the House as to why we have gone in for a policy of building up forestry sources is partly to rehabilitate the countryside and to give secure jobs to people in the countryside. Unless security is given to people who are to work in forests, a large part of the whole purpose of building up forestry is destroyed. If we are to rehabilitate the countryside by building up our forests, security of employment must be given; there must be more employment, if possible; and certainly a better life must be provided than is at present offered by the very many uneconomic small farms in areas like Wales.

We are not Luddites. We do not take the view that jobs should be created for the sake of creating them. We take the view that it is right and reasonable that the Commission should employ all the most up-to-date machinery and techniques and make the best use of its resources from the point of view of planning, and so on. This is not to say that we do not think that is wrong to replace Commission labour by contract labour.

If no other labour is available for a job, it is reasonable to employ contract labour. As far as possible, the Commission's work should be planned ahead so that it can use its own labour and not use contract labour unless it is absolutely essential.

Those of us who are interested in this subject take the view that a great deal of the labour that is working for the Commission could be used, not only by replacing contract labour by Commission labour, but also by going in for a bigger planting programme. Most of us would agree that it is right and reasonable that there should be a big expansion of planting in Scotland, but we take the view that planting expansion should not be limited to Scotland.

It is alleged that there is a shortage of land at suitable prices for forestry. We are faced with the real problem that all the agricultural subsidies given by government since the war have pushed up the price of land and made it more expensive for government to buy land for forestry purposes. In other words, the price of land has been artificially put up by the subsidies given to help agriculture.

This is a very difficult problem to deal with. I shall not attempt to suggest now how it might be dealt with. It is agreed by the Government that there ought to be a big expansion of planting in Wales, but land cannot easily be obtained in Wales. The programme has been restricted there because of the difficulty of getting land.

A number of difficulties arise in Wales. First, there has been a big entry by economic forestry groups. Various business groups find it advantageous from the taxation point of view to put a certain amount of money into forestry; and they are often prepared to pay a good deal more for land than the Commission can afford to pay. Most of the labour employed by these groups is contract labour. They do not have the obligation of finding employment for local inhabitants and for other special groups.

There is academic opposition from some of those connected with the National Parks. None of us would want to see trees planted on top of Snowdon, and there are enormous areas of Wales which are wild and which will always be wild. It is an asset from an amenity point of view if behind them there are valleys which are well afforested. I know Wales rather well. There are beautiful places like Gwydyr and Dovey, Corris, in Merionethshire, and even Lake Vyrnwy and the Elan Valley lakes which have been planted up and which have added to the scenic beaut)' of Wales. We should have a reasonable policy for planting in suitable parts of the National Parks.

I agree that in the early stages the trees so planted do not look particularly agreeable, but once the trees have grown to a certain size beauty comes. Much of the War Department land in Wales could be handed over reasonably soon to the Commission for planting. Powers of compulsory purchase should be used and the Government should be prepared to take land, if they really want it for forestry purposes, and go ahead with this programme.

In other words, there is a need for a big move forward in Wales. The Government recognise the need. The move as been held up because of the difficulty of getting land. Steps should be taken to get land to enable us to go ahead.

In England we have practically closed down on the purchase of land by the Commission, apart from the Border counties of Northumberland and Cumberland where there is the big Kieder Forest. I agree that there is no great case for buying up land in the South-East or in the Midlands, which would have to be bought expensively and which would not be particularly useful for forestry purposes.

However, there are parts of England where there is a strong need for a national forestry policy. Take the South-West of England. A large part of it is a development area. With its plentiful rainfall, it is one of the best areas in the country for growing timber. Some of my hon. Friends and I have visited the wonderful forests which have grown up since the First World War in the Quantocks, the Brendon Hills, and so on. There is a big output of timber in a short time. It is just the type of area where there should be an active forestry policy going ahead and where the Commission should have a free hand to buy land.

Another area is East Anglia. This, too, is a somewhat depressed area. Already there are 50,000 acres of forest land put out on the old heaths there. The policy has been held up partly in the area because of the fiddles in regard to Income Tax, and because land owners have been able to get Government monetary assistance for ploughing up heath-land for agricultural purposes. Much of this land would be better used for forestry. Again, large areas of War Department land should be made available for forestry purposes. We should aim at doubling in a short time the area under forest in East Anglia.

There is a case for expanding forestry. Ninety per cent. of our timber is imported at a cost of over £200 million & year. We talk much about the balance of payments problem, but there is also the problem of a future world shortage of timber. Every year technical advances are finding more uses for timber and world supplies, in Russia and other countries, are beginning to come to an end-In the long term, three is a strong case for giving a good deal of thought to expanding our timber resources and production.

The stumbling block is the Treasury. By 1985, the Forestry Commission is likely to be self-supporting. The Treasury expects a return on capital of 4½ to 5 per cent. in this field. I do not quarrel with that, but we should not adopt too narrow a view. When we look 50 years or more ahead, we realise that it is important that we should have an expansion programme in timber production, even though in the short term the return might not be as great as it is in other fields.

I come to the question of subsidiary developments. Hon. Members were pleased when a pulp mill was set up at Fort William. The chipboard factory in Thetford, Norfolk, has finally got going after great difficulties. But if subsidiary industries are to be built up and worked on satisfactory lines so that they give employment and replace imports, timber must be coming forward to meet their needs and to supply their raw materials.

There is need for long-term planning in forestry if it is to make its contribution to our future as a nation and at the same time to provide worthwhile jobs for those in the industry and for their sons. Most young men in areas where forestry is actively carried on want to go into forestry if they can and if there is a secure livelihood in it. By cutting the labour force we are cutting their chances of job security for the future.

It is important from a national point of view and from the point of view of those in the industry that we should have a more energetic and active forestry policy which is based upon providng as many jobs as possible directly through the Forestry Commission and not by substituting contract labour for them.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) on initiating this debate. As he has adequately spelled out, this is a serious matter, not throughout the countryside, but in some parts of it. He quoted the figures, but I feel that they are worth reiterating.

In 1957, 35 per cent. of the harvesting of State forests was undertaken by contract labour. By 1963, the figure had shot up to 58 per cent. The current figure is 51 per cent. My hon. Friend quoted examples of even more staggering ratios. I will not repeat them, but I should like to give another example. East Scotland is a large conservancy which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will know well. The current figures there are that 3¾ million hoppus feet were harvested by contractors compared with a mere and derisory 750,000 hoppus feet by the Forestry Commission.

There has been a considerable contraction in the labour force. In 1957, the figure was 13,040. At present it is 9,765 and it is estimated that there will be a further decline by the close of 1972. Numerically, the contraction is not very great, but in small communities it can bring catastrophe. I have had drawn to my attention a small isolated village in Mid Wales with a population of 30. Six of the wage earners in the village were Forestry Commission employees. Three of them were fired. They had four dependants, seven people out of the 30 were thus deprived of their livelihood. They had to travel large distances to find alternative work and for many weeks they were out of work. Obviously, if they were sensible, these people would leave the village. But they have lived there for many years. Why should they be forced to leave?

When contract labour, peripatetic labour, is brought in, there is much bitterness, because most of the people who work on contract are under 45.

I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to a recent debate of the Forestry Group of the Civil Service Union in which it was claimed by one speaker, a Mr. Wilson, that no one over the age of 45 was employed by a contractor. A man is regarded as finished when he reaches that age.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should think of forestry not merely in economic terms but in social terms. He would argue that he is already doing this in that he is allowing for expansion of State forests in Scotland, a development area, but not in the South West. He would argue that the economic return in the South-West is greater, but, nevertheless, there is an embargo on additional purchases of land in the South-West and the go-ahead has been given for an additional planting programme in Scotland.

Therefore, the Forestry Commission and its Ministry are aware of the social obligations. But I put it to my hon. Friend that they are perhaps not sufficiently well aware of them.

There are innumerable areas of land which could be purchased. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham suggested that there are not suitable areas of land in central Wales. I hope that he will accept the correction when I say that there are large areas of suitable land in central Wales. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of them. On 11th October, 1967, he receive a document from the T.U.C, setting out in great detail, conservancy by conservancy, region by region, properties offered to the Forestry Commission which it did not, for one reason or another, purchase. I should like my hon. Friend—and I will correspond with him about this matter—to deal with the specific cases where the Economic Forestry Group was in a position to outbid the Commission. There are other reasons why these properties were not purchased, such as dilatoriness in conveyancing.

Why is it that the private sector, and particularly the Economic Forestry Group, is able to outbid the Commission? I draw attention to the excellent paper given at this year's British Association meeting by Professor Mutch in which he argued about the economics of forestry and clearly demonstrated that our system of taxation was such that the private sector had an advantage of 3½ per cent. compound interest on all capital employed. That is a considerable financial advantage, particularly when it is compared with the fact that the Forestry Commission has to pay current rates of interest. It is hardly surprising therefore that the Economic Forestry Group and other such organisations are in a position to compete successfully with and outbid the State sector.

What we expect from the Government—and we are surprised that we do not have it—is parity between the State and the private sector. As it is, all the aces are in the hands of the private sector.

I regard it as paradoxical that upland areas, particularly in central Wales and my constituency, are worked as agriculture. Often the economic return on such working does not meet the subsidies paid. In other words, there is a direct subsidy from the State to the fanners in these marginal upland areas. That is accepted, and it can be argued that on social grounds we cannot allow these communities to die. If that is true of agriculture, should not it be true of forestry, which receives no subsidy? If it is proper for agriculture to be subsidised in certain development areas, it is equally proper that forestry should be similarly subsidised.

My hon. Friend will doubtless tell me that the Commission thinks it proper to sell so much standing timber because the economic return on its sale is greater than that on timber delivered to mills. I ask him to look closely at the basis of the costing. The Commission argues that it is proper to apportion overheads constantly throughout the total forestry operation, particularly the cost of supervision. This is a spurious form of costing. There is no real saving, particularly in supervision, if standing timber is sold as compared with the Commission harvesting it. The true cost should be that of the labour involved, which is a much lower proportionate cost than that given by the Commission to justify the policy of selling so much standing timber.

I also ask my hon. Friend to look at the cost incurred by the Commission in clearing up after contract labour, which is not concerned about the state of forests, though the Commission is. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and I have been told by many Commission employees on our tours through the conservancies of England, Wales and Scotland of the number of times they have had to go into the forest and tidy up after the contract labour have finished. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend whether there is a cost element in terms of clearing up.

I am astounded that a Labour Government with no ideological objection to expansion of the public sector should have been so cavalier and indifferent as to allow this rundown of the public sector. I hope that my hon. Friend will instruct his officials to scrutinise in greater detail the costing which allows the Commission to justify its policy of an expansion of contract labour.

This is the second time—

Order. For that reason the hon. Gentleman will require the leave of the House to speak again.

I am sorry that my opening remarks reminded you of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

With the leave of the House, I was about to say that this is the second time today that hon. Members have suggested that some centralisation of responsibility is required, in other words, that too many Ministers are concerned with various matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) suggested that it might be better if one Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, were wholly responsible for forestry. I take his point, but in many ways forestry is an agricultural operation, and apart from a short period the Ministry has been responsible for it for a long time. We see no reason for having it otherwise, although I agree that Scotland has a larger area of forestry than England and Wales.

I have every sympathy with my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham and The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) about the reduction of the Commission's labour force. A good deal of emphasis has been laid in the past by all Governments on the opportunities for employment which forestry has offered in rural areas suffering from depopulation. The reduction is necessary because the Commission has made important technical strides in the past few years. I ask my hon. Friends to compare the situation with that in agriculture. It was also considered to be of social benefit to help agriculture and to see that farming employment remained in some of the glens and other agricultural areas. But with the advance in agricultural techniques the numbers of agricultural workers have fallen. The figures for the reduction in agriculture are much greater than in forestry, the reduction in the labour force being up to 27,000–28,000 in a year. In the past 20 years, it has fallen by nearly two-thirds.

All of us who have an interest in forestry and have been to the Forestry Commission's forests, have noticed that possibly in its early days the Commission tended to be over-meticulous in some of its operations and supervision given to them. But in recent years the Commission has improved its working methods and management techniques, thus enabling it to rationalise the whole process of establishing and managing its forests. For example, in the extraction of felled timber the Commission is mechanising intensively, which enables it to do the work more quickly with less labour. Fewer roads need to be made with the new systems of extraction, and this is resulting in big economies.

The weeding of young plantations has always been time-consuming and expensive. Anybody who has watched the process, with the worker going round each tree with a bill-hook, would appreciate this. It was all done by hand, but chemical weeding is making the job easier and much more efficient. It needs only half the labour and the effect is much more lasting.

Another economy is being made by wider spacing between the young trees when they are planted. I remember wondering, as a boy, why trees were planted so close together and then had to be thinned out. It seemed a great waste, but it was the traditional practice because it was considered essential to plant the young trees closely, partly for protection from exposure, and partly to suppress the growth of weeds. It has now been found that close spacing is unnecessary, particularly because weeding can be done so economically by chemical spraying.

I have quoted only three examples of important changes which the Commission has made in its techniques. They are inter-related and have a cumulative effect. It is entirely owing to these and other improvements that the Commission has had to face the fact that it could reach the targets we have set it with a much smaller labour force than in the past.

What is the scale of the proposed reduction? At present the Commission employs a total of about 7,500 forest workers—nearly 3,000 in England, 2,900 in Scotland and 1,600 in Wales. By March, 1972 it is expected that the total number of forest workers will have fallen to about 6,300, which I must admit is a considerable reduction. The reduction will be about 650 in England, 150 in Scotland and 350 in Wales. In addition, the Commission employs about 1,300 industrial workers. A small reduction in their numbers is also taking place, but does not affect the main issue.

Both my hon. Friends asked what the reduction was to be in the number of supervisors. They are to be reduced from about 1,300 to about 1,200 by 1972. A close review of other supervisory and administrative staff is also in progress.

It is important to emphasise strongly that the reduction in the labour force will be obtained very largely from what is called—although I dislike the expression—"natural wastage". This covers retirement, workers leaving for other employment, and so forth. Nevertheless, there will remain a relatively small hard core of redundancy which will have to be dealt with under procedures agreed between the Commission and the unions.

My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak mentioned the social problems and the hardship of those who find themselves out of their jobs, and I have every sympathy with them. But, as I have pointed out, the Government introduced the Redundancy Payments Act. which was not in force when these things used to happen and we will be consulted anyway where there are special local problems before decisions are taken about any large scale redundancy. We should not be too despondent. Even with reductions of this size in the labour force, the Commission will continue to contribute substantially to employment in the countryside, particularly in the remote areas from which the retreat of population has been most marked.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said that Scotland was getting the lion's share and suggested using land in the Pennines and East Anglia for forestry. I take that point. He also mentioned one of the many reasons for the existence of the Forestry Commission—the rehabilitation of those areas of the countryside we have been speaking about.

Neither the employment of contract labour nor the practice of selling timber standing is a material factor in the reduction. It is true that the Commission does in some areas and for some jobs generally of a short term nature, employ contractors. My hon. Friend quoted figures showing, however, a reduction in the use of contractors over the last year or two. The effect of employment of contract labour on the size of the permanent labour force is, however, immaterial. Contractors are employed by the Commission only on a limited scale, when it is reasonable to do so in the light of local conditions.

I think my hon. Friend's real objection is not so much to the employment of contract labour as such but to the practice of selling timber standing to timber merchants. I must make it clear that the percentage of selling standing timber is also falling.

I must make it clear also that there is no bias in the Commission towards selling timber standing, nor is there a simple correlation between the amount of timber sold in this way and the size of the Commission's labour force. The fact is that the Commission must have a good deal of freedom to act flexibly in its management policies if it is to derive the maximum commercial value from its operations.

Both my hon. Friends stressed, rightly, that the Commission is there for social purposes as well but it is also its remit to be commercially viable. In some areas, it is commercially better to sell from standing instead of felling by direct labour. In other areas, the converse is true. A whole range of factors is involved, such as the availability of local skills, the scale of local felling programmes and the local demand for timber which cannot always be met without the help of the timber trade. It is only fair to point out that the timber trade, most of which is in private hands, cannot be efficient without continuity of work also. Moreover, the timber trade's own workers also have reasonable claims to an assurance of continuous employment.

I take the point and neither my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) nor I would dispute it. But the arguments my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is posing were operative a decade ago, when a mere 35 per cent. of harvesting was undertaken by contract labour. Why has the situation changed so radically over the last 10 years?

I would not agree that it has changed as radically as my on. Friend suggests. He himself has given the figures. The percentage has fallen from 57 to 51 per cent. The figures for selling standing timber has also fallen, but it varies over the years and much depends on the area where it is felled.

Both my hon. Friends stressed the need for expansion of the Commission's programme. The Commission has most impressive plans for expansion. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last January, we hope that the Commission will plant as much as 50,000 acres a year by 1976 in Scotland alone. There is no policy bar, moreover, to expansion in Wales and in upland areas in the North of England.

Both my hon. Friends asked about the Economic Forestry Group and its ability to get land as against the Commission, and they stressed the taxation arrangements. These arrangements are not designed specifically to confer special advantages on private forestry but to take account of the rather unique fiscal problem presented by the fact that the investment involved does not mature for 30, 40 or even 50 or 60 years. Although investment in forestry is attractive to high Surtax payers, and forestry grants are also an incentive, it would be difficult to differentiate between investment by clients of the Economic Forestry Group and farmers acting independently, although their motives may not be identical. The Government have reviewed forestry taxation but no changes of substance have emerged.

My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak said that agriculture was subsidised but not forestry. But private forestry is, in fact, subsidised through taxation allowances, and so forth, and it is difficult to subsidise to any great extent a public body like the Forestry Commission which gets its money from the Treasury anyway.

My hon. Friend also mentioned various costings. I will write to him about these. I will look into the point put to me by the unions that, when timber is felled privately or by contract labour, the cost of clearing up is sometimes left to the Commission. I will examine this with officials of the Commission.

We will ensure that the Department of Employment and Productivity is kept fully informed about redundancy in the Commission so that everything can be done at the earliest possible moment to see that alternative employment is available. We appreciate the human problems which will inevitably arise but, at the same time, we must avoid exaggerating their scale in terms of men actually discharged.

We must also accept the fact that any other approach to the problem would mean keeping on men who could not be fully occupied. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said that he and my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak were not Luddites and do not want this to happen, and I agree. It would make nonsense of the commercial operations of the Commission and would not be in the national interest—nor in the genuine interests of the men themselves.

Could my hon. Friend say something about purchasing land in South-West England or East Anglia, parts of which are development areas'?

These areas are basically agricultural and the battle for land there, for use for reservoirs, housing and so forth, is very fierce. There are places where the land is thin and not very good and which is not afforested, but I doubt whether there is much room to expand forestry in these areas. However, I will bear the suggestion in mind.