I beg to move,

That the Hosiery and Knitwear Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th April, be approved.

This Order, if it is approved by Parliament, will be made under the authority of Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. The Act provides that charges may be imposed by Order on persons engaged in an industry, if it is expedient for funds to be made available for certain purposes, one of the more important of which is scientific research. At the present time Orders under the authority of this Section are in existence for the wool textile and cutlery industries. I now seek the approval of the House for a similar Order to be applied to the hosiery and knitwear industry, which, in this context, means broadly the knitting, dyeing and finishing and making-up of weft-knitted articles. The end products of the industry include stockings and socks, tights, underwear, outer garments such as jumpers and cardigans, weft-knitted fabric, and other weft-knitted articles such as dusters and headwear.

Although this is the first time a scientific research levy has been sought for the industry, the Hosiery and Allied Trades Research Association, usually known as H.A.T.R.A., has been carrying out collective research for the industry since 1949. This has been financed partly by voluntary subscription and partly by a grant from the Ministry of Technology. The association is currently supported by some 300 firms out of a total potential membership of over 1,000. However, in terms of production member firms represent about 70 per cent. of the industry's turnover.

The purpose of the proposed levy is to spread the cost of research, which benefits the industry as a whole through a gradual improvement in knitting techniques, on as equitable a basis as possible to all firms within the industry; and in doing so to augment H.A.T.R.A.'s income to the extent necessary to carry out research on a scale suited to the needs of a highly competitive expanding industry with considerable export potential.

The Board of Trade is satisfied that H.A.T.R.A. is, in the words of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, a body capable of carrying out scientific research satisfactorily.

The levy will be related to the turnover of the industry subject to deductions as defined in paragraph 6 of the Order. The levy will be payable in respect of six-monthly periods, and the charge will be 6s. 8d. per £1,000 of turnover, less deductions, during a base period of the previous six months.

Based on the estimated turnover of the industry in 1967 and on the assumption that sales will continue to increase, the annual levy yield should reach at least £100,000, compared with the current subscription yield of £61,000. This should give H.A.T.R.A. a total income of £195,000 during the year beginning 1st July, 1969, compared with £131,000 for the preceding year.

This income will enable H.A.T.R.A. to increase its qualified staff to the extent necessary to carry out research into, among other things, automation of the making up process, and the development of non-woven, non-knitted material, both subjects of vital importance if the industry is to maintain its strong position, both in overseas markets and at home, against increasing competition from imports. The Association will also be able to step up its current work on a wide range of subjects including the study of fabric and yarn structures, shade variations in knitted goods, quality control and efficiency in water usage and conservation. Greater provision would be made for the dissemination of information, both by literature and through the use of the "Hatravan" information and training van, and for improving its liaison services. These latter services are particularly important in an industry which has a large proportion of small firms, many of whom, especially in Scotland, are situated at some distance from H.A.T.R.A. headquarters.

It is against this background that in 1967 H.A.T.R.A. asked the Board to consider making an Order introducing a levy for scientific research in the hosiery and knitwear industry. Its application was backed by a Joint Standing Committee consisting of senior officials from the two main trade associations—the National Hosiery Manufacturers' Federation and the Knitted Textile Dyers Federation—the National Union of Hosiery Workers and members of H.A.T.R.A. Council. At a general meeting on 4th June this year H.A.T.R.A. members reaffirmed their support for a levy by a majority of two to one.

I should perhaps say that the attendance at that meeting on 4th June was very poor. Less than 40 people attended, and they voted in favour of a levy by a two to one majority. A poll vote taken in connection with the meeting, based on a weighted voting system and including proxy votes, also showed a two to one majority in favour of the levy, although less than 9 per cent. of the potential total votes were cast, so that less than 3 per cent. were against the levy.

I take this to imply that the opponents of the levy, for whose benefit the meeting was called, were able to muster in their support only a small minority of the membership. It is also relevant that the members of H.A.T.R.A. had previously supported the levy at three annual general meetings. However, I claim that the industry supports the principle on the basis of the long and detailed discussions which we have had with representative bodies.

Besides the main trade associations and the principal union, the Board sought views on the levy proposal from 20 other organisations believed to be representative of substantial numbers of employers and employees in the industry, including the nine regional associations affiliated to the National Hosiery Manufacturers' Federation. As the result of the views expressed during these consultations, the Board reached the conclusion that the proposal to introduce a levy had substantial majority support within the industry as a whole, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology—then Minister of State, Board of Trade—announced to the House on 3rd April, 1968, the Board's intention to seek approval for the introduction of a levy.

The Order has been drafted following detailed consultation with organisations representative of manufacturers in the industry. The opinions of the small but important minority of organisations who criticised the levy have been carefully considered and, wherever practicable, modifications have been made to allow for their comments on the levy proposals. The most significant of these have been a reduction in the rate of levy proposed from 0·065 per cent. to 0·033 per cent.—that is 6s. 8d. per £1,000—of net turnover, and the provision for deduction from turnover of certain selling and distribution expenses, including those incurred in maintaining offices overseas for export promotion purposes.

The fact that it has not been possible to meet all requests for modification of the levy provisions does not reflect any lack of appreciation of the differing needs of each sector of the industry. It does reflect the need to produce provisions which are as fair as possible to the widest possible section of the trade without becoming so complicated and so capable of misinterpretation as to become unworkable.

I am satisfied that a considerable majority of the industry wishes to have this levy. The industry regards this levy as a proper and valuable way of promoting useful research. They support the levy as necessary to share the financial burden, which now falls only on the firms which are members of H.A.T.R.A., more equitably among all firms in the industry, all of whom stand to benefit from H.A.T.R.A.'s work. They regard it as essential to provide H.A.T.R.A. with the income needed to finance the level of research appropriate to their expanding and changing industry, an income which cannot be provided equitably by a system of voluntary membership and subscriptions.

A minority in the industry takes the view that the levy is an inappropriate way of promoting research, or that they are unlikely to benefit from the research that will be done, and that it is, therefore, unreasonable for them to be forced to pay what is virtually a tax for work that will not benefit them. This minority points out that some of them do their own research which H.A.T.R.A. may duplicate; and that much technical information, which again H.A.T.R.A. may duplicate, is provided free by the suppliers of the industry. They also fear that a levy system may reduce the industry's control over H.A.T.R.A.'s activities.

No one will dispute that it is vital that the hosiery and knitting industry, a section of the textile industry in which Britain is particularly strong, must remain technically in the lead. The only question is whether a levy for H.A.T.R.A. is a proper way of helping it to maintain its lead.

There are certainly dangers in a levy. There is the danger, for example, that an organisation that does not have to earn its keep may fail to justify its existence. There are always difficulties in managing co-operative research. There are difficulties in knowing what projects shall be carried through; whom they will benefit; what is their competitive value when they are likely to be as available to foreign competitors as to the British industry; whether the co-operative research organisation will be directed away from particular sensitive areas of research precisely because some of its members are interested in those areas and do not want their competitors to be brought into the field. There are major problems of transfer of information from the co-operative research organisation into the industry, particularly to companies that lack technical personnel of their own, capable of understanding what is being offered to them.

It is certainly true that while there are in this country examples of co-operative research done supremely well, there are other less encouraging examples.

I do not say that these criticisms are without substance. There are dangers. It will be for H.A.T.R.A. to satisfy the industry, including the opponents of the levy, that in this case the benefits that flow outweigh any detriments. The industry have asked for this levy, as they are entitled to do under the Act. The majority of the industry that supports the levy is entitled to a trial of its view that this will be a successful method of raising the standards of innovation and technical competence in the industry.

Those who support the levy certainly have a duty to ensure that it is properly used and for the benefit of the industry as a whole. If, over a period of time, they fail in this task, the levy can be cancelled or modified. In short, the opposition to the levy has not, in my view, been sufficient to justify the Government in refusing to implement the wishes of the majority. But a clear responsibility lies on H.A.T.R.A. and its Council to make this levy a success, and, of course, they have behind them twenty years' experience to assist them in this endeavour.

First I must declare a constituency interest. Leicester, part of which I represent, is one of the leaders in the hosiery and knitwear trade, and hosiery and knitwear is one of its staple industries. I must also declare a possible personal interest, in that I am chairman of a group which has textile interests, none of which appears to be directly affected by the Order, but which might have been affected by the Order in its original form.

I have visited the research establishment, and anything that I say in the debate will not, I hope, be taken as a criticism of that establishment, the work that is done there or of the skill and the efforts of the staff, which are of a high order; nor I hope will it be taken as a criticism of the need for research. Indeed, Leicester was in the forefront of research and development particularly in textiles. It was the first city in Europe and in the world to make many major developments, and it retains that position.

The Minister has conceded that the case for the Order is not all one way; that there are dangers and problems. I am not satisfied with the case for the effectiveness of collective compulsory research. I believe that research can more often best be done by individual firms, although the small firm may be in some difficulty. Those firms which are not of a size to justify their own research get best value from voluntary collective effort. A compulsory collective effort inhibits firms from putting into the pool many things which they would prefer to keep out and not to share with those bodies with whom the compulsory Order requires them to participate.

The case is perhaps adequately and admirably summed up in the report of the chairman of the Leicester and District Hosiery Manufacturers' Association Ltd., a body of considerable importance in the context of this Order. The chairman said this in his annual report:

"It is the section's firm believe that any research association will only obtain the support from the industry that it warrants. Our problem now is that we do not now have a choice. We pay for and support research which may be done well or may be done badly; research which may be relevant or irrelevant and we have no option."

That, of course, is on the basis that the Order is made. I ask the Minister to weigh those words carefully, and to contrast the approach to this Order with the approach of the nearest comparable research association, S.A.T.R.A., the Shoe and Allied Trades Research Association. That Association is voluntarily supported and holds a unique position in the world. It would be a disaster if that voluntary principle in S.A.T.R.A. were destroyed. I believe it may be a mistake to destroy the voluntary principle in H.A.T.R.A. as it will be by this Order. If the association's work is good, it will be supported by all those who benefit from it. If the work is worth while, those who do not agree to benefit from it or take advantage of it will suffer or cease to be competitive. They will not have the advantages of those research efforts and will fall by the wayside. I again urge the Government to reconsider the principle as to whether compulsory levies of this kind are right.

A voluntary system avoids the nonsense of the legal definition of those who have to pay. In a voluntary system the trade subscribes on the basis of getting value for money. With a levy the trade subscribes because it comes within a rather arbitrary legal definition. I know that the Minister has had considerable difficulty in getting this definition agreed within the industry; indeed it is not now agreed. He said that the majority of people supported it, but I will develop that argument in a moment. The contrast is between payment made because a firm falls within the peculiar legal definition and payment because they are getting value for money.

The definition makes a nonsense. It excludes, for example, the makers-up. The Minister said that it included makers-up of knitted materials, but he will agree that makers-up of knitted material are caught by the levy only if they also happen to engage in knitting activities caught by the levy. The firms outside the industry, the makers-up for what is colloquially known as the "rag" trade, which get considerable benefit from the research that is carried out, are not caught by the levy, nor are the yarn producers, although a great deal of research work has been undertaken in connection with large yarn companies by the research association. As proof of that, the Minister will be aware that a great many of the voluntary contributions to the association are now made by the yarn producers. This surely is evidence that they are people who are getting benefit from the research. It is quite anomalous that they should be excluded from the levy. I recognise that they are also caught by a statutory levy of another kind, but although they benefit also from the work of the Hosiery and Knitwear Research Association they are excluded from this statutory levy.

The machinery makers also are excluded. I know from my visits to the research association and from my knowledge of the industry that much of the development work that takes place in the establishments is related to the development of machinery. It is worth noting that H.A.T.R.A. has established a happy working relationship with some of the leading knitting machinery manufacturers in the country. Machinery makers get the benefit, the pay-off, from this research, yet since they are outside the net, they are not to be required to make any contribution. It will be their customers, the people who buy the machines, who through the levy will pay for the research.

The Minister has pointed out that the Act requires what one might call consultation with the industry. But consultation can take many forms. It was Sir Winston Churchill who said that one could consult a man and ask him if he wishes to have his head cut off, and, when he says "No", one could cut it off and say that he has been consulted. I wonder whether that is not appropriate to the consultation which has taken place here.

The H.A.T.R.A. vote, as the Minister fairly said, was at a poorly attended meeting. Those in favour were 18, with 8 against, a majority of slightly more than two to one. But on the poll that was taken, with one vote for every £50 of levy, those in favour were 270, those against 178—something less than the two to one stated by the Minister.

They comprise the very people who are the beneficiaries of the Order, the people who, on the Minister's argument, are paying voluntarily for research which is being shared by those who are not paying. They are the people who say, "Why should we keep putting our hands in our pockets for research and know-how when all the people outside are getting the benefit and paying nothing?". On that argument one would expect to see 100 per cent. support from members of H.A.T.R.A. rather than the ratio of 270 to 178, or 18 to 8.

The Minister also said that there had been support for the levy at a number of previous meetings. But that is not entirely fair, though I am sure it was not intended to be unfair. Previous meetings of H.A.T.R.A. considered the draft Order in various forms and amendments have since been made. I believe that the figures are relevant only on the occasion when the Order was finally drafted.

There was very strong opposition from members of the National Hosiery Manufacturers' Federation, but that opposition was to some extent diluted by the fact that a number of important members resigned when the Federation decided to support the principle of the levy. So the poll or vote taken there was not representative of all those who were opposed to it. Those people were then outside the federation; they comprised powerful interests, firms not necessarily large in size, but certainly strong in influence and in various other ways, and they opted out. They were consulted, but they are not brought into the figures.

A private poll has been conducted, and I believe the figures have been given to the Minister. I am a little surprised that in constant references in his speech to the majority and the complaints of the insignificant minority he made no reference to this private poll that was carried out and reported in the Hosiery Times in January, 1969. The result of the poll was as follows.

I am sure the hon. Member would not want to misinterpret what I said. The actual phrase I used was, "A small but important minority".

I am sorry if I got carried away and distorted the Minister's proper qualification. The figures of the results of the poll were as follows. It was a poll made on a wide section of the industry in which 330 firms were consulted and a number did not reply. There were 180 against the levy and 41 in favour. The approximate number of employees in these groups of firms was, 43,000 employees in firms against and 15,000 employees in firms that declared themselves to be in favour.

On any yardstick it would be wrong to say that a majority of the industry are in favour. I believe that the majority of the industry are opposed to the levy. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that these figures of the poll were given to the Minister and he was invited to examine them and to see the form of the poll and to make any challenge he wished. It is remarkable that in quoting the figures of two to one and in referring to the minority and majority—it was an important minority—no reference was made to the dramatic figures whch are far more representative of the weight of opinion than those taken from the members of H.A.T.R.A., who automatically have a vested interest; and even there it is not a very large majority.

I turn now to the amount of the levy. The effect of it is to increase the charge on the majority of firms in the Leicester and district area, who at present voluntarily contribute to H.A.T.R.A., by something between four and six times. That is the rate of increase which will fall under this levy on firms who at present support the association. That shows how illogical it is. I know that the Minister has tried very hard to find a formula which will produce a fair sharing of the levy, and I recognse the difficulties that there must have been. But the Act requires it to be in accordance with fair principles, and I ask whether it can be a fair principle on those who voluntarily support the association when, under a compulsory levy, which is meant to bring in outsiders who have not been supporting it, they will find their costs increased four to six times. I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of this. If he is not, I hope that he will take the opportunity to reflect upon it before proceeding with the Order.

I have referred already to the lengthy correspondence with his Department. He said in April that he believed that the change to the turnover basis now being proposed would not of itself materially alter the contribution which might at present be paid per head on a voluntary basis in these cases. But it increases it by four to six times.

The excess being contributed will be devoted largely to projects in which the contributing firms have no special interest. Some of it will be devoted to projects which benefit other industries that are not required to contribute. One very important development which has been going on for some time concerns a positive feed control. That is essentially of interest to knitting machinery manufacturers and is for their benefit. The results of that development will be paid for by the knitting industry when it buys machines, and it will also benefit machinery makers in selling their machines. But it seems wrong that one section of users should be required to subsidise this sort of development. Some of the research money will continue to go on research into automation in making up. The makers-up are outside this Order unless they make up their own knitted materials. I suggest that that is wrong.

The wrong formula has been adopted. The requirement on the turnover basis means that people pay for the value of the material used. Two comparable firms, one of which is knitting expensive yarn and the other using cheaper yarn, will pay different contributions. The firm using the more expensive yarn will pay a greater contribution, although the effect of research may be far more beneficial to the firm using the cheaper yarn since one of the objects of research is to bring down the value of the raw material used without reducing the quality of the finished article. That is, after all, one of the basic concepts of efficiency. That shows how illogical it is.

When dealing with the deductions allowed from turnover, the Order pays a good deal of lip-service to export expenditure. The Order provides that, for example, overseas offices are a deductible expense. It also allows deductions in respect of sales. However, there is then a rather cheap jibe. In the Order as originally drafted, there was a proviso included in the paragraph dealing with the deduction of expenses. It allowed from the turnover the deduction of various expenses

"… provided that a body corporate shall not be entitled to any deduction in respect of the remuneration and expenses of its directors."

The Government have a fetish about directors. They seem to think that, because someone is a director, he is a useless appendage—

Order. With respect, we cannot debate the Order which is not before us.

I take you point, of course, Mr. Speaker. I brought it up merely to indicate that, in spite of dropping the proviso, nevertheless in their negotiations with the industry, the Government have arranged to retain it. They say in a letter to the Nottingham District Hosiery Manufacturers Association dated 1st April, 1969:

"As you know the proviso was added to make it quite clear that deductions could not be made in respect of the remuneration and expenses of a director of a company. By virtue of his position a director would in most companies have responsibility under the statutes of the company for the general management of the company and could not therefore be considered as 'wholly engaged' in the procuring of contracts of sales. If, however, a sales manager is merely a director of a department with no position on the board of directors and he deals full time with sales, the deductions may legitimately be made. After further consideration and to cover the case of a director without responsibility for the general management of the company it has been decided to admit the proviso, on the understanding that this in no way alters the position regarding the deductions which may be made."

Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is debating a proviso which has gone from this Order and which he apparently does not want to see in the Order.

I am referring to the interpretation which the Minister has said is intended to be placed on the Order which is now before us. The Order is intended to be interpreted in such a way as to make it clear that no director concerned with general management shall be included in the class of persons whose expenses and salaries can be deducted from the turnover in calculating the levy. I will not develop the argument, but it is difficult to think of a director who is not responsible for general management. I should have thought that the Board of Trade would be aware of the duties of a director under the Companies Act.

This is cheap, and I ask the Government to think again. They must be aware of the effort which is put in by the directors of companies who spend their lives selling. I am sure that the Minister is aware of one leading figure in the hosiery trade who has done great work on the British National Exports Council and who has spent most of his life with a suitcase selling British hosiery overseas. According to the Order, apparently he is to be regarded as a useless appendage whose expenses and salary cannot be taken into account because he also has a responsibility for the general management of his firm. The firm in question won the Queen's Award, and now it is to be told that its director must be regarded in that way. I must ask the Minister to think again about the way in which he interprets that part of the Order.

I suggest, too, that when the Government pay lip service to exports, they should consider making a deduction in respect of export turnover as a whole. It would be a little fillip to exporting firms. It would not infringe G.A.T.T. or E.F.T.A. It would show that the Government have some intention of backing all the words and exhortations they have given to exporters. Surely that should be done.

I believe that the Order will add a bit more to the Socialist bureaucratic nonsense. There will be a terrible amount of administrative work. I remind the House of the wording of Article 8, dealing with the furnishing of information. Returns have to be compiled giving a person's name and address, the business name under which he carries on a business, the principal place of such business and a description of such business. He may also be required to furnish such returns and other information, to keep such records, and to produce for examination such books and so on as shall be required by the Board of Trade.

Really, what a tremendous amount of rigmarole. It is a pathetic exercise. At the end, it will force a lot of people to pay something that they do not want to pay to produce an additional income of £40,000 per annum instead of the voluntary figure of £60,000 which is now being obtained. All this is for something that the majority in the industry do not want.

I cannot let pass the final part of the Order dealing with penalties. "Penal clauses" would perhaps be a more appropriate and apt description. If a person fails to fulfil any of the requirements under the provisions of Article 8, which requires everyone to fill in all these forms and go through all that rigmarole,

"or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50, or on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding £100 or to both such imprisonment and fine."

What have we come to? Throughout the country we have had all this "to do" about fines on certain other matters and on penal clauses. Yet, one of the leading industries in this country is to be subjected to a form-filling bureaucratic routine with a threat of two years imprisonment if someone makes a mistake. I ask the Government, for heaven's sake, to stop meddling in things that they do not understand and to let this great industry get on, as it has got on so well in the past.

It is right that the House should spend some time debating this Order. The Minister gave his usual balanced review of the matter, but the fact that he found so much to say on both sides of the account, as it were, is full justification for our considering the implications of the Order in some detail.

The Minister's account of the voting procedures that were followed suggests that the polls that were taken could not be considered conclusive evidence. We have had various discussions about the deductions to be drawn from occasions when the poll is low, but I think we can agree that this is one occasion when it would be unwise to base an assessment of the correctness of the introduction of the Order on the polls that were taken, particularly as they were apparently taken largely within an association composed of people who were already, of their own free will, contributors to H.A.T.R.A.

There are some particular points about the Order which we should discuss, but should like to make one general comment about this type of compulsory Government-imposed levy. Where a decision is taken to compel firms to make payments for purposes of an industrial nature, which they have not been willing to pay for of their own free choice, we must be very careful lest the result is a misapplication of economic resources and, therefore, a weakening and not a strengthening of the country's economic base.

The whole point of the Order is that it brings about a change for a voluntary to a compulsory basis of financing. The Hosiery and Allied Trade Research Association has been carrying on research for the benefit of the hosiery and knitwear industry since 1949. This is not to bring some new body or new sphere of activity into existence.

I should like at this stage to echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) in a number of trenchant comments. I hope that any comments about the Order will not be taken as a criticism of the need for research. We on this side of the House fully support what the Minister of State said about the need for research in this very successful and progressive industry. But I think that we are entitled to probe the reasons for the change to a compulsory basis at this point when the association has been in existence for some 20 years.

In considering the Order I thought that there could be three underlying reasons why this change was now proposed. The first, which I should welcome the most, would be a statement from the Minister and a revelation that there had been developments in the industry's technology which justify or call for an expansion of research effort.

The second possibility was that the Association is not viable as an independent unit on its present voluntary income. I have not had the opportunity to visit the association's headquarters, so this is a general comment, but it is relevant to the situation. We should always examine, when this kind of situation arises, whether it is right that a body should stay independent or whether it may be better that it should be merged into some larger research organisation. This pattern is taking place generally in industry.

The third possibility for the introduction of the Order was the one to which the Minister gave the most emphasis—I found this the most disappointing thing about his speech—namely, that there is just a feeling that some firms are benefiting from activities to which they have not made a financial contribution. That is perhaps the least praiseworthy reason for taking action of this nature.

I have a feeling that the changes in the technology of the industry possibly did not get the emphasis from the Minister that they deserve. He made reference to the need to pursue research into non-knitted, non-woven clothes. I am sure that this is a considerable field for change that lies ahead of the industry. It may be that there is, therefore, a technological basis for this proposal. However, I am sorry that the Minister felt that he could not give it the pride of place in the argument which he put before the House.

Another thing which makes me look with some care at the Order is the fact that since 1961 there have been only three industries subject to Orders under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. So obviously this is not a usual practice: these are exceptions. The Minister quoted two in his speech, but a few days ago, in a reply which perhaps I misunderstood, he gave me three. We will not quarrel about it. There have obviously been very few Orders made to introduce a compulsory levy.

It seems to me that a conclusive case has not been made why the industry and the association are required to be the subject of an Order which is of an unusual nature. The industry is not predominantly composed of small firms. The Minister has referred to approximately 1,000 firms in the industry. Accepting that there are 1,000 firms in the industry, this would, on the basis of the levy that the Minister has indicated, point to an average value of product of about £300,000 per firm per year. That is an average value over them all. The levy figure suggests a total net aggregate value of products supplied of £300 million. I found this a surprisingly high figure. I hope that I have applied the arithmetic correctly. A net aggregate value of products of £300 million suggests a very substantial industry indeed. Therefore, it makes it all the more surprising that it is necessary to resort to an Order for a compulsory levy of the nature that we are now considering.

Can the Minister tell us the number of firms that he estimates will come within the exemption provisions? There are presumably in the industry a number of large firms, as well as smaller ones, that are not contributing, judging from the figures he has given us. If so, that is presumably because they do not consider that it would be worth their while. It is a little disturbing that the figures indicate that it is not only the small firms but the larger firms that feel it is not worth their while contributing. Some of the reasons for this obviously lie in the background to the type of work done.

The Minister referred to the objectors to the introduction of the Order. He was very fair about this and made no attempt to glide over the fact that there have been objections, as there certainly have been. I would like to deal with the nature of the objections and the reasons for them a little more fully than the Minister could, in the hope that in due course solutions about their objections may emerge.

Many of the objectors are firms in Scotland which do not consider that they will obtain value for money. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), who has some of these firms in her constituency, and has contact with many others, has brought to my notice correspondence addressed to her by firms in Scotland, which I have read with considerable disquiet. It would be wrong not to say that they have a considerable ring of conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East would very much have liked to take part in the debate, but she was prevented from doing so when the business was arranged for Friday by commitments she had already undertaken in Scotland.

On the question of objections, one would hope that when an Order of this kind is being made to introduce a statutory levy, support would be found for it spread broadly and evenly across the whole industry. That is surely the object of the consultations which the Board of Trade is under an obligation to hold before laying the Order.

One can reasonably expect to find some dissident firms, because there are some companies which, on grounds of principle, are opposed to compulsory levies of this kind. However, one would hope not to find a whole section of the industry united in opposition to the levy. Dissidents spread thinly across the spectrum of the industry one could accept without many qualms, but it must give rise to more serious misgivings when one finds a whole section apparently united both in objecting to the Order and in its grounds of objection.

I have therefore studied carefully the objections brought to my notice. The main grounds are readily identifiable. They reinforce the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West. The first is that the smaller firms situated in Scotland benefit from the activities of the research association to a much smaller degree than larger firms in England. That is one of their repeated contentions. I should like to quote from one letter, which is typical of a number of others, from a firm situated in Scotland. It says:

"Directly conferred benefits to knitwear manufacturers have, in the main, been enjoyed by large firms in the Midlands using mass-production techniques …. The basis of the proposed assessment, being a fixed percentage of total sales, less certain deductions, would operate unfairly on the smaller manufacturers of high quality knitwear in Scotland, who are much less likely to derive anything like the same benefits as the large manufacturers of cheap, mass produced knitwear."

There is a further comment of the same kind on this point, again from a firm in Scotland. The writer says:

"In my considered opinion … the work done by H.A.T.R.A. can only be of benefit to a large group based on Leicester. Having been in business for almost 50 years, this company has not found a need to call upon H.A.T.R.A. for any information, and does not expect to require the kind of research H.A.T.R.A. undertake."

I should add one comment on this quotation in case anyone should think that the firm stands on the faltering fringe of the industry. The writer states at the beginning of the letter:

"… we export a certified 85 per cent. of our production".

I am sure that that will bring the same pleasure to the Minister as it did to me when I read the letter.

It is all the more reason for taking note of these objections that most of the firms in Scotland that are unhappy about the compulsory levy are large-scale exporters or suppliers to firms of multiple retailers noted for the high standard of product they demand and the quality control they exercise. A number of these firms are both.

I come now to the next ground of objection of these firms; namely, that a substantial part of the benefit of H.A.T.R.A.'s work flows to firms which will not be called upon to pay the statutory levy. I should like to quote from another letter, also from a firm in Scotland, supporting what my hon. Friend has just said. The firm's letter states:

"The services provided by H.A.T.R.A. have all along been, and continue to be, of most direct benefit to yarn spinners and dyers on the one hand, and manufacturers of textile machinery on the other hand."

I understand that yarn manufacturers, dyers and textile machinery manufacturers are excluded from the levy. I should like to read one further quotation before I leave this point about the objectors. It is from the first firm that I quoted on this point, and it says:

"As a small knitwear manufacturing company we can testify that we are quite unaware of any benefit we may have obtained as a result of the activities of H.A.T.R.A. either directly or indirectly. We suspect that they may possibly have had some hand in the design of the machinery we have acquired over the past 10 years, but we would presume to have paid for that at the time of purchase."

That has an entirely fair and logical ring to me. One does not expect to pay twice for this type of research into machinery manufacture. If the machinery manufacturer has been receiving the benefits of research in some form or other, it is right that he should pay for it and recover the payment from the cost of his product when he sells it.

Surely it would have been possible—and I ask the Minister to reflect on this, because of his final remarks—when the change to a compulsory levy was proposed to arrange at the same time that those firms receiving a service from H.A.T.R.A. that were not to be within the scope of the compulsory levy should be charged or should undertake to pay the full costs of the services they receive. If H.A.T.R.A. could have made firm proposals on those lines it would have removed any feeling of injustice and one of the objections made by the group of firms to which I have referred.

I turn to the narrow aspect of the calculation of the levy and the level of the exemption limit. Here I must be strongly critical on general grounds. I shall make a great attempt to carry the Minister with me. It is a fine sunny morning and there is no harm in being optimistic in one's approach to these matters.

The exemption figure for aggregate value is so low that I must confess that it raised doubts in my mind whether I had understood correctly the basis of calculation. It was only when I looked at the exemption limits on other orders, expressed in a slightly different form, that I was fully confident that I had made a correct assessment. I have come to one conclusion about which I am certain; namely, that those just above the exemption limit will be paying £3 6s. 8d. plus 1d. per annum, or, more precisely, £1 13s. 4d. in each levy period of six months. This must be nonsense. It will cost more for the firm to calculate and pay than the cost of the levy itself.

My hon. Friend touched on the really grotesque nature of the language used in connection with a levy of this size—the ponderous language of paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Order. My hon. Friend quoted from the penalties. I merely quote paragraph 8(2), which provides:

"The Board of Trade may by notice in writing require any person to whom this Order applies:

(a) to furnish such returns and other information,

(b) to keep such records; and

(c) to produce for examination such books and other documents and records as may to the Board of Trade be reasonable requisite for the purpose of the recovery of any charge imposed by this Order."

Reading the Order, we realise that this direction may relate to the collection of as little as 1s. 6d. per week. When we think about this we realise why Britain is the laughing stock of the world. It is because of the way we subject ourselves to bureaucracy gone mad. The minimum figure that we are talking about is less than the average citizen who enjoys a flutter on the football pools puts in the envelope that he sends away each week Apparently it is necessary for us to bring the full majesty of surveillance, inspection, direction and record-keeping into play in this case.

Surely it would be sensible to start by fixing a realistic figure below which it is plainly uneconomic to calculate, pay and administer the levy. There must be such a figure. The Minister has seen, in various calculations, how much it costs today to write and post a letter—never mind making a calculation involving the net aggregate turnover before making out the cheque, sending it off and having it cleared so as to make sure that the Board of Trade is satisfied that somebody is not escaping the levy. It is not 1s. 6d. per week. The Minister will soon fix on a figure that will be below the level of any coin in our currency—and then the nonsense will become apparent. I seriously suggest that the minimum figure for the levy should be £50, or £25 per annum at the very lowest.

Order. I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Member has said. He cannot seek to amend the Order; he can denounce it.

I was endeavouring to be constructive, as well as critical, Mr. Speaker, but as the rules of order restrict me to being destructive I will turn to another field of destructive criticism.

It is important that in fixing this type of exemption the Minister and the Government should recognise that the basis of running a small business is not the same as that of running a large one. With a levy fixed at this sort of figure, if an obligation is imposed on small firms to keep records that they would not otherwise keep and to change the whole basis of administration and accounting in their business, what the Order is really saying is, "You are a small business. We know that you therefore do not derive some of the benefits which accrue to large-scale business enterprise. You know that and we know that. You run your business in a different way, so that the advantages that you derive from being a small business offset the disadvantages arising from your not having the economies of scale. But we are going to see not only that you lack the benefits of large-scale operations; by imposing obligations on you we shall see that you have to forego the advantages which normally accrue to small-scale operations from flexibility and a lack of bureaucracy."

The industrial training boards are increasingly realising that equity can be the adversary of common sense, and are tending to widen their exemptions from the training levy for small undertakings. Has the Board of Trade considered the experience of the training boards in this direction? Does the Minister feel that even though the industry that we are discussing may feel it inequitable that only two-thirds of the industry should be paying this levy, it would want to see the levy fixed at a minimum level of 1s. 6d. per week? If we think in such small terms, no wonder our achievements are so short of what we want to see.

We are discussing the appropriateness of this Order to the situation in the industry. We are not discussing—and I am not seeking to criticise—the merits of the Hosiery and Allied Trades Research Association. The long existence of that research association, supported by voluntary payments and charges for services rendered, is evidence of its usefulness to the industry. An Order of this kind, carrying with it statutory obligations, must be fair and sensible in its provisions, and there would appear to be a substantial section of the industry that considers that its terms are not fair. The Minister almost accepted that that was so in his opening remarks. I hold the view that these exemption provisions are set at such a derisory figure that they are not sensible.

No doubt the Minister wishes to see the Order in operation. He gave some of the background, telling us how long these discussions had been taking place. These terms are th best that he has been able to produce so far; I hope he will not be deterred from further attempts to improve them. He said that it would be up to H.A.T.R.A. to justify a levy being imposed on this basis. I hope that he also believes that it is up to him to justify fixing a levy in these terms, and that he will not be deterred, whilst the Order is in operation, from considering whether it can be improved.

I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that he will review the levy provisions—apart from the consideration to which he has referred—after one or two years' operation, and then introduce an amending Order if he is persuaded that one is desirable. I particularly ask him to consider the minimum exemption levels, which it is apparent that the Board of Trade fix with a fine historical sense and an almost complete disregard for the realities of current financial terms.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the very interesting speeches which have been made by the hon. Members opposite. One speech, at any rate—and probably both—invited me to speculate at some length and with a breadth that you, Mr. Speaker, would undoubtedly rule out of order, on the relative merits of compulsory and voluntary contributions to research. This is an interesting argument, and I indicated that I quite understood that there were arguments on both sides of this question. There are strong possible disadvantages in a compulsory system of financing research. I am aware of them. I am sure that if the levy is to be a success H.A.T.R.A. must find a way of overcoming them. They are dangers to be avoided.

However, the problem as presented to me is not the theoretical question whether we should have a compulsory or voluntary levy for research in this industry. The problem is that this is something which the industry wants. Both hon. Members produced evidence that this was not true, which I will consider in a moment. But for the moment let them accept that the industry wants this and that this is the view of the majority of the industry. The Board of Trade must therefore consider whether to use this Act to support their judgment. It seemed right that the industry should be able to try out this system without foreclosing or deciding the relative arguments of principle or merit between compulsory and voluntary financing.

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) thinks that so many members of this industry are Socialists or supporters of bureaucracy. I am delighted to hear it: I look forward to excellent results in the hosiery areas at the next election. I must also disabuse him of the idea that we have any prejudice against directors: there are too many of them on this side for that. But we have undertaken extensive consultations and believe that the industry supports the levy by a substantial majority.

Mention was made of the H.A.T.R.A. meeting on 4th June, at which there was a small vote. The significance of that meeting was that it had been represented to the H.A.T.R.A. Council that there had been insufficient opportunity for the opponents to represent their views. All that happened was that something under 3 per cent. of the members of H.A.T.R.A. voted against the levy, which was no sign of strong opposition. Indeed, one gentleman who has been legitimately active in his opposition to this levy did not even turn up at the meeting which had been called to allow him to express his point of view. Admittedly, these are the members of H.A.T.R.A., and the hon. Member fairly said that they might be expected to support the levy more than those who were not members.

But we have consulted a large number of trade associations which, by a large majority, have said that they support this. Surely we have to assume that a trade association speaks for its members. If it does not, its members should change its leadership. A large majority of other organisations, like trade unions, also supported the levy.

The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West referred to a sample referendum conducted by one distinguished member of the industry of 330 manufacturers, mainly in the fabric sectors, of whom 180 stated their opposition to the levy. We were told about this referendum. Of course the hon. Member does not need me to tell him that there are dangers in conducting polls and interpreting their results. The coverage of this sample was, perhaps, not all that it should have been. If one presents people with the question, "Do you want to pay additional money?", without any clear explanation of what benefits are likely, it is hardly surprising if the answer is, "No". Even then, in these somewhat biased circumstances, a little under half those consulted seem to have been in favour—again, a large number of Socialists.

The hon. Gentleman is a little unfair when he suggests that the question put was a loaded one. He should look at the questionnaire, which was fair and balanced. There were 180 against, out of 330, and a number did not reply. I said that only 41 were in favour.

I am grateful for the correction. I did not have the number who said that they were in favour. But it is a matter of assessing the value of this sample, and the questionnaire, as to whether it represented to those questioned the merits of the proposal. Against that, we must put the views of the trade associations which we have consulted, so we are justified in saying that this is something which the industry wants. It is open to any trade association to change its mind and say that it does not want this any more.

The next series of points related to the formula on which the levy is based. It is very difficult—I accept that this is probably one of the arguments against compulsory levies—to get absolute fairness. We have consulted so as to do the best we can. Our object in putting in various deductions was to help firms which produce high quality stuff and therefore have a high turnover relative to employment, and which will therefore suffer because of the change from an employment basis.

The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West complained that we did not put in other sorts of deduction, but, at the end of the day, one must decide what is a fair distribution of the burden among different firms. If this is going to be a success, one must aim to accumulate a certain income. If all the deductions which he suggested were made, the object would have been defeated, because there would have been virtually no income. The additional deductions must produce the income: either that or the rate must be increased. We were concerned to have a fair distribution between different sections of the industry.

The deductions which I asked for were, first, the exclusion of directors—as he did, but which I thought was illogical—and the only positive one which I put forward was export turnover. I believe that that would be substantial because this is a high exporting industry.

But, unless one then increased the rate, this would reduce the income. It is a simple arithmetical proposition.

Is it the Board of Trade's intention to go through the rigmarole about expenses of directors overseas if they have general management responsibilities?

No, the position was correctly stated by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West. In this Order, we have to define, in a way which is legally valid and capable of interpretation, those expenses which will be deductible. In terms of export sales, if we took a director also with general management responsibility, we should have to make a deduction in respect of a certain part of his activities. We have ruled that out—

rose—

Order. I would remind hon. Members that we have seven debates before us.

Just on this point—

Perhaps I had better continue. We can discuss the matter further by correspondence, if necessary.

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) says that the £5,000 exemption is too low. First, I think that he is wrong in saying that the cost of collecting this will necessarily be greater than the income. Obviously when one gets a small income, the relative cost of collection is high. However, the total cost of collecting the levy is estimated to be about £3,300, compared with a total income of £104,000.

We shall have to make the turnover inquiry of the firms concerned in any case, whatever their current turnover. This is a rapidly expanding industry, and firms which are currently excluded may soon come within the ambit of the levy. Some inquiry will have to be made of those firms, therefore, and once that has been done, since it represents a considerable proportion of the cost of operating the scheme, the limit which we have fixed will be seen to be perfectly reasonable.

As for Scotland, I am aware of and regret the opposition of the representative organisation of the industry there. The H.A.T.R.A. Council has authorised the staff for an office in Scotland which will be concerned with servicing the industry. There are certain problems of location which have yet to be resolved, but I hope that this will enable the industry in Scotland to see that certain benefits will flow to it from the operation of the levy.

Mention was made of firms which are not covered by the compulsory levy but which nevertheless have contact with H.A.T.R.A. Certainly H.A.T.R.A. is in a position to make contracts with specific firms for specific projects, and the making of such contracts is a not insubstantial part of H.A.T.R.A.'s current income. That is something which it can continue to do, whether or not there is a levy.

I base my support for the Order on the views of the industry. Obviously it is a matter for which we must take responsibility, and we must also take the responsibility of watching the situation. I made it clear in my opening speech that, as a result of the levy, H.A.T.R.A. has a clear responsibility to help the whole industry.

It is possible to modify the Order. If experience shows that modification is necessary in respect of the points made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale and others, we shall do it. That is a matter which will have to be judged in the light of experience. Also in the light of experience we shall have to see whether H.A.T.R.A. is able to satisfy those who currently oppose the levy that the results of the research made possible by the levy assist them in their work and in developing this rapidly growing industry. I hope that that will turn out to be the case. I hope, too, that the House will be prepared to give the levy a trial and will approve the Order.

We come now to the second Order. I would point out to the House that reasonably brief speeches will help.

I beg to move,

That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 672), dated 7th May, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

The provisions of the Order concern the arrangements for calculating and paying to growers deficiency payments on barley which were originally set out in the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1964 when the standard quantity/target indicator price arrangements were first introduced.

The need for this amending Order arises from the changes in these arrangements following the determination of Ministers which were announced following the 1969 Annual Review. In the 1969 Annual Review White Paper, the Government set out the measures to be taken to give effect to its policy of encouraging a further expanson of cereal producton to the full extent technically possible and consistent with reasonable resource use and support cost.

Last year we removed a limiting factor on wheat production, by abolishing the standard quantity restriction, and in the Order now presented provision is made for the abolition of the standard quantity for barley. Provision is also made for the ending of the arrangement under which, when annual production of barley is below the standard quantity and the average realised price is below the target indicator price, the deficiency payment is abated within a range of production determined by Ministers. The similar arrangement for wheat was terminated last year. The current provisions relating to wheat, rye, oats and mixed cereals remain unchanged.

I commend the Order as a necessary step in the fulfilment of the Government's announced intention of promoting the expansion of cereals production, while maintaining necessary safeguards for the Exchequer.

Before I come to the Order, I wonder if I might raise a small point which concerns it and the Orders which we shall be dealing with later.

It has been extremely difficult to get information and guidance from the various trade bodies concerned since they have been unable to obtain advance copies of the draft Orders. I hope that I am not out of order in raising the matter—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in raising this point.

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. It is only a small point and perhaps in future, before we debate similar Orders, arrangements will be made for the appropriate trade bodies to have copies so that they can study them and put their views to the Opposition.

We note the changes made by the Government in this Order concerning the removal of standard quantities and the abolition of certain arrangements in terms of guaranteed prices. Certainly we welcome the changes, especially those concerning the removal of standard quantities.

Times have changed. There is a completely different set of circumstances from those prevailing in June, 1964, when the original Order was made. Our country has certain balance of payments problems which make it necessary for us to produce more of our own barley and practise import substitution. This Order will help to do that.

It is interesting to recall what the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said in 1964:

"We do not oppose these quantities. We have accepted standards of quantities in principle in view of the quid pro quo relating to the control of cereal imports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 1075.]

Now we have changed. We ourselves do not oppose these new conditions. These are changed circumstances. We believe that the Order is right and will be of benefit to the cereal grower. It will give him the confidence that he requires to go forward.

The position of the cereal farmer at present is very difficult. He has to cope with the serious problem of weather, which has had a disastrous effect on yields. Average yields are dropping. Disease has reared its ugly head and this has depressed yields. We have also had higher costs. This has made the position of the cereal farmer difficult in recent years. The Order represents a step in the right direction to enable the cereal farmer to regain his confidence and go ahead without finding that the end price is diluted the more he produces.

We need increased production of barley for a variety of reasons. The Order will help to obtain that increase. We need import substitution to replace some of our imported maize by barley for the feeding of cattle. There is also the problem of the introduction of new synthetic proteins which do not contain starch energy. This means that we must produce more barley to replace this loss, particularly if we are to control the import of proteins and replace them with new synthetic proteins. This is an important reason why there should be an increase in the production of barley, which we will get from the abolition of standard quantities.

The Government state in their aims for the cereal farmer:

"The Government aim for cereals is expansion to the full extent that is technically consistent with reasonable resource use and support cost. The previous expansion of the cereals acreage has fallen away in the last two years and will need to move forward again."

I believe that the Order will, given reasonable weather and freedom from too much disease, enable us to move forward again in the changed circumstances.

My hon. Friends welcome the Order and believe that it is a step in the right direction. More needs to be done, but I must not develop that theme or I will find myself out of order. This step should restore to the cereal farmer a certain amount of confidence, and this is vital because his confidence has been sapped in recent years for the reasons I have given.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the Order.

I had not had prior notice of the complaint that he made about the lack of documents. I wish that he had told me—we have been on speaking terms for a long time—because I might have been able to put the matter right. I assure him that I will look into the position.

I beg to move,

That the Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.

The purpose of the Order is to continue for a further five years the authority under which payments may be made to farmers towards the cost of agricultural lime. The current authority expires at the end of July.

We are not now considering the terms of the subsidy scheme itself nor the level of subsidy; these are matters which are the subject of the Order known as the Agricultural Lime Scheme, the latest version of which was approved in 1966. Since then the terms of the scheme and the level of subsidy have remained unchanged.

Although the draft Order before the House is not concerned with the details of the scheme, the House, in considering it, will wish to know that we are currently reviewing the scheme and that some proposals have been put to the farmers unions and lime trade associations for their consideration. We shall be discussing these proposals and any other suggestion during the coming weeks. An amended scheme will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible, provided that the draft Order now before the House is approved.

On this Order the issue is simply whether a lime subsidy scheme should continue. At present rates of contribution, the subsidy meets 48 per cent. of the farmer's cost of liming; and the development of liming practice since the subsidy was introduced clearly illustrates its success. Before the scheme began in 1937, average consumption was about ½ million tons a year. During the last four years the annual average has been nearly 5 million tons. I am sure that the House is in no doubt that it would be inappropriate at this time for lime subsidy payments to come to an end.

To digress before commenting on the Order, I apologise to the Minister for not consulting him before making what I explained was a minor complaint. However, it was worth making, and I trust that he will forgive me on this occasion for not having contacted him first.

My hon. Friends welcome the Order and are pleased to see the extension period. However, we have a number of real fears on this subject, particularly concerning the drop in the tonnage of lime used. On 16th April last I asked the Minister of Agriculture

"… what steps he is taking to ensure that British agriculture maintains an adequate lime content in the soil …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th April. 1969; Vol. 781, c. 260.]

I also asked him to make a statement on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman replied by making a statement and giving some statistics. However, he averaged the figures over the last four years. If one studies the figures relating to individual years one finds a very different picture.

They reveal the real fears which my hon. Friends have about the way in which lime consumption has dropped. In 1965 5,800,093 tons of lime were used, but in 1968 only 4,790,165 tons were used, a considerable drop. I regard this as a serious trend, since it represents a drop of 11·8 per cent., which indicates that in 1969 we shall be using only 3·6 million tons.

The Minister also said that it was in the interests of the farmer to maintain a high level of lime in his soil. This is not only right, but more than that; it is in the interests of the nation that a high level of lime should be maintained, because without adequate liming crops cannot be grown successfully. It is more essential today than ever before that we increase production. The Order will encourage that. This means that this Instrument is not only in the interests of the farmer but in the interests of the nation.

Farmers must be persuaded to use more lime. Despite our welcome for the Order, we have fears about the trend in lime use, and I hope that the Minister is as concerned about this as we are. This trend must be halted. Remedial action is needed by the Government, and I hope that the Minister will comment on what action it is proposed to take.

Considering that the lime subsidy cost £9·9 million in 1964–65 and £4·9 million in 1967–68, we are not spending a great deal of money in this way. It is a good subsidy which performs a useful job. I hope that there will be no cheeseparing in the subsidy, for if that were to happen there would be an even greater loss of production.

Could the N.A.A.S. be encouraged to recommend the use of more lime? Perhaps there could be a thorough examination into lime use, an exercise in which there seems to be less interest. It is vital to know, field by field, exactly the lime content and how much is needed. I know that the N.A.A.S. is doing a considerable amount of work along these lines, but a real blitz is needed to put the matter right.

Second, an advertising campaign might be conducted by the Ministry with a view to getting the soil tested and clearly showing farmers the danger of not using lime. When costs are rising and things are difficult, the first thing that a farmer probably does is to decide that the soil will do for another three or four years and cut out the lime. That is wrong, but the trend is there. Private enterprise has its part to play, too. It is not only the Government which should encourage the farmers: those who sell the lime must also play their part.

We on this side feel that only when this trend is halted can we get to the full production we need. I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister that all possible is being done to encourage farmers to use lime.

I welcome the acceptance of this Order by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), and I take the point that he has made. It is true that consumption has been declining in recent years, and we should like to see that trend reversed. He was right to stress that to a large extent this is a matter of publicity and of pushing this kind of knowledge, not only by the Government but by the trade itself. A 48 per cent. level of grant and good husbandry arguments will obviously help. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at other aspects of the scheme, but none of those is relevant under this Order.

I beg to move,

That the Small Farm (Business Management) Scheme, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.

I want to suggest to the House, and I understand that both sides approve, that with this scheme we take also the Small Farm (Business Management) (Scotland) Scheme, 1969. The two schemes are practically identical, except that one applies to Scotland and one to the rest of Great Britain.

I believe that that will be convenient to both sides, Mr. Speaker.

There is, perhaps, no need to explain these Schemes in detail—they are identical with those of 1965 and 1968—but it might be useful to remind ourselves of the terms of these schemes, which apply to small farmers occupying holdings of between 20 and 125 acres and where the size of the business is between 250 and 600 standard man-days a year.

A grant of up to a maximum of £1,000 is payable over a period of three years for carrying out an approved programme which is designed to increase the efficiency of the business. An essential part of the programme is the keeping of specified records for use as the basis for making farm management decisions. Programmes may be either complete, providing for the attainment of objectives in each of the three years of participation as well as the maintaining of records; or basic, with provision for record keeping over the three years but objectives for the first year only. Most basic programmes are subsequently modified to include objectives for the second and third years after the first year's records become available,

Hon. Members will wish to know of two changes from previous schemes. The first of these is that following the Transfer of Functions (Wales) Order, 1969, provision has been made for the Secretary of State for Wales to share with the Minister the administration of the scheme in Wales. The other change is in paragraph 10(1), which provides that farmers may not earn double grant by participating simultaneously in this scheme and the schemes of 1965 or 1968.

There are one or two aspects which it might be useful to mention. The first of these concerns the records participants are required to keep, and the suggestion which has from time to time been made that these are unnecessarily complicated. We in the Department are very conscious of the problems facing farmers when confronted with the burden of bookkeeping at the end of a hard day's work, and we certainly have no wish to impose requirements other than those which are necessary for the success of the scheme. On the other hand, if the scheme is to achieve its purpose in helping farmers to manage their businesses more efficiently, it is essential to ensure that the records basic to the business are maintained and that during the period of membership farmers become properly versed in maintaining them. To achieve this end, while ensuring that no unnecessary records have to be kept, the N.A.A.S. advisers in England and Wales, and the colleges in Scotland, after they have drawn up the agreed programme with the farmer concerned, then select those records, and only those records, which are needed in connection with it.

The other point which I should like to mention briefly concerns the benefits of membership of the scheme. The farmers who first joined the 1965 scheme are now coming to the end of their three-year programmes, and I am hopeful that further interest in the scheme will be generated when their neighbours learn of the beneficial results that membership has brought. In this connection, I have been pleased to see articles in the farming journals about small farmers who are successfully undertaking farm management programmes under the scheme, and I hope that this will lead to the realisation that the opportunity to carry out a programme of this sort, with professional guidance and a substantial grant by way of encouragement, is one that should not be missed.

The relatively small response has been a disappointing feature of the scheme. Applications are coming forward steadily at rather over 100 per month which, in my opinion, is considerably less than the merits of the scheme justify. We hope that publicity for the scheme which is being undertaken in England and Wales by the N.A.A.S. in the form of demonstrations, farm walks, meetings and articles in the county bulletins which are issued by the N.A.A.S., will lead to a quickening of interest among farmers. Nevertheless, we shall have to keep a careful watch on progress, and in the light of this consider the future of the scheme at the next Annual Review.

The extension for a further year has been welcomed by the National Farmers' Unions, and I feel sure that hon. Members will agree that it is well worth while continuing this special form of assistance to small farmers.

On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome these schemes. We are pleased to see that they apply both to Scotland and England, and that Wales also will have benefits. I believe that such schemes have been of considerable help to small farmers—or, perhaps I should say, to some small farmers, because not all are taking advantage of them. This is the nub of the problem.

Any scheme for helping a large number of small farmers is to be encouraged. In the South-West of England we have a preponderance of small farmers—twice as many farm less than 50 acres as farm more than 50 acres, and that position is probably equally true of Scotland, Wales and other parts.

The small farmer can and must become more businesslike. He must know what is paying and what is not paying. Too often, he has been going on from year to year doing a bit of this and a bit of that without really knowing what is paying and what is not paying.

Schemes like this will show him very clearly the projects which are not paying. I know from experience on my own farm—I cannot take advantage of this scheme—that similar schemes show only too clearly where one is losing money and where one should change one's practice. This sort of knowledge could be of very great value to many small farmers. It is only by efficient planning and the keeping of proper records that the small farm can become viable. I do not know whether it is in order, Mr. Speaker, to quote one's own speeches?

It is in order. Sometimes it is very valuable; sometimes it is immodest.

I shall try to press on. On 18th July, 1968, I said, when we were discussing a similar scheme:

"I hope that small farmers will take advantage of this sort of offer encouraged by the N.A.A.S. and get the last ounce out of their small acreages so as to make a reasonable living and to contribute to the good economic position of the country. The scheme helps farmers to help themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1968; Vol. 768. c. 1819.]

That is what I say this morning. This scheme will help small farmers to help themselves. It is up to them to take advantage of it.

I understand that 40,000 small farmers throughout the country are eligible for this grant. We should like to know how many have taken advantage of it and what holds up further progress. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he was disappointed about the progress of the scheme, but he did not give reasons for that lack of progress. I can suggest one or two. If he is allowed to reply to the debate, he might be able to say whether I am right or wrong.

One disincentive may be because of reduction of previous grants. Then there is the bookkeeping, which is unpopular. I do not believe that any farmer likes keeping records, especially when he has to do so after a hard day's work. I am sure that one of the main reasons why the scheme is not such a success as we hoped is that bookkeeping is so unpopular. On many small farms, it is not the former who keeps the books but the farmer's wife and she has enough to do in these days without doing bookkeeping. I shall be interested to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary any other reasons why progress is not maintained.

Farmers may ask, "Is it worth while; what do I get out of it?" They may think that it would reveal too much and tell them unpleasant facts which they do not want to know. I have had that experience. There is also the question of records being kept confidential. The fear about confidentiality is vital. The forms must not be too complicated.

I should also like to know about the fall out, how many after taking advantage of the scheme for three years continue to keep records. This surely is the whole idea, to prove to the small farmer, once he has seen that the scheme works, that it can be of benefit to him and that he should continue under his own steam. I think it a fair criticism that the scheme is complicated in its wording. Any small farmer looking at it would say, "This is not for me: it is far too complicated." Paragraph 7(3) says:

"Where a yearly plan comprised in a basic programme has been completed to the satisfaction of the relevant minister,…"

and goes on to say in great detail what is to be done. It is very difficult to understand. I have taken the trouble to count the words and I find there are 141 in that paragraph. That is all to say in my language, and I should think the small farmer's language, how one can get permission under certain conditions to proceed from basic to the complete programme. Why is it necessary to use all these words to explain that?

Paragraph 6 describes the amount of grants which can be made and the standard man hours and size of holdings which are eligible. This strikes about the right balance. I agree with the supplementary conditions which are given in paragraph 8, and with the stipulation that applications must be made in writing. Many farmers slip up on this. They go ahead with various schemes without obtaining written authority. The Minister and those advising small farmers should see that they understand that this must be done in writing and nothing must be done without official permission from the Ministry. We know only too well that many farmers and others do things without written permission being first obtained. This point should be underlined.

Paragraph 8(2) refers to the "authorised person" who may inspect a farm. One has to be careful about this. I hope that person will usually be the N.A.A.S. officer. One must pay tribute to the National Farmers' Union and local branch secretaries for the incredible amount of work they do in advising small farmers. They are the small farmers' lawyers and they take endless trouble in explaining these complicated schemes, helping farmers to fill in forms and so on. Of course they are paid for this work, but we should pay tribute to the National Farmers' Union and its officers for all they do. In paragraph 9 we note the abatement where a grant has been previously paid. It is right to limit the grant to only one programme. I agree with the Minister that it is right to do so, but perhaps this is one reason why small farmers do not come forward more to take advantage of the scheme.

I must not go on for too long. I merely say now that we are in favour of the scheme and hope that more farmers will take advantage of it. My advice to them is to do so to help themselves to become more efficient to compete in this difficult world of agriculture.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) for what he said in welcoming the scheme. I appreciate that bookkeeping can be very difficult, but if records are not kept there is no purpose in the scheme.

The hon. Member asked how many applications have been made. I can tell him offhand that about 11,000 have applied so far. We gather our information from N.A.A.S. which is of the opinion that most farmers who have taken part in this scheme will have learned the lesson and will wish to continue to do so. This is the considered opinion of N.A.A.S.

Perhaps not now but at a later date it would be possible for the hon. Gentleman to let us know what the actual fall out is. Although generally farmers are encouraged to go on participating in the scheme and many do so, it would be interesting to know how many fall out.

That is so, but it would mean a fairly extensive inquiry which would use up considerable time and if we employ more men in this way we would have complaints from hon. Members opposite about an increase in the number of civil servants. To the best of our ability we shall do this job. We hope that as a result of this debate more farmers will become interested in the scheme and will join it. We cannot compel people to join, but we want to encourage them to do so. Although neither farmers nor their wives like keeping books, this is the purpose of the scheme. Unless they have records they will not know what the out-turn is, and that is of first-class importance.

The hon. Gentleman asked: is the scheme too complicated? All I will say in reply is that although the scheme is perhaps complicated, this is for legal reasons, but the forms used by the farmers are much simpler. If we accuse people of using too many words, perhaps we ought to be looking at our own efforts here; sometimes we take a long time to explain what we mean, and so it is not only the lawyers who do that. The forms are much simpler.

I say sincerely to the hon. Gentleman that I am grateful to him for what he has said about the scheme, which, properly appreciated and operated, can make a tremendous contribution.

I beg to move,

That the Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation (Variation) Scheme 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

The purpose of this scheme is to extend for a further six months the existing scheme which the House approved in March this year. At that time the Government announced that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation would examine the industry and study the effects on its performance of the present stabilisation arrangements or of possible alternative forms of support. It would, clearly, not be prudent to make decisions about any longer-term arrangements till the Corporation has finished its work. Nevertheless, to make a start with a scheme covering six months only meant that any recommendation of the Corporation which the Government accepted could be implemented with the least possible delay. The Corporation's work is being carried out as quickly as possible, but it is not yet complete, and so we must provide for the period after 30th September. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, when he introduced the original scheme in March, said that

"should it be necessary, the Government would propose to lay before Parliament a scheme extending the existing arrangements for a further short period sufficient to cover the Corporation's final recommendations."—[OFFICTKL REPORT, 24th March, 1969; Vol. 780. c. 1186.]

This scheme is now before the House.

Obviously, it is essential that the I.R.C. should do its work not only as quickly as possible but as thoroughly as is necessary. When the Corporation has taken its work as far as it can and made its recommendations on the effect of the support arrangements the Government will have to give careful consideration to any longer-term arrangements in the light of the then situation and the Corporation's recommendations. We hope that it will be possible to include such arrangements, if they were considered necessary, in a scheme operating from 1st April, 1970. Of course, it will be possible to consider any interim recommendation from the Corporation earlier than this in so far as it can be implemented within the existing scheme.

As hon. Members will be aware, the scheme at present requires the payment of levies by bacon curers because of a rise of 50s. in the price of British bacon. The self-balancing nature of the scheme, to which the House's attention was drawn during the debate on the original scheme, has become, for a time at least, a reality. How long a levy will continue to be paid depends, of course, on how long the bacon price remains at the present level.

The variation scheme at present before the House is an extremely simple one and merely extends the operation of the present scheme to bacon produced up to 31st March, 1970. No other change is being made. The Government will, of course, be seeking the necessary financial provision for the making of stabilisation payments in the second half of the present financial year.

I think all hon. Members will agree that it is sensible to continue the stabilisation arrangements and that the possibilities for a more permanent scheme should await the outcome of the present investigations. I therefore commend this variation scheme to the House.

I welcome this scheme, but the first criticism I would like the Minister to consider is that this is the second time we have had a go at this scheme in three months. He will, perhaps, have noticed that when we discussed the matter on 24th March I drew the attention of his colleague to the fact that the scheme would be running out on 30th September and that that would probably mean we would have to consider it after a short time. He seemed to take another view, and that there was a possibility we could consider it even later, that it could be reviewed before 30th September and debated after that, but the fact is that here we are again discussing the Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme only three months after it was discussed before.

At least this gives us a little longer period in which to plan than was the position when we were last discussing the matter on 24th March, because we now know what the position will be up to 30th March, and that being so there is a period of about nine months. I would ask the Minister how he thinks anybody breeding pigs or producing bacon can, in a period of nine months, plan his business and see how he can organise things on a stable basis. The first point I would leave with the Minister is that it is impossible for this industry, which is an important part of the agricultural industry, to be organised on the basis of three months or six months at a time.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to remarks which were made by the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary when we last discussed the scheme, and referred to the remark that he would be prepared to act on an interim recommendation from the I.R.C. I did not detect anything in what the right hon. Gentleman said today about the possibility of an interim recommendation. He will recall that his colleague said:

"I know that a decision on a longer-term basis is urgently required, however, and the industry is naturally anxious to see the road ahead as clearly and as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1186.]

That is what the industry needs—to see the road ahead very clearly, and that is what it has not been enabled to do under the management of this Government.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when the original scheme was brought forward in April, 1967, there was a promise then by his colleague of an annual review of the position. What has happened to that? I asked that question when we discussed the scheme in March, and got no answer at all. The reason why it was important to have an annual review was that there were very serious complaints about the basis on which the scheme was originally calculated. The Minister will recall that in 1967 the figures on which the scheme was based were those of 1965, and although it was agreed on all sides that they were to be regarded only as temporary, that they were figures which had been worked out quickly to help the scheme go into action, they were described, by at least one member of the industry, as being "as mean as possible". That being the position, the Minister must bear in mind that it is not unreasonable to inquire why it is that we have not had the review and when it is that we shall have the review.

The other aspect of the matter is the fact, as the Minister has mentioned, that prices are now high. Some people feel that they are too high, that if they had been restrained at a slightly lower level we would have a better chance of seeing whether we could take over a larger proportion of the home market. Although prices are high, however, as recently as 20th June there was an article in the Financial Times which ended:

"As far as the U.K. is concerned the latest census figures indicate that the past two years' expansion in the home breeding herd has come to a halt."

It goes on:

"So it looks as if there are no real grounds at the moment for thinking United Kingdom curers will win customers away from imported and on to home cured bacon—indeed the trend by the end of the year could well be going the other way within the limits set by the bacon market understanding".

That refers to the reasons why prices have gone up. Three reasons which are affecting the present price of bacon are related to internal matters in Denmark, and I apprehend that that woud not fall within the terms of the scheme.

All I can do is to give the Minister credit for the other factor, that there is a shortage of pigs available to the curers. If the Minister wants to take credit for that, he is welcome to do so. Although the prices are high, the industry has grave anxiety and needs a clear indication of what is to happen.

This section of the agricultural industry accounts for a large proportion of food imports. The right hon. Gentleman could have shown his determination that agriculture should save imports by encouraging the bacon producer. If the bacon producer is to take over 51 per cent. of the market, as is hoped, it is essential that he should in the near future be able to make long-term arrangements for breeding and for contracts.

The picture painted by the right hon. Gentleman shows that during the last two years there has been a sorry story of indecision, that the pledge given in April, 1967, about the review has not been kept and that there is still no clear indication of the way ahead for this section of the industry.

I hope that when we meet again to discuss these schemes and what is to happen about the bacon curing industry, the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of giving the industry a clear signal that the time has come for expansion and that it can go ahead with confidence.

The price of bacon has risen to a level never before experienced. This is due to the holiday season, a strike and to the Danes pushing their bacon into the Community rather than to us. Because of the high price of beef and lamb in this country, consumers have been switching to poultry, and, in particular, to pig meat and bacon. This rising demand has meant a rise in price. Curers are short of pigs, and the right sorts of pigs, and the industry must have the throughput to ensure viability.

In considering the scheme, for the first time the stabiliser is working the other way round. Only a few weeks ago the Exchequer was paying to curers 3s. 4d. a cwt. under the stabilising agreement. It is now working the other way round, with a rate of 4s. 3d. having to be paid by the curers. I welcome this. This is what we hoped would happen.

May I quote from an article in the Farmer and Stockbreeder dealing with the stabiliser:

"This enabled Sir John Stratton to trot along to the Ministry and say that curers were having to pay these levies because the Worth Committee recommendations had not been implemented."

While I agree that we should be much clearer about the future intentions of the Government on the recommendations of the Committee, it is difficult to understand the curers not wanting to pay back when the stabiliser works in the other direction. After all, they cannot have it both ways.

The article continues:

"So, he said to the Ministry, what about delaying the payment of these levies until after the further Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Report?"

The article continues with a phrase which I like very much, although I doubt whether I am allowed to use it in the House:

"The answer from the Ministry is likely to be a raspberry."

For once, I am on the Ministry's side. The industry cannot have it all ways. Although the Government are to be criticised for delay in implementing the recommendations and clearly showing to the industry the way ahead, I would also agree with the Ministry if the answer on this point was a raspberry.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) for saying that people who entered into agreements should face up to them. When the agreement works in their favour they are normally generous, but when they have to pay a little back they are not so enthusiastic. But the agreement is an agreement and we are maintaining it. The words I used in opening were carefully chosen:

"We hope that it will be possible to include such arrangements, if they were considered necessary, in a scheme operating from 1st April, 1970. Of course, it will be possible to consider any interim recommendation from the Corporation earlier than this in so far as it can be implemented within the existing scheme."

The reason for the debate and for the extension of time provided in the Order is that we had hoped the report might have been received earlier. That it has not come sooner is proof that a very thorough job is being done. No conclusions can be reached until the result of the investigation is known.

It is not for me to go into the prices. Although we must remember that there is a responsibility to the producer, we must also remember the consumer, about whom we must also be careful. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must safeguard the interests of all concerned. We will do so as far as we can, but I think the hon. Gentleman was not quite fair when he spoke of encouragement to the industry. A fair amount of encouragement was given in the Annual Price Review, and this must also be taken into account when making a fair judgment. I had better not go further with that or I shall be out of order.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for what they have said and I hope that the Scheme will be accepted.

I beg to move,

That the Milk (Extension of Period of Control of Maximum Prices) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

The Order, although it has a long title, is very short. Its purpose is simply to extend for five years from the end of this year the power of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Scotland to control milk prices.

In practice, the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State act jointly to lay down maximum retail prices for the whole of Great Britain, and the Minister of Agriculture, acting on his own, lays down maximum retail prices in Northern Ireland.

Section 6 of the Emergency Law (Reenactment and Repeals) Act 1964 put the Power to control milk prices on a permanent footing, subject to renewal by Order in Council at intervals not exceeding five years.

In the debates in 1964 this provision, like all the others, was accepted with very little comment and, indeed, was given the reception of almost complete silence which is traditionally reserved for the self-evident; the provision for renewal makes it desirable for me today to explain the justification of the provision in the circumstances of 1969 and to say what considerations make milk a special case.

First, milk occupies a unique place in the national diet. It is an essential item in the diet of very young children and expectant and nursing mothers, so much so that the Health and Social Service Departments have provided consumer subsidies to bring it within the reach of the whole of this population group. It is indeed a very important element in any diet. It is the only food containing in a well-balanced proportion some elements of all the necessary nutrients. It is a particularly valuable source of protein and calcium, and has been estimated to contribute something approaching 20 per cent. of the protein and half the calcium in the national diet.

Second, it is a very important item in the cost of living. Currently about 1,640 million gallons of milk is consumed annually in liquid form, at a retail value of almost £600 million. With the exception of meat—if all types of meat are bulked together—it is the largest individual component in the food prices index; if meat is split up into its various categories, then milk is the largest component of all. Of the current total in the food index of 254, fresh milk accounts for 23 units. It is evident that in relation to living costs milk occupies a special position.

In these circumstances it would in our view, and I believe in the general view on all sides of the House, be imprudent to abandon the power to impose maximum prices. Superficially, when statutory control has been given up in relation to all other foods, this may appear anomalous. But in the circumstances of the milk industry this would be a mistaken view.

The milk industry has over the years become highly concentrated, particularly on the processing side, and is dominated by a small group of very large concerns. This has brought benefits in terms of efficiency and service and has been associated, in particular, with standards of hygiene and keeping quality which will stand comparison with any other country in the world. But these gains have not been won without some loss of competition. It is on record as the view of an independent committee, the Thorold Committee, that the lack of competition, which has made these benefits possible, is such that decontrol of milk prices will not be practicable for some time to come.

For all these reasons, both social and economic, we are proposing to maintain the Government's control over milk prices, at least for the time being. I therefore ask the House to approve the draft Order.

We come to the last of these agricultural Orders. Although up to now we have given a welcome to these Orders and there has been a friendly atmosphere on both sides—I do not say that we are being unfriendly now—it is right and proper that we should disagree slightly on this Order because we recognise the problems of the milk industry.

This Order controls the maximum price of milk for another five years. The control has existed for a very long time, in fact in one form or another since 1933. The Government are now seeking to continue this practice for a further five years.

We have some reservations. In the past we have called for a freeing of Channel Island milk from the control to see what the effect would be and to test out the reaction. It would be interesting to know why the Minister considers that a term of five years is suitable. What lies behind it? Why not a period of one year or two years? Or does the Minister wish to have a permanent control over the industry?

Obviously we are all concerned about the effect of price on consumption. This is the fear of the industry and the nub of the problem. All sections of the trade are rightly sensitive about the matter.

Milk, as the Minister has said, is a marvellous food with many health-giving properties, and I remember in the past waxing strongly about milk and the benefits it gives to people who drink it, but one sees from the figures that milk consumption has fallen. The Milk Marketing Board report shows that in 1967–68 1,750,000 gallons of milk per day were used for liquid consumption; in 1968–69 the figure had fallen to 1,722,000.

This is a serious trend. It is a serious matter for the industry and serious for the dairy farmer. I must as a dairy farmer express my concern that the liquid consumption has fallen. We all know that as the consumption of liquid milk falls the lower is the pool price at the end to the farmer. This is a serious matter in these days of rising costs.

It can be argued that as the price of milk increases so consumer resistance grows. In August milk will be allowed to rise ½d a pint to allow for the increased costs resulting from S.E.T. This Order, which controls the maximum price, will be lifted so that another ½d. a pint can be put on. We shall watch with interest and concern the effect of this increase on consumption, which is our real fear.

More research and experimentation should be carried out on milk distribution and the maximum price and control of price. It is not good enough to continue the Order for a further five years. It may be the right sort of provision; it may be wrong. That is my fear. I should like to hear the Minister say why the period is one of five years and why no experiment or research is being conducted into distribution.

It is not only milk that suffers from maximum control; bread is in the same category of price control. To quote from the Farmers Weekly of 28th March this year.

"The Government keep a tight fist on the milk business. No other major industry—not even many nationalised industries is kept under such close control. Government decisions shape its policy, determine its size, fixe its prices and profit margins and keep its operations under a searching scrutiny."

That is the sort of Government control of the milk industry. I am not saying that it is not right, but I want to know why it is going on. It is important that we should know.

The Thorold Report, which was issued in 1962, says on page 11, paragraph 37:

"This fact has led us to consider whether there are valid reasons for the retention of this form of control."

I should like to echo those words as to whether there are valid reasons—

The hon. Member is getting a little out of order. The provision for controls is in the Act. It is only a question of whether or not they should be extended.

I had an awful feeling that I was getting out of order. I hope that I have made my point, and I hope that the Minister will tell us why he is continuing the Order for a further five years and why there is no real research into the distribution of milk.

I am certain that everyone concerned in the production and distribution of milk is in for a difficult time. We have already had experience of competion from milk substitutes, the rising costs of delivery and allied problems which, together with many other factors, make life extremely difficult. The problem is to give producers and distributors a reasonable return and at the same time reach a price which is not too high for the consumer. If the final price is too high, resistance will grow and consumption will drop. This difficult equation is one which the Government have to solve. If they do not solve it, our milk producers will be in a serious position and those who distribute milk will find it increasingly difficult to carry on. But, in the end, the person who really matters is the consumer. If the price is too high, consumer resistance grows and consumption drops. That is the problem, and it must be solved.

I believe that far more research and probing needs to be done into this very difficult equation to get the balance right.

If I may reply briefly to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he came near to answering his own question in his concluding sentences when he spoke about the difficulty of serving all the interests and meeting their needs. He is quite right when he says that there has to be a fair price for the producer, the transporter, the processer, the deliverer, and so on. This is one of the many reasons why the Government have to look at this question very closely.

In moving the Order, I outlined in a positive way certain of the reasons for it. Milk occupies a unique place in the national diet, and it is an exceedingly important point in the cost of living. If those two factors are married to all the points made by the hon. Gentleman in his concluding remarks, he will get the answer to his question.

As for the timing of the Order and whether it should be at an interval of one, two, three, four or five years, it is always difficult to make a judgment. However, it is laid down in the principal Act that it has to be at intervals of five years. That being so, it has to be done in this way. However, that is not the complete answer, because the hon. Gentleman will remember that in the debate which immediately preceded this one one of his hon. Friends complained to me that six months, nine months or a year is of no use to the industry and that it has to know some years ahead what the programme is and whether it will be able to operate it. Apparently I am meeting his request with this Order, but, as I have said, there are other reasons.

This is a very important industry, and I would not deny that the Order is vital to it and to the consumer. It is for those reasons that we make the Order—

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman is about to remind me of the point that he made with regard to research, that does not come within the Order, but perhaps I may be allowed to go outside it for a moment. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this work is going on all the time, and we are hoping to find a solution to some of the problems which have confronted the industry for very many years. I can only hope that we shall be a little more successful than our predecessors. If we are, I know that the hon. Gentleman will be grateful for it.

We are fortunate today in that there is the prospect of a goodly length of time for this very important Adjournment debate on the care of the younger chronic sick. I am glad to have the opportunity of raising this very urgent matter on the Floor of the House. I have had an exchange of correspondence on the subject with the Minister, and Questions have been raised in the House expressing the concern of hon. Members of all parties.

I want first to make it clear that I am discussing people in an age group which includes people of 15 to the fifties who are receiving long-term care for chronic disabilities or illnesses of a purely physical nature. They are not those with psychiatric or mental illnesses. They number many thousands, and their plight has received far too little attention so far. It is true that the Ministry has conducted two limited surveys and is currently engaged on another. However, apart from producing last year an excellent report and a summary of recommendations and circulating them to local hospital boards with plans of specimen units to house the younger chronic sick, the Ministry has taken no apparent action.

The report which the Ministry published 12 months ago said that the Minister would call for a progress report from hospital boards in about two years' time. In answer to a Question on 10th February of this year, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he was unable to give any forecasts of additional provision to be made for the younger chronic sick by the end of 1970 but would be calling for the progress report which I mentioned earlier in the course of that year. It is in the hope that I can persuade the Minister to take a more positive line that I have initiated this debate.

The cause of my concern is that the younger chronic sick, who by the severe physical nature of their complaints in any case demand the deepest sympathy of all hon. Members, by and large are quite unsuitably cared for at the moment. A survey published last year gave the figure of 4,223 as the total number suffering from a variety of complaints such as multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, cerebro-vascular disease, polio, rheumatoid arthritis and others. They are all cared for under the auspices of the National Health Service and almost half of them are housed in geriatric wards.

I know that the Ministry is now conducting a fuller survey to try to obtain a truer picture. I understand that this time it will include those who are housed in private nursing homes or kept at home, despite the difficulties, because there is no suitable accommodation available. The report published last year showed that under one-eighth of the 4,223 people who were the subject of it are properly accommodated in younger chronic sick units.

It is depressing and dispiriting for these young people, some of whom are very alert mentally, to live with the old and the senile. Needless to say, I would not have initiated this debate without some concrete evidence, and I make no apology for giving one or two sample cases in the Midlands and elsewhere to illustrate the type of wrong which I am seeking to right.

Only the other day, an example came to my notice of a young man of 36 who is a spastic. He is living permanently on his stomach with one leg in the air and cannot feed himself. Until last week his mother, who is aged 70, was able to care for him at home by an immense struggle and sacrifice on her part. But the time has now come when the Worcestershire County Council, under whose auspices this person lives, has been told that the mother can no longer continue to bear this burden and care for her son in a satisfactory manner.

The only place that the Worcestershire County Council can find for this man is in a geriatric ward with old people. What makes it so tragic is that this person, in common with many others, is very alert mentally. He has been described to me as mentally above average. He accepts his plight in a cheerful manner. All he asks for in life is to share stimulating conversation with young people and to have young faces around him. He obviously will not get that in a geriatric ward in a hospital or in an old people's home, which is the only accommodation that the Worcestershire County Council can offer him. That person, who I think it right should be nameless, is a sample of many other cases which have been brought to my attention.

Coming nearer to my own constituency, a man, whom I will describe as Mr. A, aged 39 and suffering from multiple sclerosis, for some years lived with his married brother and sister-in-law who have now emigrated to New Zealand. Mr. A hoped that he would be able to go to New Zealand with his mother, together with his brother and sister-in-law, but unfortunately admission to New Zealand was forbidden to Mr. A. He is now living with his mother, who has arthritis, in a "prefab" bungalow.

Mr. A. is unable to walk and his manual control is very limited. The only reason he remains at home and is not put into a geriatric ward is because his mother so far has been able to continue to look after him adequately. But, in my view, the time is approaching when that position will no longer obtain.

Another instance concerns a lady whom I will call Miss P. She is a dwarf, aged 43, and suffering from muscular atrophy. She lived at home with her father and stepmother until her father died of leukaemia. Miss P sent a letter to the Leicestershire Association for the Disabled, which does a great deal of good work in Leicestershire, asking for a representative to call and see her. Her first words to the visitor who went to see her were that she wanted to get away from the house where she had been living.

She has now been put into a county home in Leicestershire among all elderly people. She happens to be a person of extreme intelligence. She wears calipers on both legs and walks with extreme difficulty. In my view, she should not be housed with a lot of old people who are in need of special attention according to their particular conditions of life.

Another case concerns a lady, to whom I will refer as Mrs. R. She is aged 50 years. I will not go into the details of her case at great length, because she has a long history. Suffice to say, she is in a nursing home now and feels that she is just sitting out her life in a room which she shares with two senile old ladies with little or no prospects of any alternative than eventual admission to a geriatric ward when the little money she has is exhausted, as it will be soon, and she has to be moved into county care.

A further tragic case concerns another Mrs. R who is aged 45. She, again, is suffering from multiple sclerosis. The disease had reached the stage where her husband and young family could no longer look after her at home. When she knew that the outcome was to be a geriatric ward, she attempted to commit suicide. Her home is at Market Harborough, but she is now in a county home elsewhere.

It is because of cases like this, which I think disturb the conscience of the whole House, that I have sought leave to raise this Adjournment debate today. I want action today by the Minister to set up a series of younger chronic sick units throughout the country.

In this Report which was circulated last year certain excellent recommendations were made, but, typically, it contains no mention of the necessary finance to put these excellent recommendations into effect. I want the Minister to undertake today to finance immediately the erection of a series of units specially designed for the younger chronic sick. I will remind the hon. Gentleman of the type of younger chronic sick unit which I and some of my hon. Friends on this side are seeking.

The Report recommends that units should contain from 25 to 50 beds. It states, in my view extremely wisely:

"Smaller units are difficult to staff and tend to be isolated. Unlike other hospital patients the younger chronic sick require occupation and activity at many levels of intellectual capacity and this has to be planned in a continuing and purposeful way. Unless units are of a suitable size, they find it more difficult to attract the interest of educational and other outside bodies and this is detrimental to the objective of ensuring an adequate diversity of interests and activities.… There is a danger that units accommodating more than about 50 may acquire too institutional an atmosphere."

The Report recommends:

"These units will be best sited within the environment of a general hospital and ideally a unit should be associated with the district general hospital nearest the patient's home. As there are unlikely to be enough younger chronic sick patients to justify this, there will therefore only be need for a few units suitably distributed at or in association with district general hospitals in each Region."

I am not asking for a whole range of new units for the younger chronic sick to be established. I am asking for the recommendations in the Report to be carried out; for a network of relatively isolated younger chronic sick units to be established with a start forthwith on construction.

The Report makes many other recommendations of which I am sure the Minister is aware. I understand that the Ministry sent to local hospital boards copies of plans of the type of unit it would like to see constructed. The type of unit to which I have been referring would, for instance, provide up to 25 per cent. of the accommodation in single rooms. The Report states:

"The aim should be to provide"—

in these younger chronic sick units—

"as relaxed and permissive an atmosphere as possible within a hospital setting. A unit should include a number of day rooms, with its own occupational room or even a workshop."

I especially call the Minister's attention to this point, because a number of these people that I know are quite capable of working physically in a limited way. Mentally, they are unimpaired and they are desirous of carrying out some form of part-time occupation.

The Report continues:

'but wherever practicable, arrangements should be made for these facilities to be shared with other patients and by both sexes. The ward should be subdivided into small units, with at least 25 per cent. of single rooms, and others with provision for mobile partitions. There is a need for a small private room for visiting."

It goes on to say, and I can bear this out from what happens in the Midlands, that there is a real need for younger long-stay patients to have regular holidays, and for arrangements to be made whereby the people living in the chronic sick homes or units are not necessarily there permanently. They could perhaps go on a day basis or for two or three weeks to give their parents, husband or wife a little relief and rest from the burdens they so nobly bear in supporting their kith and kin.

I know that the Minister has a perfectly satisfactory reply. I am sure that he will confirm the recommendations in the Report, that he will say that as soon as money permits he hopes to make a start on the construction of the units. I remind him that many of those he houses in a special unit for the younger chronic sick will relieve urgently needed geriatric space in old people's homes, for which there are many on waiting lists in the Midlands.

I support all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). All hon. Members will have seen many hard cases of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred in the course of their work in their constituencies. We have examples of them all too painfully obvious when we visit old people's homes and see those of the younger chronic sick who are misplaced there. It is a strain on both sides. The home does not have the facilities which are needed and desirable—occupational therapy facilities and the like. It is also a strain on the older folk there who, whilst they may not be able to do any more than the younger chronic sick, have a different attitude. Their ways of living are somewhat incompatible. It is a real strain, which all hon. Members would regret.

There is also the strain, which is perhaps rather greater, in the homes where parents, often themselves becoming old and frail, are looking after the younger chronic sick. This causes the greatest concern. Hon. Members who have seen an old couple struggling to look after and provide for a chronic sick person of the type to which my hon. Friend referred will know only too well what I mean.

A survey in 1967 suggested that in the Sheffield Hospital Board area the type of special home for which we believe there is a requirement was not justified. But that survey was limited to the younger chronic sick then in hospital. It took no regard of the needs of those who should have been in a special home but, because no special home existed, were being looked after by their family. There is a need for a permanent home which will give the surroundings and opportunities to which my hon. Friend referred That is clearly one of the first priorities.

The other need is for somewhere where younger chronic sick can go for a short stay to relieve the strain on the parents or relatives looking after them. It is good for them to have a fortnight's break, to have some time when they know that those for whom they care and whom they love are being well and properly looked after, while they themselves can get away from the terrible responsibilities and burdens they carry.

There is also a case for somewhere where some of the younger chronic sick can go for day care, not being in permanent residence and not staying overnight. But they could be looked after there and given occupational therapy and interest during the day.

It is very much a question of social priorities and I place this very high, as I believe the Minister will. It is an anomalous and illogical gap, at a time when public money is being spent in substantial sums on the provision of abortions, centres for drug addiction, and when we read of large amounts spent in skin grafting to remove tattoos at £250 a time.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that those tattoo operations are for other than cosmetic reasons, or for cosmetic reasons?

I should not like to develop an argument as to whether they are right or wrong. I would accept that normally this is done for psychological reasons.

On the question of priorities, this may be right or wrong. I should be ruled nut of order if I debated the justification of public funds being spent for abortions, curing drug addiction or the removal of tattooing.

The hon. Gentleman has introduced an emotive subject, because the popular Press has suggested that these cosmetic operations are not chargeable to the National Health Service. As the hon. Gentleman has just said, in many cases they are carried out for psychological reasons and it is very right and proper to carry out such operations under the National Health Service.

I am sorry if I introduced an emotional tone. It was not my intention. I shall not pursue that point, but I would just stress that when we are assessing our social priorities it is right that we should see where money is spent and whether it might be better provided, or equally well provided, for the care of the younger chronic sick, a class of society largely passed by at present. I hope that we shall have some assurance as to what should be done.

I realise that it is a question of money, but I cannot believe that, in the debate going on privately among hon. Members opposite on the raising of money for the National Health Service, any hon. Member would object to the alteration of the social or health priorities, or to the raising of funds in the way suggested, to meet this need of a small but in many ways neglected section, of which my hon. Friend has given some graphic and typical examples.

There is an unanswerable case for the allocation of funds for the provision of a permanent home, a holiday home or a day care home to remove from the geriatric wards those aged 15 to 50, and to remove the strain from households up and down the country which face—I will not say that they are saddled by—because it is a responsibility the parents willingly bear—the responsibility of looking after these people who cannot look after themselves. The burden becomes increasingly heavy as the years go by.

I do not wish to put this in emotive terms, and I apologise to the Minister if, in introducing the other subjects, I have taken the debate out of the setting in which my hon. Friend had intended that it should be conducted. It is a case about which I feel deeply and passionately, as I am sure the Minister does. I give every support to what my hon. Friend has said.

I am personally appreciative of the opportunity that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has taken to bring this matter before the House and of the moderate way in which he did it.

I do not take serious exception to the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) about tattooing. He has emphasised that he did not want to bring in an emotive subject, but I know that he will agree that there is a psychological case for many of these operations. Had it not been for the popular Press building up this matter on one occasion, I should not have referred to it again. A young wife does not like to see the words "I Love Lucy" etched across her husband's chest as a reminder of what he had been doing before or where his affections lay before they married.

To address myself to the serious matter that the hon. Member for Harborough has introduced, I have been struck by the fact that the words "younger chronic sick" have different meanings for different people. I am concerned not with attaching labels, but with the kind of services that can be provided and for which my Department is responsible.

The term is used primarily to cover people suffering from conditions like multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and paraplegia, but the designation covers a varied group, so much so that I shall not have time to deal with the special needs of all the people included in it. However, it does not mean that I am any less mindful of what those needs are. I do nevertheless want to make the point that the services to be given should depend always on the individual social and clinical needs of the person receiving them. Every person's needs differ from those of every other person, and nobody can lay down general rules about how he ought to be treated.

I can, however, be specific about our object in providing services for the younger chronic sick. It is simply this: to enable them to lead a life, whether at home, in residential care, or in hospital, which is as full of interest and satisfaction as their disabilities permit. For most of us the greatest satisfaction is to be found in a life centred not in institutions but in our own home. There seems no reason to doubt that in most cases the same is true of the younger chronic sick. Hence there is a wide range of services designed to help them remain in their own homes wherever possible. These include not only the general practitioner and local authority services which are available to everyone in the community but also many special services.

Local authority services may include the advice, guidance and support of social workers, the practical services of home nurses and health visitors, often working in conjunction with general practitioners, and home helps. Local authorities may assist with the adaptation of dwellings, and they may also provide aids and appliances—though here the provision is by no means limited to the relatively simple equipment available from local authorities. The items available through the National Health Service range from sophisticated electronic equipment such as POSSUM—the patient-operated selector mechanism—to wheelchairs and walking aids.

Local authorities also provide a number of services which, while given outside the home, may play an important part in enabling a person both to continue living there and to lead a life which is more satisfying. These services may include day centres, where it may be possible for a handicapped person not only to be cared for but to undertake some diversionary or even light industrial work; they may also include arrangements for caring for a handicapped person during a family holiday or at other times when it is desirable to relieve the family of this responsibility. The hon. Member for Harborough referred to this, and I take his point very seriously. Families are much to be sympathised with, in many cases.

I accept that at present we do not know enough about chronic sick and handicapped people who are living at home. That is why my Department, along with other interested Departments, sponsored the national survey of such people which the Government Social Survey Department has carried out for us. The results of this are now being analysed, and I expect that in the course of the next twelve months or so usable information will become increasingly available. This should help us to plan services better.

But, whatever may be done for people living at home, it is easy to imagine circumstances which would make it impossible for a chronic sick person to go on living at home. It might be, for example, that the necessary support could no longer be given by ageing parents. In these circumstances—and here I think I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member—it may be that a person can be best cared for in residential accommodation, where a more intensive form of welfare care can be provided. Local authorities may build their own homes for this purpose, or make use of voluntary or private homes. I take note of what the hon. Member has said, and I shall probably be writing to him about that point later.

I should not wish to convey the impression that I regard local authority provision of centres and residential accommodation for the younger chronic sick as widespread as we would wish or that services are evenly developed. The main emphasis in recent years has been on provision for the elderly, and in that field we have made a great deal of progress. On the other hand, I cannot accept the proposition that nothing has been done for younger people. There are now 15 local authority homes especially for the younger physically handicapped.

It is true that a number of younger handicapped people have to be accommodated in homes occupied mainly by elderly people. In some cases—although I think it is dangerous to over-emphasise this—because of their upbringing and their disabilities the people concerned may find it better to be with rather older people. I would not like to emphasise that too much, however. It is also true that this may in many cases provide the best answer to the problems of caring for them, by reason of their age or condition, or in order to enable them to remain near their friends and relatives. It is very easy to have the most ideal of hospital provisions or residential accommodation and to detach people from their family surroundings. There are also dangers in this.

For many years there has been a greater demand by local authorities for loan sanction for welfare projects than the resources available have been able to meet. Nevertheless, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the problems, and that they are carefully considered in the allocation of loan sanction money. I am sure that local authorities will wish to accelerate the rate of their building programme when circumstances permit and that they are seeking to improve the recruitment of qualified workers. When the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West mentioned the difficulty of finding money, I thought that it was not only a question of money; it is often a question of trained staff. That costs money, but we just cannot allocate so much money and have the trained staff available at once.

It is unfortunately but inevitably the case that some patients will need more intensive and continuous nursing care than can be provided in the community. Within the statutory health and welfare services, this can be provided only in the hospital service, which alone is organised to provide a twenty-four hour nursing service on an economic basis. I think it appropriate here to record the valuable contribution made by voluntary organisations, such as the Cheshire Homes, which bring their skills, dedication and compassion to bear so effectively in this field. Many of them provide beds on a contractual basis with hospital boards for the care of the younger chronic sick. People sometimes think that hospital boards on the one hand and voluntary efforts on the other are completely detached. This is not the case.

As the hon. Member for Harborough said, the memorandum issued by my Department last year to hospital boards has probably set a lot of new thinking going. I am sure that the House will agree that this shows that my Department attaches great importance to the provision of suitable accommodation for the younger chronic sick in hospital. The memorandum was endorsed by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, and it gave detailed advice about different aspects in the provision of a specific service for these patients; it dealt with admission policy, including holiday admissions to afford patients' families some relief, with the size, location and equipping of units, staffing and training, and the use of voluntary help, and it enclosed a model plan of a unit, drawn up by my Department's professional staff, to help boards in their planning.

The attention of boards had been drawn to the problem of the care of the younger chronic sick in 1957 when they were given advice on the provision of hospital services for geriatric and chronic sick patients. Some progress in provision was made over the next years but it became clear that up-to-date information about the size and nature of the problem was desirable. A survey was mounted in 1967 of the existing hospital population of younger chronic sick. I must emphasise that this was never intended to show what unmet need there was in the community for admission to hospital, but rather was intended to discover the extent to which chronic sick patients in the younger age groups—for this purpose we used the age range of 15 to 59—were in hospital at that time and unsuitably accommodated.

Each hospital board, by reason of its participation in the survey, now knew exactly where its younger chronic sick patients were housed and the scale of provision needed to meet their special needs. It may be wondered why this information was not already available, but it must be remembered that we are dealing here with a relatively small number of patients—some 4,000—compared with half a million hospital patients in all. I accept that these people are important, but these figures show the ratio of this problem to the whole problem.

The House may welcome a few figures which illustrate the nature and extent of this problem. The survey showed that there were 4,223 chronic sick patients between the ages of 15 and 59 receiving hospital care. About one-fifth were in special units for the younger chronic sick or in contractual beds in voluntary homes. About half were in geriatric and chronic sick wards. I would emphasise that it would not be fair to regard all these as totally misplaced. Many are near the upper age limit of the group, and, sad as it may be, many have undergone such extensive mental and physical deterioration from the nature of their disease that the skills of the geriatric staff are most appropriate to their care. In fact, there are 299 in perfectly suitable voluntary homes instead of hospitals, and of the remainder not all are badly placed in some of the elderly homes. I have explained why geriatric care becomes rather more necessary at an earlier stage in the life of many of these patients.

The main point of the advice in the memorandum to which my hon. Friend referred is that the best possible standard of care can be given only in units specially designed and equipped for the purpose.

Boards have been considering, in the light of the results of the survey, in what ways they can implement the advice they were given in the memorandum. The main concern of hon. Members, which I share, is to ensure that progress is made on the ground. I would say, first, that boards were told by the then Minister of Health when the memorandum was issued in June, 1968, that he intended to call on them for reports on progress in about two years' time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services fully intends to keep to this timetable.

But, having said that, I should be less than honest if I did not remind the House that boards have many and varied calls on the resources which are available to them. It is boards which have the task—and we should not underestimate the difficulty of that task—of determining priorities, and it would be idle of me to hold out to hon. Members the prospect of a massive implementation of these recommendations at once. I have no doubt, however, that boards will give the fullest consideration to finding a place in their programmes for these units, especially in order to iron out the unevenness of the present provision.

This brings me to the hon. Member's specific point about the position in Leicestershire. It is a fact that at the moment there is no special hospital unit in the county, although in the area of the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board, of which Leicestershire forms part, there are already two units. I know that the board is at present considering the needs of the region as a whole in the light of the memorandum, and I know that it will not have escaped its attention that the southern part of the region, especially Leciestershire, is without a unit at present. My Department will examine the two speeches made this afternoon and the board will be sent our observations on them. I hope that we shall be able to demonstrate our consciousness of the concern expressed today.

The House is indebted to both hon. Members for raising this matter, which is of a national character. Our survey, which was produced from 1967, will, of course, be amplified in due course through a survey on domiciliary cases. When we have all this information—perhaps some more work could have been done in the past—we shall be better able to try to allot priorities in this matter.

I apologise to the House and to the Under-Secretary for having arrived late, but the House will understand my difficulties, and why I came running in at the last moment. I was not able to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), although I know the facts very fully and I am sure that I completely endorse everything which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) have said.

I would thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the full and thoughtful reply which he has given, although I did not hear all of it, and would re-emphasise his point that the care of these people should be in special units. We in Leicestershire do not have that facility at this moment. Particularly now, when young people have so many advantages and such a full life, we need to be more compassionate and to take more care of these people and give more thought to their parents, who bear a tremendous burden.

I accept that, in many cases it is to their advantage to be in the geriatric part of a hospital, but in most cases, especially in our part of Leicestershire, this type of accommodation is urgently needed. So I add my voice, as a Member for Leicestershire and as the President of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, not only to congratulating the Minister on the work which is being done, but also to urging him to ensure that every effort is made to see that these homes are provided and that the voluntary help is encouraged which also plays a tremendous part. Special compassion is needed not only for these people but for their parents and those involved in these problems. We must be grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this forward and for all the work which he has done in this field in Leicestershire.

I pay due respect to the experience of the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) in this matter. Although the House is sparsely attended, as is not uncommon on Friday, I hope that the debate will receive some publicity, because the care of the young chronic sick and other matters which are less glamourised and which are in the responsibility of the National Health Service are not so very popular among the great army of voluntary workers who help us so much. If the public can only be given to understand the size of the problem and the importance of becoming better acquainted to the tragedies which surround these cases, we might see an increase in voluntary aid, which we should welcome.