Commons Sitting of 6 December 1946

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ST. ANDREWS LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.
  ARBROATH GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  Read a Second time; to be considered upon Monday next.

FOOD SUPPLIES (THREATENED SHORTAGES)
The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): The Government consider that the House should be warned that recent events in the Americas may seriously affect the supply of certain foodstuffs to this country during the coming months. It is necessary to speak of these events, and their repercussions upon us, since the House, and the nation, have a right to know the reasons for the continued difficulties of our food supply. But in doing so, I wish at the outset to say that no criticism of any kind is implied or intended of the great trans-Atlantic exporting countries. I know they are fully conscious of the difficulties which may be experienced abroad as a result of their own domestic troubles.
The main events affecting our overseas supplies have been a series of labour disputes. Unfortunately, the largest of them is still in progress, namely, the strike in the soft coal industry in the United States. This strike, if continued, will profoundly disturb the entire American economy including the transportation system. A really protracted strike might in time affect the movement of supplies in Canada. Thus we are faced with the possibility of developments in North America which may have the gravest consequences for
650
this country and for all other countries which must rely upon North American supplies.
What I have to tell the House, however, is that these events have already gravely impeded the flow of certain staple foodstuffs to this country. I have described the serious consequences to our stocks of wheat, which are today little more than half what they were this time last year. It is necessary for us to obtain the actual delivery to this country of additional supplies of wheat in the next three or four months, over and above those which we have already purchased. I have, therefore, asked the United States Government to sell us certain quantities of wheat and flour for shipment in the near future. I must tell the House that if the United States Government should find themselves unable to agree to our request, or if circumstances should develop which made it impossible for these quantities to be moved to the American seaboard for loading or ships in the first few months of the new year, then far from it being possible to de-ration bread, it would almost certainly be necessary to reduce the present ration. The United States Government are today making great efforts to ensure that the flow of grain for export will not in fact be impeded. They are fully alive to their great and serious responsibilities, for they know that the United States in this crop year have larger supplies of grain available for export than exist in any other country.
Another strike has affected our meat supplies. The great meat packing plants of the Argentine have been held up by a strike which lasted for seven weeks. That dispute, I am thankful to say, has just been settled. But we have lost nearly seven weeks' shipment of meat, a loss which it is almost impossible to make up completely. The most immediately threatened of our supplies is, however, bacon. Canadian supplies available for export are running below expectations. Supplies from Denmark are only rising slowly. We cannot hope to increase our own supplies till we can increase our imports of animal feedingstuffs. It may well not prove possible to maintain the present bacon ration. We should know definitely in the immediate future.
Altogether it is clear that a very difficult period lies immediately ahead of us. This is not because the real world food position has worsened. Indeed, at the risk

651
of seeing our hopes blighted in the event, I would say that looking many months ahead a gleam of light on the food supply prospects of this country is discernible.
The Secretary of Agriculture of the United States drew attention in a public statement the other day to the large supplies of grain which would have accumulated for export at 30th June, 1947, in the United States. In so far as the United State Government can improve upon the very high export target which, despite their measures of internal decontrol they have set for themselves, not only will importing countries have been helped at a vital period but a United States carryover of potentially embarrassing dimensions will have been reduced. If, on the other hand, transport difficulties prevent the United States from exceeding their export target, there will remain large supplies of grain available for export at a later date. There is, therefore, some promise that the supply situation may ease. This encourages the substantial hope that one day, and perhaps it may be sooner rather than later, the United Kingdom, which is by far the greatest continuing market in the world for exportable surpluses of foodstuffs, may again be importing in full measure the supplies of which today we stand in such great need. When that time comes we shall not forget those exporting countries which, despite their present difficulties, have stood by us during the period of scarcity.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am sure the House will have heard and the country will read with very great concern the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made. What I should like at this stage to do is to express the hope that in view of the seriousness of the situation the Minister will not fail to keep this House informed from time to time of any improvement that may take place.
Mr. Scollan: What hope has the right hon. Gentleman of getting any relief from the American Government in view of the very pronounced bias there against any Governmental dealing?
Mr. Strachey: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) we will, of course, keep the House very fully informed of any development. It was because of that that we judged it very necessary to make
652
this statement. In reply to the hon. Gentleman for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) I do not think that that really enters into this position. As far as grain is concerned, the United States Government still deal in it in a Government to Government sense, which is to say that they issue export licences. No one can export grain from the United States unless the United States Government give such licences. When they are given—and that is what we ask for—the grain is actually imported into this country by the grain trade acting as our agents so that the issue of Government trade does not arise one way or the other.
Mr. Clement Davies: While the country will be grateful that the Minister has made this statement as early as possible, might I ask him whether in case the strike or difficulties with regard to transport from the United States continue, the Government are looking round for alternative sources of supply from any other countries, such as the Argentine, so that we may have other sources of supply in case the position worsens?
Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. The grain from the United States is only the balance of our requirements. We are importing very large quantities from Canada, though that has been delayed but not diminished by transport difficulties. The Argentine crop will be available in the new year and we hope to purchase substantial quantities.
Mr. Ellis Smith: While I am fully confident that the Minister will deal with the peculiar problem in relation to other countries, may I ask if he can give an assurance that the available food supply of this country will be more fairly distributed and that there will be a greater importation of fruit with an assurance also that that will also be more fairly distributed than has been the case up to now?
Mr. Strachey: As to fruit, I should have thought we were receiving a very considerable increased importation, and I have every expectation that that increase will be maintained. We shall certainly attempt, as I think we are doing, to distribute it fairly.
Mr. Beechman: As the Minister has rightly warned us of the fear of increasing stringency, will the Government keep under constant and careful review our

653
own shipping position so that our ships may be best used to carry supplies from those quarters most likely to be of assistance, such as the Dominions?
Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. Shipping is not a bottleneck in this case, but these transportation difficulties in America have on occasions held our ships for rather long periods in some of the ports. That unfortunately is out of our control.
Mr. James Callaghan: Does not the serious news the Minister has given us justify to the uttermost the courage and foresight of the Government in rationing bread?
Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will the Minister, in view of the difficulties in regard to meat from the Argentine which he has mentioned, be able to maintain the supplies at Christmas, including the slight extra ration?
Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. There has been no difficulty about that extra Christmas ration.
Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend continue to do all he can to encourage our own fishermen and see that the fish is fairly distributed throughout the country?
Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir. The catch of fish has very steadily been increasing and the high level today is very remarkable.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.16 a.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The object of this Bill is to amend the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944. That Act provided for percentage additions to the pensions paid either from the Exchequer or from local rates to civil servants, teachers, police, firemen, local government officers, and the Royal Irish Constabulary. Under the Royal Prerogative similar increases were given under that Act to retired officers and other ranks of the Armed Forces drawing retired pay or pensions. The Act did not attempt to give
  654
  increases to all pensioners who had retired from these occupations, but only to those whose pensions did not exceed £300 per annum for married people or single people with dependants, and £225 in cases of single pensioners without any dependants; and under the alternative scheme, to civil servants whose pensions had been varied downward as the cost of living fell in the years between the wars.
  The object was, in so far as might be practicable, to mitigate real severe hardship caused by the rise in the cost of living during the war. This basic fact must be borne in mind. The House was not in 1944 and it is not now legislating for all central and local government pensioners, but only a limited class of them The 1944 Act was passed while the war was still on and when no one could accurately forecast the march of events nor say with certainty what changes would take place in the cost of living. It was deliberately made a temporary Measure, designed to expire on 31st December, 1945. The present Government came into office in the summer of 1945 when the war against Japan subsisted. As far as the 1944 Act was concerned, there were three alternatives before them. They could either have let the Act lapse at 31st December, 1945; they could have rushed through an amending Measure; or they could have kept the Act alive by including it in the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act of last year.
  The Government chose the last course, for very good reasons. It was unthinkable, in the view of the Government, that the Act should be allowed to lapse, and in their view, too, it was impossible in the time available, and in the circumstances then existing, to rush through an amending Measure, because, in a Bill of this kind, a large variety of interests have to be consulted. The Government of Northern Ireland is interested in a Bill of this kind; The local authorities and other bodies financially concerned are, of course, also deeply interested, and should also be consulted. Discussion with them was clearly, therefore, essential, and it would have been difficult to carry this through in the time at the disposal of the Government. Furthermore, it was felt it was far too soon after the cessation of hostilities—the war against Japan ended in August—to consider a permanent Measure to take the place of the 1944 Act.

  655
  The Act, therefore, was continued, and will, unless something is done, expire at 31st March, 1947.
  As those who took part in the Debates we had will remember, assurances were given from this Box to the House that before the Act did expire the whole matter would be considered with the bodies and organisations interested, in order that, if possible, a permanent solution should be found. We undertook—and I think those who have read the Bill will agree that, so far as we can, we have done so —to meet criticisms that were then made against the 1944 Act. A complete review has taken place during this year in consultation with those interested. We have consulted with the staff side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, the various associations representing local authorities, the Trades Union Congress, the National Association of Local Government Officers, the National Union of Teachers, the Educational Institute for Scotland, and, through the Home Office, with the Police Federation and the Chief Constables Association. All of these bodies have been consulted, and their views on this subject considered. We have also been in touch with the Government of Northern Ireland. It would be misleading if, by saying that, I led the House to believe that this Bill carries with it the complete agreement of all those various bodies. That would be too much to expect. But I think I can claim that it does embody the greatest common measure of agreement that could be arrived at in the circumstances.
  What does this Bill do? Clause 1 provides for substantial increases both in the upper income limits attracting pension increases and in the rates laid down in Section 1 of the 1944 Act, governing such increases, for the general body of retired civil servants, teachers, the police, firemen, local government officers, and the Royal Irish Constabulary. The income limits attracting pension go up from £300 to £450 in the case of those with dependants, and from £225 to £350 for those without. In addition, the first £52 of income, other than pension, will, as under the 1944 Act, be disregarded for this purpose. The rates of increase also go up from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. for those on the lower pension ranges, and in the case of those receiving pensions somewhat higher, from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent.
  656
  The Bill also provides for some improvement in the scale of increase under Section 2 of the 1944 Act. Hon. Members will remember that was an alternative scheme applying to civil servants. It raises the pension limit from £645 to £787 10s., and lays down a 5 per cent. increase in the rate of pension on pensions between £600 and £750, tailing off as the limit of £787 10s. is approached and reached.
  Now, as to cost. The Financial and Explanatory Memorandum printed on the face of the Bill will have been noted by hon. Members. It will be seen that the overall cost, including the percentage increases given under the 1944 Act, will run now to about £12,000,000, of which £2,500,000 will fall on the local rates;— that is to say that this Bill almost doubles the cost of increases. Clause 2, as the marginal note indicates, makes a number of minor amendments to the principal Act. These correct flaws and anomalies which, in the course of experience, have shown us to exist in the original Measure. These amendments are somewhat technical in their character, and are, probably, best dealt with when we reach the Committee Stage. The most important of them is contained in Subsection (1) which removes an anomaly which may arise when a pensioner is also getting a non-contributory old age pension. The Subsection will enable local authorities to do what Government Departments have already been doing administratively—that is, to limit, if necessary, the amount of pension increase paid to prevent a pensioner suffering a greater drop in the amount of his old age pension. The House will remember that the non-contributory pension goes by stages of 2s. at a time, and even the mere presence or absence of a penny may make a difference of 2s. a week to the pensioner. The Government themselves have noticed this, and have made arrangements to see the pensioners do not suffer in this way. But local authorities were not in the same position; they were bound by statute to observe the letter of the law. This Section will enable them to follow in the footsteps of the Central Government. It is the Government's intention that the 1944 Act, amended by this Bill, shall embody a final and permanent settlement of this matter. Clause 3 implements that intention.
  Neither Measure, as I have said already, attempts to alter the general structure of

  657
  the superannuation code. Increases in pension rates have been given, and are justified on the basis of the substantial rise in the cost of living which has taken place as a result of the war, and the hardship caused to those on relatively small pensions. Provision is, therefore, made in the Bill to make these permanent where they apply. Provision is also made to limit such percentage increases to those cases where pensions will be or have been based on prewar or war time salaries. Provision is likewise made for the requisite adjustments to be carried through where the emolument on which the pension is based is partly on a war time basis and partly on a postwar scale. These arrangements will not operate until 1st April, 1947.
  Finally, the Bill contains an enabling provision to permit, by Treasury regulation, any pension authority, not at present within the ambit of the 1944 Act, to pay increases to those pensioners at the rates laid down in Clause 1, if such authority so desires. The authorities we have in mind are those whose pensions are governed by statute. Others can do it now if they so desire and some of them, I am glad to think, have been doing it; but there are some that are bound by statute and cannot. This Clause will give the necessary authority and permit representative associations and unions and the employing body concerned to enter into negotiations. I think that briefly covers the main clauses of the Bill, which I think is an advance on the 1944 Measure. No doubt hon. Members in all quarters of the House will have suggestions to make for its improvement; we shall be delighted to hear what they have to say. I commend the Bill to the House.
  11.31 a.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: Those of us who foregather here regularly on Friday mornings are accustomed to having clear expositions of complicated matters from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and once again he has explained the provisions of the Bill now before the House with his usual clarity. There was a clear justification for the Act of 1944. The cost of living had risen at that time by about 30 per cent., and there was general agreement in the House that something must be done for past servants of the State and of local authorities who, as a result of the depreciation in the value of money, were suffering hard-
  658
  ship. As the Financial Secretary said, it was a Measure brought in to mitigate the hardship caused by the rise in the cost of living, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1944, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir John Anderson) made it clear, as indeed did other speakers, that these additions to pensions were ex gratia payments, necessarily made at the expense of other taxpayers, which, therefore, must be related to need. This Bill preserves the main structure of the 1944 Act. It raises the ceiling and increases the field over which pensions can be increased, and adds 10 per cent., in the highest class of increase, to the percentage addition. The test of need laid down by the Act of 1944 is preserved, as also are the tests of age or, alternatively, disability.
  I should like to refer to one or two observations made during the progress of the 1944 Act through this House by the present Secretary of State for India, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who has great knowledge of financial affairs, and who at that time spoke for the Labour Party During the Committee stage—I think he was replying to certain arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown)—Lord Pethick-Lawrence observed:
  "There are large numbers of people … like employees of public authorities … and employees of private concerns, who get no increases to meet their responsibilities, and others, who are ail going to be taxed in effect to meet this concession. I am not prepared to push the ceiling up to the sky. … I support the argument, within limits, for not raising the ceiling any further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1944; Vol. 399, c. 63.]
  That was in April, 1944, when the original Act was passing through Committee, and on the Third Reading, Lord Pethick-Lawrence said:
  "I should be lacking in common courtesy if I did not acknowledge that the Chancellor had met the case which I put forward, not by myself alone, but on behalf of those who acted with me in this House. … We in this House had the double responsibility, a responsibility to those who pay as well as to those who receive … therefore, I commend the Third Reading to the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1944, Vol. 399, c. 1521.]
  May I now go a little further forward and give a quotation from the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary himself? This matter was raised a year ago on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury observed:

  659
  "All sorts of people are in the same position. There are the people living on small annuities, or savings, or small pensions not received from the State. The problem is not quite so easy as the hon. Gentleman would lead the Committee to suppose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1945; Col. 415, c. 1186.]
  I quite expected that we should hear from the Financial Secretary this morning some justification for the increased scales of pension proposed in the Bill. I thought he would say that the Government had great sympathy with these small people, and recognised that the cost of living index does not reflect the true rise in the cost of living. Or I thought he might have said that there had been a rise in the cost of living since the original Act was passed, or since November, 1945, at which time it was the same as it was when the original Act went through. But we have not had from the Financial Secretary a single word of justification for the Measure. He explained it very clearly, and told us that the various bodies representing local authorities and other pension authorities had been consulted, and that this Bill represented the greatest common multiple of agreement, but I wish he had given the House some justification in principle for the increases now proposed. After all, the Treasury has to hold the balance in these matters. As Lord Pethick-Lawrence made very clear, we have a double responsibility, both to those who receive and to those who pay, and I should have thought, therefore, that a Bill of this character required some justification in principle.
  Of course, there is a strong case on grounds of sympathy. We all sympathise with these small people, we all know that the cost of living index, which I think is still 30 per cent. above prewar, does not really cover a great number of articles which are in common use and which householders need. We all know that all the things outside the index— the pots and pans, the window cord or the blind, the piece of rubber flooring for the bathroom—are not 30 per cent. but hundreds per cent. above their prewar cost. When we come to the smaller comforts, a glass of beer or a packet of cigarettes, the increases are on a similar scale, and I thought the hon. Gentleman would have said that he recognised that these people have to incur some expenditure which lies outside the ordinary cost of living index and, therefore, felt that they were entitled to
  660
  some concession. The hon. Gentleman, however, has not really made a case. I daresay he has a case, and I hope when he comes to reply that he will state it, but it is very difficult to deal with a case which has not yet been made. The hon. Gentleman may be wise in that, having such a bad case, he is reserving it until we have all made our speeches and nobody can possibly reply to it.
  I am bound to admit that, in considering this matter, I sympathise very greatly with the observations which I have quoted from the speeches of Lord Pethick-Lawrence. Under the Bill the smaller pensioners with up to, I think, £100 a year will get a 40 per cent. addition in place of the 30 per cent. addition under the previous Act. I am bound to admit that I compare this in my own mind with the position of the small annuitants, and people who are living on invested savings. I am reminded of the position of those who have saved and invested their money in the stocks of the British railway companies. They, on the other hand, are to get a cut of 40 per cent. in their already diminishing incomes, whereas these people, enjoying as they do the sympathy of us all, who have served for many years and have done good service, are to receive a 40 per cent. addition.
  I think that a Bill of this character requires some statement to be made in justification of it, and I hope that at some stage in the Debate we shall have such a statement from the Financial Secretary. This seems to me to be only one of a long series of increases in various classes of pensions which this Government make almost every week. Last night, the Minister of Pensions was taking credit for some improvements in the case of Service pensions. These increases are continually being announced, each one in itself amounting only to a small sum of money —£1 million here, £2 million there, or £5 million to some other class of person. We have not had, since the Budget Debates, any real opportunity of reviewing the financial position of the country as a whole, and I hope that when the Financial Secretary replies, he may be able to tell us what is the total extent to which the Government have increased their financial commitments since the Chancellor opened his Budget, last April. I believe that in total it will be found to amount to a very considerable figure.

  661
  Expenditure on pensions is, of course, the easiest form of expenditure for any Government to undertake. It simply means crossing out a figure in the old Act, and putting in another figure in the new Act It is also the least productive expenditure which a Government can undertake. The comparison is often made between what the Government do for children, on the one hand, and for old people, on the other. There are many people who think that money spent on young people is, from the national point of view, a better form of expenditure than money spent on the old. One might say, I think, that financially the road to hell is paved with increased pensions.
  There are a number of interesting points which arise on the Clauses of this Bill, particularly in regard to Clause 2, which we shall have to investigate more closely during the Committee stage. I am very glad that the case of the overlap with the old age pension is being dealt with under Subsections (1) and (2). That gave raise to a great deal of heart-burning. A man found that he got an increased pension under the 1944 Act, but the moment he obtained a £10 or £15 increase, his old age pension was cut down, under the means test arrangement, by a larger amount than his increase: Not only did the Act confer no benefit, but it actually resulted in an out-of-pocket loss. That was a very unexpected result of that Act. I am glad that under Subsection (1) power is taken to see that that cannot happen in the future. I am very puzzled about the provisions of Subsections (2) and (3), and we shall have to investigate them more closely during the Committee stage.
  On Fridays, we do not as a rule debate very controversial subject, and it is unusual to divide the House. I must confess that I am not prepared; to undertake the thankless task of voting against this Measure, which will be represented as an act of public generosity to a considerable number of worthy people, whose circumstances have been greatly straitened, not only as a result of the war, but as a result of the inflationary policy which this Government are pursuing. Only the Government have full knowledge of our financial and economic position. They alone know how fast the American Loan is running out. They alone know how the negotiations for the discharge of the sterling balances are proceeding. They alone have full knowledge
  662
  as to the success or failure of the export drive, and of the production drive. I must confess that it seems a little ironical that the Minister of Fuel and Power should tell us that there is to be less fuel in the coming months, and that only this morning the Minister of Food should make a statement of tremendous gravity about impending food shortages while, at the same time, we are increasing payments out of money, the purchasing power of which is steadily on the decline. There have been many pious utterances about the dangers of an inflationary spiral by Members of the Government, and these statements seem to us constantly to be belied by the actions they take. Worthy as the recipients of this largess undoubtedly are, we are bound to express our doubt as to whether these increases will not rapidly be rendered nugatory by further depreciations in the value of the pound sterling. I feel bound to express these fears, while saying that we are not prepared to go into the Division Lobby against this Bill.
  11.48 a.m.
  Mr. Burden: I would join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) in congratulating the Financial Secretary on submitting this Bill with his usual clarity and brevity. I would also express thanks to him for the patient negotiations which have taken place since the end of last year. We have cleared away many of the difficulties, which were voiced in all quarters of the House, when this matter was last debated. It is true that there are still some blemishes in the Bill, but it would be ungracious to deal with them now, because they could, perhaps, be dealt with during the Committee stage. I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman on his point about pensions being the road to another place, although I hope that his fears will not be borne cut by the facts. I should like to raise another aspect of this problem with the Financial Secretary, which may be dealt with under the Clause to which he made reference, namely, the enabling Clause.
  When the Act of 1944 was under discussion, I called attention to the unhappy position of retired railway men on pitifully low superannuation figures. That brought a crop of letters from all over the country. The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman the

  663
  Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), gave a non-committal, but, I think, sympathic, reply. I believe negotiations went on, but nothing material transpired, and when the Act of 1944 was continued at the end of 1945, I again ventured to raise the matter. It is only right for me to declare an interest in this, because I happen to be a member of a railway superannuation fund, though obviously it can have no personal application. I ventured recently to put a question to the Minister of Transport, because although, as I have said, negotiations had been taking place, very little or nothing has been done.
  I wish to thank the Minister for the Clause to which he has made reference: I believe it will remove whatever technical difficulties there may have been in the way of the railway companies applying the provisions of this Bill to their retired staff. But I would put a further point to the Minister. Under the Transport Bill which has now been tabled, there may be a change in the organisation and ownership of the railways in the future. But the Treasury drove either a very good bargain, or a very hard bargain, according to the point of view, in the amount to be paid to the proprietors of the railways for Government control of the railways during the war and after. The net result of that agreement has been that substantial sums have accrued to the Treasury. The agreement still remains in operation. This is the point I wish to put to the Minister: Will he agree that any amount which the railway companies have to pay into the superannuation funds, in order to apply the provisions of this Measure—?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the railways are covered or affected by this Bill in any way.
  Mr. Burden: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the enabling Clause, which enables other authorities to bring their staffs within the scope of the provisions of this Measure. I was under the impression that if there were agreements between the railway companies and the Government, it would be possible for regulations to be issued bringing their staff within the scope of the Measure. What I wanted to put to the Minister was this: Will he agree that any additional expenditure of that kind shall be a legitimate
  664
  charge in the working expenses of the railway companies, and not be deducted from the amounts payable as dividends, etc.? Obviously we cannot expect the companies, in view of the handsome profit which has been made by the Government, to foot this amount themselves. If we can get an assurance on that point, and if the railway companies apply the terms of this Bill to their staffs, I am sure that the Minister will have earned the gratitude of thousands of retired railwaymen who, at the present time, are suffering great hardship. With those few words, I welcome the Measure, and thank the Minister for it.
  11.56 a.m.
  Sir Ronald Ross: This Bill has filled me with somewhat mixed feelings. There is clearly much good in it, both as regards clearing up points which were found to be slurs in the previous Act, and increasing the pensions of those who are—certainly in some cases of which I shall speak in a moment—in need of it. Yet it does make one think very hard about the problem which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has mentioned, that is, that the Government's generosity goes to those who are pensioners of somebody or other, but it stops short of those who have to provide their own pensions. The professional classes and smaller people in business have generally to undergo an expensive education to fit themselves for their tasks. They rely on laying aside such sums as will support them and their families when they are too old to work. Of course, the actual value—"the purchasing power" is a favourite expression of hon. Members opposite—of those savings has decreased infinitely, and appears still to be decreasing. Instead of doing anything to help such people, many of them in much humbler circumstances certainly than the higher grade of what is described as the working class, the trend of the legislation of this Government tends to make their position even worse.
  I do not propose to embark on the general argument of this Bill for any length of time but to address myself principally to a class in which I have always been interested—those loyal servants of the State, the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I much regret that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) is

  665
  prevented by health reasons from being present today, because he has made the subject peculiarly his own. I welcome the increase in their pensions, particularly as regards the pensions that are on the scale described as the pre-Treaty scale, because those pensions were settled at a very remote period, and the value of money has decreased enormously since then, and these poor old men are very much in need of an increased pension in order to live in ordinary decency. I am glad that the means test upon them has, to some extent, been reduced. I am more particularly pleased to see the rise in the percentage increase from 30 to 40, because I think that that will apply to practically all the pre-Treaty R.I.C. pensioners. I do not think it will be found, on investigation, to be sufficient for those particular cases.
  I hope that the House, as a whole, will acquit me of any desire to pour the financial resources of the United Kingdom into Eire, because if anyone makes such a suggestion, I think he is being unjust. I suggest that the Financial Secretary might review the whole scale of pensions of the pre-Treaty R.I.C. pensioners. It is one of the unfortunate defects of democracy and of Parliamentary democracy—because every system must have some defects— that the justice of a cause is sometimes apt to be judged by the number of votes it commands. I am afraid that the cause of the R.I.C. pensioners commands few votes, and they will become fewer every year It is a very small class. Many of them have to live in a country, Eire, where their services to this country are not appreciated. They live in a country which has a very much higher cost of living. Eire may be a rich man's paradise, and probably it is, for you can get anything for money, but the basic cost of living there is a great deal higher than it is in the United Kingdom.
  If the Financial Secretary were to review the pensions of the pre-Treaty R.I.C. pensioners, those old men who went grey in the service of this country, I think he would be shocked by what he found, and I think he would consider that, in spite of the increase which no doubt they will get, their pensions are not adequate to meet their needs. These men are, in practically every case, much too old to do any work which would bring them substantial additions to their pensions. In so far as the Bill increases those pensions, and in so far as it removes the means test from a body
  666
  whose higher ranks certainly did not get any very large pension considering their services, I welcome the Bill, although I certainly associate myself with the doubts which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds expressed about the fact that the care of the Government seems to be concentrated entirely upon those who have pensions provided for them and to be hostile towards those who have to provide their own.
  12.3 p.m.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: The House will know that, for many years past, I have had a particular and peculiar interest in this problem. I am bound on this occasion, as on very many other occasions, to criticise, but I wish to make it plain at the outset that, although I have to criticise the Bill, I am very glad that I am dealing with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on this occasion, and not with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). If the Financial Secretary is chastising us with whips, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds would have been chastising us with scorpions, and I react from the harsh ungenerousness of his observations into an almost positive support of the Bill. Since this is important, I would like to say that I think the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds missed the essential point. I do not deny —nobody will deny—that the State has a responsibility to all old people, to all young people, and indeed, for that matter, to all people within its control. But the whole point about this situation is that the State has a special relationship to the people covered by this Bill because, unlike the rest of the community, these people were the employees of the State, who had given it a lifetime of devoted service. Therefore, it is no answer to the claim for justice here to say that there are holders of annuities, holders of insurance policies, and so on, rentiers living on dividends, whose income has diminished to an equal degree. But we have not the responsibility for that wide area of people that we have for the people covered by this Bill. That vitiates the whole of my right hon. Friend's approach to the Bill.
  I would like to draw attention to the' Financial Secretary's statement that this Bill, whatever we think of it, is intended to be a final and permanent settlement of this matter. Because it is intended to be

  667
  a final and permanent settlement, it behoves us to look closely at the Bill, and to ask ourselves whether it is just or right, because this will be our last opportunity. It is not the intention of the Government—and the Financial Secretary was very frank about this—that this should be a stopgap Measure, a Measure that will last two or three years and then be reviewed. It is meant to be a permanent and final settlement of the problem, and therefore, we must ask ourselves whether it is a just settlement. It would be ungenerous of me not to recognise that this Bill will bring benefit to a substantial number of people, and their state is such that any Bill which brings benefit to them is, to that extent, to be welcomed. But I put it to the House that whether one approves of the Bill or not depends almost entirely upon one's basic angle of approach to the problem. If the angle of approach be the angle of eleemosynary grants and charitable dispositions, then we may approve of this Bill, But if the angle of approach is that we want to see justice done, then we shall criticise this Bill extremely sharply indeed.
  I cannot state the case for the Bill without telling the House a little of the earlier history of this matter, because the background determines the foreground of the problem. During and after the First World War, there was, as hon. Members will know, a sharp and protracted upward movement in the cost of living. That movement reached its height in November, 1921, when the cost of living index stood at 276 as compared with a figure for July, 1914, of 100. And because that vast increase in the cost of living could not be sustained either by serving public servants or by retired public servants, the Government of that day were compelled to do something about it. What they did was to arrange a cost of living bonus for the serving State servants, under which an increase was. given for every five points by which the index went up. It was an increase of 1/26th in respect of every five points increase in the cost of living. Conversely, it was laid down that there should be a corresponding reduction of 1/26th for every five points the cost of living came down. The bonus, was automatically and mathematically tied to movements of the cost of living index figure.
  668
  With regard to the retired men, something also had to be done, and what happened was that, in addition to their basic pension, they were given what was called a bonus pension which, like the cost of living bonus itself, automatically went up or down in accordance with the movement of the index figure. From 1921 to 1935, the cost of living went steadily down. From 276 in November, 1921, it had fallen, by 1935, to a figure of about 155. All the time from 1921 to 1935 — 14 years—the index was coming down, and the bonus of the civil servant and the bonus pension of the retired man automatically came down with it. There was no question of whether that was a hardship or not. There was no question whether the pensioner could live on the amount. The whole thing was utterly automatic.
  In 1935 the Government consolidated the cost of living bonus with salary, and the cost of living bonus with the basic pension, and stabilised it there. If the cost of living had remained stable from that point on, that might have been all right. But as the House will know, 1935 represented the nadir of the cost of living curve. Having come all the way down from 1921 to 1935, from 1935 it went steadily up, and is still going up today. The pension, however, was not touched at all. As the years went by, the Government were compelled to do something about the serving State servants, and gave wartime increases, of an ad hoc character, which were not automatically related to the cost of living figure, but which did reflect the upward trend of prices. In respect of pensioners, this House did nothing whatever from 1935 to 1944.
  I beg the House to remember that. For nine years of rising prices, we did nothing for our own retired servants, military or civil. It was only as a result of an agitation for which I myself was responsible when I returned to the House in 1942— an agitation which, I rejoice to say, was supported by my hon. Friends on all sides of the House, and which was not treated, and I hope will not be. today, as in any sense a party matter—that we ultimately got the Government to bring in the very inadequate 1944 Pensions (Increase) Act. It is that Act, the amendment of which we are discussing today, as the Financial Secretary has said. The basis of the 1944 Act was bad. That basis is retained today. We alter it in detail in this Bill. But we

  669
  are retaining the essential principles of the 1944 Act. I hope to demonstrate that those principles are unjust and that we ought to have a different Bill from the one which we have before us today.
  What would have been justice? It would have been justice, first of all, to do something about those nine years—nine years of rising prices in the cost of living. The 1944 Act did nothing about those nine years, nor does this Bill today. It would be justice, since there has been no hardship limitation on the reduction of pensions, that there should have been no means test with regard to increased pensions. One follows the other with automatic consequences—or ought to—because having imposed no downward limit on the pensions that were cut when the cost of living was going down, we ought not to have imposed an upward limit on the increase of pensions. But we had both the means test, no action in connection with the nine years, and the imposition of upward maximum ceilings. On top of that, when we were reducing pensions, we did not discriminate between married and unmarried pensioners, but when we started, very belatedly, to increase them, we did distinguish between married and unmarried pensioners, and gave a smaller increase in the one case than in the other.
  The 1944 Act was basically an unjust Act. This Bill preserves the whole fabric, subject to modification in detail, of the 1944 Act. It improves somewhat the percentage increases. It puts somewhat higher the upward limits to which we can go. But it preserves the means test, and it preserves the distinction between married and single, and leaves thousands of pensioners without any relief whatever, and wholly outside the scope of the Bill.
  Whenever we have an arbitration case on Civil Service pay, the courts are always invited to take into account the value of superannuation rates which will ultimately accrue to the civil servant which is valued at from 12½ to 15 per cent. of salary. This is in effect money withdrawn from current pay in order that it may be given at the end of the civil servant's public life. If, when he reaches the end of his public life, we pay these pounds back to him, after having deferred them, in units of money which have less than half of their purchasing power, it is my submission that we have not carried out our
  670
  contract with the public servant. We are paying pounds which are not worth the pounds which we withheld under the pension system The pensioner does not get what he expected to get. While I do not blame the Government for the fact that the cost of living has risen—that is not part of my case today—if we do not increase the number of pounds which we give to the pensioner pro rata with the increased cost of living—if we do less than that— we are doing a grave injustice.
  Would the House look for a moment to what this Bill does? The Minister of Labour tells us that the index figure is up by about 30 per cent. I agree with the observations of my right hon. Friend above the gangway that that 30 per cent., in modern circumstances, is notional. It has very little to do with reality. The common experience of all of us would be that the cost of living has increased by twice or thrice that amount. No one knows the position accurately because the budgets on which the index figure is based go back to 1904, and have practically no relevance to modern conditions. Suppose we say that the increase is 60 per cent Under this Bill, the maximum increase would be 40 per cent., and that would only be to the poorest class of pensioner. Between £200 and £400 it would be only 30 per cent. At £400 it would be only 20 per cent., and at £415 it would be only 15 per cent. Above £415 there will be nothing.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is extremely knowledgeable on these matters, and, as he has said, has done a great deal in connection with them; but he has forgotten that there is an extra £52, so that the upper limit is in fact £502.
  Mr. Brown: I readily accept that correction. I intended to point it out myself later. It is true that the discounting of the first £52 of income does have the effect of making the actual ceiling higher than the nominal figures which I have read out, and I readily accept that. Whether the actual figure is £450 or £502, everyone in excess of £502 gets not a penny under this Bill. This does not only affect the public servant on the civil side, but it also affects the soldiers. The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), who has hunted with me on several occasions on this matter, and who, I regret to say, is too ill to be with us today, asks me—and

  671
  I very readily do it—to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill fails to make good to the ex-Army officer the deductions taken away from him at an earlier stage when the cost of living went down. It neither does justice to the Army officer nor justice to the civil servant, the teacher, the policeman, and so on.
  There is another very important point about this Bill. Under the 1944 Act, the civil servant could opt to be treated under one of two schemes. He could ask to be treated under Section 2 of the 1944 Act or under Section 1. This Bill improves option number one but leaves option number two unimproved, except in one respect which I will mention in a moment. What did Section 2 (1) of the main Act provide? It provided that where the pension did not exceed £400 there should be a 10 per cent. increase; between £400 and £600 an increase of 7½ per cent. and between £600 and £645 the pension was to be increased to £645. That is the measure of the wretched increases given to the public servant—at best 10 per cent.—and beyond £400 a year, 7½ per cent. with a cost of living rise of perhaps more than 60 per cent. Those figures are left completely untouched by the present Bill, except that the ceiling is raised slightly and a 5 per cent. figure inserted in respect of the area over which the ceiling has been raised. Subject to that there is no change. I do not understand, even on the basis of the Bill which I repudiate, how we can improve one option without improving the other simultaneously. I should have thought that those two things also went together automatically and consequentially but, as I say, option number two is left as it was, save for the increase of the ceiling and the insertion of a five per cent. figure.
  I would beg the Financial Secretary to reconsider the whole lines of this Bill. The Government stepped off on the wrong leg on this from the beginning. Though the hon. Gentleman may say that this is to be their last and final word on the matter, nothing will prevent civil servants feeling an extreme sense of injustice, and nothing will prevent the soldiers feeling it and continuing their agitation, unless the final settlement to be produced represents something in the nature of rough justice. This Bill does not represent anything like rough justice, and I therefore appeal to the Minister to withdraw it and give us a better
  672
  one. Nothing less than that, in my view, would meet the case.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: When the hon. Gentleman raised the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) referring to soldiers, was he referring to all soldiers and not only a certain class?
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I should point out here that officers' pensions are dealt with by Royal Warrant so that they are altogether outside the Act which has been referred to.
  Mr. Brown: I would respectfully submit that they are covered by the First Schedule.
  Mr. Speaker: I was reading the Explanatory Memorandum where it says that those who are covered by prerogative instruments are outside the Act. That is to say, they are dealt with by Royal Warrant.
  Mr. Brown: I would only say, Sir, that when we discussed this in 1944 we did deal with the situation of the ex-officers, and that they were certainly affected by the main Act of 1944. This Bill now before the House leaves the 1944 Act unchanged except so far as it alters it in detail.
  Mr. James Callaghan: May I pursue that point, Mr. Speaker, and respectfully suggest to you that Section 1 of the Second Schedule of the Act of 1944 defines the expression "authorised increase," and says that it means—
  "… a pension granted, under any Order in Council, Royal Warrant, order of His Majesty, or regulations of the Air Council, in respect of service in His Majesty's naval, military or air forces. …"
  That appears in the Second Schedule of the Act of 1944, which I understand you are now considering, Sir.
  Mr. Speaker: I did not have a copy of the main Act at the time and I think I now have to withdraw the original objection I made.
  Mr. Brown: It is rather tucked away in the back, Sir, and might easily be missed, but it is a fact that they are mentioned, and in so far as this Bill does not alter the provisions made with regard to soldiers their grievance, great or otherwise, remains. Perhaps I may read an extract

  673
  from a letter which has been sent to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Peters-field, who says:
  "Paragraph 3 is mean and unsatisfactory as it still fails to restore the reductions made at the 1935 stabilisation, and makes no restoration at all where the pension exceeds £787 net."
  The hon. and gallant Member raises two points there. One is that the Bill does not restore what was taken away when the cost of living went down, and the other is that in respect of people above the ceiling there is no increase whatever in this Bill. That is the case of all the public servants affected by this Measure. Therefore I ask the Financial Secretary to withdraw it completely and give us a really adequate Bill. If the hon. Gentleman tells me he cannot do this and that the Financial Resolution, wide as it is, is not really wide enough to enable him to do that, I beg him to look at every one of these Clauses, and let noble and generous sentiments flood his being while he does so. I would wish him to have a riotous outburst of generosity—if that is conceivable in the Treasury.
  Mr. Callaghan: Look who, is sitting behind you.
  Mr. Brown: The prospect is immediately chilled by the expression of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), so I will not plead for generosity now but only for justice. Must the Financial Secretary limit us to 10 per cent.? Must he limit the discount for the purposes of the means test to 50 per cent.? Can he not make it 100 per cent., and could he not also look at the 40 per cent., 30 per cent. and 20 per cent., and double them? Something of that order is needed to put this matter right. And if the hon. Gentleman tells me that this Bill will already double the existing cost and that that is a heavy burden, I ask him to consider the much heavier burden for the poor pensioner who does not get the money, and whose whole life has been built on the assumption that he would. I wish I could say that this Bill met with my approval, but it just does not. It falls lamentably short of justice and although, in the sense that one must welcome anything which gives any sort of relief to a heavily overburdened body of old people. I am bound to welcome the Bill, I must place on record my conviction that it falls far short of justice and will not satisfy the consciences of the people affected by it.
  12.29 p.m.
  Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I do not wish to detain the House for many minutes on the Second Reading of this Bill which, I think, commends itself in principle to all parts of the House Some hon Members on this side may be rather doubtful about its financial expediency at the moment, although I gather that no such doubts or qualms worry the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). I wish to raise the rather specially limited case already mentioned by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), concerning the senior officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, some of whom happen to be my constituents, and who were excluded from the terms of Section 2 of the 1944 Act. There is an anomaly in the 1944 Act in this respect and I hope it will be possible for the Government to rectify it in the Bill.
  As I see the matter, under the Act of 1944, junior officers of the R.I.C. whose incomes were under £300 married or £225 single were granted increases in pension and the benefit under Section 1 of that Act. In fact, they are specially mentioned as included under Section 1, in the reference made in Part 1, paragraph 4, of the First Schedule to the Act. Senior officers, on the other hand, with incomes or pensions more than £300 a year, were excluded from any benefits, small though those benefits may have been, by Section 2 of the same Act. The three arguments which, in the main, have been put forward by the Treasury for that seeming injustice and anomaly are, I believe, as follows: It is argued that, under the Disbandment Act of 1923, when the R.I.C were disbanded, those officers were safeguarded from any cut in their pensions. In fact, their pensions were not reduced in the interwar years when other pensioners suffered reductions. That is true, but the same applies to the junior officers They were granted increases under the 1944 Act, and it seems difficult to understand why the senior officers could not also have received the benefits of that Act.
  I believe it is also argued that Section 2 of the Act—I am sure that the hon. Member for Rugby will put me right if I am wrong—applied only to pensioners covered by the Superannuations Acts, 1834–1943, and that the R.I.C. were not covered by those Acts. There is no

  675
  question that, under the Victoria Act, 10 and 11, 1847, pensions to officers of the R.I.C. were made a responsibility of the Imperial Government and that they are now a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. I therefore humbly submit, in that case, that they are covered by these Superannuation Acts. Again, I believe it is argued that the treatment which these gallant officers received at the time when the R.I.C. was disbanded was generous. No-one thinks that his own treatment in the matter of pensions is generous, but it is true that those officers were allowed to add 10 years to their service. On the other hand, many of the officers had prospects at that time of 20 years' service in that Force, if it had not been de-banded. Many of these officers were debarred or deterred from entering another police force by the threat that if they did so they would lose their pensions. Some of those who live in my constituency had to leave Ireland, for reasons of personal safety, and come to live here with their families. Nobody will deny that there has been a considerable rise in the cost of living since 1920.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will look into these points. The number of men involved is very small and the total amount of money will not be big. The amount will decrease every year, and ultimately it will be possible to rectify an anomaly and do justice to a very gallant and loyal body of men.
  12.34 p.m.
  Mr. Haworth: I want to present the case of a body of people who cannot understand why they were not brought within the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act. I am referring to railway superannuitants. They are people who considered they were employed by the Government, on the Government control side of railway administration.
  When Members of my party raised this question with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1944 it was because those people felt that they were not being treated fairly. The strange reason was then given to them that they differed from civil servants because they paid for their superannuation, while civil servants' payments were not covered by deductions
  676
  from their pay. That made it still more difficult for them to understand why they were not brought within the provisions of the Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr, Mathers) raised the matter with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir John Anderson). My hon. Friend was told at that time that the Superannuation Acts, 1834– 1943, did not include railway servants. The right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance, and he quoted the following statement made by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) that the Chancellor would make it possible for railway servants to receive these or similar pensions:
  "All I can say is that, at the present time, the railways are subject to Government control, and if the railways come to the Government and made representations on that point my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give them very careful attention."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March. 1944: V. 397, c. 1835.]
  That was his quotation from a promise made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say:
  "That is still the position. I do not think that representations have been made by the railways, but if they are they will certainly receive careful consideration as promises."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1934; Vol. 399. c. 128.]
  I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury two questions. Is it intended that Clause 4 of the Bill shall include the railways? It states that the Treasury
  "may make regulations empowering any person or body of persons specified in the regulations to pay the like increases."
  If the answer to that question is in the negative, will the Financial Secretary give me an assurance that the promise made by the Chancellor in 1944 that he was willing to consider representations made by the railway companies, still holds good and that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is also willing to consider any representations that may be made by the railway companies today?
  If I may have a satisfactory assurance on those lines, I should be prepared to leave the matter there. If the hardships described by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) apply to civil servants, how much more must they apply to the people for whom I speak, and who have

  677
  had no increase whatsoever? They are finding it very difficult to understand, since they have been servants of the State, why there is a difference in treatment between one body of State servants and another. I plead with the Financial Secretary of the Treasury to give this matter his careful consideration, and I hope that he will be able to give me an affirmative reply.
  12.39 p.m.
  Sir Waldron Smithers: It has become such a custom in these last few years to talk in hundreds, or even thousands, of millions of pounds, that we are apt to lose our sense of proportion about what these figures represent. The Bill deals with a relatively small proportion of our country's finances. It covers about £12,000,000. I must make a protest against the principle behind the Bill, for reasons which I hope to give as briefly as possible. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—and I made a note of his words—for a noble outburst of generosity to pervade his whole being.
  That is a very dangerous thing to say in these critical days. It is much easier to have a "noble outburst of generosity pervading your whole being" if you are dealing with somebody else's money. I beg of the House to face the facts and not let their hearts run away with their heads. Although there is only a comparatively small amount involved in this Bill, I should not be doing my duty if I did not try to point out the dangers. A lot has been said about the cost of living and the Chancellor recently gave me the figure of 9s. as the purchasing power of the pound sterling as compared with 1900 but I had it worked out on another equally authoritative basis that the figure is 5s., compared with 1900—
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Is that the value of the pound?
  Sir W. Smithers: That is the value of the pound now. If we go on increasing the Civil Estimates and unless there is adequate production behind those Estimates, the purchasing power must go down further and further. The Financial Secretary in his explanation of the Bill talked about the cost of living being "unforeseen". Of course, there have been some circumstances outside the control of the Government, but the rise
  678
  in the cost of living is very largely due to the policy of His Majesty's Government since they have been in office. The Civil Estimates in 1901 were £47 million and this year they are £2,090 million. It is wicked to tell people that the State can look after them from the cradle to the grave unless they are told, at the same time, that we must have adequate production at world competitive prices if our paper pound is not to go down to nothing.
  Of course, we are all in sympathy with the pensioners mentioned in this Bill. I know that I shall be accused by the Socialists in my Division of speaking against these pensions for these old people, but in view of the very serious statement we have had this morning from the Minister of Food, it must be remembered that these enormous increases in the Civil Estimates have to be earned. They must come out of industry. They must increase our costs of production and thereby impede or destroy our ability to compete in the markets of the world. Now that Ministers have left the Election platforms of 1945 and are faced with the responsibility of office and have to face the facts and the truth they are beginning to see the light. The other day the Prime Minister himself, speaking to the National Joint Advisory Council, said:
  "… nor can the Government's social services be effectively implemented."
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, on 5th November, said in this House:
  "… it is difficult to see how it is possible for us to do all these many jobs and a good deal more, like building houses, expanding our social services, and so on. We cannot, therefore, have all we want now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1946; Vol 428. c. 1244.]
  Yet with two Ministers of the Crown making those statements—one of them the Prime Minister—the Government come to this House once again and ask for a further increase for pensions in our Civil Estimates. Unless this principle is stopped it will not only not do any good to anybody, but it will also do incalculable harm.
  I see that Lord Wardington, speaking yesterday at a company meeting—and he should know something about the financial position of this country—said:
  "The difficulties of exchange show signs of becoming an outstanding problem in the immediate future."

  679
  We cannot afford to increase our Civil Estimates. We have to get back to production at world competitive prices. What is the good of £100 a week old age pension if the money is not worth anything and there is nothing in the shops? That is the position which we are approaching. Lord Wardington also said:
  "No one can predict with accuracy when prices or wages will fall or how severe the effect of that will be … but the real test of statesmanship will come when deflation occurs."
  As he says, no one can say when that will happen, but I think it will happen quite soon.
  I want to make a protest against the legislation by reference embodied in this Bill. It is almost impossible, and to reinforce my point I have brought with me six volumes of Acts of Parliament, all of which are referred to in this Bill. I do not know how anybody is going to look up and adequately study all the references which have been made. Even you, Mr. Speaker—with great respect to you; I am not blaming you in any way— through reference, had to be advised as to the question of certain officers, and if that reference had not been looked up and you had not been very generous about your decision, it might have happened, owing to this legislation by reference, that one class of people who ought to have come under this Bill and whose case ought to have been put forward would never have been mentioned.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I have looked into that point since and I have come to the conclusion that my original Ruling was perfectly right.
  Sir W. Smithers: With great respect, Sir, my respectful congratulations. I wish to make another point about the wording of this Bill. Those of us who are not lawyers should be given some memorandum or White Paper in simple English to tell us what it means. I ask the House to look at Clause 3, where is says:
  "Where the amount of a pension is determined by reference to an average rate of emoluments received over a period of service (in this subsection referred to as ' the relevant service') part of which was served before the last-mentioned date—"
  Paragraph (b) of that Subsection says:
  "The amount of the increase which could be granted apart from this paragraph shall
  680
  be reduced in the proportion which the relevant service less the years begun as aforesaid bears to the whole of the relevant service."
  Suppose that was read out at a public meeting in the country as the kind of way in which the Government put words into an Act of Parliament. Not one person in a thousand could understand what it means. How do we know whether by all these references and all this vague thinking the Government are not in some way or another—I am not insinuating, Mr. Speaker—putting by a comfortable pension for themselves?
  The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said that the Government find it much easier and much more popular to give away these pensions or to increase these pensions, but at the same time they are taking away by compulsion half the income of 1,130,000 shareholders. I do not understand how they can relate the policy of this Bill to the policy of cutting down what are in effect pensions saved by tens of thousands of small shareholders. We are warned to
  'beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
  I say that this Bill is the Government in sheep's clothing and in the Transport Bill they are in the skins of ravening wolves.
  12.50 p.m.
  Mr. John Edwards: Like the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), I have for some years been particularly concerned with the field of employment covered by this Debate. Those of us who have responsibility in Civil Service unions are not unmindful of the fact that there are limitations to State expenditure on State employees. Certainly anyone like myself, representing as I do in my trade union capacity, thousands of State employees who pass their whole life in the service of the Post Office, but get no pension at all, must be aware of the sharp contrast drawn within our ranks between those who get pensions and those who do not. I was a member of the staff side of the National Whitley Council at the time consultations were taking place before the 1944 Act was passed. I wish to support what the hon. Member for Rugby has said, that that Act did not give satisfaction to civil servants. My support of this Measure rests on the assumptions of the 1944 Act. I wish it were possible to start all over again and to think in terms

  681
  of first principles. I cannot understand why the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) should be in difficulty about this Measure, because it follows consistently and logically on the 1944 Act at every step—except one.
  Mr. Peake: The difficulty I was in about the Measure was that, in breach of the usual custom whereby a Minister introducing a Bill adduces some reasons in support of it, we have had none so far.
  Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I think it is still true that anyone who was familiar with the 1944 Act, as the right hon. Gentleman obviously was, would have been able to say that, starting with the 1944 Act, this present Bill seems to be the logical extension of the principal Measure, except in one respect. In this Bill we find that the one respect in which it is not consistent is in the so-called Scheme 2. I think it is quite legitimate to say that it seems to follow, from what the Government now propose that they really ought to do something in respect of Scheme 2. I am not trying to challenge the principles of the 1944 Act. I do not like them, I am opposed to them, but, taking them for granted, I am anxious that we shall not create any anomalies.
  One can go into details more properly on the Committee stage, but I think it would be worth while to look again at Scheme 1, to see whether in fact the greatest justice is being done by the 40 per cent., 30 per cent. and flat rate principle being applied. It seems to me that it might be possible to help the very small pensioners, and also to give greater justice to the people who come within the flat rate by some other principle. I was a little worried by what the Financial Secretary said about putting these pensions on a permanent basis. I am wholly in favour of deleting the expiry Clause from the main Measure. That seems to me to be sense. But I hope the Financial Secretary will give an assurance that, in the event of substantial changes in the cost of living, the Government will be prepared to look at this matter again, and that all he is seeking to do by making this a permanent Measure is to establish the principle, but not to say that for all time, regardless of what happens to the prices of things, these pensions shall stay as proposed under this Bill. With those words, I give my general support
  682
  to the Measure. As I say, I do not like the principles on which the 1944 Act was based, but I think that in some small measure some people will benefit under this Bill. In fact it will give satisfaction in a number of quarters.
  12.57 p.m.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I would like to support much of what the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) said. I do so having spent a number of years as a civil servant although, unfortunately, not long enough to have qualified for a pension. I think one of the attractions of the Civil Service should be that there is an adequate pension. It would be an increasing deterrent if civil servants found that when the value of money has so declined that what they hoped 30 or 40 years before would be adequate, in the event was found to be entirely inadequate. I support, therefore, much of what the hon. Member for Rugby said, while at the same time asking the Government to do their utmost to see that the value of money is stabilised, and not made even more worthless than at the moment by the policy of increasing inflation which we feel the Government are pursuing. I also wish to ask about the point adumbrated by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake).
  What yardstick are the Government using in judging the increases of pensions such as this? Hon. Members on all sides of the House will find that whenever a particular category of pensions come up for consideration, or when a Bill, or Royal Warrant, increases the pensions of one group, all the other groups affected immediately ask why they should not be considered. This Bill seems to be taking into account a further increase in the cost of living of about 15 per cent. since the last Act was passed in 1944. The pension categories which have been considered before this have not been considered on an equal basis because the increase in cost of living has grown. Although given an increase in 1945, by the end of 1946 this increase may not be considered still fair in view of the increased inflation in that twelve months. What yardstick is being used for all pensions? The point was nut to me by three persons during the weekend in regard to pensions of war widows, and why they should not be considered before civil servants. It is quite clear

  683
  that such matters are under continuous consideration by the Financial Secretary and the Minister of Pensions, but it would help hon. Members on all sides of the House if the Financial Secretary would give some indication of the yardstick to be used in judging how these increases are being given effect.
  1.0 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I am sure the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) will forgive me if I do not follow him, particularly in regard to the second part of his argument, which seems to be to be better related to the Financial Secretary than to myself. With reference to the first part of his remarks, I am afraid time will not permit me to discuss one or two of the very interesting points which he made. Had time permitted I would have liked to make quite a number of submissions which I regard as important in connection with this Bill. Unfortunately, I feel that I would incur the displeasure of the Chair if I took up too much time and, therefore, I will limit my remarks to one submission which I think will commend itself to hon. Members on all sides of the House. My submission is that there is a good case for reconsideration of the proposed increase of 40 per cent. in the case of pensions not exceeding £100.
  I think hon. Members will agree, as I am sure will the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), that one of the original intentions of the 1944 Act, in the words of the right hon. Member for Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was to meet grave hardship cases. In the field of pensions not exceeding £100 per annum there are grave hardship cases. I wish to make it clear to the Financial Secretary that I am speaking on my own behalf as a Member of Parliament and not on behalf of any particular body. I know there have been many consultations, as he has indicated already, with a large number of interested organisations. I have no desire to mislead in regard to the contribution I am now making.
  After a keen analysis of the Bill I have come to the conclusion that there are very good reasons why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the permanent officials' of the Treasury should have
  684
  another look at this proposed increase. My reasons are that for many years, as hon. Members will know, I have been associated with the Post Office. It will be no news to a large number of hon. Members that there are thousands of faithful servants, such as postmen and others in some of the lower grades of the establishment, who will never have pensions exceeding £100 per annum. Those who retired between 1930 and 1939 have pensions in the region of 30s. a week. Only about half of the postmen retired after giving the full 40 years service required for the full pension. Therefore, only about 50 per cent. of them would qualify for the then maximum of 30s. If one adds 40 per cent. to the 30s., it barely brings these people to the level which the country has accepted recently in the case of old age pensioners under the National Insurance Scheme, of 42s. for a man and his wife.
  With regard to the other 50 per cent., which includes some ex-Service people, they can never hope to qualify for the full pension. I know of thousands of these good people who are on pensions of 15s., 18s., 22s., and about 25s. a week. In my opinion, this is a case where the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have another sympathetic look at the position. I do not ask him to commit himself at this stage to any particular figure, but I think he ought to give the House an assurance that, on the basis of the original intention of the 1944 Act, he will consider the position again I am sure he will remember that many of these people were in excepted occupations and therefore were not qualified for the contributory old age pension at 65. I think this argument fully justifies me in asking whether the Financial Secretary will give an assurance that this point will be reconsidered, in order to see whether the percentage increase cannot be increased, in the case of those pensions not exceeding £100 a year, at least by 50 per cent., if not higher.
  1.6 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I hope my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will take note of the eloquent plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams). I am sure that he will not expect to have a reply this morning, but between now and the Committee stage it

  685
  might be appropriate for us to consider whether some exploratory Amendment would not enable the Financial Secretary to give us a reply. We shall be very happy to assist him in whatever way we can. I thought, if I may say so as one Friday morning regular to another, that the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) made a most skilful speech, upon which I congratulate him. I remember an advertisement for a new book on politics. It said, "Here is a book to be read now in order to see what is in store for us. Then put it away and take it down in five years' time, read it again, and you will see just how far it has been fulfilled." I have a feeling that if in five years' time we read the speech of the right hon. Member for North Leeds we shall find he has been able to balance himself most skilfully between giving his support for this Bill and warning us of the dire consequences that are to come if we pass it. I am sure there will be many references which can be taken out of that speech, on both sides, which will enable him to say what all politicians want to say on any occasion when they have to refer to their past speeches.
  I must say that I thought his approach was a little unjustified in one or two instances. This is really not an occasion for referring to largesse. We are not giving away largesse in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said, and I wrote it down, "This is an act of public generosity." It may be an act of public generosity but it is also a measure of elementary justice, and it is on that basis that this House ought to approach the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. J. Edward) have both discussed details of this Bill and there is no need for me to go further into the matter except to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby that I am certain when he gets to the "pearly gates" he will still be celestially dissatisfied, and I hope for the benefit of Heaven that he will be.
  There is only one point I wish to put to the Financial Secretary, and it is on the question of time. We are now getting near to Christmas and I would like to inquire whether he can give us some idea of the intention of the Government with regard to getting the Bill through the House and through another place. I realise the limitations under which he is
  686
  placed, but if he could possibly take note of the fact that these increases have been delayed and if he could get the Bill through all its stages by Christmas, so that it would operate as from 1st January, if it got the Royal Assent, it would be a New Year bonus which would be well worth while.
  1.10 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I think I am right in pointing out that if we succeed in getting the Bill through this House and another place before Christmas, it will operate not from 1st January but from 1st December by reason of the provisions of Section I (4).
  Mr. Callaghan: In that case it would be a Christmas box.
  Mr. Fletcher: I have not had the benefit of hearing the whole of the Debate but I have heard sufficient to enable me to say that, speaking for myself and not representing any particular interest, I welcome this Bill very much. I want to make one comment on a point referred to by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). Clause 1 (4) seemed to me to introduce a feature into the Bill which, for all I know, may be without precedent, but which is not for that reason necessarily undesirable. That Clause provides that any increase of pension which becomes payable under the principal Act shall have retrospective operation. So if this Bill is enacted by Christmas these increases of pension will be dated back to the 1st December.
  Those of us who have occasion to consider the operations of statutory instruments from time to time have to consider whether they should have any retrospective operation, and it does seem desirable in connection with this Bill that we should give consideration to the Clause which gives the Treasury power to make regulations empowering other bodies and persons who may be specified in the Regulations to make similar increases in pensions. I think the House will agree that it might be legitimate to antedate these pensions to a certain day of the month, and the House ought to know whether it is contemplated that the Treasury, in exercising the powers which will be granted under Clause 4, should grant power of retrospection to other organisations. If so I suggest that there ought to be some limit to that.
  Mr. Callaghan: In the case of civil servants' agreements it is a common form that they should date from the 1st of the month on which they are signed.
  Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged, but the kind of regulations which I understand are contemplated by Clause 4 are those which oblige, for example, the London Passenger Transport Board to pay pensions granted by them to staff entirely employed by them or staff taken over from the London County Council and other bodies when the Board was formed. I think the House should be assured that in the regulations made by the Treasury under Clause 4 that, if there is embodied the principle of retrospective operation, it will not be unduly extended.
  1.14 p.m.
  Mr. Ralph Morley: I will not detain the House for more than two minutes at the utmost, but I should like to express the thanks of the teaching profession to His Majesty's Government for having introduced an amending Bill to the 1944 Act. About four months ago a deputation representing nearly all the interests concerned waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and certain suggestions were made to him. They asked for increased percentages and the raising of the ceiling for the application of the means test. Their recommendations for the most part have been embodied in this Measure we are discussing, and, therefore, we welcome it. The teachers throughout the country are disappointed that the means test has not been completely eliminated. A teacher's pension, unlike a civil servant's pension, is a contributory pension and teachers claim that the pounds they receive in pension should have the same value as the pounds they contributed, and apart from any private income they may have from investments —and very few have that—they think they have a claim for percentage increases because of the increased cost of living.
  There are two further points I wish to put. The first point is, Will the Government consider the case of the widower when dealing with pensioners who have no dependants? I suppose that a widower comes under the category of a pensioner without dependants, but a widower has to pay a housekeeper to look after him and I am informed that, to some people, to maintain a housekeeper is more ex-
  688
  pensive than a wife. Perhaps the Government will be able to make a concession to that particular class. Secondly, we have been awaiting this Measure for a long time and pensioned teachers have suffered hardships for a considerable period. Therefore, I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to bring this Measure into operation as early as possible, and if at all practicable to make it retrospective in some degree. Apart from these points, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), who said that the Measure should be withdrawn, because it does effect substantial improvement in pension, and those improvements are welcome.
  1.16 p.m.
  Colonel Wheatley: I only want to ask a question in view of a reply received from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on a Question I asked him a little while ago about Service pensions, in which he referred me to this Bill. I was quite satisfied with that, but, in view of the comments made by some speakers this morning on the question of Service pensions, I should like to ask him whether this Bill does cover those Service pensioners who were unable to serve in the last war and, therefore, did not come under the regulations in regard to increased pensions. They are a very deserving type of pensioner. They have very small pensions and for many years 'they have had a pretty hard time. Some of them were pensioners who rose from the ranks and were too old to get any other job. I should like an assurance by the hon. Gentleman when he replies that these people are covered by this Bill.
  1.18 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: In case I forget, I should like to say at once, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Dorset (Colonel Wheatley), that the cases which he envisages are covered by this Bill. We have had a very interesting and comprehensive debate well up to a Friday mornings' standard. On Friday mornings the people who are really interested in the subject under discussion come here and normally, almost entirely, know something about the matter under review so that we do get useful contributions from them. Today, Northern Ireland has joined with Scotland and England in dealing with this Measure and I hope the result, when we come to the Committee

  689
  stage, will be fruitful. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) will not be with us on that occasion. Alternatively, he has been a thorn in the flesh and a comforter to the Treasury in these matters for a good many years. It will not be quite the same thing without him: he will be on the high seas instead of joining with us in making this Measure as good as it should be made.
  I think the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) was a little unfair to me. He is not usually so. He said it was a breach of the usual custom that I had given no reasons whatever why this Measure should be introduced. I am not sure about the breach of custom, but what I am clear about is that in the course of my speech, brief though it was—I made it brief in order to have as long a discussion afterwards as possible—I gave reasons for the Measure, which were implicit in every line as well as explicit in some of the things I said.
  We have been discussing this subject now since November, 1945, when I was castigated with great force by the hon. Member for Rugby, and when I did nothing but turn the other cheek to him, because I knew my conscience was clear. Since then the House has been well aware that this Act would come to an end unless something was done. The Government gave a most solemn assurance that something would be done. From week to week and from month to month in this House Questions have been asked; and it was generally known, I thought—and if the right hon. Gentleman was unaware of it, I am sorry—that consultations were going on with all the organisations interested, and that, in due time, this baby would be born.
  Mr. Peake: We may have known that a baby was going to be born, but what we wanted to know, and what I sought to inquire, was, why was the baby to be born?
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Because of the antecedent circumstances.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The reason why the baby had to be born and was being prepared for birth was, that by common consent, from almost every quarter of the House, it was felt that the present Measure did not go as far as it should do in the existing circumstances. The right
  690
  hon. Gentleman himself said that everything was going up in price. If prices are going up, whether reflected in the present cost-of-living index figure, or not, it is quite obvious that the shoe must be pinching those who are least able to bear it; and that it was necessary some increase of pension should be given. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from Lord Pethick-Lawrence, then a Member of this House. I would remind him, in passing, that it was a small group of Labour Members, with the hon. Member for Rugby, who got the ceiling increased whilst the Bill was going through the House, and it was when those figures were under discussion that Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, as he then was, indicated he realised that we were dealing with public money, that there were thousands of people in a similar situation who were not civil servants who would have to help find the money, and that the limits then agreed were not in those circumstances unreasonable.
  Since then we have come to the conclusion that a higher limit is necessary, and I think—and I am pretty sure the right hon. Member for North Leeds really agrees—that the increases are justified, and that wheras £300 might at that time have been not unreasonable, in the light of the fact that a war was on and that it was a temporary Measure, something more is necessary now. We have made the ceiling £450, and we have done that in consultation with the various authorities and bodies concerned. We have to remember that the Exchequer is not alone in this matter. We have had to consult with the local authorities, who have to bear part, at least, of the cost, and we have had to take the greatest common measure of agreement.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me to explain Clause 2, Subsections (2) and (3). I shall not attempt to answer all the technical and individual points that have been raised, but, perhaps, as another hon. Member referred to the difficulties of understanding what some of the Clauses mean, I may briefly tell the House what Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 do, in fact, mean. Subsection (2) puts right a small slip in the 1944 Act. There, it is provided that where there are two pensions being drawn, one a Service and the other a Civil Service pension, they shall be aggregated, and in making provision for

  691
  that in the 1944 Act, it was overlooked that we had to marry it to the £52 disregard. So far this cannot be done and this Subsection, if the House agrees to it, will put that right.
  Subsection (3) deals with another matter. As the House will know, when someone has passed from the Civil Service to the police service and goes on pension, or passes from the police to the Civil Service and eventually goes on pension, the final employing authority pays the pension. Normally, however, it is, and should be, entitled to recover a moiety of the expenditure on such pension from the previous employing authority. As the law stands at present, and unless this Bill is passed, the police authority can recover from the Exchequer, if a man goes from the police into the Civil Service; but, if he goes the other way, from Civil Service employment to the police, it is impossible for us at the Exchequer to recover anything of the cost towards his pension. It is an administrative matter, and that Subsection will put it right.
  The short answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) is not that there is anything wrong with this Bill, although there may be things wrong with it in the eyes of some. So far as his criticism is concerned, it is not levelled against the Bill but against the original rates of pension paid to the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary to whom he referred, which is going back rather a long way, because some of these pensions were given more than 20 years ago. It is hardly a matter I can deal with here, although I do sympathise with him and with them.
  Sir R. Ross: Of course, the term "officers" means police officers of all ranks, and it is the lower ranks with whom I am most concerned.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I know
  Sir R. Ross: All I am asking the hon. Gentleman to do is to look at those rates of pension which are still now drawn by those members of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the pre-Treaty scale, and consider whether he thinks those are rates on which old men can live in peace.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I took the point very clearly. My point is that it is the fact that the original rates were so poor, and not
  692
  anything which is happening under this Bill, that is at fault. My hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) raised—as he has done before, for he is a great friend of the railwayman in this matter, and the railway-men have much for which to thank him —the question of including railway-men in this Bill. We have discussed this before, and, doubtless, will discuss it again when we reach the Committee stage. One of the difficulties of including people like railwaymen, Port of London Authority employees, and those employed by the London Passenger Transport Board, in the Bill is that their inclusion would make it a hybrid Bill. That was our difficulty and if it had been construed by Mr. Speaker as a hybrid Bill, that would have made a good deal of difference to the time necessary to get it through. We have every sympathy with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend and others who have spoken in the same sense. We feel this Clause should do the trick. It would be for the unions concerned—and I am glad to think they are powerful, and cover the great majority of the people concerned—to get the employing body to act through what I might describe as the usual trade union channels. Some it the railway companies, if not all, have already brought the pensions of some of these people up to, in some cases, I think, the 1944 Act standard.
  Mr. Burden: I think the position is that some of the railway companies have brought the pre-Consolidated Superannuation Fund pensioners up to the pension rates of the new Consolidated Fund.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I accept that correction which, of course, is right. The fundamental point I want to make is that they are aware that many of these rates are very low, and have done something to improve them; but there is no reason why they should not go further under this Bill when it becomes an Act; and in addition, if there are going to be changes through a Bill that will shortly be before this House, then, obviously the trade unions concerned will be in a much stronger position, because they will be able to approach the railway companies in the full knowledge that they have the State behind them.
  I think I have covered the main points raised, and I do not want to detain the House, but I should perhaps say this to

  693
  the hon. Member for Rugby. Most of his criticisms were levelled at scheme two, which comes under Section 2 of the 1944 Act. It is, of course, true that a good deal of criticism has been levelled at the provisions of that Section. It will be possible, if things turn out that way, to consider amendments to it if they are thought just and reasonable. As the hon. Member said, the Financial Resolution has been drawn pretty wide in order that we can ventilate these matters in debate. As he and hon. Members behind me know very well, the staff side of the Whitley Council have been interested in this Section, and have made various suggestions. I can assure him and the House that these suggestions will be looked into with the utmost sympathy. I cannot, of course, say that anything will be done, it does not altogether depend upon me, but I can say that we shall ask the House to do what we think right and proper. In association with the staff side of the Whitley Council, we will look into this. I am sorry I cannot say the same about Service officers' pensions. My hon. Friend's point, I think, only covers the higher paid pensions, such as admirals' and generals', and those on pensions above £787 10s.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Not quite—there are really two points. One is that everybody earning more than £787 10s. is automatically outside the scope of the Bill, but if he is getting less than £787 10s. the same criticism applies, namely, that the increases proposed by this Bill do not restore what was taken away when the cost of living was taken away.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is a difference of opinion on that. I think we discussed it last November, when we did not quite agree, for one thing, on the cost-of-living index at the time the rates and scales were stabilised. I think my hon. Friend said that it was something higher than 55 and we asserted, with the experience of the Treasury behind us, that the rate was 55. Actually it was stabilised at 55 when the cost of living was at 40, but this is hardly a matter we can go into in any great detail now. It is one to which we might come back in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams), the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) also asked
  694
  me questions, which I will answer before I sit down. I think the same points were touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan). It is true that as the Bill now stands its provisions will take effect from the beginning of the month in which it receives the Royal Assent. We hope that its passage through this House will be speedy, and we also hope, in so far as we can control these things, that its passage through another place will be equally speedy, in order that the increases may be given at the earliest possible moment to those who will be entitled to them. I can give the assurance that we will do our best to speed up things. The fear of the hon. Member for East Islington was that we might go back too far. We considered that point when we went into the question of the date from which these increases should apply. This matter has been debated and discussed for a good many months, and there is something to be said for the view that the increases ought to be dated back a bit. We came to the conclusion, however, that in dealing with the local authorities there might be a legitimate feeling of grievance if we went too far back, and at the moment the compromise is that it will apply from the beginning of the month in which the Measure receives the Royal Assent. As I say, I hope that will be soon.
  I will take due note of what the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) said about the widower who at present ranks as single. Whether we shall be able to do anything for him I do not know, because the whole thing is based on hardship and whether a person has or has not dependants who look to him for support. Whether a man is single or married, if he has dependants he gets the extra amount, but if he is single or a widower with no dependants, he comes into the lower category. However, we will look at it in the light of what has been said. The hon. Member for Banbury wanted to know what yardstick we used in fixing these rates. The only yardstick used, of course, are commonsense and hardship in relation to the cost of living today and the pension which the individual draws. Finally, in reply to a question by one of my hon. Friends behind me about this Measure being permanent—I think the hon. Member for Rugby raised this too— nothing, of course, is permanent in this

  695
  world and I was not using the phrase in that sense.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: If the Government want to be permanent, this had better be permanent.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I used the phrase to mean that another amending Measure following this is not contemplated; it is not temporary in character, but, so far as we know, permanent. As the years following the war mount up, salaries will be based more and more on the cost of living of the post-war years, but here we are dealing with a class of people whose pensions are based upon prewar or early war-period salaries, and it is the worst paid of those, with the lowest pensions, whom we desire to help. As hon. Members know, most Civil Service pensions are based either on the final year or on an average of the last three or five years service. That being so, it is not I think an unreasonable assumption that after March, 1947, which is the date we have given in the Bill, most salaries will have embodied in them any bonus element which may have been granted because of a rise in the cost of living during the war. It would be unfair to the general body of taxpayers, and unfair to those who have retired on small pensions, to allow people who retire in the years that lie ahead who will have their pension based on a much larger average salary to draw in addition these extra percentages. It was only in that sense that I meant that this was permanent. Nothing in this world is permanent, not even pensions increases.
  Mr. Haworth: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's reply about railway superannuation, he implied that any settlement must be made by the railway companies and the unions. The unions have been trying for a long time to get some agreement with the railway companies, but unless the Chancellor is prepared to agree, as his predecessor did, to consider any representations made by the railway companies and the unions, we cannot make any progress whatsoever. Will the Financial Secretary give an undertaking that he will consider any representations that may be made to him by the railway companies and the unions together?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think I can give that assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend. It is, of course, for him to agree,
  696
  but I think I can say that he would be very willing to receive any representations made to him and to consider what was said.
  Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Will the Government consider whether senior officers cannot be brought in under Section 2 of the 1944 Act in the same way as junior officers are under Section 1?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The short answer is the answer I gave—it is only a partial answer, because we are not dealing with these matters in Committee—to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, namely, that it these officers come above the ceiling which has been set, they obviously cannot come within the scope of the Bill. Short of that, we would be ready to consider the position of those referred to by the hon. Member to see if anything can be done.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

    PENSIONS (INCREASE) [MONEY]
    Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
    [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]
    Resolved:
    "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise further increases under, and otherwise amend, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and to continue that Act in force as amended, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the expenditure which under subsection (1) of section five of the said Act of 1944 is to be defrayed out of moneys so provided, being an increase attributable to—

    (a) provisions of the said Act of the present Session, operating from such date as may be specified therein,—

    (i) raising the limits of income and pension up to which increases may be made under section one of the said Act of 1944, in the case of married pensioners and pensioners with dependants to four hundred and fifty pounds a year, and in the case of other pensioners to three hundred and fifty pounds a year;

    (ii) raising the limit of pension up to which increases may be made under section two of the said Act of 1944 to seven hundred and eighty-seven pounds ten shillings a year;

    (iii) raising the scale of increases under sections one and two of the said Act of 1944;

    697

    (b) provisions of the said Act of the present Session continuing in force the said Act of 1944 after the date on which it would otherwise expire, but subject to special provision in the case of pensions determined by reference to the average emoluments of service part of which was served before such date as may be specified in the said Act of the present Session."— (King's Recommendation signified)—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  ROYAL MARINES BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

  ROYAL MARINES BILL

    CLAUSE 1—(Amendment of Section 1 of the Royal Marines Act, 1857.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    1.43 p.m.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not wish to detain the Committee, particularly as I understand the powers that be in the Navy are moving with the speed to which we are accustomed, and that this Bill is to be completed today. As I understand it, the object of this Bill is to bring the Royal Marines into line with the other Services, and the provisions of this Clause are designed to ensure that the terms of service in the Royal Marines are similar to those in the other Services. I would ask the Civil Lord whether, between now and the time this Bill is taken to another place, he will look at this Clause again, to see whether he cannot enlarge the Bill to bring the Royal Marines into line in all respects with the other Services. I think that I am right in saying that the Royal Marines are the only Service which has no special provision for short-term engagements, and I am sure that he would be doing a great service to the Royal Marines if he could make provision, for example, for five and seven years' engagements.
    1.44 p.m.
    The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): I am quite certain that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) would feel that there would be something wrong in separating the Royal Marines from the Royal Navy. There is a very close association between
    698
    the two bodies, which I think we ought to keep. As far as the point he has raised is concerned, I am quite prepared to look into it, although it does not affect this, because it is a matter of substituting 22 years, being pensionable time, for 21 years.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    1.46 p.m.
    Mr. W. Edwards: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    This matter was considered very carefully, and, if I may say so, very generously, on Second Reading. I want more or less to repeat what was said on that occasion, that this Bill is simply and solely for the purpose of bringing the Royal Marines into step with the Army and Air Force for the purposes of the new pay code which came into effect in July this year. It is not a contentious Bill, and I am certain, as hon. Members on various sides of the House said on Second Reading, that it will be welcomed by the Marines.
    1.47 p.m.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I, too, have nothing fresh to add to the speech I made on Second Reading. We on this side of the House realise the need for the Bill to standardise the qualifying period to obtain pensions in all Services, and as far as my information goes, it is welcomed by the Royal Marines. I can safely say that nothing has happened during the passage of this Bill to make those of us on these Benches qualify in any way the support given to the Measure on Second Reading.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES)
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th November],
    "That an humble Address he presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935 Paying that the Government of India

    699
    (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

    BURMA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT).
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th November],
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935. praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Second Amendment) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Address to be presented by Privy Councilors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

    ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. Ernest Davies discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates; Mr. John R. Thomas added.—[Mr. Popplewell.]
    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. Ernest Davies discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts; Mr. John R. Thomas added.—[Mr. Popplewell.]

  YOUNG CHILDREN (CARE AND EDUCATION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Popplewell.]
  1.49 p.m.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: The problem I wish to bring before the House is one concerned with the care of young children, particularly from birth to the age of five, who are in day nurseries. The emergency arrangements established during the war have, in my opinion, broken down, and the provision for the general education of these children has worsened as compared with the temporary and admittedly makeshift arrangements we had during the war. The outlook for
  700
  these children is indeed rather bleak, and they may well be described as "deprived" in more senses than one. If I make my case, as I think I shall do, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accede to immediate measures which will afford a remedy for this problem.
  The background and the history of the problem are something like this: We know that about one woman in nine in the age groups 15 to 50, which are the child bearing groups, has children who are under five, that the number of children in such families is approximately 13 children per ten families, and that the total child population of from nil to five is about 2,250,000 for the country. In response to a Question which I asked the Minister of Health on 21st November last, information was given that children aged two to five in day nurseries numbered approximately 30,000 —the actual figure was 29,636—and the number of day nurseries was given as 916. I have not available the number of children of from nil to two in day nurseries in England and Wales, but I would estimate them roughly at about 10,000.
  As long ago as 1918 it was admitted by everyone who had some knowledge of the subject that the right type of education for children from two to five years was of the nursery school type, and in the Fisher Act of 1918 such education was embodied. But the economies of 1920 and 1931 defeated all our hopes, and there has been very little increase in the scope of education of this type. When war came there was manifested immediately a greater need for nursery accommodation, partly because of large-scale evacuation from dangerous areas of. mothers with young children, and partly because of the obvious need for the employment of women in our factories. There were four principal methods used. First, late in January, 1940, there was a joint circular from the Board of Education and the Ministry of Health, establishing or advising the establishment of nursery centres in the reception areas. Careful examination of that circular showed that for the times in which we lived it was as good as could be expected. Although the standard was not as high as we could have wished it was all that could be done when there was risk of bombing and large scale movements of people throughout the country.

  701
  Early in 1940, another circular was issued by the Ministry of Health alone, establishing day nurseries for children in the groups nil to five years specifically for industrial areas, and hoping in this way to make it possible for women to enter factories and help us to produce munitions. Staffing of these day nurseries was to be by a hospital trained nurse as matron, assisted by the usual staff. About the same time the Minister of Labour took a hand, and offered a subsidy of 6d. a day to the minder of a child, the mother paying the other 6d. The fourth method, and the most important one, came on 31st May, 1941. Again we had a joint circular, showing the effective liaison which was being carried out during the war years between the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education, establishing two types of nursery—full-time and part-time.
  As I have to make some critical observations about staffing as it exists today, I hope that the House will permit me to give an analysis of the type of staffing we had in the war years. Firstly, for the full time nursery we had a matron, who was to be a hospital trained nurse, not necessarily with continuous or extensive experience of the, nursing of children, but nevertheless a certificated nurse. She had a deputy, and in addition to that was assisted by certificated nursery nurses, and by nursery assistants who were trained by the Child Care Reserve technique. This is important. The Child Care Reserve was an interesting and most successful measure of overcoming our difficulties of staffing. Women were carefully chosen for their personal and practical experience of the mothering of young children. Where possible they were womenfolk who had had children of their own, and whose children were growing up. They were given an intensive course of 12 lectures, lasting only two to three weeks. We found, as I think we had a right to expect to find, that they brought with them, as a result of their practical knowledge and experience as mothers, just the type of affection and intuitive knowledge in the handling of young children which we wanted.
  In addition to the Child Care Reserve we had student nursery nurses and domestic staff, and lastly, and perhaps most important, a teacher. The teacher was to be nursery trained, to have charge
  702
  of the education of the children from two to five, and to have the over care of one, two, three or possibly even four nurseries. Staffing, of course, was extensive, and some of us wondered how much labour would really be released when we noted that a staff of at least 12 was required for 40 or 50 children. None the less, that was not our main concern. Our main concern was to see that the children received the best available care, irrespective of cost or staffing. The situation today is that there is a continued and urgent drive for production in the factories, and we require, it is said, that women with young children should be made available for productive work. During the war, we put up with all types of makeshift arrangements, and all of us expected that when peace came there would be an improvement, as certainly there should be, in the care of young children in our day nurseries.
  I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that the ideal method of caring for young children of this kind is by the recognised technique of the nursery school, where a child is not away from its mother too long, and where the best specialised care that is available is offered to the child itself. All of us realise the difficulties with which we are faced today, the problem of finding suitable buildings, the difficulties associated with staffing, but I think none of us expected to find that the care offered today would be worse than it was during the war. It causes us to put the matter in this way. We have to say to ourselves and the country: are we to ask for the increased prosperity of the country and increased production at the expense of this class of children?
  The ways in which there has been a worsening may be described as follow. First, in 1944 the subsidy for the training of assistants under the Child Care Reserve ceased. Many of these women were married folk, and they have gone back to their homes. Therefore, the output of suitable staff is now such as cannot cope with the situation. Secondly, for some time trained nursery teachers have no longer been available, and there has been no oversight of the education of the children in the age groups 2 to 5. On 21st November, I asked the Minister of Health a Question about the number of teachers with nursery school training who

  703
  were employed in these nurseries, and the answer I received was that the information asked for was not available. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the fact is that in very few cases are these teachers now available at all, and if that be the case, I hope he will agree with me that the position is quite undesirable, and must be rectified immediately.
  The third point on which there has been a worsening as compared with the wartime situation is that the cooperation that we saw afforded by the three principal Ministries, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Education, is no longer apparent. I find it very difficult to understand how and why that should have come to pass, but if it has come to pass, I beg the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Health to use their influence to make suitable approaches and to see to it that we get it back again. The fourth point on which there has been a worsening is in the matter of equipment of the nurseries. Children require, admittedly, specialised types of education according to their age. As the children's senses unfold, all of us who have seen them at play, or who have brought them up, know what they require. The young child is, of course, an exhibitionist who shows off to those who love and care for him and who requires the applause that those who love and care for him offer to him, so that he can continue his efforts and practise his further attempts at growing up. The growing child needs equipment for his body if the senses are to unfold suitably. Everybody knows what that type of equipment is, and I need not give details of it. During the war, we had great difficulties in finding it. We used every type of organisation, including the men and women in our prisons, to help to make and supply it. I would like to give my meed of praise to the Nursery Schools Association for the lead that they took in this important piece of work and the success which they achieved.
  I have mentioned the type of staff we had during the war. In the present-day nurseries, the type of staff that is offered no longer contains the skilled, trained nursery schoolteacher, and the assistants who could be so quickly and easily trained under the Child Care Reserve are at present no longer available in suitable numbers, because the grant was discontinued
  704
  in 1944. I have in my hand a very interesting and attractive pamphlet called "Not Yet Five." It is very well illustrated, it is very interesting to read, and it is a very recent publication by the Ministries of Education and Health. On page 20, there is a note on the staff employed in nurseries, and at the bottom of the page, under Section B, it describes it in this way:
  "Today all residential nurseries catering for children of all ages up to five are usually in the charge of a matron and a deputy matron. Other members of the staff, in addition to the teachers, are certificated nursery nurses, nursery assistants, for example, ex-nannies or persons who have taken the C.C.R. course, etc., etc."
  I think this is misleading. I do not think it is desirable that we should have a publication as recent as this which speaks of the addition of the teacher when the teacher is no longer available, and has not been for some time. I would like, nevertheless, to offer my congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary on the fact that the certificate of the National Nursery Examination Board, which involves a two years course, is an excellent thing, but I am sure also that he will agree with me that a two years' course is somewhat slow in providing staff.
  The inferences from all that I have said would appear to me to be as follow. First, that the Ministry are giving the country the impression that, if they care adequately for the physical needs of our children in the day nurseries, they have done enough. Secondly, it follows from that that I have a right to accuse the Ministry of assuming that the educational and emotional needs of the children do not matter and may be neglected. Thirdly, that almost any kind of institution can adequately replace the mother of the child. I think that, if we took the child's viewpoint, we would get a very different story. If the child could explain to us, or if we could throw our minds back accurately far enough, we would know that, to spend 10 hours or more in a nursery in the very tender years nil to five, away from their mothers, is a difficult matter. It means that these children can escape only for a few minutes per day back to the safety of the environment to which they were accustomed and where they were born, and that escape is to a mother who is tired and weary and harassed, and hardly in a suitable or fit condition to offer any of the affection and care that the child needs

  705
  after being 10 hours away from her. The child would say to us that it appreciates, perhaps, being well washed and very well fed, but it does not appreciate or understand the environment it is plunged into each and every day.
  I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me that the finest nursery one can ever establish can be merely a complement to the home and never a substitute for it, that a good nursery is something that would teach our children cooperation as well as independence, and in addition, affection and trust and that we do not require nurseries that remind us of the stepmother we read of in Hans Anderson and Grimm. The child does not care for efficiency. That means nothing to the child. We know the child requires that its health should be safeguarded, and no one can do that better than my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department; but the child requires more, and whatever else it needs, it is our duty to supply it.
  Before I leave this point, may I point out that there are other children, as well as those of two to five, who are affected by this piece of administration? Although a mother who works in a factory can dispose of her child in a nursery, good or bad, she often has other children, aged 7, 8, 9 or 12, who are deprived of her care. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that these children also tend to suffer because their mothers are away from them. It is from this group that we get those children who have the greatest number of skin infections, infested heads and scalps; the children who get wet through and do not dry their clothes because there is no one to tell them to do so; the children who do shopping for their mothers and sometimes spend the money in queer ways; and the children who become delinquent as a result of the absence of their mothers.
  I, therefore, ask the Parliamentary Secretary to agree with me on six points. First, that he will encourage the mothers of children from nil to two to stay at home, because when children are at this age, we have no moral or practical right in peace time to ask their mothers to go to the factories. It is a very interesting point that one can estimate how many children tend to die as a result of their mothers being in factories. The figures have been carefully worked out by Professor Woolf, of Birmingham Univer-
  706
  sity, and are used as a standard index, so that it is possible to estimate the death-rate of children under the age of one year out of each thousand born. I do not think that I need press this point on the Parliamentary Secretary, because I am sure that he would be the first to say that this was desirable.
  Second, I ask him to use his influence to reinstate the courses for the Child Care Reserve. I have said, I think, enough about that point to suggest that suitable staff of a trustworthy nature can be quickly trained. Third, when I ask that nursery trained teachers should be given supervision of the educational needs of these children in the nursery, I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that if we do not have skilled teachers, all else tends to be useless so far as the educational training of the children is concerned. I would be the last person in the world to suggest that the most devoted band of women in the world—the hospital trained nurses—are inferior in any way. But they are specialists, after all, as I know full well, in the treatment of children who are sick, and they are accustomed to give all their skill and energy to make them well. They do not pretend in any circumstances, nor have they ever pretended, that they understand the educational needs of the healthy child. Therefore, there can be no question of choice between them, for in the nurseries both are needed.
  Fourth, with reference to equipment, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that equipment is supplied in sufficient quantities and of the right type. Children of four to five years ought to have suitable paper, crayons, paint brushes and water colours, but these will be of very little use if there is no one to instruct them. Is it fair to ask a matron to understand the technique which has been evolved, and is still evolving, of how to instruct a child to play constructively, and to understand what the child is getting at when it draws or paints? Some types of equipment are, I know, freely available in day nurseries. Anything connected with health is freely available. I have myself seen lots of paper of the toilet variety marked "O.H.M.S.", and articles of hollow ware in tin, enamel and porcelain with "G.R.VI." on them. I am reminded that the Leader of the Opposition, many years ago, once accused the Conservative Party of fostering

  707
  Imperialism by the Imperial pint. I do not want to accuse the Parliamentary Secretary of fostering education purely on the Imperial pot. If we could get a full amount of equipment and people who could train other helpers in the use of it during the war, there is no excuse for us, during the peace, if we fail.
  Fifth, the time has come, surely, for the fullest liaison between the Departments that are concerned with these children. Sixth, perhaps a more difficult point, but one well within the provisions of the Ministry of Health, is that they should supervise those children who are in charge of minders. There are more children who are minded than we ever get in our day nurseries or nursery schools. We all look forward to the time when there will always be a nursery for those who want to take advantage of it; certainly, for the two to five, or the three to seven, because times may change. The Parliamentary Secretary has the administrative machine, and surely it would be very easy, under the supervision of some of his health visitors, to train those who could go to the houses where children are minded, to make sure that the child has sufficient fresh air, that its clothes are changed, that it is well fed, that the supplementation of food offered under the maternity and child welfare schemes is made full use of and maintained, and to offer the kind of advice which will allow the minder to educate the child in simple play and exercise.
  All these things could be done very simply and economically, and I know that I am not speaking to deaf ears when speaking to the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that he must have great sympathy with all that I have said, but it seems to me and to many of us throughout the country that there has been some kind of inter-departmental jealousy, and as if the bodies of these children were being fought over by different Departments. I feel that cannot be true, but it is a great pity that any of us should have a mistaken idea about this. I hope, therefore, that we shall have an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary which will be reassuring, and that he will tell us that we have nothing to fear, and nothing but the best' is to be good enough for these children.
  2.19 p.m.
  Dr. Stephen Taylor: I would like to endorse what my hon. Friend has said, particularly with reference to the under twos. I think that all the experience has been that the day nursery for the under twos is not a very satisfactory place. There have been two very good papers on this subject recently—one in the "British Medical Journal", and the other in the "Lancet." The first was published by the Federation of Medical Women, which showed a very high incidence of respiratory infection in the day nurseries for under twos. The second was by a medical officer of health for one of the East London Boroughs, and she found the same thing, and a very high absentee rate at the day nursery schools. Many mothers took their children away in the first week because they said that the children were fretting. I think that they were probably right.
  There was not a satisfactory gain in weight during the period while the children were at school, and again there was a very high rate of infection, respiratory and otherwise. There are difficulties inherent in putting groups of small children together. It is an un-biological situation, for, after all, a normal family, unless there are twins or triplets, is not ten little ones, but a series of stages. It is an artificial environment for little ones to be shut up for 12 hours in the same room with a lot of other tinies whom they may loathe the sight of. No matter how personal or how good the workers are in such a day nursery, there is an inevitable change of workers from time to time. Not always the same nurse will change the nappies or give the baby its bottle, and these little ones have their personal idiosyncrasies and really require continuity of care. I feel that the day nursery was perhaps justified as a makeshift arrangement in wartime for the under twos, but it is not justified now for this particular age group.
  Another point arises in connection with the detection of deafness in young children, and this is a very serious problem indeed. I think that two in a thousand children are in fact deaf, and unless this deafness is detected at about the age of two, when it is possible to discern it because of absence of response to simple requests, and so on, and unless training for deaf children is started at a very early age, there is an element of preventible

  709
  mental defect added to the deafness. I am afraid that as yet we do very little about detecting deafness in very young children, and provide very few facilities for their training in the two to five age groups.
  2.24 p.m.
  Mrs. Ridealgh: I should like to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) in his appeal for nursery schools, and I feel that we should have a new approach to them. In the past we have viewed them as places where we could send children whose mothers went out to work. I think the purpose of the nursery school is to cater for the welfare and happiness of the children and not for the parents' convenience. I appeal to the Minister to do all he can to have nursery schools set up where the children will receive qualifying training, which is not possible in many homes. I think, too, that a nursery school is most important for the only child. In a nursery school, the only child can get companionship and a sense of independence, instead of being tied for ever to its mother's apron strings. It can stand on its own little feet and feel that it is an individual in this world. Too often, of course, the mother's household duties make it impossible for her to give the child all the attention it should receive.
  I know that we shall be told that we are short of trained nursery school teachers, but I would urge the Minister of Health to press his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to provide extended facilities for the training of such teachers. Nursery school teachers require a longer period of training than the ordinary school teachers, and many of our girls who are going into the teaching profession cannot afford that extra period. This is in addition to the fact that there is a shortage of facilities for the training itself. I hope that the Board of Education will give extra financial grants so that we may obtain these additional nursery school teachers, who are needed if we are to build a real educational service in this country and produce self-respecting, individual, and independent citizens.
  2.25 p.m.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) although I support everything which he has
  710
  said. The question I want to raise with the Minister is that of the milk supply to children in this country, because the care of children is very closely associated with an adequate supply of clean milk. I have a personal interest in this matter because closely related to me are two children who, during the years before the war, were able to get a supply of tuberculin tested milk but, owing to the evacuation scheme following upon the outbreak of war, were moved to another part of the country, and, as a result, both developed bovine tuberculosis. Both had to have operations for the removal of glands in the neck infected by milk which was not fit for children to drink.
  This matter of the milk supply to children is a very urgent and serious one. It was raised by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) during the Debate on the Address. Unfortunately, his speech was made on Friday, 15th November, when no Minister was here to reply to the questions he raised, and on the following Monday, again unfortunately for the hon. Member for Barking, the Debate continued on foreign affairs. Thus his questions which, in my opinion, were vital questions, were never answered by the Minister. That is not a matter of complaint. It arose from the way the Debate on the Address went. No Minister was actually called upon to reply to the speeches made on the 15th.
  I am, therefore, very anxious to give the Minister an opportunity of telling the House and the nation what is being done by the Minister of Health to ensure a supply of clean milk to children. When I wished to intervene in this Debate—if I were fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I did not know that the hon. Member for Barking would be able to be present. He is an expert, and if he is fortunate I think he would wish to make a contribution to this Debate which would be far more learned than one coming from a lawyer. I hope that he may have an opportunity of obtaining a reply from the Minister to the questions he raised on a former occasion. If I may be allowed to steal a little of his thunder, I would point out that he did raise on that occasion the question of Defence Regulation 55G, which apparently came into operation in 1944. That Regulation gives the Minister of Food power

  711
  to designate areas in which it would be decreed that nothing but accredited, tuberculin tested or pasteurized milk should be sold. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking asked a question whether any area had been so designated. Up to three weeks ago, that reply was in the negative. It is a great pity that when Regulations are made something is not done by His Majesty's present Government to see that they are acted upon, and to see that whatever can be done is done to supply clean milk to the children of this country If the Regulation is there, I ask the Minister to put it into operation as soon as possible. Let the Government put an end to this matter of dirty milk at once.
  In another place, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture promised that he would introduce during this Session legislation to deal with the question of improving the quality of milk. This is not the occasion on which to suggest legislation, but we can ask the Minister to tell us what the Ministry of Health are now doing to see that the great number of unnecessary deaths due to infected milk in this country of young children does not continue during the existence of a Labour Government. It has been said that 40 per cent. of the cows in the country are infected with tuberculosis. That may be an exaggeration. However that may be, far too many cows are so infected. From the very interesting speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, I understand that the London County Council recently tested the milk coming into London in those big tanks. They found that 80 per cent. of the milk was infected with tubercle bacilli. That is a terrible state of affairs, and should not be allowed to continue for one day longer than is absolutely necessary. The necessary regulations and effective remedies should be brought into operation.
  I have had intimate personal connection with this problem. On my own behalf and on behalf of my own children, as well as on behalf of the children of the country, I appeal to the Ministry to do everything they possibly can to see that the deaths, which are very large in number, are reduced, that children are no longer infected because of dirty milk and that this problem shall no longer exist in
  712
  this country, it is not a difficult problem to tackle if it is approached in the right way. I appeal to the vigorous Minister on the Government Front Bench to apply the vigour for which he is so noted to the problem of cleaning up the milk supply of the nation.
  2.34 p.m.
  Miss Herbison: Many people will be delighted that the problem of nursery schools is being debated Many of us have been extremely worried that so many day nurseries, open during the war, are being closed down. Naturally, we expected that with a Government such as we have today, far from being closed many more nursery schools would have been opened. One of the reasons why I feel it is essential that nursery schools should be kept open and many more provided, is that children in some districts spend their whole lives in the most deplorable surroundings. I had a deputation of mothers come to me from an area where the day nursery was practically closed. I went with them, and saw the homes from which children were coming. Those homes could not have been much worse. Representations were made, and the nursery was kept open.
  The hon. Member who opened the Debate stressed the point of staffing. When we examine the type of people in charge of day nurseries, we find that very few are fully qualified teachers. The hon. Member was correct when he said that the physical needs of the children are adequately dealt with. The children are clean, given proper sleeping time, and so on. Children from two to five years of age are those for whom day nurseries are most necessary, and they need far more than just to be kept clean and properly fed. From my experience in teaching, and from many discussions I have had on the subject with a friend in charge of the educational side of day nurseries in Glasgow, I have come to the conclusion that I would far rather see a child running about in a back porch dirty, than in a nursery school with nothing but adequate care taken of its physical needs. Complexes may be set up for very young children in this way that may be very difficult to eradicate during the rest of their lives. Without proper staff in nursery schools it were far better not to have nursery schools at all.

  713
  Both the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health deal with day nurseries. I am not so convinced that only the Ministry of Education should be made fully responsible for them. We want, more than anything else in day nurseries, fully qualified teachers. Many teachers today have qualifications as nursery teachers. They may have been teaching in the infant or junior schools. We have not sufficiently realised the need to attend to children between two years and five years. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should find out from local education authorities how many teachers with nursery training are at present teaching outside nursery schools. The authorities should do their very best to get those teachers back into nursery schools. They ought to attract as many teachers as possible into short-time training courses for nursery teachers. If the matter were examined carefully and with sufficient attention, many problems that have been mentioned today would be swept away, and our children would have the care and attention that many of us would like to see them getting during their most impressionable years.
  2.39 p.m.
  Dr. Somerville Hastings: I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) for raising again this very important matter of tuberculous milk. I spoke on the matter recently in a speech on the Address, and yesterday a Question was replied to by the Minister of Education. She told us that by no means all the milk supplied to schools could be considered safe. She gave the figure of 92.6 per cent. of the milk as being heat-treated or from tuberculin tested cows. Surely it is regrettable that 7 per cent. of the milk supplied to schools should be of such a character as to be liable to be of very great danger to children. The Government supply the schools with milk. Surely the Government should set an example and provide the schools with milk that can really be called safe. Two days ago I had a letter from the headmaster of an elementary school in the country. He said he always gave his own children milk but knowing that it was dangerous in that area he had it boiled. However, the milk that came into his school for his elementary school children came in large containers and it was impossible for him to have it boiled, and he asked me what was
  714
  to be done. If the Minister of Education will look in her postbag, she will see that letter.
  I really rose to speak about the general care of young children in day nurseries and nursery schools. A good deal has been said already as to the advantages of nursery schools and also—I would stress this point—of their dangers. I suggest that there may be a half-way course. I feel that in the future there is a great place for day nurseries and nursery schools, but I suggest that they are best for children for half their time only. It has already been pointed out that when a child spends ten hours of its day in a day nursery there is not much time for it to receive that affection which it so much needs from its mother. The child will be asleep a good deal of the time it spends in its home. The best thing would surely be to let the child go to the nursery school or day nursery in the afternoon or the morning when the mother is doing her household duties and cannot give care to the child, and for the child to spend the rest of the time with her when she has time to give it that undivided attention which it claims and needs. Those of us who have been to day nurseries know how much children lack this and unconsciously suffer from lack of affection. We go into these institutions and the children cling round us and struggle to be picked up and made a fuss of. Every young child is a pure individualist and thinks of itself only
  What these children learn in their time at home is just as valuable as what they learn in the day nursery or nursery school. I have a doctor friend who has seven children. As his is a busy household, as soon as they were able to leave the nursery the first six of these children were sent away to boarding school, but the seventh child was kept at home and went to a day school. My friend said that the development of the seventh child was so much more rapid and complete than the other six. What the child learns in an ordinary home is very valuable. It learns how the ordinary affairs of the household are carried out—how the puddings are made and so on—and the child imitates these things, and the educational value is great. Nevertheless, what the child learns in the day nursery and the nursery school is also of extreme value. It learns to live in a community—it is not always such an easy thing to learn how to live in a community and those who join a community such as

  715
  we have here find that out very soon. Experience in community life and the capacity to get on with others, and to share toys and so on, is very valuable indeed. I therefore suggest that there is a way of getting the best out of both worlds. If the child goes to a day nursery or nursery school, where every care is taken regarding its education and health, for half a day and spends the rest of the day at home with its mother, the best results will be achieved.
  2.45 p.m.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I propose to address my remarks mainly to the question of the nursery schools for the under twos. I thoroughly approve of what the hon. Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor) has said regarding these schools. There is a danger where children are gathered together in numbers of their being subject to infection, particularly when they are so gathered together at a time in their lives when they are susceptible to that infection. Therefore, I hope the Government will not encourage women to go out and leave children under two in the nursery schools. I remember that I was forced to leave my children when they were under two, and I know that they never got accustomed to my absence. I have returned home—and I left them in good care—to find dry sobbing going on half an hour after my departure. That always happened, and it is quite correct that we must have regard to the tender feelings of young children. No one can replace the mother, and a healthy happy mother is best employed when she is looking after her young ones, particularly when they are under two.
  There is a service to those mothers which I think we are overlooking. When the mother is ill, who is to look after those children? There are mothers who are running a temperature or who get influenza and the doctor says that they must get to bed. They simply cannot do so because their young children demand care and attention. My sons are doctors and they tell me that women pack up and leave the maternity homes perhaps three days after the birth of their children because there is no one looking after the young ones in their own homes. The wartime nurseries extended their services to keep the children for a week and even a fortnight when the mother was engaged in all-night work in wartime factories.
  716
  Surely if the mother is renewing the life of the nation, she is engaged in very important work. I would like to see the nurseries extended to take in the children of mothers who are ill or who are being confined. Until we have done that for the young mothers we ought not to think of closing down the nursery schools for the under twos.
  2.49 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: There is one aspect of this subject of the provision of nursery schools to which I desire to draw the attention of the Minister. Most authorities responsible for the provision of nursery schools are naturally anxious to meet the demand which exists, but some of them are worried— indeed, very concerned—about the cost involved. The high cost of the construction of nursery schools is, of course, conditioned by the standard plans laid down by the Ministry of Education, no doubt after consultation with the Ministry of Health. As representatives of both Ministries are here, I hope they will look into this matter, because if the present standards are adhered to I am afraid that the net effect is likely to be to diminish or even reduce to nothing the number of new nursery schools that may be established.
  These are the facts. A prewar nursery school in London where, no doubt, the costs are as high as, if not higher than, those in other parts of the country, costs £54 14s. per place. I have particulars of one school in mind the cost of which was £6,614 for 120 children. The authorities in London, wishing, as always, to take time by the forelock, have, notwithstanding other preoccupations, been considering what new nursery schools can be erected. The development plan for London involves a proposal to begin work almost immediately on five nursery schools in different parts of London where sites are already available, and there is a demand for them. But what do we find? We have got to the stage of preparing costings for building these schools in accordance with the plans laid down by the Ministry. The House will be surprised to learn that the cost involved in building new nursery schools in accordance with the Ministry's present plans works out at no less than £147 a place on the new standards at 1939 prices. On present-day costs, which are, of course,

  717
  considerably increased over 1939 prices, this will come out at £423, or something like £32,000 for 80 children. If the present plans are adopted, this is quite the highest cost per place of any school, from nursery to secondary schools. Unless the standards are reviewed and considerably modified, the result will be that, with the best possible intentions, local authorities will not be able to do very much in providing nursery school accommodation.
  I can well imagine that in an ideal nursery school very ample provision would be made for lavatory accommodation, kitchen accommodation and so forth, but I ask the Ministry to bear in mind that, unless there is some overhaul of these proposals, they will run the risk of defeating their own objects by laying down plans which it will be very difficult for local authorities who want to do something on these lines to carry out.
  2.55 p.m.
  Mr. Austin: The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), who always speaks with such great knowledge of London affairs and London finance, has hinted at the development of nursery schools in the London area. I hope it is an augury for the future, and I am glad to hear of it. I think it will be a good thing if the rest of the country were to follow the work and development throughout the British Isles, which is very necessary. However, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) for initiating this Debate. I do not think we can have enough Debates on child welfare and all concerned with child welfare. I think the point raised by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) that it would be preferable for children to spend only half their time in nursery schools and half their time at home, was met by the initiator of the Debate when he said that nursery schools can only be treated as complementary to the home. I would impress on the House, if I may, that it is because of the present social conditions and economic conditions that many mothers, who would otherwise wish to have their children at home all the time with them, are compelled to put them into day nurseries.
  The main point which seems to have emerged from the Debate is that of a lack of liaison between all the Departments interested in the problem. This is only
  718
  one aspect of that lack of liaison between all Government Departments concerned in regard to child welfare in many fields and many provinces. The Report on the care of children raised this issue, and juvenile delinquency raises the issue in its widest possible context. Because of that, I recently put down a Question to the Prime Minister in regard to liaison between all Departments concerned. The response was most gratifying and accordingly I am precluded from making any further mention at this stage of what I consider necessary. I appreciate that in the day nurseries there is a considerable shortage of staff. Will the Parliamentary Secretary not consider making an appeal for voluntary workers today, such as was made during the war? My wife was a voluntary worker in a day nursery during the war. She was interested in the work, and rendered a certain amount of service. Many thousands of women up and down the country were likewise able and prepared to serve in day nurseries, and they rendered good service. They could be called upon again, if the Ministry of Health made the necessary appeal. A point arising out of my wife's experience of day nurseries is of the utmost importance and I am sure will interest the House. When children arrived at a day nursery they often came from the most appalling conditions at home. They were sometimes infested, often with bugs, and often with fleas. They were bathed and washed, and given fresh clothing. But, when the poor overworked mother came home in the evening, the old and dirty clothing was put on the children again, and they went back into the most appalling social conditions, which, I appreciate, cannot be dealt with within the space of a year or two.
  I would emphasise the importance not only of there being adequate and fair treatment for the children inside the nurseries, but could not some provision be made in regard to inspection in the homes 'of these children, and training of the mothers concerned, because this is a matter of great concern? It is no good translating the child from dirty conditions at night into clean conditions by day, and then allowing it to go back to the sloth, neglect and idleness which prevails. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will pay the greatest possible attention to this very important point and that some effort can be made to inculcate the mothers with the

  719
  necessary sense of responsibility, for the betterment of themselves as well as their children.
  2.59 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I think we have had a very interesting Debate on this subject. I want to give a short history of the problem by way of reply to the many points which have been raised. Between the two wars the day nursery service was really a very minor part of the ordinary maternity and child welfare service provided by our local authorities. Such nurseries as were established had been found to be of great value both to the children and to their mothers where home conditions were unsatisfactory. But their number was really very small, because by 1939 only 21 had been set up by local authorities in this country. With Dunkirk came the realisation of the essential need to get all available women into industry. If that was to be done quickly and effectively then, clearly, some sort of provision had to be made for the care of their children. It was from that time that the drive began to establish what were then called wartime nurseries. The point I want to emphasise about the development of these nurseries was that the motivating force was industrial. It was because industry needed women, and before women could go into industry arrangements had to be made for the care of their children, that day nurseries were set up.
  In order to encourage the quick development of the service, the Government instituted a 100 per cent. grant on all expenditure incurred by the local authorities for that service. Any sites that were available and convenient for the purpose were taken. Huts were erected on empty sites, premises were requisitioned and adapted, and staff of all kinds was secured for the purpose of providing the service as quickly as possible. The thing to be remembered is that it was not possible in all cases to consider the postwar uses either of the land or of the building, and that so far as the service itself was concerned there was no sort of long-term planning for development. It was a wartime service of wartime nurseries designed to meet a wartime need. Therefore, when the end of the war came, we found it was necessary to give a great
  720
  deal of thought to what was to be the future of the day nursery service. Every aspect of that service—industrial, social, medical, and educational—was brought under review. As a result of that review, in December, 1945, a circular was issued to the local education and welfare authorities, in the country. It was sent out jointly by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education after consultation with the Ministry of Labour.
  I want to say here and now that in the development of this service, and in its present administration, far from there being any lack of liaison between the Ministries concerned, constant consultation goes on between the Departments. This joint circular gave expression to the policy of the Government with regard to this service.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: The Minister mentioned that the circular went out in 1945. That was a very important year in our history and we wonder whether it was before or after the Election, whether it was issued by the Coalition Government or the present Government.
  Mr. Key: It was in December, 1945. Therefore, it was issued by this Government after consultations which came within my personal knowledge. As I say, it was the policy of this Government which wae made plain in that circular. What was it that the circular said? With the permission of the House I will read at any rate part of one section which I think is important:
  "The Ministers concerned accept the view of medical and other authorities that in the interests of the health and development of the child no less than for the benefit of the mother the proper place for a child under two is at home with his mother. They are also of the opinion that under normal peace time conditions the right policy to pursue would be positively to discourage mothers of children under two from going out to work; to make provision for children between two and five by way of nursery schools and nursery classes; and to regard day nurseries and daily guardians as supplements to meet special needs."
  That emphasises the policy. The policy, therefore, is with regard to day nurseries that the}' are to be designed and used for the purpose of meeting a temporary need. The permanent policy is to be nursery schools and nursery classes in the ordinary schools, but until those normal times come to make the establishment of the proper services possible, the need for more

  721
  production for the home market and for export has to be met and as a result provision must be made as far as possible for the children of all mothers who are willing to go out to work to meet that need as well as for the needs of mothers who do not go out to work.
  The welfare and local education authorities were, therefore, asked in that circular to review the needs of their area. In consultation with the Ministry of Labour—and here let me emphasise that all the time we emphasise the necessity of this liaison not merely at the centre but in the regions and areas as well— it should be decided which of the wartime nurseries should continue to be run by welfare authorities as day nurseries, which they were going to be able to pass over to local education authorities to be run as a service, which we regard as much better; and which of them it was felt were to be closed. The circular recognised that the continued need for production necessitated the employment of married women and that many more nurseries would be required now than were before the war. The welfare authorities were offered as from the 1st April, 1946, a special grant in addition to the normal block grant—a grant analogous to that paid to nursery schools and nursery classes under Ministry of Education Regulations which have been laid before Parliament.
  Those same grant conditions were to be applied to day nurseries and the circular asked the local authorities to submit their claim for this service for their own individual areas, setting out their proposals for future nursery provision as from the 1st April, 1946. An analysis of those schemes which have been put forward shows this, that welfare authorities have continued 916 nurseries under their maternity and child welfare powers as ordinary day nurseries; 300 have been converted into nursery schools; and just over 100 have been closed down altogether.
  The vast majority of these closures were due to decreased demands, and a rearrangement of the facilities, in a given area, whereby the demand was met by having four day nurseries instead of five, and arrangements of that sort. Also, of course, consideration had to be paid to the overriding need for the premises for the sites to be returned to their prewar
  722
  use. Very often they had been used as schools or orphanages, or places of that kind. Very few closures have been brought about by the failure of the local authorities to do their duty, or can be attributed in any way to the reduction in grant which has taken place. Of course, while the war service grant had been a 100 per cent. grant, this new, normal peacetime service receives roughly a 50 per cent. grant, on top of the block grant.
  We feel that to revert to that 100 per cent. grant of wartime would be to deprive the local authorities of any financial interest in the services, which are primarily theirs, and which it is their duty to administer; that then they would have no motive for financial good management, nor pride in achievement; and that to re-introduce the 100 per cent. grant would take away the local nature of the service, and do a good deal to undermine local responsibility. During the year that has elapsed since the circular was issued, strenuous efforts have been made to maintain an efficient service where the need for that service has been proved. Approval has been given to the replacement of a considerable number of nurseries, and to their reestablishment on fresh sites or in improved premises. The sites were, perhaps, bombed sites required for rebuilding, or the premises they were occupying had to be given up for some more important purpose. But, in addition to these replacements, completely new nurseries have been authorised.
  In all these cases, close touch has been kept with the Ministry of Labour, so that the provision has been related to the industrial demands that there are in an area; and, at the same time, close touch is kept with the Ministry of Education to ensure that a fresh day nursery does not conflict—and this is a very important matter to decide—that the new day nursery does not conflict with any nursery school that is in existence in the area, or is being planned by the educational authority. I might point out that, since January, 1946, as I said, not only were 300 day nurseries changed into nursery schools, but a considerable number of additional local educational authorities have continued wartime nursery classes as ordinary nursery classes in conjunction with the schools that are already in existence.

  723
  One of the problems here is that of finding the necessary staff, and schemes for training student nursery nurses for the certificate of the new National Nursery Examination Board have been and are being put into operation. Students will receive a two-year course of practical training and further education before they take their examination. All of us who have anything to do with these schools and day nurseries are very well aware of the need to improve the training arrangements and to raise the status of the nursery nurses as well as the general level of child care, and we are doing all we can to bring about that development. All nurseries are being inspected in connection with the training arrangements, and we are about to undertake a very comprehensive review of the salaries of nursery workers who are not State registered nurses. We have arranged that a certain number of ex-Service girls shall be trained to become nursery nurses under the Vocational Training Scheme of the Ministry of Labour, and 50 of them are already in training; a considerable number more will follow.
  In connection with these services, as well as the many others which we are trying to develop, we have a great many problems to solve. The difficulties that are in the way are not primarily financial difficulties on the part of the local authorities; it is rather a question of finding suitable sites, obtaining proper buildings for the purpose, getting; hold of the necessary labour and materials to adapt or construct buildings, and finding the staff to run the nurseries. There is a shortage of trained nursery staff, and a nursery needs a very large staff in comparison with the service given. One attendant is needed for every five children if the nursery is to function properly.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the proportion of one to five takes no account of domestic staff, and would be more in the region of one to three if domestic staff were included?
  Mr. Key: That is true, but I was dealing with the trained staff which must be provided. We at the Ministry are in touch with the Ministry of Labour and with the Board of Trade with regard to the possible need for increased services.
  724
  Conferences have been and are being convened, particularly in places like Lancashire, between representatives of industry and of the local authorities concerned, in order to make more ordered progress in the satisfaction of existing demands. It is true also that nurseries in factories are opening without reference to the welfare authorities, and that presents us with another problem of the greatest importance, namely, to ensure that in these cases proper standards are adopted. We dare not allow children to be cared for in these places by untrained and unqualified women who may not be aware of the dangers to health which are present when large numbers of small children are kept together in a confined space, and who may not take the necessary precautions in dealing with them.
  Therefore we must insist on the highest standards both of accommodation and attention. If nurseries are established inside factories, we must be sure that they will provide the children with the necessary care and attention, and will be operated with the full knowledge and approval of the local welfare authorities. This particular development in nursery services is one which we have to watch very carefully indeed. I should like to emphasis that it is not at all an easy task to adapt a war-time service of this nature to peace-time needs, when such an adaptation was never envisaged when the service was first established, and when it has to take place in the face of very great competing demands on the national resources. I should not like to say that no mistakes are made and that no short-comings can be revealed in the existing service, but, on the whole, I think that it will be found that we are solving this problem as rapidly and as effectively as we can possibly hope, in view of the conditions which face us.
  Such is the general survey, and I now want to turn to some of the particular points which were raised during the Debate. Let me deal first with the training of the necessary nursery teachers. There is, as I have said, a great shortage, and this is hampering the development of nursery schools and nursery classes on the part of local education authorities. The Ministry of Education are taking all the practical steps they can to increase the supply of trained teachers. The Nursery Schools Association recently informed the

  725
  Ministry of Education that they were unable to run courses of the child care reserve type after the end of this year. The Ministry of Education, were, proposing to invite the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council to start up courses of the child care reserve type. We have now ascertained the position in several regions, and the reports of our women inspectors indicate that there are a good many vacancies in the post of warden in day-nurseries all over the country. We shall, therefore, have to be giving consideration to the extension of that same sort of idea to other parts of the country which we had in mind for London and Middlesex.
  I may say that the terms of a proposed circular are under active consideration, by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health, to be issued to the welfare authorities and local education authorities at an early date, drawing attention to the importance of filling vacancies in the post of warden in day-nurseries, both in the interest of the children, and to ensure that proper training facilities exist for nursery students. Owing to the great pressure for qualified teachers in the ordinary schools, we feel that the best use for such teachers, in connection with nursery accommodation, will be that the qualified certificated teacher shall act as superintendent of a group of nurseries in which the individual nursery works each of them under a warden who is not a qualified teacher. Welfare authorities are to be asked, as a matter of urgency, to review the needs of their nurseries on the educational side, and where a number of wardens are required, to approach local education authorities with a request that these authorities shall set up courses of the child care reserve type, with the object of filling vacancies with people who have received such training within the next six months.
  The point I wish to emphasise about these courses—and the local authorities have been informed of this—is that they will rank for grant, under the Ministry of Education Regulations, on the same basis as for ordinary educational provision. It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that the central organisation for the Child Care Reserve was wound up at the end of 1944, but already some local education authorities have taken up the job of running courses of the type I have mentioned. I have already tried to emphasise
  726
  that I think that my hon. Friend was under a misapprehension when he said that there was not the liaison that there ought to be between the Departments concerned. I want to assure him that there is the closest liaison on our part with the Ministry of Education and with the Ministry of Labour and National Service on all these matters.
  As to the point made by my hon. Friend with regard to suitable and ample equipment, and as to the equipment in existence being unsatisfactory in character, I would point out that so far as the wartime nurseries are concerned, when they were originally set up, there was an allowance of 10s. per place for toys and educational equipment, with an annual maintenance allowance of about 2s. 6d. That expenditure, of course, was fully reimbursed. From April, 1946, it has been open to welfare authorities to incur reasonable expenditure under that head. Such expenditure, I would emphasise, ranks for special grant, so far as we are concerned in the provision of that equipment.
  One other point raised by my hon. Friend was with regard to the daily guardians or minders of the children of women who are out at work. Here, in the development of this scheme, we have made the provision for which my hon. Friend has asked. For instance, the local authority, which is the child welfare authority in the area—let me read:
  "will inform you—
  that, is, the minder—
  "when you have been placed on the register and will tell you the number of children you may take charge of under the scheme. It is not contemplated that anybody should undertake the care of more than two or three children, except in special circumstances."
  Here is the point which I think my hon. Friend wanted:
  "The authority—"
  that is, the local child welfare authority—
  "will arrange for the health visitor to call upon you from time to time to see that all is going well and to give any help which may be required."
  So that arrangement is already being made.
  So far as milk is concerned, it is the subject, as I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) realised in his statement, of a good deal of inter-departmental co-operation. Already the Minister of Food has made the statement that he purposes

  727
  to press on with the development of heat treatment of milk, and in cooperation with the authorities concerned—with us and the Ministry of Agriculture—with the supply of treated milk, as well as in cooperation with the local authorities and the Ministry of Education. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that we shall do everything we possibly can to tackle that problem. I think I have already indicated that our purpose is the development more of the nursery school than of the day nursery. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) that we must not confuse day nurseries with nursery schools and that we cannot provide in day nurseries the type of staff which would be required for the nursery schools. I think it would be entirely wrong to try to develop day nurseries along those lines. We should leave it to the educational authority to develop the school rather than to the health authority to develop the day nursery.
  With regard to the extension of this service for the purpose of looking after the children of mothers who are ill or of mothers who are to be confined, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann), so far as I am concerned I think it might be a step in the wrong direction. I believe that the proper way of dealing with the children of mothers who are ill or who are being confined is not so much to provide day nursery accommodation for those who are under two or under five, but to develop a system of home helps who can go and look after the family as a whole in the homes of the people who are in a position of that sort.
  728
  I think I have covered the main points that have been raised in the Debate. I am certain that the Debate will have been helpful and valuable to us, but I think that if we proceed in the development of this service along the lines I have indicated, we should ultimately reach a solution of the problem by the inclusion of the two to five age groups in nursery schools and nursery classes, and making it possible, in a general way, for the mothers of the children of the under twos to stay at home and look after their own children.
  Mr. Austin: Can my hon. Friend give us some indication of the Government's intentions with regard to volunteers for day nurseries?
  Mr. Key: There are a number of nurseries which have been developed voluntarily, but I do not see that it falls to us to say that we intend to give any special consideration so far as they are concerned.
  Mr. Austin: I mean voluntary workers.
  Mr. Key: It is for the local authority in the area concerned to decide whether or not the need in their particular nurseries is such that they have to appeal for voluntary workers. It seems to me far more a matter for an appeal locally than for a national appeal to be made for assistance, and there is nothing to prevent local authorities from making such an appeal.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes to Four o'Clock.