HC Deb 19 November 1953 vol 520 cc1997-2022

7.58 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks (Acton)

I am sorry that the Minister of Health has been called at very short notice this evening to deal with a question which is of some consequence to a section of mothers in this country who are worried by problems largely of financial distress. I can assure him that, side by side with the inconvenience in which he may have been involved by being called here at such short notice, this section of mothers will be very grateful if he can give personal attention to their case. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to what is to be said on this matter, because it is one of some considerable importance and one which is causing great anxiety, particularly throughout Middlesex and other parts of the country.

I want to raise the question of day nursery places in Middlesex, with particular reference to my constituency of Acton. It is important that we should realise the twofold purpose for which day nurseries exist. First, they serve to provide aid to a range of mothers who are very largely in financial distress; or where there is sickness or an invalid husband at home they serve the purpose of aiding families in distress. They aid the mothers who may be abandoned by husbands; unmarried mothers, by enabling them to bring up their children themselves by going out to work and earning their living; mothers incapable of caring for their children either through disability, health or other reasons; and also mothers whose husbands are invalids and unable to work and maintain the family.

The other purpose is to serve the needs of industry. We know what an important problem these involve for our country. We have to increase production, which is of major importance to the country. In constituencies like mine—Acton—we have a large number of light industries suffering from a serious shortage of labour required for light jobs which women can do either in a part-time or full-time capacity. It is a very important contribution to industry when it can receive the assistance of mothers who have to go to work, mainly because of financial distress, to earn money in order to maintain their children and their homes, and at the same time do a good job of work in industry.

When day nurseries were transferred from the county district councils to the county council of Middlesex we had, in my constituency, a great record in respect of day nurseries. We had four first-class day nurseries, and there was a long waiting list of mothers who desired to go to work and to have their children cared for in them. Here I would say that I am not arguing the case for the family in which there is a large income; I am arguing the case for mothers and families whose income is low and where distress is the main reason for the mother having to leave her children in a day nursery in order to go to work to earn money to maintain the home.

As I say, Acton had a very good record, and we handed over to Middlesex County Council four first-class day nurseries, the children in which were a source of pride to our town. Not only were they well cared for but they also had periodical medical examinations. When the Middlesex County Council got hold of our day nurseries, almost the first thing it did was to increase the price of admission to a prohibitive level. The consequence was that a number of mothers had to give up work because they could not afford to pay the increased charge, and many of them have been lost to industry, they having done no work since then.

My complaint tonight, however, is that the county council has carried a stage further its policy of disintegrating the day nurseries. Quite recently it has decided to reduce the number of day nurseries in Middlesex by half, I think from 4,000 places to 2,000. That means that each county district in the county is expected to reduce its day nursery facilities by half. In my constituency, it means reducing our four day nurseries to two, in addition to which the county council proposed to divert into one of our two remaining day nurseries other children from Chiswick, which is the neighbouring constituency, where they have closed down a day nursery near our borough.

There has been a great outcry about this proposal in my constituency. A special meeting of the Acton Borough Council was called to discuss this matter, and a resolution was passed which the council has sent to the Minister, asking him to look into the matter and to restore to us our full day nursery service. I have interviewed a large number of mothers who are in sheer desperation as to what is to happen to their children and as to how they can maintain their homes when their children are put out of the day nurseries as a result of the county council's decision.

On most nights when I go home from the House, I pass one of these day nurseries, and at times I pass it when the mothers are taking their children away in the early hours of the evening. I have noticed particularly the number of women I have seen standing outside, on the threshold, with tears in their eyes at the knowledge that out their children are to go quite soon. Some of these women are widows, some of them have invalid husbands at home, some are unmarried mothers.

As a result of the great outcry about this proposal, however, I now understand that the county council health committee has decided to modify its proposals, and, instead of taking two of our four day nurseries, to take one, the largest. That will deprive us of accommodation for 72 children. This day nursery is the last of the day nurseries that should have been touched because it adjoins the industrial area of Acton where most of the women find part-time or full-time light employment, and by closing this day nursery the county council is forcing these mothers to walk long distances—probably half an hour's walk at least—to get to the other day nurseries which remain in order to leave their children, and putting them to a great deal of inconvenience.

Apart from those mothers who will be able to meet the new formula, however, and whose children will be allowed to attend if they can be found places in the remaining day nurseries, there are a large number of mothers whose children will be forced to leave because the Middlesex County Council has adopted a new formula, about which one of my hon. Friends may have something to say in greater detail this evening than I can. This new formula lays down a new principle—that the overriding consideration for the admission of a child to a day nursery must be health grounds, not financial distress.

If there is no illness or sickness at home, that is too bad; a child is not to go into a day nursery. So, as a consequence of this new form of test for admission, a large number of mothers who are now able to leave their children in our day nurseries in order to take part-time or full-time employment will find themselves at the end of this year having to withdraw their children.

Who are they? They are mothers who are financially unsupported, widows or deserted wives; they are unmarried mothers who, rather than have their children adopted, are struggling bravely to provide for their support. Among them are the wives of Service men who find that their Service allowance is inadequate. They have told me that they take advantage of the facilities provided by the day nurseries in order to be able to go out to work to supplement their meagre income.

There is another category, the mothers of families with low incomes. In such cases the family may be in reasonably good health, but because of some physical disability the husband has to take a low-paid job, and in these days, with the cost of living so high, the wife finds it necessary to go out to work. These are the kind of people who are affected by this new policy of the Middlesex County Council.

I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will tell us about the cost of maintaining day nurseries. I know that they cost money, but it is a job well worth doing. The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that in the future many of these women will have to apply for public assistance, and what he may think will be gained by closing down these nurseries will be lost by the increased expenditure on public assistance. Therefore, I am concerned at this policy of disintegrating the day nursery service, of gradually increasing the cost of admission to freeze out many people who cannot afford to pay, of reducing the number of nurseries, and in a year or two probably closing even those that are left.

Such a policy will lead to the growth of a very undesirable social evil. It will bring us back to the old days of the baby-minder and the foster-mother who existed before our day nursery system was established. I am surprised by the increasing number of applications being made by private baby-minders and foster-mothers for licences to look after children. Such people will want to make as much money as possible out of their activities, because they do not do this work for the love of the job, and I suggest that the children will suffer. They will not be properly cared for and it is likely that they will be badly fed. They will not receive that medical attention and examination which is one of the greatest features of our day nursery system. We do not want to return to those conditions.

The children in our day nurseries are a credit to the country. They are looked after by a trained staff and receive a regular medical examination. An opportunity is provided for mothers to acquire knowledge of the right way to bring up their children. I do not think that our day nurseries should be regarded as a service which should cost the nation nothing at all. Our day nursery service is as important as any other social service administered today, and this policy pursued by the Middlesex County Council—I can speak only for Middlesex, but I am told the position is as bad in other counties—is a tragic mistake.

This policy will hit the people least able to stand the blow. It is another manifestation of the narrow-minded outlook of people who are themselves well-off. It is a body blow at those unfortunate women whose lot is not as good as that of most of us. Therefore, I am glad to have the privilege of bringing their case to the notice of the House and of voicing the distress they feel at what is in store for them at the end of the year. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to what is said on this subject. I hope he will look at this matter again to see whether it is possible to halt this process of disintegrating our day nursery system and delivering children to the tender mercies of professional baby-minders and foster-mothers.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter (Southall)

My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) dealt with the position as it affects his borough, but the agitation in Acton is also going on in many other parts of Middlesex. The position has been correctly stated by my hon. Friend. The present number of day nursery places is about 4,000, and the new proposals are deliberately designed to bring down the number of 2,000. The ultimate intention of the present Middlesex County Council is to destroy the day nursery service altogether. I have made these statements at meetings of the county council and they are well aware of what I am saying.

I wish briefly to deal with the history of our day nurseries. Immediately after the war there was difficulty in maintaining them. It is accepted that they were established as a war-time service in order that children should be properly cared for while their mothers were engaged on work of national importance. It was because the Government of the day recognised the need for them that the day nursery service was established, very largely on the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, who certified the areas where day nurseries should be established. Middlesex being a large industrial area, a large number of day nurseries were established there. Almost immediately after that the county council endeavoured to close day nurseries, the excuse being that staff was not readily obtainable. That, I appreciate, was difficult. Fortunately, soon afterwards, a change of outlook in Middlesex resulted in many of the day nurseries which the authority wished to close being kept open.

The problem of payment for day nursery service also arose. I am not one of those who have argued that people should get something for nothing. After all it is a service provided for a particular section of the people for which they should pay, so far as they are able, a reasonable price. The original charge was certainly not a reasonable price for anyone to pay but, in the amended National Health Service Act, there was even authorised an increase in the price. That was the first excuse seized upon by the Middlesex County Council to reduce the number of day nurseries.

The charges then made were absolutely prohibitive. A joint income—be it noted, a joint income—of more than £6 a week disqualified people from having their children placed in a day nursery, unless there was some special reason for it. It is true that the area health committees did not operate to the £6 limit—that was very soon shown to be entirely inoperable—but it is indicative of the attitude of the county council that they wanted to operate on the £6 limit for the day nursery system, which they regarded as an expensive luxury. The question of the service did not come into it at all, but the result was that a lot of mothers could no longer afford to send their children to the day nurseries. Submissions have been made from time to time to the right hon. Gentleman to close day nurseries. On the figures, I have no doubt it could be shown that the children were not going to them; therefore, the day nurseries could be closed. But it was all part of the deliberate policy, and these charges were fixed on purpose.

The Middlesex County Council then had to get away from the £6 limit and think of something else in order to close the day nurseries. We now come to this that, according to the scheme now before the Minister, no child may be admitted to a day nursery in Middlesex unless there is a health content in the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton has already mentioned that, but it is an important factor. Theoretically, the unmarried mother, the widow and so on, will have to prove either that their health is suffering, or will suffer, or that the child's health is suffering, unless a day nursery place is provided. Could there be a more ridiculous proceeding than that by a responsible body?

Of course, it makes sense in the context that the desire of the present county council is to close all day nurseries. They said, in the scheme put to the Minister, "We realise we are closing down some nurseries, and putting all nurseries on an area basis. It may well be many children will have to travel long distances. If they have to travel long distances we, the county council, will consider the question of the provision of transport." Everybody knows, from experience of the transport of schoolchildren, that the provision of transport is a very costly undertaking and, if I know anything at all about the present county council, they will look at the cost of it. I am quite certain very little transport will be provided.

What does it mean against the present background? The majority of these mothers work in factories and start work at 8 o'clock. They have to get ready for work and get the children to the day nursery—if the day nursery is reasonably placed, that is all right—and when the mother returns from the factory she has to call for the child. But what is to happen when the day nursery is two miles away? The answer is that the mother will be physically unable, no matter how willing she may be, to get there. It is adding at least another three hours to her working day. I hope the Minister will very carefully examine this scheme—I know he will—and that he will not so readily agree to the closing of day nurseries as appears to have been the case in the past year.

There is no question as to what is the position today. The chairman of the appropriate committee has said that it is an expensive service; more or less a luxury service for a limited number of the people of Middlesex. That may be true. After all, the present number is only 4,000 places. That may sound a lot, but if one looks at it in relation to a population of 2½ million it is infinitesimal. It is not argued that the number should be increased but that it should, at least, be maintained, and the vitiation that has gone on in this service, due to increased charges, ought to be stopped.

I hope the Minister will firmly reject the health content suggestion. After all, his Department has a financial interest in the running of the day nursery service, and I am quite sure that from the point of view of health, his Department is interested in the best means of maintaining these children under the circumstances described here.

Baby minders have been mentioned. Obviously, our experience of the past does not enamour us with the prospect of these babies being forced back to the baby minder, very often a woman, very inadequately housed, who takes in half-a-dozen or more children and looks after them—or does not look after them. At least they are under her care. There is also the mother's anxiety regarding her child until she comes from work. Often she has to decide between her anxiety to keep the home going, and her anxiety for the child's welfare, which would probably make her have to stay at home. These are important and human factors. This is not a matter of great magnitude or of grandiose proportions, but a matter which affects a particular class of the community. It affects widows and unmarried mothers, and widowers also are affected by it.

We come back to this matter of the health content. I have tried to have the word "health" removed; in other words, the considerations would be on general, and not just on health, grounds. The county council resolutely refused to have that word taken out or to fix what is a reasonable charge. The former charge was 2s. a day. Some mothers could not even afford that, but the majority could, and quite willingly paid it. We have proposed to the county council that the maximum charge should be 4s. a day which, on a five-day week, is £1 a week. That is quite a reasonably fair sum which would be regarded, possibly, as a fair share of the mother's earnings for the care of the child.

The county council are quite determined not to accept any proposals which are likely to maintain day nurseries in full use. We have argued that the day nurseries are much better full than half empty If they are half empty, the administrative and staffing costs still continue. We feel that it is much better to keep them full, whatever number of day nurseries we have left. But apparently that will not do. Wherever we go we are faced with an entirely negative attitude. The only hope for Middlesex mothers while the present county council is in office—if there was another election it might be different—rests on the Minister himself. The scheme is now before him, and he should refuse to accept it.

We are told that this is a costly service to the ratepayers. What will be the net saving to the ratepayers by halving the present day nursery accommodation of 4,000 to approximately 2,000? The net saving to the county is less than a 1d. rate. In other words, for less than a 1d. rate they will halve the day nursery accommodation. Conversely, it will be seen that even for 4,000 places this cost is not likely to break the hearts or the backs of the people in Middlesex.

I have heard no complaints from ratepayers. We have heard the argument about ratepayers supporting a particular section of ratepayers, but I have travelled extensively in Middlesex and I have never heard a ratepayer complaining about the cost of the day nursery service which is provided for the benefit of people some of whom are often no worse off than themselves while others are much worse off.

I hope the Minister will tell us that he will not accept the scheme in its present form, that he will send it back to the county council and ask them to act as humanitarians in control of a public service which is of vital interest to the people. It is not only Middlesex which is concerned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) has told me of the position in Kent. There they have virtually closed down all the day nurseries and, as the Minister will be aware, there has been considerable agitation in that county.

This scheme would appear to be the result of a move on the part of certain types of county councils who are in control of these services, in order to dispose of a war-time innovation, the idea being that whatever we had in the way of wartime innovations, good, bad or indifferent, should be brought to an end. That is good old Tory policy, but I am hoping that we in this House have got away from that idea.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Orbach (Willesden, East)

My hon. Friends have both dealt in a restrained manner with the general question arising from the attempt to close day nurseries throughout the county of Middlesex. I rise to intervene only briefly, in order to deal with two or three other matters which have been touched on by them but which they have not elaborated.

I was struck by the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) when he said that if we do not continue the day nursery service mothers will inevitably be obliged to farm out their children to professional baby minders. The Minister will be aware of the difficulties of that situation, because obviously these mothers are not in a position to pay much money for such services as might be rendered.

The Minister may say that it is not the duty of the State or of the county council to subsidise the poor wages paid to these women who are in industry. But that would come very ill from him as a member of a Government which has not yet been prepared to introduce equal pay for equal work for the sexes. I hope he will not use that argument during the course of his reply.

Both my hon. Friends have spoken about the categories of people who were entitled to send their children to the day nurseries. They have referred to the health of the mother, the poverty of the family and the need for productivity. I want particularly to stress the latter point. I can recall when my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) and I were asked by the Government to participate in a conference of women for industry, presided over by the mayor of our borough, where we made an appeal, in as eloquent terms as possible, to mothers to come into industry because the need for increased production was so necessary for our national economy.

I feel that the need is still there. I am sure that, as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, the Minister would be the last to declare that our productivity has reached such a height that we can now dispense with mothers in industry. It would be most unfair to throw the responsibility upon those Members who made definite undertakings to their constituents that, where it was not possible for them to look after the young children, there would be a day nursery available, if, because of a change in the circumstances, day nurseries should not be available.

Those two points are less important than the third which I want to make. With my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), I believe that there must be some selectivity with regard to entry into day nurseries. It is impossible to provide day nurseries for every mother who wants to put her child out of the way for a portion of the day so that she can, perhaps, enjoy herself and do all kinds of things which she is not able to do at the present time in view of the fact that she has to spend some time in looking after her child.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have felt that this scheme was necessary, first, because of the health of the mothers, secondly, because of the poverty of some families, and thirdly, because of the need for productivity. We must exercise some selectivity on those three grounds. But in the exercise of this selectivity the Middlesex County Council have gone much too far. I cannot imagine the Minister agreeing to what they have done. I understand that they have instituted something in the nature of a means test. Those applicants who wish the children to remain in day nurseries are subjected to a questionnaire and, if necessary, to interrogation.

That questionnaire must be corroborated by the employer of the individual concerned, who certifies that the wages received by the individual are as stated. It has been reported to me that one of these applicants who sought corroboration from her employer found herself dismissed as a result of the disclosure that she, as a young unmarried woman, had an illegitimate child. I cannot imagine the Minister agreeing that that sort of thing should take place.

In so far as the Middlesex County Council assist in that action they are doing something quite unconscionable, which this House will not be prepared to accept, and I hope that the Minister will condemn it in the strongest possible terms. Certification by the applicant concerned ought to be sufficient. Surely a woman who signs a document in which she states her means, or the state of her health, will, if found guilty of misrepresentation or fraud, be liable to prosecution in the same way as anybody else who makes a false declaration to Her Majesty's Government, a local authority, or even the Middlesex County Council. I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to say, in unmistakable terms, that the corroboration from employers ought not to be proceeded with in the case of application forms issued by the Middlesex County Council.

I appeal to the Minister in the same way as my two hon. Friends have done. We do not look upon him as an inhuman Minister. He is the Minister of Health, concerned not only with the material health of the people but also with their mental health. From both those points of view I appeal to him to reconsider this scheme as presented by the Middlesex County Council. There will be a great deal of agitation in connection with this matter in my borough. There was some at the beginning of this year, and also last year. I hope that we shall not make it difficult and awkward for the Minister, but, rather, that he will make it difficult and awkward for the Middlesex County Council to proceed with a scheme which is inhuman and should be abhorrent to us all.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

My division, like the divisions of my hon. Friends who have spoken, is seriously affected by the proposal that the Middlesex County Council has made—indeed, almost more seriously than the Borough of Acton. I find from the lists prepared that there are seven day nurseries at the present time under the scheme in the Borough of Ealing, and four of them are to go out of existence, so that we suffer a greater loss than 50 per cent.

Of the four that are to go out of existence, two are in the division represented by the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) and two are in my division, the Oldfield and Northolt nursery centres. The mothers in these two districts will be greatly alarmed. I shall be quite honest and say that I have not had the number of representations made to me that my hon. Friend has had, but I have heard complaints, and I am quite sure from what I have heard that the mothers will be very much disturbed by the proposal.

Like other hon. Members, I have no sort of antipathy to the Minister. I know that in several matters concerning children he has shown himself very sympathetic, very enterprising, and very willing to make experiments of the kind that this may be said to be, because the day nursery is still one of the great experiments of our time. It does not cover anything like the number of children it may ultimately be made to cover when we have completed our fuller organisation for the care of our children, but it is an extremely useful experiment that ought not to be weakened.

The Minister came to my division recently, and, moreover, he gave me what I was very pleased to have—an opportunity to go with him to open another type of experiment for children. It was for deaf children. He wanted to see what could be done to give deaf and dumb children a chance, and he wanted the mothers to have an opportunity of seeing the experiment. I was warmly touched by the things he said and by the hopes he expressed about the social efforts made in cases of that sort.

I feel I can speak in his presence now on the expectation that he will understand the concern we feel about the matter. He may reply, though I hope he will not press this too hard, that in the two nursery centres to which I have referred there are not many children, not anything like so many as could be judging by the places that are provided, but he really must take into account what my hon. Friends have said about the conscious effort—I am afraid more marked in Middlesex than in most counties—to make difficulties through the prices charged for the services, the conscious effort that has been made to keep these institutions undermanned and with an insufficient number of children in them. That has been made the excuse, which it is hoped we shall accept, for the shutting down of these nurseries.

I do not accept it at all. We could just as well proceed to make the secondary schools expensive for the children, and we should find fathers and mothers not taking for their children the places provided. We could do it with school meals. In Middlesex they are doing it with school meals, making them more expensive, and yet the fact is adduced that in Middlesex not as many children are utilising the school meals service as formerly.

That is what has been happening in the case of these nurseries. The argument that some of the day nurseries are not as well filled as they might be does not meet our complaints, and we plead with the Minister to step in at this stage and insist that such day nurseries as have been opened are given an opportunity to run their course, or at least to run for a longer period.

I am speaking, as I said, in the hope that the Minister is capable of revealing a human heart. The women of today have been encouraged by the nation to step out of their homes and bear the burdens, which they accept, of going out to work. Indeed, at the present moment they are being encouraged to do so as a social duty. We have not yet done with the export drive. Everybody tells us that the necessity, not merely for women, but also for old people, to go into industry has by no means ended. In fact, it is perhaps as great as it has ever been. In some senses it is as great today as it was in the war. We should not support a policy of bringing an end to the opportunity for women to work, or make it difficult for them to do so.

There is one point which my hon. Friends have not mentioned much. According to the classification of mothers which I have before me—mothers who have been accepted up to the present as having a valid claim on these experiments—many are classified under the heading dealing with bad home conditions, both in connection with children between two years and five years old and with children under two years old. These are the types of women about whom we sometimes hear snarling reference made in public discussions, when it is said that these women ought to be encouraged to look after their homes and their children and ought not to throw their responsibilities on to the community. That may be so, but what about the children? We have been appealing on behalf of the children in this discussion. Because there are these bad home conditions and because the community has been learning how to improve the behaviour of the mothers—

Mr. Pargiter

I would remind my hon. Friend that many of the homes are overcrowded homes. They are not necessarily bad homes.

Mr. Hudson

I appreciate that, but in public discussion of this matter I have heard it said that this problem arises because of neglect. In one or two cases it may be due to neglect, but we have not removed from ourselves the responsibility for seeing that those children get as good a chance as children in any other type of home. I plead with the Minister that he should make a new and careful survey of the value of this experiment in Middlesex. He should tell Middlesex that, with all the wealth still at its disposal to call upon for social purposes, there is no case for closing 2,000 out of the 4,000 places at day nurseries. I wait expectantly for the favourable reply which the right hon. Gentleman will make.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. S. P. Viant (Willesden, West)

I shall not prolong the discussion unduly, but my constituency, also situated in Middlesex, has been considerably affected by the policy of that county council. We have listened to speeches by my hon. Friends which might be termed as the portrayal of a real human tragedy.

On almost every hoarding in my constituency there are huge notices appealing for women workers to go into the factories. If we are so much in need of the women workers in the factories, then we must open up facilities and keep open the facilities that have already been provided whereby the womenfolk may be assured that the children will be cared for while their mothers are at work.

For a number of years these facilities have been available in my constituency. With the advent of a new party in control of the Middlesex County Council, those facilities are being shut down, at no great saving apparently. If there were a great saving a good case might be made for shutting down these facilities on financial grounds, but no great saving will be effected. Whatever the saving may be, let us as Members of this House weigh up the interests of the children against the finance that is likely to be saved. The saving is not worth a snap of the fingers. Our interest must be that of the children.

Most of us have been pleased that within the last 10 or 12 years we have seen removed from our midst a large number of children suffering from rickets. That was a common complaint in prewar days. This is something which we all welcome, and I am sure that the Minister himself welcomes that state of affairs. If we press the women to go into the factories to work and if they are to yield to our appeals, then let us make provision to ensure that the health of the children will be safeguarded. We want no further return of rickets which were largely a result of malnutrition. Even in pre-war days when our womenfolk were compelled by economic necessity to go out to work, the children were farmed out—and they really were farmed out. Many of them were not treated as children but more or less as cattle. It was not an uncommon thing to find seven or eight children in a home which was not adequate for two, much less such a large number. We must not go back to those conditions.

I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to make a strict inquiry into the proposals of the Middlesex County Council. I do not like to utter strictures on them of a severe character. I would prefer to be charitable and to say that the people who are responsible for these proposals do not understand the conditions that lie behind the need for children being taken to these nurseries. If they understood the predicament with which many of these mothers are confronted, I believe they would change their policy.

On the Front Bench this evening we have the Minister, who has power to see that such a policy is reversed. That is not to say that he should force the county council to do that; he is capable of laying a human case before them that would change their feelings. That is the procedure for which we are appealing tonight. We are not asking that there should be no charge. When people are capable of paying for the care of the children, they should pay a reasonable charge, but to be asked to pay 9s., as against 4s., or more than double the amount, is most unreasonable.

Then there is the institution of a health test. The means test might be reasonable, but to say that no child may be taken into a nursery unless it can be proved that there are sufficient health reasons for doing so, is wrong and must also be eliminated from the scheme. The primary purpose of the nurseries was to enable mothers to go out to work in order to sustain the home. That should be the predominant test. I hope that our appeals tonight will be successful and that the evidence which has been produced is adequate to open the Minister's heart, so that he will promise that the position will be investigated and, I hope, improved.

8.57 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod)

It is a poor heart that never rejoices, and I can at least take some comfort from the fact that as the last Adjournment debate went on rather longer than was expected, I have now had a little more than the half an hour's notice which the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) thought it was sufficient to give before raising a matter of this extreme importance.

Mr. Sparks

I did not think half an hour was sufficient. I made inquiries from the Chair and was informed that it was usual to give the Minister at least half an hour's notice. In fact, I gave the right hon. Gentleman an hour.

Mr. Macleod

I make no complaint; I am at the service of the House in answering this debate. I merely point out that it is extremely difficult on the notice that is given to go into the number of extremely intricate points that have been raised by hon. Members this evening.

We have heard very much one side of the case. That is not wholly surprising, because every Member who has spoken has been a Middlesex Member whose colour is opposite to that of the Middlesex County Council, who are the villain that they have sought to put in the dock tonight. There is a good deal more to be said than has emerged so far from this Adjournment debate, to which I am happy to reply, because I attach great importance to all these matters that affect the social services.

I shall not spend much time on the argument about under-occupancy, although that is a factor that has to be taken into account; I am happy to leave it at that. Nor will I spend any time telling the House that these nurseries are an expensive service and that the action of the county council has been because of that, although the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) dismissed the economic argument a good deal too easily. It simply is not enough in any matters affecting the health or social services to say, as the hon. Member said, that the cost does not matter. It matters very much, because everybody, whoever it may be—

Mr. Viant

If the Minister is referring to me, I did not dismiss it in that way. I said that if people were able to pay, they should be invited to pay.

Mr. Orbach

rose—

Mr. Macleod

If the hon. Member will allow me, I should like to reply to his hon. Friend. The hon. Member said that it was not worth that—and snapped his fingers.

All I want to say is that there is a certain limit of expenditure, whether it is a limit on the Minister, the local authority, the hospital authorities or on work under any hospital scheme. The object of economy, in my view, is that more money will be obtained to spend on those things which one thinks should have the first priority.

I do not pursue some of my objectives in the health services so that at the end I can turn over and count the gold, if any, that has accrued from that particular economy drive. I do it so that I can spend more where I think more should be spent, on such matters as the mental health service, the old people, and so on. All authorities are precisely in this dilemma, and if money is saved it is at least available—I put it no higher than that—usually for use elsewhere. Although I am not stressing it tonight in any way, I do not think that the economy argument should be ignored.

Mr. Pargiter

Would the right hon. Gentleman apply that argument to the Middlesex County Council, that they are saving money to apply it elsewhere in the social services?

Mr. Macleod

I was speaking widely.

Mr. Pargiter

Because if it were applied to the Middlesex County Council it would not be true.

Mr. Macleod

I have a higher opinion of the Middlesex County Council than has the hon. Member, who has made the speech he made tonight in the Guildhall across the road and in many other places as well.

The essential thing that we are discussing tonight is whether or not the proposals of the Middlesex County Council will look after the priority categories for whom these day nurseries are provided. It would be as well, I think, to have on record the exact figures of what is proposed.

I understand that at its peak, which was shortly at the end of the war, there were some 96 nurseries in Middlesex with a total number of places of 4,856. It is important to notice here—and the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) made the point very well—that the great extension of this service in war-time took place because of our desperate need for every man and woman who could help in the national war effort. The great decline in the number of nurseries, as hon. Members know, has not been stated tonight. It was not the one that took place in the last year or two, but was the one that took place shortly after the end of the war.

The proposal that is put forward by the Middlesex County Council is this. Of their 74 day nurseries, 32 should be closed. They represent a total of 1,609 places, and by keeping 42 they will have 1,967 places. The date that this proposal is to become effective, according to a letter which I received on 14th November, is 1st January, 1954.

There is one point which is most important, and which I do not think hon. Members realise as yet. These proposals do not require my approval. It is of great importance that we should be absolutely clear about that. Some hon. Members, I know, were aware of that, but I think it might be gathered from some of the speeches that these proposals, which were put up to me for my comments and observations, had to have my approval or otherwise. I do not pretend that the Minister has not considerable powers of persuasion in a matter like this, but it is as well to be clear that this proposal, as such, does not require my approval.

Within a few days of my becoming Minister proposals were put before me in regard to the closing of all the 10 day nurseries that were congregated in a small area in part of Kent. I said then that in my view those proposals were too-drastic, particularly in view of the new Act then in its first days of existence, and that I would like to see five of those kept open. The county council did that and tried to balance as best they could with those five the needs of the priority classes. The main point, then, is to see whether these proposals of the Middlesex County Council look after their priority categories. I should like to do that in two-parts, first on figures—which is, I agree, an entirely mathematical calculation—and secondly, whether they have the right kind of priority classes, which is a different argument.

In the letter sent to me, I am told that 1,456 of those occupying day nursery places in Middlesex are regarded as within the priority categories, and it is proposed to retain just less than 2,000 places. It is clear that on the mathematical argument the priority categories can be looked after plus a substantial safety margin of comfortably over 10 per cent. I do not doubt that this is at some inconvenience in many cases, perhaps involving the use of transport.

Now I turn to the second category, whether the proposed priorities are the right ones. We have heard a good deal tonight about the health argument. I have the originals of the proposals before me, and what is proposed is that under the age of two years there should be three ways in which someone can qualify for being looked after in these nurseries. The first is where mothers are unsupported. A variety of examples are given: Where mothers are unsupported (for example unmarried, widowed, divorced or separated) and must necessarily go out to work to provide support for themselves and their children and where the mothers are anxious to keep their babies with them but cannot do so without some provision for the babies' care during the day. The second is where: the home conditions are in themselves unsatisfactory from a health point of view. Thirdly: where mothers are incapable for some good reason of undertaking the full care of their children. Much, of course, depends on the way the intentions are carried out, but, looking at those conditions which I have read to the House, I would not think that anyone in this category of children under two years of age will be excluded who has, shall we say, an obvious claim to a place.

Mr. Sparks

If what the right hon. Gentleman says now is the fact, the position will not be so bad, but we understand that there is an overriding condition which must apply even to these categories—there must be a substantial health reason. There can be many mothers who are unsupported, including widows, who have no health reason.

Mr. Macleod

This is the original document and I am prepared to show it to hon. Members afterwards, but I have only given half the picture so far. There are additional qualifications which I will come to in a moment.

So much for the children under two years of age. There are the three categories—where mothers are unsupported, where home conditions are bad and socially unsatisfactory, and where the mothers are incapable of undertaking the full care. For the age group from two years to five years, two of these three conditions apply, that is to say, children from two years to five years of age will be accepted providing that their mothers are unsupported or that the home conditions are in themselves unsatisfactory from the health point of view.

The next paragraph gives certain other possibilities of acceptance and then we come to a point, which is conceivably what is in, or what was in, the minds of hon. Members opposite, because it seems to me from the document that I have in front of me and the case that I have made that the case which has been put to me tonight is not wholly borne out.

It states that in addition to the requirements of "a" and "b," which refer to children of two to four years of age, the following considerations must also be fulfilled, so far as they are not incompatible:

  1. (i) That there are no other satisfactory means of caring for the child.
  2. (ii) That it will not be detrimental to the health of the child to be admitted.
  3. (iii) That the placing of the child is necessary to assist in its support.
  4. (iv) That any mother desirous of placing her child in a nursery must engage in employment for at least 30 hours a week."
That is a perfectly fair summary of the annexe to the Middlesex County Council letter which is before me. It is on that case—not the mathematical case but on the question of fairness in the qualifications that are laid down—that I have to make up my mind whether I will or will not put forward observations or, if necessary, exert pressure.

Mr. Pargiter

I am sorry that I did not know beforehand that this matter was to be debated tonight, otherwise I would have brought the documents with me. There is a clause which says that the county council can provide day nursery services where it is considered necessary on health grounds. I think that I am quoting the exact words of one paragraph of the annexe to these proposals.

Mr. Macleod

I have not been able to find that.

Mr. Pargiter

It certainly is part of it, because we moved an amendment in the county council to delete the words "on health grounds" in order not to bind the authority to those grounds only, but the amendment was refused.

Mr. Macleod

I was not present at whatever argument took place at the Guildhall. I have read to the House from the document which is before me.

The question, then, is whether these provisions are reasonable ones for a county council to make. Everything depends upon the way in which things are going to be administered, but there are one or two points of great importance which I should like to put forward. First of all, it has been said by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), and taken up by other hon. Members, that if economy be the object here, no economy would be achieved, because people would stop work and go to the National Assistance Board.

Mr. Sparks

Some of them.

Mr. Macleod

Yes, I am not suggesting that it has been said that all would go. In the other county to which great attention has been drawn in the House of Commons—Kent—where the most drastic measure of closing day nurseries was carried out, that did not happen. Only three out of 166 mothers affected sought National Assistance. I do not say that that is bound to happen in Middlesex, but I say that obviously it is clear from those figures that we can over-estimate the switch that would take place from employment and day nurseries on the one hand to dependence on National Assistance on the other.

The second point related to a slip which was made by the hon. Member for Acton when he said that these children are brought up by a trained staff and then he corrected himself and said that he did not really mean "brought up" but "looked after." That may or may not be a revealing slip, but I have not a shadow of a doubt that the policy of successive Ministers of Health and of Education and all Ministers concerned in this field—not just those belonging to my party—is right. It is that where it is practicable the best possible place for a young child, particularly a child under two, is with the mother. I have not the slightest doubt that we must keep that matter firmly in our minds.

There is another leg to this tripod, of which day nurseries are the second. It is that it may be that some day, when many other much more urgent priorities have been fulfilled, we shall be able to make an advance, which all people would like to see, towards the fullest implementation of the 1944 Act, which would help with the provision of nursery schools. The general policy, I think, was originally laid down by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), the late Mr. George Tomlinson and Miss Ellen Wilkinson, and there has been no change in the attitude of this Government towards those principles.

We come to the real point, which is whether, having regard to the case made to me tonight and to the letter I have before me asking for my observations, it would be right for me to exert pressure on Middlesex County Council. As a general rule I hold the principle that the less interference from the centre with properly elected local authorities in matters wholly within their province the better. This matter does come wholly within the province of the county council of Middlesex. I would need exceptional grounds for taking the step urged upon me tonight. I think hon. Members opposite would agree with that and would plead that these circumstances are exceptional and make such intervention, or interference even, desirable.

I am bound to say that I have not been convinced by the case they have put before me, but I have not yet replied to this letter from Middlesex County Council. Indeed, it was only received a day or two ago. Before I reply I shall very carefully take into account everything that has been said by the five hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I am very happy to weigh what they have said and to see if a case has been made for taking what would be the exceptional action of suggesting to Middlesex County Council, by way of observation, that here and there, either in the major proposals themselves or in the categories they propose, the scheme should be modified.

I should not like to leave the House tonight under a misapprehension. My present impression, quite frankly, is that that case has not been made. I am certain in my mind that what Middlesex County Council are trying to do is in effect the carrying out of a scheme to look after the priority classes. I have little doubt that the scheme put before me, if administered with good will—I accept that that would be so—would meet their obligations to provide for these children and their mothers. I do give the pledge, however, that I will not reply to Middlesex County Council until I have had a full opportunity to regard and study everything that has been said tonight and, in addition, to take into account any representations hon. Members may like to make to me in this matter of the day nurseries in Middlesex. It is one I regard as of great importance and, although the debate has been hurried, I welcome the time spent on this very important social problem.

Mr. Orbach

Would the right hon. Gentleman reply to the point I made? He said that he would look at the matter—and we are very grateful to him—in order to consider what we have said in connection with the major principle and its operation. I did bring to his attention the question of administration, and in his closing words the Minister said "provided this is operated with good will." I did suggest to him that there was some ill will in its operation. Would the right hon. Gentleman look at that aspect of the problem during the next few days when he considers the general one?

Mr. Macleod

I noted what the hon. Gentleman said; indeed, I replied to it when I said that I had a good deal more confidence in the Middlesex County Council than any of the hon. Members who have spoken tonight. I am, of course, a Middlesex Member myself, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I simply do not believe that when the Middlesex County Council put up detailed proposals to the Minister of Health, as they have done, that they do not mean what they say. I am quite confident that they will carry out those proposals with the best possible will in the future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes past Nine o'Clock.