Commons Sitting of 28 January 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION

    School Building
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education the latest figures of primary and secondary schools under construction; and how they compare with those of a year, and two years ago, respectively.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): On 1st October last there were 602 primary and 367 secondary schools under construction. Corresponding figures for 1952 were 756 and 309 respectively, and for 1951 they were 908 and 283.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of the ever-worsening situation in the primary schools under the Minister's régime, what action will she now take to increase the number of primary schools under construction in order to reduce the size of classes? Will she give an assurance that her programme will include enough school places to cater for the rise in tie secondary school population which will begin in 1956?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Member has no doubt noticed that in the building of secondary schools more work has to be done than in primary schools. The figures for the 12 months ending 1st October, 1951, show that only 114,000 new school places were brought into use. For the 12 months ending 1st October, 1952, and 1st October, 1953, they were 187,000 and 257,000 respectively.
    Dr. King: Is it not a serious fact that we need one-fifth more places in our secondary schools within five years? Is the Minister satisfied that her building programme will provide those places?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am satisfied that we are making more starts and are keeping up the momentum. If the present momentum is maintained, I think we shall achieve exactly what the hon. Member wishes.

    1944 Act (Part III Operation)
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Education when she proposes to put into full operation Part III of the Education Act, 1944.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Education if she will make a statement on her discussions with the deputation that she received on Wednesday, 20th January, representing 145 education authorities in England and Wales, who requested her to operate Part III of the Education Act, 1944; and what decision she has made in connection with this request.
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Minister of Education whether she will take steps immediately to put into operation Part III of the 1944 Education Act.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I agree with the opinion expressed in the answer given to the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) by my predecessor in November, 1950, namely, that Part III of the Act of 1944 should be brought into operation only when it can be effectively implemented. Though, in many respects, we are better placed than was the case three years ago for improving bad schools or for doing without them, yet I still doubt whether it would be practicable in the immediate future to enforce, as conditions for admission to an official register, standards as high as are in principle desirable.
    All this I explained to the deputation, and also the heavy responsibility which would fall to my Department, not only for registration of several thousand schools of very varied scope and size, but also for continuing thereafter to secure regular information about them. Meanwhile, I am consulting my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about further immediate action for excluding from schools teachers who have been convicted for offences against young persons.
    Mr. Morley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that 1950 was over three years ago, and that since then she has had

    1935
    time to get the necessary inspectors and administrative machinery in order to put Part III of the Act into operation? Is she also aware of the rising tide of indignation at the fact that any ex-criminal can start a private school? Is there anything to prevent putting Part III of the Act into operation which could not be overcome by a little more drive and energy on her part?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I agree that it is three years and two months since that answer was given. The standard which is in force may have slightly improved, but it could not be a standard that most would regard as that which ought to be enforced for the registration of schools.
    Mr. Lewis: The Minister will be aware that on numerous occasions, over a long time, men who run schools have been found guilty of immoral and indecent conduct. They are not fit to be in charge of those schools. As she has known for some years that this has been going on, can she say exactly when action will be taken, because my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House would be only too pleased to give her any assistance she may need?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the whole House will. I am consulting the Home Secretary about further and immediate action. I should be glad to discuss this with the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member, because there are certain points in this difficult, complex subject that cannot be suitably dealt with by Question and answer.
    Mr. Blackburn: While not wishing to curtail any conversations the right hon. Lady may like to have with the Home Secretary, may I ask whether she agrees that the only effective way of dealing with this problem is by putting into operation Part III of the Act? In spite of all the difficulties will she not have another look at this question, to see what can be done?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the best way of dealing with the subject would be to put into operation Part III. It would involve cumbersome machinery. I am seeing whether we can get some other scheme that is quicker and more efficient.
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Education what extra staff would be required in her Department to operate Part III of the Education Act, 1944; and what would be the estimated cost.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Additional inspectors and office staff would be needed. The exact numbers and the cost would depend on the pace and scale of the operations involved, but I estimate that the initial annual cost would be about £50,000.
    Mr. Stewart: Does not the right hon. Lady feel that so far as her Department is concerned there is no great difficulty in bringing Part III of the Act into operation?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I cannot say that. I would be willing to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman. It is not only the number of people and the cost; it is the arrangement for standards and how the scheme is to be worked out.

    Science and Mathematics Teachers (Shortage)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Education if she has considered a report from the Science Masters' Association stating that 84 schools had to close part of their science departments, that 115 vacancies remained unfilled and that there was not a single applicant worth considering when recent advertisements appeared for 60 places; and what action she proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The report of the Science Masters' Association was taken into account by the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers when they were preparing their recent report on "Graduate Teachers of Mathematics and Science." Action on the latter is now proceeding, as I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) on 21st January.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that if she placed a list of the salaries paid to scientists in industry alongside a list of the salaries paid by her Department she would have the shock of her life? Is she not aware that this is a salary question, and that to increase the number of science teachers we must substantially increase their salaries?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in referring to salaries as being paid by my Department. The salaries are paid by the local authorities. The standards are laid down by the Burnham Committee, whose report I can either approve or reject. As I announced to the House last week, I have approved the present Report.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that if she seeks to make the whole of the teaching profession more attractive by encouraging higher salaries such action will be welcomed by the teachers, but that we seek no further discrimination within the ranks of the profession?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am sure that teachers would welcome higher salaries. I sometimes wonder whether they would attract teachers in this House to return to teaching.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Minister of Education (1) in view of the statement by the Chairman, Sir Philip Morris, contained in the foreword to the Report of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers, that the shortage of mathematicians and scientists in the schools cannot be made good by the Minister of Education and the local authorities alone, and that the council believe it should be considered as a national problem, what steps she is taking to deal with this matter as a national problem
    (2) with regard to the recommendation of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers that the problems involved in bringing about any increase which may be decided upon in the number of suitable men and women reading mathematics and science be discussed between the universities and the schools, what increase has been decided upon; and what approach she has made to the universities in the matter.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I agree that this should be treated as a national problem and I shall bring my colleagues into consultation as the discussions referred to in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) on 21st January proceed. In any approach to the universities I shall, naturally, keep in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. MacPherson: Does the right hon. Lady realise that the basic questions in issue here are those which are not really within the purview of her Ministry, namely, the distribution among the different national users of a very scarce national asset, scientists and mathematicians? Would it not be more appropriate, and in keeping with the Council's recommendations, that the problem should be taken out of the hands of one Department and put in the hands of, say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has far more oversight than the right hon. Lady has at the moment over the basic questions involved?
    Miss Horsbrugh: There have been meetings already between the Federation of British Industries, the universities and the educational departments. That contact has been maintained, and there are to be further discussions. These interests have already got together to see how the difficulty can be resolved.

    School Films (Production)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Education (1) whether her attention has been called to the decline in the production of new films suitable for use in schools equipped with projectors; and what steps she proposes to take to remedy the deficiency
    (2) whether she will investigate the methods employed by the Governments of other countries to encourage the production of educational and scientific films, with a view to the introduction of suitable methods in this country.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am aware of the general position in this and certain other countries, and the difficult problem of new film production is one of the questions which I am at present discussing with the Governors of the Educational Foundation for Visual Aids.
    Mr. Warbey: While thanking the right hon. Lady for the assurance that this matter is under discussion, may I ask her to bear in mind that thousands of schools are equipped with projectors, but have only semi-obsolete films? Will she take into account the fact that in Germany, for example, the Film Und Bild organisation receives £60,000 a year subsidy for the production of educational films? Will

    1939
    she speed the discussions and get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help her in this matter?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "semi-obsolete." I have seen at primary schools a good many films about animals, both domestic and wild. I do not know whether they are obsolete or not.
    Mr. Snow: May I offer this suggestion to the right hon. Lady? [HON MEMBERS: "No."] I am asking a question. Would the Department make a considered survey of the suitable films available at the various institutes of other countries in London, for instance, the French Institute that have many highly suitable films that could be used by our own education authorities?
    Miss Horsbrugh: That has been and is being considered. We have discussed the possibilities of getting films from such institutions as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

    Schools Television Service
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the substantial promises of support for a schools television service now forthcoming from local education authorities, she will advise the British Broadcasting Corporation to make full preparations for the launching of the main experiment at the earliest possible date
    Miss Horsbrugh: As I said in reply to the hon. Member's Question on Tuesday, I have not yet been informed of the result of the inquiry sent out by the Association of Education Committees. I am expecting to be consulted by the School Broadcasting Council after it has heard from the Association.
    Mr. Warbey: Yes, but as the right hon. Lady informed me in reply to that other Question that she had seen in the Press that a number of important education authorities have replied favourably to this circular, and that there is support for the idea of a further development of the schools television service, will she press on with the matter so that the B.B.C. has a chance to get on with it before it is faced with the rivalry of commercial television?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have already said that I must await the report from the Association of Education Committees. I think it would be very much better to pay attention to national bodies such as that than to rely altogether on the Press.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the children's programmes provided by the B.B.C. on both sound and television over a period of years have maintained the highest standards, and that, having this record in mind, any extension of its activities in co-operation with local education authorities is deserving of the warmest encouragement?

    College, Lambton Castle (Expenditure)
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Education if she will make a statement on the results of her investigations into the expenditure, both capital and day-today, at the residential college at Lambton Castle
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am satisfied that the amounts spent initially on the adaptation and equipment of the college were reasonable, and they had my approval. As the college was only opened last March it is too soon to form a judgment on the day-to-day running costs. I am, however, watching developments closely, and the authority has promised to review the financial arrangements at the end of the year's working.
    Miss Ward: Would my right hon. Friend kindly explain what is meant by "review the financial arrangements," because that is one of the points which everybody in the north of England would be glad to have explained?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I mean, seeing how much money has been spent and considering whether value has been got for it.
    Mr. Shinwell: As this recently opened college caters for members of local authorities, trade unions and other bodies in the County of Durham will the right hon. Lady ensure that nobody, not even her hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Ward), sabotages this very desirable scheme?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I do not suppose that anyone would wish to sabotage it. I am

    1941
    sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that when a new college has been opened its first year's working must be experimental, and that at the end of the year we should see what are the best schemes and what is most valuable.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Lady make absolutely certain that she places no impediment in the way of this very progressive local education authority's plans for further education?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have already said that it was with my approval that the initial cost of the adaptation and equipment of the college was undertaken.

    Maladjusted Children (Report)
    Mr. MacCollasked the Minister of Education when she expects a report from her Departmental Committee on maladjusted children
    Miss Horsbrugh: I understand that the committee expect to be able to submit a report to me in the spring or summer of next year.
    Mr. MacColl: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a great deal of confusion and uncertainty exists about the right way to treat these unhappy children and that this report is very badly needed in order that local education authorities may know what provision to make? Is she further aware that the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland was able to present Scotland with an excellent report on this subject two years ago and, as a former Member for Dundee, could she not infuse a little Scottish drive into her Department?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I shall not enter into a competition between Scotland and England. We realise the immense work which this committee is doing. After all, it has a larger field, numerically, to cover than in the case of Scotland. The terms of reference which have been given to the committee are very comprehensive and although I am anxious to get the report I think all will agree that we want the work done fully and thoroughly.

    Local Authorities (Land Purchase Grant)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education whether her Department makes a contributory grant in cases where education authorities enter into firm
    1942
    contracts to buy land without first knowing the price of the land
    Miss Horsbrugh: Local education authorities are aware that I am not prepared to approve the purchase of a site or to pay grant on the expenditure involved if the price exceeds that recommended by the district valuer.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister saying that she does not require local authorities to make sure of the price before they enter into the contract, as has been done in a recent case?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think I made it clear that I would not approve the purchase or pay grant if the price exceeded that recommended by the district valuer.
    Mr. Thomas: Would the Minister answer the Question which I put on the Order Paper?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think I have answered the hon. Member's Question. I would make the contribution only if the cost did not exceed that recommended by the district valuer.

    University Awards, Wales
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education the minimum educational requirements which enable a university student to obtain a grant in the county boroughs of Cardiff, Swansea and Merthyr, respectively, and in the county of Glamorgan
    Miss Horsbrugh: Each of the authorities named has accepted the recommendation of the Working Party on University Awards regarding the minimum qualifications required for consideration for an award, namely, two passes at the advanced level in the General Certificate of Education together with evidence of general education.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education the total number and the average value of grants for students at universities made by each of the Welsh education authorities during 1953
    Miss Horsbrugh: The information about numbers will not be available until the end of February. The corresponding information about the average value of grants will not be available until about this time next year; but, at the end of February, I can give the hon. Member information on this point relating to the year 1952.

    New Schools, Staffordshire
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Minister of Education what progress has now been made in providing a new secondary modern school for Biddulph, Staffordshire; and whether agreement has been reached about the site
    Miss Horsbrugh: A secondary modern school for 300 pupils in Biddulph has been included in the 1954–55 building programme. The local education authority has not yet submitted any site proposal to me.
    Mr. Davies: While thanking the right hon. Lady for that answer, may I ask whether she herself will help to expedite the choice of site? Is she aware that there is much discussion at present, I understand, because the Ministry of Agriculture is objecting to an alternative site—a site which is not suffering from mining subsidence?
    Miss Horsbrugh: My information is that the authority has a site in mind, but is awaiting the mineral valuer's report on it.
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Minister of Education whether the plans and site are now ready for the new school at Weston Coyney, Cheadle, Stafford shire; and when the school is likely to be completed
    Miss Horsbrugh: I approved both the site and the plans for an infants school at Weston Coyney last November and building is expected to start within three weeks. In addition, there is a proposal to build a junior school there as part of the Staffordshire local education authority's approved building programme for 1953–54. The local education authority has made a compulsory purchase order on a site for this school and I now have it under consideration. It is too early to say when either school will be completed.
    Mr. Davies: Again, may I thank the right hon. Lady for that concession to this part of North Staffordshire? Will she use all her energies to push ahead with this scheme, because some hundreds of miners' houses are being built in this area?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I realise that, and I will certainly help in every way I can.

    Teachers' Salary Increase (Equal Pay)
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the recent agreement concluded by the National Association of Local Government Officers making pay increases equal between men and women, she will apply the same principle in respect of the recent award for teachers
    Miss Horsbrugh: As I told the House last week, I have already informed the Chairman of the Burnham Committee that the revised scales proposed for teachers in primary and secondary schools are such as I shall be able to approve. The revised scales proposed by the Committee retain the same ratio as before between men and women.
    Miss Ward: My right hon. Friend has not dealt with the Question on the Order Paper. If, in one section of local government employees, the Treasury is prepared to pay men and women equal increases in rates of pay, why, as a matter of justice, cannot my right hon. Friend now approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order that there may be equality between one service and another, both of which involve Treasury grants? Is it not monstrously unfair that one section should be paid on equal rates by the Treasury while another section, equally deserving, is not?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I do not approach the Treasury on the subject of teachers' salaries.
    Miss Ward: But my right hon. Friend can do so.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have either to approve or reject what the Burnham Committee decides. In this case, I have approved. As my hon. Friend will have noticed, the Burnham Committee also stated that if and when Government action is taken to operate equal pay for the Civil Service, it will consider the position in relation to teachers.
    Miss Ward: On a point of order. When I put the Question on the Order Paper, I understand that it was in order—that my right hon. Friend can take action. If that- were not so, I should not have been permitted to put the Question on the Order Paper. In other words, my right hon. Friend can take action without referring to the Burnham Committee.
    Miss Bacon: While I agree with the right hon. Lady that the Burnham Committee is the proper negotiating machinery for teachers' salaries, may I ask whether she is not aware that that Committee refrains from putting forward a policy of equal pay for men and women until the Chancellor of the Exchequer does something in the case of civil servants? Will she therefore make representations to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should bring forward a policy of equal pay for men and women in the Government service? The Burnham Committee will then follow suit.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The question of equal pay for men and women in the Government service is one which must be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My position with the Burnham Committee's award is that I can either approve the whole or reject the whole. I cannot amend it.
    Miss Ward: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter as early as possible on the Adjournment.

    Teachers (Misconduct)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Education how many teachers in schools under her control have been charged with, and found guilty of, offences against pupils during the last 12 months; and what steps she has taken, or intends to take, to prevent this practice growing in the country's schools
    Miss Horsbrugh: In 1953, 24 such cases were reported to me by local education authorities under long-standing regulations of my Department. All these teachers, together with others who committed other forms of misconduct, were excluded from further teaching in schools under my control.
    Mr. Lewis: I am pleased that the figure is not too large, but would the right hon. Lady say what is the position in private schools? Has she had any reports about private schools? It seems to me that that is where the practice is most prevalent.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I could not give the hon. Member a report from the independent schools. I think it would not be wise to make any comparisons between
    1946
    schools and to suggest that this practice is more prevalent in one place than in another. Arrangements exist for advising schools recognised as efficient, in any case which comes to our notice, and if any properly authorised inquirer were to ask any questions about teachers on the excluded list my Department would give him any information which it could properly give.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister confirm that it is possible for any of the 24 teachers concerned in the cases to which she has referred to go on teaching with impunity under the present law, as administered by her Department?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have already pointed out what can be done and what is being done. I think it would be wiser if I did not go into that subject any further.

    Condemned Primary Schools
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Minister of Education whether she will publish a table showing the distribution by counties of primary schools condemned as structurally inadequate before 1930 and still in use
    Miss Horsbrugh: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind those schools which, in 1925, were condemned as unsuitable for continued recognition, but which were not subsequently removed from the list and are still in use. I will circulate a table showing the distribution of these schools by administrative areas. I would, however, emphasise that the 1925 list is now quite out of date and cannot be taken as a significant guide to the most urgent building needs.
    Sir R. Acland: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Lady to publish more up-to-date figures, which would be a significant guide?
    Miss Horsbrugh: No, I do not think it would.

    Bus Seats (Occupation)
    Mr. Delargyasked the Minister of Education what guidance she has issued to local education authorities with regard to the occupation of seats on omnibuses by teachers travelling in charge of children if there are insufficient seats for all the children to use
    Miss Horsbrugh: None, Sir.
    Mr. Delargy: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a statement made recently by an aldermanic cretin in Derbyshire, that because teachers are the servants of the children teachers should never be allowed to sit in a bus as long as a child is standing? Would she not agree that, since the members of the Derbyshire County Council pretend to be servants of the public, no alderman or councillor in Derbyshire should ever be seated in a bus while anyone else remains standing?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have no control over this matter, but I think it is only fair, as the hon. Gentleman has directed our intention to one announcement in the Press, to remind him that there was a further announcement from the Chief Education Officer in Derbyshire, saying that it had been laid down that teachers were not to travel in school buses if there were not enough places for all the children. The children were to have the opportunity first of travelling in school buses and not the teachers.

    Commercial Television (Educationists' Views)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Minister of Education whether she has now considered the views on commercial television expressed by the National Union of Teachers, the Workers' Educational Association, the Association of Education Committees, the Workers' Educational Trade Union Committee, the Education Committee of the London County Council, the National Adult School Union, the National Union of Women Teachers, the British Federation of University Women and the vice-chancellors of 14 universities, which have been sent to her; and whether she will make a statement as to her consultations with educational authorities and representatives of parents and teachers on this subject
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have received copies of the resolutions passed by six of these bodies: one of them, the Association of Education Committees, brought their resolution to my notice among other matters at an interview I had with them last October. I have noted their views and also those expressed by the other bodies about whom the hon. Member
    1948
    wrote to me on Tuesday. No representatives of parents or teachers have asked me to see them on this subject.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that in her attitude to commercial television she is strongly opposed by practically the entire educational world, and will she give an assurance that at least so far as the children's television programmes are concerned these will not be commercialised under any circumstances?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that the control of the Ministry of Education is limited to control of the schools.

    Size of Classes
    Miss Baconasked the Minister of Education how many classes there were of over 60, over 50 and over 40 on the last available date
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have no more recent figures than those which I circulated on 22nd October last, in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can add only that of the 42 classes in secondary schools with over 50 pupils shown there, nine were reported to have classes with over 60 pupils; but these have been found, on investigation, to be assembled only for registration purposes and the pupils were, in fact, being taught in much smaller groups.
    Miss Bacon: Can the right hon. Lady say what the figures were in October?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have no more recent figures. The hon. Lady will find them in Hansard.

    New School Places
    Miss Baconasked the Minister of Education how many additional pupils are expected to enter schools by the end of 1954
    Miss Horsbrugh: The best forecast that I can make on present information is that by January, 1955, the maintained and assisted primary and secondary schools will have on their registers about 115,000 more pupils than they have now.
    Miss Baconasked the Minister of Education how many additional school places she expects to provide by the end of 1954
    Miss Horsbrugh: I estimate that between now and January, 1955, about 180,000 new school places will be provided.

    Private Schools
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education how many private schools are listed by her Department as efficient; what are the standards required to qualify; and how many applications to be listed as efficient have been turned down
    Miss Horsbrugh: On 1st January, 1953, the independent schools recognised as efficient numbered 1,322, The conditions of recognition are set out in Rules 16, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. My Department's provisional figures show that nine applications for recognition were rejected during 1953.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Would the Minister send me a copy of that paper, and would she say how many of these schools practise the colour bar?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I will certainlly send the hon. Gentleman a copy of rules 16. As to his other question, I know nothing.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education how many private schools were operating in England and Wales at the last convenient date
    Miss Horsbrugh: According to my latest information, about 5,100.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Lady think that the difference is very considerable and that there is need to have more supervision over the balance of these schools if they have not been submitted for any supervision at all?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be a good thing if some of the independent schools applied for recognition, but I must point out that the number has risen very quickly in the last few years. In 1948, there were only 999 and the number has been increasing every year quite considerably. I hope that that increase will continue and be speeded up.
    Miss Lee: Would the right hon. Lady, at the same time, concentrate on raising the standard of the ordinary school, thereby making it less necessary for some
    1950
    parents to send their children to private schools which, ultimately, ought to be abolished?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I agree that what we want is to raise the standard of the maintained schools for the reason which the hon. Lady puts forward, that we could then insist on a better standard for the others.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    No Par Value Shares (Report)
    Mr. Arbuthnotasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has a statement to make about the progress of the committee on shares of no par value; and when the report is likely to be available
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I have now received the committee's report and I propose to have it printed and published as soon as practicable.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that a great many investors would be even more pleased if a committee were set up to look into the difficult problem of shares which have no market value?

    Japan and China (U.S. Goods)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the potential importance of this market to the United Kingdom, what information has been received as to the volume and nature of trade between Japan and China in goods of United States origin, the export of which, from the United Kingdom to China has, at any time, been banned on the ground that the goods are of strategic importance
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have caused inquiries to be made and I have found no evidence of any trade in strategic goods of United States origin between Japan and China.
    Mr. de Freitas: What is the President doing now, urgently, to see that we are not being left behind in reopening trade with China?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As this Question referred specifically to the past and supplies of strategic goods of American

    1951
    origin through Japan, and as many allegations had been made, I am very happy to say that there is no evidence whatever that these goods had, in fact, been supplied.
    Mr. de Freitas: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the Question carefully he will see that it states:
    "in view of the potential importance of this market…"
    I ask him, what he is now doing, urgently, in this matter?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Minister give any further information about the allegation that American motor cars were being sold in China?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It appears to be completely without foundation.

    Institute of Management (Grant)
    Mr. Albuasked the President of the Board of Trade what amount has been allocated to the British Institute of Management from the counterpart funds described in Command Paper No. 8776; and for what purpose
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Sixty-five thousand pounds. Of that amount, £35,000 is for practical study of selected aspects of management, for making the results widely known and for strengthening the information department to meet the additional demands arising from the general programme. Thirty thousand pounds is for developing some local offices. The Institute has already been awarded a contract for research work in production economics, and discussions are proceeding on two other research projects.
    Mr. Albu: Is the President certain that this money will be used for the specific objects which he mentioned, and not used to defray the general expenses of this very slow-moving body? Is he aware that the proposal for setting up local management organisations was made originally over five years ago and nothing has yet been done, and is he satisfied that the Institute has the staff qualified to carryout the research work that he has described?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I can give the assurance that this money will be used for the purposes which I have specified. I am satisfied that this body, which, I think, is doing a useful job of work, is pressing on with it as fast as practicable.

    Machinery Imports (Duty-free Licences)
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for duty-free licences to import machinery not made in the United Kingdom, have been received since March, 1952; and how many have been granted
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No duty-free licences for machinery have been granted under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932, against any of the 918 applications made since 11th March, 1952.
    Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) now have to get a licence from the Conservative Central Office before he is allowed to speak?
    Mr. Holt: When does the President of the Board of Trade intend to render these applications unnecessary by a clean sweep of the import duties on machinery?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: An inquiry on this subject is now proceeding.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Does not the President's answer mean that the law, as stated in Section 10 of the 1932 Act, is being utterly frustrated by the fact that the Government are refusing every single application for licences, and have done so since the Chancellor's Budget speech of 11th March, 1952?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, I do not think that the law has been frustrated. A full inquiry into this matter is now proceeding.

    Appeal to Manufacturers (Increased Exports)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the President of the Board of Trade how many replies his Department has received to the letter from the Minister of State, Board of Trade, on the necessity for increasing exports; and how many came from firms in the City of Lincoln
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement following the dispatch to 50,000 manufacturers of a letter reminding them of the importance to this country of exports, and what is the nature of the replies
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: About 19,000 replies have been received, including 20 from the City of Lincoln. Some are from

    1953
    firms which produce goods not suitable for export or goods exported indirectly, but over one-third asked for further information, which has been sent them, about the services we can provide.

    Exports to China and U.S.S.R.
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade why an export licence was recently refused by his Department for the shipment to China of electrical-generating sets, supplied for use with cinematograph-projection equipment
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Electrical generating sets of all sizes are regarded by us and our allies as falling within the terms of the United Nations Resolution of May, 1951, and their export to China is accordingly prohibited.
    Mr. Wilson: Does not this case, relating specifically to a set for use in cinemas, show that the export controls are now being operated with excessive rigidity?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: These lists are drawn up in categories, and not with use purposes.
    Mr. Beswick: Has the President made any representation to the United States about redrawing these categories?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: These categories are always under examination.
    Mr. Formanasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will have the security ban lifted on the export of British locomotives to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is no ban on the export of locomotives to the Soviet Union, although exports are subject to control. In the case of China, the ban must at present remain in force, in accordance with our obligations under the United Nations Additional Measures Resolution of 18th May, 1951.
    Mr. Rankin: Why should we be handcuffed in this matter when the American Administration is already turning its eye towards the development of more trade with China?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There is no truth whatever, as I said in answer to an
    1954
    earlier allegation, that we are under a disability relative to the United States of America.
    Mr. Jay: In the case of China, as there has now been no fighting in Korea for months past, is there not a case for a major relaxation? Will the President do something in that direction?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, I do not think there is a case for a major relaxation in the case of China, although all these matters are under constant examination. The Question relates solely to the export of locomotives.
    Several Hon. Members
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made in reply to my supplementary question, I want to ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he is aware that China is collecting more dollars than any other country in the Far East?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is abusing a point of order. There is no question of order about China that I can see.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the totally unsatisfactory replies of the President of the Board of Trade to the whole of these Questions about trade with China, I give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

    Anglo-Eastern European Trade
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of recent official statements by the members of the United States Administration, he will now enter into discussions with the Government of the United States of America, and with other Governments involved, with a view to making relaxations in the strategic controls imposed on shipments to Eastern Europe
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As I have previously stated, Her Majesty's Government believe an expansion of trade with Eastern Europe to be desirable and it is our policy to increase this trade to the maximum consistent with our essential security needs. To that end, we keep in close and regular touch with the other

    1955
    Governments represented on the Consultative Group, including the United States Government.
    Mr. Wilson: Since this process of keeping touch never seems to lead to any relaxation, will the President not say whether the Government will now take the initiative, as one contribution to easing world tension, instead of always having to lag behind the United States in this matter?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As a result of our consultations in recent months controls have been lifted on tinplate and certain chemicals to the Soviet bloc, and the embargo on small motor cars and sodium peroxide has been removed.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the present international situation, should not the Government go much further and review the whole question of trade with the East with a view to liberalising it much more? Is there any reason why we should be dependent upon what the U.S.A. wants to do?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have already said that these lists are constantly under examination.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the President aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of one of his many Press conferences in the last few weeks, has expressed the opinion that development of East-West trade is of great importance to the Commonwealth and particularly to the colonies of South-East Asia? Does the President intend to follow up the Chancellor's suggestion?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I associate myself fully with anything which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said at any of his Press conferences, and I repeat the assurance that an examination of these lists is constantly going on.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the United Nations' Report on the study of trade between Asia and Europe? Has his Department studied this serious document? If so, has the President read therein of the absolute necessity for the expansion of trade between us and the East? If we do not do it the rest of the world will. How much longer is this humbug to be kept up?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I certainly bear in mind that report, as well as all other relevant documents, in my consideration.

    Cinemas (Quota Prosecutions)
    Mr. Wyattasked the President of the Board of Trade why, although over 700 cinemas defaulted on the quota provisions laid down in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, in the period, September, 1952, to September, 1953, no prosecutions were instituted
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Analysis of exhibitors' returns for the quota period 1st October, 1952, to 30th September, 1953, which have only just been received, is proceeding. I do not, therefore, yet know how many cinemas may have failed to achieve their prescribed quotas, and a great deal of detailed information has to be assembled before decisions can be made about the institution of proceedings in appropriate cases.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is that not a thoroughly evasive answer? The President has had over four months in which to consider the returns. Will it take him another year before he can make up his mind whether he is to prosecute defaulters?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think my answer was evasive. It is an accurate description of the legal position.
    Captain Duncan: If the facts stated in the Question are proved eventually to be accurate, is it not obvious that the quotas are unrealistic? Would it not be better to alter the Act?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The mere fact that a cinema has not fulfilled the allotted quota figure does not necessarily constitute an offence under the Act. Hon. Members who are familiar with this matter will know that a number of defences are open.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman is in the habit of taking the advice of the principal offenders under the Act as to whether they should be prosecuted? Is it not unlikely, therefore, that there will be any prosecutions?

    Cinemas (Film Bookings)
    Mr. Wyattasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement on the booking of films

    1957
    for the Gaumont and Odeon cinema circuits through the single agency of the Circuits Management Association Limited, although this is contrary to the provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The booking of films by a single agency does not contravene the Act, and was expressly accepted by the right hon. Member' for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), as President of the Board of Trade, in 1948, subject to an undertaking that the effective booking strength of the two circuits would not be altered. I am satisfied from assurances that I have received from the J. Arthur Rank Organisation that that undertaking has been honoured, and that the arrangements provide no justification for the Board of Trade to refuse, under Section 5 (5, b) of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, to license those theatres.
    Mr. Wyatt: How can the President say that the undertaking has been honoured when an independent producer has to see the same man whether he wishes to book with Gaumont or the Odeon circuit, and all bookings are done through the same person in this single agency?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The principle that the bookings should be under a single management was accepted by the right hon. Member for Huyton in the clearest possible terms.
    Mr. Swingler: Would the Minister not get an independent person to investigate this situation instead of always taking his information from the very people against whom the accusations are made?

    Dockyards (Holidays)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the Portsmouth Trades Council regarding the closing of Her Majesty's dockyard for two weeks at the peak of the holiday season
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: None, Sir.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend realise that all the dockyard workers and commercial interests in Portsmouth are opposed to the closing of the dockyard for two weeks? Will he do something about the commercial interests of Portsmouth?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No one has presented anything to me.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the President of the Board of Trade the present policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding staggered holidays
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Holiday dates must, of course, depend on the decisions of individuals and on the normal methods of settling them in industry, but it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage people as far as is practicable to take their holidays outside the peak holiday periods.
    Brigadier Clarke: Would my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Admiralty to his statement?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Admiralty take notice of all my answers.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if his Department does not investigate the possibility of East and West trade there will be plenty of staggered holidays in some industries?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the importance of the tourist industry, has the President consulted the Transport Commission about staggering holidays possibly by Government and public action?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Consultations have proceeded on a number of occasions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and the British Travel and Holidays Association, both of whom are concerned with this question. We all recognise that some staggering of holidays would be a great advantage.
    Mr. Colegate: Is not the main difficulty in the question of staggered holidays the dates of the school holidays? Will my right hon. Friend consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education on the subject?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My hon. Friend's question shows that quite a number of persons are concerned in this particular matter.

    Trade Mission to Moscow (Advice)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the President of the Board of Trade what advice and assistance he has given to the proposed trade mission to Moscow, which includes representatives of the Lincoln firms of Ruston and Hornsby and Rose Brothers
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Board of Trade have from the outset given their full support to this party of businessmen over their visit to Moscow, and have advised them about the types of goods in which we should welcome an expansion of trade with the Soviet Union.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the President aware that trade with Russia in engineering products is one of the traditional trades of Lincoln, and will he ask the Foreign Secretary to be careful not to imply, as he previously did, that enterprising firms are Communists merely because they want to revive trade with a Communist country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No such suggestion has ever been made.
    Mr. de Freitas: May I refer the President of the Board of Trade to the recent Question and answer in connection with those who want to trade with China?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There was an organisation operating in this field, which was a Communist front organisation, but these traders are not operating through that organisation today. This body of businessmen are proceeding under their own power and with the full support of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman produce a shred of evidence to support the assertion he has just made, that the organisation to which he has referred was a Communist front organisation?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Question that was put to the Foreign Secretary, and his answer.
    Mr. de Freitas: Will the right hon. Gentleman produce the evidence?
    Mr. Pannell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this trade between the engineering trade of this country and Eastern Europe is traditional and has gone on for the last 100 years? Will he also bear in mind that in the 'thirties, when the engineering trade in this country was in a period of acute depression, over 80 per cent. of the machine tool exports went to Russia and Poland? In view of the probable recession in America, is it not very important that the Government should encourage
    1960
    the resumption of all the trade possible within the bounds of national security?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I fully appreciate that, and, indeed, it is our policy to foster all the trade possible in non-strategic goods.

    Anglo-Latin American Trade
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade the reasons for the fall in the value of United Kingdom exports to Peru, Chile, Bolivia and the Argentine Republic in 1953 compared with 1952
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I could not attempt, in the compass of Question and answer, to analyse the various causes that may have contributed to the decline in our exports to these four countries. Peru and Chile, however, are both short of sterling; Bolivia is short of foreign exchange in general and is restricting imports from all sources; while there has been a regrettable delay in the issue of import licences in Argentina.
    Mr. Russell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he expects that the recent tour of the Minister of State, Board of Trade, will make a great improvement in this import position?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the visit of my right hon. Friend to the South American continent will certainly do a great deal of good.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the prospect of British exports to Latin-America would be greatly improved if the United Nations technical assistance work were expanded, will the President press his colleagues to secure a larger allocation of British currency for that?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will bear that in mind.

    Factory, Yugoslavia (Japanese Contract)
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the order worth $14,000,000 which this country recently lost to Japan for building a viscose factory in Yugoslavia
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have no means of finding out the details of a contract between parties in two foreign countries.

    Horticultural Imports (Tariff Restrictions)
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a preliminary report on the results of replacing quantitative restrictions on certain horticultural produce by tariffs in accordance with the waiver given by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It is too early to judge the effects of the new rates of duty, which were introduced on 1st December, 1953, on imports of certain fresh and preserved fruit and vegetables. The revised duties are mainly seasonal in character, and many of them do not, in fact, become effective until later this year.

    Film (Quota Certificate)
    Mr. Wyattasked the President of the Board of Trade why a quota certificate has been granted to the film, "Royal Symphony," now showing at the Gaumont Cinema, Haymarket, although this film consists of news films and is in no sense a feature film
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No application for registration has been made in respect of the film "Royal Symphony"; and the hon. Member is consequently mistaken in suggesting that it has been registered as a British quota film.

    Factories, Sunderland (Employment)
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to increase the number of persons employed in the North-Eastern Trading Company factories in Sunderland
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The number of persons employed by tenant firms in these factories depends primarily on business considerations; but my Department and the Estate Company are always prepared to give every help they can to firms which seek it.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is causing serious concern, that there are about 500 fewer people employed in these factories than there were two years ago, and that we would really invite his intervention?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am giving my close attention to this matter, which concerns,
    1962
    in the main, the fact that the tenant of one of the factories has left.
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade upon what types of manufacture the several firms are engaged, which his Department has put in touch with Messrs. Price regarding the factory they occupy in Sunderland
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The firms concerned are engaged in textile spinning and the manufacture of clothing.
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. entleman not appreciate that these are not the best types of industry to use in Sunderland, and in view of our experience in past crises will he try to canvass interests from a wider field?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I certainly do not want to narrow the possibilities, but this factory was designed for work of that character and the contents and the machinery are of that type, so that there are obvious advantages in trying, at any rate initially, to get a tenant of that sort.

  MENTAL ILLNESS AND DEFICIENCY (ROYAL COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to announce the composition of the Royal Commission to inquire into matters affecting mental deficiency
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have been asked to reply. Consultations about the membership of the Commission are almost complete, but they involve a good deal of correspondence before the submission can be made. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce the membership by the end of next week.
  Mr. Lewis: Can I assume from that answer that if I place a Question on the Order Paper this day week the Prime Minister will, in fact, give the information required?
  Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down his Question and see what happens.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: Has any decision been reached about the desirability of setting up a similar Royal Commission on this subject for Scotland?
  Mr. Crookshank: That is quite another question.

  LINEN PRODUCTS (TAX)
  Captain Orrasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to announce a raising of the D level of Purchase Tax on all linen products including piece goods
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I regret that I cannot add to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend's Question on this matter on 15th December.
  Captain Orr: That answer will not do. Can my hon. Friend tell me what representations he has had from the Northern Ireland Ministry of Commerce on the matter? Is he aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland is running at 8 per cent. of the insured population, that 30 per cent. of our looms are idle, and that the linen industry believes that it is being treated in a dilatory and negligent fashion?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. and gallant Friend wants particulars of the representations which have been made perhaps he would be good enough to put a Question down. On the merits of the matter, my hon. and gallant Friend will recall that a good deal of the case made on behalf of the Ulster linen industry is based on the relative treatment of their products and certain other products. My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it is necessary to weigh carefully the claims of one textile as against another.
  Several Hon. Members
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Albu: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the widespread reports in the Press that the Home Secretary is to make a statement in reply to criticisms of Civil Defence by the Select Committee on Estimates, would you ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would care to make a statement now? Would he reply to Question No. 102?
  Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I have received no notice of a statement or of a desire to reply to a Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal what is the business for next week?
Mr. H. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 1ST FEBRUARY—Debate on new rifle at the request of the Opposition, until about 7 p.m.
Second Reading: Hill Farming Bill.
Committee and remaining stages: Development of Inventions Bill.
Motion to approve: Draft National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations.
Tuesday, 2nd February—Debate on Welsh affairs, which will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Wednesday, 3rd February—Second Readings: Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Bill.
National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland Bill [Lords].
Committee stage: Money Resolutions.
Thursday, 4th February—Second Reading: Industrial Organisation and Development Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution. Committee and remaining stages: Merchant Shipping Bill.
Friday, 5th February—Private Members' Motions.
Mr. Attlee: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider giving time, perhaps on Thursday when the business does not seem likely to be controversial, to a Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), and others, on take-over bids?
[That this House deplores recent manifestations of the technique of take-over bids in so far as they have put large, untaxed capital profits into the hands of certain individuals and seriously under mined the policy of dividend restraint. It therefore calls upon the Government to appoint a committee of inquiry into all aspects of these activities, including the effect upon dividends, share prices, and company savings, the sources of the finance used, the capital profits obtained,

1965
and the counter measures taken by the directors of the companies concerned; such a committee to be empowered to suggest remedies as well as to investigate facts.]
Mr. Crookshank: I will consider that suggestion, but whether it is practicable for Thursday next week, I cannot say. Perhaps some conversations could take place.
Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a speech delivered by the Minister of Defence anticipating the White Paper on Defence, which indicates a departure from existing Defence policy? In view of the fact that this speech was delivered at the Constitutional Club, would it not be desirable that an early statement should be made in the House, next week if possible, following the lines of the speech made by the Minister of Defence? Ought Parliament not to be informed before the Constitutional Club"?
Mr. Crookshank: All I can say is that I read the reports of the speech of my noble Friend. As far as I can see, and as I am sure is the fact, there was no statement of policy in it at all. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] Nothing which he said yesterday has not been said at different times by other members of the Government, though possibly not in such eloquent words.
Mr. Shinwell: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman says he has read the speech—I take it that that indicates the reports of the speech—because what he has just stated is contrary to what is in "The Times" report of the speech, that the Minister of Defence clearly stated that he was making reference to a new defence policy. As the rest of the speech obviously indicated a departure from present policy, would it not be desirable that the House should be informed at an early date? Could we have an answer?
Mr. Crookshank: I cannot add to what I have said, that it was not a statement of any new policy. There was nothing said which has not appeared before in different forms.
Mr. Attlee: Was the Minister of Defence mistaken, then, in saying that he was stating a new policy?
Mr. Crookshank: He may have been misreported for all I know.
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Minister of Defence, who is a member of the Cabinet, and who made this important speech at the Constitutional Club, was authorised to do so by the Cabinet?
Mr. Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not this Question time on matters of business?
Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point, Mr. Speaker. I did ask the Leader of the House, on business, whether we could have an early statement, possibly next week.
Mr. Crookshank: There is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from asking a question.
Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that there was absolutely nothing novel in the speech; that it was an interesting, comprehensive review of something which anybody who had studied the question could have made, but not quite so eloquently?
Mr. Crookshank: That is what I said, and—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. We ought to get back to the business for next week.
Mr. C. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the form of the Motion upon which Tuesday's debate will take place? As, under the Rules of the House, the debate may be very much limited by a mere Motion for an Adjournment, would it not be better if it were brought before the House in another form, perhaps on a substantive Motion?
Mr. Crookshank: I thought that last year's debate was on the Adjournment, but we can consider that matter. We do not want to hamper the debate in any way.
Mr. Beswick: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if not next week, we shall have an early opportunity of debating the decisions, or lack of decisions, of the Commonwealth Conference at Sydney?
Mr. Crookshank: A communiqué was issued after the Conference and I have

1967
no doubt that my right hon. Friend, who, I hope, will return to this country today, will take into consideration how and in what shape he wants to bring the matter before the House should the House so desire.
Mr. Royle: In view of the fact that so much of the time of the House is being devoted to Welsh and Scottish affairs, will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to discuss the recent serious floods in the County of Lancashire?
Mr. Crookshank: I do not see any opportunity for that at present.
Mr. H. Morrison: Could the Leader of the House find time next week for the Home Secretary to finish a speech he was making some time ago on commercial television, as there was a conflict between the statements of the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Minister of State which the Home Secretary was about to clear up? Would he not provide facilities so that the Home Secretary might do justice to himself and recover from the unfortunate mishap which occurred to him that night?
Mr. Crookshank: The issue was voted upon at that time. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] I do not think we had better have any more debates on that subject at present.
Mr. Edelman: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when it is the intention of the Government to publish the Bill on atomic energy, some details of which already appear to have leaked out to the Press?
Mr. Crookshank: I could not give a date yet.
Mr. E. Fletcher: May we take it from what the Leader of the House said a moment ago that, if time does not permit for a debate on the Motion for take-over bids next Thursday, an opportunity will be given in the following week for a debate on the subject?
Mr. Crookshank: No, I did not say anything of the kind.
Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that the House of Commons in May,1952, unanimously agreed to the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), and as there is still
1968
unanimous opinion in favour of that Motion, which my hon. Friend still has on the Order Paper, and that only a limited time will be necessary for it, will the right hon. Gentleman make time available for that Motion?
Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry that I do not now remember what happened in 1950—
Mr. Lewis: It was on equal pay.
Mr. Crookshank: No, there is no chance of an early debate on that.
Mr. Pannell: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of his own back benchers are getting very uneasy about this matter and have put down a Motion on the Order Paper? Though that Motion was put down very much later than the Motion already standing in my name, will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is his job, as the Leader of the House, to bow to the unanimous will of the House on occasions?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. But I do not think that the hon. Member need worry about my relationship with hon. Friends behind me.
Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is also a Motion on this subject standing in the name of certain of my hon. Friends? Will he also not mind conveying to hon. Members opposite that we did not think much of their guts when they did not press their Motion as we are pressing ours?
Mr. Pannell: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for an hon. Lady to refer to hon. Gentlemen's guts and whether, if I had used that expression in relation to the hon. Lady, it would be taken as being ungentlemanly and unparliamentary?
Miss Ward: Will you bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I come from the North of England, where guts are guts?
Mr. H. Morrison: Can I ask the Leader of the House whether the hon. Lady really comes from the North of England, and whether her observation is an example of equal abuse for equal pay?
Mr. Crookshank: I really must decline to become the channel of communication between the two sides.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION (IMPROVEMENTS)
The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the action to be taken on a number of the recommendations in the first report of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), which is examining the accommodation of this House.
The House will be grateful for the advice of the Committee, and will I hope, welcome a decision that my Department shall, as an interim measure and as soon as convenient to hon. Members, undertake the following improvements:

(1) A retiring room for lady Members will be provided in the room off the Speaker's corridor now used by the Speaker's trainbearer. The House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your help in this matter. The work will be put in hand at once.

(2) The kitchen and servery of the Commons Dining Room will be re arranged. By bringing the kitchen on to the principal floor it is expected that operating expenses will be reduced and that better and warmer meals will be served. The welfare arrangements for the staff will also be improved. Plans will be worked out with the Kitchen Committee. Work will start in the Summer Recess.

(3) The Committee lift is the only lift which is still old-fashioned and slow. As soon as convenient it will be modernised.

(4) The Strangers' Cafeteria will be replanned so that there are about 30 more seats.

(5) The Strangers' Bar will be made smaller and a separate snack bar installed where light refreshments can be obtained by Members only. This will allow the Tea Room to be restored to its original use as a place where only teas are served.

(6) Five or more telephones for the use of Members will be provided in or near the Members' corridor.

1970

(7) The ventilation of the book store and offices next to the Lobby Office has already been improved.

(8) The First Aid Room will have running water.

Some of the minor work can be done while the House is in Session, or during the Easter Recess. The larger schemes will, it is hoped, be completed in the Summer Recess. The cost of these improvements will be about £40,000 and a Supplementary Estimate will be presented to the House in due course.
Mr. Stokes: I should like to say, in the first place, how grateful I am sure the whole House will be for the prompt action which the Government have taken. On behalf of the Select Committee I express thanks for the very willing co-operation that has been given to us by everybody, even when they have disagreed with what we wanted to do. The Minister of Works will realise, of course, that this is only a first instalment and that there are other important recommendations, which, incidentally, will not cost very much, but which, we hope, will be implemented from time to time.
I should like to emphasise one point about the cost of the expected alterations. It is that wherever possible, and where it does not cause unnecessary delay, competitive tenders should be invited. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on that point. The Committee sincerely believes that the changes will prove to be a benefit to everybody, and, while any change always inconveniences somebody, the Committee hopes that those who feel that they will be really inconvenienced will wait to see what happens in the event.
Sir D. Eccles: I am glad to give the assurance about competitive tendering.
Major Legge-Bourke: Is it proposed to discuss this matter in the House? I ask because mention of £40,000 has come as a shock to some of us on this side of the House as there are many things on which some of us feel this money could be spent before spending a sum of this kind on this proposal.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that there will be a Supplementary Estimate on this matter and, if so, that answers the question.
Mr. J. Hudson: While expressing pleasure at all the proposals, and particularly the proposal with regard to the Strangers' Bar, may I ask whether it is proposed that the Tea Room should revert in future to its original use, thus excluding the off-licence trade which has largely developed in the sale of alcoholic liquor?
Sir D. Eccles: I understood that hon. Members wished the Tea Room to revert to its use for serving tea because they found some of the smells there objectionable. We shall have to see how these improvements meet their wishes.
Mr. Baldwin: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the proposed alterations, may I ask whether he will consider finding better facilities for Members to keep their personal papers? At present, our lockers are much too small to contain our correspondence and it would help us a great deal, indeed, much more than the suggested alterations, if we had better facilities of that kind.
Sir D. Eccles: I will look into the question of lockers.
Mr. Rankin: I realise that the Minister is dealing with the convenience of hon. Members, but will he consider that when Members' visitors come to the House there is a lack of facilities for drinking water? Is he aware that this causes particular hardship during the summer, when we have parties of schoolchildren visiting us? After an hour or so touring the House they are very thirsty and facilities for obtaining drinking water are somewhat scarce.
Sir D. Eccles: Perhaps the Committee would consider whether they would like extra drinking water to be supplied.
Sir J. Crowder: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the old-fashioned lifts are more reliable than new ones which have been installed? The latest new one breaks down about once a week and some of us prefer the old type. Will he take particular care about what type of lifts he instals next time?
Mr. Warbey: Will the Minister bear in mind that many hon. Members use the Tea Room for hot meals because they cannot afford the twice daily service in the Dining Room? Will he see that
1972
provisions are made for a cafeteria or "help yourself" type of service for Members in future arrangements?
Sir D. Eccles: That is the point of the alterations on the Terrace floor.
Mr. Summers: Will the Minister test for himself the terrible ordeal which any hon. Member has to undergo when trying to write in the Library on the tables alongside the windows facing the river? Cannot something be done in the Library and in the Dining Room to exclude draughts?
Sir D. Eccles: I have noticed that.
Mr. H. A. Price: What action is proposed to be taken on the Committee's recommendation about the provision of desks?
Miss Ward: None, I hope.
Sir D. Eccles: This is a very awkward proposal, because we cannot see any way in which we can find room accessible to the Chamber where these desks could be placed. From my investigations so far, I am afraid that I have to say that the difficulties are insurmountable.
Mr. Gough: While looking into the question regarding the windows at the level of the Library, will my right hon. Friend also look into the question of those on the Committee floor?
Sir D. Eccles: I will.
Mr. Pannell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the recommendation made by his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) about the provision of desks as the greatest interest was provoked in the questionnaire sent out by the Select Committee? More than 500 hon. Members, asked for some sort of accommodation of that nature. Bearing in mind the very exhaustive consideration which the Select Committee collectively gave to this decision, will the right hon. Gentleman hesitate before he pushes his individual opinion against the collective opinion which carries so much weight?
Sir D. Eccles: I would not dare to push my individual opinion on any of these points, but I have to consider the practical difficulties of finding sufficient space and 500 desks would take up very

1973
much room. So far, we cannot see where they could be put within easy access of this Chamber.
Mr. Stokes: May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman? The questionnaire in relation to the subject was circulated after the publication of the Report. There have been certain investigations made and I think there is a solution. I think that by consultation we can find a solution which will be satisfactory to everyone.
Miss Ward: I do not want a desk.

BILLS PRESENTED
CIVIL DEFENCE (ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS) BILL
"to enable grants to be made in respect of measures taken to secure the due functioning of electricity undertakings in Great Britain in the event of hostile attack," presented by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd; supported by Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth and Mr. Joynson-Hicks; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]
ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (WIDOWS' PENSIONS) BILL
"to provide for the payment of supplementary allowances and of pensions to persons who are or have been widows of certain former members of the Royal Irish Constabulary," present by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe; supported by Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.54 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The purpose of this Bill is to encourage shipowners to build ships with engine rooms which are of appropriate size for the propelling power used and which do not contain unnecessary space merely to attain a favourable net tonnage. The House will perhaps know that when a ship is measured, two tonnages are determined: the gross tonnage, which may be described as the overall size of the ship, and the net, or registered, tonnage which may be regarded as indicating the vessel's earning capacity. It is on the net tonnage that port and light dues are usually charged. To obtain the net tonnage certain deductions are made from the gross tonnage on account of the non-earning spaces in the ship, including the space occupied by the propelling machinery and bunkers.
  The existing provisions for calculating the propelling power allowance are contained in Section 78 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, but indeed they go back many years before that to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. A century ago propelling machinery was much more cumbersome than it is today and it may be that the rather complicated rule for determining the propelling power allowance was then quite fair. The House will understand that there has been much progress since those days and that the existing rules do not adequately meet present conditions.
  Strong representations were made to the Government by the representatives of the shipowners, shipbuilders and naval architects that the old rule resulted in the building of ships that were less efficient and less safe than they might be. Before presenting the Bill the Government consulted Commonwealth Governments and the Governments of those countries with whom we have reciprocal agreements about tonnage measurement, and I am glad to say that out of 28 Governments

  1975
  consulted 26 have agreed in principle to what we propose.
  In the case of ships propelled by screws with engine rooms measuring between 13 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the gross tonnage, a flat deduction of 32 per cent, of the gross tonnage is at present allowed for the space occupied by the propelling power and the bunkers. In the case of ships outside these limits, the deduction on account of propelling power space is one and three-quarter times the actual size of the engine room. This results in a great disparity between ships with an engine room just above 13 per cent. and just below 13 per cent. It is therefore worth while for an owner to have an engine room larger than the engines really demand so as to obtain the more favourable deduction.
  Let me give an example. In respect of two ships of the same gross tonnage, one with a 12 per cent. engine room will get a deduction of only 21 per cent., while one with a13·1 per cent. engine room will get a deduction of 32 per cent. Owners naturally seek to design ships with engine rooms exceeding 13 per cent. even though it would be possible for the engine rooms to occupy less space.
  The effect of this Bill will be to remove the sudden drop in the allowance at the 13 per cent. level and to provide for proportionate deductions for engine rooms which are less than 13 per cent. of the gross tonnage. For example, an engine room measuring precisely 13 per cent. of the gross tonnage would receive the 32 per cent. allowance which is given at present in the range between 13 and 20 per cent. and a 12 per cent. engine room would receive an allowance of 12/13ths of 32 per cent.
  While there was obviously a strong case for altering the old system of measuring in the general interests of efficiency it was, on the other hand, obviously necessary to safeguard against the possibility that engine rooms might be built so small that they would provide inadequate working space, lighting and ventilation. The House will note that before the more favourable allowance provided for smaller engine rooms in this Bill is given, the surveyor of ships must be satisfied as to the conditions in the engine room.
  1976
  We consulted the seamen's unions about the proposals contained in this Bill. When they realised the precautions which were being taken to ensure that the smaller engine room would be fully adequate for the comfort and convenience of those working in it, they welcomed the Measure as one likely to increase safety at sea.
  The provisions of the Bill will apply to all new ships propelled by screws with engine rooms of 13 per cent. or less, and to existing ships with such engine rooms where the owner so requests. Hon. Members will observe that in the case of paddle ships similar appropriate provisions are made.
  This Bill effects a comparatively minor amendment of the law, but one which has the full support of the shipowners, the shipbuilders and the naval architects, and it has been approved by the trade unions concerned. As I have said, it has also met with the approval of 26 of the 28 foreign and Empire governments which we have consulted. In the view of the Government the benefits which will follow are considerable. I am sure the House will agree that anything which will increase the efficiency of our ships, and also their safety, is to be encouraged, and therefore I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to the House.
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: The few hon. Members remaining in the Chamber will be grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his lucid explanation of this Bill, which is of a technical and also of a very minor character. I recall the debates on shipping matters which we had before the last war. There were many such debates, and I was privileged to take part in most, if not all, of them. During that time hon. Members opposite were not, it seemed, so vitally interested in matters affecting the Mercantile Marine. I regretted their attitude then, and I regret it now, as a drawback to the progress and development of our Merchant Navy. I hope to advance one or two reasons why that is my view.
  There is nothing in this Bill to which anyone can take exception. It will advantage shipowners in the future if they care to avail themselves of its provisions. The seamen and navigating and engineering officers welcome the Bill on the assurance of the Government,

  1977
  which has been endorsed by the hon. Gentleman, that there will be no interference with ventilation. Anyone who has been in a ship's engine room either in port or at sea, will know that inadequate ventilation conditions are most unsatisfactory for those undertaking the various responsibilities imposed upon them, and I am glad that assurance has been given. No doubt the surveyor, under the supervision of the hon. Gentleman's Department, will ensure that the provisions regarding ventilation of engine-room spaces will be effectively carried out.
  It shows to what extent shipowners are searching for some—I shall not say solution—partial solution of the evils that beset them when they are ready to welcome even a Bill of this minor character. In the past they have resorted to various devices. They have preferred to have engine rooms and boiler space too large in proportion to the cargo and passenger space in order to save paying what they regarded as excessive harbour dues. This Bill will remedy that to some extent.
  When I saw the Bill and began to understand what it meant—and I found that very few people whom I consulted did understand it; even shipowners were not clear about it—I felt that the dock and harbour authorities might feel a little troubled if they were to be deprived of some of their harbour dues. But if it be to the advantage of the Mercantile Marine, and more shipping is employed in our docks and harbours, the authorities will gain an eventual advantage.
  For years the Mercantile Marine of the United Kingdom has been operating under the Merchant Shipping Acts and there are many amendments to those Acts. Presumably the Government are interested in the progress of the Mercantile Marine and it is a pity that time has not been found to consolidate the Merchant Shipping Acts. Were those Acts consolidated, and proper supervision effected on the basis of the right organisation at the Ministry of Transport and throughout the whole administration, I believe it might reduce the manpower required at present, though I cannot say to what extent.
  The present Merchant Shipping Acts are in bits and pieces, as I think would be agreed by the hon. Gentleman and by
  1978
  the hon. and gallant Member for Barks-ton Ash (Sir L. Ropner), who has great knowledge of these matters. I therefore beg the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to make representations to his right hon. Friend and to the Government to ensure that at a fairly early stage they will seek to bring forward consolidating legislation. I appreciate that such legislation would be substantial and the discussion would occupy a considerable amount of time.
  Here we are dealing with a technical matter, but one which obviously concerns the future of the British Merchant Navy. In some quarters there is an impression that the Merchant Navy is in a very satisfactory condition, but that is not so. Neither is its partner, the shipbuilding industry. It is true that over the last five, six or seven years the shipyards have been fully booked up with orders. Indeed, some of them have been unable to overtake the arrears which have accumulated, partly because of the lack of raw materials—steel plates and the like—and partly because they have undertaken orders which they could not fulfil in the time.
  But what is the position now? Some of the larger shipyards are fully booked for some time to come, but orders are rapidly declining, and this is a serious matter. One reason orders are not being placed is that there is a slow-down in international trade. Without active, animated and vigorous international trade, obviously the merchant navies of all the maritime countries must suffer. They are peculiarly affected by this decline.
  There has also been a reduction in shipping freights, and that is the first and the most sinister sign of trouble. I cannot go into all that, of course, but there is also active competition, and, strange as it may seem, the most active competition seems to have emerged from our old enemy, Germany. Her shipyards are thriving and prosperous, and, while I do not want to commit myself to figures—though either the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or someone else can correct me if I am wrong—they are producing more ships at the present time than they did before the war, when Germany was regarded as one of the most prosperous shipbuilding countries, and in fact had a large volume of shipping. They are now in active competition with the British Mercantile Marine, and their position has

  1979
  vastly improved. It is true that recently German orders have declined, while production in German shipyards has risen, but not to the extent to which they have declined in the case of the British Mercantile Marine. We have to be rather careful about that.
  Of course, there is also competition from Japan, from the United States, from Canada, and from Sweden and Norway, which are traditionally maritime countries. We must expect competition, but one of the vital features about some of the competition that concerns us is the financial assistance that is rendered to the mercantile marines of other maritime countries. It sometimes takes a peculiar form, not necessarily by the giving of definite and specific subsidies. That was the old method used by the United States some years ago and also by Japan, as well as by some of the Scandinavian countries.
  As far as Germany is concerned, there is a direct subsidy that is bolstering up the German shipbuilding industry, and thereby encouraging German shipowners to expect relief from taxation. Shipowners in this country have asked for relief from taxation for quite a long time, so that it is clear that we must be careful about that.
  I am not committing my party, but am merely thinking aloud, when I say that what we are concerned with—and I think there is a large measure of support for what I am about to say—is the future progress and the stability of the British Mercantile Marine, upon which the industrial and economic position of this country largely depends. Clearly we must seek to afford the greatest possible measure of relief, and if it requires to be done by means of taxation relief, that is a matter which ought to be examined very closely indeed. Just now, I am making a plea for consideration of the matter, and no more than that.
  In the course of the last few days, knowing that I had to say a word or two on this matter, I looked at some material which had been sent to me, but which I had put aside as of no consequence. However, I looked at it again and perused some of the headings. They are from some articles which appeared in the "Financial Times," some others issued by the Shipbuilding Conference and the
  1980
  like, and some of the headings are startling. I do not want to weary hon. Members by reading the details, and I think the headings will suffice. Sometimes I agree, captions and headings and banner-lines do not always convey the actual substance of the article, but these headlines speak of "Competition in Shipbuilding," "Capacity Grows as Orders Fall," "New Contracts Mainly For Replacement," and "Costs Now a Bigger Factor."
  By the way, I am reminded that, if we take into account the position of the dry cargo ships, the tramp ship class and the intermediate cargo liner class, we find that most of the vessels that are now sailing the seas were built nearly 15 or 16 years ago, and in another five or six years will be regarded as obsolete. Replacement will be essential; how it is to be done neither I nor certain of the shipowners know at the moment, but something will have to be done about it. I want to make it perfectly clear—and I know very well and take into account what I have said in some other observations—that we realise that our tanker shipping is on the increase. We are producing a vast number of tankers, but so are other countries. Germany has just built the biggest in the world.
  Mr. Speaker: I dislike interrupting the right hon. Gentleman in his most interesting speech, but I am bound to confine the debate as far as I can to the scope of the Bill, which is very narrow, and if we embark on a discussion of the whole economic position of the Mercantile Marine, we shall be going much beyond what is permissible.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, and I readily concede, with great respect, that that rebuke was called for. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who is also interested in the matter, says that I almost asked for it.
  I submit that the condition of the British Mercantile Marine is such that the Bill, although I agree that it is very well-intentioned, is not enough. Something more is required to ensure the stability and the future development of the British Mercantile Marine, and we require, not a minor amendment of the Merchant Shipping Acts, but the consolidation of those Acts.

  1981
  I hope that the Government, having made a beginning—because this is really only a beginning as regards legislation affecting the Mercantile Marine, and I do not know of very much that has been done, apart from the Bill concerned with the licensing of canteens, which does not touch the substance of what we are discussing—will continue with this good work, so that we may give encouragement to those engaged in the Merchant Navy of this country, not only to the shipowners and shipbuilders, who are vitally affected, but also to the officers and men of our Merchant Navy.
  4.19 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: I am sure you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is no criticism of you if I remark that I did not expect that the discussion on this Bill would range over such a variety of subjects as has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Before passing to the contents of the Bill, I should like to say, in connection with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, that in my view, and not for the first time, he has displayed a good deal of common sense in the remarks he made about the British Mercantile Marine. Those of us who are forced to think about the future are considerably worried about both shipowning and shipbuilding.
  To return to the Bill, as hon. and right hon. Gentleman are aware, many of the charges which are levied on a vessel, such as harbour, light and pilotage dues, are assessed on the registered tonnage of a ship. The registered tonnage is calculated by making certain deductions from the gross tonnage in respect of non-freight-carrying space. The current tonnage measurement rules which apply to the space devoted to the propelling power have ceased to be appropriate to modern engine-room design. Consequently, as I think the Minister and the right hon. Member for Easington said, engine rooms are often larger than they need be, with the further consequence that there is material loss of carrying capacity and, moreover, a good deal of waste of steel in the design and construction of ships.
  Since modern and efficient ships are handicapped by the present rules, the General Council of British Shipping together with the shipbuilders and the
  1982
  Institute of Naval Architects have for some time been urging on the Ministry the need for a revision of the measurement rules. The Bill does not attempt to deal with all the outstanding problems presented by the tonnage measurement rules. That would be a long job and a task of great complexity. What we have in the Bill is a step in the right direction and one which I was glad to hear has been accepted, indeed welcomed, by no fewer than 26 out of the 28 countries with which we have reciprocal tonnage measurement arrangements. When the Bill becomes an Act, it will not operate until a date to be appointed by the Minister. We all hope that the intervening period will providetime for other countries to pass similar legislation.
  Shipowners are content with the new requirement contained in Clause 1 that the Ministry of Transport surveyors must be satisfied:
  "…that the space provided for the working of the boilers and machinery and the ventilation and lighting of that space are adequate."
  Naturally, shipowners hope that the word "adequate" will be interpreted reasonably. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an assurance to that effect. Needless to say, neither I nor any other shipowner has any reason to suppose that such will not be the case. Finally, I would say that the Bill will bring, or at least allow, greater efficiency in ships with no loss of safety or comfort to those on board. It is for these reasons that shipowners welcome it.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Awbery: It has been said that this is a very small Bill but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said, we have some difficulty in understanding it. Before we go further, I should like to get a clear understanding on one or two matters. It is about 12 months since we lost the "Princess Victoria," with one of the hon. Members of this House on board. I wish to ensure that any changes in our Mercantile Marine law do not affect the efficiency of our ships at sea.
  We are drafting a new code for ascertaining the net registered tonnage of ships. Why are we doing that? Is it only because the dock dues are paid on the registered tonnage, or does it mean that a ship will be allowed now to carry

  1983
  more cargo? If a ship of the same size is to be allowed to carry more cargo under the new method, then that means an alteration in the Plimsoll line. I certainly oppose any move which will alter the Plimsoll line, which caused so much trouble years ago.
  Will the variation suggested by the Minister for the ascertainment of this tonnage affect the buoyancy of ships? If it will, I am against it. If it will not, then what advantage is there in introducing the new method? If we are to increase the amount of cargo which a ship can carry, then technically we are making that ship less seaworthy, and I am opposed to that. If there are big advantages to be derived from the new method, I ask the Minister why he has excluded the fishing vessel. There must be a reason why trawlers have been excluded. Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
  My last question is whether the new method has been brought about now because we have learned by experience that the old method was wrong. Perhaps the Minister will answer this question. If I am satisfied with his answer, I shall support the Bill.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. J. N. Browne: I shall not attempt to answer the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), but I think he will agree that it is strange that the shipping industries of the world have for so long allowed a method of calculation which left a gap of, I think, 9¼ per cent. in the registered tonnage calculation and, consequently, artificially expanded the engine rooms of vessels. I am sure that everyone will be glad that greater safety can be obtained by having a smaller engine room which assists so much in the making of watertight compartments of the ship by more proper subdivision.
  I do not always agree with everything that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) says, but in this case I agree with him, and I am glad that Mr. Speaker allowed him to go on so long. I agree that this Bill must be looked at in the perspective of the cargo shipbuilding industry. The right hon. Member for Easington made reference to this, although he did not give the figures. In
  1984
  1951, 4 million gross tons were ordered, while in 1952 only half a million tons were ordered. That is a very serious problem, but, of course, we must see it in its perspective of the post-war boom.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): We cannot go into that in this Bill which deals only with the size of the engine room.
  Mr. Browne: I was afraid of that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and so I shall now turn to the size of the engine room. There may be some loss, perhaps, of pilotage, harbour dues and light dues, but I think that the swings will be offset by the roundabouts.
  We must remember that this Bill will bring four very definite advantages—(1) a saving in cost; (2) a saving in steel; (3) an increase in shipping space; and (4) an increase in the safety factor. For all those reasons, we should welcome the Bill, even though it is only a tidying-up Measure and we could cover a much wider field if allowed to do so.
  I wish to pay tribute to the power unit makers and especially to the boiler makers who have enabled us to put an increasing power into a decreasing space. This Bill also gives an added opportunity for a renewed study of pipe work methods and layout. There was a time when I was rather afraid that the Americans would show us the way by their increasing reliance on welded pipelines. I am glad to learn—and here I must declare an interest—that our own yards are increasingly using the modern and space saving technique of welding fittings which make such a neat and clean job of the engine room and allow it to be so much smaller.
  Finally, I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) in asking for an assurance about adequate space, and I should like a further assurance that, so far as possible, there will be no delay in the examination of ships' plans consequent upon this Bill. I support this Bill, and I know that the British ship owners do likewise.
  4.34 p.m.
  Mr. William Keenan: It is obviously anticipated and hoped that this Bill will increase the cargo space of ships. Whether it will also mean increased cargoes, I do not

  1985
  know. It probably will. The construction of ships has undergone great alterations; it has passed through the stage of the coal burner to the oil burner, and we now have the diesel engine and motor ship. I quite understand that the changed position will probably permit of the changed measurements proposed in the Bill.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in some of the criticisms he made. Why, after all, do we introduce such a small Measure when there are a number of other very important matters in relation to shipping which need consideration? However, I suppose it is no good worrying about them and that we must concern ourselves with what is.
  Will this Bill permit a reduction in the net tonnage and thus assist in reducing port charges? I am concerned to know whether the proposed change is likely to mean an increase in the cargo capacity of ships which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) pointed out, may mean an interference with the load line of a ship, which is not the Plimsoll line, because that was altered some years ago. I also feel very unhappy about that, because I do not think that the Plimsoll line should have been interfered with. However, it has been interfered with; but we do not want to see the position worsened.
  Will this proposal interfere with the buoyancy of the ship through permitting a greater weight to be carried in it? Is this likely, because of the advantage which this Bill gives to new ships, to result in our getting rid of the older ships? I hope this will not result in the disposal of our older ships to other countries for use by them in competition with ourselves. This country has suffered from such competition in the past. Other countries bought our old ships and built up a service of tramp marine shipping with which it was very difficult for us to compete owing to the very different conditions under which our merchantmen serve.
  Is this Bill intended merely to make it easier for shipowners so far as harbour dues are concerned, and is it a fact that the additional space provided for cargoes and the weight allowed will not interfere with the existing buoyancy and safety of ships?
  4.39 p.m.
  Commander R. Scott-Miller: I welcome this Bill, which I think will substantially ease the task of our Merchant Navy. Reference has been made to the importance of our Merchant Navy, and nobody could agree with that more than I do. We are now embarking on an era of greater exports, which will probably make all the difference to the future welfare of this country. That being so, it is of paramount importance that our exports should be carried from our shores to places throughout the world in the most economical way. Any Measure, therefore, which enables the shipbuilders and the shipping industry to conserve the space within the hull and so give greater carrying capacity can only have a beneficial effect to our industry in exporting throughout the world.
  Mr. Awbery: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member whether this Bill is designed to give an increased carrying capacity? I put that to the Minister, and I want to know.
  Commander Scott-Miller: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for referring to that point, because I read into the Bill that very effect. The smaller the engine space the greater the space outside the engine room, and thus the greater the freight-carrying capacity throughout the ship.
  Mr. Awbery: The displacement is exactly the same whether the engine room is small or large.
  Commander Scott-Miller: I do not dispute that. It would, of course, be the same, but on that very account the smaller the engine room space the more space there is within the hull for other purposes, and I do not think that the load line will be affected by this Bill at all. I certainly do not think that the safety of the ship can be affected other than beneficially, because we shall be able to have smaller watertight compartments and better damage control, and the ship will be very much more seaworthy and sound.
  The Bill is very welcome, and I regret the conditions under which it has been necessary up to now to make engine rooms larger than necessary. This takes me back to the days when I served in the Merchant Navy; I remember that many years ago ships were built with an extraordinarily narrow beam on the upper

  1987
  deck. The ship had a very narrow upper deck and then came right out to nearly twice that width on the lower deck. That was done to obviate the high charges on ships going through the Suez Canal, which in those days were based on the width of the upper deck.
  Here we have a similar thing. Hitherto, in order to avoid highpilotage charges and dock dues, engine rooms have been built bigger so as to have the right registered tonnage. We must try to avoid such measures in future and give our Merchant Navy every chance of that success which it is only too anxious to achieve. I am quite sure that the Merchant Service and the shipping industry fear no fair competition. We can stand in competition with anyone if given fair trading.
  At some risk of being called to order by the Chair, I should like to refer to the threat from Germanshipbuilding mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). He said that they had built a 30,000-ton tanker, but did not mention—though perhaps he would have done so if given the opportunity—that that ship was built in 18 months. That is something that we ourselves have not been able to do; so, apart from this Bill, there are plenty of opportunities of further increasing the efficiency of our Merchant Navy. I think that only good can come from the Bill, and I certainly give it my full backing.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Gough: The majority of the speeches this afternoon have proved that this small Bill is, on the whole, completely non-controversial. A point has been raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) with which, in some measure, I agree, and I hope to be helpful to him in what I have to say about it.
  Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I am concerned about the complication of this Bill. I think I had to read it about ten times before I could begin to understand what it was about, and as it is designed to put right what is already a highly complicated state of affairs, I can only hope that it will achieve its purpose.
  I was reminded of the sport of pony racing, in which I was interested many years ago, and I hope that I am in order to quote it as an example. In that sport
  1988
  the handicapping of the pony was by height. If the pony measured 14 hands 2 inches, it carried a certain weight; if just above that height it was not allowed to race; and if below it, the animal carried a lower weight. Without enlarging on this, I can assure hon. Members that I used to be astonished at the size of many ponies entering the races, but discovered that, by various methods, their owners and trainers were able to make these intelligent animals crouch whenever the yardstick was placed upon them by the official handicapper.
  The reverse has been happening in the shipping industry, because if the ship designer and shipbuilder could manage to make the engine room and boiler room big enough, the registered tonnage bore a far more advantageous percentage to the gross tonnage than if, by a slight mistake, they went just below the 13 per cent. figure to which reference has been made, and the difference was as much as between 32 and 22·6 per cent. As I understand it, this short Bill is designed to cut that out and to taper it off in a proper manner, the effect being, more freight-earning space.
  Although it has not been mentioned this afternoon, I have heard one or two people discussing the Bill and wondering whether it will mean more space for the crew. This Bill is not designed for that purpose. I am a member of the British Sailors' Society, so I am naturally extremely interested in the question of crews' quarters; but as I see it, the Bill has nothing to do with that. As the right hon. Member for Easington said, that is a matter dealt with under other legislation.
  It has been argued by the Chamber of Shipping and others interested that this Measure will increase safety in ships, and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said so. At this point, I must declare an interest. I am a reasonably active underwriter at Lloyds, so I am very interested in the safety of any ships all over the world. I have taken a great deal of trouble to find out the views of leading underwriters in the marine insurance market, and I do not believe that this Measure is going to increase the safety of ships. On the other hand, I do not think that the hon. Member for Bristol, Central need be unduly concerned that it will make the risk greater.

  1989
  The argument has been made that the safety of ships will be increased because of smaller compartments. It is perfectly true that, if a ship is built with very small compartments, its safety at sea increases. The most startling recent evidence of that was during the last war, when the "Bismarck," as we all know, proved to be practically indestructible. I was in the Navy many years ago, and I remember the German fleet being sunk at Scapa Flow. German battleships were always built with very small compartments. There is no doubt that that increases the safety of the ships but, as I see it, this Bill reduces only that compartment in which the propelling power is situated. The idea is to make the remainder of the holds even larger.
  I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the marine designers, when designing new ships under this Measure, will give consideration to the distribution of weight. That is the point to which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central referred. I believe that that this question is connected with what is called the metacentric height, which is the difference between the centre of gravity and the centre of buoyancy. That will vary according to the type of ship. If that question is taken into account, matters affecting the load line or the old Plimsoll line will not need to be considered; but the marine insurance world will take the most serious view—and they control a great deal of thought on the subject—if, as a result of this Bill, the design of future ships becomes more dangerous.
  I was very glad to hear that so many of the countries which are within the reciprocal tonnage measurement agreement have adopted provisions similar to those laid down in this Bill, but I should be interested to know which are the two countries which have not done so. I saw a list which included virtually all the biggest shipping countries—the Scandinavian countries, France, Italy, Greece, Russia, Japan and the United States—but I wonder whether Panama is included?
  It sounds rather absurd to think of Panama as a big shipping country, but it has many ships flying the Panamanian flag, for reasons which I should be completely out of order to go into now. It would be important if Panama were within this agreement, because of the question of dues through the Panama Canal. I may
  1990
  be quite wrong about Panama, but I shall be obliged if my hon. Friend can help me on this matter.
  While I am entirely satisfied with the provision that the Minister's surveyor should examine all these vessels, I do hope that we can have a complete assurance from the Minister that that will not cause any undue delay, and that the test he makes will be a reasonable one. This Bill has the full approval of the British shipping industry and of the seafaring trade unions, and it will have the effect of simplifying a matter which is extremely complicated at the moment. From that it is sure to lead to more economic design, and it is right to say that it will lead, also, to more carrying power for the same tonnage with equal safety to that which we have at the moment. I feel that the Second Reading of this Bill should be agreed to on all sides.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I also welcome this Bill, but I welcome it rather as the fairy prince welcomed the first flutter of the eyelids of the sleeping beauty.
  Mr. Ede: You are no fairy.
  Mr. Page: I am no fairy. This is only a flutter of the eyelids, but it is a sign of some awakening. Without following the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) too far outside the orbit of this debate, I should like to mention that a fortnight ago I saw a far more disturbing sign of awakening in this connection. I stood in the shipyard of the Deutsche-Werft in Hamburg and saw how that shipyard, which had started rebuilding only two or three years ago, had built more tonnage last year than any other shipyard in the world. That was because of the encouragement which shipbuilding has received in Germany for the past few years.
  This Bill is some encouragement to British shipbuilding. I had hoped that the shipbuilding industry might have received even more encouragement, but this Bill is at least a crumb in that respect. Only by going a little into the history of tonnage is it possible to understand the purport of this Bill and its importance to the industry. Many hon. Members have said that it is quite a minor amendment of the law. It will,

  1991
  in fact, give very considerable assistance to the industry. The legislation on ships' tonnage is buried in the depths of antiquity. It is probably the most antiquated system of legislation applying to any active industry at the present time, and is entirely antiquated in the light of modern shipbuilding, engineering and mercantile practice.
  Even the origin of the word "tonnage" is most uncertain. Nobody can say with confidence whether it refers to the ton avoirdupois or the tun of the French wine cask. In our mercantile law we chose the unit of 100 cubic feet of space of the ship as meaning one ton of tonnage, whereas, in the 17th Century, the French were measuring theirs by the 42 cubic feet of the four tuns of the French wine cask. At first sight it may seem to go rather wide of the terms of this debate, but I mention it because it shows the principle upon which tonnage is measured and which, I submit, is wrong for modern shipbuilding practice. It is measured on the assumed earning capacity of the ship. It is a kind of means test on the shipowner in connection with the dues which he has to pay to the port authorities.
  We have stuck to that old and revered method of measuring space in order to convert it into tonnage, assuming from that an earning capacity for the ship. Our legislators in 1894 guessed at some sort of deduction to be made in respect of the propelling power space. The guess which they made was 13 per cent. of the gross tonnage for machinery and boiler space, and they made a deduction of 32 per cent. from the gross tonnage in order to arrive at the net register tonnage. The difference is, of course, another guess at the space which would be occupied by bunkering.
  That magic figure of 13 per cent. has given rise to immense trouble. As my hon. Friend explained, if we are unable to make our engine space exceed 13 per cent., by some device or artifice, then the 1¾ rule applies, and if the engine space is only 13 per cent. of the gross tonnage, and if my mathematics are correct, we get a deduction of 22¾ per cent., whereas if our engine space is 13·1 per cent., our deduction from the gross tonnage immediately jumps 10 per cent. That is under
  1992
  the present law. That is what this Bill is intended to remedy.
  The dangers under the present law are that in order to get that 13·1 per cent. propelling power space shipbuilders have adopted all sorts of devices. There are spaces for light and air around the machinery. I do not consider that is a danger, but it certainly reduces the ship's efficiency. More dangerous are the devices to reduce gross tonnage. The builders of cargo or tanker vessels do not build a truly single decker or a truly two-decker ship. They put in a 'tween deck, and in the main deck there is the tonnage opening—to those uninitiated, a hole in the floor—which has to be kept permanently uncovered. In every bulkhead between the upper deck and lower deck there is cut a hole. That hole must be kept permanently unclosed, so that the space between the upper deck and the lower deck is not permanently enclosed. Then it does not come within the internal measurement of the ship, and is, therefore, not calculated in the gross tonnage. The danger from that is, of course, that although it reduces the net register tonnage, it certainly increases the risk of the spread of fire through that deck. I hope that the Bill will make unnecessary wiles of that sort to reduce the gross tonnage artificially.
  Our modern knowledge of engines has increased enormously since 60 years ago, since 1894, when the legislators guessed at the 13 per cent. We can now use much less than 13 per cent. space and still give sufficient light and air around the propelling machinery that can be installed. There is a compact, streamlined engine which can be installed now. So far as the diesel engine is concerned, very little effort has been made to reduce the size of the engine, although I understand it can be reduced in size and yet provide the same power. There has been no encouragement to reduce the size, for why should a shipbuilder trouble about that if he has got to provide it with 13 per cent, space to get the advantage from the deduction, the advantage from the reduced dock fees?
  So far as the gas-turbine engine is concerned, which, in my humble opinion, is the next advance in British shipbuilding, and is already installed in a French vessel of some considerable size, it can be installed in a very small space. Up

  1993
  to the present, however, shipbuilders and shipowners have been reluctant to advance along those lines. They have in effect said, "What is the use of installing the small engine if we cannot have the advantage of the small space in which it is to be installed?"
  Before the war the fashion was to operate cargo vessels and tankers of some 12,000 to 18,000 tons. Shipowners at the present time find that it is more economical to operate with the very much larger vessel of 30,000 tons, and are now asking to go up to 40,000 and 45,000 ton tankers. If we had continued under the present laws it would have been necessary, to obtain the advantage of the deductions from net register tonnage, to set aside 13 per cent., and 13 per cent. of 45,000 tons net register is a very large figure. I endeavoured to work it out a few moments ago. I came to the figure of 575,000 cubic feet. To set aside 575,000 cubic feet for propelling space is, of course, nonsense. I think that this Bill will relieve the shipbuilder and the shipowner from adopting that rather farcical position.
  In the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, I think, perhaps, the legislators had more foresight than we have at the present time, because there is no doubt that they foresaw the progress in machinery and in the propelling power for ships. In Section 78 of that Act, which is the Section relating to these deductions from net register tonnage, after providing for the present deductions for vessels with propelling power space between 13 per cent. and 20 per cent., there is the following provision that in any other ships, that is, those whose propelling power space is less than 13 per cent. or more than 20 per cent.
  "…the deduction shall, if the Board of Trade and owners agree thereto, be estimated in the same manner."
  In the case of the ship with less than 13 per cent. propelling power space, it was within the power of the Board of Trade to say, "We will allow you the 32 per cent." without any further legislation. I understand that the regulations made under this Section, the instructions the Board issued for measuring tonnage, have always applied the 1¾ rule to ships whose propelling power space is under 13 per cent.—the same rule as has been applied to ships with propelling power space exceeding 20 per cent.
  1994
  I wonder, indeed, whether the Bill is necessary at all and whether everything could not have been done under regulations made under Section 78 (1, b) of the 1894 Act. The answer, I suspect, may be that the Ministry is not prepared to be quite as generous to the shipbuilder today as were the legislators in 1894 and that the Ministry is not prepared to allow the full 32 per cent. deduction but only a proportionate part of it. I had hoped that the Ministry might be generous enough to allow the whole 32 per cent., but perhaps that is a Committee point and not one for discussion on the general policy of the Bill.
  Undoubtedly the general policy of the Bill is a step in the right direction. I hope it is only a step; I hope this is a short-term policy and is merely the forerunner of a complete revision of tonnage measurements. In the Bill we are still retaining the old principle of measuring the earning capacity of the ship and, thus, the capacity of the owner to pay. We are not measuring the ship's demands on the port. Surely the demands on the port and the services which the port gives could better be measured by the displacement of the vessel, its length, its breadth and the draught of water involved, than by this fanciful figure of net registered tons. I hope the Bill may be a forerunner of some complete revision of tonnage measurement, and in that hope I trust that it will receive a Second Reading.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Molson: I trust that I may have the permission of the House to reply to a few of the points which have been raised. [HON MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I should like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the House for the general welcome which this small Bill has received. The speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) started the debate on a very happy note. I was very glad that he was able, for a time, to go perhaps a little outside the terms of the Bill in order to express his patriotic concern about the present state of the shipping industry. He asked me whether I was satisfied that, in granting certain concessions to ships, the Bill was acceptable to the docks and harbour authorities. We included them amongst the representative bodies whom we consulted, and they raised no objection. I note what the right hon. Gentle-

  1995
  man said about the consolidation of the Merchant Shipping Acts, and I will certainly consider that matter.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) also expressed his general support of the Bill, and welcomed it. He asked me for an assurance that the surveyors of ships would interpret the word "adequate," in connection with the space, in a reasonable manner. I am told by the officials of the Ministry of Transport that relations have always been extremely happy between the surveyors of ships and both the shipowners and the trade unions, and the same reasonable attitude which has been adopted in the past will certainly be adopted in the future.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) raised several points. He asked whether the effect of the Bill would be to enable ships to carry more cargo and whether that would reduce the factor of safety. It is, of course, the purpose of the Bill to enable ships to be designed and built so as to have a larger space available for carrying cargo. The whole question of how much cargo and what weight a ship is allowed to carry depends upon the load line conventions and the rules made there under, and this Bill will in no way affect the law concerning load lines. There is no question whatever of reducing the margin of safety in that respect.
  Indeed, it is our view—and I am glad to have it confirmed by hon. Members with shipping knowledge who have spoken in the debate—that because the engine room will be smaller there will be a better sub-division in the ship and, therefore, we believe, greater safety. The hon. Gentleman also asked why trawlers were excluded. Fishing ships are not expressly excluded from the operation of the Bill, but in fact they will not be affected because practically no fishing ship has an engine room as small as 13 per cent. of the total gross tonnage.
  In the course of a brief speech in which the set out the advantages of the Bill in effecting economies in cost, in steel and in space and in increasing the factor of safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. J. M. Browne) asked for the assurance which I have
  1996
  given about the interpretation which will be placed by surveyors of ships upon the word "adequate" and also that there should be no undue delay in the approval of plans. I can certainly give the assurance that we will do everything possible to ensure that plans are examined without any delay.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller) gave general support to the Bill and, in particular, with his experience of having served in the Merchant Navy, expressed his view that the effect of the Bill would be to increase safety. I am very glad indeed to have this support from him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) asked about the two countries which are not included in the 26 with which we have reciprocal agreements and which have approved the proposal. The only country which has expressed disagreement with these proposals is Italy. Russia has not yet replied. We had no reciprocal arrangements with Panama and therefore that Government were not consulted. As for the metacentric height, I am assured by the technical advisers of my Department that they agree with the naval architects that there is no danger in that respect.
  In his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) touched upon the particular category of ships most likely to benefit by the provisions of the Bill—the tankers. At present we do not think more than 4 per cent. of British ships have engine rooms of less than 13 per cent. The maximum which we can expect at any time, if the provisions of the Bill are as satisfactory as we hope they will be, is that that percentage will be increased to something like 10 per cent.; but that 10 per cent. may be extremely important, because it will consist chiefly of tankers which come into this category. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the increase in the ordinary size of tankers is likely to make this Bill more important than it would have been at some time in the past. I should like once more to express my gratitude to all those hon. Members who have given their approval to this Bill, and I hope that we shall have that continued co-operation during the remaining stages of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  LICENSING (SEAMEN'S CANTEENS) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  LICENSING (SEAMEN'S CANTEENS) BILL [Lords]

    Clause 1.—(POWER TO AUTHORISE GRANT OF RETAILERS' EXCISE ON-LICENCES FOR SEAMEN'S CANTEENS.)
    5.22 p.m.
    The Chairman: I think that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we take the first two Amendments together as they are alternative Amendments.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings Mr. Somerville Hastings (Barking) rose—
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), but it might help the Committee if I tell him that I am prepared to accept his first Amendment, after consultation with the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. I am afraid that I cannot accept the second Amendment, which raises some technical difficulties; but if it is any help to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee, I am prepared to accept the first Amendment.
    Mr. Hastings: In thanking the Minister for accepting the first Amendment, may I deal with the second Amendment and put the case for it?
    Mr. James Hudson: Will it be in order, Sir Charles, to get the acceptance of the first Amendment later on?
    The Chairman: If the first Amendment is agreed to, I shall not call the second; they are alternative Amendments.
    Mr. Hastings: I have put my name down to two Amendments, but they are not alternative Amendments. One has been accepted by the Minister, and I am very grateful to him for doing so. He clearly sees the reason for the first Amendment. I should like, with your
    1998
    permission, Sir Charles, now to put the case for the second Amendment, in the hope that I may induce the Minister to accept that as well.
    The Chairman: I was under the misapprehension that they were alternative Amendments. Had I known that the second Amendment was a different one, I should not have selected it.
    Mr. A. C. Manuel: May I take it that in what the Home Secretary said he was also giving an opinion on behalf of Scotland and its licensing laws?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I was telling the Committee that I was prepared to accept the first Amendment, and I thought it only fair to tell the Committee, at the same time, that I was not prepared to accept the second Amendment. That is the position of the Government as a whole.
    Mr. Manuel: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman consulted the Scottish Minister on this point?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have consulted the Scottish Minister on this question.
    Mr. Ede: On a point of order. I suggest that these are not necessarily alternative Amendments. It would be possible to have consultation with the Merchant Navy Welfare Board with regard to the national position, but with regard to the local position, it might be advisable to have consultation with the local licensing authority. If you rule. Sir Charles, that they must be taken as alternative Amendments, that will be the end of the matter, but I suggest it would be quite possible to consult both the bodies. I rather gathered that the Home Secretary's objection was on some technical ground—difficulties that may be caused—but I do not know whether that could not have been remedied by some consequential Amendment.
    The Chairman: They are drafted as alternatives because, if they were both accepted, they would not make sense; it would not be English.
    Mr. Hastings: It is not clear to me that they will not make sense, because the Merchant Navy Welfare Board will be able to give their opinion, knowing, of course, the character of the port and

    1999
    the conditions of the ships that arrive there, as to the need for such a canteen. On the other hand, the local licensing authority will know much more about the possible alternatives locally, and, if it is in order, I should like to argue in favour of consultation with the local licensing authority. Perhaps I may continue on those lines, Sir Charles?
    The Chairman: The position seems to be rather difficult. I suggested at the beginning that these were two alternative Amendments and not difficult to discuss together. Nobody said that I was wrong. If we accept the first Amendment, the second one is out of order.
    Mr. J. Hudson: If the first Amendment is not accepted now and my hon. Friend goes on to move the second Amendment, the Home Secretary will not be able to proceed with the acceptance of the first Amendment which he has promised. I am only suggesting that, at this stage, my hon. Friend may be allowed to move both Amendments, as he really wants to do.
    The Chairman: I should like to allow him to do so but, under the rules, he can only move one Amendment at a time. We can discuss the Amendments together, but he can only move one at a time.
    Mr. Hastings: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, at the end, to insert:
    "after consultation with the Merchant Navy Welfare Board."
    I think that it is unnecessary to detain the House on this first Amendment be cause, in the debate on the Second Reading, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made the case very clear. He put the case more clearly than I can do for the first of these Amendments. He said that, in fact, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation would consult with the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. Therefore, I think that it is unnecessary with regard to these Amendments to say more on that subject. If I am in order in moving the two Amendments together—
    The Chairman: I thought that I had made it clear that one can only have one Amendment at a time. The two can be
    2000
    discussed together. I shall not select the second Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas Tooth): I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at end, insert:
    "hold a retailer's on-licence to."
    This is a Privilege Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "canteen," insert:
    "and an excise licence may be granted to him accordingly notwithstanding that he does not hold a justices' licence or certificate."
    This is a Privilege Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Manuel: This is my only opportunity, I think, to raise the point that I tried to make with the Home Secretary. I was complaining that a Scottish Minister was not present, and I am pleased now to see that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has arrived.
    I draw to the attention particularly of the Joint Under-Secretary, and possibly, also, of the Home Secretary, that paragraph (8) of Defence Regulation 60AA contains these words:
    "This Regulation shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect subject to the following modifications: —

    (a) for the reference to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State for Scotland.…"

    Therefore the Bill, in effect, waters down Regulation 60AA in so far as there is to be less consultation in Scotland before a licence would be granted in this way. It is bad enough that the local licensing bench is not to be consulted, but the definite commitment, in Regulation 60AA, upon the Minister of Transport or any other Minister to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland is not in the Bill. The position, therefore, is weakened to that extent.
    I wonder whether the Home Secretary or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland could give an undertaking that

    2001
    when it is proposed to do something in connection with the issue of a licence for a canteen in Scotland, the Secretary of Stale ought to be consulted. This assurance would, at least, restore the position that we had under the war-time Regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), who is concerned about the point, is very sorry that he is not here today. He has another important engagement which precludes his attendance. Both he and I were to raise this question, and I promised him that I would do so in his absence.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I quite understand the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). It is one with which all Scottish Members have sympathy. As the hon. Member said, the wartime Regulation which is now in existence provides for a certain amount of discussion, rather than consultation, on the details. Under the provisions of the Bill, it is proposed that the Minister of Transport should be the Minister responsible for saying whether there should be a new canteen at, say, Dundee, Leith, or wherever it might be.
    Mr. Manuel: Paragraph 1 of Regulation 60AA uses the words "as may be agreed" in reference to the Home Secretary. The part which I quoted substitutes the Secretary of State for Scotland for the Home Secretary as far as Scotland is concerned.
    Mr. Stewart: It is true that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary were both to be in the discussion of details. Under the Bill, as the hon. Member knows, it is intended that the Minister of Transport should continue, as now, to be the person who says whether the seamen by and large need a new canteen here, there, or somewhere else. This general proposition was not disputed on Second Reading.
    I think we all recognise that this is not a matter for the local people of Glasgow, Leith, North Shields or anywhere else. We are dealing with a body of men who move around the world, from port to port. We all think that the Minister of Transport is the Minister who is recognised as being the guardian of the seamen and, therefore, best qualified and most authorised to look after their particular needs.
    2002
    The hon. Member says that in considering whether there should be a new canteen at, say, North Shields or somewhere in Scotland or Wales, it is reasonable that the Minister of Transport should be in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Home Secretary. We do not dispute that at all.
    As I emphasised in my reply on Second Reading, the Minister of Transport is answerable in Parliament for the welfare of seamen. He is best able, therefore, with the advice of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board, to assess their need for licensed canteens. The Committee may rest assured, however, that before issuing a certificate under the Bill for any new canteen, the Minister of Transport will consult the Home Secretary, if the proposed canteen is to be located in England or Wales, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, if it is to be located in Scotland. That is an undertaking which we give to the Committee, and I hope that in the circumstances the hon. Member may be satisfied.
    Mr. Manuel: That meets the point.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clauses 2.—(PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF LICENCES.)
    Mr. J. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, after "canteen," to insert:
    Provided that in considering whether premises are fit and convenient within the meaning of this section the licensing authority shall have regard to what accommodation and amenities are provided in the premises and what facilities are available in them for obtaining both intoxicating liquor and meals and other refreshments, including the provision of accommodation in which beverages other than intoxicating liquor may be consumed and in which the consumption of intoxicating liquor is prohibited.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to ask the Home Secretary to accept in the Bill the same principle as he was able to accept when we discussed the question of public houses in new towns. I was very glad at that time to find that he was willing to give an opportunity for the practice of the experiment that I then suggested, that there should be not only places where intoxicants were consumed, but places definitely specified to be free of any intoxicating liquors, so that those who did not desire to have intoxicating liquors—and who, indeed, dislike to be in

    2003
    the presence of them—might have an opportunity of using the premises in the same way as other people. I should think that if it was worth while in the new towns to accept and apply that principle, it is well worth while to apply it in this case.
    The argument is that there is a general desire to run these canteens for seamen so that they shall have something better than the ordinary public house in which to be tempted. As the places that we are considering will offer such an alternative, there should be a willingness, at least, by those who press that view that we should allow the seamen's canteen equally to be a place where a man who is entirely undesirous of obtaining intoxicants can go readily and without any inhibition.
    A good deal of good work has been done amongst seamen by the Agnes Weston Homes and other similar organisations, where it has been strongly implanted in the minds of the seamen, either by general religious means orby direct temperance propaganda, that he should not when in port get himself mixed up with the processes that have been so disastrous to many seamen in the past. If that is so, and there is a real desire to provide in the canteens all that meets the merchant seamen's requirements, then I hope the Government will accept this Amendment, which we regard as important.
    Mr. Ede: I do not understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) regards as a better place in which to be tempted, because at the beginning of the day we pray that we may not be led into temptation. We have never so far specified that there are degrees of places where we would like to be subject to it if it cannot be avoided.
    Mr. J. Hudson: There are degrees of places where temptation is and it may be stronger in some than in others.
    Mr. Ede: There is some temptation all the time, and we ask not to get near it.
    This Amendment was a concession that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave after very considerable discussion during the Committee stage of the
    2004
    Licensed Premises in New Towns Act, 1952. He will recollect that, after a somewhat prolonged beginning to the Committee stage of the Bill, we did in some of the later Clauses apply our minds quite seriously to the problem of what was the sort of place we would like to see when a licence was granted. The words that we have put into this Amendment are, in fact, taken from Section 3 (1) of the Licensed Premises in New Towns Act, 1952. There the committee that was to be established to arrange for the new licensed premises was charged to have regard to these particular criteria. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to feel that in somewhat similar circumstances where these licensed canteens are to be established the licensing authority should have in mind exactly the same considerations.
    In spite of what was said by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in his reply on Second Reading, let there be no doubt that this Measure provides for the establishment of new canteens should a demand be made. As one who has two of these canteens in his constituency, I hope that in new ports that may be established, or in the extension of existing ports, the need for some facilities of this kind will be borne in mind. When such an application comes before the licensing authority, I very sincerely hope that it will be brought home to it that, in deciding whether these places should be established or not, it shall have regard to the kind of things that are provided for in this Amendment.
    I do not want to prolong the discussion, but, in view of the fact that it was the generally expressed view in 1952 that this requirement would be regarded as suitable for licensing authorities to have in mind when they were considering the granting of new licences, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that he can accept this Amendment.
    5.45 p.m.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I appreciate the motives which actuated the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), in moving this Amendment, and the right hon. Genltleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in supporting it, and also the source from which it came. But it is

    2005
    right that I should tell the Committee that in this context the words used would probably have a rather different meaning. I am advised that, although the effect is not altogether clear, the Amendment would probably require the licensing authority to insist on every canteen having separate accommodation in which soft drinks only would be provided. In other words, it would be a heavier burden on the canteen than was put on the public house in the other case. I think that everybody in the Committee would agree that that would be going too far.
    We are not here dealing with a commercial undertaking at all. We are dealing with a canteen being run by a welfare organisation, and, indeed, the only purpose will be the welfare of the seamen. The wording of this Amendment would mean that separate accommodation would have to be set aside in every single canteen for teetotallers. I think that would be impracticable in the first place, and, I think it would also be unreasonably expensive.
    Moreover, I am not quite sure it would be socially desirable. In this context I am not certain it would be a good thing to try to separate the sheep from the goats. There is a lot to be said for keeping them together. In the other case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, we were dealing with quite a separate proposition. We were going to provide places in public houses where local people could take their families to eat. That is not the direct purpose here: we are concerned today with clubs for seamen. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. I should not like it to be negatived. It would be better if he could see his way to withdraw it.
    Mr. William Keenan: I appreciate that the words in the Amendment might have the effect that the Under-Secretary says they would have, but is it not possible for the Government to have another look at this matter? I am prepared to agree that from some points of view it might be desirable that these two kinds of people should mix. Certainly, if we cannot have the kind of segregation that the Amendment asks for, then it might not be of much use. I think there ought to be some safeguard, and the very least we ask for
    2006
    is an assurance that what the Amendment is asking for in the way of separate provision should be made available.
    It seems to me that this is an Amendment which might very well be looked at a second time by the Government with the object of bringing in a suitable Amendment on Report. There seems to be no real objection to the idea embodied in this Amendment, and I hope the Home Secretary will have another look at it and see whether he could accommodate the Committee by embracing the idea in the Amendment.
    Mr. J. Hudson: I am very disappointed at the reply of the Under-Secretary of State. Even with my meagre understanding of the law, I feel that he has inadequately stated the position. If we confine our consideration for a moment not to the premises but to that which will be sold in the canteens, it should not be beyond our ability to insist that in the canteens non-intoxicating beverages shall always be available.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: They should be.
    Mr. Hudson: I did not gather that from what the hon. Gentleman said. They should be available by law in any ordinary public house, so I hope that assurance will be implemented. However, there still remains the important question of the rooms where people will not be able to get intoxicants at all. I think that was put forward for consideration in connection with the new towns, and I cannot see why this proposal should not be considered in the same way for these canteens. I do not feel that it would be morally right to back down from this proposal, and so I wish it could be looked at further to see whether the Government could not go some way to meeting us.
    Mr. Manuel: I want to ask one or two questions in connection with the Amendment. As I understand the main purpose of the Bill, it is a laudable one, namely, that when these men who follow the profession of the sea in a Merchant Navy capacity get back to port, they will have certain facilities. I agree with that, and I do not want to limit the freedom of anyone to have a drink if he wants it. We must recognise, however, that there is bound to be a percentage who do not

    2007
    take alcohol. Is it the case that if these men do not want to go into the bar, but want food and a beverage, they will need to go outside the seamen's canteen to some place in the street?
    During our last debate, the Joint Under-secretary drew my attention to the fact that these are to be fine places, up to hotel standards in many cases. We had to recognise, he said, that when they came into port it was usual for their wives to travel from their homes, wherever those might be, in order to stay with their husbands for the week or 10 days they were in port. A wife may have convictions which the husband may share when he is with her, though not when he is alone. Do I take it that, in order to satisfy the convictions of his wife, the husband will have to be inconvenienced to the extent of taking her outside to dine in some other place which may be much more expensive? Could there not be a promise given that this question will be looked at with a view to making some separation for relatives, wives and others so that, if they feel like it, they may have a meal with beverages away from the bar?
    Mr. Ede: I was rather surprised that the Joint Under-Secretary of State took the view that these words would make it mandatory on the licensing authority to refuse to grant a licence to the place if all these facilities were not available, because the words are that "the licensing authority shall have regard to.…"As I understand it, the use of such words means that if it were proved that in a small canteen it was physically impossible to provide the full range of these facilities, the licensing authority would have some discretion.
    I attach considerable importance to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). It was understood clearly that these places were to be available for the wives of seamen, particularly of junior officers, so that they would be able to meet their husbands in port and share with them residential accommodation where it is provided. The fact that married quarters are to be provided indicates that these places will be of some size. So I should have thought it would be possible to make some arrangement. I do not think it is necessary, even to comply with the words we have here, to have separate rooms; a
    2008
    part of the dining-room could have tables with notices to the effect that intoxicating liquor would not be sold at those tables. That would meet the requirements of the Amendment.
    I want to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are not trying to be awkward or obstructive, but we attach considerable importance to the phrase in the Licensed Premises in New Towns Act, 1952. I am quite sure he will recollect the spirit in which those words were steadily built up in a series of discussions. I regret to see in any new Bill dealing with the question of licensed premises of any sort a departure from at least the spirit of the standard we then set up.
    I understand that one of the difficulties is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to get all stages of the Bill today. This means that there can be no Report stage. I do not see how we could get the words put in as an Amendment to a Commons Amendment when the Bill goes back to another place, as it will have to do on what we have already done today. If, however, we could reach accommodation whereby these words could be put in, on the understanding that if there is a really substantial difficulty in the way of the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepting them in this form, and an Amendment to a Commons Amendment could be moved in another place, that would remove the difficulties but would maintain the standard set up under the previous Act. I am sure that we would be willing to accept such an arrangement.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am in full sympathy with the aims and objectives of this Amendment, as I have declared many times in our previous discussions, but may I explain the technical difficulty to which my hon. Friend has referred? As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, in the Licensing Bill we were dealing with the general duties of the committees set up to decide the distribution of licences in the new towns. That Act required the committees to have regard, in approaching that problem, to the matters which are set out in this Amendment. But it did not require the committees to insist upon all these things being provided in every case. That was one of the points which we considered. My advisers tell me, and I think that I appreciate their

    2009
    point, that there is a difficulty in putting the same words in this Bill with regard to the largely judicial authority of the licensing justices themselves. That is the technical difficulty, and if I make the facts perfectly clear, it may help hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
    6.0 p.m.
    All the existing canteens in fact make ample provision for meals and other refreshments and soft drinks a reserved everywhere. There is no difficulty about that. There is no place where one cannot obtain a soft drink, and I should think that in the lounge or billiard room one would find that soft drinks are more commonly asked for and consumed than are hard drinks. The whole object of these canteens is to provide a place with a lounge, billiard room, and in some cases other rooms. In many cases they provide rooms of a totally different kind, as hon. Members are aware. So the problem does not really arise of anyone being driven into an atmosphere where alcoholic drinks are supreme. That is what I am told, and my experience bears it out.
    My hon. Friend the Joint Under-secretary has dealt with the other difficulty, relating to separate accommodation. I feel that what I have just said is the real answer to that point. I know that in the case of an ordinary public house, which is primarily and traditionally a place for the consumption of alcoholic liquor, it was very much in our minds when creating a new community that there should be somewhere where those who did not want to share in that traditional view of the premises could retire. But we are not dealing with that kind of thing at all in this Bill. We are dealing with undertakings primarily intended to help seamen and to provide them with some place to which they can go.
    I do not want to overgild the lily, but from my own experience I can say that many of these premises have been provided by people who gave the money for it, perhaps 70 years ago, and in whose minds was the idea that the place should be an alternative resort to the public house. I think that that is a fair way of putting it. Therefore, I do not think that there is a real comparison between these places and public houses. I want to make it clear that in existing canteens
    2010
    and in any new ones there is or there will be a place where food and soft drinks can be obtained.
    The other point which I should like to emphasise is that these canteens are to be provided by welfare bodies of a very responsible character. There is no commercial element in their proceedings. They are not out to make a profit out of seamen but to help them, though some of the receipts, of course, go towards the upkeep of the place. The sole object of those concerned is to provide the amenities which the seamen need in the best possible surroundings. I think that everyone will agree that their attitude is that they do not want seamen to be forced to seek entertainment in less desirable places.
    I believe that those who are worried aboutthis matter can feel that these canteens will be places where the general spirit will be that which we tried to catch in our previous discussions. They will be places where a man can go for a rest after an arduous voyage, where he can meet his family, and where all the things that are necessary for himself and his family will be provided. I am told that these things are present in existing canteens and I can give the assurance that they will be present in the future. Present Ministers will ensure that that is so, and I am sure that the same can be said of our successors. I therefore ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to press this Amendment, on the assurance that its real spirit will be met, except on the one point of separation which I do not think practicable.
    Mr. Ede: As a result of the statement which has just been made, I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. It would be very undesirable for this Amendment to be even formally negatived, because that might indicate that the Committee had gone back on the arrangement which we made in 1952. I thank the Home Secretary for the way in which he has dealt so fully with this matter. As to the spirit of the doing, I am quite sure that there is nothing between us. I am quite sure also that, in their own interests, the managing bodies of canteens where separate provision can be made will always endeavour to make that provision. On the understanding that the

    2011
    right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech has gone a very long way to meet us and indicates that he is sympathetic towards this point, I would advise my hon. Friend, if he will, to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. J. Hudson: Quite frankly, we are a little disappointed. I am not wholly satisfied, and I do not think that the Home Secretary would expect me to say that I was wholly satisfied, with what he has offered; but I think that the spirit of what he has said is a quite clear admission that many in this House recognise, as clearly as the Home Secretary does, that there is a problem. He referred to the desire not to have men driven into an atmosphere where the consumption of alcoholic drink was supreme. I thought that was well put and that it will serve as a reminder for the future to those Ministers who will be responsible for issuing certificates for these places. The speech which the Home Secretary has just made, and the spirit in which he made it, encourages me to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Deputy-Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if the next Amendment, in page 2, line 4 at the end, to insert:
    "or

    (d) that the applicant or the body providing the canteen has entered into an agreement limiting the sources from which the intoxicating liquor or the mineral waters to be sold in the canteen may be obtained."

    and the Amendment in page 2, line 15, at the end, to add:
    "(3) Any licence granted under this Act shall provide that at all times at which intoxicating liquor is sold food and beverages other than those of an intoxicating character shall also be provided for sale."
    are discussed together.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end to insert:
    "or

    (d) that the applicant or the body providing the canteen has entered into an agreement limiting the sources from which the intoxicating liquor or the mineral waters to be sold in the canteen may be obtained."

    I suggest that it might be convenient if we discuss some other Amendments with this Amendment. I suggest that we could
    2012
    consider also the Amendment proposed to Clause 3, page 3, line 7, at the end, to add:
    "except that the licensing authority shall add to the rules a requirement that the provisions of paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of the last foregoing section shall apply to the licence."
    and the Amendment to Clause 4, page 3, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    "or

    (c) that the manager or the body providing the canteen has entered into an agreement of the kind mentioned in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act."

    I also suggest that we might consider the proposed new Clause standing in my name—[Prohibition of agreements tying canteens to beer brewed by any one brewer.] I agree that there are rather different points in these Amendments, but they all appear to flow from the Amendment I am now moving. If this one is not carried, I do not think there would be any point in moving the others, except that the new Clause might be regarded as an alternative.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am not selecting the new Clause.
    Mr. Ede: That does relieve me of a very considerable difficulty. When we were discussing the Bill on Second Reading, I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the question whether there should be some provision against any of these places becoming tied. I suggested that he should have a little time to think it over, but I was met in a very handsome way. He instructed the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to reply that if I could find a form of words which would satisfy the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he would be prepared to concede it. Therefore, I did give some thought to the matter. The best I have been able to do as a preliminary is to put forward the Amendment I now move. It would ensure that if the body providing the canteen had tied the place, that would be a ground for refusing the licence.
    I did not have much fear about the existing canteens. I have no fear about them now nor for the next few years, but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, these places are promoted by voluntary bodies whose personnel changes. There may be difficulty in some cases. We all know the fate which overtakes some philanthropic types of organi-

    2013
    sation. As the personnel changes, there may be difficulty in raising the money which may be required, and then there may be a suggestion from one of the wholesale vendors of intoxicating liquor that they should step in and arrange for the place to be carried on under some arrangement with them.
    6.15 p.m.
    With regard to new canteens, there is a danger that bodies whose interest is in the sale of liquor might offer to establish a voluntary body and, behind that facade, might get a licence. I had this experience with a body of men whom I knew. They came to me and asked whether I could get them a building licence to enable them to build a club. They pointed out to me the needs, as they saw them, of the district in which they lived. They thought that the social amenities of the area would be improved by the addition of a club.
    When I looked at the plans of the building, it seemed to me that it was a place which would be very considerably beyond their resources. So I said, "If I get you a building licence, how are you to pay for the building?" "Oh," they said, "the brewers have promised us the necessary money to enable us to erect the club." It became quite clear that if the brewers did make such provision it would not be entirely done from philanthropic motives, but that they would expect that suitable acknowledgement would be made when the club was erected and opened in the way in which the placing of orders for intoxicating liquors would be done. I should not like to think that the provision which we are making in this Measure could ever be abused in that way. I therefore hope that we shall put this Amendment into the Bill today.
    There is the question as to who should have the duty of safeguarding this matter. The new Clause, which I understand is not to be called, did have, so far as half of it was concerned, a most distinguished parentage to which, in view of the Ruling which has been given, I will not refer. It did indicate that some people thought that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation was the proper person to deal with the matter.
    Before I had seen the form of words, I had come to the conclusion that the proper people to deal with it were the local licensing authority, because the kind
    2014
    of arrangements I have just suggested might happen in future would be more likely to be known and more easily detected by the local licensing body than by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. Although we gather from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us on the last Amendment which was discussed, that the Minister apparently has a very intimate knowledge of the internal drinking arrangements of establishments similar to these, I cannot think that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation would regard it as other than a very trivial part of his duties to wander about the country slipping into these places to see how they were conducted and the variety of drinks he could obtain within them.
    On this matter of clubs and canteens, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) has a knack of hunting with the Licensed Victuallers' Association. Asa supporter of well-conducted clubs—the kind which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be seen in—I sometimes find it difficult to appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) reach a common agreement with regard to this phase of the matter. But the local licensed victuallers' association are, in my experience, the most effective watchdogs with regard to misconduct in the carrying on of clubs and canteens. If they find that their privileges are being in any way interfered with, they seem suddenly not merely to be in close consultation with my hon. Friend, but also are not above drawing the attention of the local police officer to the fact that the law has been infringed. Of course, managers of clubs are not eligible for membership of the local licensed victuallers' association. That is why I prefer that the matter should be dealt with locally.
    I wish to make it plain that, in moving this Amendment, I am casting no aspersions on the existing controlling bodies or their managers. But I return to the point I made when we were discussing another Amendment. We must face the fact that the more successful and reputable these places become, the more likely they are to be required in the future in ports which are extended, or in new ports which may be established, or even in-some existing ports.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to supply me with a list of the places where these canteens are established, and it is interesting to note that one of them is at Limpsfield, a place I know very well, which is 700 feet above sea level and not usually regarded as being among the seaports of our country. I know of no vessel registered in the "port of Limpsfield." There is, however a convalescent home there in connection with the Merchant Service which ranks as one of these canteens—which I consider a very desirable thing. But there may be an extension of that kind of operation, and it would be very undesirable that it should ever be suspected that one of these places was established and conducted by means of a loan or other advance of money made by people interested in the sale of intoxicants.
    That is the case I put forward and which I hope will be accepted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as meeting the friendly challenge, thrown out through the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, that if I could produce a form of words he would be willing to enact them. I am not wedded to this form of words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman yesterday indicated to me that one of the Amendments was in a form which might cause some difficulty, and I have accordingly reworded it in such a way that I hope he will be relieved of a difficulty in which otherwise he might have found himself. In the interests of making these places above suspicion, I sincerely hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to accept this Amendment.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I say at once that I am prepared to accept Amendments which will carry out the purposes mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and with which we agree. I have taken the advice of the licensing experts in my Department, and I suggest that if we take the first Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 4 and the complementary Amendment to Clause 4, page 3, line 27, it would meet the case. The first Amendment deals with Clause 2 (1):
    "The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant a licence under this Act except under the following subsection or on one or more of the following grounds.…"
    We shall add that they can refuse to grant a licence if the applicant or body
    2016
    has entered into an agreement limiting the sources from which the intoxicating liquor or the mineral waters to be sold in the canteen may be obtained. Then, in Clause 4,page 3, line 27, if we add a very similar provision with regard to renewals, I am told that that will deal adequately with the question of any tie and will leave a sufficiently wide field for inquiry by the licensing authority. This second Amendment which adds a paragraph (c) to Clause 4 (3) relates back to the other Amendment, but deals with renewals.
    I hope that the readiness with which we have accepted these Amendments and the assistance we have endeavoured to give in making them effective will clear up one matter which worried me on Second Reading. I fully understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) with regard to alcoholic liquor. No one respects his attitude more than I do, although we have disagreed so often on the way he expresses it. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite have feelings about the licensed trade which they are perfectly entitled to have and which may be discussed when necessary; but I should not like it to go out from this Committee that there is a feeling of suspicion about the people who run these canteens, because they are very worthy people and actuated by the best of motives.
    I hope that the Committee will feel that the way we have approached this matter now makes it clear that there are no grounds for such suspicion, and that we are united in an endeavour to get the best possible provisions in the Bill.
    Mr. J. Hudson: It is clear that in an effort to do the right thing it is sometimes possible for people holding very diverse views to come together on a common platform. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who poured such ridicule on me for being mixed up with the brewers, now finds himself in complete harmony with another type of enemy on the other side of the Committee.
    What has taken place is a realisation that in the past there have been such efforts, not on the part of the estimable people who run these canteens—and I agree with all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about them—

    2017
    but on the part of the brewers, who always see their opportunities, and who provide money for all sorts of estimable purposes. In fact, they declare themselves to be the true temperance agents in the community and they set themselves up into a rival temperance organisation.
    I am sure the time will come when even these estimable places about which we are speaking will be tempted by an offer of money to tie themselves to the purposes of a particular brewer or association of brewers. I merely wish to say in this Chamber what I have said on earlier occasions in Committee upstairs, that it is astonishing what can be done by finance in this matter of securing control over the supply of liquor in what otherwise would be quite estimable establishments.
    6.30 p.m.
    The case which I remember best, and which ought to be kept in mind, particularly by my hon. Friends, on all occasions like this, is that of the Rotherhithe Labour Club, which for years had on its balance-sheet a loan of £500 which had been received from a famous brewer, who was well-known as a leading Conservative. It continued to appear on the balance-sheet year after year without any statement about interest paid on it or any indication of the repayment of the loan, and the whole of the story was revealed because the club continued to acquire the beer of that particular brewer.
    As long as that kind of thing happens, it is necessary to keep a watchful eye on all brewers, even though, under this Bill, there will be opportunities to make objection to the licensing magistrates. That is why I think there is such an improvement in this Bill, and I am certainly not going to vote against it, as I have already indicated, but, because there will be opportunities for objection, I thank the Home Secretary warmly for what he has done and for what he is offering us in this Bill. I support the Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: I should like to express my thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he has met our Amendments, which he has agreed to accept. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not, however, say anything about the Amendment to Clause
    2018
    3, page 3, line 7, which I admit is not of the same importance. I merely put it down because I thought it might be as well to bring to the notice of the applicants or the body managing or being responsible for the canteen the fact that this was in the Act. This Amendment would embody the requirement in the rules that are made, and therefore it would be impossible for them to plead ignorance of the fact.
    The other Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention is the one to Clause 12, page 8, line 8, dealing with the question of agreement. In order to make it quite clear that a loan of the kind I have mentioned and which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) mentioned would be regarded as a departure from this scheme, we put down this Amendment. We suggested this Amendment to the definition Clause in order to make it quite clear that the word "agreement" does include the question of a loan of the kind that we have discussed.
    I happen to be chairman of a licensing committee of a bench of magistrates, and I am not at all sure that I could persuade all my colleagues, if it ever came to a dispute on the matter, that a loan could be regarded as an agreement, but I should be quite prepared to defer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that matter, and I hope that, if the occasion ever arises, he would be in a position to appear in front of me in order to indicate what the proper meaning of the word "agreement" was or whether he thought it covered the arrangements which I have suggested.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert:
    "but nothing in this subsection shall prevent the licensing authority from specifying in the licence granted by them a kind of retailer's excise on-licence other than that requested by the applicant."
    This is a Privilege Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Hastings: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end, to add:
    (3) Any licence granted under this Act shall provide that at all times at which intoxicating liquor is sold food and beverages other than those of an intoxicating character shall also be provided for sale.

    2019
    After the most sympathetic and helpful speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have no doubt that this Amendment will be accepted. It seems to be clear from what has been said in connection with this Bill that all hon. Members in the Committee feel that these seamen's canteens ought to be, in the very best sense of the term, clubs. After an arduous voyage, men should be able to come ashore to relax, rest and take refreshment, talk to their friends and members of their families whom they have not met for weeks or even months, and to have a really restful time.
    It was made clear by the Joint Under-secretary of State for Scotland when he replied during the Second Reading debate that this was indeed the way in which these clubs were managed. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that in no sense were they drinking clubs, and that, in two which he had visited, only about 10 per cent. of the receipts came from intoxicating liquor, the rest being represented by accommodation, food, and non-intoxicating drinks of all sorts, and this, I am sure, is what everyone desires.
    If that be so, it seems to me that there could be no reason at all for not making it perfectly clear in the Bill by a subsection like that which I have moved that that is the object. I am quite sure that at present all the existing seamen's canteens are run on the lines suggested. If that is so, and if that is the wish of the Government, as I am sure it is, why should there not be included in the Bill a provision which will make that obligatory on seamen's canteens for all time?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Partly in order to preserve the amiable atmosphere in the Committee, and partly also because of the merits of the case, I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). I cannot add anything to what he said, except to give the definite assurance that, in fact, the canteens always do more than the Amendment provides for, and it can do no possible harm to require them to do it in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(REPEAL OF EMERGENCY PROVISIONS AUTHORISING THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IN CANTEENS AND CONSEQUENTIAL TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, at the end, insert:
    (b) the licensing authority shall not without the consent of the body providing the canteen specify in the licence granted by them a kind of retailer's excise on-licence not permitting the sale of any description of intoxicating liquor to which the authorisation extends; and"
    This is a Privilege Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4.—(RENEWAL OF LICENCES.)
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 27, at end, insert:
    or

    (c) that the manager or the body providing the canteen has entered into an agreement of the kind mentioned in paragraph (d) of sub section (1) of section two of this Act.

    Mr. Hastings: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out "five" and insert "three."
    This Clause deals with the renewal of licences. Under it, the licensing authority may demand certain structural alterations, and, unless those alterations are carried out, the licence will not be renewed. Presumably, in order to prevent vexatious requests, the Clause says that, having once granted a request for reconstruction or alteration of premises, no further request shall be made for five years.
    I regard this time as rather too long. There is a strong point in the argument raised, but I submit that there may be unforeseen circumstances which render necessary a change in the structure of the premises. For instance, there may be an increased demand for food. There may be more visitors. People may come in from a different part and they may want a different type of food or drink. Therefore, changes may be necessary in the kitchen.
    Again, we learn more and more about the necessity for cleanliness and the proper washing of the glasses and utensils used in clubs and licensed premises. There may be a demand of that nature. There may also be a change in the type of ships arriving and there may be a

    2021
    number of people, perhaps all Mohammedans, who object to taking alcoholic liquor. There may thus be a real and justifiable demand for part of a club or canteen to be set aside as a place where no intoxicating liquors are taken.
    I suggest that five years is rather too long to bind the licensing authority to allow no change, and I suggest that three years is long enough. In view of the changing circumstances in which we live, three years may be regarded as more reasonable. Before I conclude, I wish to thank the Government for what they have already done in connection with the Bill and for their attitude toward our honest attempts not to change its character but merely to improve it. I ask them to give careful consideration to this small change.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am sorry to say that I cannot bring off the hat-trick. I must resist the Amendment, though I hope that it will not be necessary to negative it after I have explained the position. The argument adduced by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) is one of a general kind. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that here we are running parallel to other legislation and in this respect, and in others too, the Bill follows Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1953, and the corresponding Section 42 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
    Those Acts provide for a five-year period in the case of public houses. I think that the Committee will feel that it would be wrong to be even stricter here than in the case of the ordinary public house. It may well be that at some future date we shall come to consider the principle Acts in this respect. Then the whole matter will be open, but so long as the normal period is five years, there should be a similar period here. I hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, at the end, to insert:
    (5) If the applicant for renewal of a licence under this Act has given such notices as the licensing authority may require and so requests, the licensing authority may at their discretion in renewing the licence vary the kind of retailer's excise on-licence to be authorised by the licence so renewed.
    This is a Privilege Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5.—(TRANSFER OF LICENCES.)
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, at the end, to insert:
    (1) A licence under this Act shall not authorise the grant or transfer of a retailer's excise on-licence to a manager of the canteen who is not the individual to whom the licence under this Act was granted unless the licence under this Act has been transferred to him; but where the holder of a licence under this Act has in pursuance of this Act been granted an excise licence and subsequently ceases to be the manager of the canteen, the person for the time being in charge of the canteen may, during the period of fourteen days from the date on which the holder of the licences ceased to be the manager, sell intoxicating liquor in the canteen as if those licences had been transferred to him.
    This is a Privilege Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6.—(RIGHTS OF APPEAL.)
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, at the end, to insert:

    (b) on an application for the grant of a licence under this Act do not authorise the kind of retailer's excise on-licence duly re quested by the applicant; or

    (c) on an application for renewal of a licence under this Act do not comply with the applicant's request duly made for a change in the kind of retailer's excise on-licence to be authorised; or

    This is a Privilege Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7.—(PERMITTED HOURS FOR SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IN CANTEENS LICENSED UNDER THIS ACT.)
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. J. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, to leave out subsection (3).
    Subsection (3) is designed to permit Sunday opening in canteens in Scotland and Wales. I shall speak most of Wales, but in both places there are limitations in the matter of the opening of public houses on Sunday. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) spoke very strongly on this matter during Second Reading. He would have liked to second the Amendment tonight, but he arranged a pair before he knew that the Bill was to be

    2023
    discussed today and feels that he is not as free as I am. I never pair where issues of this sort are likely to arise.
    Although it would have been better if one of my colleagues from Wales had moved the Amendment, I am so much in touch with the churches and the temperance movement there that I can discuss the problem. They had made no protest before the Second Reading, but since then they have told me that they are still very strongly opposed to the possibility of a weakening in their Sunday legislation as a result of the Bill.
    The Committee ought to face the fact that the House of Commons—and Royal Commissions appointed by the House—have come down flatly on the side of Sunday closing in Wales as a necessary process for that country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to remember that the Royal Commission which their party was responsible for appointing, the famous Peel Commission, said that the continuance of Sunday closing in Wales was necessary and that it had beneficial consequences on the Principality. The Royal Commission appointed by the Labour Government of 1929–31 was emphatic that, whatever was done about Sunday closing anywhere else. in Wales the process had had an extremely beneficial result and ought not to be weakened. They said as regards Sunday:
    "We have considered whether any facilities should be provided for the travelling public."
    I suppose we could put seamen among the travelling public; they travel a good deal more than the average member of the public. They said:
    "Our conclusion is against the adoption of any such course."
    They recommended that the supply of intoxicants on Sunday in Wales and Monmouthshire should be generally prohibited.
    Considering that this Welsh Sunday closing has been in existence since 1881. under an Act passed by this House, Members must face the fact that there is the gravest concern in Wales, which understands very clearly what has been obtaining in this matter, as expressed in a report of the Churches Temperance Council in Wales which I have received, which says:
    "The Churches of Wales are unanimously in favour of Welsh Sunday closing and would
    2024
    regard it as an intolerable wrong to the religious life of Wales to reopen public houses on Sunday."
    Mr. Anthony Marlowe: Is it not remarkable that there is not a single Member representing a Welsh Division present on the other side of the Committee at the moment? If they felt so strongly about it, I should have thought that they would have been here.
    Mr. Hudson: I know the case in regard to Wales as well as my hon. Friends. I know the position is weakened, but so it is weakened for hon. Members opposite regarding a Bill which is taking the place of much more important Bills which were promised in the Queen's Speech. If the point about the size of attendance is to be raised against me, the size of the attendance of Conservative Members applies equally against them.
    I admit that it is deplorable in a matter of this kind, but those of us who are interested in the matter have to accept the fact that friends whom we would have expected to be here have had good reasons—I do not know what they are—for being elsewhere. I know one good reason, or rather I can guess at it, as I have not been told. It is something which all of us suffer from on a Thursday night, when the business of the week has almost run its course and Members begin to think about their homes and constituencies; and if there is a way of getting away on a "pair," Members tend to do so. I do not know of any other reason, but that may be as good a one as any.
    Let me return to the point with which I am dealing, and deal with it effectively, as I am trying to do. This is an old question in Wales. I have heard, in church meetings and temperance meetings, the strongest protest about it, and I know that there will be an expectation that the point of view which I am trying to voice should be voiced. That is about all there is to be said about it. If there is a strong religious view, this House, having carried special legislation recognising that view should have some regard to it in this Bill.
    What the Bill does in relation to the special difficulty about Wales is to provide a means whereby Welsh Sunday closing shall be broken into still further than it has been broken into by the pro-

    2025
    cedure in connection with clubs. I am now proposing that both Wales and Scotland where this special view about Sunday prevails strongly, especially in Wales, should be excluded.
    I am under a great disadvantage in moving the Amendment, because I do not take the view about Sunday which the people of Wales take. I belong to a religious communion that regards all the days of the week as the Lord's Day, and we speak of Sunday as the "First day." That is all that it is to us. It is true that it is set aside for the purpose of worship, but it is one of the days, and my religious communion certainly does not believe in using the pressure of the law to the point of securing special treatment in relation to the Sabbath. But Wales does not take that view
    Wales, even more than Scotland, but certainly Scotland too, insists upon a very careful safeguarding of its Sabbath by keeping closed institutions that can be kept closed on that day, especially when it is considered that those institutions are a danger in the general life of the community. That being so, I put the view that Wales and Scotland—Wales in particular—which have been so long exempted, might continue to be exempted regarding seamen's canteens.
    As the Royal Commission said that there was no ground for making any exceptions on behalf of the travelling public, that might be considered in connection with seamen. They might be asked when in Wales to accept that as the view held in Wales. They might be expected to try to get to know the habits of the nations to which they go and conform to them. Even if they conform to the habits of those who do not take the same view as that held in Wales, they might be asked to accept the fact that Wales expects a certain position to be maintained on the Sabbath which ought to be respected by them and by the Government.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am afraid that I must resist the Amendment. It is necessary first to say something of the background because the facts of the case are that there are facilities for buying drinks in both Scotland and Wales on Sunday. The present law provides that drink may be sold in clubs in both those countries on Sundays, and in the case of
    2026
    Scotland it also provides that the bona fide traveller may buy drink at hotels.
    The fact of the matter is that a great number of the seamen, in Welsh and Scottish ports will not be local; the probability is that the majority of them will have come from other parts of Britain, or possibly from Commonwealth and overseas countries, and most of them will not have been brought up in either the Welsh or the Scottish tradition. They will, generally speaking, be unaware of that tradition and will expect to be able to buy drinks on Sundays. Certainly they will not think it wrong to do so.
    There will be no moral sanction upon them against buying drinks on Sunday, and if they are not to be able to buy drinks in these canteens, the inevitable result will be that they will seek to do so elsewhere. They will not in the ordinary way be able to become members of clubs which can legitimately supply drink. For obvious reasons, there will be a great temptation, therefore, to seek drink illegally. The result of passing this Amendment would be to put a great temptation in the way of certain people to provide drinks, at a high price, "under the counter." The only result of the Amendment would be to ensure that speakeasies grow up in these seaport towns.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Hudson: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that since 1881 this provision has always applied to Wales. If there has been a tendency to break down a piece of legislation by illegal efforts all this time, then, surely, Sunday closing in Wales should have come into ridicule from the point of view of public opinion. The speakeasy has not developed in Wales, and it does not follow that, because things went wrong in New York during prohibition days, there is any parallel of that state of affairs in a country like Wales, where the people have learned to accept the legislation which we pass.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am quite willing to agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, that the people of Wales have learned to accept the legislation which has been passed, and with what he says about the normal state of affairs in Wales. But we are not here dealing with the people of Wales. By definition we are

    2027
    dealing with seamen, with people who, for the most part, will not have come either from Wales or Scotland, and who will have learned nothing of the kind.
    For the last 13 years these canteens have been able to provide liquor under the regulation under which they now operate. The canteens have been able to meet this need, and that, no doubt, has done a great deal to prevent the growth of undesirable places. But if, in fact, this Amendment were passed, it seems to the Government that the only effect would be to encourage such places. It would have exactly the opposite result to that which the hon. Gentleman and every hon. Member in this House desires. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. In any event, I am afraid that we must resist it.
    Mr. Ede: There are only two ports in Wales and Scotland combined where there is a canteen. There are three canteens in Glasgow and three in Cardiff, but, important as those two places are, they are not the only ports in Wales and Scotland. Leith, as I understand it, is a very important port, and I am sure that if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) were present he would by this time have interrupted me to say that Aberdeen is not without its claims to being recognised as a port. In Wales, Swansea is a considerable port, and Newport is a considerable port, but there is no canteen in either of those places.
    Are we to understand that in Swansea, Leith, Aberdeen and Edinburgh, which adjoins Leith—I understand that Leith is sometimes called the Port of Edinburgh—speakeasies are rife, and that there is considerable breach of the law? When was the last prosecution in any of those places for the illegal sale of liquor on Sundays, and when was the last occasion on which the desire of a seaman to slake his thirst on a Sunday was the cause of such a prosecution?
    This cuts as much the other way, if not more, than the argument of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department cut in the direction in which he was attempting to move. What we have to face is that this is the law of the land in these countries, and, on the hon. Gentleman's own argument, a seaman is
    2028
    very unlikely to be eligible for membership of a club in either Scotland or Wales.
    I suggest that there may be an argument in favour of the Government's Clause, but it is not the argument which the hon. Gentleman used, for that argument, I think, stands completely refuted by the instances that I have given with regard to the actual facts of the situation. In Wales, at any rate, there is very considerable feeling on the question among the churches of the country, and Wales is a place where organised religion still has a far greater hold on the mass of the population than is the case in England. I regret that should be the case in England. There is no doubt about the position in Wales of churches of every denomination, and one of the things in which some of us can rejoice is that the disestablishment of the Church in Wales has added to its strength and to its hold over the conduct of the people of that country.
    I was very disappointed with the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State in contrast with the speeches which we have had throughout the debate on this Bill from the Government Front Bench. He did not use the argument which was used on Second Reading, that it was desired in these two countries to put these places in the same position as clubs, as opposed to public houses. That would have been a consistent argument, but I expect that by this time the hon. Gentleman has discovered that the argument for extending the influence of the club provision in the law is highly unpopular among the religious communities in Wales and Scotland.
    I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman was not able to find an argument that could be examined in the light of the facts without being proved to be quite fallacious. I do not believe that the conduct of seamen in Swansea, Newport, Leith or Aberdeen is such as to make it plain that it is necessary to safeguard Cardiff and Glasgow from the establishment of speakeasies by carrying the Clause in the form in which we now have it. I hope that we shall hear something rather more convincing from the Government Front Bench before we are asked to pass the Clause in its present form.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 8, 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 11.—(PROVISIONS RGLATING TO OFFENCES.)
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    (4) Subsection (3) of section one hundred and fifty of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 (which makes the forfeiture of a justices' licence or certificate operate also as a forfeiture of any excise licence) shall apply as if references therein to a justices' licence or certificate included references to a licence under this Act.
    This is a Privilege Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 12.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, REPEALS, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)
    The Chairman: I gathered from my predecessor that there would be no discussion on the Amendment in page 8, line 8, to end, to insert:
    "agreement" includes a loan or other advance of money to the manager or the body providing the canteen from a brewer or other wholesale vendor of intoxicating liquor or mineral waters.
    I understood that it was to be taken with a previous Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 4.
    Mr. Ede: I did not gather, Sir Charles, that that was what was said. I did ask the Joint Under-Secretary a question on it. This Amendment was put down merely to get information with regard to definition, but I did not understand that there was to be no discussion on it.
    The Chairman: The instruction which I had on taking the Chair was that this Amendment was discussed with an earlier Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: Somewhat to my surprise, the only two that were taken together were Clause 2. page 2, line 4, and Clause 4, page 3, line 27. Those were the two that were discussed together.
    The Chairman: I understood that the Amendments were to be taken together and that a Division could be taken on this Amendment if so desired.
    Mr. George Chetwynd: I think that my right hon. Friend did ask for a definition but that no reply was given from the benches opposite.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not know if you would allow me, Sir Charles, very informally to say just a word about this. I do not want anyone to be dissatisfied. I did consider the meaning of "agreement" and I think an agreement undefined would be covered as well as an agreement expressed and defined. I am grateful to you, Sir Charles, for allowing me to mention that, because I would not like anyone to go away with doubts on the matter.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, to leave out "fifth day of April," and to insert "first day of July."
    This Amendment alters the date on which the Bill is to take effect in England and Wales. Clause 12 (2), as the Committee will appreciate, fixes as the appointed day on which Defence Regulation 60AA will be repealed and the first new licences under the Bill are to come into force, 5th April, 1954, in England and Wales, and 28th May in Scotland. These are obviously suitable dates because they mark the beginning of the licensing year, when the renewal of ordinary licences takes place. As the Committee will know, the Bill came from another place and, when it was introduced, it was hoped that it would reach the Statute Book before now. That has not been possible, so we have had to consider the position in view of the dates of Brewster Sessions. I can go into all the technicalities if the House wishes, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is very familiar with these matters and I do not think that I need occupy the time of the House.
    The proposed Amendment will accordingly defer the appointed day for England and Wales from 5th April to 1st July. That should give the managers of all existing canteens a reasonable opportunity to apply for new licences either at Brewster Sessions or at Transfer Sessions before Defence Regulation 60AA is repealed. It is not necessary to do this in Scotland, because the licensing year begins later there and there will be-enough time for existing canteens to get their licences before 28th May provided

    2031
    —and I hope that the House will co-operate in this—that the Bill receives the Royal Assent more than 21 days before the 9th March.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  First Schedule.—(GRANT AND TRANSFER OF LICENCES.)
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 9, line 36, after "licence," to insert:
  "the kind of retailer's excise on-licence which is desired."
  This is a Privilege Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: We have had what has been, I hope, not an unpleasant discussion, and my hon. Friends and I are very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he has met the majority of the points we have raised.
  We must express regret that the subsection which we proposed to leave out has been retained. We can only hope that adequate steps will be taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in Wales, and by the Secretary of State for Scotland in that country, to see that the deplorable state of affairs that must exist in the licensed houses of Swansea, Newport, Leith and Aberdeen shall receive prompt and effective action from the police forces in those areas. I am quite sure that they will see that the terrible picture which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has presented to us as existing in those places will not be allowed to exist any longer. I was not aware that that situation did exist, but, in view of his disclosures, we must ask that this great amount of secret drinking which has caused him to take the line he did on that subsection of the
  2032
  Bill shall receive attention from those whose duty it is to see that evildoers are brought to justice.
  7.19 p.m.
  Mr. J. Hudson: May I add my thanks to the Government, and in particular to the Home Secretary, for the generous way in which he has met our demands. I hope that the result of our discussions, and the passing of this Bill, will emphasise to those colleagues who have tonight found pursuits elsewhere the fact that this drink question has still to be watched.
  It would be appropriate, so soon after his death, to say that the late Lord Simon, when Home Secretary, reminded this House that there was a big licensing question, and objected to the legislation that had been produced there because he did not like a piecemeal approach to the larger problem that faced him. The Government face the large issue of finding a new general approach to the licensing problem and a smartening up of the licensing procedure. The last Royal Commission Report made recommendations of a unanimous character, but we go on from year to year failing to do anything except to nibble piecemeal at a problem of very great importance.
  I am almost hoping that, in view of the difficulties which the Conservative Government are now in with regard to the promises they have made in matters of larger legislation, and if they are looking for something useful to do in their inability to carry out those promises, they might look at this question and see whether they can take a step which is long overdue in the fuller organisation of the licensing laws, rather than merely putting canteens under the licensing magistrates.
  That they have done that is a thoroughly good thing. I entirely approve of it. It is the right way to deal with these problems and I hope that the significant concessions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made will be effectively carried out, and that the Home Office will keep a watchful eye on the process.
  7.21 p.m.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope that the House will allow me to intervene for one moment to thank the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the hon.

  2033
  Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) for what they have said about the conduct of the Bill. It is a great pleasure that, despite one disagreement, we can find so many matters on which we can co-operate and work together.
  I should like to add one word on the application by the right hon. Gentleman, with ruthless logic, of an argument of my hon. Friend. It reminded me of the conception of a colleague of ours at school, who thought that infinity was a place where an innumerable number of parallel lines rushed together and met. I should like to say, with the best possible temper, that that is just as difficult and as complete an abstraction as the view of Swansea and Aberdeen which the right hon. Gentleman tried to give.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  CURRENCY AND BANK NOTES BILL
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide security of tenure for certain residential tenants and for the renewal of certain business, professional and other tenancies, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under any enactment, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present session requiring compensation to be paid by Government departments and local authorities in certain cases,

  (b) of the remuneration of assessors summoned under section eighty-eight of the County Courts Act, 1934, in proceedings under the said Act of the present session or Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927.

  Resolution agreed to.

  PRIVATE BILLS (CONSOLIDATION)
  Lords Message [26th January] communicating the Resolution, "That it is desirable that in the present Session all Private Bills for the exclusive purpose of
  2034
  consolidating the provisions of existing Private Acts of Parliament be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c, Bills; and that the Joint Committee shall not take into consideration any Petition against any such Bill if the Petitioners seek to alter the existing law," to be considered forthwith."—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved:
  "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  NURSES (RECRUITMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: I hope that arrangements are being made for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to be here, but I realise that this Adjournment debate has come on rather earlier than anticipated. I have taken the opportunity to inform her of some of the details about which I wish to speak, so she will lose nothing by it.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): My hon. Friend is on her way. The hon. Member may know that her room is a very long way from the Chamber.
  Mr. Chetwynd: I appreciate that. She does know the main points which I wish to raise. I want to speak about the problem which is affecting, or which may affect in the future, a number of my unfortunate constituents who may be in need of hospital treatment, not only in the area of Stockton-on-Tees but on Tees-side as a whole. I am glad to see that the hon. Lady is now here. I hope that she did not have to rush too much to get here.
  I raise these points not in any alarmist spirit, and I am certainly not asking for any panic measures to be taken, because the situation is not as serious as that. Nevertheless, in my constituency and on Tees-side we are faced with the urgent problem of remedying the present grave shortage of nurses. I consider that it

  2035
  is far better to raise this problem now, whilst something can be done, than to wait until drastic steps, such as the closing of wards, have to be taken and then to make an outcry about it. If, as a result of this Adjournment debate, we can get an improvement in the position, everyone will be better off.
  The grave national shortage of nurses is reflected in Tees-side hospitals. Now that we have full employment, the girls in the area are able to get alternative well-paid and attractive jobs. There are fewer girls to call upon, and I understand that, by comparison with 1939, there were 100,000 fewer girls reaching the age of 18 last year. That position will not improve until about 1960, so that the field of recruitment of our nursing staffs is restricted.
  I have no wish to overstate the case with regard to the position on Tees-side, but I am told, on the authority of the chairman of the house committee of Stockton and Thornaby hospital, that the staffing position there is becoming more and more difficult and that, unless some action is taken to remedy the position, it will be necessary to reduce the number of patients that can be admitted.
  The hospital authorities have discussed with me what has been described as their desperate plight. I was informed in November that the total available staff for day duty for six wards was 26. Of this number three were off sick, including one sister and one staff nurse, and out of this number the matron has to staff six wards, cope with lectures, off-duty periods, holidays and sicklists. That is a pretty considerable task, even in a small hospital such as ours, and the matron and the staff are facing this problem with great energy and in the best possible way.
  I have been given figures for the Tees-side Group hospitals at the end of1953 and these show that there are 1,475 beds available, but that 1,585 could be available if there were adequate staff. There is a waiting list in the area of 4,426. Those, in the main, will be medical cases. These figures reveal a twofold problem.
  First, there are the delays and extra suffering to those who cannot be admitted as patients because of the understaffed hospital beds; it is a very grievous thing to see beds empty owing to lack of
  2036
  staff when we all know how grave is the need of hospital wards in these heavily-industrialised areas.
  The second problem, aggravated by the first, is that the shortage of staff places a very severe pressure upon the existing nursing staff. Here again, I should like to pay my tribute to the matron and staff of the hospital for the splendid work they are doing in very difficult circumstances.
  I want to raise what the matrons and the authorities in these hospitals consider to be one of the root causes of their difficulties, which is the position with regard to student nurses. From 1st August, 1952, a rule has been enforced by the General Nursing Council fixing 18 as the minimum age of training. That has been done to improve nursing standards, and I have no desire to undermine those standards. As the hon. Lady may know, I am the chairman of the governors of Queen Mary's Hospital at Roehampton, where we have the highest standard of nursing in the world, and a worldwide reputation. No words of mine should be interpreted as seeking to lower those standards.
  I must stress that the circumstances affecting the recruitment of nurses in small provincial hospitals make recruitment there a vastly different problem from that of the recruitment of nurses to the main large London teaching hospitals. It is a completely different problem, and I am not sure that the General Nursing Council gives sufficient weight to the difference. I should like to know what proportion of the General Nursing Council is representative of the smaller provincial hospitals. My guess is that most of the members of the Council are either from large teaching hospitals or have had close connection with large teaching hospitals.
  This is the position with regard to the number of students passing the course last year in the whole group of hospitals on Tees-side. Twenty-nine of them passed the course, seven of whom left after qualifying, leaving 22 to go into the nursing pool. In Stockton and Thornaby Hospital seven passed the course, of whom three left after qualifying. For 1953 the matron of this hospital accepted22 students for training, but only 11 of those are continuing their training, the others having left either to get married or because the course was beyond them or

  2037
  because they were found to be unsatisfactory for one reason or another.
  Though I appreciate fully the desirability of the Council's ruling, I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the dilemma in which those in charge of the smaller training schools are placed by what seems to me to be the operation of a fairly inflexible rule. Suitable candidates for the student nurses' course within a few weeks of their eighteenth birthday cannot be admitted, but have to wait until the next school to commence, and that often means that they become in the interval absorbed in other employment and lost to the nursing profession. Those who, have a real vocation, we are told, will not be deterred by this delay, but even on them it imposes a severe strain. One has to be pretty keen about wanting to be a nurse if one carries on after being told one must wait a long period before being admitted to the training school because one's birthday happens to be on the wrong side of a certain date line.
  The big medical training schools, with their long waiting lists, and drawing candidates from homes where, in the main, the financial considerations are not so acute, do not, I think, quite see the difficulties encountered by the smaller provincial hospitals, where the majority of the girls come from homes where circumstances make it essential that they should earn their living as soon as possible. The days when we could rely on girls with private means—at any rate, girls who were fairly well-to-do—to staff the hospitals have gone.
  The shortage of staff obviously produces a vicious circle because the few that there are cannot cope with the constant demands made on them, and they either break down or look for less exacting work somewhere else. That, in turn, has a deterrent effect on new entrants. What is most important in all this is that, because of these circumstances, the nursing standards deteriorate, however good the intentions may be. I have been in touch with the Minister about this, and in a letter of 14th December he said to me:
  "I should not feel justified in asking the Council at this stage to consider an amendment of a rule so recently made, but I am keeping a very careful watch on its effect on recruitment. The Council has power to make exceptions to the rule in particular cases where hospitals are experiencing acute staffing difficulties and the strict application of the minimum age would seriously affect the hospital services."
  2038
  I believe that in the case of the Teesside hospitals the time has come when flexibility regarding the entrance age should be put into operation. Application has been made on one or two occasions to the General Nursing Council for a relaxation of this rule, but on each occasion the reply has been that the student in question could only count her training from her eighteenth birthday, following which she must complete eight weeks in the preliminary training school. I quote an extract from a letter from the General Nursing Council to the matron of the Stockton and Thornaby Hospital, because it does reveal a certain flexibility in this respect. It states:
  "I am directed by the Education and Examination Committee to point out that the Preliminary Training School course forms a part of the approved course of training, and that the date of commencement of training is the date of commencement of the Preliminary Training School. No student nurse may, therefore, be admitted to the Preliminary Training School before attaining the age of eighteen years, and I am asked to emphasise that this requirement must be met in respect of all future candidates. The Committee agreed, however, that on this occasion the above-named student nurse"—
  there is no need for me to give her name—
  "may be allowed to count her training from the date given on the Index Form, provided she completes at least eight weeks' preliminary instruction before her entry to the wards, and provided, of course, that in all she completes not less than the full period of training required by the Council."
  In the final paragraph comes the real sting:
  "My Committee will be glad to receive an assurance from you that in future no student nurse will be admitted to training below the age of eighteen, i.e., will not be allowed to enter a Preliminary Training School which commences before she attains the age of eighteen."
  I believe that if there were a relaxation of the rule we should get more and more girls as student nurses for training, and. after that, joining the nursing profession proper.
  The problem, naturally, is bound up with the fact that in most cases the secondary school girls leave school at the age of 16, if not before, and there is a gap of two years before they can train as nurses at 18. Who knows how many girls we have lost hitherto to nursing as a result of this two years' waiting period. In the interval a girl gets a job, she gets reasonably good money, with prospects of

  2039
  advancement, and so on, and, therefore, is very reluctant to relinquish that position and to switch over to nursing and begin again when, she reaches the age of 18. We have to look carefully at this problem of the gap between 16 and 18.
  I do not know the answer to this, and I do not pretend to, and I do not suppose the Parliamentary Secretary knows, because this is a problem with which so far it has been found very difficult to deal and it is growing in intensity, but one of the first things that can be done, I am sure, is to have a little more flexibility over the age of entry to the schools. The second is to extend and encourage pre-nursing courses. They are a very valuable channel of entry into the nursing profession. I should be glad if the Minister could give me some information about how far pre-nursing courses have been established in this area of which I am speaking, and of what can be done to encourage them, in co-operation with local education authorities. There ought to be an extension of nursing courses in evening schools, and so on. I am sure that one of the keys to the solution of the problem is to maintain the interests of the girls in nursing between the ages of 16 and 18.
  We have, perhaps, tended in the past to look to too narrow a circle for our girls. It is no longer possible to look only to the girls leaving grammar schools. Apart from the fact that other professions also attract them, there are really not enough girls in the grammar schools to fill the gaps in the nursing profession. My view is we must look more closely to the girls from the secondary modern schools. I believe that there should be training there sufficient to get them through the nursing examinations and to become efficient nurses. I am sure we ought to consider that, in conjunction with the local education authorities.
  Again, on the hoardings, as we go about the country, we see advertisements encouraging people to join the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, Civil Defence or the Fire Service, but I have not noticed any advertisements encouraging girls to join the nursing profession. We need a national campaign of advertisements on those lines, but, even more important, we need a local campaign, because it is from
  2040
  the localities that we have to draw the girls for the smaller provincial hospitals. London is in a different category altogether, but we depend upon the areas themselves to provide their own staff for their hospitals.
  I should therefore like to see a continued and extensive local drive of encouragement and publicity for recruitment to the nursing profession, not only in order to encourage the recruitment of students but also in order to make students appreciate the desirability of completing the courses once they have started them. I am appalled by the amount of wastage among people who start their courses but never finish them, or who finish them and are then lost to the profession. One of our major problems is that of stopping the wastage of trained nurses. I know that marriage seems to be the largest factor here, and there seems to be a close affinity between the nurses and the doctors with whom they come into contact, but, nevertheless, this is a big problem in which marriage ought not to be such a large factor.
  I appeal to the Minister for her help in this problem of maintaining and strengthening one of the greatest acts of social service of all time—the hospital service. It would be a tragedy if, because of shortage of staff or similar reasons, the service should decline from the high position it is now reaching. We are all very proud indeed of our local hospitals and of the people who serve in them. There is a natural pride in this service. But the interest of the patients is paramount, and everything must be done to see that we have enough devoted and trained nurses to look after the patients. I hope we shall get some advice and some suggestions from the Government tonight to help us to ease the problem in my constituency and district.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mrs. Eveline Hill: I should like to support the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on the very important subject which he has raised. This gap between school leaving and entry into training for the nursing profession has been a problem which has exercised people's minds for many years, and I think it is unfortunate that the gap should have been lengthened in this way, for it might deter even more girls from

  2041
  waiting the length of time required before they can undertake their training. As the hon. Gentleman said, in the highly-industrialised areas there are very many other attractions for girls. They cannot always wait the long time between school leaving and when they can begin their training.
  This is a matter of very great importance in those hospitals which, as the hon. Gentleman said, are not teaching hospitals. They are not as fashionable as the teaching hospitals and, unfortunately, do not seem to have the same attraction for our young girls. Nevertheless, girls can get as good a training in those hospitals as in the teaching hospitals which have very well-known names.
  I am certain that the hon. Gentleman has done a service in raising this matter because it is exercising the minds of all of us in the heavily-industrialised areas. If the Minister can give us some help and some support in tackling this problem, we shall all be grateful, because we are all most concerned that the intake of students is so much less than in the larger hospitals. There is a consequent higher strain on the staff already in the hospitals. It is not altogether economical to have to employ so many part-time nurses, for it puts up the cost of running a hospital. Any help which the Minister can give us tonight will, I am sure, be appreciated by all in those very busy areas.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Horace E. Holmes: May I make a comment on the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) made about the age problem? In my township we have a very active and virile St. John Ambulance movement containing a large number of juveniles. A week or so ago I presented awards to about 150 of them. In many cases, at 16 these juveniles represent potential nurses, but they cannot get into the nursing profession at that age, with the result that they go into industry, where their interest is eventually changed. We thus lose a partly-trained and good class of young girl from the nursing profession.
  I should like the Minister to look at this situation very carefully. If she would like to see the records of the township to which I refer, they can be obtained. Over the years scores of girls
  2042
  who are thoroughly trained in St. John Ambulance work and in domestic nursing are lost to the nursing profession because there is no opportunity for them to begin their training until they are 18.
  7.46 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) for the most helpful way in which he has raised this very important topic. I think we can allay his fears to a certain extent in that we have met with marked success in the general recruitment of nursing staff, which has, of course, been reflected in the increasing number of beds made available. From 110,034 on 31st December, 1948, the number of full-time nurses in our hospitals had increased to 136,528 on 30th September, 1953. The figure of 19,402 part-time nurses, in December, 1948, had risen to 27,370 in the same period.
  Definite progress has been made in this matter and it has been the Minister's desire to see that the problem of distribution, which is perhaps the most acute problem with which we are now concerned, is solved. One of the objects of his standstill order is that the teaching hospitals, which have long waiting lists and which, because of their world-wide reputation, have no difficulty in getting staff, do not become over-staffed at the expense of the provincial hospitals.
  Generally speaking, we can claim to have obtained a very fair share of the available womanpower for the service where we need them. I must confess that when I discussed this matter with the hon. Member I had not seen the figures for the Tees-side group of hospitals. They are certainly not as bad, compared with the country as a whole, as he may have been led to believe. The percentage per 100 beds in the Tees-side group is 11·9 per cent. trained nurses, 13·6 per cent. student nurses and 17·2 per cent. other nursing staff. In the hospital in which he is most interested—the Stockton and Thornaby hospital—the percentage is 16·8 per cent. trained nurses, 25·2 per cent. student nurses—which is a very high figure—and 8·4 per cent. other nursing staff.
  The comparison with the rest of the country is rather significant. For the whole of England and Wales, including

  2043
  mental and maternity hospitals, the percentage of trained nurses is 12·2 per cent., against 16·8 per cent. for Stockton and Thornaby; the percentage of student nurses is 15·4 per cent., against 25·2 per cent. for Stockton and Thornaby; and the percentage of other nursing staff, over the whole of England and Wales, is 11·5 per cent. against 8·4 per cent. for Stockton and Thornaby.
  It therefore appears that the Tees-side group is slightly better off than the national average in total staff, whereas it is slightly below average in trained nurses and students. This is largely due to the fact that it contains four assistant nurse training schools, so that reflected in the figure is a high proportion of enrolled assistant nurses and pupil assistant nurses who come into the figures for other nursing staff and increase them to much higher than the general level.
  So far as Stockton and Thornaby is concerned, it has well above the average total nursing staff and is only below the average in "other nursing staff," of which it could profitably take a larger proportion.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Are these recent figures?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: They were got from the hospital yesterday, and they are the current figures for the hospital. With very great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I cannot accept that the situation is a desperate one, and I should be extremely surprised if the Regional Board took that view, because Thornaby is better off than other hospitals in the Tees-side group and well above the national average.
  As to the question of nurses being trained there and going away from Tees-side, there is always an ebb and flow of nurses. The fact that we have training hospitals and assistant nurses training schools as well means that these are inevitably training for other hospitals which have not reached full training status. These other hospitals must draw their qualified staff from hospitals who do undertake the training.
  As regards the minimum age of entry of 18, the hon. Member will know that the rule for the 18-year age of entry was fixed in July, 1951, and over a year's notice was given to the hospitals. It finally became operative on the 1st August,
  2044
  1952. The then Minister was aware of the fact that it would have some immediate effect on nurse recruitment, and what is rather amazing is that the figures for recruitment have steadily climbed and have not shown the sharp drop which some of the critics anticipated.
  With regard to any suggestion concerning the 18-year age limit, I think that it must be borne in mind that the General Nursing Council and all the organisations representing the nursing profession unanimously agreed that it was undesirable to allow young women to enter into nursing until they reach the age of 18. Not least did they consider it desirable in the nursing profession that nurses should have had some experience outside nursing, between leaving school and entering the profession, of the world of commerce and other types of employment before they actually go into a hospital, because they regard that as a valuable part of a young girl's development towards maturity before she takes on the all-important career of nursing.
  This view was supported by the Working Party on the Recruitment and Training of Nurses. It was believed that the introduction of this rule would have a temporary effect on student nurses recruitment, and for that reason discretion was allowed to the General Nursing Council where it affected particular hospitals. I think that emphasis has been more on whether a hospital is so desperately short of staff, that it might mean the closing of beds. We have taken every possible measure to maintain our nursing staff and our recruitment of student nurses at the highest level before considering relaxation of the rule in certain circumstances. They would not consider the fact that a particular candidate was nearly 18 sufficient reason for relaxing the rule if they considered that the ordinary staff of the hospital was reasonably adequate and well up to the average.
  We have managed to maintain and increase our recruitment of students and we had the highest level last year. The employment of enrolled assistant nurses, the establishment of assistant nurse training schools and the increased use of auxiliary nursing staff have gone a long way to meet staffing difficulties.
  As I have said, the General Nursing Council have power to waive the rule

  2045
  where the hospital service is affected prejudicially as a result of the 18 year rule, and in fact 26 hospitals have made application and the Council have relaxed the rule in six cases.
  So far as the correspondence between the matron of the Stockton and Thornaby Hospital and the General Nursing Council is concerned, it was, as the hon. Member said, over an individual student. The information I have received from the General Nursing Council is that they only raised the case of one student for whom an exception was requested, and there was not a general application that the age limit should be lowered. I do not think that the Council would agree to a relaxation. There was no formal application for a general relaxation in relation to this hospital. As the rule stands at present, the General Nursing Council cannot stretch a point merely on the basis of an individual.
  I am very happy to tell the hon. Member that there are some most successful pre-nursing courses running in his own locality. There is a two-year whole-time course at Richard Hinds Secondary Modern School for Girls, Stockton, and a part-time one at the Hugh Bell Evening Institute at Middlesbrough, which meets the hon. Member's plea for an evening course to cater for a girl who has to earn a living, and where she can, at the same time, take a preliminary training course with the ultimate intention of becoming a student nurse. There is a one-year whole-time course at the Henry Smith Grammar School, West Hartlepool. The area is very well served to bridge the gap and, possibly, it is not sufficiently well known that these facilities are available for any girl who wishes to take up training. She can go in for evening or full-time day training by taking preliminary courses at these schools.
  So far as publicity is concerned, I agree with the hon. Member that the main publicity has to be local. We have had our national campaigns. I am sorry the hon. Member has not seen the posters of our charming nurses, but we have had national campaigns and space in the national Press and national posters for recruiting; but from our experience, we are convinced that the best results accrue where the local community support the local recruiting campaign centred round
  2046
  the local hospital—possibly around an open-day with the Member of Parliament civic heads, responsible church leaders, the W.V.S. and the like—and people in responsibility generally who show locally their support for the campaign and use their influence and knowledge of their hospitals to bring publicity to bear on the work done in those hospitals and the need we have for increased staff.
  So far as wastage is concerned, I cannot agree more with the hon. Member that the biggest wastage we are suffering comes under the head of matrimony. There is a saying about young nurses marrying young doctors and that we lose them within a few years of their training. Unfortunately they do not always return, but a number come back and do part-time work. A considerable number of trained married nurses go into local authority domiciliary services, so although they are lost to the hospital side of the Health Service, they have contributed to the very substantial increase in recent years in the local authority nursing services.
  I do not in any way pretend that we are complacent about the situation. So far as nursing in general hospitals is concerned, we have seen a steady increase and we have no reason to be downhearted or distressed about the rate of recruitment for the general hospitals. The problem is more one of distribution. There are local shortages, and these are being aided by the standstill order, whereby hospitals very rich in staff cannot increase their staffs until there has been a better distribution elsewhere. On the mental side, however, which has not been touched upon tonight, there is, as the hon. Member knows, still a very great shortage indeed.
  The terms of the General Nursing Council's minimum-age rule are such that it is only possible to make the exception where there is a proven case of a desperate shortage of nurses. From the figures, I am happy to say that that does not appear to be the case in the hon. Member's constituency.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at One Minute past Eight o'clock.