Lords Sitting of 16 June 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

SAINT OSWALD ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CORONATION: AMERICAN TELEVISION PROGRAMME
2.36 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the deep feelings aroused in people throughout Great Britain as the result of the showing of the Coronation Ceremony by television in America; and whether the B.B.C. authorities were aware of the fact that the Ceremony as shown would be used for purposes of advertisements, some of which were in very bad taste.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I have asked the B.B.C. for a full and detailed report, and if the noble Lord would be good enough to repeat his Question I should hope to give him a reply early next week.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his Answer, and to say how pleased I am that we are to have a full and official report. We have had various statements made in the Press—some of them rather unlikeable reports—and I take it that the object is to give a full, detailed arid accurate report to the public.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, it might be that the noble Earl would take the opportunity of making a statement on
934
this matter at the same time as he makes a statement—if he intends to make such a statement—on the whole question of the policy here involved. He will be aware that this is a highly controversial matter on which we shall want time for discussion. I do not know whether the noble Earl can say when it will be convenient for him in the near future to make such a statement but it would help us if he could deal with this matter at the same time as the other.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, perhaps I might enter into discussions with the noble and learned Earl on this point, and I will get in touch with him at the earliest possible moment.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to ask whether the noble Earl will consider not making the two statements at the same time, in that there is not necessarily any connection at all between the alleged unfortunate incident of production in the United States and Her Majesty's Government's policy, which would give full protection in this country against any such incidents.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, in connection with the subject matter of the Question, I should like to ask the Government whether they do not consider that the statement in The Times of the 9th instant was ample and satisfactory, if it was correct; and that if it is proved not to be correct, whether we have not plenty of friends in America to take up the matter themselves and that good feeling and propriety make this course preferable.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. While certain lapses are to be regretted and, in fact, were nowhere more deeply regretted than in the United States, I prefer to think of the words of our Ambassador in Washington, who spoke of the American treatment of the Coronation generally as one of the most profound manifestations of sympathy and good will toward Britain that he could remember.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY AND STANDS CHARGES
2.39 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government upon what grounds, for what purpose and upon whose authority are charges being levied upon the public for sitting in Government-erected stands to view the ceremonial processions subsequent to the Coronation, and also for entry into Westminster Abbey.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, charges for seats on the stands erected in the Royal Parks and elsewhere are made on the authority of the Minister of Works, who is responsible for the management of the Royal Parks. My right honourable friend thinks it only right that those who occupied the stands on these special occasions should contribute towards the cost of erection and thus reduce the call on the Exchequer. The receipts are applied as an Appropriation in Aid of the Vote for the Coronation of Her Majesty. The charge for entry into Westminster Abbey is made to reimburse the Dean and Chapter for the loss of revenue, including collections, due to the closing of the Abbey for nearly a year; and also to meet the cost of opening the Abbey to the public.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a popular supposition that the cost of erecting the Government stands was covered by the price which the Government charged to those who purchased tickets to sit in those stands? Does he not think that it would be a gesture to the common populace of this country that they should not be charged for sitting in the stands, the revenue of which has already accrued to the Government? It appears to me that the amount collected in this way is a small matter, compared with the vast public expenditure connected with the Coronation. Regarding
936
the noble Earl's Answer to the second part of my Question, relating to West-minister Abbey, if there is any loss of revenue because the Government had to take over the Abbey for twelve months, should not the recompense to be made to the Abbey authorities be included in the cost to the Government? Is it not rather a shame that, again, the ordinary people should be exploited by being charged to go into the sacred premises where their Monarch was crowned?
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should like to ask, in relation to the supplementary question that has been put, why it is that working men, and those who pay taxes in other parts of the country, should have to subsidise people who may occupy these stands? Is it not rather a good thing to have business methods in government?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if what the noble Earl says is true, then the working man has subsidised your Lordships who went into the Abbey to see the Coronation for nothing.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, in reply to the questions which have been addressed to me, may I say this. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Works announced on February 3 of this year, the prices of £6 and £4 per seat in these stands were calculated on the average cost of construction, and it is now perfectly obvious to him, and to others, that that will not meet the charge. With regard to the noble Lord's second point, I should have thought that the British people would be only too delighted to go into the principal Abbey in this country on the payment of a sum as a donation, a subscription to a charity, rather than that the money should be voted by Parliament.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether there is any evidence of discontent on the part of the public in these matters?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The answer to the noble Lord is, No. In point of fact, all the seats were fully occupied, and if they had been big enough to take two people in one seat they would have been equally full.

ST. JAMES'S PARK SEATS
2.44 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why all forms of seating were removed from St. James's Park on Sunday the 31st May, thereby causing acute discomfort to the aged and infirm.]
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, it is customary to remove benches and chairs from the Royal Parks during major ceremonies. It was done for both the Coronation arid the Funeral of His Late Majesty King George VI, and also during Victory Celebrations in 1946. If they are not removed, the public tend to use the chairs and benches to get a better view of the processions, and many chairs and benches get lost or damaged; in fact, on the occasion of the Funeral of His Late Majesty King George V, chairs and benches were not removed and considerable damage resulted. Every effort is made to reduce the period and extent of the inconvenience caused; chairs are removed gradually from each Park, and final removals are completed at the last possible moment before crowds assemble. Her Majesty's Government and my right honourable friend appreciate the inconvenience to the public, particularly the aged and infirm, but feel that it is outweighed by the possible danger and loss if the seats are left in position.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some of these seats which were removed were so far distant from the route that they could not possibly be used as stands? How the benches—I am not talking about the deck chairs, which are supplied by private enterprise—which are bolted down into concrete bases could be removed and carried away passes my comprehension. Is the noble Earl also aware that many elderly people, especially females, suffered acute distress on that Sunday afternoon—which was one of the
938
few warm afternoons we have had—because there was nowhere to sit down except on the ground; and that sitting on the ground for women advanced in years is both inconvenient and embarrassing?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am well aware of the inconvenience suffered by the aged arid the infirm but I think it was well worth while to save a large sum being debited to the Ministry of Works to cover the cost of damage which would otherwise occur.

DOGS (PROTECTION OF LIVESTOCK) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCEL LANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (PIGS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (REAR LIGHTS) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION BILL
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I should be cruelly deceiving your Lordships' House if I tried to pretend that the details of this Bill, for which I have the honour to ask for a Second Reading this afternoon, are anything except extremely complex and abysmally dull. The main purpose of the Bill is, I think, a good one, and the main principle of the Bill fairly easy to understand. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide improved benefits, the most important being widows' pensions, without additional burden on superannuation funds or on the rates, and without any increase in the rates of contributions. What the Bill really does is to redistribute the benefits. The improvements have, of course, to be paid for out of the superannuation funds, and most of the money will come from making the annual pension rather smaller. At the same time, incentives are being given to encourage folk to stay longer at work, which means that they will not draw pensions until a later age; and, therefore, the funds will save by not having to pay out pensions for those extra working years. That also helps to pay for the improvements.
Local government superannuation in this country has grown up gradually and comparatively recently. The foundation of the present system was laid in 1922 by the Local Government and Other Officers Superannuation Act of that year—a private Member's measure for which the late Sir Herbert Nield was responsible—which could be adopted by Resolution of a local authority, whose officers thus became entitled to superannuation as a right. This led naturally to a big growth of superannuation schemes, but they were still far from being universal. Up to 1939 every whole-time permanent officer in local government service received the benefits of superannuation as a result of the passing of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and the corresponding Scottish Act. These Acts crowned the efforts spread over thirty years of the National Association of Local Government officers which is now known formally as the National and Local Government Officers' Association, and more informally by its
940
nickname of "N.A.L.G.O.", to secure satisfactory superannuation arrangements for local government employees.
In this Bill we are taking another big step forward to improve the conditions of this great body of men and women, much of whose work is known to those many members of your Lordships' House who have personal experience of local government, a body of men and women whose quiet work touches upon almost every aspect of our daily lives and who deserve well of the country for the importance of their services. Fourteen years have passed since the Acts of 1937 became law, and of course nothing could be done to improve them during the war. After the war N.A.L.G.O. raised the question of further improvements with the associations of local authorities. Your Lordships will probably know what those associations are. There are four main bodies: the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, which in the course of the last few years has had the benefit of having the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and myself as office holders, the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association. These bodies cover all the local authorities in the country. There are similar associations in Scotland. In addition there are the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee who, because of their size and importance, were included in the discussions.
When the two sides had agreed on the main outline of the legislation required, a Working Party was set up, composed of members of the local authorities' associations and bodies to which I have referred, and officers of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, one of whom acted as Chairman. A corresponding Working Party was set up in Scotland. As a result, the proposals which form the basis of this measure have been agreed upon. In only one matter—and I shall say more about this later—did the Government take the initiative, and that is in the provision of incentives for the older worker to continue in service. Here I gratefully acknowledge the co-operation received from the associations and from N.A.L.G.O. The measure of agreement throughout has been very wide, though, naturally enough, the local authority associations have not felt able to accept all the suggestions of the associations

941
representing the employees. New points have continually cropped up, most of them of a comparatively minor character, to meet categories of people who would otherwise be left out, or service which would not be counted, contrary to the spirit behind this Bill. Both sides are now anxious that it should become law at the earliest possible time, and I am sure we may leave it to them to work the Bill when it becomes law in that same spirit, and with due regard to national as well as sectional interests.
Perhaps the most striking difference between this Bill and the Acts of 1937 is that the provisions setting out the details of the benefits are to be taken out of the Acts and will be promulgated in regulations to be approved by both Houses by way of Affirmative Resolution. This change follows what is now the normal procedure when voluminous and extremely complicated matters—and it is astonishing how complicated local government superannuation is—have to be dealt with. There is, moreover, a great advantage in doing this where there is so much detail and a progressive development of outlook, as with a matter like superannuation. Once details are all set down in an Act they can be altered only in an amending Act, but if they are brought into force by way of regulations it is a comparatively simple process to make amending regulations. Of course, in practice, as has always been the case, all those interested will be consulted first.
Your Lordships will be aware that some local authorities have their own Acts for superannuation of their employees. When the 1937 Act was passed, such authorities were required to modify their local schemes to fit in with the new Statute. The same will be necessary now, if all employees are to benefit from the improvements made possible by this Bill, and if the free interchange of employment between authorities and the general high level of local administration throughout the country are to be maintained. We have been trying to persuade these authorities of the advantages of giving up their local Acts and of adopting the new provisions in their entirety. I am glad that some of them are ready to do so, and I hope that in due course others will follow suit.
942
It would be ungracious if I did not pay tribute to those local Act authorities who have gone ahead of the existing law in the 1937 Acts and those who since 1948 have adopted provisions corresponding to the National Health Service superannuation scheme. It is the best practice here which the Bill seeks to make general. How far the existing law has lagged behind can best be illustrated by setting forth some of the changes which the Bill proposes to make.
Under the two Acts of 1937, when an employee retires he may, if he is in good health, allocate part of his pension to provide a pension for his widow. He is unable to do this if he is not in good health and in that event, or if he dies before retirement, his widow cannot get a pension from the superannuation fund in any circumstances. Under this Bill it is proposed to empower Ministers to make much wider provision for widows. The benefits envisaged are as follows: the employee will get a smaller benefit on retirement, but his widow will secure a pension in the event of his death while still at work at any time after he has qualified for a pension—that is, after ten years service; she will, of course, also get a pension if her husband dies after he has retired on pension. The amount of her pension will depend on that which her husband is receiving or had earned—it is intended to make it one-third. That is not all. An employee who ceases work through incapacity resulting from injury sustained in the actual discharge of his duty will now be able to get an injury allowance, and when he dies his widow will receive a pension. Where, however, the employee meets his death from injury in the discharge of his duty there is the alternative of a lump sum instead of a pension if the local authority think that will be best in the circumstances. These provisions for widows are the most important of the new legislation.
Since the passage of the 1937 legislation, which provides for all retirement benefits being given as pensions only, it has become generally agreed that it is advantageous to the retiring employee to be able to receive his benefit partly as a pension and partly as a lump sum. This would be very helpful, for example, if he wanted to buy a house. Accordingly the Bill provides that in future the retiring employee may receive his benefit in this

943
form. Bachelors and married men will receive the same rate of pension—though the actual amount will be smaller than at present, because it will be calculated on eightieths, instead of on sixtieths—buta married man will get a smaller lump sum as the price of providing a pension for his widow.
This illustrates a most important characteristic of the Bill, to which I referred at the beginning. It would obviously not have been difficult to provide increased benefits by increasing the contributions to be made by employers and employees, but, understandably, neither side was willing to make increased contributions; and the whole of the provisions of the Bill have therefore been designed, to use a technical phrase, to be actuarially equivalent to those in the 1937 Acts—that is to say, taken all round, the whole amount spent on benefits after the passage of the Bill should not be greater than the amount spent for a comparable number of employees of similar types under the two Acts of 1937. This is a most important feature, since many alternative schemes that might on the surface appear more attractive have the disadvantage that in one way or another they would increase the burden on the superannuation funds.
With negligible exceptions, none of the benefits of the two Acts of 1937 is available until the completion of ten years' service, though in the event of service terminating earlier the employee is generally entitled to a return of his contributions. It is proposed to provide by the regulations two short-service benefits available where more than five but less than ten years' service has been completed. In the event of retirement from ill-health in this period, the employee will be given a title to a single payment of a year's pay. In the event of his death within the same period, his legal personal representative will be given a similar title. At this stage I ought to mention that, in accordance with the usual practice, existing employees will be given an option of keeping their present superannuation rates or of going into the new arrangements under the Bill. The benefit of the option will be extended retrospectively to employees who have retired after September 30, 1950, or to the
944
employee's widow, if the pensioner has died after that date.
Section 7 of the Act of 1937 provides for compulsory retirement at the age of 65—that age has not been altered—but it also allows for further employment year by year without limit, though this extended service does not count for benefit. The section is, accordingly, not the bar to the employment of the elderly that might appear from its opening words, as your Lordships will appreciate from the fact that some 12,000 people above the age of 65 are still working for local authorities in England and Wales. Nevertheless, since no employee may earn additional pension after the age of 65 or after the completion of 40 years' service, whichever comes first, it does, to some extent, discourage elderly employees from remaining at work. Your Lordships will remember that it was in this matter, and this alone, that the Government stepped in, because of the importance they attach to extending the working life of the average man and woman. Under the Bill, an employee will be able to earn pension for 45 years or up to the age of 70, whichever period is completed first. This should afford a valuable incentive to the employee without making the employing authority unwilling to keep him on. It is important that the incentive offered to the employee should not be such as to make the employing authorities feel that, from their point of view, the continued employment of these elderly people is expensive in relation to the service they give. At present, as I have said, an employee can earmark part of his pension only when he retires, and only to provide a pension for his widow. He may, however, want to give his widow something more than she would get from a widow's pension, or to make provision for some other dependent. Under the Bill he will now be able to do this, and, moreover, without the necessity of retiring, provided, of course, that he is qualified for pension. This is another improvement which I hope will encourage an employee to remain longer at work.
Apart from these major points, the Bill provides also for various minor improvements, with which I do not wish to weary your Lordships. Any complex legislation, such as the Acts of 1937, inevitably shows minor defects in operation, or shows up cases of hardship or seeming injustice.

945
Accordingly, the opportunity is being taken in this Bill to correct a number of these, though none of them is really significant, save to a comparatively small group of persons immediately concerned, to whom of course they are highly significant. They have been agreed to by the associations I have just mentioned, and I will not take up your Lordships' time in dealing with that. There is one point that I should perhaps mention, because it is rather different in kind—that is, an amendment which will limit the provision for forfeiture of superannuation rights if an employee commits an offence or misbehaves. It limits forfeiture to cases where the offence or misbehaviour is related to the performance of the employee's duties, and it gives local authorities some discretion in connection with the imposition of the penalty. This, I think, mitigates what has been felt to be a somewhat harsh and undiscriminating provision.
I have already mentioned that some local authorities have their own Acts dealing with superannuation of their staff. There are several provisions in the Bill to meet different circumstances, but again I need not weary your Lordships by going into details. The principle is the same, to ensure that these local Act schemes come reasonably into line with the new arrangements, if they have not done so already, in those cases where the local authority prefer to retain their special position. The Bill gives the Minister power, should this be needed, to require a local authority to come into line. There are, in fact, twenty-two councils in England and Wales and two in Scotland that have complete Acts governing superannuation; thirteen more who have modified the 1937 Acts by substituting improved benefits akin to the National Health Service Scheme, and an unknown number who, usually in the body of more general legislation, have made particular provisions affecting the superannuation of their employees. The complexity of this Bill lies in the many details to meet the many different circumstances that arise, and to which this House will no doubt wish to give a more full consideration on Committee stage. But the principles behind it are few and simple, and I can recommend it with confidence to your Lordships as being in all essential respects an agreed measure,
946
a desirable measure and a desired measure, one to which I can confidently ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading this afternoon.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.7 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we on this side of the House do not wish for a moment to disturb the harmony of the proceedings which have led up to the introduction of this Bill in another place. I understand that discussions have been going on for a great many years, and we are very glad that they have come to a culmination. This Bill will have achieved a remarkable thing if it can, as the noble Lord said, provide improved superannuation for local government employees without extra cost either to the employee or to the employing authority. I have read through the Bill. Like the noble Lord, I do not regard myself as in any way an authority on local government superannuation, but it seemed to me that a number of the clauses, if they mean anything at all, must result in increased cost, either to the superannuation fund or to the local authority. However, that will possibly come out in another stage of the proceedings. I do not wish to say anything about the details of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Burden, who is an authority on this subject, has something to say, and we shall listen to him with great interest. But I should like to draw the attention of the House to the increasing complexity of this matter from the point of view of the person who does try to understand what he is doing.
The noble Lord has referred to the considerable number of local authorities (I think he went up to something like fifty) who have their own Acts of Parliament dealing with superannuation, and an unknown number of others who have these powers wrapped up in other legislation. In addition, there are, as noble Lords will see from the last page of this Bill, I think, twenty-three Acts of Parliament dealing with superannuation and, I imagine, a considerable number of regulations. Now we have this additional Bill which will, I am sure, pass before very long, and under which further regulations are to be made. Indeed, I was interested to hear the noble Lord

947
make a virtue of the fact that these provisions will not form part of the Bill but will come in regulations to be made under this Bill. That is somewhat of a change of tone, compared with some of the speeches which we used to hear in the past about "putting things in the Bill" as against making them the subject of regulations. I was glad to hear a complete justification of the procedure which, in the past, we on this side have felt it necessary to adopt in these measures. The point remains, however, that there will be a large number of separate Acts of Parliament, all dealing with the subject of local government superannuation in one form or another, and a large number of regulations.
As I have said, it will be increasingly difficult for anyone who is interested in this matter to find his way about all these Acts of Parliament. I would respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack that probably the time has arrived when this subject might receive an examination from his Department, with a view to seeing whether the whole thing cannot be simplified, or at any rate consolidated, so that if we want to know what is the law on the subject we shall not have to wander through a large number of Acts of Parliament and regulations in order to do so. I realise that it is not going to be an easy task, but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is quite capable of dealing with it, and it will be a great boon to many people, including local government officers themselves, if it is made easier for them to ascertain what their rights are.
With those few observations I want to give a general welcome to this Bill. It will, of course, be examined in this House, as it has been carefully examined in another place, but I feel bound to say that in another place the matter was dealt with so reasonably on both sides that a good many of the points that it might have been necessary to raise have been dealt with. As a result, I imagine that it will not be necessary to trouble your Lordships with many details during the later stages of the Bill.
3.12 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his clear, concise and courteous
948
explanation on this Bill. It is, I venture to think, a non-Party Bill and should not give rise to any Party controversy. However, not in any way as a matter of reproach, I should like to mention that proposals to amend the 1937 Act were discussed informally by the National and Local Government Officers Association with officials of the Ministry as long ago as 1946. There were many difficulties to be overcome and I am very happy that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government convened a Conference in October, 1951, at which, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, a Working Party was set up to examine concrete proposals in detail. I venture to think that this Bill is a very satisfactory result of the labours of that Working Party. I should like to express my thanks to the representatives of the associations of local authorities for the broad-minded and sympathetic way in which they have examined and agreed with many of the proposals submitted to them, and particularly I should like to say how indebted we are to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his officers for the help given in putting these proposals into legislative shape and form.
Broadly, the Bill brings the superannuation arrangements for local government officers into line with those now obtaining in the Civil Service and the health services, and for the staffs employed by the electricity and gas boards. At the same time, as Lord Mancroft said, the opportunity has been taken to effect some minor adjustments in the superannuation provision for the staff of local authorities, and I think I am correct in saying that all the proposals in the Bill have been approved by the associations representing the employing local authorities. I think it is only fair to mention that the proposals as framed are not intended to place any further charge on local authorities—I think the word "appreciable" is used somewhere or other.
My Lords, the first Act dealing with superannuation for those employed by local authorities was the result of desperate action on the part of N.A.L.G.O., and it was a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place. The Act was permissive in character—in other words, superannuation provision was not made compulsory. To improve my education

949
I have recently read the report of the debate on this Bill—and incidentally it was very good reading. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to quote one or two sentences from it. These are the words:
"It is the case, unfortunately, that the preserve of local government officers is no longer inviolate. There is a hungry wolf, with a heavy paw, in the shape of the business man, who is continually prospecting among local government officers to see if he cannot find some whom he can attract to his own service, thinking their abilities are being wasted in their present occupation. It is a fact that a good number of men have been attracted from public service into commercial life by the prospect of substantially increased remuneration."
These are the words I would particularly call attention to:
"Happily, money is not everything to a great many people, and many who enter the public service cannot be induced to leave it by the most tempting offers, because they are proud of their work, they love it, and they would not exchange it for anything else, especially for work of a character which is unfamiliar to them. But it is necessary to make these officers as comfortable as possible, and to give them every inducement to stay."
I am not sure whether your Lordships will be surprised or otherwise when I mention that those were the words of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who later became Prime Minister of this country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, a number of local authorities adopted the provisions of the 1922 Act, but the position was far from satisfactory, as the Royal Commission on Local Government, which reported in 1929, said, in these words:
"We are of opinion…that the local government service would benefit if the facilities for interchangeability were enlarged. This, however, depends upon the more general adoption of a uniform scheme of superannuation."
The Hadow Committee was even more emphatic, because in paragraph 115 of its Report it stated:
"It has to be recognised that the absence of a superannuation scheme in some areas is an obstacle to the free movement of officers between authorities.…Compulsory superannuation for officers was recommended by the Departmental Committee on the Superannuation of Local Government Officers (1928). In our view this is essential to the welfare of the service and we hope that the Committee's recommendations will be carried out at the earliest possible opportunity."
That was in 1934. The officers had to wait until 1937 for an Act which made superannuation provision compulsory. In
950
this Bill, as the noble Lord has said, further steps are proposed to bring the existing provisions up to the level that I have already mentioned—those in the Civil Service and public bodies. For my part, and echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Silkin, I think I can say on behalf of my colleagues that we welcome this proposal and will do whatever is possible to help in the passing of the Bill.
There are, however, one or two points I propose to raise on the Committee stage of the Bill. Some of them have already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I can assure him that what I have to say will be said in no unfriendly spirit, but simply in ail endeavour to illustrate some of the points which have, so to speak, been left in the air without adequate explanation in the other place. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will understand that I do not in any way expect a reply this afternoon. The first point is the clarification of the superannuation rights of the staff of a clerk of the peace, where that office is separated from that of clerk of the county council. The second point is the forfeiture of the right, in certain circumstances, to a refund of superannuation contributions. The third point is the loss of certain superannuation rights on interchange. The fourth point is the bringing into line with the provisions of this Bill of the superannuation arrangements in local Acts. May I conclude by again assuring the noble Lord in charge of this Bill of my desire—and I believe the desire of my colleagues—to be helpful and co-operative, and again express to him (and I hope he will convey it to the Minister) my appreciation and thanks, on behalf of the local government service, for the improvements and adjustments which are contained in this Bill.
3.22 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords opposite for the extremely friendly and courteous way in which they have received this Bill. The four detailed points of which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has just given me notice will, of course, be looked into carefully, and I will try, at the Committee stage, to clear up any doubts which may still be in the noble Lord's mind. The point regarding complexity which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin,

951
meets, I am sure, with the greatest possible sympathy from noble Lords on this side of the House, particularly from one who has been trying for the last fortnight to understand some of the niceties of local government superannuation. There are those who read detective stories, and there are those who indulge in mental exercise with the aid of crossword puzzles. I believe there are even civil servants who actually read local government superannuation Acts in order to keep their mental equipment up to date. The complexities to which the noble Lord refers have been in existence for a long time. The noble Lord asked me about consolidation. I will consult the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and the Minister, but from what I can remember of the results of inquiries which I have made in the past on this subject, if consolidation is possible it will be a Herculean task, and it will take a long, long time.
The only other point on which the noble Lord questioned me was the matter of extra cost. I believe that, reading one or two clauses of the Bill by themselves, it does look as if it would inevitably involve further cost. I understand from mathematical experts, however, that actuarially this is not so. While it is not possible to work out exactly what the change will cost, I am advised that it is unlikely that it will be any appreciable sum at all. With those few words, and once again thanking noble Lords for their helpful reception of the Bill and their expressions of good will, I would express the hope that by the time the Bill becomes an Act we shall have succeeded in making it even better than it now is.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It is now just short of ten years since the Education Act, 1944, was passed, and there have already been two amending Acts. This, therefore, is the third attempt to improve and clarify that main Statute. There are certain clauses in the present Bill which have assumed very great importance in that they deal with the vexed question—though it is not as vexed as it used to be, I am glad to say—of the voluntary schools. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 8 deal with that question. Now Clause 1 amends the definition of "displaced pupils." That definition was originally given under Section 104 of the main Act. As your Lordships are already aware, Section 104 was inserted in the principal Act to cover cases in which the establishment of a proposed new aided or special agreement school had been shown to the satisfaction of the Minister to be due to the need for providing education for a substantial number of displaced pupils. The section goes on to define what is meant by displaced pupils, and, broadly speaking, it covers pupils who would have attended some other aided or special agreement school, but cannot continue to do so because that school has been reorganised or else substantially reduced in size.
We all appreciate the difficulty of the subject with which we are dealing. I think it is right to say that any Government who intend to deal with it are not standing on the edge of a precipice but are walking on a very narrow plank. In connection with this question, it is easy—and I say this with the particular difficulties clearly in my mind—to make to one side concessions which may seem fair in themselves, but which, in fact, completely upset the balance of agreement or compromise that has been so wisely achieved during the last generation or so. Let me make it clear at once that there is no intention whatsoever of altering or extending the general conditions covering grants to schools for displaced pupils. What we are doing is

953
simply to amend the definition of pupils who can be counted towards grant, once the eligibility of the school has been settled. I want to make that very clear.
While it is possible to amend the definition of a pupil without great controversy, it becomes a very different matter if we start amending the definition of a school. That is, I think, one of the main points of difficulty that may crop up during the course of the debate which we shall have to-day. One of the main problems facing the promoters of voluntary schools is the need for schools on new housing estates where there has been a shift of population. Schools of this type can be aided under the present definition, if the pupils are moved in blocks of a substantial size, because this enables the size of the school in the old area to be reduced. But, in actual practice, that is not always the case. In these days I think it would be true to say that, with the increasing school population, the pupils come—though perhaps not often—in small groups which do not affect one way or another the capacity of the old school. It is to meet this point that we propose to extend the definition to cover any pupils who move as the result of housing or town and country planning developments, and who would have attended an aided or special agreement school in the old area. That is the interest and the purpose of Clause 1.
Clause 2 deals with a slightly different problem. At present, a local education authority can be authorised under the 1946 Act, which was an amending Act to the main 1944 Act, to pay for the enlargement of a voluntary controlled school if that enlargement is needed wholly, or even mainly, to replace accommodation in some other voluntary school. The sort of case contemplated in that Act is one in which there is a group of schools, one or more of which is to be closed on account of bad premises. If it were not for the 1946 Act, the enlargement would have to be provided wholly at the expense of the voluntary body. That Act enabled the enlargement to be made from public funds. But there may be no convenient school which can be enlarged, and it may be that what is wanted is a new school altogether, centrally situated, that will take the place of one or more other voluntary schools. That possibility is
954
not covered by the 1946 Act. We propose, with the full agreement of the local education authorities, to cover it in this Bill.
Clause 3 carries this principle a stage further. The enlargement of a controlled school under the 1946 Act, and the provision of a new controlled school under Clause 2 of this Bill, assume that some accommodation in other voluntary schools has been surrendered. There are, however, quite a number of cases in which it is educationally right, and economical, for a local education authority to enlarge an existing controlled secondary school in preference to building a new county school, even when accommodation (and this is the point) has not in fact been given up. I do not think that cases of this character will occur very frequently, and generally they will arise in the field of grammar schools, especially where there is a rise in the school population; but we feel it is right and desirable to cover this arrangement, and no objection has been raised on any hand to the proposals. I turn next to Clause 8 because it deals with the same aspect of our problem—voluntary schools. Owing to building shortages, the promoters and managers of schools have sometimes found it best—indeed, they have sometimes been driven to this—to take and adapt existing houses, instead of building new schools. The wording of the principal Act does not allow such cases to count for grant under present legislation, and we have therefore sought to put this right, with retrospective effect, by substituting the word "provision" for "construction." Clause 8 also deals with a minor difficulty in the granting of loans by the Minister, but with this matter I do not think I need bother your Lordships.
I pass to the second group of clauses, Clauses 6, 10 and 15, and the first Amendment in the Schedule. These are intended to correct anomalies under the principal Act and were recommended, though not necessarily in precisely the form in which we have included them in this Bill, by the Local Government Manpower Committee set up by the last Government in 1948, which included representatives of the Ministry and the local education authorities. Clause 6 empowers local education authorities to pay in full the fees of pupils for whom

955
places are necessary at independent or non-maintained schools. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a desirable provision. The clause implies no change of practice on the part of the authorities, but gives the necessary legislative sanction to what is being done. Clause 10 deals with school attendance orders. I think your Lordships are aware that under the present Act a local authority which is satisfied that a child is not receiving efficient education has to serve upon the parent a school attendance order, but before doing so has to give the parent an opportunity of naming a particular school. The Local Government Manpower Committee recommended that the education authority should choose the school to be attended, subject only to the right of appeal by the parent. We have not felt able to accept that recommendation, but we have improved the wording of the section and have put a limit of fourteen days on the parent's right to name a school to be included in the school attendance order. Your Lordships will realise that there are a variety of reasons for nonattendance at school. In some cases it may be a perfectly bona fide disagreement about the school to which the child is to go; in many other cases it is simply a lack of care. Your Lordships can take it that this provision is intended to deal with cases of the latter kind.
Clause 15 reduces the period of public notices for new schools and closures from three to two months. This is a compromise. The Local Government Manpower Committee recommended a reduction to one month. We felt that while the existing period of three months is on the long side, it would be going too far to reduce it to one month. Therefore, we have adopted the compromise of two months. I think your Lordships will agree that while that increases the period, it does not make it too long. If your Lordships will turn to the first Amendment in the Schedule, you will see that this deals with a curious anomaly in the principal Act. Section 13 of the Act requires that, once proposals for a new school have been approved by the Minister, the local authority or the promoters are bound to proceed with their plans. But circumstances can change, and often change considerably, and then it would be foolish for an authority to carry
956
on as proposed. This Amendment, therefore, breaks what I might call this statutory chain of duties.
I think I need not detain your Lordships for long on the rest of the Bill. Clauses 4 and 5, in which some of your Lordships may have a particular interest, places beyond doubt the duty of the local authorities to secure an efficient dental service by a staff of school dentists or by making arrangements for specialist treatment with a hospital. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that the school dental service has fallen sadly behind in numbers lately, and it may be necessary to resort to many methods for ensuring that children receive proper dental treatment. I should like to say that it is the policy of the Government—I believe it to be the policy of all Governments—to rely primarily on building up an efficient school dental service. Clause 7 extends to further education the provision for recoupment by local education authorities of expenditure incurred in providing education for pupils for whom they are not responsible.
There remain two other clauses which perhaps I ought to mention. Clause 11 enables a local education authority to bring a truant child direct before the juvenile court, instead of bringing the parent before a magistrates' court and getting a directive from that court. I think your Lordships will agree that, in some circumstances, that may well be the better course to take. Then there is Clause 12, which was added in another place. This clause will make it possible for teachers to serve on children's committees. I should perhaps offer a word or two of explanation here. Under the Local Government Act, 1933, and the London Government Act, 1939, as amended by the Education Act, 1946, teachers in maintained and assisted schools were prevented from serving on any committees of a local authority except an education committee and certain other committees, such as mental deficiency committees. Now that children's committees have been set up, it is only reasonable that the ban on teachers' being elected to serve on them should be removed.
There is one further point to which I would venture to refer, although it is not actually in the Bill. I hope that I may have an opportunity of discussing it with your Lordships at a later stage. Your

957
Lordships may have noticed that on the Committee stage in the other place a clause was moved to make it possible for local education authorities to allow pupils, for whom no transport arrangements to schools had been made, to occupy vacant places on a school bus, and to charge them reasonable fares. I am sure your Lordships will agree that, if it is possible to agree with local education authorities, and other authorities as to this, it is a most desirable arrangement. As I have said, I hope to say something about this matter on the Committee stage of the Bill.
I should like to conclude by saying that the most important clause of this Bill, as of all preceding Education Bills, must depend on a spirit of good will and co-operation on the part of all concerned. We have heard a great deal of the immense task that the Roman Catholics, in particular, have had to face in providing new schools for their community. My right honourable friend asks me to say that she fully recognises those efforts which they have made and the contribution that they are making to the whole educational system of this country. We are all aware that building and other problems sometimes make it difficult, if not impossible, to accept in full their proposals for new schools. Delays in their provision are bound to be irksome. Nevertheless, the Government are as determined now as they were in 1944 to ensure that the voluntary schools shall play a part in our educational system, and they are prepared to do all they properly can to help. They believe that the present measure will be a valuable instrument in achieving this end; and they would remind your Lordships that every provision in this Bill that affects voluntary schools does, in fact, give an improvement in their position.
It is just on fifty years since we had the original compromise about religious education. I would say—perhaps it is unnecessary to say it in your Lordships' House—that the essence of compromise is that concessions to one side are quite impossible without considering the views of the other side. I know that noble Lords who speak for Roman Catholics, who are worried on a certain point in this Bill, would wish no more than I would to say or do anything to upset the basic agreement that exists, which represents a
958
great British achievement of the last fifty years, in reducing a subject that was surrounded by the bitterest controversy to a point where, though we admittedly have some disagreements and difficulties, and have our amendments to legislation, and so on, we are all resolved to maintain the essential balance of that compromise and understanding. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Earl De La Warr.)
3.45 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships are grateful to the noble Earl for the clear lucid and careful statement which he has just made. I observed that he stuck rather more closely to his notes than he normally does. I cannot blame him, for this is a technical and difficult topic, on which, no doubt, it is quite excusable that the speech should be not entirely extempore. This is a remarkable topic. I cannot go back as far as fifty years, but it is, I am sorry to say, over thirty years since I first became a Member of the other place, and certainly at that time—whether there had been a compromise as long ago as fifty years or not, I do not know—this subject was surrounded with difficulties and considerable Party bitterness. So it continued, as any Member for Lancaster will tell you, for a considerable time. It was one of the great achievements of the Coalition Government, and of Mr. Butler in particular, with Mr. Chuter Ede as his able lieutenant, to be able to introduce this Act of 1944. I was entrusted by Mr. Butler with a small part concerning the Part III education authorities, which was by no means the most easy part of the matter. It is a matter of great satisfaction that to-day, in a perfectly calm atmosphere, without any bitterness of any sort, the question of these schools can be discussed. I am grateful to the noble Earl for the part that he has played in regard to this matter, both now and in the past.
For my part, having looked carefully at this Bill, I have n a doubt that the House will give it a Second Reading. I thank the noble Earl for various provisions, which I feel are undoubtedly improvements, in the Bill. I propose to discuss with the House merely one matter, and to discuss it rather on the basis of making an appeal to the noble Earl to see whether, between now and

959
the Committee stage, he will look again at Clause 1 (perhaps we can have discussions with him, or with the Minister, who I am sure is always ready to meet Members of Parliament) with a view to clearing up an unfortunate point which is standing in the way of that sort of agreement which I believe is desirable in a Bill of this kind. I am not going to discuss any of the clauses of the Bill other than Clause 1, and only a somewhat narrow aspect of that clause. Clause 1 deals with the old difficulty about displaced pupils. You may look at this from the point of view of a definition of "displaced pupils," or, as it always seemed to me, a definition of the words "proposed school." When does a school cease to be a proposed school and become an actual school?
The history of the matter is this. When the Education Bill, which became the Education Act, 1944, left the House of Commons, the definition of "displaced pupils" in relation to a proposed school—because it is in that sense, and only in that sense, that you have to consider it—contained a phrase which said:
"in consequence of their parents having ceased to reside in the area served by…"
and so on. When that Bill came to this House the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who was in charge of it (and let me make it plain that I am not making the slightest suggestion against the good faith of the noble Earl: anybody who knows him would think any such suggestion quite ridiculous) proposed an Amendment to that clause. He said, and no doubt he was instructed to say, that the Amendment was of a drafting character which clarified, without altering the intention, the definition of "displaced pupil," and so, of course, everybody believed. But, in fact, the Amendment had the effect of leaving out altogether from the definition of "displaced pupil" the phrase,
"in consequence of their parents having ceased to reside in the area served by the school."
In the result, I think there can be no doubt that this drafting Amendment, which was merely intended to clarify, had the effect of making a substantial alteration of the original proposal. That alteration has been, as noble Lords who are interested in this matter know, the subject
960
of heartburning and some little controversy.
When, in 1951, a General Election was looming ahead of us, both Parties made statements in regard to this matter. The pronouncement made by the Labour Party was perhaps rather more specific and precise than that made by the Conservative Party; but both great Parties made pronouncements as to what they intended to do. In the result, of course, it became important to consider not what the Labour Party had promised but what the Conservative Party had said. Consequently, in January, 1952, the Minister of Education circulated a memorandum containing proposals for amending legislation. With regard to voluntary schools that memorandum contained a passage—I am shortening it, but I think not unfairly, and I can read it if it is necessary—which included this sentence:
"It is therefore proposed to amend the definition of displaced pupil so as to include pupils who have attended, or would in the opinion of the Minister of Education have attended, an existing aided or special agreement school if that school had not ceased to be available for them in consequence of their having ceased to reside in the area served by the school as a result of the movement, voluntary or compulsory, of population in any way consequent upon action taken, or proposed to be taken, under the enactment relating to housing or town and country planning."
So it came about that on February 12, 1952, the Minister arranged to meet a deputation representing the Catholic hierarchy. I am not a Catholic; I am a member of the Church of England, and therefore on this matter I do not speak from the particular religious point of view which the members of the Roman Catholic faith would perhaps adopt. But I do speak about this seriously, because I feel that a very important issue is here involved.
It has been my lot as a Minister for many years, particularly when I was Minister of National Insurance, to receive a large number of deputations. It is always wise in receiving a deputation to try not to tie yourself down to any definite proposals. If you do tie yourself down with a deputation, and if it becomes necessary for you to retire from the position you have taken up, then I conceive it to be incumbent upon you to call that deputation before you again and to explain to them that you have made a mistake and that you cannot make good

961
the promise that you gave. It cannot, I venture to think, be right simply to get up in the House of Commons and, without any further discussion with anybody, introduce a Bill in fiat contradiction of the statements which you made to the deputation. That, it seems to me, owing no doubt to error, is what has happened, and the appeal which I am making to the noble Earl is this. It would be very much better (there is not very much money at stake here, I understand) if the Minister could be induced to make good the statement which she made, in the utmost good faith, to that deputation. I propose to the noble Earl that, between now and the Committee stage—and this is why I am mentioning it to-day—he should look into this matter; and, of course, he will have ample opportunity of discussing it with the Minister. I feel certain that the Minister will be prepared to meet some of us who care about this matter, and the only satisfactory solution is to get an agreement by consent. That is what I should like to bring about.
As I said, the Roman Catholic hierarchy went to the Minister and were anxious to get various concessions. The Minister made it quite plain that she would not be prepared to grant certain concessions for which they asked. She made it quite plain, and was perfectly right in so doing, that the whole question was covered by the words "in the opinion of the Minister." There is no matter of right about this. It is simply that the Minister should have power to consider whether or not a particular school should or should not receive a grant. She also made it quite plain that the legislation was not going to be retrospective. What she said, if a school had been finally dealt with and completed, the accounts closed and the children were there, and it was an established school, was "I am not prepared to go back. If this has happened between the passing of the Act in 1944, and this present Bill which amends the Act, I am not prepared to make grants, nor have I even the power to make grants, in respect of such schools."
At once there arises the question, What is the dividing line? What is retrospective? With regard to that, the Minister made a perfectly categorical statement which she read out and which no doubt
962
had been most carefully considered. It was this:
"The new definition would not be retrospective in the sense that grant on completed projects could be reassessed: grant claims on schemes in progress or"—
this is the other category—
"for which accounts had not been closed would be eligible for review in the tight of the new definition."
Your Lordships will observe that there are two categories there. First, there is a scheme that is still in progress. Second, if the scheme does nor come within that category and cannot be said to be in progress because it is completed, it still comes in if the accounts have not been closed—that is to say, if the accounts have not been paid. I think the words can mean nothing else. That was the undertaking which the Minister gave.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I interrupt the noble and learned Earl? Is he saying that if a part of a builder's account is still outstanding the Minister's words would cover that case?
EARL JOWITT: Certainly. Suppose that, for the mere sake of qualifying for the grant, you held up an account which otherwise would have been paid—I am not seeking to include such a case as that. The position is made quite plain in a letter from an official of the Ministry who was present at the meeting. The letter makes the very point which the noble Lord has just made:
"I think what Mr. Leadbetter intended to suggest was that there is clearly a distinction between the Minister's assurance that the proposed new legislation would apply to schools for which the accounts had not been formally closed, and any suggestion that the accounts of a school for displaced pupils should be kept indefinitely in suspense, solely in order to qualify for the benefits of the new legislation."
I should not myself press the Minister to extend the concession in the latter category because that would be to take advantage of a technicality. If, on the other hand, the accounts have not been formally closed, I should follow the definition of the official of the Ministry of Education and say that that does come, and was intended to come, precisely within the Minister's formula. If that be thought not to be so, surely the course for the Minister to take would have been to re-summon the deputation and state that she wanted in some way to

963
qualify what she had said. What I think is quite wrong is to do nothing of that sort but to get up and introduce a Bill in the House of Commons, posing a wholly new criterion. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote some words of the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing the Second Reading. He said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons. Vol. 509, Col. 110):
"If I may repeat the words from my notes, the crucial question is whether the school has been established and is being maintained."
That may or may not be a good test, but the point is that it is a wholly different test from that propounded by the Minister with regard to the accounts not having been closed; and that is what has given rise to this trouble.
I suggest to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that by far the most satisfactory way of dealing with this is not by seeking to move an Amendment or anything of that sort; I would beg him to look into this matter and to consult the Minister about it, in order that he may see exactly what is involved—I believe, as I have said, that it is not a very large sum. I beg him to consider, in consultation with the Minister, whether or not it is possible to introduce words into the Bill to meet the case. It would not be difficult to find words that are appropriate. If we may have talks with the noble Earl or the Minister, we shall be most ready to help to find a form of words which would be appropriate. That is the right way to deal with the matter, and I hope the noble Earl will be prepared to meet us in this respect. Now, my Lords, I have put the case fully, and I have made it on this one point only. I think the Bill certainly deserves our support, and we shall give it our support—and much more readily if that which has become an unfortunate point of contention between the Parties can be satisfactorily dealt with. I hope that between now and the next stage, the noble Earl will be able to go into the matter with us in an attempt to arrive at a satisfactory solution of these problems.
4.3 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in thanking the noble Earl for the clear way in which he has explained the purpose of
964
this Bill. I wish to refer to two clauses, Clauses 4 and 5, which deal with dental treatment for schoolchildren. I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord that it is the intention of the Government to encourage the formation of the school dental service to the utmost, but I think it may perhaps take some time before that can be brought to fruition. I believe there are at the present time about 1,000 dentists, or the equivalent of 1,000 dentists, in the school service. I am told we shall want another 1,000 before the service is complete—that is to say, to provide a service of one dentist to about 3,000 children. This can be done under the Bill by the regional hospital board or the board of governors of a teaching hospital.
Another problem is the building of enough clinics for the school dentists to do their work. At the present time, with the restrictions on capital expenditure, it is difficult to see much hope of that being done in the immediate future. I suggest to the Government, therefore, that until the school dental service is available in full strength the Minister might encourage the employment by local education authorities of the general dental service available in the rest of the country. I think it would be wrong to leave this matter entirely to the parents, and that a great deal of good work might be done if the authorities would make use of the general dental service. Perhaps this matter could be referred back to the local education authorities. That is all I wish to say on the Bill, except that I support it on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches.
4.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, the first expression of any Roman Catholic speaker on this Bill must be one of gratitude. We are indeed grateful to this Government, as we should have been to any other Government, for providing this relief. The truth is that we have for some time been feeling the pinch very acutely. Although I do not think it occurred to any one of us to doubt that we should be able to fulfil the programme which we had set before ourselves in 1944, yet when you come to consider that building costs are estimated to have risen two and a half to three times over prewar costs; when you consider the very

965
high standard rightly and correctly set by the Ministry for the building of new schools (many of the old public schools at which your Lordships were educated would not pass any modern inspector of school buildings); and when you consider, too, the great delays in getting anything built at all in these days, your Lordships will appreciate that we have been very much stretched to maintain our programme of school building. It was, therefore, a great consolation to me to hear from the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that this problem of school building is appreciated.
In 1950 the Ministry of Education were good enough to work out for us what approximate figure we should have to envisage for the completion of our programme. It was £51 million—and I am told that that figure relates only to private schools and does not take into account the grammar schools and technical schools which we intend to build. That is a large sum for a community which is a poor one with very few wealthy members. The relief afforded to us by this Bill will amount perhaps to £2,500,000. For that, many thanks: we will endeavour to carry on in a big task for which I am quite sure there is much sympathy in your Lordships' House. Our gratitude is, of course, tempered by a measure of disappointment. I will not traverse again the ground that has been covered by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in his account of the negotiations between the Ministry and the Roman Catholic Bishops, but, so far as I have been able to learn, the noble and learned Earl's account was strictly correct. I will say no more than that hopes were raised and have been grievously disappointed. I share the desire of the noble and learned Earl to see whether by some conference, perhaps with my noble friend, Lord De La Warr, perhaps with the right honourable lady, the Minister of Education, we cannot yet arrive at some solution that will be acceptable to a Committee of your Lordships' House or, at any rate, even if we cannot do that, succeed in understanding each other better than we do at present. I would not in any way attempt to pre-judge those conversations. Willingly, and with relief, I pass from that topic.
There is one oilier matter that is troubling us in connection with the new
966
definition of "displaced pupils." I mention the matter because, though we may not be able to obtain any satisfaction on the present Bill, it is a matter for which we shall have to go on asking and pressing. The definition of "displaced pupil" in the Bill before your Lordships is a very great improvement on the wording of the Selborne Amendment. It is not perhaps quite so good as the original wording of the 1944 Act, as it passed another place, because in the 1944 definition emphasis was placed not upon the moving pupil but upon the moving parent. May I explain to your Lordships just where our difficulty lies? Mr. and Mrs. Hogan move up from the docks to a new housing estate and they bring with them Bridget anal Michael. Bridget and Michael are aged twelve and thirteen respectively and they are ready to go to a technical or grammar school. Unfortunately, owing to the time taken to get anything planned and built nowadays, the Roman Catholics have not a grammar school ready for them to go to. They are told, "We are building one. The site has been arranged and has been blessed by the Bishop, but we have not got the grammar school actually going." Therefore the Hogan children cannot go to it. Under the present definition, we cannot get any grant on account of those Hogans.
What else? The Hogan couple celebrate their arrival at the housing estate by giving birth to little Teresa, and Teresa is coming on. In eleven years' time she will be going to a technical or grammar school. After all, the fact that she is demanding technical or grammar school education on the housing estate is simply and solely a consequence of Mr. and Mrs. Hogan's original move there. But little Teresa cannot possibly count as a "displaced pupil." Therefore we should have preferred a still wider definition of "displaced pupil" so as to include the parents of a Catholic family who have moved into a district. We do not mean to include, and we are not, obviously, trying to include, an indefinite series of unborn children, but we are trying to provide for the establishment of a Roman Catholic community in a new housing estate. That is a point on which we have not yet succeeded in getting any satisfaction at all, and on

967
which we are anxious to have some satisfaction if in any way possible. Otherwise, we feel that our technical schools and our grammar schools are not going to get any displaced pupils grant at all and the whole burden of their establishment will fall upon us.
It is often said, and I am afraid it is true enough: "The Roman Catholics are always asking for something." Perhaps I have asked for enough, but I am going to ask for one thing more. I am going to ask that the spirit which animated the concluding remarks of my noble friend, Lord De La Warr, should be more widespread in this country and, in particular, that it should become more prevalent among the local education authorities. There are, thank Heaven! many local education authorities with whom we are on happy and co-operative terms, but there are also some who, to a greater or lesser extent, seem to be perpetually grudging and hostile in their attitude towards the dual system. I am anxious to see that spirit die. We on our side have our own touchiness, our own defensive attitude, which perhaps sometimes impedes co-operation; but, for the good of the education of all our children, we are most anxious for better relations all over the country. After all, the dual system of education is not a mere compromise forced on an unwilling State by pressure from sectional interests: it is part of our British way of life. It is a free system of education. It is untidy, I daresay, and it is inefficient; but it is free. It is the only way in which the majority of parents can get any choice at all in the schooling of their children. How greatly we value our right to choose our children's schools! By maintaining the dual system we give parents some choice—call it a poor choice, if you will, but some choice. That is a feature of our British way of life which I am perfectly sure no one, whatever his sectional views may be, would wish to alter.
4.20 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I do not wish to bother the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, but I want to take up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Amulree with regard to dental treatment. I have a special interest in dental treatment inasmuch as a good many years ago, when I was one of the consultant medical officers to the London County
968
Council, I actually started the first dental clinic in London, at Blackfriars, and it has continued up to the present time. I think it is difficult to over-estimate the value of dental treatment for children. Before teeth were attended to in the way they now are the health of children suffered very seriously indeed from the condition of tooth decay, and worse, that was frequently seen when children were inspected in schools. That is how I came to bring the matter to the notice of the London County Council, who acknowledged the necessity for setting up a school clinic. It is one of the great changes in the health of the children in this country that for the most part their teeth are at least much better now than they were in those other days.
But I want to say to my noble friend Lord Amulree that when dental clinics were started we did not first of all think of the new building; we just took a house and used the ordinary rooms in that house for the work of a dental clinic. It had to be a large house and it had to provide a room for the children to wait. There is no great difficulty in finding such accommodation; it certainly can still be found. I do not suggest that the first thing is to get a new building; the first thing to get is the dental service which is set out in Clauses 4 and 5, because I am sure that that will be of great benefit. It is one of the misfortunes that have overtaken us since the war that, for various reasons, partly in connection with the establishment of the National Health Service, the number of school dentists at one time decreased very greatly indeed, to such a point, in fact, that children's teeth were not being looked after properly. In many areas the situation has now changed and school dentists are being appointed by education authorities and are doing their work adequately. But we need more than we have at the present time.
The Bill in its present form provides that dental treatment shall be available in primary and secondary schools and for children undergoing further education in a school or county college maintained by the education authority where free dental treatment can be provided. That is to be done by dentists engaged, whether whole-time or part-time, at the expense of the local authority. Secondly, it is to be done under arrangements made with the

969
regional hospital board or the board of governors of a teaching hospital within the meaning of the National Health Act, 1946. It is important that as far as possible the work should be confined to those two groups of people, and any work which is done outside of that by dentists privately employed should be carefully supervised, because unless dentists are carefully selected it is by no means certain that they are necessarily accustomed to doing work for children and know the technique.
It is most important that children's teeth should be looked after adequately, so that they do not at an early age have to get rid of their ordinary natural teeth, which, so to speak, are provided as part of their bodies, and have to be provided with artificial teeth which unfortunately at the present time such large numbers of people have. It should be the rare exception in the future that artificial teeth are provided, and it should be the normal procedure that sound teeth are guaranteed to every child in the community, with the exception, of course, of those who are stricken by serious disease which undermines their health and constitution. In the normal course every child ought to be guaranteed the inheritance of good sound teeth. Undoubtedly, that will make a great difference in the health of children, in their resistance to disease, in their physical development and, correlated with that, in their mental and intellectual health also. I believe that the proper safeguarding of the health and of the teeth is one of the most important things that we can do for our children. The great task of the medical and dental professions at the schools is to see that at the time when the child leaves school or college it does so with a better prospect of good health and a better prospect of a long, vigorous and useful life than ever before.
I want to ask the Minister whether he will give an assurance that in cases where it is quite impossible to get a dental service arranged in a particular area, or to get dentists appointed by the regional hospital board, he will see that there is adequate supervision of any dental work carried on by private dentists whose work has not been examined from the point of view of their knowledge of the particular technique required for children. It is essential that that particular aspect of the
970
matter should be locked into. That is the only point to which I wish to draw attention. Other points in this Bill, many of them of the greatest possible importance, may well be dealt with by other speakers; but if we can ensure that care of the physical condition of our children will reach a very high standard, it will certainly have a great effect on the future of every child who goes to school.
4.28 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not wish to address the House for long, but I should like to revert to the point touched upon by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. It would be a great misfortune if, by any alteration of agreed settlements, we were to reopen the settlement of the religious question in regard to schools. Thinking back to the days of my teens, I recall that that was one of the most thorny political controversies of the time. Luckily, as the years have gone by, and by careful handling, especially by successive Minister of Education, that controversy has now practically settled down, and in the educational sphere we can see harmony between the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Churches. Mr. Butler and Mr. Chuter Ede, who at that time was his Parliamentary Secretary, effected in the 1944 Act what we all thought was a good compromise. That Act has been found to need some amendment. As Acts come into practice very few of them are comprehensive, and from time to time they need some amendment. During the time of the Labour Government two amending Bills to the 1944 Act were introduced, one in 1946 and one in 1948. The noble and learned Earl seemed to be saying to-day that the Labour Party want this provision to be retrospective. May I point out to him that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, was not able to persuade them to put it into one of those two measures, which are amending Acts to the 1944 Act. Nothing like Clause 1 of this Bill appeared either in the Labour Government's amending Act of 1946, or in the Act of 1948.
It might have been proposed that the amendment should be retrospective to 1944; but that, in this case, was never the Ministers suggestion, and I, for one, very much deplore criticism of Miss Horsbrugh on this ground. At one time, Miss Horsbrugh was Parliamentary

971
Secretary to me when I was a Minister, just as Mr. Chuter Ede was to Mr. Butler—though, of course, the Ministerial posts were different ones; mine was at the Ministry of Food. I very much deplore that Miss Horsbrugh should be in any way accused of lack of good faith. I am certain that that is the last accusation which could be made with any justification about the right honourable lady. What, in fact, did this memorandum to which the noble Lord has referred, say? There are two passages I want to read.
EARL JOWITT: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I am sorry that I was called out of the Chamber just now: we have been considering the little topic of the Enemy Property Bill which is coming before us again this week and it is a very difficult subject. I hope the noble Lord did not think that I accused the Minister of any lack of good faith. I did not mean to do so at all. The error of which I accused her was that, having found out that she could not make good promises she had made, instead of calling the people concerned back and telling them that she could not implement her promises she introduced a Bill concerned with wholly different criteria from that which she had herself enunciated. That is my criticism of her, and the only criticism I make.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am glad that the noble and learned Earl has made that clear. But I rather doubt whether Miss Horsbrugh ever made a promise that has not been implemented. However, that is a different matter. Now how do these passages from the memorandum to which I have referred read? The first is as follows:
"The two suggestions made by Bishop Beck would widen the scope of the suggested Amendment in a way that would make the justification more difficult to explain to other interested parties. She would prefer not to tamper with the wording of the memorandum which had now been sent out to all the interests which she had to consult."
She did, in fact, have consultations with the National Union of Teachers, the local education authorities, and the Church of England, as well, of course, as the Roman Catholic Church. The passage which I began quoting continues:
972
"The new definition would not be retrospective in the sense that grant on completed projects could be re-assessed."
What is a completed project?
LORD PAKENHAM: Will the noble Lord continue the quotation?
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am going to do so, but perhaps I may be allowed to finish my remark. I was asking, what is a completed project? There can be no more completed project than a school which has been finished, a school in which pupils are studying and which has been handed over to the local education authority for maintenance, as are all these schools. There was never any suggestion of including a school which had already been taken over by a local education authority. As to the accounts, surely these are not the accounts with the builder; it is the settlement of the question as to who has to pay what proportion of the cost: whether it is a matter of the Church paying part of it and the Government paying part and the local education authority paying part. I am informed that it was never the intention to make this retrospective in the sense that it would apply to schools which were already open and in which pupils were already being taught. That is the definition, as I understand it, which is now in Clause 1 of this Bill—namely, that it will not apply back to schools when all the pre-paraphernalia has been settled and pupils are already assembled and working in them. It is true that not a great number are involved, as I understand.
EARL JOWITT: Will the noble Lord please read on? He told the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that he would give us the rest of the passage, and we are now coming to the critical words.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I will certainly read the critical words. Here they are:
"The new definition would not be retrospective in the sense that grant on completed projects could he reassessed: grant claims on schemes in progress,"—
that is all right; that is covered by the Bill—
"or for which accounts had not been closed would be eligible for review in the light of the new definition."
The noble Lord said it is the account with the builder. If it is found that an architect has still to settle something with the builder, the noble Lord said, that

973
means that the account has not been closed. In my opinion, that was never the intention at all. An account which was from the Roman Catholic Church authorities building the school and their builder, was not the one. It was a question of the proportion different people were going to pay before the final business about preliminaries to the school were settled and it was handed over to the local education authority for maintenance.
EARL JOWITT: If it is that account you mean, that must come much later. That is a much more onerous burden on the Minister than the account I suggested.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not mean the actual payment of the account.
EARL JOWITT: It is the settlement which must be much later.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The settlement, so far as I understand it, is arrived at on a much earlier matter—I mean the settlement as to who shall pay what proportion at the time, and before the school project is approved by the Ministry. But let us get down to what this actually amounts to. There are, I understand, seventy-six schools in the Catholic school building programme. Of these, forty-nine would have got grants, anyway, under the 1944 Act. Sixteen will clearly always have come under this amending Bill, but there are some which would never have qualified, as I understand it, and at one time there were about five schools left over. That was mentioned by Mr. Chuter Ede in another place. I understand the Minister now thinks she can include three or four of these. But the important thing, of course, in this matter is not to go back on the memorandum sent out generally to everyone, promising that it would not be retrospective. A passage I have quoted referred to a letter from Bishop Beck which was also quoted in the House of Commons. There is also this passage written by the chairman of the Catholic Education Council, which I should like to quote:
"We have now had an opportunity of giving careful consideration to the text of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1952. In the first place I would like to tell you how much we welcome the main provisions of this Bill and how grateful we are to you for having gone so far to meet us."
974
It then refers to Clause 1, and continues:
"We appreciate that, when you received the delegation…on 12th February, 1952, you said that you found it impossible to make this clause retrospective."
Surely that can only mean retrospective for schools that were already open. That must be the meaning of the word "retrospective." The chairman then goes on to say:
"On examination, however, it has been found that there are a few cases where considerable hardship will be suffered if this clause does not have retrospetive effect."
There was no complaint that there had been any breach of undertaking, but when they had seen the text of the measure—and I think the noble and learned Earl was a little unfair to suggest that the first communication to them was on the Floor of another place, because this correspondence had been passing—theythen asked that this clause should be retrospective.
That is not just a matter between the Minister and one Church. It is a matter she has to take up with all whom she had consulted before, some of whom have sent letters already, saying that they do not agree that this should be made retrospective. That is the position. There are many of us who admire the Roman Catholic Church for what it does in the way of education and I am certainly one, of those. But I do not want us here to do anything which once more will arouse in other people's minds this extremely delicate topic and lead to that kind of controversy between perhaps the teachers or perhaps the local education authorities and the Catholic Church, which we had all hoped we had seen settled once and for all for the good of education and for the good of the people of this country.
4.42 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, as the second Catholic to speak in this debate, I should like to join with the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, in thanking the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for the way in which he explained this matter and for all that has been done by the Minister for those of the Catholic community. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, explained the situation very clearly from our point of view, and therefore I will not detain your Lordships by going over the ground again, except to say how glad I was to hear the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr,

975
say, in his final words, that the voluntary schools shall play a part of importance in our national system of education. It is good to hear that from the representative of Her Majesty's Government.
The speech of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was admirable in its tone and in its presentation of the situation as we of the Catholic community see it. I agree with it wholeheartedly, and I beg the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to give careful thought to the suggestion so clearly put by the noble and learned Earl that at an early date some suitable conference may be convened to discuss these matters. I beg him to recommend this to the right honourable lady who presides over the Ministry of Education. I hope that something along these lines will be done, because it is obvious that the issue at stake will not be solved in the time of the debate now taking place in your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, referred to this matter as a bone of contention, and I think that is true. The noble Earl also referred to differences between the two Parties. I am sure he meant between the Catholic hierarchy and the Ministry of Education, and not in any sense any difference of opinion between the two main Parties of this country. I beg the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to give careful thought to Lord Jowitt's suggestion, to which I trust he will give effect without delay.
4.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, this Bill is very miscellaneous, as its title suggests. It is difficult for us not in close touch with the day-to-day work of the local education authorities to deal with it adequately, but I should like to say a few words on one or two points. I read the Report of the proceedings in another place and was impressed by the tremendous experience and sincerity of all the speeches made there, particularly on the subject of Clause 1. We have already had a good deal of discussion about this clause and I do not want to repeat arguments on whether or not the clause should be retrospective in its application. It seems to me that retrospective legislation is, prima facie, a bad thing—there, I think, we shall all agree. It is for those who want to make this
976
retrospective legislation to make their case. It is natural for those who want this change in the grants made to schools for displaced pupils to seek to make it retrospective, because clearly they would get more benefit from it. But I think their case is weak unless they can show that some obvious mistake was made in the past.
There was talk in another place about the introduction by your Lordships of an Amendment to the original Act of 1944 which prevented these grants from being made, as now suggested; but it seems to me that there has been ample time in which any mistake made at that time could have been corrected. There were many years during which the late Government were in power during which the original Act could have been amended. Retrospective legislation is bad because we have all had the benefit of the law as it stands to-day. In the past, certain bodies have felt that they could not afford to build these schools, and others have been deterred by lack of certain grants from the Ministry. If we now make a change that is retrospective, it seems to me that we should almost certainly create as many anomalies as we solved.
Clause 1, as it stands, will do much to help denominational schools, particularly Roman Catholic schools. I understand that after a long discussion with the Minister—and we ought to be grateful to the right honourable lady for the trouble she has taken over this—a compromise was arrived at, and I feel that it would be wrong to tamper with such a compromise because of pressure from one particular side. If we embark on that type of change, of running away from a compromise that has been made, it seems to me that we shall undermine the whole basis of the 1944 Act. It is always difficult to know where to draw the line in these cases, but on the merits here it seems to me that the Minister has gone a long way in this Bill towards meeting the arguments of the Roman Catholic community and other denominations. As I understand it, grants are payable for uncompleted schools and schools in the course of construction for which all contracts have been signed. It would perhaps be more logical if the line were drawn at the point at which the contract for the building was signed, because that is the

977
point at which the decision is taken as to whether the school can or cannot be built. But the Bill goes further than that, and the determining factor, as I understand it, is whether a school is in operation. As I say, I feel that we should not go back on this compromise, although I am sure we are all sorry if there has been a misunderstanding due to the actual words used in a statement by the Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, explained.
I should now like to say a few words with regard to Clause 6. Under Clause 6 (2) (b) the local education authorities have an obligation put upon them to pay the whole of the fees of pupils who are sent to a boarding school because there is no suitable school in their own district. Not only are the local education authorities to pay for the tuition fees, hut they have also to pay the whole of the fees for board and lodging. That paragraph says that the local education authority
"shall, where board and lodging are provided for the pupil at the school…pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the board and lodging."
I realise that it is the duty of the local education authorities to provide suitable education for every child, and that if they cannot do it in their own locality they have to provide it somewhere else. However, it seems to me to be going rather far to make it essential for the local education authority to pay all the fees for board and lodging of a pupil where the family will be saved considerable expense by having the child away from home. There are obviously cases where that is necessary, but it seems to me only fair that, in most cases, the parents should be required to pay something towards the cost of food, at least, because that is saved at home. I feel that in these days—and this is often said—we are rather apt to forget the responsibility of parents for their children. To look at it on, perhaps, a rather low plane, except for the first child, parents are paid children's allowance to help towards their maintenance. It seems to me a little illogical to pay that allowance to a parent, and then to say that for a large part of the year much of the expense of maintaining the child will be taken from the parent.
But that is not the most important point. I feel that there is a great danger
978
to-day that we are whittling away parental responsibility too far, and we ought to beware before we take any further steps in that direction. I feel, also, that we should beware of adding unnecessarily to the burden of the cost of education. But it is on this first point, what you might call the moral point, more than on the financial aspect, that I desire to place the emphasis. It seems to me that we should all pay a little, according to our means, towards the education, the clothing, or whatever it is, of our children. That, I know, is an ideal which is almost impossible to attain, but, as I have said, in this case the home is being saved expense, and surely the parents should be asked to contribute, according to their means, particularly to the cost of feeding the children living at a boarding school. I hope that noble Lords on the opposite side will not accuse me of proposing a means test. It is, to some extent, I know, a mean test if you have to ask parents what their means are; but that is already done in other parts of the educational system—in grants to universities, the scholarships for supplementation and other awards. That seems to me to be reasonable; otherwise, with the fixed amount of money available, there will not be sufficient for those who really need it.
Further on the cost of education, it seems to me that we ought to look carefully at any increase in expenditure of this sort. This increase may he small, but I feel that it is of the utmost importance that any expenditure on education should be put into the right channels. We are all aware of the grave lack of teachers, and particularly those qualified to teach scientific subjects, and of the huge classes so often being carried on in magnificent buildings. I feel that we ought to try to cut out expenditure on frills at every point, and this may be a small point on which it is worth saving a little money. I do not suggest that the money saved should be used for purposes other than education, but that it should remain in that sphere and be used to improve the recruiting and pay of teachers, so that we may reduce the numbers in these hopelessly big classes. I hope it will not be thought that I am proposing cuts in education. I am only suggesting that we should economise where we can do so without I doing harm, and divert the money to

979
where it will do the most good. Just as in the Fighting Services and in the Church, so in education: it is not the buildings and the frills that matter, but the men and women who are doing the work—they are far more important than the material equipment. If I may digress slightly from the subject of the Bill, we see these magnificent schools being built all around the country, with playing fields, swimming baths and so on—all excellent things in themselves—but we find in these schools classes of perhaps forty, or more, in which children of tender age cannot be properly taught and looked after. I would ask the Government to consider those points in the widest sense. The question is: Are we not neglecting the human and the moral factors involved, both as regards teachers and the encouragement of parental responsibility?
My last point is that in another place there were some rather ill-informed criticisms of the public schools, as it seemed to me. It was said that the public schools had failed to carry out the obligations put upon them in the Fleming Report; that they had failed to offer places to pupils from State-aided schools. As I understand the position, that is quite untrue. I was hoping that we should have an opportunity of discussing that, together with other important points about public schools, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, which was down on the Order Paper, but I understand that that Motion is to be put back until the autumn. However, I hope that we may then have a full discussion of the matter. Be that as it may, I understand that the public schools in general are willing to take often up to 25 per cent. of their boys from State-aided schools; that these places have not been filled, and that a minute percentage has been taken up; and that the boys who have been taken have proved most successful and have got on well with the other boys, and that there has been no difficulty. I understand that the scheme, so far as it has gone, has been a great success, and certainly there has been no reluctance on the part of the public schools to take the boys. It may well be that we shall have to reconsider the scheme under which these scholarships and grants are made. I think that many local education authorities feel that they
980
cannot afford the rather large fees that are required to take up these places. I hope that we shall discuss that in the debate which will take place in the autumn. I wanted to make this point to-day, because I feel it is most unfortunate that it should get abroad that in this connection the public schools are not fulfilling their obligation.
5.0 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just touched upon a number of interesting points will forgive me if I return to the one particular aspect of the Bill which has come under the main discussion this afternoon. Like those who have given the lead among Catholic speakers, I would echo a sense of gratitude for what is being done, not only, it seems to me, for Catholics, but for all who value denominational education. That does not mean for a moment that we consider we are receiving full justice. I myself believe that those who value a particular kind of denominational education should suffer no penalty at all as a result of that belief except, if you like, in very extreme cases, where a handful of such people might live in some inaccessible spot. Therefore I cannot for a moment agree that full justice is being done, or is likely to be done in the near future.
Like other Catholic speakers, I welcome the good will shown by the Government—it was, indeed, being shown by the late Government—towards this question, and towards the claims of the Catholics in particular. I welcome just as heartily the improved atmosphere in which these matters are being discussed to-day. My other opening reflection is this. It seems to me most important that these informal discussions which have been suggested by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, should be held. I do not think anybody can read through those interminable debates which they had in another place—conducted as they were with much eloquence and good humour—or even our discussion here to-day, without feeling that there is still a certain amount which is still unexplained and which needs clearing up. For that reason alone, I beg the noble Earl, no doubt after discussions with the Minister, to see whether these informal conversations can be arranged.

981
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, will forgive me if I describe as rather challenging his suggestion that a certain compromise was reached and that now there is some danger or possibility of its being overthrown as a result of Catholic pressure. That seems to one speaker at least—I refer to myself—a very strange way of describing what has occurred, to the best of my understanding. May I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt? May I say that if ever I get into trouble in this House—and I have been in trouble before now—I hope that the noble Lord, irrespective of Party, will leap to my assistance, though I shall not have the same claims as his old Parliamentary Secretary. If anybody could make something out of a thankless case it would be the noble Lord with his calm benevolence and reasonable manner.
Let us go back to what seems to me to be the essential of this rather unhappy dispute, unhappy though not tragic, because we hope that we shall eventually clear it up. There was this discussion between the Minister and the Catholic hierarchy, and the Minister made what I venture to describe, and what certainly has been widely understood to be, a promise. That word itself may be questioned, but until it is disputed—and it was not disputed by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin—we can say that the Minister made a certain promise to the Catholic hierarchy and that presumably she was in a position to make a promise. She is a Minister of experience and good sense and, I need hardly say, good faith; and I have, of course, no doubt that when she made the promise she meant to keep it. Let us see what this promise was. It has been read once by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, but I felt that not all members of your Lordships' House grasped what it amounted to. The Minister promised this:
"The new definition would not be retrospective in the sense that grant on completed projects could be reassessed: grant claims an schemes in progress"—
we need not argue about them, because they are accepted—
"or for which accounts had not been closed would he eligible for review, in the light of the new definition."
Now if there was any kind of compromise, clearly this was contained in it,
982
so, with respect, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote must not talk of a compromise being reached and then suggest that our attempt to include this is adding something to the compromise. This was certainly included in any compromise that was made. There is a promise and those are the terms.
Now this is the question on which I would venture to ask the House to focus its attention, and I shall not expect too definite a reply from the noble Earl. I only hope that he will be good enough to keep the door open. Can anybody in the House say—and certainly I do not think the noble Earl will say—that this promise is going to be carried out under the Bill as it now stands? Let us see whether it can be seriously argued that it is going to be carried out. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, laid great stress on the fact that the new definition would not be retrospective. They say, "The Minister said all along that it would not be, and here are the Catholics saying that it must be retrospective. Clearly it is the Catholics who are going back on something agreed." But when one reads all these contributions in Hansard, that will seem to be a thin presentation of the case. The Minister said that it would not be retrospective in a special sense, but it was widely appreciated that the question was: What is meant by "retrospective"? In order to clear up the point further, she made this promise: that grants to schools for which the accounts had not been closed would be eligible for review. She did not promise they would receive a grant. She said they would be eligible for review if the accounts had not been closed. Now here I am looking for enlightenment quite seriously. Again, I do not want too much this afternoon, because it might be imparted perhaps too hastily, but at some point we are bound to ask what meaning is to be attached to the phrase
"for which accounts had not been closed."
LORD LLEWELLIN: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think that is where we are not quite ad idem. What is referred to is a grant claim for which accounts have not been closed. It is an account on the grant claim, and I am told—although I am not expert in these matters—that grant claims are put in early

983
in the proceedings, and that accounts are put in which justify the grant claims. When the grant claim has been settled, it cannot be retrospective.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We have had a great many different interpretations of this clause and this, if I have understood him aright, is another.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It is how the words read.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord is at any rate amplifying the sentence in the clause which he will agree I have read out:
"Grant claims on schemes in progress or for which accounts had not been closed would be eligible.…"
The noble Lord says that the word "accounts" refers to the grant claims and not to the schemes.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Yes. That is how it reads.
LORD PAKENHAM: As a matter of fact, it could be read either way. It is completely ambiguous in that respect. It was obviously not a very happy remark to make in the first place, as that complete ambiguity exists on the face of the words. But whatever it means, let us ask whether this phrase is now to be honoured—whether the phrase as now explained to us by the noble Lord is to be honoured and the promise put into execution. That is the point which must be put. I am informed that there is nothing in any reading of the disputed phrase under which the Minister, so to speak, would benefit. I do not want to suggest that she is scoring off the schools in any sort of way, and therefore I do not quite like putting the matter in the way I have. But I am told that in any obvious use of this phrase the Catholic schools would tend to benefit more than, or at least as much as, on our reading of it. Perhaps the Minister will kindly tell us to-day in what sense this is going to be read, and whether the phrase as now before us will be honoured in any sense: and, if so, in what sense. Until I came to the House this afternoon, I was under the impression that it was going to be thrown over. I may be wrong: the intention may be to carry it out in some sense which is lost on me; but I
984
understood that it was to be thrown over; I understood that the Minister had said, in effect, that this phrase could not be carried out without prejudice to the other parts of the Bill—in other words, that she had felt bound for some reason to scrap this promise. We may be wrong, but we should like to know in what sense, if any, this promise is going to be carried out.
I do not want to labour the point any further, because the Minister will see that, after all that prolonged discussion in another place, the minds of many of those most keenly and genuinely interested in this matter are still very much in the dark. If I press the Minister to-day on this point, it is not that I desire to force an answer. I should prefer that the spokesman of the Ministry of Education, that is to say the noble Earl, indicated this afternoon that he would be prepared for discussion and would rather not deal with the matter in greater detail to-day. But, whether to-day or later, we shall have to ask in terms whether the promise is going to be carried out and, if so, in what sense.
5.13 p.m.
EARL WAVELL: My Lords, during the passage of this Bill through another place discussion developed on the principle of Clause 6—the spending of public finance on the provision of places at independent schools. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has postponed his Motion on this subject to the autumn to suit other interests but, unfortunately, I shall then be serving a long way overseas. I have the noble Lord's permission to trespass in advance upon his Motion. As this, I think, is the first debate on educational matters in your Lordships' House since February of last year, I hope that I shall be forgiven for opening up on a theme not previously dealt with in this debate.
I will plunge straight in by setting out the arguments of those who oppose Clause 6. The purchasing of a privileged form of education is, they say, as indefensible as was the purchasing of seats in the House of Commons or of Commissions in the Army, in the past, and so public money should not be spent to buttress this system. The money should rather go, they say, to the improvement of State schools, to reducing the size of classes, to the improvement of the salaries of teachers and of the scale of

985
equipment, playing fields, and so on. Thus, they say, the State schools could so compare with the independent schools that no parent would spend money on educating his children when the same product is going free. Others go further and say that they would abolish the public schools altogether. "Let the nation take them over" they say, "and run them as technical schools or boarding schools, at which every child in the land can have an opportunity to spend one year of his or her school life as a boarder."
I should like to follow these drastic arguments to their logical conclusion. First of all, what are the public schools? One answer might be, the 200 schools represented on the Headmasters' Conference. But it may surprise your Lordships to know that no fewer than 78 of these are predominantly day schools. I cannot see on what grounds you could, by Act of Parliament, abolish one group of independent schools and not all independent schools. There are some 1,300 independent schools recognised by the Ministry as efficient and a further 4,000 that have not sought recognition. Altogether, 400,000 children—one in every fifteen of the children of compulsory school age—are being taught in independent schools, at a cost, on the average, of £40 a year per child. If you took those children away from those schools it would mean an annual bill of £16 million, to start with. In addition to those of compulsory school age, another 51,000 children between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, are at independent schools. That represents one in every five persons at schools between those ages. So again, those persons must either in part displace those already at grammar schools, or, since the country could not afford to lose that educated manpower, it would have to find and pay for another 51,000 new places. All this does not take into account capital assets. Half the pupils at independent schools are boarders. Many of the boarding schools are situated far from centres of population; so that either these school places must be filled by boarders, which would cost the State the same practically as it costs the parents now, or new places in day schools must be built. So in one way or another it would cost the State at least £25 million annually to abolish independent schools—apart from the other arguments against that plan.
986
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, has explained that the public schools have offered a large number of places but that many of these places have not been taken up by the local authorities: they have not felt themselves justified in finding the money. Well, my Lords, these matters are inevitably discussed on a parochial and, indeed, almost on a personal basis: "Is Master Brown worth spending five times as much on as Master Smith?" But in the aggregate this is a national issue. Is the situation just to drift? Are we just to wait until there is a spare £25 million available to take over the independent schools, or until the State schools match the independent schools in sizes of classes and the rest? That will take a long time. Meanwhile, 150 separate local authorities settle the principle of these scholarships in as many separate ways. All the community may suffer if there is a rift between our leaders—between the man from the State school and the man from the independent school. This rift has found expression once again in recent months and cannot be ignored.
Although seventy out of 200 of our leading independent schools are day schools, it is the boarding school, and all the community life that flows from it, that is associated in the minds of most people in distinguishing the public school from the grammar school. The familiar claim is that it is boarding school life that develops leadership. I am not sure that this idea is so tenaciously held to-day. I have described to your Lordships before how I selected a man in my company of highly educated men, as the most natural robust leader among them. I only discovered afterwards that he was an only child; he had been to a mixed day school, and he had not spell: one night of his life away from home, not even out camping, until the day he joined the Army. Yet he was a natural robust leader. Some of your Lordships may have seen a diverting play in London called Escapade. A man and wife, who have recently sent their three sons to boarding school, are seen in the first act quarrelling with one another. Later on, one of these sons, rather a precocious boy, says that boarding schools of course do the boys a lot of good but that they do not do the parents any good: that boys can get on

987
without the parents, but that the parents cannot get on without their children. There is a solemn truth behind this, and one can understand the view of those parents who do not want a boarding school life for their sons. So the principle is not whether one type of school is better than another, for there are good and bad schools of all kinds. The point is that they are different, and different schools will suit different boys. One boy will be happier at a day school, flourishing in the company of his brothers and sisters; another boy may need the comparative peace of a school study, instead of a crowded kitchen, in which to do his work. The boy of outstanding ability in a scattered country district may need the competition and range of teachers not available at the day school in his area.
What, then, can be done? I suggest that the problem is a national one and must be transferred from the local authorities to the centre. I suggest that the Minister of Education should award 500 State scholarships each year to boys attending State schools to go to independent boarding schools. At an average fee of £300 a boy, this would cost £150,000 in the first year, rising to £750,000 in the fifth year, taking five years as the school life of each boy. These scholarships, building up to 2,500 by the end of the fifth year, would be sub-allotted on a regional basis, roughly according to population. Those schools willing to enter the scheme would offer places. I would rather see fifty selected schools offer fifty places over the five years than a thinner spread over more schools. Such groups of fifty boys might exercise a considerable influence in their schools.
By this proposal, boys from the great industrial centres of the North and Midlands would get many of the scholarships, whereas at the moment the majority of public schools are situated in the South of England and make arrangements for scholarships only with local authorities in the Southern counties. This is particularly important in relation to the Fighting Services. We are getting very disturbed that there are so few officers who come from North of the Trent. The allotment of scholarships on a national rather than a local authority basis may gradually alter this false balance in the officering of our Fighting Services. I do not believe
988
that there are not just as good potential officers in the North of England but, for some reason, they have not the same family traditions towards soldiering as the schools in the South. If they earn scholarships down in the southern schools, that may gradually change.
I should like to say a word about the selection of boys to take up these scholarships. They should not necessarily be boys with a natural force of character. These boys are needed as leaders in the grammar schools and, robust already, will not benefit from the rough and tumble of a boarding school life as much as the type of boy who needs a certain clash and conflict to bring out his potentialities for leadership. Nor do we want to select boys exclusively on their scholarship. A caste of intellect is worse than a caste of wealth. It is far worse to be proud of one's brains than to be proud of one's veins. The value of a community is in its mixture of the stupid and the clever, the athletic and the clumsy; and, as your Lordships know, the idle rebel is often the most valuable of all. The final selection must, I think, lie with the headmasters. My proposal would cost £750,000. I contrast this with the £9 million already being paid by the taxpayer in awards to universities. Some argue that the State should not spend money upon these scholarships. The boys are changed, they say, and not the schools. There is some force in this criticism. Experience has shown that boys from working homes fit in at the public schools very well: but do they find it so easy to fit in with their friends at home when they return on holidays?
It would be made far easier for all these boys to do that if at the same time there were a change of spirit in the public schools. This change, I suggest, must come about by all types of schools in each district working more closely together within their own community. An illustration of what I mean is with games. The public schools, and the grammar schools too, need to sweep half their cherished house cups off their mantelpieces, scrap half their school fixtures with other public schools and other grammar schools a long way away, and arrange to play more games with the other schools in their locality, and with youth clubs, factory sides and Service sides in the area. I see no reason

989
why there should not be an exchange of staff among the different schools in one locality, and even some senior pupils, for a term at a time, with mutual benefit to one another.
So also with various school societies. I imagine that some of the technical school and secondary modern schools, with their farming clubs and aeromodelling clubs, could teach the academic boy something. For many years, colleges at the universities have rented their rooms in the holidays to various study groups. I cannot see why the public schools should not extend the hospitality of their buildings and playing fields in the same way during the holidays. In all these ways, these schools must dispel the notion that they are remote and closed communities. Just as much is being done, much remains to be done. Some will say, "Let the schools give evidence of the need and their desire to rake these changes before the State spends money on scholarships." That may be logic, but it is not human nature. I believe that the changes will go together. The presence of State scholars in goodly numbers, fifty altogether, in a school, will infuse a positive purpose and an impetus to a change that, once it starts, will be welcomed as exciting.
If this kind of change gets under way, other problems may solve themselves—like the need for comprehensive schools. Every year, the Home Secretary awards 7,000 State scholarships to boys at approved schools, and they cost just as much a head as the 2,500 scholarships for which I am appealing. Those boys probably possessed a grudge against the well-to-do, and were starved of companionship in their leisure hours. I think much of this crime would be prevented by a livelier social understanding of their problems by the more intelligent boys which will be brought about if those changes get under way. Some will say that State scholarships mean spending public money without public representation. I think again of the example of the universities. The University Grants Committee has worked very well, and has in no way threatened the independence of the universities. Surely the Minister of Education could likewise appoint an Advisory Board, widely based and acceptable to all Parties, to watch over the selection and allotment and
990
future progress of these scholars. Perhaps one member of that Advisory Board could be invited to join the governing body of each of the schools concerned in the scheme.
We as a nation cannot escape from our history and our sense of history. It has always been our virtue to change our institutions with the times. I said that I hoped the scheme of scholarships would start first of all only about fifty schools. I hope that many of the oldest of our schools will be chosen as the pioneers in such a scheme. Then boys from the busy machinery and smoke of our great industrial cities, which produce so much of our wealth, will bring their vigour and blunt, practical I common sense to blend with the old sleepy traditions of our cathedral cities and ancient seats of learning, to the mutual enrichment of one another. The time is ripe. Clause 6 of this Bill is no: enough, and the Government must give a lead to such an enterprise.
5.31 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR.: My Lords, first may I thank all those who have joined in this debate for the manner in which they have dealt with the complex and difficult subject of this Bill? It is a real contribution to the spirit that must prevail if we are to solve all our difficulties. Before dealing with that subject, may I deal with one other point that has been brought up by Lord Haden-Guest and Lord Amulree? The policy of the Bill is that local authorities shall provide dental treatment by having a full dental service; for specialist services the children naturally go to the hospitals; and if parents wish their children to go to a private dentist, then, of course, they are prepared to give advice. In the meantime, while we are building up the service various devices must be resorted to. I think noble Lords who are interested in this subject will be pleased to know that during the last eighteen months the school dental service has increased from 713 to over 900. That, I think, is most gratifying.
Now, on the subject contained in Clause 1, which is in all our minds, let me say straight away that I agree strongly with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, that discussions might very well be most helpful. Not only can I say that to your

991
Lordships as an expression of my own opinion, but during the debate I have had an opportunity of putting this matter to my right honourable friend the Minister for Education, who has authorised me to say that she would be pleased to meet Members of your Lordships' House on the proposed informal basis. In such a friendly atmosphere as that in which we have discussed this matter, I hope the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will forgive me if I say what a terrible pity it was that the Government of which they were both eminent and distinguished members did not feel able to deal with this problem in 1946 and in 1948, when they presented to Parliament legislation amending the main Act. Indeed, even in their Election Manifesto they made no promise to the Roman Catholics on this matter, until some time during the course of the Election when they issued a special Manifesto.
LORD PAKENHAM: I think I must remove any suggestion which I feel sure was not intended by the noble Earl, that the attempt to do justice to Catholic and other denominational education was a last minute thought on the part of the Labour Government. He is fully aware of the fact that those discussions had been continuing for a long time.
EARL DE LA WARR: It was obviously a most unfortunate coincidence that they finally came to that conclusion during the course of the Election. Of course, in 1946 and 1948, indeed even up to January, 1951, had they felt able to deal with this problem, there would be no single school in regard to which retrospection would have to be claimed now. I very much hope that I am not saying anything controversial, because I am anxious not to do that, but it is important that the whole country, and especially the Roman Catholic community, should realise the facts of theposition—namely, that in this Bill we are in fact doing everything that the Roman Catholics have asked for in this matter, except in regard to retrospection, which would not have been necessary if the last Government had, during their term of office, done as we are doing now.
I think we all appreciate the fact which was made clear by the noble and learned
992
Earl that he was not suggesting any bad faith on the part of the Minister. He made that very clear. But he did use the words "flat contradiction." Even those words in themselves are fairly serious words, and it is very disturbing to a Minister to be told that he or she has been guilty of the flat contradiction of undertakings given to a deputation. One can well understand it being said—although I myself think that the words show complete clarity—that there was a misunderstanding about the interpretation of the word "completion" but that is a very different thing from accusing a Minister of flat contradiction. I examined the record of these interviews and the debate in another place, and it seemed to me that the matter was perfectly clear. As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said, it was clear from the beginning that neither side thought that the Minister had promised a retrospection. In fact, on December 4, Bishop Beck said quite clearly:
"We appreciate that, when you received the delegation on February 12, 1952, you said that you found it impossible to make this clause retrospective."
Nothing could be more clear than that.
However, my Lords, I think it would be a pity if I went into this matter in too much detail, because it might well be that I should close some door that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, would wish to keep open in regard to the discussions we envisaged. It might well defeat the main purpose of these discussions if I said more. I will therefore close by saying, once again, that I thank your Lordships for the spirit in which you have conducted this debate and received the Bill. Perhaps I may say that we particularly welcome the note struck in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and the appeal which he, in common with other noble Lords, made for the maintenance of that spirit of compromise and good will which we are all anxious to show in these difficult discussions. We shall certainly try to arrange discussions with the Minister at the earliest moment. I, for one, express the hope that they may lead to a complete understanding of the issues before us.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS BILL [H.L.]
5.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, this is a modest Bill, but I should like to commend it to your Lordships as one which I believe will serve a very useful purpose. I am sure there will be widespread agreement that any measure to reduce the number of accidents to children on our roads has a great deal to commend it, and it is the belief of the Government that the proposals embodied in this Bill ought to help in that direction. It is a shocking fact that in 1952 over 31,000 children of school age were injured, and 460 lost their fives, as the result of road accidents. Some of these accidents took place when children were crossing busy roads on their way to and from school, and it is in order to make improved provision for dealing with that particular problem that this Bill has been prepared.
The main proposals in this Bill, of course, are not novel. I emphasise that point, because these patrols have been in operation in various parts of the country for some considerable time. The Bill is rather concerned with improving and extending arrangements which are already in force in some areas. As your Lordships are probably aware, as long ago as 1936, an Inter-Departmental Committee on Road Safety among School Children recommended that the system of adult patrols to safeguard school children crossing roads near schools—a system which was then in an experimental stage in a few areas—should be extended. The Committee recommended that the patrols should carry a sign authorised by the Ministry of Transport, and that disregard of this sign should be made an offence. The use of patrols was gradually extended, following the Report of this Committee, and by 1952 some 83 education authorities outside London—that figure includes Scotland—were operating school crossing patrols in Great Britain. In view of the high casualty rate among children as a result of road accidents, to which I have already referred, Her Majesty's Government felt that it was desirable to extend these
994
arrangements, if possible, over the country as a whole; and after consultation with representatives of local authorities, an appeal was made, in October, 1952, to the authorities of counties, county boroughs and large burghs where patrols were not yet in operation to provide such patrols in advance of legislation.
As I have said, these patrols were originally provided by education authorities; but when the matter was considered by the Government last year, it was felt, and I think rightly felt, that the Home Office and the Scottish Home Department were really the appropriate Departments to take general responsibility for this scheme. I think your Lordships will appreciate that it is not possible for the police force themselves, with all the other demands made upon them, to provide all the supervision needed for the purpose of looking after children on their way to and from school, but in many areas the chief officer of police has naturally been called in for advice and assistance in organising and training the patrols and deciding at which crossings they should be placed. When the appeal which I have already mentioned was made to counties and county boroughs to provide patrols, they were told that any expenditure so incurred with the Home Secretary's approval would receive an Exchequer grant of 50 per cent., administered by the Home Office. That was, of course, pending the enactment of legislation, and in the interim the Minister of Housing and Local Government sanctioned, under the proviso to Section 228 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1933, reasonable expenditure by local authorities on the provision of these patrols, where that expenditure was included in accounts subject to district audit. Corresponding arrangements were made in Scotland.
In view of the urgency of the problem, let me state emphatically that the Government make no apology for having made these interim arrangements in anticipation of legislation. We feel—I hope with justice—that there will be a general welcome for the present Bill, the main object of which is to regularise the action which, at the request of the Government, has already been taken by a number of local authorities.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Could the noble Lord tell us how many?
LORD LLOYD: Does the noble Lord mean since the request was made in October, 1952, or how many altogether have taken action?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: How many altogether.
LORD LLOYD: I think I did mention that 83 authorities outside London have taken such action. I said that that figure included Scotland, where 10 authorities have so acted. That means there are 73 in England and Wales. If the noble Lord wants to know how many more have come in since October 1952, I will give him the figure afterwards.
As I was saying, the main object of the Bill is to regularise the action already taken, and it is also to encourage those authorities who do not at present organise school crossing patrols to do so. The Bill empowers the Common Council of the City of London, and county councils and county borough councils (except in the Metropolitan Police District), and the corresponding authorities in Scotland, to make arrangements for the patrolling of school-crossings. If noble Lords will look at the Bill, they will see that it also provides that county councils shall have regard, in making such arrangements, to any representations made to them by local authorities in the county. As your Lordships will be aware, and as laid down in the Bill, the persons to be employed as patrols are to be persons other than police constables; but it is contemplated that a good many local councils may, in fact, wish to pass to the police authority the responsibility for the provision of patrols. As I have told your Lordships, chief officers of police have already been very active in giving assistance with regard to the recruitment, training and disposition of patrols. In a county borough, the council can, if it wishes, delegate these responsibilities to the watch committee, without specific statutory authority; but in a county, or in a borough which forms part of an amalgamated police force, specific authority is necessary to enable this power to be transferred by the county council or the county borough council to the police authority; and the necessary provision is to be found in the rather complicated phraseology of subsection (4) of Clause 1 and in the Schedule of the Bill. Actually, I think, subsection (4), though it looks
996
rather complicated, is not quite so bad as it looks when one studies it with the Schedule.
I do not want to weary your Lordships with a detailed explanation of the remaining provisions of the Bill, or to anticipate any discussions which may take place in Committee, but I think I ought to mention that the opportunity has been taken—and I feel it was right to take that opportunity—to gather together all the various provisions dealing with crossing patrols, such as the power of the Minister of Transport to authorise signs, and the power of the patrols to stop traffic, and to enact the whole lot in one Bill. The Bill also deals with the uniform to he worn by patrols, and makes it a specific offence to fail to comply with the order of a school crossing patrol to stop.
There is one further point on which I think I ought to offer a brief explanation—that is, the provisions in the Bill with regard to the Metropolitan Police District. The position there differs somewhat from that in the country as a whole, because in 1950 the local authorities in the Metropolitan Police District invited the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to take over the running and organising of school crossing patrols in the Metropolitan Police District. The representatives of all the local authorities in the Metropolitan Police Districts have indicated that they wish the present arrangements to be continued, and therefore, as your Lordships will see, the Bill provides that in the Metropolitan Police District the Commissioner of Police is to be responsible for the arrangements for the patrolling of school crossings. Under subsection (3) of Clause 1, he is required to have regard to any representations made to him about these arrangements by local authorities in the District. He is just in the same position as county councils. In London, as elsewhere, 50 per cent. of the expense will fall to be met by the Exchequer.
I do not want to delay your Lordships at any great length on this subject. Undoubtedly there will be points of detail in the Bill which will require further scrutiny at a later stage, and at the end of the debate I shall, of course, do my best to deal with any specific points which your Lordships may raise in the course of the debate. But I hope that

997
the general principles of this measure, designed as it is to protect children from the dangers of the road, will command support from all sides of your Lordships' House. With that hope I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lloyd.)
5.52 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CH1LWORTH: My Lords, conciseness and clarity have always been a virtue of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who has asked us this afternoon to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and this speech has been no exception. We are grateful to him for the small amount of time he has taken and for the information he has given us. I shall try to follow his excellent example. I think the noble Lord's last words were very appropriate. We on this side of the House will give every support to this Bill, because we hope that it will do something to militate against one of the greatest social scourges of the day, the appalling death on the roads of this country. Unfortunately, there is a growing number of accidents where young children are concerned. I am going to resist the temptation to go into the road accident problem too deeply to-day, because I shall be inviting your Lordships to discuss this in all its aspects in the near future.
Although we have some criticisms, we welcome this Bill. I suppose there is cause for congratulation to the Government for at last attempting to produce a Bill of their own, instead of leaving it to energetic Back-Benchers to produce one for them, though perhaps that comment has to be tempered somewhat, because this Bill only legislates, at long last, for what has been going on for a long time, as the noble Lord himself said. I am glad that the central authority have decided that this matter is of such importance that they should take it under their wing. I hope the noble Lord will not mind my saying that I think that in all matters of road safety the local authorities in this country have been sadly remiss. They certainly have been remiss with these school crossing patrols. The noble Lord said that about seventy local authorities have school crossing patrols.
LORD LLOYD: In England and Wales.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In England and Wales: Scotland I hesitate ever to criticise, so I will leave it out of my point. I believe that I am right in saying that there are about 500 local authorities who have the power to put on school crossing patrols.
LORD LLOYD: have not the figure by me, but I think that seventy local authorities in England and Wales is about 50 per cent. I think it is as good as that. I think 500 is a high figure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is a moot point which authorities have had the power to have school crossing patrols. It is one of my criticisms; that it is not clear who has the authority under this Bill. I will net generalise; I will come down to the Bill and start off with the point I have just made. Clause 1 talks of arrangements being made by "the appropriate authority." I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will give me the definition of "appropriate authority" in this regard. Am I to understand, for example, that a rural district council has not the authority under this Bill to have a school crossing patrol unless it has the authority of the county council? To me that does not seem right. County councils and county borough councils are about the only authorities mentioned in the Schedule. Are the county councils the arbiters of the actions of all the lesser authorities, who, after all, are rate-collecting authorities, with the power of spending public money? Perhaps the noble Lord will answer that point when he comes to speak again.
Subsection (1) of Clause 1 says:
"Arrangements may be made by the appropriate authority for the patrolling of places where children cross roads.…"
The words are "may" be made. What happens if the authorities are as remiss in future as they have been in the past? Can the overriding authority force this upon them, or is "may" the operative word in this clause? Is there no sanction if a local authority refuses to operate this Bill? Subsection (1) goes on to say that the places where children cross roads may be patrolled
"by persons appointed by or on behalf of the appropriate authority, other than police constables."

999
I hope there is going to be some standard. I do not particularly want a highly trained individual, but I certainly think that he should have some minimum physical standard and some mental standard. Is any guidance to be given to local authorities as to whom they appoint? I would stress my agreement with the principle of this Bill, because I think we shall soon have to turn our attention to having part-time traffic wardens to assist the police in traffic control at peak hours at very intricate crossings, like that at Parliament Square, Whitehall and Bridge Street. I am certain that we shall never get enough police to control traffic on our roads while the traffic continues to grow and the roads are not improved. But I certainly think we shall have to have some standard for those appointed as street crossing patrols.
Clause 1 (4) says that the local authority may make an arrangement with the police to carry on the duties of these school crossing patrols. The question I am about to ask may seem rather facetious, but it is not, as I will explain in a moment. If the police authority does take it over, does the policeman remain a policeman, or does he become a school patrol? I ask that, because in the next clause we have the contentious point that a school patrol can stop traffic only by exhibiting a prescribed sign.
LORD LLOYD: It might be helpful if I were to deal with that point now, if the noble Lord is going on to other matters.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have so many points, to which I am sure the noble Lord has all the answers, that perhaps it would be more helpful if he dealt with them all together. I was going to ask whether a policeman has to carry this prescribed sign. This is one point upon which I criticise this measure strongly. The Bill goes on to stipulate that these patrols shall wear uniform—and I agree with that provision. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that it will be a uniform uniform, and that we shall not have different embellishments on the uniforms for different county councils or local authorities, such as we have in the Army with different regiments. We must get a uniform patrol so that it is easily recognised, like the
1000
A.A. scouts, who carry out invaluable work in regard to traffic control.
I am open to conviction, but at the moment I am opposed to the requirement that these patrols must carry this sign. It is an unwieldy object. Anybody who is conducting the operation of regulating traffic needs to have both hands free. In a high wind it is hardly manageable at all. As your Lordships will be aware, it has on the middle of it the word "Stop." The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, knows that when an experienced traffic policeman wishes to stop traffic to allow somebody to cross the road he is not foolish enough to rush out into the middle of the traffic and try to stop the first vehicle. He points to about the sixth vehicle down, and holds up his hand, and the driver of that vehicle knows that he is the one who has to stop. I would ask the noble Lord whether he will give your Lordships a demonstration of how a traffic patrol carrying a sign—some of these signs are about four feet by three feet in size—stops the sixth vehicle down the line. Does he wave the sign over his head; or does he, as they do to-day, walk out into the middle of the road, put up the sign, and try to stop the vehicle already only two feet from him? These are pertinent points. I believe that the policeman needs to have both hands free when controlling traffic, and that this is even more important in the case of the ordinary man or woman—and I take it that we shall have women as well as men patrols; I see no reason why we should not, because we have most efficient policewomen. If they are going to shepherd young children of tender age, who come out of school in their dozens or fifties, then they need both hands free after they have stopped the traffic, to attend to the children crossing the road, in case little Willie takes it into his head to dart somewhere where little Willie should not.
Further, I believe that they should have only elementary training, because these patrols will not be operated at intricate traffic junctions. Right outside the school there is generally a crossing, and the patrols do not have to perform the laborious task that we see performed every day just outside your Lordships' House. I believe that a distinctive uniform and slight, elementary training is far better than having this cumbersome board, to which I was always opposed when I was in the Ministry of

1001
Transport, but on which, unfortunately, I was overridden—as I was on a number of other things, incidentally. I can still see the senselessness of it, as I saw it only to-day in driving to your Lordships' House. In one place there was a man with a board about four foot square, and about a mile further on there was a woman with a board about the size of a blotting pad. That was in the Borough of Wandsworth. Perhaps the woman could not manage a big board. Are we going to have boards varying in size according to the different physical characteristics of the patrol? I would ask the noble Lord to give this question serious consideration, because on the Committee stage we may go into it further.
I should also like to know what is meant by "exhibiting a prescribed sign." What is "exhibiting"? If the noble Lord looks at Clause 2 (2) (b), he will see these words:
"The vehicle shall not be put in motion again so as to reach the place in question so long as the sign continues to be exhibited"
Exactly what does that mean? Suppose the patrol drops it: is it then being exhibited? Or if the wind blows the sign out of his hands and it falls on the road, has the traffic then the right to proceed over the crossing, irrespective of whether there are children there or not? What is the defence of the motorist? Can he say: "The sign was not exhibited"? If the patrol puts it across his shoulder and walks away with it, is it exhibited? I think that the question as to what is the definition of "exhibiting a sign" is one into which the noble Lord might well look between now and the next stage of the Bill
That is practically all the criticism I have of this Bill. I will not go into the financial side of it, because I am not particularly interested in finance when it comes to road safety. Road safety is a purchasable commodity. All we want to do is to try and convince a Government to spend the money. Any Government willing to spend enough money can overcome the road accident problem of this country to the extent of nearly 80 per cent. When we do get a Government—and I hope this is the sign of awakening—that will put human life arid the saving of human life before money, then we shall solve the road safety problem. I commend this Bill to your Lordships'
1002
House, because I believe that this is the first sign of that being done. I hope that there will be no quibble between the local authorities and the Treasury, or between the local authorities and the Home Office or the noble Lord's right honourable friend. The noble Lord is now speaking for the Home Office—the first time in my recollection that the Home Office have had the courage to come and stand at that Despatch Box and talk about road accidents. They generally have their stooge, the representative of the Ministry of Transport, there. If this is the awakening of the Government, we support them to the full on this Bill and we commend it to your Lordships' House for a Second Reading.
6.10 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down and say, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, that we support this measure very strongly indeed. There are one or two minor points I wish to raise. One is with regard to the kind of person to be employed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that what is wanted is someone with a certain amount of training. It appears to me to be a very good job for a person who has retired and is comparatively fit, because it is a job with very long holidays, not very long hours, and a great sense of power because you stop the traffic. I wonder whether it could be generally arranged that the crossings shall be made on the black and white zebra crossings which exist already. Talking as a motorist, and not as a pedestrian, one does not want too many crossings. Secondly, I trust that if this Bill becomes law it, will not mean that the schools will stop teaching children the principles of road safety, because that is more important than making safe crossings. I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time any further, beyond saying that I strongly support the Bill.
6.12 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I venture to make a few remarks on this Bill because I am sure your Lordships on all sides of the House will agree that though this is—to use the description of the Minister who introduced it—"a modest Bill," every Bill deserves careful consideration by your Lordships' House before it passes from us. Let me

1003
say at the outset that there is absolutely no conflict in my mind, or, I am sure, in the minds of any other noble Lords, about the desirability of cutting down this terrible toll on the roads, both of adults and children. Let me make that quite plain before I make any criticism of this Bill.
I am not clear as to the desirability of setting up a new uniformed force, new offences in law and new penalties at an unstated cost. We as a House have certain severe restrictions in financial matters, but before we pass the Second Reading of this Bill I think we may properly ask the Minister to give us some indication of the additional cost which will have to be borne by the Exchequer for the provisions included in this Bill. It would indeed be strange if we passed a Bill without one word from the Minister as to what is the burden upon the taxpayer of the country. Equally, I am not quite clear on this point. If the present system and the present position of enforcement of stopping motorists at school crossings is, broadly speaking, satisfactory, and is capable, to use the words of the Minister, "of improvement and extension," why should the present system be swept away, as it, is being swept away, and a new system put in its place? As I understand it, the motorist to-day is liable to prosecution under Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That says very clearly:
"…where any traffic sign being a sign for regulating the movement of traffic…has been lawfully placed on or near any road in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding section, any person driving or propelling any vehicle who…fails to conform to the indication given by the sign, shall be guilty of an offence."
That, as I understand it, is the present sanction against the motorist. I think I am entitled to ask the Minister why it is necessary to have a new offence with new penalties. Apparently it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that there is need, not merely for strengthening the existing law but for creating a new offence in law. Since that is the view of the Government, I think we must accept it. But if we do accept that view, I submit that this Bill is not right in its provisions and needs certain amendment.
The Bill creates new specific offences. It imposes, in one direction, higher
1004
penalties. But the powers given under the Bill are to be administered by a new uniformed force, and there is not one word in the Bill as to the qualifications which those who make up this force are to have nor is there one word as to the training or standard of training which those administering this force have to attain. I ask the Minister this question: What assurance have we that those who are going to exercise these powers will have the training or the administrative ability to use the power, let us say, of halting a motorist? The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said that he thought it would be a nice job for somebody in his retiring years. I have taken the trouble, as no doubt your Lordships have, of looking at some of these worthy folk, many of them of considerable age, who are at present carrying these signs across the roads. One I met was a very old gentleman, whose eyesight was admittedly deficient. Lord Nelson, with one eye, commanded a fleet with great success, but I do not think that somebody with two weak eyes is necessarily capable of stopping motor cars in a proper and authoritative manner. Another gentleman I met—a splendid man, and a retired ex-Serviceman—had one leg, and he hobbled across the road holding the sign. I believe that the Government should give some indication of the standards of physical fitness required for these patrols. I submit to your Lordships that a physical condition such as that which I have just mentioned is not suitable for a man who is to be in charge of children crossing the road.
Again, what experience have these people of judging the speed of motor cars? To use not a very good word, but one coined by one of Her Majesty's Ministers, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. Mr. Gurney Braithwaite: What knowledge of "roads-manship" have the members of this new uniformed force to have? Why do we have traffic police? It is because the technical problems of motoring, and seeing that motorists conform to the law, are matters which those who understand cars and who deal with motor cars and motorists are particularly qualified to look after. It will be very different in future if a motorist is to be reported by a member of this new force, and brought before the courts on the complaint that he has not stopped properly. It seems to me that it will create a difficult position

1005
in the courts if a motorist is to be told that he has not stopped properly. If his defence is that he was not given proper time to stop, it seems to me that it will be a very difficult thing if evidence is given for the prosecution by one or more of these uniformed officers. I believe that these people should have some training, however elementary, "roadsmanship" and should have some reasonable physical qualifications.
The Minister, in introducing this Bill, said there were points of detail to be dealt with on Committee stage. I agree. But I submit to your Lordships that these are points of principle and not points of detail. The qualifications and training of those who are to administer the new powers which will be given to this new force is surely a matter of Second Reading principle. I ask the Minister if, in his reply, he will give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will study this Bill before it comes before your Lordships again, and see whether the matters which I have dealt with—qualifications and fitness—cannot be incorporated in the Bill. Alternatively, I make this suggestion. This is not a great political measure, and there is no Party issue in it. If he is unable to do what I have suggested, would he consider adjourning the Second Reading? We do not want to lose the Bill, but it might perhaps be adjourned to another date if he is not able to give the pledge for which I have asked. I submit (it will be for the House to say whether they agree with me or not) that the principles of the Bill are inadequate, and that it would be wrong to give these unspecified powers to an untrained and unqualified force at an unspecified cost to the taxpayer.
6.23 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to what the Minister has told us about this Bill, but he made no reference to the vital point which has just been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. The constitution of the new force which it is proposed to set up is, as Lord Balfour said, a matter of absolute principle. Here is an entirely new force; but there is no word, as Lord Balfour pointed out, with regard to the training of that force or the experience and qualifications which are going to be asked of those who compose it. This is not a
1006
matter for amateurs. The control of traffic to-day is far too complicated a thing to be entrusted to amateurs; and I submit that if we are to have a strange species of officer—an officer who is not a policeman and not a traffic warden but is altogether a new kind of man—we must pay attention to the importance of training.
I think that such an official must be expected to be reasonably bright mentally, he must have a reasonable standard of physical fitness, and he must have a certain amount of proper training. As I have said, and indeed as Lord Lucas pointed out so ably, the traffic policeman of to-day is not just an ordinary policeman sent out on duty; he is a man who has had and must have a certain amount of training. For example, when a road is slippery and conditions are bad it is not easy to pull up a great, heavy lorry. It is certainly not as easy as when the road is dry. There is; no assurance that the people who are to compose this force are going to pay much regard to considerations of that sort. We all know the extraordinary difficulties of driving large lorries and buses, let alone smaller vehicles such as motor cars and the like, in modern traffic conditions.
I think the noble Lord must really tell us much more about how these people are going to be selected and trained and what sort of equipment they are going to use. It is essential that people who are going to join this force should have standardised equipment. Motor vehicles to-day go from one end of the country to the other, and it is no use a driver expecting to find a man having the same equipment as is used in his own area if local authorities all over the country are going to use different kinds of equipment. It is essential that the driver of a vehicle, when he sees one of these men, should know exactly what he is and what his functions are. If the noble Lord wants suggestions as regard equipment, I would suggest that a white Sam Browne belt, as worn in some countries abroad, is as good a thing as anything else. In any event, it is most important that the driver should know at what sort of officer he is looking.
There are many points of a similar character in this Bill to which I should like to refer, but I do not want to enlarge upon them. There is, however, one matter that

1007
I wish to mention, and that is the question of scholar patrols. Two years ago I was in Copenhagen at a big conference. We were invited to go out one morning and see what the police and authorities of Copenhagen were doing in order to reduce child casualties near schools. I was very busy at the moment and was unwilling to go, thinking that it might be a waste of time—but I have never been more wrong. We were taken to various schools in Copenhagen. The schools there are of much the same size as and very much like the London County Council schools. Each of us had attached to him a policeman who spoke the language of his country, for we all came from different countries. I had an English-speaking policeman attached to me. He took me to an enormous school and there I saw a very wonderful thing.
They choose at each of these schools the senior girls and the senior boys in the school. They receive a certain amount of training from the police force; lectures and so forth are given them. Then they take turn and turn about—the girls one week and the boys another. They arrive at the school five minutes before lessons are due to begin and they leave school five minutes before lessons are due to end. They man all the crossings within half a mile of the school. This is going on all over Copenhagen—some of your Lordships may have seen it. There is one at the dispatch end and one at the receiving end of each crossing. They are intended not to control the traffic but to watch it, and when it is safe for the children to cross, they let them cross. They hold out their arms until it is safe; when they drop their arms it means that the children can go across.
The effect of this system in Copenhagen was that the police admitted that whereas there had been thirty-two casualties in the city among children going to and from school, there were only two casualties in the first year after this system was put in force. The police were quite disappointed with that figure and hoped that it would be less still in the next year. I am afraid, however, that it was not less—it rose by two, in fact, making four in all—but that represented a wonderful reduction in the casualty rate in that particular city. I had the opportunity of talking to the boys and the girls who were doing this duty, and I found
1008
that they took enormous interest in it; they loved it. They were given a certain amount of real responsibility and they treated this duty as children will treat things like this, half as a jolly good game and half with great seriousness, because they were so impressed with the responsibility and were keen upon it. It is of interest to know that this scholar patrol system has also been adopted in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland and the United States.
I should like to give one or two figures which illustrate the value of this system in the United States, because that is where the idea originated. For example, in Cincinnati, which is a big city, not a single child has been injured on a school crossing since the patrol system was instituted there twenty-six years ago. Equally, in Chicago in 1921, 205 grade school children were killed going to and from school. School patrols were instituted and the figure came down to 35. Again, in New York, since 1926, when the patrols were organised, the traffic fatalities to children under sixteen years of age have decreased by 80 per cent. through the entire city, notwithstanding an increase of over 100 per cent. in the number of motor vehicles in the city during the same period. There must be some value in a system which produces results like that, and I think it is a matter that we ought to explore here. I believe one school in this country is actually running the scholar patrol system. I think it is at Chesham, and that it is able to show wonderful results. I believe that they have had not a single casualty since they started the system, and there has been improvement all round.
If the various countries to which I have referred can produce these results, we ought to try these methods here; and if we are not to try them I want to know exactly why. I know that police experts in Copenhagen met with a lot of resistance from the school teachers before they were able to start this system there, but they were able to secure the teachers' consent to try it on an experimental basis. We ought to try something of the sort here. But, whatever we do—and this was impressed upon me in Copenhagen—the whole system depends on training. That was reinforced by the

1009
remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I submit: to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that, when he comes here again for a further stage of the Bill, he should tell us a good deal more than he has been able to do so far about this patrol force, the conditions that are going to govern it and how it is to be equipped and trained.
6.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am sorry to inflict myself upon you a second time in one afternoon. On this occasion, however, I feel no need to be tactful, conciliatory or statesmanlike and I can be brief, because I am glad to say I have been anticipated in what I was going to say by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The scholar patrol system was going strongly in Philadelphia when I was there twenty-nine years ago. I have obtained since then, and I think not many years ago I communicated my researches to the House, further information about the system. It is an enormous success in America and there are many people in this country, including a large number of school teachers who have been in America on exchange jobs, who can tell the Ministry of Transport and their colleagues in the National Union of Teachers what an amazing success the scholar patrol system is.
There is one most important point in connection with the scholar patrol system: the scholars are not given any authority whatever to control traffic. That is vital. Their sole job is to control children and to keep the children back until it is safe for them to cross. Morally, of course, they do control traffic, because any reasonably courteous motorist coming up and seeing the scholar patrol on the edge of the pavement slows down and makes way for it. The relations between motorists and the scholar patrols in the United States are singularly happy and satisfactory.
What are the objections to adopting that system here? It has been represented that it is dangerous for the children. Can anybody tell me that English traffic is worse than the traffic of New York? Then we are told that it is bad for the children's nerves. I have myself taught American children and I can assure your Lordships that their nervous systems are no better than the English
1010
child's nervous system. Then what other objections there can be towards the adoption of the scholar patrol system in our secondary schools, I cannot imagine. It is no trouble for the teachers to arrange, and the children enjoy doing, it. Admittedly, that system would not serve in the primary schools, the schools where the children attend only up to the age of eleven plus. There I admit at once the necessity to employ adult patrols. But I still doubt very much whether it is advisable to give those adult patrols power to control traffic, as is done under Clause 2of the Bill. I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that that is a most dangerous expedient and one which we should do well to think about many times before adopting. I beg that the House will adopt the advice of the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and secure that the Second Reading of this Bill be postponed until the Minister has had time to reconsider the matter: and I hope that that further consideration will include a trip to New York.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I shall intervene for only one moment to say that, before this debate and still more since this debate and the facts which have been brought before your Lordships' House, the subject has seemed to me of such importance and so vital in the interests of the children themselves that I, for one, would warmly endorse the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that it should receive far fuller consideration than clearly has been given to it already. Therefore I would join him in appealing to Her Majesty's Government to give the consideration that has been asked for, reinforced by the arguments and the facts that have been brought before your Lordships' House.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I had intended to inflict myself upon your Lordships at some length this afternoon, but I am glad to say that, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Earls, Lord Howe and Lord Iddesleigh, I am going to let you off. All I want to say now is that I agree with every word that they have said, and particularly with the words that fell from the noble Lord. Lord Balfour. He expressed the hope that he could have the support of the House. I want him to know that at any rate, am slap behind him.
6.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I, too, had come to this House not expecting that a Bill like this would have any doubts raised about it. We hear of the road casualties to children, and here is one method which promises some limited amount of success in reducing the toll of casualties. The opposition that has been expressed by a number of noble Lords seems to me, with great respect, to be based largely on a misconception. In the first place, if I understand it aright, this Bill does not introduce any new system—it gives legal sanction to a practice that has been going on for three years and more. Noble Lords must have seen school crossing patrols in operation for two or three years past. We know that a number of local authorities have had them in operation, and, speaking for myself, I have heard of no complaints, no casualties, no accidents caused by errors of judgment on the part of the patrols: in fact there is nothing to get frightened about. This Bill merely endorses and gives legal power to an experiment which has been going on for a number of years—long enough to give a good idea of its success and practicability.
Noble Lords who speak, possibly, from the motorists' angle surely misjudge or under-estimate the common sense, reinforced by the instinct for self-preservation, of the average citizen of this country. It would not be a very wild statement to say that anybody who has reached middle age now, and has survived, and is sound in all his limbs, has a pretty good road sense. To suggest that elderly people, one-legged people or people who do not drive cars themselves are not fit persons to be given the power to stop traffic seems to me to be giving a completely false idea of this system and what is intended by it. I know one or two of the patrols and I think that the fears expressed by noble Lords are greatly exaggerated. Broadly speaking these patrols do exercise common sense. Above all, they exercise a sense of responsibility for the lives of the children under their charge. They have a standardised uniform and equipment, which must be well known to your Lordships—namely, a blue cap and a white mackintosh and white sign. To suggest that there is any danger
1012
in this project is, I suggest with great respect, most misguided. We cannot afford to overlook or to neglect any method which promises to reduce road casualties. I hope that the Government will be firm and that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading to-day. Any Committee details can be dealt with in the usual way.
6.44 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise only to say a word or two about this matter. I hope that the Government will secure the Second Reading to-day and proceed with the Bill as rapidly as possible. I have listened to the objections to this Bill. I do not say for a moment that they are not worthy of consideration. For instance, I appreciate that it is necessary to have suitable people to carry out these duties; and I appreciate also that it may be desirable to try an experiment with school children carrying out these duties. But there is nothing in this Bill to prevent that. On the question of getting suitable people to act as school crossing patrols, I would point out that this Bill is permissive: it does not compel local authorities to appoint patrols. But where they do, surely local authorities who are accustomed to employing people (sometimes we think that they are over-employing people) will employ people who are suitable for the purpose. You do not normally put into a measure giving powers to a local authority to carry out their duties a clause that they must employ suitable people and must ensure that these people are properly trained. We take that for granted in the case of responsible bodies like local authorities, and I think we may assume that if they exercise these powers, they will employ the right kind of people. Moreover, there is nothing in this Bill which would prevent the experiment which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would wish to introduce into this country. What he has told us is very impressive, and one would like to see an experiment carried out somewhere. But I do not think that that is a reason for holding up this Bill. I regard it as urgent, and I think any noble Lord who seeks to hold up the passage of the Bill is not rendering a service in the interests of the safety of our school children.
6.47 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, as I promised at the beginning, I shall do my best to deal with lie not inconsiderable number of points which have been raised by various noble Lords. I had hoped at the beginning that the general wish would be to support this Bill in principle and, in purpose. But various noble Lords have dealt with it in detail and there seems very little of the principle left. Nevertheless, when I come to reply to the speech of my noble friend Lord Balfour, I hope that I may be able to put his mind at rest about one or two items in regard to which I think he is under a misapprehension. Perhaps I may he able to make a suggestion to him which he may find himself able to accept.
I should like to begin with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who said that he supported the principle of the Bill and that he was glad that at last (I hope I use his words) the central authority was taking this matter under its wing. He did not think much, I gather, of what local authorities had done in this matter in the past. Well, whatever they may have done in the past, I can say this to the noble Lord: I hope that in the future this Bill will make them more conscious of this problem. I do not say this with certainty, but to the best of my knowledge there are indications that a further sixty authorities will now consider running the patrol system. The noble Lord mentioned a figure of 500 authorities. I do not know quite what figure he has in mind. The total number of local authorities affected in England and Wales is 155. Seventy-three already operate the patrol system, and if this further sixty also operate it, as we hope they may, the noble Lord will see that we shall be making very satisfactory progress in this matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In mentioning the figure of 500, I was including all the rural district councils and urban district councils—the whole of the local authorities of the country.
LORD LLOYD: I hope the noble Lord will agree that this Bill will have achieved something useful if we make that progress. The noble Lord then went on to deal with the first clause of the Bill. He questioned the use of the words "may appoint." He asked, did that mean "may appoint" or "shall appoint"; and
1014
if so, was there a sanction? The answer is that the clause means exactly what it says—it means "may appoint." The Government's feeling about this matter, quite frankly, is this—indeed, this is the thought behind the whole conception of this Bill—that, on the whole, despite what the noble Lord has said, we do treat the local authorities as responsible people and people who have this matter just as much at heart as we have. And we believe that it is better to treat them in that way instead of using the big stick, and saying, "You must do this: you must do that. You must run your affairs this way; you must run your affairs that way." We believe it is better to do it by persuasion. To that extent this is an enabling Bill. As I have explained there are already indications that a further sixty authorities are going to undertake to establish school patrols. Therefore, I claim that that is a certain justification for the method we have adopted.
The noble Lord referred to the question of standards in the selection of patrols. That is a matter which I think I will deal with at the same time as I deal with the remarks on the subject by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Both those noble Lords dealt with the same point. Of course, we all appreciate that this is a very important matter. But I must remind your Lordships that some speeches which have been made here this afternoon would tend to give anyone the impression that this was an entirely new system which is being introduced. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye—and I took his words down—asked: "Why is the present system being swept away; why are we going to have this new system?"
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: And these new offences.
LORD LLOYD: The present system is not being swept away under this Bill. When the Bill has become an Act, your Lordships will probably find precisely the same people doing precisely the same job. Perhaps the noble Lord's friend with the dim vision will not be doing it, and it may be that he ought not o be doing it; but as to his friend with the wooden leg, woo probably carries out this duty very well, I have no doubt that the noble Lord will still find him there. This is not the introduction of a new code, and a new system.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but this is not an enabling Bill. It is a conferring Bill. It confers new powers on a body of men; it creates new offences and new powers.
LORD LLOYD: The noble Lord and I can only disagree on that. With great respect, I do not think that what he says is quite true. Perhaps if I go on for a little longer I shall be able to prove that to him. Your Lordships must remember that this is a system which, on the whole, has proved itself. We are not embarking on a new experiment; it has been in operation for a number of years in some parts of the country. Of course, you can always pick out one individual patrol here and there for criticism. I am not saying that there are no bad ones. But, speaking as one who motors a considerable number of miles over the roads of this country every year, I am surprised how efficient these patrols are, generally speaking. I do not believe that the system, so far, has worked badly.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It has worked very well.
LORD LLOYD: Having said that, I agree that it is important that the people for this work should be selected with some care. And I think they have been so selected in the past. Several noble Lords have said, "Why is not this in the Bill?" Here again, I should like to make the Government's attitude perfectly clear. We have, as I said, treated the local authorities as responsible bodies; and they are responsible bodies, elected by democratic methods. They can be removed after three years if the people do not think they are doing their job properly. Normally, when you impose a responsibility on a person or a corporation you do not, in a Bill, tell him or them exactly how to do the job and exactly who is to be consulted. To do so would be slightly derogatory to them. We are confident that they can be trusted to do the job properly, and we consider that they have done it properly up to now. Our main complaint is that not enough of them have done it. Those who have been doing it have been doing it admirably.
EARL HOWE: Might I ask the noble Lord whether he does not think that the people to be employed on this duty should have a standardised system of training?
LORD LLOYD: If the noble Earl will forgive me, I am coming to that matter. I think there is a certain difficulty about standardised training. As I have intimated, I do not think you will get ready co-operation and help from local authorities if you are going to tell them the whole time exactly what they have to do and how they are to do it. I think you have to give them a certain latitude. It is a fact, to which I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention, that in the great majority of cases where patrols are being operated the local authorities do, in point of fact, go to the chief of police and get him to decide where these crossings should be and the best way of training the patrols. And in a great many instances the police actually train these patrols. But I think it would be a mistake to force that on local authorities. It may be that some local authorities employ a retired police officer as an instructor, and in such cases they probably do not wish to get rid of him. If you force them to go to the police for their instruction, they would be obliged to get rid of him, and it might well be that he was a man who was doing his job very efficiently indeed. So I do not think we want to make this too rigid. I have sufficient respect for local authorities to believe that if we leave them with this responsibility they will carry it out. Though I yield to none in my recognition of the importance of picking and selecting people for this work with care, I feel that, on the whole, the results which have so far been achieved are a justification for what we are proposing to do now.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, further asked me what is the position of patrols if the police run them. The position is exactly the same as in other cases. The patrols will not be policemen. All that it really means is that the organisation and administration will be carried out by the police, instead of by the local authorities.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that clear. I am afraid that I misread this completely. The clause says that:
"Any arrangements…may include an agreement between the council and the police authority…for the performance by the police authority, on such terms as may be specified in the agreement, of such functions for the purposes of the arrangements as may be so specified."

1017
I thought that meant that police officers would act as patrols. I am grateful to the noble Lord for making the matter clear.
LORD LLOYD: It means that the police take over the whole matter, pick the people to act as patrols and train them. But the patrols are not police officers; they are exactly the same sort of people as if the local authorities were operating the system.
The noble Lord also dealt with the matter of uniform. In reply to that, I might perhaps deal with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said on the subject of standardisation. I thoroughly agree fiat the whole object of the uniform is Oat there should be what the noble Lord called a "uniform uniform"—that is to say, you want a dress for these patrols which is recognisable by all motorists. This system is for the convenience of motorists.
EARL HOWE: Including foreign motorists. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain my point. Large numbers of foreign motorists come over to this country every year, bringing their own cars, as we all know, and we want to encourage them, in the interests of touring and the hotel industry and so on. It is important that these patrols should wear a uniform which these foreign motorists also will recognise.
LORD LLOYD: I hardly think we can be expected to have a uniform which foreigners may be accustomed to see in their own country. The noble Earl has suggested that the uniform should include white Sam Brownes, because they are worn in some countries abroad. I am not sure that I would concede that we must follow completely the example of foreigners, for we still have our own ways in this country, but I do not see any reason why we could not have a uniform which all foreigners would recognise. I was interested in my noble friend's suggestion about white Sam Brownes, and I will certainly bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend. The idea is that uniform and equipment should be standardised.
I come, finally, to this vexed question of signs. I suppose that the noble Lord would regard me as an evil and adulterous generation seeking after a sign, and he would not give me one. I am in
1018
favour of the sign and not of the noble Lord's system. I think there are good reasons for preferring the sign. If there is anything in the criticisms of my noble friends, that there is a risk of not having sufficiently skilled people on this job, I think the simpler we make the operation the safer it will be for everybody. If we have a standard sign that everybody knows carried by all school crossing patrols, that is the better idea. I think there is a danger in having patrols to control traffic manually. The present system has been a success and I would rather follow up the system that we have. I cannot guarantee to demonstrate to your Lordships how to control traffic with a sign—I think that would be out of order—but a new sign is now being designed which will be lighter and a good deal more portable than the existing one. That, I think, may go some way to meet the noble Lord's point of the unwieldiness of the sign.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Surely it would be in order, subject to the authorities of the House, for the noble Lord to undertake to produce a prototype at the next stage of the Bill. It would be most interesting and instructive for noble Lords to see what this part of the equipment actually is.
LORD LLOYD: I hesitate to give your Lordships an undertaking that the new sign can be produced in time for the next stage of this Bill: it may be too soon. All I can say is that I will do my best; and if the sign is available at that stage, I will see what arrangements can be made to meet the noble Lord's convenience. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked me for a definition of the word "exhibiting." I think "holding prominently where people can see it" is a good definition: I know of no other. But I will look into the legal side of this to see whether there is any mystery about the word "exhibiting," and I hope that I shall be able on Committee stage to satisfy him about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, made two points. On his first point about zebra crossings, I agree will him in principle, but I would make the qualification that obviously there would have to be zebra crossings somewhere near the schools, and there may happen not to be crossings at convenient points. I think the more

1019
we keep these crossings down the better, but I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this point. I agree equally with what the noble Lord said about teaching road safety in schools. The schools must not think that because we are producing an improved system, the need for teaching road safety has ceased, because that is not so.
I should like to say a word or two in reply to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I know the noble Lord does not agree with me about this, but while he is correct in the letter about the new uniformed force, he is not right in spirit. Even if we were to get rid of the uniform the patrols would still be the same people. The reasons why we are giving them uniform are for the greater protection of the motorists and for standardisation. I do not think it is true to say that their powers are increased. The situation is that to-day any citizen can report any motorist to the police if he sees a motorist doing something contrary to the existing law. If, for example, my noble friend drives up to a "Halt" sign at a major road and does not halt but drives straight across, any member of the public standing by can take his number and report the offence to the local police. The local police will then decide whether or not to summon the noble Lord. The patrols have no more power than that. If an offence occurs at a patrolled crossing, all the patrol himself can do is to take the car number and report it to the police. The only difference there may be is that in the case of the "Halt" sign which I mentioned there may not be a witness, but at school crossings there will always be a witness, and the danger to motorists of being apprehended is that much more serious. I do not think the noble Lord's apprehensions about this uniformed force are as serious as he makes out. The existing patrols will be carrying on, and, though I admit they will now have uniforms, they will have exactly the same powers as before.
My noble friend asked me why the Government thought it necessary to create a new offence in this Bill. It is already an offence under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as amended by the 1934 Act, and all we are doing is to take the offence out of that Act and put it into this Bill, because we hope that in due course we shall have in one Act all
1020
the legislation as regards school crossing patrols. I think that is simpler and tidier. The penalty has been increased, but only in London. Under the present Acts the existing penalties in London are £5 for a first offence and, outside London, £20 for a first offence and £50 for a second. Under the Bill the penalties will be £20 for a first offence and £20 for a second offence. So that the offenders inside London will have to pay the same as those outside on the first offence and on the second offence people outside London will be better off, in having to pay only £20 instead of £50. This is such a serious offence that I think it right that the penalty should be fairly stiff, and I hope that my noble friend will not differ from me there.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye also said that this new uniformed body would make the position of motorists in the courts quite different. I do not know how the noble Lord works that out, because I think our courts are still conducted in accordance with the laws of evidence and justice. I do not believe that the fact that a man appears in a white mackintosh when he gives his evidence, will make a great deal of difference. I hope not. I am sure the courts will deal with these matters with their customary justice, and I do not believe the noble Lord's fears are really justified.
Finally, my noble friend asked me if I would give an undertaking to put in the Bill itself specific provisions about the training and selecting of personnel. I appreciate his anxiety on this point, but it would not be right if I were to give an undertaking which I could not be certain of carrying out. I do not think he would wish me to do that and certainly I do not wish to do it. What I can say to the noble Lord, as his anxieties have been shared by other noble Lords, is that we will certainly look at the matter. I have told him why, on the whole, I do not wish to fetter local authorities unduly; it is because I do not think it will work best if we do that. But I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what he has said. We will look at it, and see whether any provision which would satisfy the noble Lord could be inserted to give him greater guarantees about the question of training and selection, which I gather

1021
was the point he had in mind. Of course, that is not an undertaking to put anything in the Bill, but I will undertake to see what can be done.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Would the noble Lord enlarge the undertaking to this extent: that he will give us time between now and the further stages of the Bill, so that, supposing the Government intimate that they are unable to comply with the requests which have come from all quarters of the House, those of us who feel troubled about the matter may have a chance of putting down Amendments? Perhaps he will undertake to give us, through the usual channels, some indication of the deliberations of the Government.
LORD LLOYD: I can certainly give that undertaking to the noble Lord; in fact, if it is of any assistance, I shall be only too glad to consult with him between now and the next stage of the Bill. He asked how much money this will cost. I cannot give him an exact estimate, but the full cost to the Exchequer has been estimated at £80,000 a year—that is, excluding the equalisation grant—and a further £80,000 will have to be met from the rates.
I have dealt with most of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but not the question of scholar patrols, a matter on which he was supported by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. The figures which the noble Earl gave were rather impressive, and I hope that what he has said will be studied by local authorities and others concerned with this matter. I would say this to him: that there is nothing in this Bill which would prevent scholar patrols from being organised. The patrols themselves could be school crossing patrols within the meaning of the Bill.
EARL HOWE: Perhaps it could be harnessed to the Bill.
LORD LLOYD: I am advised that it is possible to have scholar patrols within the framework of the Bill without amending the Bill. The scholar patrol would merely become a school crossing patrol within the meaning of the Bill. Therefore, I do not think anything prevents local authorities from adopting scholar
1022
patrols if they desire to do so. I am afraid that I have spoken at some length, but I have done my best to answer all the points raised.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord concludes, there is one point of importance which I raised and which he has not answered. What is the position of rural district councils, vis-à-vis county councils, as to their authority in this matter?
LORD LLOYD: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The situation fulfils his worst fears. The county councils are the authorities here. I do not think it would be practicable, on financial and other grounds, to make rural district councils responsible for this particular service.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): Perhaps the noble Lord would look at Clause 1 (2).
LORD LLOYD: Also, if the noble Lord locks at Clause 1 (3) he will see that, although they have not power in this matter, rural district councils and others can make representation to the county councils on their particular problems. I trust that that satisfies the noble Lord. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REGISTRATION SERVICE BILL [H.L.]
7.14 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock