Sitting of 17 April 1951

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT) BILL [Lords]
    OXFORD MOTOR SERVICES BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Burnwood Camp, Carluke
    Lord Dunglassasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has confirmed the decision to charge full rent for permanent county council houses to the tenant of a hut in the Burnwood Camp, Carluke, Lanarkshire.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The fixing of rents for the huts at Burnwood Camp rests with the county council, who, I understand, had regard primarily to the rents charged for temporary houses in the county.
    Lord Dunglass: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the Department of Health have no discretion and can exercise no influence with the county council in the charging of rents? Does he realise—I am sure he does; he has been there—that the conditions are such in the camp that only one room in each hut can be occupied because the huts are so damp? Is it not a scandal to charge the full rent for the use of one room in an ex-R.A.F. hut?
    Mr. Fraser: The position is that local authority rents are not subject to the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend.
    Lord Dunglassasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will reverse the decision to classify the Burnwood Camp, Carluke, Lanarkshire, as a temporary housing scheme and condemn the huts as unfit for human habitation.
    Mr. T. Fraser: No, Sir. These huts should continue to provide temporary accommodation for some time for people who cannot yet be given permanent houses. The work originally done at this camp has not, however, proved sufficient and at my suggestion the county council are carrying out certain improvements.
    Lord Dunglass: I am given to understand that the classification of these R.A.F. huts as a temporary housing scheme prejudices the allocation of permanent houses to the village of Carluke; that is to say, there is a reduction of what otherwise they would have received of, I am told, nearly 60 houses. Is that not intolerable, and ought not this camp, which is quite unfit for human habitation, to be condemned?
    Mr. Fraser: Again, the position is that the decision on how many houses will be allocated to the village of Carluke is one for the county council and not for the Secretary of State.
    Lord Dunglass: In that case, why is the hon. Gentleman answering this Question if he is not responsible? These Questions have been passed by the Chair and I am given to understand that the hon. Gentleman's Department have responsibility in both cases. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman now to say that the Department have no discretion in either of these two matters?
    Mr. Fraser: With respect, the noble Lord is asking supplementary questions which go beyond the Question on the Order Paper, although they are not unrelated. I repeat that my right hon. Friend is not in a position to instruct the county council of Lanarkshire as to how many houses out of their county allocation they should allot to Carluke.
    Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman can make suggestions to the county council concerning the accommodation provided, surely he can make suggestions as to the rent they can charge.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In any case, what is the use of condemning

    1629
    these huts as unfit for human habitation, since people have to go on living in them because the Government are either unable or unwilling to provide suitable alternative accommodation?
    Lord Dunglass: As the answers to these two Questions have been entirely unsatisfactory and unsympathetic, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

    Local Authority Tenants (Sub-letting)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland upon what facts he based his decision to encourage local authorities to allow their house tenants to take in lodgers or sub-let; and if he is aware of the confusion which this announcement has caused to local authorities throughout the country.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I am not aware of any confusion in this matter. The position is that I recently took the opportunity of suggesting to local authorities that they might wish to consider modifying any prohibition on lodgers and sub-tenancies at least for particular categories, so far as that can be arranged without creating over-crowding. The need to get the maximum mobility of labour for the defence programme and the provision of accommodation for Festival visitors seem to call for the best possible use being made of our housing resources.
    Mr. Stewart: Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to answer the Question? Surely he could not have made such a recommendation to the authorities without some figures. How many houses in Scotland does he think, for example, are not already overcrowded? How many could make available facilities for such sub-tenants? Without those figures, surely the hon. Gentleman should not have made such a statement.
    Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman says I ought to have given some figures. If the local authorities ask me to give some figures, we shall be able to give them the figures which the local authorities themselves gave to the Housing Advisory Committee. We know the figures they have already themselves provided and have made suggestions as to how better use may be made of local authority houses.
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the offer of the local authorities figures. As I was seeking precisely that information, would he kindly give the House those figures?
    Mr. Fraser: Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

    Hydro-Electric Scheme, Breadalbane
    Mr. Snaddenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Constructional Scheme No. 25—Breadalbane Project—of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is likely seriously to affect large sheep stocks in Perthshire; and if he will give an assurance that before confirming this scheme the interests of food production will be fully considered.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): Objections to this scheme may be made before 5th May. Thereafter my right hon. Friend must decide, in the light of any objections, of its possible effect on agricultural or other interests, and of the result of any public inquiry which may be held, whether it is in the public interest to confirm it. If it is confirmed Parliament will, of course, have an opportunity of considering it.
    Mr. Snadden: Is the hon. Lady aware that a large part of the land affected by this vast scheme which is to cost £15,500,000 is land that has already been rehabilitated under the Hill Farming Act passed by her own Government? Is she further aware that there is grave apprehension that because of the discharge of water from the scheme into the River Earn, serious flooding will take place over this rich agricultural land? Will she see that her right hon. Friend looks into these two points in particular, and has regard to agricultural and food production interests in general?
    Miss Herbison: All these points are being taken into consideration. At the present time technical officers of the Department of Agriculture are carrying out a survey on this very ground. Their report will be in the hands of the Secretary of State before he reaches any decision.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the hon. Lady aware that on this occasion this period of 40 days is really too short to enable people to examine this very big

    1631
    scheme carefully, because for the first time, I think I am right in saying, in any of these schemes really rich, first-class agricultural land is affected, as opposed to the important but much less valuable hill land affected in some of the earlier schemes?
    Miss Herbison: It seems to me that the time is a little more than 40 days. It was first decided on 23rd March, and there is until 5th May. I am sure that if there is an objection there is sufficient time to make the objection.

    Housing, Cove and Kilgreggan
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of applicants on the waiting list for houses in the Burgh of Cove and Kilgreggan.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I am informed that the number is 44, Sir.
    Mr. Steele: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that this is a Tory local authority who were allocated 20 houses by his Department in May, 1948; that building did not start until January, 1950; and that, as far as I understand, no houses have yet been completed? Would he arrange for the Scottish Special Housing Association to go into this local authority area and build houses for the people who are still waiting for them?
    Mr. Fraser: I should like to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Rivers (Prevention of Pollution)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the joint letter dated 6th April addressed to him by the Association of County Councils, the Scottish Counties of Cities Association and the Convention of Royal Burghs urgently requesting the postponement of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. T. Fraser: My right hon. Friend met representatives of the three associations this morning, and gave them an assurance that he would consider before the Committee stage of the Bill certain specific points which they made to him.
    Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether that statement satisfied the local authorities he met?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir, it did.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that local authorities have had over 50 years to deal with this problem of river pollution in Scotland, and that many of us feel that the sooner action is taken in the matter the better?
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State disclose to the House, since this question is coming up for debate very soon, the lines of the objection put forward?
    Mr. Fraser: We had a very, very useful discussion with the associations' representatives this morning. I do not want to weary the House by enumerating the suggestions that were then put forward, but no doubt my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity, when we have the Second Reading discussion, of explaining to the Committee fully what they were.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether he has had any representations from the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland about this matter, and will he take those considerations into account? I will send him a copy if he has not had one.
    Mr. Fraser: We have had many representations, of course, from different associations who are very anxious to get the Bill through without any unnecessary delay.

    Agricultural Production
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase has taken place in our meat production in Scotland since the commencement of the agricultural expansion programme in June, 1947.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The estimated increase in 1950–51 in the production of beef and veal, mutton and lamb, pigmeat and poultry over that produced in 1946–47 is 33,000 tons, or 22 per cent.
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the extent of increase in Scotland in the production of cereals and potatoes; and also the figures of the acreage under cultivation since the commencement of the expansion programme.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The estimated increase in cereals production between 1947, the first year of the expansion programme,

    1633
    and 1950 was 57,000 tons, from a decreased acreage of 68,000 acres. The figure for potatoes was 223,000 tons increase from 17,000 acres less. The total area under cultivation in 1947 and 1950 respectively was 1,859,000 and 1,768,000 acres.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. Friend tell us to what extent this is due to Government subsidies, and whether he is considering the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) that those subsidies should be withdrawn?
    Mr. Fraser: We are not seriously considering the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion.
    Commander Galbraith: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that these figures reflect the very greatest credit on our Scottish farmers?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. Snadden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that direct subsidies paid to the whole of agriculture are only £20 million?
    Hon. Members: Only!
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total volume of agricultural output estimated for the year ending May, 1951; and also the comparable figures for the years 1947 and 1939.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The total volume of agricultural output in Scotland for the year ending May, 1951, is estimated to be 18 per cent. greater than in 1946–47 and 47 per cent. greater than pre-war.
    Mr. Manuel: Will my hon. Friend indicate to the Scottish farmworkers and farmers our great satisfaction at this tremendous increase in productivity throughout rural Scotland? Will he further indicate to the people of Scotland generally the tremendous fillip that has been given to Scottish agriculture by the Labour Government?
    Mr. Fraser: The farmers and farmworkers of Scotland are due the greatest credit for their wonderful efforts since 1947; but I should just like to say that as they are, by and large, the farmers and farmworkers that we had before the war, there must be some reason for their doing so well.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the hon. Gentleman give any reason for the enormous drop in home-produced meat?
    Mr. John MacLeod: Does not the Joint Under-Secretary of State agree that this is a great achievement by private enterprise?
    Mr. Fraser: I have already paid tribute to the private enterprises responsible. Let me say to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the figures I have just given show that there has been a considerable increase in the home production of meat in recent years.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In recent years, but the hon. Gentleman was talking of pre-war. Naturally, even the Labour Government cannot always stay at their lowest point. Even they have to progress one way or the other.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: May we take it that the figures given in the last three answers are to be found in the published reports of the Department?

    Financial Relations (Report)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the Report of the Catto Committee on the financial relations between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Miss Herbison: I am not yet able to say when the Report will be ready.
    Mr. Stewart: While we all wish this Committee to do its job properly, is it not taking an inordinately long time to produce the facts to justify a possible further inquiry?
    Miss Herbison: The Committee was appointed in July, 1950. It has met seven times since. A certain number of that Committee have spent a considerable time taking evidence. I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that this is not something that can be decided in a day, and that a great deal of evidence has to be taken.

    Children's Officer, West Lothian
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the strong opposition aroused by his refusal to endorse the nominee of the West Lothian County Council for the position

    1635
    of children's officer; and whether he is prepared to reconsider the position and approve the proposed appointment.
    Miss Herbison: It was considered that the candidate in question did not have the experence and qualifications required in a children's officer; and after discussion with the county council, my right hon. Friend directed that he should not be appointed. I regret that no new information has been produced which would lead him to a different conclusion.
    Mr. Mathers: Is the hon. Lady aware of the excellent record of the West Lothian County Council in respect of the care of children, and is it likely that a council with such a record would make wantonly an unwise appointment? Is it not possible that too much stress is being placed upon paper qualifications?
    Miss Herbison: No. It was pointed out clearly that we were not stressing paper qualifications at all, but from the evidence which we have this particular man has had no experience of local authority work with children, has had no administrative experience, and, as far as we know, has had no contact at all with deprived children. Naturally, the Secretary of State must be very careful when these appointments are made, since deprived children have not the care of their own parents.
    Mr. Mathers: While I recognise the validity of the answer my hon. Friend has given, I believe that there is more to be elucidated than is possible by Question and answer, and I therefore give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    House Building, Glasgow
    Mr. J. N. Browneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses were completed in Glasgow during the last convenient 12 months' period; and how many are in course of erection.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Four thousand one hundred and fourteen houses were completed in the year ended 28th February, 1951, and 5,915 houses were under construction at that date.
    Mr. Browne: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the figure of permanent houses he has given, which means 22,604 apartments, constitutes a post-war record
    1636
    for Glasgow; and will he confirm that this is the highest number of permanent houses built for letting by any local authority in Britain, other than London?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, I think the hon. Gentleman is right.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my hon. Friend not aware that this is in no wise a record, and that in 1934 there were 4,485 houses built?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that that was the year when the Socialists inherited a progressive programme, and that they have never since touched more than half that figure?
    Mrs. Cullen: Does my hon. Friend not think that the Glasgow Corporation might make a start with building houses for people who most need them?
    Major Guy Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman know why there should be such dismay amongst his hon. Friends at this very good record of Glasgow in house building?
    Mr. Fraser: The surprising thing is that the Opposition should be so pleased to learn that we are getting on with house building. The suggestion is always being made that houses cannot be built under the Socialist Government, but the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Browne) is now claiming that under our policy more houses for letting are being built than ever before.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is it not true that this rise has only taken place since the ejection of the Socialist Council; and does he not think that this is a very good hint to other cities in Scotland which are short of houses?
    Mr. Fraser: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a very shrewd debater, but if he claims that the houses built in 1934 under a Labour administration in Glasgow were due to the progressive policy of the Tories in 1931 and 1932, it surely cannot have escaped his attention that it is only quite recently that the Tories regained control of Glasgow, and perhaps they were fortunate in inheriting the very good work done by the Socialists in the previous year.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is it not the case that figures for housing in Glasgow

    1637
    have been constantly falling but that they are now showing a rise; and is it not further the case that the Socialists did not leave a single prepared site for the Progressives when they came in?
    Mr. Fraser: If the right hon. and gallant Gentlemant wants to compare the housing records of Labour and Tory controlled local authorities, let him compare Glasgow and Edinburgh.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: I think we had better have a cease-fire in the battle of Glasgow.

    Dentures and Spectacles
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland were supplied with dentures and spectacles last year; and what is his estimate of the sum likely to be saved next year in Scotland as a result of the Budget proposals.
    Miss Herbison: In the year to 31st March last, just over 400,000 persons were supplied with dentures and just over 750,000 with spectacles. If Parliament passes in the near future the legislation needed for the charges proposed by my right hon. Friend, the saving in Scotland during the financial year now current is expected to exceed £1 million.
    Mr. Hughes: Is there any evidence of widespread abuse of these services?
    Miss Herbison: I should not say that there has been widespread abuse of these services, but there has been some abuse.
    Sir T. Moore: Since it is obvious that the Scottish people need spectacles to see the present meat ration and dentures with which to eat it, is the saving justified?
    Mr. Carmichael: As my hon. Friend indicated that there will be a saving of £1 million, could she give any indication of the class of people who will aid us by saving that? Will the old age pensioners be subject to any means test when they make application for spectacles or dentures?
    Miss Herbison: Those who at the present time are receiving national assistance and the majority of the old age pensioners who are on supplementary benefit will still be able to get dentures without cost.
    Mr. Carmichael: If they are not on national assistance but are dependent entirely on their old age pension or their superannuation, have they to go through a means test in order to qualify?
    Miss Herbison: I suggest that my hon. Friend await the Bill which will be published very soon. Those people who because of financial circumstances are unable to pay will, just as they get other benefits, have this benefit.

  WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES (REVISION)
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Pensions what improvements in pension rates can now be made.
  Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will make a statement about supplementary pensions to war disabled pensioners.
  Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Pensions if he has now reviewed war pensions; and what provision has been made for possible increases during the fiscal year.
  Commander Purseyasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will now make a statement on war disability pensions and allowances.
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Isaacs): The supplement payable to pensioners whose disablement is so serious as to make them unemployable will be raised from 30s. to 35s. a week and the allowance for the first or only child of a pensioner in receipt of the supplement will be raised from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a week. A new allowance, called a comforts allowance, of 10s. a week will be given to pensioners who are in receipt of both the unemployability supplement and the attendance allowance. It will also be given to certain other seriously injured pensioners. The qualifying rent figure for rent allowances for widows of other ranks with children will be lowered from 8s. to 6s. a week. The estimated cost of these improvements, which will have effect from the first pay day in June, is £630,000 a year.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While the Minister's statement represents a small but, nevertheless, acceptable improvement in the case of the most deserving

  1639
  category of pensioners, could he clarify two points? Will this new allowance be subject to Income Tax; and will the badly injured man who would otherwise be eligible get the comforts allowance even though he is in employment?
  Mr. Isaacs: With reference to the second part of the question, such a man will get these allowances. Certain arrangements are being drawn up to cover these people. It is to assist those who are suffering from serious disability, to give them more comforts rather than an actual increase of earnings. These supplements will, like the other payments, be free of Income Tax.
  Sir I. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these proposals are bound to cause very keen disappointment because the basic rate of war pension has not been raised; but will he appreciate that, nevertheless, within the limited sum of money available the ex-Service societies and the British Legion will co-operate with him as to the way in which these moneys are divided?
  Mr. Isaacs: I am very glad indeed to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance on that point, which I knew would be forthcoming. I wish we could have done more, but we have tried to spend the money available to help those who are in urgent need.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend say what increase these improvements will give to the seriously disabled pensioner; and can he also say how widows already receiving a rent supplement will benefit?
  Mr. Isaacs: Widows, in the main, come under two headings. About 23,000 of them will get the 2s. automatically. We shall have to find out from our register the others who come into the scope of this supplement for the first time. We are inviting applications. All the other benefits will be given forthwith without any application from any of the pensioners. Under this scheme the most seriously disabled man will find himself entitled to £7 16s. a week if he has a wife and one child. All these allowances are free of tax.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In the latter part of his original answer, the Minister
  1640
  said that there were certain other seriously disabled men who had become eligible for the 10s. a week comforts allowance. Does he mean there may be some who are capable of light work who are eligible, or is it only for people who are quite unable to work?
  Mr. Isaacs: No. I hope to be able to make a fuller statement later. This is what we have in mind. There may be a man who, owing to a limb injury is entitled to a 100 per cent. disability pension, and who is also blind and would be entitled to a 100 per cent. disability pension for his blindness. Under our scheme he does not get more than one 100 per cent. disability pension. That man might work and earn full wages; we are not concerned about his earnings and they do not come into the picture at all; the man is entitled to the same comforts; he comes into it. The man may be limbless, or a paraplegic, but this gives him a chance of getting another 10s.
  Commander Pursey: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative Party refused an increase of the basic war disability pension for 20 years and then, in 1939, reduced it by 18 per cent.?
  Sir I. Fraser: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be implementing this arrangement by Royal Warrant, and, if so, will he follow the precedent set by former Ministers and lay a draft of that Warrant, so that it may be studied by the House and ex-Servicemen's societies?
  Mr. Isaacs: I cannot give the hon. and gallant Gentleman a definite answer to that question. I should like to look at the precedents, and we shall follow those precedents whatever they are.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Officials (Subsistence Allowances)
    Mr. Redmayneasked the Secretary of State for War for what period, and at what rates, additional accommodation allowances are paid to civilian employees on their return to this country from abroad.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): An official returning from overseas, if he has no alternative but to occupy hotel type accommodation, is paid

    1641
    subsistence allowance varying from 30s. to 21s. a night for the first seven nights and thereafter 24s. to 17s. a night for a further 21 nights. In exceptional circumstances this period may be extended for a further two months. Appropriate allowances are also admissible for members of his family during this time. Thereafter, an excess rent allowance continuing for an indefinite period may in certain cases be admissible. Under other circumstances other allowances may be payable and if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will let me have details.
    Mr. Redmayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what reaction he has had to his approach to the local authorities in regard to giving special consideration to these employees?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot without notice. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

    Pay Rates
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for War what is the difference in pay between a private soldier of the Regular Army and a National Service man serving in Korea.
    Mr. Strachey: The pay of a National Service private soldier anywhere depends upon his qualifications and his length of service. If he has served for 18 months or more he is paid at the same rate as a Regular soldier with the same qualifications. If his period of service is shorter he receives a lower rate, generally 3s. a day less. Details of the rates are shown in Army Estimates, 1951–52, pages 184 and 185.
    Mr. Shepherd: How can the right hon. Gentleman defend in principle paying a private soldier of one class a lower rate of pay than the private soldier of another class who is doing exactly the same job and facing exactly the same dangers?
    Mr. Strachey: This question was argued out at great length, and I think that the House, as a whole, took the view that it was reasonable to pay a man who made the Service a life career at a higher rate than the National Service man during the 18 months of his service.

    Class Z Reserve (Call-up)
    Captain John Crowderasked the Secretary of State for War if Class Z reservists who are receiving disability pensions are recalled if their rate of disablement is as high as 30 per cent.
    Mr. Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for War to state the Government's policy in regard to the calling up of disabled men as Class Z reservists.
    Mr. Strachey: Notices to join for training inform reservists that if they have a disability pension of 30 per cent. or over they should report the fact and will not be required for training.
    Captain Crowder: Is the Minister aware that many men who have been in touch with the Ministry of Pensions for a 25 per cent. disability pension are being called up, and that was the answer they were given? Can he say whether these men have a medical examination when they arrive at the centre and whether they will draw their pension during their period of service?
    Mr. Strachey: They will, of course, be medically examined before their period of training begins.
    Mr. Maclean: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two of my constituents, one with only one eye, and one with only one leg, have both been called up, and would not it have been simpler not to call these men up in the first instance?
    Mr. Strachey: I presume that they have over a 30 per cent. disability pension, and, if so, they will be automatically exempted by that provision.
    Mr. A. R. W. Low: Does that not show that the Department's re-registration on this matter of the call-up of reservists is not at all satisfactory?
    Mr. Strachey: One of the advantages of the present exercise is that it will discover the marginal errors in the matter of re-registration.
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Secretary of State for War if he will indicate the general grounds of personal hardship arising from the date of Class Z reservists call-up which he considers sufficient to justify a change of the call-up date; and if he will instruct his officials that circumstances which would normally entitle

    1643
    a soldier, stationed in this country, to compassionate leave should at least be sufficient for this purpose.
    Mr. Strachey: In many cases it is impracticable to change the date of call-up of a Class Z reservist. Most reservists will train with the particular units with which they would serve in the event of mobilisation, and for which their qualifications make them most suitable. These units are carrying out training at fixed periods throughout the year and if alternative dates for training were granted it would mean that a reservist would have to train with another unit, and one of the main purposes of the training would be defeated.
    Where, therefore, it would cause severe personal hardship to a reservist to attend for training during the period given in his warning notice, consideration can in those cases only be given to the possibility of granting exemption from call-up. In view of the varying circumstances of the cases, I cannot attempt to lay down hard-and-fast rules for granting exemption, but the general principle is that exemption is granted if the presence of the reservist at his home is essential. The same criterion is adopted in deciding whether a soldier in this country should be granted compassionate leave.
    Mr. Mulley: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend's reply that he will instruct his officials to take a sympathetic attitude to a change of date, or is it because of inconvenience to his Department that they are not prepared to consider these changes?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I can only repeat what I have just said in my answer. In the majority of cases it is not possible to change the date because these men are called up for a particular unit which is holding its camp on that particular date, and the whole camp of the Territorial battalion, or battery, or whatever it is, would have to be changed. Therefore, we must either exempt a man altogether or call him up on that particular date. That is not a universal rule, but it does, I am afraid, apply in the majority of cases, and it is not a question of the convenience or inconvenience of the Department.
    Mr. Vosper: Can the Minister say whether decisions in these cases are taken by the Army Record Office concerned or referred to the War Office?
    Mr. Strachey: They will be taken in the War Office.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is causing great hardship in a number of cases where men are working in large establishments and their holidays have already been allocated, and they may have committed themselves to a certain amount of money which they will lose if he completely refuses to alter the call-up period? Is he also aware that this applies in those cases where a man is urgently needed at home because of his wife's confinement; and that the matter is causing considerable discontent?
    Mr. Strachey: I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates the reason, which is not apparent on the surface, we cannot in the great majority of cases change the date. It is a question of either granting an exemption for a man altogether, or calling him up on a particular date.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War what action he proposes to take to trace Class Z reservists when their papers are returned as not at the address to which the call-up notice was sent.
    Mr. Strachey: In these cases action will be taken to trace the reservists through the police and through such other channels as are available.
    Brigadier Clarke: How may of these Class Z reservists have gone abroad, and do they come into the marginal error to which the right hon. Gentleman referred on a previous Question?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot say how many have gone abroad, although I imagine the number is negligible.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: What happens if a reservist is in gaol? Is he still called up?
    Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for War why Mr. A. Lafleur received no notification from his Department that he had been selected for recall as a Class Z reservist prior to receiving instructions dated 21st March to report for training on 27th May.
    Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend will, I hope, have now received a reply from my hon. Friend the under-Secretary of State about this matter.

    Home Guard
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for War if he will now appoint or designate regional and battalion commanders and cadre staffs for the Home Guard.
    Mr. Strachey: Home Commands have been instructed to prepare lists of battalion commanders suitable and willing to accept appointments if and when the Home Guard is raised. It is not possible to consider the earmarking of regional commanders until home commands' orders of battle are completed. With regard to the provision of cadre staffs, I would refer the hon. Member to my statement during the debate on the Army Estimates on 8th March.
    Sir I. Fraser: If the preliminary arrangements for local commanders, regional commanders, etc., is to wait until war breaks out, surely there will be a very great muddle, instead of having the Service ready?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The lists of battalion commanders, as I have just stated, are being made up now.
    Mr. Duncan Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that answer that it is his intention, as soon as he receives these recommendations, to make appointments, because surely he realises that until appointments are made, no effective preparatory planning can be done?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. As I have said, this is a question of preparing lists and not of making the actual appointments. I do not agree that no effective preparatory planning can be done in these circumstances.
    Sir I. Fraser: How can the right hon. Gentleman prepare lists of persons for possible jobs without asking them whether they are willing to serve, or without taking into account whether they are offering their services elsewhere?
    Mr. Strachey: I have made no statement that they will not be asked whether they will be willing to serve; they will be asked.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will they be informed that they will be on the lists?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly.

    Officers (London Allowance)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War whether London allowance, to meet the extra expense of working in London, is paid to every officer, including officers of the Household Brigade, whose place of duty is within 10 miles of Charing Cross, and who is not provided with public accommodation.
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, provided they are not receiving travelling expenses between their residence and duty station, nor nightly rates of travelling allowance.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: What is the rate of this allowance, and does the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that living in London is very much more expensive for those doing duties there, whether provided with public quarters or not?
    Mr. Strachey: I will write to the hon. and gallant Member on the rates of the London allowance; but I think it is a fair allowance.

    Women's R.A.C. Staff College
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War for what purpose it is proposed to establish a Women's Staff College; where this college will be situated; in what branches of staff duties will instruction be given to the women students; and what is the estimated annual cost of the college.
    Mr. Strachey: The Women's Royal Army Corps Staff College is being established at Frimley Park, Camberley, in order to train officers for Women's Royal Army Corps appointments and to replace male officers in second and third grade staff appointments in static headquarters. Instruction will be given in those branches of staff duties which are chiefly useful to the administrative staff officer. The annual cost of the college on the basis at present contemplated is estimated at £20,000.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the fighting efficiency of the Army will benefit from the employment of these women staff

    1647
    officers? Can this extra expenditure be justified at this time of financial stringency, when the expenditure of every 6d. is a matter of importance?
    Mr. Strachey: I should have thought that the fighting efficiency of the Army would be increased precisely by releasing male officers for combatant and other such duties and by having their present duties done by women officers.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I think that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of £20,000. Can he say in round figures—he knows what I mean—how many women this will include?
    Mr. Ian Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what staff grade appointments are envisaged?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot give the list without notice.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What is the estimated cost per student week?
    Mr. Strachey: I could not say without notice.

    Troops, Korea
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions between the commencement of the Korean campaign and 1st April, 1951, our troops enjoyed 98 oz. of fresh or frozen American meat per week.
    Mr. Strachey: I have called for this information and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he thoroughly misled the House when he said that our soldiers are receiving 98 oz. of meat, when he does not even know whether they have had it once? Have they had it once, twice or 10 times?
    Mr. Strachey: We must get the information from Korea, as the hon. and gallant Member must realise, to say on how many occasions they have had it.
    Brigadier Clarke: Is it not most important that the soldier who is fighting should have sufficient meat? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot provide it in this country, it is his job to see that the Americans provide it.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the provision of American fresh meat for our troops in Korea is paid for by the Exchequer; and what is the cost per ton.
    Mr. Strachey: So far, no bills have been received in respect of goods or services provided by the United States forces to the British Army in Korea.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that he will pay less per ton for this meat than the price at which the Minister of Food has managed to buy meat from the Argentine?
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can out line his policy for the replacement of troops fighting in Korea; how long, for instance, troops so posted are retained there; and whether they are to be brought back to the United Kingdom when relieved.
    Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins) on 10th April.
    Miss Ward: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers will be coming home?
    Mr. Strachey: Not without notice.
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War why his policy of last July, which was not to post National Service men to Korea excepting under exceptional circumstances, has been changed.
    Mr. Strachey: The policy which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence announced on 27th July, 1950, was that no soldier under 19 years of age would be sent to Korea. At that time the period of whole-time National Service was 18 months and it would have been impracticable to send National Service men to Korea since they would have been able to serve there for only a few months. My right hon. Friend therefore explained that this decision meant that no National Service men would be sent to Korea except in very exceptional circumstances, and in order to raise 29th Infantry Brigade Group to establishment a number of Regular reservists were recalled. As from 1st October last the period of National Service was extended to two

    1649
    years, and it thus became practicable to use National Service men for service in Korea. It has not been possible to find all the reinforcements necessary to maintain our forces in Korea from serving Regular soldiers and it has been decided that the balance should be found from National Service men rather than by recalling further Regular reservists. National Service men are drafted to Korea only after they have attained 19 years of age and completed adequate training.
    Miss Ward: Would it not have been wiser to have made a statement of that kind earlier? Am I right in assuming now that men in the National Service groups have not got to volunteer for Korea, but that they are called up as and when the War Office decides and dispatched to Korea? In future, will the right hon. Gentleman keep the House fully informed as to changes of plans after pledges have been given?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. There have been no changes of plan, and National Service men have been fighting in Korea with the 27th Brigade, for example, since early last autumn. This has been announced in the House and discussed by the House on many occasions.

    Temporary Clerks
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that as a result of the imposition of the age limit in connection with the scheme for the establishment of temporary clerks as clerical assistants, 18 temporary civil servants in Bordon Garrison will still continue to be employed in a temporary capacity; and whether, in view of the fact that some of the individuals concerned have been employed already for as long as 10 years and are ex-Regular Service men, he will reconsider the present arrangements with a view to placing more of them on the established list.
    Mr. Strachey: The scheme for the establishment of temporary clerks as clerical assistants is a national scheme. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) on 10th April.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Secretary of State aware of the hardship caused to very many old soldiers who are affected by this scheme, and is he aware of the very strong feelings caused by it among ex-soldiers?
    Mr. Strachey: We cannot contract out of the general scheme for the Civil Service. I think that a question on the general scheme should be addressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

    Lieut.-General Gale (Statement)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the official statement made in Washington by Lieut.-General Sir Richard Gale, Director General of Training, to the effect that Soviet intervention in the Korean conflict would be welcome because it would provide the British forces with an opportunity of killing Russians; why an officer whose views are not in accordance with the aims of the United Nations and His Majesty's Government has been sent on an official mission to Washington; and what steps have been taken to discipline him.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the official statement made by Lieut.-General Sir Richard Gale, at Washington, on 6th April, on the subject of the war in Korea; and to what extent it has his approval.
    Mr. Strachey: As soon as reports of General Gale's alleged statement were received inquiries were made as to whether it represented correctly what he had said. A telegram has now been received from General Gale which reads as follows:
    "I categorically deny statement. My remarks were made with reference to intervention by MIG aircraft and not (repeat not) to Russians. Thus I deny emphatically the statement as it stands."
    Mr. Driberg: While welcoming very strongly that denial of a statement which has done a tremendous amount of harm because it has been quoted and misquoted throughout the world, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say whether any steps were taken by the British Information Services in America to get the statement denied as soon as this telegram was received and to check with the journalists concerned?
    Mr. Strachey: The telegram from Lieut.-General Gale has only just been

    1651
    received. I think that the best start to the denial of the accuracy of the report is made by my statement in the House today.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not Lieut.-General Gale still in America, and in those circumstances how is it possible that he could allow this statement to be made all over America while he was there without denying it?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot say what other statements Lieut.-General Gale may have made, but we made these inquiries of him and he made this very categorical denial to us.
    Lord John Hope: Would not this Question have come rather better from the hon. Member who asked it, if he supported the foreign policy designed to prevent the Russians from killing us?
    Mr. Driberg: Too stupid to answer.

    Driver Fargie (Court-Martial)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War whether, after having perused the court-martial proceedings in the case of Driver Fargie, he is now prepared to make a full statement.
    Mr. Strachey: I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.
    Later—
    Mr. Strachey: Hon. Members will now have had an opportunity to study the full text of the proceedings of the trial of Driver Fargie, which I placed in the Library last week. I wish to make the following general observations upon this case.
    First: I cannot doubt but that anyone who reads these proceedings will conclude that Driver Fargie had a fair and just trial.
    Second: I also cannot doubt that hon. Members will conclude that the tragic event on the night of 30th November, 1950, in Taegu, made it indispensable to hold this court-martial and to bring the accused to trial. In order to appreciate this necessity one has only to envisage what the position would have been if this court-martial had not been held. In that event it would have appeared that a South Korean civilian had been shot by a British soldier in the streets of a Korean city many miles behind the front in undetermined circumstances, and that no effort
    1652
    had been made to clear the matter up and establish responsibility for the tragedy. I trust that a time will never come when it will be considered a small or light thing if a British soldier kills a civilian inhabitant of a country in which our forces have to operate—even if it is subsequently found that he has done so unintentionally or innocently.
    Third: Having made these general comments, I trust that hon. Members will think that it would be quite wrong for me to express an opinion either about the finding of the court or about the subsequent non-confirmation of that finding by the Commander-in-Chief, British Commonwealth Occupation Forces. Reading the proceedings has reinforced my opinion of the impossibility of attempting to retry these cases in our minds without the advantages and possibilities enjoyed by the court—without, to take one example, seeing and hearing the witnesses. And as for confirmation or non-confirmation of the finding, that is essentially something which it is the right of the Commander-in-Chief, British Commonwealth Occupation Forces, to decide upon, in the light of all the advice, legal and otherwise, avilable to him.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the most serious fact which emerges from these proceedings is the antiquity of the law on the liability of a sentry placed on duty? Therefore, as these proceedings show that both the prosecuting and the defending counsel referred to laws and cases which are now something like 150 years old on which this soldier stood trial for his life, does he not think that he ought to consult the Law Officers to see that some clearer definition of the law relating to sentries is made?
    Mr. Strachey: As I understand it, the principle is that a soldier is still a citizen and is subject to the common law of this country. On the other hand, it is of course a defence for a sentry that he acted in accordance with his orders if those orders were legal and within the law. That is the legal position as it stands today. It is possible to argue that the legal position should be changed, but that is what it is and what it has been for many years.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what actually

    1653
    was the charge, or what were the charges, on which Driver Fargie was tried? I do not think they have ever been published in any account. Would he further tell the House whether Driver Fargie was or was not on sentry duty?
    Mr. Strachey: As to the first part of the question, I really think that hon. Members should read the proceedings for themselves. As to the second part of the question, that is precisely a matter which was acutely disputed between the prosecution and the defence in the trial. If I were to express an opinion about it now, I should be attempting to re-try it here. It is clear from the evidence of the court—though it is not even clear whether they accepted it—that they considered that the shot was fired illegally.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Does it not appear from the evidence that this sentry was not properly instructed at all what his duties were? That came out clearly at the trial. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that some clearer definition should be given to commanders in particular as to what the liabilities of a sentry are, particularly on active service?
    Mr. Strachey: Again, the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's Question is a subject which was acutely disputed in the proceedings. On the second part of the Question, we have once again written round, as I have already told the House, to all commanding officers, but their instructions to sentries must vary in different theatres and in different conditions. One cannot lay down rigid instructions which they must all follow.
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that by far the most serious feature of this case and the Linsell case was the deliberate misrepresentation of the case by sections of the Press, who sought to give the impression that it was shooting in the course of the sentry's duties? Does he not think that he might say something on this aspect of the matter, in view of the alarm it might cause to the families of soldiers in Korea?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot sufficiently deplore uninformed comment on these cases before the facts are fully known. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already warned certain newspapers that their comments in
    1654
    this case were in contempt. Comments, now that the case is over, are perfectly legal and proper, but I would implore responsible members of the Press not to comment upon these cases without acquainting themselves very fully of the facts, which are, as the hon. Member says, very different indeed, as any hon. Member can see for himself, from those which have been represented in the public Press.
    Mr. Duncan Sandys: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's statement show once again how unsatisfactory the law is which places upon a sentry the obligation of deciding whether an order was legal before he can know whether it is his duty to carry it out?
    Mr. Strachey: This is a very difficult legal point and we must put the responsibility upon responsible officers who place guards to give orders which are legal.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Was it not in fact shown, both in the case of Linsell and of Fargie, that, in the opinion of the court, at the time the shot was fired the men were not on sentry duty?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not think I am entitled to say that now. In the case of Fargie that was one of the things which were acutely disputed. The prosecution submitted that Fargie was not on sentry duty. We do not know, and we are not entitled to say, what particular pieces of evidence the court accepted, or would not accept, when they brought in the finding guilty of manslaughter.
    Mr. Angus Maude: While we must accept the statement that the killing of a friendly civilian must always be cleared up, is it not the case that this can very often be done by a court of inquiry without necessarily proceeding to a prosecution on a charge of manslaughter?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir, but in this case the competent authorities there called for a court-martial, and, after all, we must take into account the fact that the court-martial—it was hardly likely that, as it consisted of British officers it would be prejudiced against a British soldier on trial—brought in a finding of manslaughter. I do not think we can possibly suggest that the authorities on the spot were wrong to hold that court-martial in view of its results.
    Mr. Snow: Does not my right hon. Friend think that in recent years duties for sentries have tended to become more and more complex and more difficult to get into one's mind, certainly in times of emergency? Furthermore, do standing orders and unit orders take into account more modern military activities such as infiltration behind one's own lines?
    Mr. Strachey: That may be, but I do not think it has any application to the present case.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman state explicitly that the Attorney-General's warning was conveyed to the "Daily Express," which invited the public to re-try the case?
    Mr. Strachey: The warning was expressed in this House for all to hear, and it was a very serious warning.
    Mr. Keeling: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had warned the papers.
    Mr. Strachey: I think that an explicit statement given by the Attorney-General in this House that the papers in question were in contempt of court could hardly be a more serious warning. I should like to repeat that I think that newspapers which attempt, either during the proceedings or after them, and without a proper account of the facts, to create prejudice against a court-martial, and therefore against the officers who have to undertake this always ungrateful but absolutely indispensable duty, are doing a very great disservice.
    Mr. David Renton: In regard to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Angus Maude), about courts of inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that they are held in private and, if higher authority wishes it, they are normally not held in open court, the public have no right of access, and the findings may be treated as confidential whenever higher authority so wishes, and that therefore a court of inquiry cannot serve the purpose which a court-martial serves of allaying public anxiety?
    Mr. Strachey: That is a very valid point. I think that the court-martial, which is held in public unless security considerations make it necessary to do otherwise, is, in many cases at any rate, an indispensable feature.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is not the real trouble that newspapers, possibly through lack of space, are apt to give publicity to what they consider to be news and do not really give anything like a full account of either the charges or the proceedings? Would it not simplify the problem very much if in the case of open court proceedings the right hon. Gentleman were to cause a summary of the proceedings to be circulated to the Press?

    Equipment (Dumping)
    Mr. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War what equipment the War Department vessel "Snider" has dumped in Hurds Deep off the Channel Isles in March; and whether he will make a statement about the equipment being dumped in this and other areas since 1945.
    Mr. Strachey: The "Snider" is an Admiralty vessel. I understand that during March she dumped 25 tons of unserviceable ammunition in Hurds Deep. Since 1945 the War Department has made arrangements on its own behalf and on the behalf of the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Supply for dumping 400,000 tons of German ammunition in Hurds Deep; 100,000 tons of chemical weapons in the Atlantic; and over 400,000 tons of unserviceable ammunition in Beau-forts Dyke, Mull of Galloway. The first two operations were completed in 1946 and 1949 respectively. Further quantities of ammunition still remain to be disposed of by the War Department in the Mull of Galloway.
    Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite certain that nothing other than ammunition has been dumped by this ship? Is he quite satisfied that the ammunition could not be made use of for scrap of any kind whatsoever?
    Mr. Strachey: In reply to the first part of the question, I cannot say what other use the Admiralty may have made of the "Snider." We are perfectly satisfied that those weapons which have been dumped on our behalf were useless to us.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that none of the shells and casings of this ammunition were of any value for scrap purposes, and in the situation in which we are, with a shortage of raw materials, surely it is ridiculous to dump enormous quantities such as these?
    Mr. Strachey: A great deal of ammunition has been reclaimed and broken down for scrap, and it has been carefully gone into in each case whether it was worth while to do it. The surplus ammunition has been separated into that which was worth while to recover and that which was not.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Could my right hon. Friend give us any idea of the original cost of this ammunition which has now been dumped in the sea?
    Mr. Strachey: No.
    Mr. Low: Would the right hon. Gentleman have another look into it now? [An HON. MEMBER: "He will need a diver's suit."] Although he may have been right two or three years ago not to go to the extra expense of trying to get scrap from this ammunition, have not conditions now changed so that it may be worth while again?
    Mr. Strachey: I quite agree, but it is too late to do anything in respect of this ammunition. There is further ammunition, and if the balance of advantage does change, that certainly will be kept under review.

    Time-Expired Men, Malaya
    Mr. Collickasked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of time-expired men serving in Malaya; and if he will arrange for them to be sent home at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Strachey: This figure is not available at the moment but I hope to be able to let my hon. Friend have it in two or three weeks' time. Arrangements have now been made for the progressive release of all time-expired Regulars in accordance with the statement made by the Prime Minister on 29th January, 1951. Releases are planned to start on 1st January, 1952.
    Mr. Collick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling prevailing amongst the time-expired men serving in Korea and in Malaya about the delay in having them sent home, and will he further consider this matter, bearing in mind that the majority of these men saw the heaviest fighting during the last war?
    Mr. Strachey: We all feel that the case of the recalled reservist and the time-expired Regular is one which merits most
    1658
    earnest consideration. The Prime Minister has announced the dates on which they will be released. Obviously, I cannot alter that announcement or decision, but I agree with my hon. Friend in feeling great sympathy for these men.

    Malta Garrison Ball
    Mr. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for War what was the cost to public funds of transporting by air five pipers of the Cameron Highlanders to play for the guests at the Malta Garrison Ball.
    Mr. Strachey: None, Sir.
    Mr. Yates: Do I understand from that answer that the machinery of the War Office was not used in any shape or form in connection with this matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable resentment that exhibitions of this nature should be permitted whilst people are asked to make greater sacrifices for re-armament? Do I understand from the answer—
    Mr. Speaker: That is a speech. The answer was "None," and that is a complete answer.

    Troops Germany ("Hansard")
    Mr. Henry Hopkinsonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to ensure that the copies of HANSARD supplied by his Department to units in the British Army of the Rhine arrive sufficiently quickly to enable them to be of topical interest.
    Mr. Strachey: Copies of HANSARD arrive at Headquarters, British Army of the Rhine, five days after publication, and distribution to all lower formations is completed within the next nine days. The possibility of accelerating distribution within Germany is being investigated.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases to my knowledge of HANSARD not arriving for two or three weeks, and considering the fact that the daily newspapers arrive by air the next day, cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something to ensure HANSARD gets there in good time?
    Mr. Strachey: I think the arrival in Germany in five days is reasonable, but I agree that the delay in distribution to

    1659
    the lower formations is wrong, and, as I indicated in my answer, we will try to cut that down.
    Mr. Sandys: Is the delay affecting the morale of the Army?
    Mr. Strachey: No. I am glad of the interest which appears to be taken in our proceedings.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the men want these copies of HANSARD to be sent to them?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not think there is anything compulsory about it.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Cameron Highlanders will be interested to get today's HANSARD?

  HOUSING (EX-REGULAR SOLDIERS)
  Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he is aware that many local authorities are still refusing to accept housing applications from Regular serving officers and men, owing to lack of residential qualifications; and what further steps he is taking to help Regular members of the Forces to obtain accommodation for their families and themselves when their Service engagement ends.
  The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): I am not in favour of too rigid a residential qualification for applicants for council houses, and I hope that local authorities will give due consideration to the housing needs of ex-Regular officers and men.
  Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that housing authorities can put these families on their lists only at the expense of their own residents, and is it not possible to make some extra allocation to house these people from outside the area?
  Mr. Dalton: Allocations are not based upon that, but upon the building of houses. It is open to the local authorities, by their points system and so on, to re-arrange and choose their tenants, and
  1660
  I hope that they will choose persons like those referred to in the Question.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that building is not governed by what can be done, but by the licences that are issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department; and that there are cases where the materials and labour are available but the licences are not obtainable? The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said in this House that building is in accordance with capacity, and that is inaccurate.
  Mr. Dalton: I have repeatedly said that if any local authority can prove to me that it can build more than the allocation. I will increase it.

  COINS (MINTING)
  Colonel Ropnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why British shillings and florins are minted in the United States of America.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): British shillings and florins are not minted in the United States of America.
  Colonel Ropner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why bags of 10 florins, £2 in florins, marked "Made in USA." are handed across the counter of banks in Bermuda, and if the wording "Made in U.S.A." applies only to the paper wrapper, does he not think it very misleading, and why in any case do we need to buy American paper?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I should not have thought it was particularly misleading that the wording "Made in U.S.A." applied to the wrapper, as presumably is the case. I do not really understand why it has been suggested that the coins themselves were minted in the U.S.A.
  Colonel Ropner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if one gets a packet with £2 of florins in it and with the writing on it "Made in U.S.A.", the natural assumption is that the florins were made in U.S.A.?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I should not have drawn that conclusion, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman must judge for himself whether it is natural or not.

BILLS PRESENTED
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
  "to authorise the making and recovery of charges in respect of certain dental and optical appliances under the National Health Service Act, 1946, and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947; to make provision for the accommodation and treatment outside Great Britain of persons suffering from respiratory tuberculosis; to remit stamp duty on receipts given in respect of such charges as aforesaid; and to amend the National Assistance Act, 1948, in relation to requirements for services under the said Acts of 1946 and 1947," presented by Mr. Marquand; supported by Mr. McNeil, Mr. Isaacs, Miss Herbison and Mr. Blenkinsop; read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]
  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  "to provide for reducing the payments out of moneys provided by Parliament into the National Insurance Fund; for increasing the rate of widowed mothers' allowances under the National Insurance Act, 1946, and of retirement pensions under the said Act of women over the age of sixty-five and men over the age of seventy; for increasing benefits under the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1949, in respect of children; for increasing the amounts by which retirement pensions under the National Insurance Act, 1946, may be increased by the payment of contributions after pensionable age, for reducing the extent to which deductions from widows' benefits and retirement pensions under the said Act are to be made in respect of earnings, and for modifying the provisions of the said Act under which persons are treated as having retired; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Dr. Summerskill; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ede, Mr. McNeil, Mr. Marquand, Mr. Isaacs and Mr. Bernard Taylor: read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1951–52.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

  EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURE (PRIORITIES)
  3.44 p.m.
  Mr. Ashton: I beg to move to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House views with concern the overcrowding in primary schools, and urges His Majesty's Government to apply a system of priorities which will ensure that the most urgent needs in education are adequately met."
  The Amendment is drawn widely, first, to allow hon. Members an opportunity of ranging fairly widely and, second, to give the Minister the opportunity of replying to the questions which may be put to him. Possibly after four days of a test match on the subject of the Budget it is something of a relief to the House to turn to the subject of education, but it seems to me a pity that not more interest is taken in it, because even in the lives of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—even of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it is necessary to devote part of the time to education.
  On the subject of overcrowding, it has been laid down that the "high-water mark" for primary schools should be 40 in a class and for secondary schools 30. There is a lot of rather diverse information on the situation existing today, but the only really concrete facts on which J can put my hands at the moment are in the Education Report for 1949. I believe that that for 1950 will be a Festival edition and will therefore be rather longer delayed than is usually the case. In paragraph 22 on page 14 of that publication we learnt that during 1948 the total number of senior classes with over 30 pupils rose from 31,131 to 34,518, while that of junior and infant classes with over 40 pupils slightly increased from 31,693 to 31,933. During the same period there

  1663
  was a reduction from 2,118 to 1,782 in the number of classes with over 50 pupils. My information about my county of Essex, and especially London, is that, so far from improving, the situation has deteriorated somewhat.
  I want to dwell for a moment on a situation in my county not 20 miles from here on the Harold Hill estate, an L.C.C. housing estate. When the building was undertaken, my county made representations to all the Ministries concerned impressing upon them the vital importance of putting up schools concurrently with housing. However, the emphasis was upon the housing, and what we warned the Ministries was likely to happen has now happened. The situation today is that there are some 1,300 children on the new housing estate, where one school has just been opened, but they are transported daily by 26 buses, at a cost of £10,000 per annum, to Romford, with the result that the classes there are normally 45 and very often 50 and 55.
  As regards London, some facts have been given in the House recently, and I believe that there is considerable concern in the matter all over the country. I would draw the attention of the House to the priority resolution of the National Union of Teachers at Llandudno on 26th March. It referred to the position in the primary schools and asked that classes should be reduced to 30. I also have a letter from the National Council of Women of Great Britain on the subject. They are entitled to their views because they introduce the children into the world; at least so I understand the position, though it does not apply in the case of spinsters.
  I want to put a question to the Minister at this point. There are in Romford a number of children for whom school places would normally be available at the age of five, but at present there are no places for them. How many children of five are not going to school there today owing to lack of places? Also, will the Minister give us the up-to-date figures of overcrowding in 1951—I quoted figures for some years back—and some estimate of what is likely to happen during the "battle of the bulge" which I believe will come in 1953?
  We may ask ourselves, "Could this situation have been avoided?" In view
  1664
  of the marriage rate after the war and the increase in the population, the answer is definitely "No," but if we put to ourselves the question, "Could this have been alleviated?" I think the answer is "Yes." In Essex we have over 2,000 public spirited people who serve on the various education committees and on the governing bodies of various schools. For the last five years I have sat on many of these committees in different parts of the county and have read many of the minutes. I can recall so often, when there was a suggestion of some form of economy, the comment made, "But can we afford to do without it?" I feel the Government must bear some of the responsibility for the fact that after the war there was created the atmosphere, centrally and locally, that the sinews of Government for education and other purposes were quite inexhaustible.
  We have travelled a little distance since then and, of course, events may have overtaken us to some extent. Indeed, we have learned that the maximum cost of a place per primary school has come down steadily from £195 to £170 and now to £140. In secondary schools it has come down from £320 to £290 and now to £240. It is just as well to bear in mind that these costs, very considerable still even on the lower figures, do not include anything either for playing fields or for the land, both of which are considerable costs today.
  In the debate on this Report the Minister referred to the fact that some excellent buildings have been put up below this cost and, furthermore, that schemes in Hertfordshire will result in certain reductions. At the same time, if the present more realistic view of the accommodation appropriate for primary and secondary schools had been adopted several years earlier, the same amount of capital expenditure would have provided many more places. In all these things it is capital expenditure which is the bottleneck.
  Now what is the necessity for priorities? I am sure any hon. Members who have been listening to what has been said during the four days of the Budget debate will have no doubt of the necessity for priorities having regard to the financial resources available. The Chancellor himself in his speech said that costs of education were rising. So did his predecessor. The right hon. Gentleman said

  1665
  that the figures this year are £251 million against £243 million last year. I understand that this figure refers to the net Exchequer expenditure on England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  If I may come more specifically to finance, I shall refer to page 9 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Ministry of Education Estimates. There is shown the net expenditure from the Exchequer and rates for the financial year 1950–51 in respect of England and Wales. I must give these figures to deploy my argument. The total—that is Exchequer and rate-borne expenditure—is £318,416,000. That is split between the Exchequer, which takes £204,697,000, and the rates, which bear £113,719,000.
  The rather interesting figure here is that the increase this year as compared with last year, borne by the Exchequer is only 3.29 per cent., while that which comes on the rates shows an increase of 15.22 per cent. I appreciate that these figures may be a little out of line owing to the incidence of the recent results of the Burnham Award. Also, of course, the Ministry have saved £4 million in the running down of the scheme for ex-Service men and also on the emergency training scheme for teachers which is not at its peak at present. But I think those figures are significant, and I want to refer to the matter of the rates in regard to education. I am sure that all hon. Members who are members of local authorities have heard murmurings about this throughout the country.
  I must also refer for a moment to capital expenditure, which is the forerunner of additional revenue charges to be incurred. Again from the Explanatory Memorandum I quote as follows: capital expenditure in 1948–49 was £29,440,000. In 1949–50 it was £69,683,000 and, for the nine months to 31st December, 1950, the figure has dropped to £38,790,000. I put a question on this matter to the Minister on 5th December. I asked him what was the capital expenditure allocated for primary and secondary schools only during the calendar years 1949, 1950 and 1951. In reply I was told that in 1949 it was £16.5 million, in 1950 it was £30 million, in 1951 it was £37 million. That shows a rise, although it is a little difficult to make the figures tally.
  1666
  A year ago, on 21st March, when I gave the Committee the benefit of my first profound observations in a Budget debate, I drew attention to the amount of loans to local authorities on which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer dwelt for some time. He indicated that we had been rather naughty boys the year before by borrowing at too great a rate. He reduced the figure of loans to local authorities below the line to £279 million and, in the course of the debate, it came out that no less than £220 million of that sum was to be allocated for housing, leaving a mere £59 million for education, etc. I had the temerity to suggest that this amount might not be quite sufficient and, in the figures published recently, that £279 million had risen to £313 million, an increase of £34 million. I have not been able to find from the Budget statement what are the estimated loans to local authorities for the present financial year. Could the Minister let us have that figure, and tell us how much of that total is the quantum allocated for educational purposes, if possible broken down, but anyhow for primary and secondary schools?
  If the Committee will bear with me, I want to return to the matter of rates. It is important and is creating a good deal of concern throughout the country. Coming to Essex, where I have the advantage of being able to consult closely the county treasurer, the chief education officers and the county clerk, I want to illustrate what this increase has been of recent years. Take, for example, 1945–46. The total expenditure on education, that is Exchequer and rate-borne, was £5 million. The estimate for the present year is £11¼ million. That is an increase of 125 per cent. or, put in another way, the expenditure today is two and a quarter times as great as it was in 1945–46.
  But what the ratepayers are more directly interested to know is how this is reflected in the rates. The position is that the rate in the £ required for education in 1945–46 was 4s. 5¼d. and today it is 8s. 2d. Hon. Members may say that in 1945–46 we had hardly got under way because the war was only just over. But if we accept that, and look at the 1947–48 figure, we find that the rate required for education was 5s. 11¾d. compared with 8s. 2d. today, or an increase of 34 per cent. in four years.

  1667
  As we have been told that we should not budget merely for one year, but for a longer period, we have had a look at the development plan—which has not yet been passed I agree—to find out what is to happen in the next 10 years. On the figures for capital expenditure which I have quoted, obviously the curve must decline but it will still go on. There are all these authorities with development plans to fulfil. We have taken the most conservative estimate and we find that unquestionably, in respect only of primary and secondary education, we shall have to spend between £450,000 and half a million pounds for each of the next 10 years. That, split, means 4½d. on the rates.
  We arrive at these figures for 1961–62 whereby the rate for education alone is exactly the same—namely 141d. or 11s. 9d.—as the total general county rate for 1948–49. I appreciate that there may be something to be set off through increased rateable value or, indeed, the effect of the Exchequer equalisation grant, but I am taking here only primary and secondary school costs and I have made no allowances whatever for any increased costs in respect of labour and material with which we may be confronted.
  I suggest in all seriousness that the figures I have quoted are likely to be conservative and that the burden of the education rate, not only in Essex but throughout the country, will be very high indeed. No doubt we have special problems in Essex with regard to new housing estates and also new towns. We seem to have rather more than our fair share of these. I can speak only with the full authority of my own county, but if we halved the figures I have quoted then the reflection on the education rate in the country would still be very high.
  I apologise for this rather lengthy exercise in statistics—I very nearly said on a rather technical matter—but I feel it is important that we should get these facts fairly well into our minds. I have refreshed my memory of the debates we have had on education, so now, having established the vital need for priorities, I turn to the question—what are they to be? I do not think any of us would quarrel with what the Minister said on 4th May:
  1668
  "We have had to recognise that the first claim on our resources must be the meeting of our statutory obligation to provide full-time schooling for all children between the ages of five and 15."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1932.]
  It seems to me that education is a process which continues all through one's life. It goes on to the grave. It also seems to me that unless we catch the young in these formative years in their lives we may miss an opportunity which will not return. Could I give the perfectly good simile of what is happening on the land? We have missed a month or two on the land because of the weather. God arranges the weather and we shall not get that time back again, but here we are dealing with a human problem and I hope we shall grasp the opportunity and not let it slip through our fingers never to return.
  In my view the priorities are primary and secondary education, in that order, but some of us are concerned whether that is being achieved in practice. On Sunday I was speaking to the headmaster of a large direct-grant school near where I live. He said he had last week been to a conference of U.N.E.S.C.O. in Paris and there had spoken to a number of teachers from secondary modern schools who told him, one after the other, that the material coming to them from the primary schools was not sufficiently strong in writing and reading for the children to obtain real benefit from their secondary education. I feel that I have now established that there must be priorities. We have to cut our cloth according to them, and I should have thought, as the Minister himself has said, that quite clearly the priorities are the primary and secondary schools. Where we must be satisfied is that these priorities are being dealt with adequately.
  May I now refer to some schools which do not cost the country so much money and which are sometimes the subject of controversy? By that I mean the independent public schools and the direct-grant grammar and public schools. Some of the fees in these schools are paid fully by the parents while in others they are partly borne by the parents and partly by the State. A great many hon. Members on both sides of the House have had such an education and I know they are making sacrifices to provide it for their own children. Many parents throughout the land are doing so; they are perhaps foregoing buying a motor car and instead

  1669
  are investing the money in the education of their children. On top of that, they are paying the full rates and taxes to provide education elsewhere.
  The Minister himself has said that his object is to bring his own standards up to those of these private schools, so it is rather hypocritical to shoot at these private schools and thus to remove the target at which the Minister himself is aiming—to remove the matrix, as it were. After all, if these people were not paying fees places would have to be found for their children elsewhere. In any case, these schools are the envy of the world and I maintain that they should be given every consideration. I do not suggest that they are not given such consideration from the Minister himself, but I have heard comments elsewhere which, in the light of the background of those concerned, are hypocritical.
  Mr. Gilzean: Is it not also true to say that these schools, dealing with a particular section of the community, managed to gather to themselves the endowments which never were intended for them?
  Mr. Ashton: That is a very large question. I should not have thought that statement was true and I do not think it has anything whatever to do with the subject we are discussing. Perhaps I may leave the question of the primary and secondary State schools and the independent schools for my hon. Friends to develop.
  I turn for a moment to the other end of the batting order to discuss one or two things which, for the time being at any rate, I feel most assuredly should be left in the pavilion. First is the provision of new community centres. At this present juncture, it seems to me that in towns where there are many facilities for public meetings, and where there are cinemas and where people can meet together, to spend money on new community centres is not justified in any way whatever.
  If any money is available for any of these things—and I doubt it—it is better spent on small village halls in isolated villages. We are still considering the provision of these community centres in my own county; it has not been stopped. I suggest that it is a waste of time and effort at this juncture and should be stopped at once. My next point is that we are getting
  1670
  rather a lot of designation of land which may be used in eight or 12 years' time. In some respects this may be necessary, but in others it works out most unfairly for the owners of the property concerned.
  I referred earlier to the question of youth centres. The Minister referred to it in his Report and to the importance of leadership in these centres. I do not want to criticise people, but I must say it is rather difficult to get the right leaders. It seems to me that these centres have been extremely lavishly equipped and that the small classes in needlework and such subjects have been maintained far too long in the hope that additional members would be forthcoming. We must be quite ruthless in such matters.
  Again, in the Report for 1949 good things are said of the part played by voluntary bodies in education, and it is right and proper that we should give public funds to assist this admirable work. People like members of the Women's Institute give excellent lectures in the country, but occasionally there is overlapping. Perhaps I may mention a case which occurred in a village recently where in one week there were two separate lectures on the arranging of flowers. My wife has had no instruction whatever in the arranging of flowers but she does it admirably.
  I agree that these things do not amount to a great deal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear," but I should have thought that when we are dealing with public funds we should bear in mind, in spending small sums of money, that hon. Members are faced with exactly the same sort of problem every day of their lives. If we here or all education committees, in dealing with matters of public money, would deal with public funds as if they were handling their own money, there would be a great deal less waste than there is at the present time. These things may not amount to much; they come out of "Further Education." If hon. Members can bear yet one more figure, I would point out that the cost of further education in my own county has increased by three-and-a-half times since the beginning of the war.
  Having travelled this rather long material way, this rather unspiritual way, perhaps hon. Members are asking whether I have ever heard of teachers, schoolmasters

  1671
  and schoolmistresses because, after all, we are discussing a most vital human problem. I can assure hon. Members that I have and I know a great many of them. Reading a publication entitled "Reading ability: Some suggestions for helping the backward"—I am sure the authors had in mind backward back benchers—I found it a little depressing in some places. One paragraph which caught my eye says:
  "Thus when all has been done that can be done by administration and through increases in administration and through increases in knowledge, the teacher will still play the crucial part in the educational process."
  Those words are absolutely true and I should like to pay my tribute to the teaching profession. I hope the Minister will tell us how recruitment is going, because the size of classes obviously must depend on the number of teachers. My information, especially in respect of teachers in primary schools, is not particularly encouraging.
  The quotation I have read refers to administration. May I make a plea, which I am sure will not fall on barren ground, that it should be the intention of the local manpower committee that there shall be a devolution of responsibility, that local education authorities shall be enabled to get as far as possible with their own affairs and, in return, they should allow schoolmasters and mistresses such latitude as they can.
  We must regret the circumstances under which it is necessary to cut down education. Last night the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education stated that the increase in school meals from 6d. to 7d. was a contribution to the prevention of war and preventing our own children from taking part in a third world war. Unfortunately, we must look at this from a rather material angle at present and we are, so to speak, limited in the number of garments we can have by the amount of cloth to be obtained. We must see that those garments include the secondary, primary schools and independent schools and that they are given every opportunity, if it means leaving temporarily by the wayside some other thing such as community, or youth centres. If we do this by concentrating what we have on the most formative years of the younger generation we shall be providing for them
  1672
  the best opportunities we can. When all is said and done, the youth of our country are our greatest asset.
  4.14 p.m.
  Mr. Angus Maude: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Having for the first time been faced with this problem, I have come to the conclusion that to second an Amendment of this kind is one of the most intimidating tasks any hon. Member can be called upon to face. The hon. Member who moves the Amendment covers the ground and the seconder has not the satisfaction of any indiscretions from the benches opposite to enable him to develop an argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) in moving the Amendment has given a solid basis of facts and figures on which arguments can be developed and, if the House will bear with me, in view of the fact that other matters which are shortly to attract the attention of the House make this a lamentably short debate, I shall dance as lightly and as non-controversially as possible over the questions arising from the facts my hon. Friend has put forward.
  No one, on either side of the House, can have anything but sympathy for the Minister of Education in present circumstances. He has decisions to make, many of them painful decisions, questions of advantage and disadvantage to balance, which might intimidate the most courageous. All we can say, and this he must feel to his comfort, is that the difficulties he has to face are at least matched by the magnitude of his opportunities for statesmanlike decisions and for great work in the social service field. We are now up against a problem which has been coming steadily more in front of the nation in the last 80 years. It is the question on the one hand of how we can produce an educational system on the cheap, and the answer is that we cannot produce an educational system on the cheap. On the other hand, it is a question of how are we to measure the priorities we must impose between the different social services and between conflicting claims inside the social services.
  My hon. Friend quoted the remark of the Minister last year when he said that his first priority was to fulfil his statutory duty of ensuring that all children get a full time education between the

  1673
  ages of five and 15. But it must be obvious—and the Minister would be the first to admit it—that that statement really raises and begs more questions than it answers. These are not simply questions of quantity, of figures of children who are to be educated and teachers who are to educate them, but most serious questions of quality which are not susceptible to statistical measurement and on which in many cases one man's opinion may be as good or bad as another's.
  In these questions of education the Minister has something of the same sort of problem as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been expounding in his own sphere in the debate on the Budget. The Chancellor has to decide what is to be the balance between present necessities and investment for the future. He sees, for example, that if he cuts so much investment now, it will help him to cure the problem of inflation now, but if he cuts that investment he is reducing the possibilities of increased production and productivity in the years to come. Those are very delicate decisions.
  The Minister of Education has difficulties which are no less delicate and important; he has to decide on what to economise now and to ask himself how many of the economies he makes now, to get within one year's budget, are going to make his problem more difficult three, four, or even 10 years ahead. He must know whether he can afford to deal with certain problems on a rather hand to mouth basis now, and what are the problems in which he has to look further ahead in coming to a decision.
  This question of priorities operates not merely inside the social services but between the social services, and I do not feel that when we discuss an education budget in any year we go as far as we might, as people who are interested in education, in deciding whether the balance of expenditure is right between, let us say, education and the National Health Service, or housing, or National Insurance, or whatever it may be. Those are questions which are left more or less in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to hold the balance between representations made to him by Departmental Ministers. These questions the House never discusses in a general way. The priorities between the social services
  1674
  would, I feel, at some time give us a very interesting and useful debate.
  The problem inside each social service is, of course, much narrower, and slightly different. It is this: to what extent are we to try to do everything that is desirable somehow, and to what extent are we to try to do the most important things really well? Those decisions are the most delicate, the most difficult, and perhaps the most imponderable of all that the Minister has to make. I sometimes become extremely frightened when I foresee a danger, in this very difficult time, of an opposition to the social services—or to one particular social service—growing up in the country. This may in the future present a great difficulty which hon. Members on both sides of the House will have to face.
  Every hon. Member on this side of the House who is interested in the social services, and believes in them, knows that among his supporters there are certain frictions, certain elements of opposition which we have to try to convert. That is undoubtedly so among the supporters of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it may get worse. Last night the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education was very indignant about hon. Members on this side daring to talk about education and the social services. I understand his indignation, because nobody likes to have an Order prayed against that he was hoping to get away with: but I would ask the Minister to recognise that we on this side who come and talk in these debates are genuinely interested and passionately eager to make the service work and to get the support of the country for it. That, obviously, is also the motive which animates hon. Members opposite.
  What are the dangers here? Sooner or later people will wake up to the fact that the vast majority of them are, directly or indirectly, ratepayers. My hon. Friend has said that the ratepayers will be faced with a bill which is mounting at an astronomical rate. When they discover just how much of that is attributable to education, and they can do that by looking at the back of the form, they will begin to ask some very searching questions. There has always been—although it is probably less now—a certain resistance on the part of parents to leaving children at school when they might be earning a living. It may be less now, but let us not imagine that if the

  1675
  standards of education at the ages of 14 and 15 were to fall below a certain level, that opposition would not once more increase. No sensible parents will willingly allow children to do something which they know is wasting time when the child might be making a good start in a useful job. That is a danger we must always bear in mind.
  I have never had any doubt that the first priority in education should be the primary schools; because it seems to me that if the basis of primary education is inadequate we can have no hope that the secondary modern school—to some extent an experiment—will turn out to be successful. To be successful a secondary modern school must start on the basis of material which has been brought to a reasonably high basic standard in the primary school. Otherwise, I am sure that the teachers who are trying to plough what is very often a difficult furrow in the secondary modern school—because there is no doubt that the pressure to put children in grammar schools has been increasing and may go on increasing—will find their task even more thankless than it appeared to be after the Butler Act was passed.
  The document to which my hon. Friend referred about illiteracy has some sobering passages in it. We were all shocked by the figures, revealed during the war, of the proportion of men coming into the Services who were illiterate. There is no doubt that the disorganisation of education in the primary and secondary schools during the war has led to perhaps a higher proportion of illiterates than would otherwise have been the case. But I do not get the impression from this document that illiteracy is now decreasing. In fact, I think there are suggestions that the proportion is at least being maintained, and that is a very sobering thought indeed.
  Those who know anything about education know that even primary education—in fact, particularly primary education—cannot, and must not be simply a question of the three R's. We have got a long way beyond that. I think perhaps we have gone too far in some ways. But at least we know that though children must be taught to read and write and figure, there are many other things which they must get from their schooling if it
  1676
  is to be any use at all. Especially is the way in which these things are taught of supreme importance. It is not enough to set them dull exercises from a book or to writing essays.
  Since we are talking about priorities I would make one point about the standards of building and equipment, a matter about which I feel very strongly. It has always seemed to me that the higher the intellectual calibre of the children, and the more intellectual and academic is the work being done in the school, the less elaborate and expensive need to be the buildings and equipment with which they are working.
  It would seem to me that the sixth form in a grammar school, given a good teacher, will do its work quite adequately in the sort of classrooms in which those of us who went to the older public schools had to work, which I would have thought would have been condemned out of hand by any one of His Majesty's Inspectors. But the children who, regrettably, come from houses in the slums to primary schools deserve, and need above all things, light and beautiful surroundings, which will make education something beyond a drudgery that will inspire them with a hatred of education for the rest of their lives.
  Dr. King: I am impressed by the powerful arguments put forward by the hon. Member for the children. Will he explain why it was that in between the two wars, his party, both locally and nationally, prevented primary schools from being built?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Member will appreciate—at least he would appreciate it if he looked at the facts—that that is not true. In any case, in this debate and in any debate of this kind, if we look at the question with our heads permanently over our shoulders, looking back at the past, we are not likely to get very far in deciding what is to be done about the problems of the present.
  I would ask the Minister to tell us what are his prospects of solving his problems in the primary school field? We know what they are and we sympathise with him very much. Will he get the number of places required by 1953, and if so, how? In the debate last July the Minister rather qualified the

  1677
  optimistic promises of his Parliamentary Secretary that the places would be found by saying that he was not quite sure whether they would all be found in the places where they were needed. That is precisely the problem we are most worried about. In the towns and cities, in London, for example, and in some of the blitzed cities, the problems are extremely serious, and we are not quite sure how these places are to be found.
  Again, are these places to be found simply by transferring the pressure on places in bulk from the primary to the secondary stage after 1953? If there is any real danger of these places not being found, and the Minister will appreciate that there are in many areas a substantial number of children of five years of age who are not being found places now. That is a serious matter. We want to know approximately how many there are; because the Minister will appreciate that if the argument is taken to its logical conclusion there might come a point at which the number will become so large that it should be recognised officially, and it should be said, "We cannot admit children until they are 5½ years old."
  The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): The hon. Member is making an interesting point. He says that there is a substantial number. I should like him to give me some evidence of that. I will admit that there are a number, but I do not think that the problem is as great as he is trying to make out.
  Mr. Maude: That is precisely the sort of assurance we are seeking from the Minister. We all know from experience that some authorities complain that they are having difficulties about this matter. We want to know if it is a local problem or if it is spread all over the country.
  I think it would be disastrous if any change had to be made in the age for entry or leaving. I would not for a moment consider lowering the leaving age unless it were essential. But it seems that it is now respectable to discuss this problem, since the Chancellor stated in his Budget speech that he had discussed it with the Minister of Education. Now no one will not be shouted down, if he raises it, as being someone who wants to slash the social services. May I therefore suggest that there may come a point of inevitability at which one has to accept
  1678
  the fact. We may come to the point at which we can only find places in primary and secondary schools by lowering standards, so that the whole of education becomes a mockery. We have not got to that point yet, and we desire to be reassured that that point is not within sight.
  Last July, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) mentioned the difficulties in cities and large towns, the Minister complained bitterly that we were very pessimistic and said that he was tired of people raising bogies about what would happen next year, the year after and in 1953, and that he had his hands full with the problems of today. We sympathise with that view to some extent, but we must realise that that is precisely the kind of thing in respect of which the Minister, if he does not look ahead, is not planning and has no right to be a Minister in a Government who are always priding themselves on the virtues of their planning. We think that the primary schools are the first priority.
  We should also like the Minister to tell us his idea of the priority which should be accorded to the grammar schools, secondary technical schools and secondary modern schools. I and some of my hon. Friends are rather worried about the secondary technical schools in particular. We still think that they are tending to be squashed up into the corners of technical colleges and are not getting the recognition they deserve or attracting the support from parents and children that they might receive. I am not at all sure that at a time when grammar schools are finding it increasingly difficult to get science and mathematics teachers—and I am not at all sure that the new Burnham scales will solve these problems—the secondary technical schools may not have to play a most vital part in advanced technological and technical education.
  That brings me to my last point. There is a great risk that parents may, with the best will in the world, make the problem of the Minister, the local education authority and the teacher very difficult, and far more difficult than it needs to be. In my view there is now perhaps more than ever before a continual pressure from parents to make education up to the age of 15 a vocational training. The dangers of this appear to me to be enormous. We were told, for example,

  1679
  that the abolition of the school certificate was largely designed to do away with the continual pressure from the universities and elsewhere to make specialised courses in secondary schools into pre-vocational training. My information is that since the general certificate of education was introduced this pressure has once more become apparent. The universities and the professions are beginning to lay down standards of requirements, which will mean that this problem will be once more before us.
  In many cases parents are the worst offenders. They set their minds on a certain job for their children, and they ask continually that the precise requirements of the professional institution or the university, or whatever it may be, should be met in the secondary schools. We are again seeing the start of this pressure on the schools which will, it seems to me, end in doctors taking the first M.B. at the age of eight. In the primary schools that tendency has been pushed further and further back in our lifetimes. Until everyone concerned in education says repeatedly, loudly and clearly that education up to the age of 15 is only in part a vocational training, that it is a pre-vocational training, that it is designed to implant in children interest in learning, interest in culture and a desire to continue learning, we shall never really be able to make our educational system what it ought to be. That is the first priority that I would urge upon the House.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Ralph Morley: Both sides of the House will congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) in choosing the subject on which he has spoken as a result of being successful in the Ballot. He spoke this afternoon with the same ease with which he used to make runs in those days when he was the idol of every schoolboy in Essex and of many schoolboys outside Essex. I should also like, if I may do so without trespassing beyond the frontiers of good taste, to congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Angus Maude) who seconded the Amendment, on what I thought was an excellent speech, with almost every word of which I agreed.
  1680
  The question we are discussing today, however, that of the size of classes and the overcrowding of our primary schools, is by no means new. For the past 50 years, the first motion upon the agenda for the public sessions on the National Union of Teachers has been one asking for a reduction in the size of classes. When I was on the Executive Committee of the N.U.T. I remember that none of us wished very much to be given the duty of moving that motion, because every possible argument about it had been exhausted years before. But although we have been asking, inside the N.U.T. and other teachers' organisations, for the last 50 years for a reduction in the size of classes, the classes today are almost as big as, and in some areas bigger, than they were 50 years ago.
  Never has the path to nullity been paved with so many good resolutions. I remember that I began class teaching in 1897 because at the age of 15 I was, under the old pupil-teacher system, fully responsible all day long for a class. I continued as a class teacher, with intervals for training in college, for service in His Majesty's Forces in the First World War and for service in this House, for nearly 50 years. At the end of the 50 years I was teaching a class as large as the one I had been teaching at the start of that period. During the whole, or nearly the whole, of that time, when we were asking for a reduction in the size of classes and not achieving it, the Conservative Party were in power and were able to effect the reductions for which we were asking if they had wished.
  Commander Maitland: Not quite 50 years.
  Mr. Morley: Nearly the whole of that time. There was a fairly long period during the 50 years when the Liberal Party were in power. An excellent Education Bill was introduced by the Liberal Party in 1907, but it was defeated in the other place mainly by Conservative Peers. I do not want to go further into historical reminiscences. I would rather deal with the situation as it exists at present. We should not forget that overcrowding and large classes do not exist only in our primary schools: they also exist to a considerable extent in our secondary schools.

  1681
  In dealing with this problem, we have to deal with what the military people call the logistics of the situation. I agree that a reduction in the size of classes is probably the most important reform that could be made in our educational system. Forty years ago one of the most brilliant journalists of his generation, Mr. A. R. Orage, the editor of the "New Age," said:
  "There are three reforms necessary in our educational system—the first is smaller classes, the second is smaller classes and the third is smaller classes."
  What was said in 1910 is still true today; but to get smaller classes two things are necessary. We must have more teachers and more buildings. Unless we have a large additional number of teachers and more buildings we will continue to have very large classes and a considerable degree of overcrowding.
  In this country there are 106,000 classes with over 30 children on the roll. It is generally agreed that the desirable maximum size of a class, whatever the type of school may be, whether primary or secondary, is 30. We have 106,000 classes with more than 30 children on the roll. Of these 106,000 classes, 37,000 have more than 40 children on the roll, and 1,700 classes have more than 50 children on the roll. A simple calculation shows that to reduce the size of classes in our schools to a maximum of 30 we should need about 25,000 additional teachers.
  But, as has been pointed out already by the hon. Member for Chelmsford, in two or three years we shall have a million more children in our schools, because of the increase in the birth-rate shortly after the end of the war. We should need at least another 15,000 teachers to provide teachers for this additional million scholars if we were to keep the classes at a maximum of 30. That means that to reduce the size of the classes to a reasonable maximum we want another 40,000 teachers in the next few years. It is not impossible to get another 40,000 teachers. Today, there are 35,000 more teachers in our schools than there were at the beginning of 1947. In spite of wastages through death, retirement and marriage we have 30,000 more teachers today than we had in 1938.
  A large number of these additional teachers have been made available as a result of the emergency training scheme.
  1682
  The author of the emergency training scheme was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who introduced it when he was Minister of Education in the Coalition Government, during the war. All credit must be given to the right hon. Gentleman for the initiation of that scheme, but the actual administration and carrying out of that scheme, the difficult task of finding the premises and sufficiently numerous well qualified staffs, fell to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I do not think that he has ever received sufficient credit for the fine job he did between 1946 and 1948 in getting the emergency training colleges working and producing the teachers. That scheme has produced about 35,000 additional teachers, most of whom are now in the schools, and a large number of whom are proving to be good teachers who, with the necessary experience, no doubt will make excellent teachers.
  But that scheme has come to an end. After the new few months we shall have no further recruits to the teaching profession from the emergency training colleges. At the same time as the emergency training colleges were being organised, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary were expanding the provision of places for intending teachers in the two-year training colleges and in the university departments. The result is that today we have nearly double the number of places in the training colleges and university departments compared with before the war.
  I should also like to point out to the hon. Member for Chelmsford and the hon. Member for Ealing, South, that the majority of these additional 35,000 teachers are teaching in the primary schools. The primary schools have had priority on additional teachers. If we could produce 35,000 additional teachers in four years, as we did in the last four years, it should be possible, if we are willing to spend enough money and to devote sufficient of the nation's economic resources to the purpose, to produce an additional 40,000 in the next five years. Then we should have enough teachers to enable us to bring down the size of classes in primary and secondary schools to the desirable maximum of 30.

  1683
  But that would mean a considerable additional expenditure by the nation. I am bound to observe that during the recent Budget debates the general emphasis of Opposition speakers was upon the necessity for a reduction in Government expenditure. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot complain about large classes in the primary and secondary schools, and deny to the Government the necessary expenditure which would enable them to reduce the size of those classes by providing more teachers.
  Mr. Angus Maude: I do not deny the facts which the hon. Gentleman has stated, but I think he will agree that I said that we had to look at the whole question of priorities between all the social services. It is not a question of saying, "Because you want more primary teachers you have to spend more money in total." The question is whether more money should be spent on primary schools.
  Mr. Morley: I agree that we want smaller classes in the primary schools; but we also want them in the secondary schools. There are a large number of classes with over 40 children in our secondary schools, and I should say that the majority of the classes in the secondary schools have more than 30 children. We cannot be content, if we are to have a good educational system, with spending additional money on primary schools: we must also spend additional money on secondary schools.
  Mr. Maude: We cannot spend it everywhere. That is what we have to look at.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman agrees we have to spend more on both primary and secondary education. Surely he would not agree that we ought to save money on technical education. I thought everybody was convinced that one of the necessities of our educational system today was expenditure on technical education to produce more technicians and technologists. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not suggest we should save money by spending less on university education. I thought it was common ground between both sides of the House that we ought to have fairly generous expenditure on university education to produce the technicians, administrators, and various types of skilled people to go into the higher posts in the country.
  Mr. Maude: As the hon. Member challenges me on this I should like to make my own personal view clear, and it is this. If we get to a point where we cannot have enough places for primary school children, and where we cannot give them a decent standard of education, then I, personally, would reduce expenditure on university education to meet that. That is what I meant by a No. 1 priority.
  Mr. Morley: I look upon education as a whole, through all its stages, primary, secondary, grammar school, and university. They are all correlated, and I do not want to cut down expenditure at one stage to improve the conditions at another stage. I want to see increased expenditure upon education at all stages, but the priority of increased expenditure on education, I agree with the hon. Member, should be given to the primary schools; but while giving priority to increased expenditure for education in primary schools, I would continue expenditure upon the other stages of education. It means, of course, inevitably, that, continuing expenditure upon education as a whole, it must be increased.
  Mr. Maude: There is not enough money.
  Mr. Morley: Now the hon. Member says that there is not enough money. It is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the necessary money, and he was fairly successful in his recent Budget in finding some additional money for the nation's needs.
  I want to come back again to the question of the supply of teachers, because I think hon. Members opposite will agree that we cannot reduce the size of our classes and the overcrowding in our schools unless we get an additional supply of teachers. One of the difficulties at present is to get a sufficient supply of women teachers. Girls will leave the secondary schools and the grammar schools at the age of 16 because, with some further education in office work, they can get fairly congenial jobs in commerce or industry and can earn as much in their twenties as they would do if they stayed at school until they were 18 and went to college and university and became teachers. I think we want to find some means of encouraging girls to stop at grammar schools till the age of 18 and to go forward to college to qualify as

  1685
  teachers. Something may be done by methods of persuasion, but I think it would be useful if maintenance grants in the grammar schools to the age of 16 to 18 were increased so as to encourage those girls to stay on, so that they could pass the necessary qualifying examination and enter training college to become teachers.
  Further, I cannot help thinking that it would be a great encouragement for increasing the supply of women teachers if we now adopted the principle of equal pay in the teaching profession. The recent alteration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the incidence of Income Tax has made the case of equal pay, I think, even stronger than it was before, because the married teacher with a family and £500 a year would pay very little Income Tax, and have a much bigger net income left after paying Income Tax than the single woman on the same salary.
  The special problem with which we are faced in this question of the size of classes and overcrowding in our primary schools is building. Let me say that I do not think that the Opposition can cast any stones at the Ministry for what it has accomplished in school building during the past five years. During the past five years no fewer than 294 new schools have been built, and 80 per cent. of those 294 new schools have been primary schools. Primary schools have had the priority in building during the past five years. Twice as many schools have been built in this country during the past five years as were built in any previous five years during the past 100 years. No Conservative Government have ever equalled the record of school building of the present Labour Government in the past five years. This year we are spending £45 million upon building new schools. Over 900 new schools are now under construction, and the majority of the new schools that are under construction are primary schools.
  I think that the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment must agree that a very fair degree of priority has been given to primary schools and is still being given to the primary schools. The merits of the Government's J achievement in the building of schools is seen to be all the greater when we reflect how many other claimants there have been during the past five years for the available
  1686
  supplies of building material and building labour. It has been necessary to build houses, to build factories, to build super generating stations. I should like to see the Ministry building even more schools than it is building, but it cannot have more than a fair share of the building labour and building materials, and I think that, on the whole, the Minister of Education is to be congratulated upon getting the reasonable share of the building labour and building materials that he has so far secured.
  The whole question is really one of finance, and although I want to see more money spent on the primary schools, I would deprecate the point of view which, it seems to me, was put forward by the mover and seconder of the Amendment, and more by the mover of the Amendment than by the seconder of the Amendment, that we should find the additional finance by cutting down expenditure on secondary education, by cutting down expenditure upon community centres. It is true that we want the best possible primary education to form the basis of good secondary education, but having got that basis we also want good secondary education.
  Mr. Ashton: The point I was trying to make all along was that we must accept the fact that there is only a limited amount available from the general Budget for education, and that on those premises and with that hypothesis, although we all regret it, we must not risk not getting value out of our priorities by spending those limited resources too widely and too thinly.
  Mr. Morley: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis that there is only a limited amount available for education. As a matter of fact, the expenditure on education has been increased from year to year, and provided the Labour Government remain in office, provided we still have a Labour Minister of Education, I hope to see it continue to increase. I do lot think it will be necessary to increase the expenditure upon one stage of education by reducing the expenditure on another stage. That is far too like feeding the dog on a piece of its own tail. I hope that that will not commend itself to our present Minister of Education.
  The whole question, I think, is one of finance. It is one of how much of the nation's resources it is willing to devote

  1687
  to the cause of education. I may say that I do not remember, during the past 50 years, that any Member of the Conservative Party in the House has ever produced a Motion regretting overcrowding in our schools or the too large size of classes. I do not say that hon. Members opposite are hypocritical, but it appears to me that it is quite a newly found interest which they have on the subject. They appear to have journeyed to Damascus and seen the vision.
  I hope that hon. Members opposite will continue to carry that vision with them, and will continue to press for a reduction in the size of classes. But, from the experience of the past, I am quite convinced that there will be far more chance of securing a reasonable reduction in the size of school classes in this country if the present Labour Government is succeeded by another Labour Government.
  5.1 p.m.
  Mr. Sidney Marshall: I was hopeful of preparing some notes for my speech in this debate today. I started making some this morning, but what I did prepare I left at home, and I am quite sure the House will find in that fact some relief. The question before us is the provision of sufficient primary education, and I hope that today the House will really direct its attention, as far as possible, to that particular subject. To my mind it is a comparatively simple matter, but I, perhaps look upon it in a too practical fashion. It can only be resolved by the provision of buildings and teachers. Unfortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when looking for ways in which to save some money—after he had asked for £251 million for education—said that he had consulted with his right hon. Friends to this end, but that all they could do was to put a penny on school meals. He had also considered the question of raising the entrance age to six or to some later age, but had decided that that was not possible.
  I wish to say right away that I should like to see some change in the Exchequer method of computing expenditure on education. The nation is told that it is faced with a bill for education of £251 million, but, in very truth, it is not faced with a bill for that sum. I am one of
  1688
  those people who do not think that the meals service should be charged to education. Nor do I think that school milk should be charged to education. I know, of course, that the Minister will tell me in a moment that this last item is included in the Vote of the Ministry of Food. I quite agree, but I am not sure—and have not been able to find out—on which Vote the meals allocation is charged. As I say, I do not think it should be entered as education. Again, I do not think that the medical services should appear as a charge on the education funds.
  I know very well, and am quite prepared to argue it at great length, as I know are many other hon. Members, where these particular services are in regard to the educational set-up. In my opinion, they are not truly educational charges. The country is faced with this tremendous expenditure of £251 million. People are saying that the costs of education are always going up, and when the local ratepayers get their demands, they find on the back of them that they are being asked for something like 5s. in the pound for educational purposes. But, in very truth, it is not for education that they are being asked to pay this 5s. in the pound.
  I suggest to the Minister that my allegation that the total cost of education is not a true one, as shown by Exchequer figures, might be gone into, so that the nation may really know what is being spent on education. We are always being told in this House and elsewhere that it is very seldom indeed that we really debate education proper, but that we debate administration and all the ancillary services most frequently. That is perfectly true, because so much of our money goes in that direction. I am in perfect sympathy with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) that more provision should be made for primary education, but I think it is education and education alone to which we must address ourselves today—that is, to the provision of schools and teachers.
  We have been told by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), of the very great progress which he claims has been made by the Labour Government. I quite agree, but I do not believe that a Socialist Government could do any more for education than we on this side of

  1689
  the House have done for years past. The hon. Gentleman told us that they have built more primary schools in the last five years than have ever been built in a similar period. That, also, is perfectly true, but I think the solution really lies in, first, the training of more teachers which the hon. Member for Itchen pointed out could only be provided in a certain fashion, that is, by increasing the number of emergency trained teachers, or, rather, by continuing the very wonderful work done in the last few years.
  Mr. Morley: I did not say that we should continue to produce emergency trained teachers; I suggested that we should expand the number of places in our training colleges and university training departments.
  Mr. Marshall: I particularly stress the emergency training of teachers because the provision for so doing which we already have might be continued, and because I do not think we can expand the training colleges to the extent we shall need during the next few years. We shall particularly need an augmented number of teachers to see us over the bulge period.
  Secondly, there is the question of buildings. I am quite sure that the right long-term policy is obviously that of permanent schools. I must say very definitely—and I have some experience of all the types of schools which we have been building since the war, the Sparta and the Horsa huts, and all that sort of thing, none of which appeal to me as permanent contributions—that it is very serious to reflect that we in this country are still using for educational purposes huts built during the 1914–18 war. I hope that we shall not regard these later temporary hutments as a permanent contribution in regard to building, and that the Minister will not be deterred from pressing for the provision of the money we require with which to build permanent schools.
  I always have the feeling that the Minister of Education is so complacent that he does not get a square deal from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, of course, I must not make that charge. One could wish that he had as hefty a fist as the ex-Minister of Health, and could get as much money for the Education services as that right
  1690
  hon. Gentleman seemed to get for the Health Service. However, I am hoping that if he can transfer the cost of the health and ancillary services which are at present charged to education, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might feel more generous regarding the provision of funds for purely educational purposes, such as the building of schools and the training of teachers. The figures which have been produced by the mover and seconder of this Amendment and also by the hon. Member for Itchen, are certainly indisputable. One realises that, but by merely quoting figures one will never produce the practical results which we all want to see in the educational system of this country.
  What we want to see in the country is more provision for primary education. There is no argument about it. I do not think any priority should be given to one stage of education over another. We cannot reduce secondary education facilities for the benefit of primary education. They must travel together. The problem cannot be separated or divided. Education must be considered as a whole, right through from the beginning to the age of 15 years and then on to the university stage. I am glad, therefore, that attention has been drawn to this problem of further provision for primary education from this side of the House. I hope the Minister will consider the question seriously and see whether he can obtain more money to provide more buildings to take us over the "1953 bulge," though he may not be able to get the money for the more permanent type of building.
  We want more teachers. I do not suppose for one moment that we can tell the Minister anything new about what he ought to do to produce more teachers and from where they should be drawn and brought into the service. Nor can we tell him anything about securing buildings. But what we want to do is to press upon him the urgency of the matter. We need these things now. We do not want to wait two or three years. In most parts of the country one hears complaints of children being kept out of school until they are six or six and a half years of age.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Tomlinson: I ask the hon. Gentleman to give one instance of a child being left out of school until he is six.
  Mr. Marshall: I have one in my own district that I can produce. We have a great pressure in our schools. And the Minister must remember the very important point that we are providing in the State schools for only a percentage of the children of that age. If all the private schools in the country were closed tomorrow how would the State cope with the situation? I can only speak with authority for my own county, and I know it would be a problem which would be absolutely insoluble for us. We have the greatest sympathy with the Minister but we could not house all the children of five, six and seven years of age in the county of Surrey and I imagine that many other areas are in the same position.
  It is not fair that the Minister should attempt to ride off this problem by saying that all children are going to school. I know very well many cases where parents cannot get their children admitted to our own primary State schools and have to send them to private schools and pay for them. I want to see children going to State schools because they get better training and better chances there. The Minister should not seek to excuse himself from the profound duty of the State to provide sufficient classes and teachers for primary education.
  We know the Minister is immensely sympathetic towards every aspect of education and we hope he will consider seriously today whether, eventually, he will be able to secure enough money to provide the necessary teaching staffs and particularly the buildings so that primary classes can be reduced. That reduction and the provision of places for all our young people in State schools are urgent necessities.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Pannell: I do not think the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) has matched entirely the tone of the speeches of the hon. Members who preceded him. I should like to associate myself with the thanks expressed to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) for introducing this Amendment. As one born in the borough of Walthamstow I knew far more about him in his earlier days when he was more familiar with the county ground at Leyton. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have moved the ground."] They have moved
  1692
  the ground since then and they have improved the revenue.
  I am interested in this subject as it affects one who is chairman of a divisional executive for education and has been chairman of the finance committee of the local authority. What was said by the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. A. Maude) about the Chancellor of the Exchequer fixing priorities is also true of the local chancellor of the exchequer. I have introduced about 12 budgets for the local authority and the difficulty for the chairman of the finance committee is to make a tidy picture of the many competing claims.
  If I were asked what my pet enthusiasm was and what claim I should like to put above all others at the present time, I should say it would be the reduction of the size of classes in our schools. As we have often been reminded by hon. Members opposite, and even by our own Front Bench, other people put other claims higher than that. But we are all enthusiastic for education here. Let us consider the claims. First there is housing. Surely, nobody is going to suggest that real education can begin unless every family is decently housed. The best form of education is in the home itself. Education does not stand apart from the home. The family is older than the State. Education only complements the training given to the child by a good father and mother.
  We cannot push the claim of housing on one side. Then there is the Health Service. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is chairman of Surrey Education Committee or of Surrey County Council now. I know he has been prominent in the public life of Surrey. He tried to make the point that the school health service was not part of education itself. I do not think many people will agree with that. When one considers the competing claims on the Chancellor one also has to remember the question of equal pay. The post bags of hon. Members today will also show the there are claims from old age pensioners, and, in the industrial districts of the North at least, claims for spinsters' pensions.
  If we grant the need for re-armament—and nobody denies that need on the other side of the House—and if we grant that there must be a ceiling to taxation, where are we going to impose cuts? The

  1693
  right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said last night that the food subsidies should not be cut, but, to my sorrow, he seemed to imagine that in the field of education there were all sorts of unspecified economies in administration that might be made somehow. He said:
  "I think that the education service in its administration is top-heavy and swollen. The method of county administration, particularly in the manner that divisional executives have been created and then given budgets to spend whether they want the money or not, is one of the reasons why our county finances today are strained to the utmost."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 1581–1582.]
  That has come from Essex. I can say from the largest executive division in Kent that it is just not true. It is rubbish. In many cases if it had not been for the divisional executives, the demand on the counties would have been very much higher.
  Mr. S. Marshall: No, I do not agree with that.
  Mr. Pannell: One can only speak from one's own experience. The hon. Gentleman speaks from his experience and I speak from mine. I can speak from my experience of small budget sub-committees. I have been on the budget sub-committees of divisional executives. I have experienced spending the best part of the day going through the estimates to see that they are not inflated before they are passed to the county education committee. In Kent the county council cannot direct the policy from Maidstone right up the coast and to Woolwich. Unless we get local direction and interest, education will become a soulless thing. The opposition to this policy which I am advocating comes from the county councils and the county bureaucrats who find it inconvenient to have a local democracy. The planning should be done by local bodies.
  I would make a plea for more prefabricated schools. I do not want to see a repetition of the old-fashioned grammar school. I do not think that the building as such has much to do with education at all. The hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. A. Maude), dealt with what he regarded as necessary in the sixth form. I could not agree with him more. Anyone who has done any lecturing knows how much easier it is to lecture to adolescents, but we should approach with more care the question of teaching primary school children. That is a job for the
  1694
  skilled primary school teacher. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was in the division of which I am chairman last Friday and we opened three good primary schools. I think they would have met all the requirements to which the hon. Member for Ealing, South, referred.
  The whole point about prefabrication is that a school gets out of date so quickly. For many things which we consider necessary for education, our children will curse us. A remarkable example of that can be found among the old L.C.C. school buildings. It does not matter whether it is a school or a hospital or a clinic, fashions change and different ideas emerge. The whole school building programme should follow the principle of a good central hall, with prefabricated buildings wherever possible.
  Mr. S. Marshall: In the L.C.C.?
  Mr. Pannell: No. I merely referred in parenthesis to L.C.C. buildings as a horrible example of what should not be allowed to happen—buildings which were erected when the party opposite had power in the L.C.C. This process of prefabrication is continuing, as is evidenced in the new aluminium type of school. I have often thought—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam—that education is bearing many costs which it should not bear, especially in relation to the provision of grounds. I have never been able to understand why many schools have been erected in spacious grounds which are reserved for the exclusive use of the school, instead of being used by the general neighbourhood.
  On the question of private schools, hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. As a result of the Education Act, 1944, by which children are given the type of education suitable to their age, aptitude and ability, people who in former times were prepared to pay for some part of their children's education in order to send them to the local grammar school, are no longer able to do so. Therefore, we have 25 per cent. in grammar schools, 10 per cent. for technical schools and 75 per cent. for the rest. There is a form of snobbery among some people who seem to imagine that the county modern school is not good enough for their children. Therefore,

  1695
  private schools are multiplied, very often charging excessive fees, as a result of the working of the Act, but I do not think any hon. Member opposite who has any feeling for education, would welcome a departure from the Act. It was, after all, an all-party Measure. These schools very often satisfy a snob element.
  On the question of what should be cut out of education, I have a list of economies which the Kent County Council are seeking to introduce. Among them, they have served notice on all nursery school accommodation in the whole county. This has been done not by the education committee, but the over-riding influence of the county council who, by a savage resolution taken in public, have chosen to wipe out nursery school accommodation. The nursery school for which I had some responsibility in North-West Kent—it was rather a show place—is presumably included in this resolution. We do not solve any educational problem by cutting off one of its limbs. I hope that the Minister's view on this decision will be felt strongly at Maidstone.
  There is one point which has not been mentioned in connection with primary schools, and it is this. I think that the working of the Burnham Committee has created a fairer level of salaries. In the old days there were often graduate teachers in grammar schools with classes consisting of about 30 boys, getting a much larger salary than the head of a great school with 600 or 700 children. I am never much impressed when secondary school teachers with degrees put in special pleas. In this matter of teachers' salaries, we are right to pay for the responsibility which a teacher carries, the size of his school, and so on, taking into account whether he is responsible for certain extraneous services. We would prefer that the accent of salary should be placed on this and not on graduate qualification.
  Mr. James Johnson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that a skilled member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union should be paid in some degree for his qualifications?
  Mr. Pannell: If I am asked for an opinion straight out, I would say that £100 per annum would be about as much as I would pay for that qualification. I
  1696
  think if we add something like 12½ per cent., and up to about 20 per cent. for posts with special responsibility, that would be fair. I appreciate that I am expressing a layman's opinion, and I should not like it to be regarded as anything but that.
  Finally, I come to the question of primary and secondary schools. In the past we have tended to treat the primary school as the Cinderella of the service, but that is so no longer. In spite of all the difficulties, the Minister of Education has not suffered very much in this year's Budget from the overriding calls of defence and the like. I remind hon. Members opposite that some of us remember that the answer of the party on the other side to a financial crisis not as bad as the present one, was to make, in 1931, a cut of 15 per cent. on teachers' salaries, and later to reduce it to 10 per cent. We have got away from that sort of thing now, and I hope that the position next year will be sufficiently eased by the recession in the need for re-armament, so that we may get on with this worth-while and constructive work.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Nugent: I should like to make a few remarks in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton). There is not much that I need answer in the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), beyond sympathising with him and congratulating him upon being the chairman of his divisional executive. The hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) seemed to think that the only limitation upon increasing the provision for primary schools was the question of providing sufficient teachers and money. One of the most limiting features of all is the provision of adequate building resources to give us the houses we require and the schools at the same time.
  Mr. Morley: I devoted a large part of my speech to school buildings and the necessity for their place in the building programme.
  Mr. Nugent: If I gained a wrong impression from the hon. Member's remarks, I apologise, but I think that when he reads his speech he will find that he left the impression that he thought the main limitation was finance, and not building.

  1697
  We all know that our main problem arises from the greatly increased birthrate in the post-war period, particularly immediately after the war, and rising to its peak in 1946–48. That is creating an increased school population which, as a bulge, is now passing through our schools and will continue to do so for the next 10 years. I shall have some comments to make also on the impact on the secondary schools in this respect.
  The position as it affects the primary schools has not yet reached its peak. It will do so in the next year or so. The hon. Member for Itchen talked about classes in the past being overcrowded—of course they have been, we all know that; but what is concerning us on this side, and I hope we shall convince the Minister of it, is our concern that the overlarge size of classes is not decreasing, but is increasing, and that the number of children of school age who are out of school is also increasing. When a remark to this effect was made a short time ago, the Minister asked us to give the number of the children affected, but that is for him to say; he has the figures, and we have not.
  As far as my county—Surrey—is concerned, if I may correct the impression which was left by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall), I do not think we have any children out of school who are over the age of 6½. We do not have many over 5½ who are out of school, but there are quite a few over the age of five who do not get into school for the first term when they become of school age. I am concerned at the possibility that that number will grow rather than diminish. The main purpose of this debate today is to try to get some idea of what the Minister has in mind to deal with this situation.
  What seems to be happening in the country as a whole is that the number of places being provided is not much more than half the annual increase of children for whom places are required. To some extent that position is being met by the fact that children are not getting into school, and to some extent by the growing classes of 40 and 50 children. As far as a class of 50 children is concerned, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that try as a teacher may—and teachers try most gallantly to cope with the problem—a
  1698
  class of 50 children is really a superhuman task for a woman to cope with. When that class contains, perhaps, a child who is educationally sub-normal, the teacher's task becomes completely impossible. In the scale of priorities, therefore, we must still watch closely the provision of special schools. To those not closely acquainted with them, these schools may seem to be a refinement, but there is no doubt whatever that they are an essential part of the picture.
  The next stage is that of the secondary school. The Minister will know that we have had a particular problem in Surrey. We have pressed him very hard on the provision of secondary schools, because we can see that the bulge will rise into the secondary schools in the next two or three years. Overcrowding of children who have reached this stage of their education cannot be dealt with by leaving them out of school and unless the extra schools can be built there is simply no solution of where they are to go to. As a result of our last application the Minister did, in fact, give way and allowed us to have two more schools. It seems particularly hard, however, in the county of Surrey that out or our total building quota, provision for three schools in each of the two L.C.C. estates at Sheerwater and Merstham should be included as part of the total capital provision for the county. The result is that in 1951 we have only about half the sum available in the previous year to provide the remaining schools in the county. This is a particularly serious handicap when all the time the tremendous problem of secondary school accommodation is growing.
  On the particular problem of house building and schools, I should like to know whether there is any sort of co-ordination at the top level between the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Local Government and Planning as to the number of houses which are built in an area and, then, the school accommodation which is to be allowed. All over the county I see large numbers of new houses being built, yet we are not allowed to build further schools to provide the accommodation we require for the additional children. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what arrangement he has which will guard against the obvious difficulty which we are meeting in this respect.

  1699
  Alongside the immediate problems of finding school places for children and of coping with the size of classes, we have the continuing problem of special equipment for children of 14 and 15 years of age in the secondary modern schools. If we are to have the confidence of parents and to give children a worthwhile extra year at school, it is essential that we should have this extra equipment and accommodation. We have a continuing problem of trying to provide them, along with the other problem of school places. We also have the problem of the reorganisation of full range schools, especially in rural areas, where we have a good many of these remaining, and I imagine that it is a common problem in the country as a whole.
  It seems to me that local education authorities today have a superhuman task in trying to cope with this bulge which is now passing through our educational system, and that the obvious danger with which they are confronted is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide the quality of education which we would all like to see. The degree of illiteracy is quite sufficient already to make us worry, and what we should like to see is more care being taken to prevent it becoming worse. Quite obviously, there is a danger that, in the overcrowded conditions affecting the children now in the bulge, they are going to pass through their schooling period in the next 10 years in classes that are in an overcrowded state, so that they will receive a quality of education which is below the proper standard.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are sometimes rather apt to think that they are the only people intrinsically interested in education, and that it is only they who want to have the best possible educational provision. That is really a most old-fashioned idea. We are just as keen as they, and we would like to see all the things which they have promised and many which they have not. In particular, on the question of the raising of the school-leaving age, my hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment mentioned that it has now become decent to discuss that subject, since the Chancellor has mentioned it. As one interested in education, of course, I know the value of giving that extra year, and I realise that the difference between leaving school at 15 instead of 14 is just enormous.
  1700
  The Minister, however, has to accept the fact that, while he takes the credit, and very great credit, for being able to raise the school-leaving age by a year, he must also accept the burden that, in doing so, he has greatly added to the problem of accommodating those children in the bulge now passing through the schools, and, to that extent, he must accept responsibility if there is a reduction in the quality and standard of the education provided. He cannot have it both ways. We have been told several times by hon. Gentlemen opposite that we could not have it both ways, and neither can the Minister. When he has taken the credit for raising the school-leaving age, it is now up to him to show how he will deal with this problem of accommodation so that there is not a serious reduction in the standard of education provided in the next 10 years, and, indeed, at the present time.
  That is the burden of the comment that I wished to make. We have a double anxiety, and we all feel worried about it. It is up to us to see that the best possible education is provided for these children, and yet there is quite sufficient evidence at present to make us ask the Minister what provision he will make now to cope with this problem.
  5.44 p.m.
  Mr. Dryden Brook: The hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. A. Maude), who seconded the Amendment, both in the course of his speech and in reply to an interjection by my hon. Friend the Member for the Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), asked that we should not go back into past history as we might get bogged and we might not see the whole picture clearly. Some of us on this side of the Committee have long memories of what has happened in the past, and certain hints have been dropped by the Opposition in the last two or three months which make us fear that history may repeat itself.
  Some two months ago, the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), in a speech in this House, made reference to the possibility of economising on education. Yesterday, in this House, we had another hon. Gentleman opposite, who sits below the Gangway, making education one of the targets in his economy drive. Last night, too, we had the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) himself devoting a sentence

  1701
  or two to the same theme. This afternoon, both the mover and seconder of the Amendment have, in my judgment, brought us up against the fundamental difference between the two sides of this House on the education problem. Both stressed the importance of the financial factor, and said that there was a limit to the amount of money that could be drawn upon. It is that factor which, to me, illustrates the fundamental difference that exists between us. That difference concerns the size of the fund to be drawn upon, and between the two sides of the House there may be a very wide divergence indeed.
  For example, when the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was speaking about the local rates problem, I felt that I could point out to him one aspect concerning local rates which would go a long way towards solving this particular difficulty. Why not restore the 75 per cent. in industrial assessments which was made many years ago and in entirely different circumstances, but which industry could very well bear today? I am a member of a local authority and of a local education authority at the present time. I have in my constituency and in the course of council elections fought the issue on the education problem, and I have never yet found an audience which, when educational costs were explained to it, did not react at once in demanding that a proper education service should be provided.
  On the question of the supply of teachers and of the number of scholars per class, the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to this problem as if it was a new problem entirely unconnected with the past. I believe I am right in saying that "Education," the Journal of the Association of Education Committees, about two years ago analysed the figures for the previous few years, and I believe I am also right in saying that the number of scholars per class, both in primary and in secondary education, is fewer at the present time than it was in the immediate pre-war days.
  As regards children of five being found places in schools, I believe I am also right—and I hope the Minister will correct me if not—in saying that there is a larger proportion of children of five in our schools today than there has been before. When the hon. Gentleman who
  1702
  opened this discussion was speaking about the cuts in education that we might make, he placed first priority on primary education, but I would rather agree with another hon. Member opposite, and with some of my hon. Friends on this side, in saying that education must be looked upon as a whole. If we place all our emphasis on primary education, and we provide it not merely in quantity but also in quality, and if we then divorce primary education from secondary education, we shall leave our boys and girls in an atmosphere of doubt, and shall, as it were, leave them in the air in respect of their future development.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about cinemas and the provision of community centres as if the fact that we had cinemas was an adequate compensation for the lack of community centres. A community centre is not merely a place of entertainment, but a place where the people of a locality can make use of every faculty which they possess in order to develop their full characteristics. That is the kind of provision which we have to make today.
  As to the size of classes, I would say that it really depends upon buildings and the supply of teachers. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), stressed the fact that the building factor not the financial factor was the key to the situation. How different it might have been if in the years that have gone by, proper provision had been made. Hon. Members opposite are now enthusiastic about reducing the size of classes. My interest in education goes back to the days of the First World War, and I can remember the Fisher Act of 1918 and what followed and the Geddes Report and the May Report. What we on this side of the House are afraid of from the way the wind is blowing, is that at any rate some hon. Members opposite may be paving the way for something similar to what happened in the 'thirties.
  In pre-war days we not only had extraordinarily large classes, but for many years many of those classes had to be held in condemned schools—the "black holes." I have seen them myself, not only in my own town but in other towns in the West Riding of Yorkshire. That is something which the Opposition, with all the opportunities they had in those days for building schools, ought to be able to

  1703
  answer for and face up to at the present time, when they are showing such a great interest in the provision of further school accommodation and in reducing the size of classes.
  I do not want to take up much time because I am a believer in short speeches and many of them, but there is one aspect of what the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden said last night to which I should like to devote a few moments. It is not the aspect mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell). Towards the end of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I further think that many of the standards are too high for the times in which we live and that we had much better get on with the practical job in education of reducing the size of classes and re-establishing the relationship between teacher and taught, than with some of the fineries and snobberies that have been brought into the education service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 1582.]
  I like the phrase "re-establishing the relationship between teacher and taught," because if I remember history aright, and if I know education aright, in the days prior to the war there was very little of that relationship between teacher and taught; it was less even than it is today.
  This afternoon one hon. Gentleman opposite said that he wanted to see more freedom for local authorities from the central authority, and in the local authority more freedom for the head teacher and his staff inside the schools. Is that not what every good local education authority is doing at present? I have been a member of a local education authority for many years and what I have noticed growing up in the educational world is what I would like to see in all democratic spheres, and that is a relationship between the central and the local education authorities which has tended to give the local education authority control in its own sphere, and at the same time in the relationship between the local education authority and the schools a growing amount of freedom given to head teachers and staffs in the schools. Without doubt, in the schools of today the freedom of the head teacher and the staff is greater and more beneficial than it has ever been before.
  When the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden talks about re-establishing
  1704
  the relationship between teacher and taught, which according to him must have existed at some time in the past, I wonder when that past was. When he goes on to talk about the standards being too high for the times, I wonder who set those standards. Surely it was the 1944 Act which set the standards for schools, new buildings, accommodation and playing areas. Are we now to go back on those standards? When he talks about fineries and snobberies, does he want to eliminate the grammar school and to concentrate on the comprehensive school? After all, if we are thinking of fineries and snobberies in education, the grammar school is one of those fineries and snobberies, at any rate in one aspect.
  We should like answers to these questions, because we are concerned about education and afraid of what the Conservative Party might do. I have referred to what they did under the May Report. In 1944, when education was a very popular subject, when every society in the country was issuing its views on education, the Conservative Party issued a pamphlet in which it said—and I think I am accurate in this quotation from memory—that education, instead of being the first subject of economy in periods of stress, should be the last. I commend that idea to the hon. Member for Chelmsford who moved this Amendment, in respect both to local finance and to national finance.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. Hollis: The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook) said that the dividing line between the Conservative and the Socialist Parties in this matter was the concern of the Conservatives with the financial factor, as he called it. Frankly, I should have thought that that was not the dividing line between Conservatives and Socialists, but the dividing line between sane men and lunatics. There seems to be no other way in which one can put it. If the right hon. Gentleman were to move to another place and the hon. Gentleman to take his place on the Front Bench as Minister of Education he would soon find, even if the Socialist Government remained in office, that he would have to pay very great consideration to the financial factor, whether he wished to or not.
  Mr. Brook: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent what I said.

  1705
  After all, there is a difference between the attitude of mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite which accepted the May Report and the attitude of mind on this side of the House.
  Mr. Hollis: I should prefer to make my own speech and my own comments. The hon. Gentleman also said that I and my hon. Friends were concerned with the financial factor. The fact of the matter is, as we all realise, that unfortunately we are in a very difficult financial situation, and it is therefore common sense that we should give our minds to seeing in what way we can save money without sacrificing things of value and importance, because otherwise there will be a financial collapse and those things of value and importance will be sacrificed anyway.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke again and again about the May Report. Perhaps he recollects that the May Committee came into existence during a time when a Socialist Government was in office, and the fact that drastic and, in many ways, unconsidered cuts had to be made later on was because reasonable economies were not made at an earlier time when the incompetent Socialist Government was in office. The hon. Gentleman also threatens that if the Conservatives return to power they would, as he says, go back on standards. I really do not quite understand what he means, because everybody knows that in point of fact the Socialist Government have gone back on standards in the sense that, very reasonably, recognising the state of affairs, they have introduced a variety of quite sensible economies in school building. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman objects to his own Government doing that. When he holds out the threat that the Conservatives may do what the Socialists are doing just that at this moment, I really cannot understand.
  Hon. Members who have spoken in this very interesting debate have made a variety of contributions, as was most right and proper, about the difficulties of the situation and the solutions which they suggest to overcome those difficulties. In the very few minutes that I shall detain the House—because I know how our debate is unfairly truncated—I should like to direct my attention to certain observations about the extent to which the situation at the present moment should give
  1706
  us concern, in the hope that we shall get some wise observations on that topic from the right hon. Gentleman when he replies.
  I bring the House back again to that handbook on reading ability for back benchers, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) referred, in trying to see what we can make out of it. That booklet has a preface by the right hon. Gentleman in which he truly and rightly points out how the war caused an inevitable interruption from which it can hardly be expected that education would not suffer to some extent. He then lays down the question to which he wishes to find an answer: to what extent have things improved since the war came to an end? On that point the answer which the expert committee gives is almost more disturbing than some of my hon. Friends have told the House. On page 45 we are told bluntly,
  "We must conclude, therefore, that there is no evidence that backwardness exists only among older pupils whose education was upset by war-time conditions. It seems as marked throughout the primary schools as the secondary schools."
  That is a disturbing condition. If we turn back to page 40, we get some detailed statistics about the prevalance of illiteracy in different schools—primary schools and others too, but today we are chiefly concerned with the primary schools. We get some rather interesting conclusions. This is what the investigator, Mr. Watts-Vernon, says in regard to private preparatory schools, urban primary schools, rural primary schools and primary and secondary London schools. As regard illiteracy and semi-illiteracy, it is the conclusion that the London schools come out worst of all; worse than the rural schools.
  When we get to the other end of the scale, the children who have superior reading capacity, it is the rural schools who not only do worst but do incomparably worse than the other schools, and the London schools come second to the primary private schools and above the urban primary schools. Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea why London is both best and worst in this respect? There is indeed a question of exactly how much reliance one ought to place on this sort of intelligence test statistics. I approach these intelligence

  1707
  tests of deficiency with a certain amount of diffidence and trepidation. I always wonder whether I shall be able to answer the questions myself.
  I recollect that on one occasion I studied some statistics from the City of Sheffield where a surprisingly large number of children were apparently rated as mentally deficient. When I looked it up to see how they arrived at this conclusion, I read that 73 per cent. had not heard of the Minister of Education. I could have done that one anyway, but it did not seem altogether convincing as an evidence of mental defect. I may say that was not the present Minister of Education. It was Mr. Fisher. I suppose he was President of the Board of Education. The general conclusion seems to be serious, and, whatever the standard of literacy, it cannot have been unduly high, since we are told that 0.0 per cent. of public school boys of the age are semi-literate—a surprisingly optimistic judgment.
  On page 14, a number of remedies are suggested which have figured in the speeches of one hon. Member or another in the course of this debate. Roughly speaking, it is suggested that there are five reasons which are likely to cause backwardness. Certain children are backward because of personal handicaps. That is to say, that so far as it can be remedied, it shows that there is a relationship between health and education. Then there is the all-important factor of home conditions. I am sure that no one who meditates on the matter can doubt that one of the great problems in education today is the growing weakness of family life which makes the problems of the schoolmaster, when the children come from broken homes, a great deal more difficult than they would otherwise be.
  There is the obvious particular cause for the moment of interrupted schooling from which so many children suffered during the war, which inevitably made this period a few years ago a particularly difficult one. There we come back to the question of school conditions, smaller classes and so on, which hon. Members rightly, I think, have stressed in speech after speech. On top of these four points, there is a fifth and interesting point, which, I am inclined to think, is not sufficiently stressed. One reason for illiteracy, in the opinion of the author of this report,
  1708
  is "a premature introduction to printed matter." Although I think that it would be a great mistake that children should not go to school at five years of age, I would not in all cases rush them into reading immediately. In the case of the vast majority of children, I think that reading is a thing which comes to them naturally, and it is better to leave them to learn to read naturally than that definitely and positively they should be taught to read.
  There are certain children who it is necessary to teach because they will not learn themselves, but most children more or less learn to read without knowing that they are doing so, just, as a few years earlier, they learn to speak without knowing that they are doing so. In connection with the treatment of individual children—one treated in one way and another in another—much depends on having small classes and an adequate number of competent teachers.
  I do not want to detain the House longer. I should, however, be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if, in addition to his other observations, he would say something about what his view is upon the actual state of affairs, as well as who is responsible for that state of affairs and what is the remedy; whether he thinks that the situation is as serious as this report indicates or whether he has reason to think that it is less serious.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: I realise that this debate has to reach an unhappy conclusion at 7 o'clock because of the Luton Bill, and I am very sorry that education debates seem so often to be interrupted. Today we have had a most interesting debate initiated by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton), who has the gift of looking like a pleasant Methodist, who talks like an enthusiastic radical and who, I know, always votes like an ardent Tory. It is, of course, in this matter of education the ultimate decision that is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook) drew attention this afternoon to the fact that there are deep divisions on both sides of the House on this matter of education.
  Education is a political issue in this country. I was rather shocked during a debate, when we were having weekly votes of censure on the Government, to

  1709
  hear the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), when pressed by one of my hon. Friends to say what economies hon. Members opposite would introduce in order to get 300,000 houses, say, with that gay abandon for which he is renowned, that they would deal with education. It is always education that the Conservative Party have thought of first when it comes to cuts. It is no good the hon. Member shaking his head, because if he wants to shake it until he puts the Tory Party right, he will have to shake it right off.
  The question that has been brought before us today is that of the size of classes in primary schools. At a time when the world is divided on the basis of rival ideologies the content of education and the education services naturally take on a greater significance. I believe that in the defence of the British way of life, the schools are quite as important as the Royal Navy. We have to see that the rising generation is inculcated with the highest Christian ethics upon which democracy itself has been established.
  Commander Maitland: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Thomas: Thank you so much. It is comforting to hear a "Hear, hear," from any hon. Member when reference is made to the Christian teaching, which I do not mean unkindly. To say that the schools should be put to the front in defence of the British way of life is not to suggest that politics should be introduced; but I am convinced that the ethics upon which our system has been established must find their place in the school. Unhappily, for thousands of children the only place where they have an opportunity of hearing about Christian ethics is in the schools.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) that there seems to be evidence of a breakdown in family life, which I find disquieting. The greater the lack of home life, the greater the responsibility of the teacher, and the greater the responsibility of the teacher, the greater the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to see that the teacher is given every opportunity to get on with the job. The schools have in some way to compensate the child when there is lack of instruction in the home, and overcrowding makes the teacher's job impossible. Reference is made in the "Daily Mail"
  1710
  today to the size of classes at Eton and Harrow and the other schools from which the right hon. Gentleman opposite and some from this side of the House have come. The average is 12 to 14, and it is possible in those circumstances for a teacher to do something.
  It is almost impossible to do justice to this debate in view of the time, and as I have promised to be brief and always like to keep my word, I will conclude by saying this. Member after Member opposite has been asking for more education and more money for different aspects of education; some have asked for more secondary modern schools and others for priority to be given to primary schools. So they must make up their minds that the nation must continue to spend not only as much as it is spending but more if education is to fulfil its purpose in the country. The Chancellor must have pressure brought to bear upon him, and we hope that we shall have the support of Members opposite in this.
  The service of education in this country is fortunate to have a teaching profession imbued with very high ideals. It is customary for tributes to be paid from both sides to the teaching profession. But tributes are not enough. It is our responsibility to see that the teachers are given the tools to get on with the job. The Minister must not be content to tell the House that he is able to mark time by keeping the average size of classes where it is. He must somehow make inroads on the size of classes. I know that overcrowding takes place in pockets and that it is not the same problem all over the country. I sincerely hope that, apart from that proud story my right hon. Friend has to tell about new schools, he will be able to indicate to these authorities who suffer most from large classes, that there is some hope within the next two years of the size of their classes being reduced.
  6.16 p.m.
  Commander Maitland: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) for having put me out of my agony by giving me time to wind up the debate for this side of the House. I find myself in considerable agreement with what he has said. The House will agree that we have been doubly fortunate in that we have not only had this opportunity to debate this

  1711
  subject, but that the Motion has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton). Few hon. Members have greater knowledge of educational administration than my hon. Friend. He has put the case we are trying to make in great detail, and his remarks will be well worth studying.
  I want to deal with the subject from a rather wider aspect in order to reinforce, in general, what my hon. Friend has said in particular. This has, of course, been a ratepayers' debate; indeed, one might almost say it has been an Essex ratepayers' debate. I am pleased about this, because before the war I served as chairman of a remote sub-committee of the Essex Education Committee. It seems to me that the great problem facing us is how to convince the people of the country that they are getting value for their money. I think I shall have the agreement of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, when I say that I cannot see any chance of saving money on education, but rather that we have to face an increasing charge to maintain our present standard. The bulge in the birth-rate has decided that, and we have to face that fact. That is the background to our financial approach to this subject.
  It is a tremendous burden that has been placed on the ratepayers by the pressure of educational expense. It is inevitable, but that pressure is being felt. It is a sad thing that this pressure should be at a time when prices are rising and taxation is as heavy as it is. Therefore, we ought, I believe, to try to do something to help the ratepayer. I wish I knew what that something was and could advance suggestions from this side, but the fact remains that unless we can do something, we shall have examples all over the country of the wrong sort of economies being made, with the result that while we apparently have an efficient educational system on paper, we may be turning out inefficient children who are below even present-day standards. That would indeed be getting the worst of both worlds, and it is something that must be avoided at all costs.
  I ask the Minister, therefore, seriously to consider the proposal put up by the National Union of Teachers, and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) in a Question the other day,
  1712
  namely, whether it would not be advisable to appoint a Royal Commission or to get the best brains in the country to advise us on this very difficult and apparently nearly insoluble problem. I see all the difficulties involved, local autonomy and such like issues. The matter is so acute, it presses on educational development to such an extent, that I think we should be justified in having a Commission or use some other method to get the best advice which we can possibly get.
  If it is considered that the educational side is in itself too small, the examination should extend to the whole of local government expenditure, and the bearing of the rates on the ratepayer. Let us face it, but do not let us say that the thing is impracticable because it would have to extend over the whole field of local government. I would ask the Minister, in his reply tonight, to devote some of his time to the general considerations of the pressure on the ratepayers which is being felt so much today. It is an important matter and justifies the anxiety of the ratepayer. I think he has every reason to be anxious when he consults the report which has been referred to so often today.
  This report on illiteracy has given rise to some concern. I should like to put forward one point which strikes me. Hon. Members have chosen things from it which have appealed to them, but I was very much struck by the number of what are called "backward readers" among children of 15 years throughout the whole country. It seems to me that these figures are worse than those for complete illiteracy, which are admittedly small. It should be noted that 30 per cent. of the children who are aged 15 are designated as "backward readers" today as compared with 10 per cent. in the years before the war.
  A "backward reader," incidentally, is a child with the reading ability of between 9 and 12 years, which is rather serious when we devote so much of our time to the further development of our children. I hope that the Minister, in his report on education—which, I hope, is coming out soon; perhaps he can tell us tonight when it will be coming out—will deal with this question of literacy and illiteracy. It is a difficult subject I know, but it is something about which the country should have full knowledge.
  The next question concerns overcrowding, and I want to know what is

  1713
  the position today about the provision of new schools to deal with the bulge in the birthrate. I was not very satisfied with the answer of the Minister when we last had a debate on this subject. It seemed to us to be a little too optimistic. In regard to the London area he pointed out that three years of the building plan were still to go, and, of course, anything could happen during those three years. The right hon. Gentleman got away with that explanation, but I should like to remind him tonight that one year of that time has gone and there are only two years left.
  Is he satisfied that in the London schools, places will be found for the children who will be coming to school for the first time in 1952 and 1953? Will they be able to find places for them under existing circumstances, or will conditions of overcrowding improve or get worse? Those are questions about which many are anxious and worried. From what I can hear from the local authorities with whom I am in contact, I gather that they are not as optimistic as the Government were last year.
  The question of teachers follows from that of school buildings, and I hope the Minister will tell us tonight something about the situation. Can we hope to have the proper number of teachers to be able to conserve the existing standard or must we expect reduced standards? Can we possibly hope to get better standards, and how many temporary teachers shall we require, to deal adequately with the numbers. We should all very much like to know the answers to those questions.
  Technological education has been mentioned in this debate. We had a short debate recently on this subject, and we are very anxious that the Minister should go further, if he can, than the Parliamentary Secretary did before the Recess. Time is passing and this problem does not get any less acute. The need gets greater as time goes by, and we think a decision on this matter should be made as soon as possible.
  The subject of new schools in the new towns has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). One would have thought that the provision of schools in the new towns would have been one of the first things the planners would have considered very
  1714
  carefully. Yet we know of several cases of anxiety about schools in the new towns, particularly in Crawley. Let me take Crawley as an example. The facts I have may not be correct, and if that is so, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct me. We complain, first, on the ground that in Crawley there is to be no council school until the end of the year, when there will be 1,500 families in that town. That does not seem to us to be very good planning.
  The second complaint is one of over expensive planning. We understand that the schools there are being sited in the centre of blocks. It is very nice to have green spaces in the centre of blocks and easier for the children to get to school, but it entails building the schools so that they are not on the edge of blocks. I understand that as a result of this, the cost of building in those new towns is going up by £2,000 an acre. That seems to us to be tremendous expenditure. No economies are nice; all are unpleasant, but is not this an economy that we ought to make at this time. It means sacrificing an open space and it means that the children may have to walk further to school, but in these days of stringency we should examine with very great care such matters as this.
  I promised the right hon. Gentleman I would give him as much time as possible because we want answers to these questions. We, on this side of the House, put forward these suggestions without malice, hatred or any uncharitableness. We hope the answers will be given in the same spirit, because these are things of great concern to the parents of children at school and to the local education authorities. I have devoted much of my time to putting these questions to the Minister and now I will give him the opportunity to answer them.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): Perhaps I might say first of all how pleased I am with the tone of the debate. There has been an honest desire to face difficult problems and to realise, at the same time, the difficulties of the situation. So long as we keep in mind those difficulties and the purpose of education, the problems are capable of solution. They may be solved by one person in one way and by another in a different

  1715
  way, but we should keep always in mind the children—all the children and not specifically the clever ones or the dull ones. They are somebody's children and they are all part of the nation and they all have to be catered for. On the subject of priorities, it is not a question of "Whose child?" The question of priorities can only arise in the organisation and administration to meet the problems so that all will benefit. So long as that is accepted as the basis of administration, I am quite happy, but not complacent, with what we have been able to do in difficult circumstances.
  The only way in which it will be possible to give, satisfaction to Members who have spoken and to the questions which have been asked is to attempt briefly to deal with each of the speakers and the questions that have been raised, and then to sum up with a general picture. I will deal first with the speech made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton). I would say first how much I agree with the way in which he presented this problem. He asked how many children were out of school at five years of age in Essex. Naturally he was interested in his county, as I am.
  Mr. Ashton: I should like the figures for the whole county.
  Mr. Tomlinson: I have not the figures for the whole county, but they are not exceptional, as far as I can ascertain at present. In such areas as the Forest Division and Clacton, the present position is said to be a temporary phenomenon. I would not say that there are no children out of school at five years of age, and I would not say that some have not been left out until nearly five and a half years of age before they were admitted, but I would also say that there are no more today than there have been at any time in the history of our educational development. This problem is no worse, and I realise the necessity of seeing that it gets no worse, if we can avoid it. It is necessary to see that these schools that are programmed, and that can take the children where they are coming in greater numbers, shall be pressed forward. One of my objects is to see that the programming is pressed forward, in spite of difficulties.
  1716
  Naturally, the hon. Member passed on to the cost. We have heard a good deal this afternoon about the costs of education, particularly, from the ratepayers' point of view, the increasing costs. I am not prepared to say that the costs are not increasing. There never has been a time in the whole of the 40 years in which I have been interested in educational organisation when people did not question whether we were getting value for the money in the education we receive. Costs have always been rising. We started from nothing and therefore they had to rise. People who were living in those early days will know that the rate they paid for education was very small and, as hon. Members know, they got very little for it. I hope that as the expenditure has grown, the return for the expenditure has been greater.
  We cannot meet the increased requirements of the children without increasing the programme. As the hon. Member went on to point out, and as the Amendment which is before the House points out, if we are to meet the requirements of the children who are coming along in increasing numbers, we must of necessity have increasing expenditure to meet the greater need. Everybody realises that when there is only one in the family it does not cost as much to keep the family as when it rises to six or seven. That is one problem that we have not been able to solve, with all our teaching and learning. The children who are coming into the schools are calling for more money.
  Another question is whether, in the circumstances, we should give priority to primary education. I will give figures later which will demonstrate that, without waiting for this House to pass a resolution urging us to give priority, priority has been given to primary education. The needs of the primary children have had the first consideration because of the fact that they needed attention first. Therefore, it has been given to them. By way of illustration, I would say that last Friday I had the privilege of visiting the city of Bristol and that I opened nine schools at once, a record for any Minister of Education. I shall be very pleased when anybody breaks that record and opens more than nine schools. Of these eight were primary schools and one was a secondary school. That demonstrates the principle of priority.

  1717
  The mover of the Amendment asked about economies. He referred to the new community centres and suggested that we might go easy in setting up youth centres and appointing youth leaders. It may be that we shall be compelled, as we have been compelled in other directions, to cut down on this kind of service, which some people regard as part of the frills but which I regard as very important. I have expressed the hope on more than one occasion that where new secondary schools are being built in areas which are new and where there are no community facilities, the large halls which are being provided in those secondary schools should become, to all intents and purposes, community centres for the area.
  On the question of further education, it is desirable that we should retain all that we can. It may be that we shall have to limit our activities to some extent in what are regarded as the frills, but I hope that we shall not limit them where that can be avoided. The hon. Member gave us a facetious illustration of two lectures on the arrangement of flowers being given in one little village in one week. That may be overdoing it, but I hope that no one will detract from the necessity of some teaching in the arrangement of flowers. I am not an expert in that but I happen to be the individual in our house—there are only two of us—who does it. It may be one of the frills, but it is one which I believe to be worth retaining, and J hope that talk on those lines will not be spread abroad just for the sake of saving money. Furthermore, there had not been a lecture on that subject before, so they would not have got more than they were entitled to, in having two in one week.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. A. Maude), asked how we could develop an educational system on the cheap, and answered it by saying, "We cannot." That is my answer, too. I hope I was wrong, but I seemed to detect in his speech a suggestion that he was desirous, given so much money, of choosing how he would spend the money as between individual children if called upon to economise, and whether it was worth spending it on one set of children because they were not capable of developing
  1718
  to the full extent when others were. I may have been wrong in reading that into his speech. The proposition I laid down earlier that all children belong to somebody and are all part of the State means that, to the best of our ability, we have to bring them all along.
  He laid down what I consider to be an essential, and said that I have no business to be a member of a Government which prided itself on planning unless I believed in planning for the future. I certainly agree with him. In these circumstances and in these days I do not think that anybody is fit to be, or ought to be, retained in any position where provision of this kind is made unless he looks to the future and sees the problems which are coming forward. I believe I can demonstrate in a few moments that we have done just this.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), spoke about smaller classes. That has been in all our minds. Nobody has to convince me, at any rate, of the necessity for smaller classes if and when they can be obtained. I have had that idea for a long time. I think it is a waste of money sometimes to train teachers and then pay them just to prevent children from breaking the furniture, although I understand that it is believed today that if they do not break the furniture when they are youngsters, they will break something else when they are older. However, I do not want to be drawn into a discussion on psychology.
  I believe in the necessity for smaller classes, but two things have to be remembered, one being that the only way in which to get smaller classes is to improve and increase the accommodation and the other being to increase the number of teachers. Those two things are inevitable, and up to now it has not been possible to make the improvement that we desire, although some improvements have been made. In a few moments I will say something about the provision of both school buildings and teachers.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) would like to see some change in the Exchequer method of computing Education Estimates with a view to cutting out the provision of milk and meals and such things which are regarded by some people as being outside the educational curriculum. Although I realise that these are social services which

  1719
  could be associated with other Ministries, I am one of those who believe that the provision of both milk and meals has what might be described as an "educational content" and that there is something in the services which is of more value because of the fact that they are given in schools than there would be if they were dissociated from the education authorities. So long as the money is found, as it is at present, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not think it matters.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also spoke of the complacency of the Minister and said that I did not stand up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and had not got all that I wanted. I do not remember anybody getting everything he wanted from any Chancellor in any Government since the days of Gladstone. The figures speak for themselves, and when cries for economy have been coming from all directions, I am satisfied with the proportion that I have managed to obtain.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), spoke about housing and the relationship between it and education. Nobody can dissociate housing from education because of the problem which housing brings in regard to the provision of new school buildings and the condition of housing in relation to the conduct of the children and what I would call their "teachability," and the improvement that takes place as a consequence of good conditions in the home.
  The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam spoke of the position in Surrey. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said that he knew of children of six and a half and seven being out of school. The hon. Member for Guildford brought the age down to five and a half, and I thank him for that. I am sorry that another hon. Member for Surrey did not speak for he might have brought the age down to the real figure. My answer with regard to Surrey is the same as the answer I gave for Essex, that there may be pockets here and there. If the problem postulated by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam came into being, it would be a different proposition. If there were no private schools, it would be the business of the Surrey Education Committee to provide for those children. The
  1720
  fact that there are private schools, means that they have not had to provide for them, but it is no excuse for the authority which has children out of school to say that there are private schools to which they are hoping someone will send them.
  Mr. Nugent: Does the right hon. Gentleman imply that the Surrey Education Committee has not fulfilled its duty? Would he take it from me that the Surrey Education Committee has built up to its full quota throughout and has provided every building which the right hon. Gentleman has allowed it to erect.
  Mr. Tomlinson: All I was doing was answering the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who, when invited to mention a single place where there was a child of six out of school, pointed to the general fact that they were going to private schools because no county school was available for them.
  I was told that there is still the problem of the all-age school. I realise that there are such problems and I am sorry for it. There ought not to be. As Minister of Education, I ought never to have had to deal with a problem of all-age schools, and the fact that I have that problem and that we cannot deal with it as quickly as we ought to do, is one of the things that worries me. It means that some of the new housing authorities, who, because of their situation, are receiving sanction to build a new school, are taking places which would have been provided for those in all-age schools if the programme had not had to be cut to meet the requirements of the present situation. I visualise that some day the all-age schools will be swept away, but that will not be just yet.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook) spoke of the bigger proportion of children of five years of age who were in school. It is a fact that today there is a large number—about 91 per cent. at the end of 1950—of children aged five in public primary schools. There has never before at any period in our history been more than 91 per cent.
  Now may I deal briefly with this Amendment and what we are doing in regard to it. As I do so, I will pick up the questions that were asked. It is quite clear that there are still many pupils in maintained primary schools in classes

  1721
  with more than 40 on the register. Nobody has attempted to deny that. It is a fact, and it will remain a fact until we can produce the buildings and the teachers who will enable us to overcome it.
  Mr. Nugent: More than 50.
  Mr. Tomlinson: The total number of oversize classes was 341 greater this year than in January, 1949. On the other hand, the total number of classes of all kinds had also increased by January, 1950, so that the proportion of oversize classes was less than in the previous year. In other words, although there were more classes, the proportion was less because of the larger number of children who had come in.
  We all know of the school accommodation problem and how it has arisen. During the war there was virtually a cessation of school building. For five years there was scarcely a school built in the country. More than 5,000 school buildings suffered war damage, and much classroom accommodation was thereby lost. In the post-war years two additional factors have intensified this problem, both of which have been referred to. One was the steep, if erratic rise in the birth rate, and the other was the large movement of population to new housing estates which has developed latterly. In addition, the raising of the compulsory school age from 14 to 15 brought with it accommodation difficulties which had to be resolved largely by a programme of hutted school buildings. That problem was met at the time it arose and those 8,000 Horsa huts, as we call them, housed the 14 to 15 age group.
  Altogether we estimate that between January, 1947, and 1953 1,150,000 new school places will be needed, and most of these will be places in primary schools. In other words, we are dealing with a rise in the school population itself. This is illustrated by the fact that the total number of pupils in maintained and assisted primary and secondary schools has risen from little more than five million in January, 1946, to 5,651,000 in January, 1950. In 1949 the population in these schools increased by 123,000 and the number of children aged five was 636,000. We estimate that this last figure will rise this year to 714,000 and next year to 780,000. In January, 1950, rather more than 91 per cent. of the five-year-old
  1722
  group were in infant classes in maintained and assisted schools. That was a higher percentage than in any other post-war year. I think it can be claimed that no material number of children failed to secure admission to school on or about their fifth birthday.
  Our main problem has thus been to provide sufficient accommodation for these increasing numbers, and this problem will continue to be with us for some time to come. We have had to deal with it during a period when various other difficulties faced us. We dealt with it by introducing what are in effect priorities, although not claimed as such. We concentrated the annual building programme of local education authorities on three main classes: those intended to provide accommodation for additional children coming into the school as a result of the rise in the birth rate; those intended to make school provision for new housing development; and those that were intended for the extension of facilities for technical education. All those things could not be neglected.
  When I tell the House that at the moment it is estimated that at the end of March, 1951, over 1,000 schools were under construction, providing 420,000 places, I wonder if anyone realises just what the addition of a million children to the school population means in terms of building alone? When one thinks in terms of a school, it is a pretty large school if it houses 500 children. We need not be very good at mathematics to know that 500 into a million means at least 2,000 schools of average type. When those are added to all the requirements needed to meet some of the difficulties mentioned, one begins to realise something of this problem.
  The same thing applies to the number of teachers. We must have a teacher if we are to have a class. With regard to the question of literacy, I would not take the figures or the test mentioned by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis)—I will not say too seriously, but I would not take it as tragic if some expert pointed out that the youngsters of today were not quite as good readers as children were 10 years ago. If they are not quite so literate in that scholastic sense, maybe in other directions they are far more capable of entering into the world.
  Not for a moment would I seek to belittle the necessity for reading, writing and

  1723
  arithmetic. I am still old-fashioned enough, and still new-fashioned enough, to believe that those are essentials. Particularly would I say that with regard to reading. The value of reading is not only in its educational content, in that it enables one to understand. I prize the ability to read, and the desire to teach reading, because once an individual has learnt to read and to understand what he is reading, he has solved the problem of loneliness for all time, particularly in a place like London.
  Commander Maitland: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, can he assure the House that he will be able to cope with the bulge in the birth rate? He did not actually say that.
  Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, I think I gave the number of children coming into the schools and the programme that is being planned for them. I believe that with the improvements which have taken place in the number of school places that we are getting now for the money we are spending, it will be possible to meet overall the requirements of the children coming into the schools.
  Mr. Ashton: The Minister has answered a great many of the questions put to him this afternoon. I am sorry he made no reference to my point about loans to local authorities this year, 1951 to 1952 and how much out of that is to be allocated to the capital expenditure on schools. That is the sheet anchor on which all other consequences depend. However, time is pressing, and I join with other hon. Members who have taken part in this debate in regretting the short time allotted. Yet it has been a useful one, and I should like to study carefully the figures given at the end. Against that background, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "This House is of opinion that steps should be taken to deal on a national basis with the problem of the provision of accommodation for the chronic and aged sick."
  1724
  We were reminded on a number of occasions last week, and, of course, notably during the debate on the Budget itself, of the fact that we are faced with a substantially increased population beyond retirement age during the next 20 or 30 years. An increased number of old people in the population brings in its train two needs, which exist side by side—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

  LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  7.0 p.m.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Dr. Hill: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In asking the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill, the essential purpose of which is to confer county borough status upon the Borough of Luton, the House will expect me to say something about the presentation of the Bill to the House for further consideration approximately 12 months after its consideration and rejection last year.
  The desire for county borough status in this vigorous, lively and progressive industrial town is intensely felt, not only amongst the people of Luton but, as one would expect, by the unanimous desire of the Borough Council. There is no party difference that obstructs the general and persistent desire of the Council to achieve this status. Further, when the Bill was considered a year ago, one of the considerations put to the House was that we might reasonably expect a comprehensive measure of local government reform. That being so, and in the expectation put forward by some that that reform would overtake individual applications for extended boundaries and change of functions, the argument proceeded that we should not deal case by case and town by town with such extensions or promotions.
  There are three main issues which I desire to put before the House. The first,

  1725
  with which I shall deal briefly, for I believe it will meet with the general approval of the House, is that, viewed in isolation, disregarding for the moment the argument of comprehensive reform and the effect on the county of Bedfordshire, the case for the promotion of Luton is recognised on all sides. The former Minister of Health, to whom these matters stood referred a year ago, expressed the position quite plainly in describing it in the debate on 26th April last year, when he said that Luton was a good independent unit of local government, capable of carrying out county borough duties. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), although he did not go all the way, expressed himself quite plainly on this point when he said on 5th May, 1950:
  "By itself, it"—
  that is, Luton—
  "has every claim to county borough status. There is not the slightest doubt about it; there is nobody who can deny that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1986]
  Therefore, I will not spend the time of the House in describing the features of Luton—its population, more than 110,000; its financial vigour and administrative excellence—for I believe the House will accept that, subject to those conditions and viewed in isolation. Luton has a strong and unanswerable case for promotion to county borough status.
  I have, of course, to deal with the two sets of considerations which were advanced last year. The first was the argument that we should not undertake local government extension or promotion in piecemeal fashion as comprehensive local government reform was on the way. The House will recall that in the debate in 1949, on the Bill to abolish the Boundary Commission, it was stated by the then Minister of Health:
  "Therefore, we came to the conclusion that the correct procedure was for the Government themselves to accept the responsibility of examining the whole position, and of ultimately bringing forward their own proposals. That examination is now in being."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 516.]
  That speech was made in 1949.
  Last year, I endeavoured to argue that even though that examination was in being in 1949, it had been so slow to emerge that little had been heard of it by the spring of 1950. Indeed now, a year
  1726
  later, no more has been heard of detailed proposals for comprehensive local government reform. Of course, no one is surprised that such proposals have not been forthcoming. On all sides of the House it is recognised, as I think the Minister himself said last year, that any Minister who dared to bring forward any set of proposals, whatever their merits or demerits, would soon find himself in great difficulty behind him as well as in front of him—we all know that.
  All I want to say on that point is this. There is now no prospect of comprehensive local government reform. The plans that were in being in 1949, which were the subject of mention in 1950, have evaporated by 1951. I wish merely to record that view, with the possibility that it may be said from an authoritative quarter that comprehensive proposals are in fact on the way. I realise how such a statement would injure my argument, but in the absence of such comprehensive proposals, the passage of another year enables me to say that it is not right to refuse to consider cases for adjustment and even for promotion; that it is not right permanently or semi-permanently to freeze the local government structure unless active steps are being taken to prepare proposals for local government reform, and unless there is early prospect of their being produced.
  On the second argument, I submit that the procedure which was deliberately left as the only constitutional procedure by the Act which abolished the Boundary Commission, should still be available to local authorities, and that local authorities seeking extension or promotion should not be answered by a vague hope or by wishful thinking for the future; and should not have their current adjustments deferred because of the distant prospect of some proposals for local government reform.
  If that be accepted in substance, I realise that I have to deal with the third issue, the issue of Luton and Bedfordshire County Council. I realise that the argument put forward with considerable vigour is that for Luton to be severed from the county of Bedford would leave the county so impoverished as to make it difficult for it to conduct an efficient administration. If I am right in assuming that that is the main consideration, I propose to devote the remainder of my remarks to that consideration.

  1727
  At the moment the county of Bedford has a population of approximately 312,000. It has a rateable value, in round figures, of approximately £1,800,000. A penny rate produces approximately £7,400. Without Luton, Bedfordshire would have a population of approximately 202,000, a rateable value of slightly more than £1 million, and a penny rate would produce approximately £4,300. The main issue is whether in the case of a county council with a population of slightly more than 200,000, a rateable value of slightly more than £1 million and a penny rate product of approximately £4,300 it is reasonable to argue that it is capable of independent and efficient existence.
  If we take the figures for Bedfordshire without Luton and examine them in comparison with those of other counties, we find that Bedfordshire without Luton would be in very much the same position as Cambridgeshire, as Oxfordshire, as the East Riding of Yorkshire and as East Suffolk. Those who allege that Bedfordshire without Luton would be incapable of separate existence must explain how it is that Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire, the East Riding and East Suffolk are held to be capable of independent and efficient existence.
  Mr. Arthur Colegate: Surely my hon. Friend realises that one or two of the counties he has mentioned were specifically mentioned by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve as, in his opinion, incapable of supporting a separate existence as a county.
  Dr. Hill: I am coming to that question and if hon. Members will bear with me I shall deal with it. If we view the issue from the figure that expresses the position in terms of the yield of a penny rate alone, Cambridgeshire, West Suffolk and Oxfordshire are in a worse position, while East Suffolk and the East Riding of Yorkshire are approximately in the same position. There are 23 counties in England and Wales with a population of less than 200,000 and 24 counties in England and Wales with a penny rate yield of less than £4,200. I am not now proceeding to argue as to the efficiency of those other authorities, or arguing that there is not a case for comprehensive
  1728
  local government reform which might affect them all. What I am saying is that, pending such comprehensive reform and without seeking to do it by the piecemeal method, an individual authority which on every ground has a claim to be considered should not be met by the argument that it should wait until the whole country is put right and until the comprehensive proposals are not only forthcoming, but have found their way into operation.
  Mr. MacColl: Is it not notorious that Cambridge has wanted to be a county borough but has not been allowed to become a county borough because that would break up Cambridgeshire?
  Dr. Hill: The hon. Member will not expect me to deal with the problem as between Cambridge and Cambridgeshire.
  Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member introduced Cambridge.
  Dr. Hill: I introduced Cambridgeshire as a county, which at this moment is in approximately the same position in terms of population and in terms of the yield of a penny rate, as Bedfordshire without Luton. I would remind the hon. Member that I am dealing with the argument put forward, and which will no doubt be put forward tonight, that Bedfordshire without Luton would be incapable, of a separate existence. I am not suggesting that in those other counties there is perfection and that they are incapable of improvement and adjustment when comprehensive proposals are forthcoming.
  One argument I have to meet, I confess frankly, is that at the moment Luton provides 35 per cent. of the population of the county and 42 per cent. of the rate monies of the county. I state that quite frankly because I want to deal with it, and at first sight it would look as if the severance of Luton would mean a disproportionate reduction in the county council's resources. I would of course make the obvious point that the severance of Luton would relieve the county of the expense of Luton, but that clearly is an insufficient answer to that consideration. Much more important is the effect of the equalisation fund. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that before the 1948 Local Government Act, an authority which sought, by improvement or extension, to

  1729
  change its status or area in a manner which affected adversely the county, was permitted to make provision within its Private Bill for the compensation of the county for its loss. By the Act of 1948 that became no longer possible. The reason which was given by the then Minister of Health to the Association of Municipal Corporations was simply that the equalisation fund will do what in fact this individual and private provision formerly did.
  I have examined with care how the Equalisation Fund will affect the position. Today, Bedfordshire has rateable resources below the average and so is in receipt of moneys under the equalisation arrangement. The county receives grants to bring up its resources to the general level on the usual formula. After severance there will be a fresh calculation of the equalisation moneys to which the county is entitled and that fresh calculation almost obliterates any loss the county might otherwise have been able to claim. It has been estimated by financial experts that, after allowing for this adjustment of equalisation, the loss to the county council would be the equivalent of a 3d. rate, without taking into account any administrative county economies following the reduction of commitments.
  I could give the figures upon which that calculation is based. The estimated expenditure for general rate purposes is rather less than £1,800,000. After taking into account the estimated reduction on losing Luton, there is left to be found a sum of money of approximately £ 1,200,000. The equalisation grant which is estimated to be receivable by the county council would be approximately half a million pounds. In other words, on the expert advice which has been received by the operators of the equalisation fund, the loss to the council in terms of rate would be between 3d. and nothing, according to the economies which it was found possible to undertake in county administration expenditure.
  Another consideration in relation to the argument that the county would not be viable and would be incapable of independent existence without Luton, is that for the most part this is the position which obtained before 1945. Most of the services which would be referred to the county borough of Luton, restored to Luton as a county
  1730
  borough, were in fact administered by Luton before 1945. Education for example. Before 1945 it was a Part III authority. It is considered at the moment to be good enough to handle on behalf of the county not only the elementary education, but other forms of education. The police were taken over only in 1947. The fire service was taken over in 1948. The health services were taken over in 1948, and by the rather indirect method which most hon. Members know about, have been returned to Luton to administer. If the county will be so helpless after the removal of Luton, how did it get on before 1945? I admit there are some exceptions; there are a few services. But in terms of money, the position is that three-quarters of the services which the county would lose by the promotion of Luton were administered by Luton before 1945, anyway. I think that makes the argument about impoverishment ring a little hollow.
  I have necessarily to face the question: Why is the county opposing? Every county in such circumstances opposes the promotion of a daughter community, or shall I say almost every county. It is a natural instinct so to do. I do not know what is to be the argument of the county if and when local government reform does come and Luton is promoted to county borough status. I do not know whether the county will continue to argue that they are so impoverished as to be incapable of separate existence and therefore they should be fused with an adjacent county, but I suspect that they will have moved to other ground when other proposals come forward.
  The county has issued a statement in opposition to the proposals and I wish briefly to examine one or two of the comments made. In paragraph 8 of the county council statement it is said that the Bill makes no provision for recouping the loss which would be suffered by the county council. It goes on with this delightful sentence:
  "Indeed, it is a ground of objection to the Bill that it is incapable of containing the provisions which might be required in the interests of local government to remedy its injurious consequences"
  That is an argument which can be used at any time against any authority, because such authorities as Luton are precluded by law from including the compensation provisions. In this document there is no

  1731
  mention of the equalisation fund, of its purpose and effect on Luton. The statement goes on to mention the Local Government Boundary Commission, pointing out and quoting from it that the object of the alterations in status of local government authorities is to ensure individually and collectively effective and convenient units of local government administration. Then it goes on, quite properly, to state:
  "such principle is equally applicable to the preservation of existing effective and convenient units of county government as it is to the creation of new units of county borough government."
  But what it did not say was that in so far as the Boundary Commission produced recommendations, it dealt with Luton as a matter of priority. It did recommend county borough status for Luton and it did assume that Bedfordshire would be a viable unit of local government even after the severance of Luton. The Boundary Commission mentioned the figure of 200,000 as a minimum population element and even without Luton, though it is not mentioned in this statement, the population of the county would be in excess of the required 200,000.
  The submission I would make to the House is that here is an authority which, viewed in isolation, is by general consent entitled to county borough status. There is the problem which inevitably arises of the effect of its promotion upon the county council. I want positively to assert that the effect on the county council has been greatly exaggerated; that it would do little more than put the county council back into the position it occupied before 1945, and that in terms of reduction of rate the reduction is between 3d. and nothing, according to the character of administrative economies.
  When viewed alone, the case is good. All that needs to be argued out is the effect that the promotion of Luton will have upon the viability of the county council. I say that is a matter which should be properly inquired into by a committee upstairs. I believe that the arguments about the effects of equalisation and the arguments which relate to the rate product are matters which can best be determined with the help of expert witnesses who can be cross-examined. I suggest that in all the circumstances it is fair and reasonable to
  1732
  argue that a case has been made out for giving this Bill a Second Reading so that the technical details of its effect on the county can be hammered out at leisure and with expert aid.
  If it turns out that Luton by its severance would impoverish the county, that would be a new position which Luton would have to face. But surely Luton, free from difficulties about its own capacity, no longer faced, I imagine, with the prospect of immediate comprehensive reform, can fairly ask that it should have the opportunity to argue its case and prove its assertions. Surely the House should not lightly disregard an application by a community which is vigorous, which is growing and which is conscious of the lack of prestige that it suffers by its present position in the local government structure. The least we can do is to give this Bill a Second Reading so that the real facts can be hammered out, so that my contentions, and others, can be examined as to what the effect is likely to be on the county.
  It would be a tragedy for local government as a whole if every opposition by a county council on the grounds of impoverishment defeated a Second Reading, if we, by defeating such Bills as this, created the position that local government was frozen for an indefinite time. I ask this House earnestly to consider this request from a considerable authority that it shall have the opportunity of having the Luton versus Bedfordshire issue hammered out in a Committee of this House.
  7.31 p.m.
  Captain Soames: This matter was thoroughly gone into in the House when the same Bill, and also a similar Bill referring to Ilford, were brought forward not 12 months ago. When the Luton Bill was moved last May, the House decided by a majority of no fewer than 175 against giving it a Second Reading. I maintain that no new facts have materialised since that date unless it be that there is a new Minister of Health. But there is no evidence to show that the Government have in any way changed their views towards this problem since last May.
  Before the Luton Bill was discussed, a similar Bill relating to Ilford came before the House and was also defeated, and Ilford has apparently decided to abide,

  1733
  for the present at any rate, by the decision of the House. As I pointed out last May, the case for Ilford being made a county borough is a much weightier one than is the case for Luton. Ilford has a much greater population, and, also, if Ilford were to be made a county borough, the effect upon the county of Essex would be felt very much less than would be the effect upon the county of Bedfordshire, were Luton to be made a county borough.
  If this Bill is given a Second Reading there will, naturally, be another Ilford Bill following rapidly upon it, together with other Bills promoted by at least 20 other boroughs with a population of 75,000 or more, which aspire to achieve county borough status. The way will be open for any number of Private Bills of this sort to be brought before the House, and the precedent will be set for these Bills to be discussed in Committee. It would be quite wrong to think that because other boroughs do not promote annual Bills, as does the borough of Luton, their case is less strong or their ambitions less great.
  I am a county Member, and I am violently opposed to this Bill because it runs counter to the interests of every one of my constituents and to the county of Bedford as a whole. But any hon. Member who examines the Bill quite impartially will appreciate that it seeks to serve only the purpose of Luton, and completely disregards the effect that it will have on the county of Bedford. In round figures the population of Luton is 100,000, and the population of the county without Luton is 200,000.
  I should like for a few minutes to compare the benefits that would accrue to Luton were this Bill to be passed with the harmful effect that it would have on the rest of the county of Bedford with double the population. No responsible person connected with Luton, least of all, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) would complain that Luton has not had a fair deal from the county council or that it has not been treated with the respect and consideration which is due to a borough of such importance. In 1927 the borough of Luton covered an area of some 3,000 acres. On three separate occasions since that year the county council has agreed to an increase in Luton's acreage amounting in
  1734
  all to 5,500 acres. I am not saying that it is not right and proper that that should have been done, but Luton cannot complain that the county council has attempted to restrict the growth of Luton.
  Dr. Hill: Will my hon. Friend also give the details of the phenominal growth of the population of Luton over the last 25 years?
  Captain Soames: We entirely agree on that point. Of course the population has grown. What I am saying is that the county council has done nothing whatever to attempt to restrict the natural and very laudable growth of Luton.
  As for the argument that the county council has failed to delegate powers, I submit that no function which could have been delegated to Luton by the county council has not been delegated. Indeed, every effort has been made to hand over to Luton as much control as possible in domestic affairs. Luton is also very well represented on the county council. No borough in England or Wales has, in proportion to its size, a better representation on the county council than has Luton on the Bedfordshire County Council. The chairman of the county council is a Luton man; the chairmen of the Education Committee, the Highways Committee, the Fire Services Committee, the Welfare Committee and the Finance Committee are all Luton men. They have nothing to complain of; they are not as badly off as all that; they have not really been badly treated.
  What would be the effect on Luton if this Bill were to be passed? Their pride would be assuaged, they would become an autonomous authority, they would be cut adrift from the county of Bedford. But it is highly doubtful whether any citizen of Luton would benefit to any appreciable extent from such a change. To the remainder of the county of Bedford this Bill would, to put it mildly, bring about confusion. In fact, it is highly questionable whether Bedfordshire could remain as a county. If it did, it would be of a size which the Boundary Commission reported on as being uneconomic.
  Dr. Hill: No.
  Captain Soames: Oh, yes.
  Dr. Hill: Severed from Luton the population of the county would be 202,000. The minimum unit mentioned by the Boundary Commission was 200,000.
  Captain Soames: I maintain that the county less Luton would have a population under 200,000, which the Boundary Commission say is uneconomic. We do not want to set up uneconomic units at the present time. The county would lose overnight, as it were, 42 per cent. of its rateable value and a third of its population.
  Turning to the question of the equalisation grant, I do not think it is possible for anyone to foresee exactly what effect that would have on the county, but the last Minister of Health said that it could in no way make good the loss which Bedfordshire would suffer were Luton to leave the county. What would happen about the roads, for example? Luton, which is well served by the roads in the county, would no longer be responsible to any degree financially for their upkeep. Luton would continue to use them. Not only we in Bedfordshire but the whole of the country hope that the industries in Luton will continue to thrive. Were Luton to be made a county borough under the 1888 Act, Luton would not be responsible for the upkeep of the roads. This would indeed be a heavy load to put upon the rural community of the county.
  Dr. Hill: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to mislead the House. All county roads within the borough are claimed roads and they are repaired, maintained and improved by the Luton Corporation.
  Captain Soames: That is within the borough. What about those in the county? They will be used by all the industry of Luton, but Luton will not be responsible financially for their upkeep. That burden will be placed upon the rural community. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton said, when the Bill was last discussed, that these were all points which should be thrashed out in Committee upstairs. I do not agree. By sending the Bill to a Committee, the House would be approving the principle of the Bill. I submit that the benefits which would accrue to Luton are as nothing compared with the losses which the whole county of Bedford would suffer. Therefore, the principle should not be approved.
  When the county council met to discuss whether or not they should oppose the Bill, there were 21 members from Luton who voted on the issue. Presumably they were all men with divided loyalty: they
  1736
  were men of Luton sitting on the county council. They must have given the matter great thought. Of those 21, 18 decided that the Bill should be opposed, and only three voted against the Bill being opposed. I submit that the House would do well to follow that example.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. Moeran: If we considered this Bill on its merits and in isolation, I think that we should all agree, as the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) said, that Luton has a strong case, whether we consider it on the ground of population, of rateable value, of progressiveness or industrial efficiency. In isolation, Luton has a strong case for the Bill, but we cannot consider it in isolation. We must look at the matter from the point of view of the county of Bedfordshire from which Luton claims 42 per cent. of the rateable value and 36 per cent. of the population which would be taken away from the county if this Bill became law.
  I confess that I could not follow the mathematics of the hon. Member for Luton. I shall look forward to studying what he said about the Equalisation Fund contribution in the OFFICIAL REPORT. On my calculations, the county of Bedfordshire would still suffer a substantial loss. Even after the rather complicated calculations about the county's loss of rateable value, and the allowance against these of services now supplied to Luton, and so on, the county would still suffer substantial losses of revenue. With the loss of revenue and the loss of population, the result for the county might well be described as catastrophic. The loss is not merely financial; the county needs Luton.
  Dr. Hill: Would the hon. Gentleman agree, in view of my difficulty in expounding mathematics and his difficulty in understanding them, that it is fair and reasonable that a Committee of the House should be given the opportunity to thrash the matter out?
  Mr. Moeran: That is a matter with which I shall deal later, if I may be allowed to make my speech in my own way. I was saying that the county needs Luton in other ways than the purely financial. The hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) said that the county had given the borough a fair deal. The chairman of the county council is a Luton man who has been chairman

  1737
  for 15 years; the chairmen of six of the major committees of the county are Luton men. It is fair to say that it is because of this marriage of the commercial and industrial element with the rural element that Bedfordshire is, and has been, a progressive county—for example, it is 40 years since cheap school meals were introduced there.
  The hon. Member for Luton went into the Lobby to vote against the Matrimonial Causes Bill, which sought to facilitate easier divorce, but now he is asking for this marriage to be annulled on the ground that one of the parties will be better off as a result. I do not want to follow the analogy too far, but that is not the best of all possible grounds for a Bill of divorcement. The county needs Luton from the point of view of education—about 40 per cent. of the pupils of the Luton Technical College come from the county. On the question of the fire service, it is inconceivable that, if there were to be two separate services, each could maintain a full time fire force commander—one for the county and one for Luton. Again, in the case of the police there would have to be reciprocal arrangements—
  Mr. Reader Harris: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not necessary for the police and the fire service to have two entirely separate organisations?
  Mr. Moeran: That reinforces the argument that you cannot put an iron curtain round an urban area. The borough needs the county no less than the county needs the borough. As the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford pointed out, the borough will still use the roads for which the county will have to pay. The police must have rights over the county and the borough. In terms of education, in four schools in Bedfordshire 614 free places are available to children from Luton out of 1,148 free places available to children from the whole of the county. At present the county is establishing a farm institute which will be adequate to the needs of the borough as well as the county. I do not believe that we should put walls around an urban area. Today, the unwholesome one-way drift from the country to the town is being arrested and reversed. It is in the interests of Luton as well as of the county and the country that there should be facilities for the town children
  1738
  to get their education in the country which surrounds their town.
  For all these reasons, and for others, I suggest that the effect of giving Luton county borough status would be highly detrimental to the county. It would affect not only Luton but the remnant of the county which would be left after the borough had been torn out. I know that the size of the population and the rateable value of the county, even so dismembered, would make it larger than some other counties, but the Boundary Commission recommended that many of these smaller counties should be amalgamated with neighbouring counties, on the ground that they are economically inefficient. The county of Bedford would be an economically inefficient unit if this major rateable mass were torn out of it. Luton can survive and flourish in its present status, just as it would survive and flourish as a county borough; the county would be grievously hurt if the borough were taken out of its effective area, and I believe that the county would suffer a grave loss if this Bill became law.
  Nevertheless, on its merits, considered in isolation, I think Luton has a case I think it is entitled to have that case fairly and impartially considered in greater detail than is practicable in the House, because, on the Second Reading of a Private Bill such as this, unlike that of a public Bill, it cannot be fairly and impartially considered and evidence given in detail by learned counsel, as before an impartial Committee, where it could be considered in far greater detail concerning the effect of the Equalisation Fund contribution, the effect of the loss of rateable value and of population, the severance of services, and so on.
  I believe that it is not unreasonable that the promoters of the Bill and the citizens of Luton should now have their case examined impartially and in detail, and in this I dissent from the views of the hon and gallant Member for Bedford and find myself in agreement with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Luton and the promoters of the Bill. I consider that is is fairer and better democracy that these considerations, and the considerations against the Bill, should be considered carefully, impartially and judicially upstairs.
  I would hope and expect that, on the merits, the Bill would then be rejected

  1739
  on the grounds which I and other hon. Members who have spoken have indicated. It is clear, nevertheless, that Luton has a case to be considered, and that the case of the county should also be considered in a way that is quite impossible on the Second Reading of the Bill in the House. This is not a party matter, as the wide divergence of view shown by hon. Members who have spoken indicates. Indeed, the Member for Luton before the adjustment of boundaries, Mr. Warbey, was as emphatic in favour of county borough status on its merits as the hon. Member for Luton.
  I think it is fair, therefore, as I have suggested, that because of these considerations of the case, it should be considered impartially, as it can only be in Committee. Since the last time that Luton made the attempt, and one must remember that Luton's attempts have continued for a number of years, I am bound to say that I feel that the prospect of wide amending legislation is not nearer, but further away. I hope it is not, and it may be that my belief is intuitional rather than reasonable. But it does reinforce the feeling that the promoters of the Bill and the citizens of Luton are entitled to have the Bill considered in greater detail than can be done now, and, for that reason, and for the others which I have mentioned, I am in favour of a Second Reading being given to the Bill.
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. Messer: I must confess that the speech to which we have just listened left me in a rather confused state of mind. It appears that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Moeran), was doing his best to prove that the Bill ought not to pass through all its stages, but that, for some reason it ought to pass through this stage, because, he said, at this stage, we could not properly examine it. Therefore, he argued, it should go to a body which was capable of making that proper examination. Well, that is an argument in favour of the abolition of Second Readings. Why have a Second Reading if this detailed examination is all that is required?
  The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) put up a magnificent case for Luton, with the ability of members of his profession for leaving out the essentials,
  1740
  while, in their positive statements, giving an impression that the only thing that mattered was the patient with whom they were dealing, and that the rest of the community did not matter at all.
  Dr. Morgan: Sheer nonsense.
  Mr. Moeran: Would my hon. Friend not consider that, in criminal proceedings, it is possible for a case not to be made out as a prima facie case, and then to be rejected out of hand?
  Mr. Messer: I would not know. I have never been a criminal. What I do know is that this is infectious. Quite frankly, we could not give this Bill a Second Reading and expect that nobody else will come forward and ask for the same thing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why should they not?"] I will explain why they should not. One reason is that, whether it is the present Minister or another, some Minister or another must grasp this method of the reform of local government. We do not get out of our difficulties in this piece-meal fashion. That does not get us out of the difficulties; indeed, it accentuates them. It is the usual argument of those who favour the all-purposes authority that we must have, in those all-purposes authorities, balanced communities.
  Luton is worthy of every praise for what it has done, and I will say a word or two in a moment about some of the services for which it has been responsible, but what about the county? Nobody has said very much about the rest of the county. What other towns are there in the county? The town of Bedford, with 50,000 population, is at the northern end of the county; Luton is right in the middle, and, at the western side, the only other town is Dunstable, with a population of 18,000. Take Luton out of that county, and we shall not have a balanced community left, but, instead, an almost entirely agricultural community.
  Dr. Hill: A year ago, Dunstable was among the objectors. It has now seen the position much more clearly, and it is not now amongst the objectors.
  Mr. David Griffiths: The hon. Member has lobbied them.
  Mr. Messer: I do not really know what that has to do with the case. I am

  1741
  attempting to show that to have effective and efficient local government, we must have a balanced community for the purpose, and that, by taking Luton out of Bedfordshire, we shall destroy the possibility of that, balanced community.
  Very little has been said about the service of the county and of Luton. The hon. Member for Luton might, perhaps, have strengthened his case if he could have shown that, as a result of Luton gaining county borough status, both Luton and the county would have benefited. What is the truth of the matter? The Bedfordshire County Council was responsible for building two grammar schools in Luton. It was also responsible for providing a technical school. At Dunstable, it was responsible for a girls' grammar school. If Luton becomes an all-purposes authority what arrangement is to be made for the boys and girls who ought to be getting secondary education but who are outside the boundaries of Luton? It is important that we should know. It may very well mean that boys and girls who are living outside Luton will need to go right through Bedford to reach Dunstable in order to get to a secondary school. It is the services which are important, and I say that we ought not to give a Second Reading to a Bill unless we are satisfied with it, and, having stated that we favour it in principle, leave it to the examiners, when it goes to Committee, to determine what the details shall be.
  But, in this particular instance, the principle is involved. A county with a population of 300,000 is a small county. The figure of 200,000 has been quoted as that for a county council which is not the smallest in the country, but every local government report has always said that what we ought to do is to re-cast our system so that we get a unit of administration that is capable of rendering a maximum of efficiency in service. We cannot merely take the figures of population. What we have to do is to take the geography and transport, and, indeed, the particular type of service.
  Let us look at the health services. The hon. Member for Luton is, of course, very interested in the Health Service. I am very glad that he has no criticism to offer about the county health service because, according to my examination, the county is not unmindful of the needs of Luton,
  1742
  or of the possibility of Luton making its contribution to the county service. There is a very good hospital in Luton, the Luton and Dunstable Hospital. The Bedfordshire County Council, to its credit, has co-operated with the Hospital Regional Board in the tuberculosis service. In addition to the ordinary tuberculosis work, it has done in its after care service what many other county councils ought to do. It has built open, sheltered workshops, a thing which I wish many other county councils would do, and, at the present time, there is a very efficient service running under the Bedfordshire scheme. They have a Medical Officer of Health who was in Lancashire where there was, of course, already a very efficient tuberculosis scheme under Dr. L. Cox, and Dr. Bothwell is now doing really good work.
  If Luton gets county borough status, what is to happen to that service, for Luton as a county borough will be another health authority? The Regional Hospital Board will now have to make new arrangements with the Luton County Council as well as with the Bedfordshire County Council. Does not this all show that what we have to do is to exert pressure to get the whole matter reviewed for the purpose of bringing about a comprehensive reform of local government? The truth is that hon. Members on both sides are eager to see an expansion of social services, but it is no good talking about such expansion until we are prepared to create the machinery for their administration.
  Because we have burked that issue, what has happened? We got the 1944 Education Act, and, in consequence, we get such hybrid units as divisional executives and excepted districts. We get elements in local government which are foreign to local government structure. We get the tendency for services to be removed from local government and to be placed centrally, which is a bad thing for local government, and we get some of the most important social services, the human social services, administered direct from Whitehall. In my view, there is no worse agency for administering social services than Whitehall. I prefer to see such administration carried out by the people on the spot. One of the reasons why I oppose this Bill is because I believe it would still further postpone the possibility of the reform of local government, and it is in

  1743
  that spirit that I hope the Bill will be rejected.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), and to pay my tribute, as one of the county Members for Bedford, to the work he has done for the last few years as Chairman of the Luton Hospital Board. He has won golden opinions in all sections of our county for the zeal with which he has tackled the formidable problem which he is called upon to face. I share with him the hope that whatever the solution may be for the status of Luton in the future, we shall be able to devise a balanced county community which, in both town and country alike, as the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Moeran), said, can be married in harmony.
  I am speaking as one of the county Members for Bedford and not in any sense for the Conservative Party. But, as my three colleages have spoken, I hope the House will allow me to say a few words as well. I am sorry that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). I wish I could have done something to show my appreciation of the admirable work he is doing, not only as a member of my party, because that would scarcely be a suitable topic to introduce tonight, but as the distinguished Member for Luton. We hope very much that we shall see the hon. Gentleman here every year—or most of us do—but I think that many of us also hope that we shall not have an annual Luton Bill, and that, whatever may be the decision of the House this evening, that decision will be maintained.
  I was very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South. I remember very well the speech he made 11 months ago when the Second Reading of the first Bill was before the House, and I remember the vote he gave after it. May I say that I think his speech tonight when he was supporting the Bill, was even stronger in opposition to it, than the speech he made 11 months ago, when he was actually opposing the Bill. I must say that the conclusion to which he rather unexpectedly came at the end of his speech reminded me of some words attributed to my right hon. Friend the Leader
  1744
  of the Opposition when paraphrasing the views of a Labour leader some years ago on another subject. They were: "The best thing to do is to take the damn thing upstairs and cut its throat." [An HON. MEMBER: "That was not the language he used."] I used language which I thought would be more suitable on an occasion of the kind, but, broadly, I think the House will recollect the quotation as actually given.
  It is our view that it is fairer to Luton, and more honest, to do what ought to be done here, and not to take the Bill upstairs and do it afterwards. Eleven months ago we had a full debate both on Luton and Ilford. The Ilford Bill was discussed in the House last April and was defeated by 278 votes to 80. Eleven months ago the Luton Bill came before the House and was defeated by 259 votes to 84. It must appear, I think, a little singular that 11 months later the House of Commons should once more have to turn to a discussion of a precisely, similar Bill.
  I must say it is a little extraordinary to find that, on that occasion also, the business of the day was to discuss education as it is today. This is perhaps not wholly irrelevant when we remember that the chairman of the Bedfordshire County Education Committee is a distinguished citizen of Luton, as, indeed, are many of the chairmen of the most important committees. Of course, as many know, the chairman of the county council is himself a distinguished Luton citizen.
  In our view, there has been no change at all, except in two particulars to which I will come, since the House arrived at such an overwhelming decision only 11 months ago. As we see it, the two changes since the last time the Bill was before the House are that the local authorities' associations have been conducting talks to see whether they can find a general measure of agreement for the reform of the structure of local government. That has happened since the last Second Reading in the House.
  All the indications are that unexpected harmony is prevailing in these discussions and I think it would be a very great pity for the future of local government if, at this stage and in the middle of these discussions, we once more carried through a piece of piece-meal legislation which would prejudice the working of any solution they may recommend and, as far as

  1745
  Bedfordshire is concerned, prejudice the creation of a balanced community.
  Dr. Hill: Is it not a fact that in the discussions to which my hon. Friend has referred, the associations of local authorities, in the most friendly and harmonious way, have decided to agree about nothing?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Unless my hon. Friend has sources of information other than those open to most people—I certainly understand that the difficulties are formidable; nobody denies they are and not only this Government, but their predecessors have found the measure of those difficulties—there is an unexpected desire and readiness to try and work out a solution.
  The second thing that has happened since last year is that on Bedfordshire County Council, who, after all, are very concerned, only three out of 93 members voted in favour of the Bill being brought before the House again. When we remember that Luton has 24 councillors and aldermen and that only three voted in favour of the House of Commons being asked once more to discuss the Bill, I think we are entitled to regard the recommendation of the county council as a measure of local feeling on that subject.
  An Hon. Member: Perhaps 21 of them were afraid they would lose their jobs.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not know what the practice is in the hon. Member's own county, but in ours people are not going about constantly in fear of losing their jobs for speaking their minds. That is why we have three Conservative Members for Bedfordshire and we shall have four after the next election.
  As I said, there have been only two changes since last year. Otherwise the situation remains exactly as before. It is the view of the overwhelming majority of people concerned in local government that except in exceptional cases where land is needed outside some authority's area for urgent housing purposes there should be no change in the status or area of a local authority in advance of a general review of structure and function. I was interested to see recently that the Ministry of Health had actually refused permission to a small urban district in Lincolnshire which wanted to be "demoted" and merged into a neighbouring district because the Ministry did
  1746
  not want any territorial changes in advance of a general solution.
  The situation is the same again in another particular. The hon. Member for Luton asked, "What will happen and what will the county do if, in the fullness of time, the Government do recommend a general review as a result of which Luton is given county borough status?" The Chairman of the Boundary Commission, Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve put forward a solution in a new type of local authority altogether which would not be the all-purpose authority of the 19th century kind. I was interested to read some words he wrote lately, showing how his mind was working and what his recommendations might well have been if the Boundary Commission had not been dissolved. It might be that an honourable future for Luton might lie in that new status which the county as a whole would welcome, and which would provide harmony in future relations.
  Dr. Hill: As I understand it, if it were not for the question of the police and fire services and some small planning functions, Bedfordshire would welcome the promotion of Luton. That, in fact, is what my hon. Friend said.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What I said was that as part of the general solution of the problems of local authorities and their relationships, if the recommendation was that a new status be applied to Luton with comparable powers, the county would accept that and work harmoniously in the new relationship.
  Lastly, in one further particular the situation is just as it was before. Since a few years before I became the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire—and I have been a Member for a long time now and hope to continue to be so—Luton has increased its boundaries threefold at the expense of neighbouring rural districts. We do not begrudge that increase of territory and, of course, its population has increased enormously. Those increases in territory were willingly conceded by the rural authorities and the county council in the belief that Luton meant what it said when in 1927 in asking for a further extension by 2,000 acres it said it had
  "no desire to make a renewed application for the constitution of the borough into a county borough."
  Because of that, the land was conceded and now we find the application is being

  1747
  made again. I thought we might have heard some new arguments from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, but there have been very few. He spoke about the Equalisation Fund, but he omitted to quote the words of the present Minister of Labour, who was then responsible for dealing with these matters. The Minister said then:
  "Even after making allowance for the rate equalisation grant, the position of Bedford would still be unfortunate….we would not be entitled to condemn Bedfordshire to a tepid life in order to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of Luton."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th, April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1058.]
  However much my hon. Friend may juggle about with figures, he cannot deny that the loss of 42 per cent. of the rateable value of a county—and not a rich county—will obviously provide problems the county ought not to be called upon to face in advance of a national solution of a national problem.
  I come now to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South. How tempting it would be to postpone an unpleasant decision and to say, "I am not going to make a decision now. Send the Bill to a Committee upstairs and a decision can be arrived at there." But this is a one-Clause Bill. It is not a Bill that can be argued about and amended upstairs. It is a single-Clause creation of a county borough and any discussion upstairs is equivalent to a Second Reading here. Here, in the House, is the place where a Second Reading should take place.
  Mr. Moeran: Would not the hon. Member agree that, upstairs, a one-Clause Bill can be rejected just as it can be rejected here after the evidence has been gone into?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly. But we have had the evidence. It has been deployed in the House on two occasions and we are as qualified to come to a decision as any Committee upstairs. Erskine May says, on page 826 of the 14th edition:
  "The promoters of a Bill may prove beyond a doubt that their own interests will be advanced by its success…"
  Although I do not wholly accept it, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton believes that he has made that out. Erskine May goes on:
  "…yet, if Parliament apprehends that it will be hurtful to the community, it is rejected
  1748
  as if it were a public Measure, or qualified by restrictive enactments not solicited by the parties."
  Further, it says:
  "…in every separate stage, when they come before either House, they are treated precisely as if they were public Bills."
  This Private Bill is before the House and in my private capacity as the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire I hope the House will decide to reject it.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Pargiter: I wish to add my voice to those which have been asking for the rejection of this Bill. It seems to me that if we sent this Bill upstairs to be debated it would be entirely contrary to the view expressed by the House on the abolition of the Boundary Commission. It was made perfectly clear at that stage that the only changes which would be permitted were of a very minor character, and that nothing should be done which would materially alter the position. Because of that, this House ought not to accept the principle of sending the Bill upstairs, since in so doing we should undoubtedly open the floodgates to a good many more applications. It also seems to me to be something in the nature of a misuse of the powers possessed by a local authority that within this short space of time, they should seek to promote a Bill identical with one which has been most decisively rejected.
  I would direct the attention of my right hon. Friend to the question whether the expenditure of ratepayers' money incurred by Luton Corporation on this Bill is reasonable, having regard to the decision of the House. It is not as though it has come before a fresh Parliament. It was this Parliament which rejected it most decisively before, and nothing has been introduced which alters the position in existence a year ago. Of course, we may be a year nearer getting comprehensive reform in local government, but my arguments remain precisely the same as they were, and I submit it would be quite proper for Bedfordshire to draw the attention of the Minister to the unreasonable expense to which they also have been put. After all, Parliamentary agents are not the cheapest people to engage. I believe their rates of pay are fairly high, and I am sure this expense is both unreasonable and unjustifiable and ought to be disallowed. I hope my right hon. Friend will give consideration to that point.

  1749
  I come to the arguments which were used with respect to Luton itself in relation to the population and the penny rate problem. It takes a third of the population out and it takes 42 per cent. of the rateable value. Therefore, the rateable value per head of the population remaining in Bedfordshire is going to be proportionately lower, quite apart from the fact that it is actually lower. As to the argument about the equalisation grant making this up, I would warn hon. Members to be rather careful in their own interests before they accept it. What Bedfordshire is going to get because Luton no longer pays is going to be something which is taken out of the general pool, and there will be less available for the other authorities.
  Dr. Hill: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. The calculations to which I referred are not based on the assumption that money is drawn from other authorities. It is based on the assumption of a reduction in the equalisation fund amount that would pass to Luton and a substantial increase that would pass to the county.
  Mr. Pargiter: It does not alter the validity of my argument. The equalisation fund as such is a global amount which the Minister provides, and the more that is taken by one authority the less is taken by the rest of the authorities. In effect, the total amount will be less. That is quite a legitimate argument, and he would be a very clever person who could forecast at this stage precisely what the effect would be.
  There is a further reason why no change should take place at this stage. Before there is any major movement at all in local government at present, we ought to see what is the effect of the new valuation system. I think it is most important that we should see what is the effect upon the whole of the country and what will be the effect on the finances of different authorities before any changes are made at all.
  Reference was made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) to the position of the local authorities associations, and they were somewhat scathingly treated by the hon. Member for Luton. I have been privileged to play some small part in those deliberations, and I can say that those discussions are going on in a spirit of harmony, which is rather better than anything I have known previously
  1750
  to prevail in those circles. In view of the fact that four associations have come together to discuss de novo—they were no longer discussing the Boundary Commission's proposals—what would be a suitable system of local government, it would be a tragedy if at this stage the House were to say they agreed to a lot of local authorities going forward for county borough status. That is what will happen if we agree in principle that Luton should go forward with her application.
  In my own county—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Well, we cannot give something to Luton and deny it to other authorities which are equally industrious and virile and whose responsibilities are no less than those of Luton. At least a dozen authorities in my county could come forward with such a claim. On what grounds should we reject them if we supported Luton? Some hon. Members may say that they will support it. They have got to decide what they will do with the rest of the County of Middlesex, and that will give them a big enough headache.
  Probably the best solution would be to have all-purpose authorities. If the country could be divided into a suitable number of all-purpose authorities from the point of view of population and so on, that would no doubt be the best solution. But the Boundary Commission came to the conclusion that it was not possible, and because it is not possible it is highly undesirable that other odd pieces should be taken out before we get to the stage of considering local government as a whole.
  I feel that we ought not to make changes now. In spite of the very able way in which arguments were put forward, we ought not to make a change in respect of Luton. If we do, we ought to make changes in respect of many other places, and once that begins I can see no end to this problem of local government. If we wait a little longer, if we can give the associations concerned a reasonable time in which to come to some conclusions, and if an agreed solution can be arrived at by the four responsible associations of local authorities, surely that will be a much better way of dealing with the problem than the other method.
  Mr. Crossman: It is not going to happen.
  Mr. Pargiter: I may not be so great a local government expert as the hon. Member, but, quite apart from that, I submit to the House that if there could be agreement between the four major associations, that would be eminently desirable. If this Bill receives a Second Reading, it means that these discussions will receive a considerable setback. For these reasons, I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): I am not going to intervene at length. When the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) was speaking, I thought that, had I been a Lutonian, I would have been in favour of the Bill. Later on I was interested to learn that a number of distinguished Lutonians sitting on the county council were not in favour of the Bill. That must give us some ground for reflection, and, to some extent, cancels out what I had previously thought—judging particularly from a deputation, led by the hon. Gentleman which came to see me, when we had an interesting discussion on the matter—that all the notabilities of Luton were solidly united.
  Dr. Hill: The Council of Luton, organised on a two-party basis, is unanimously in favour of county borough status. There are some 18 county councillors and some aldermen who represent areas of Luton on the county council. There, there is a division of opinion. The majority of these councillors are imbued by their county council status and complexion, and are so fearful of losing their status that they have gone on to the county council's side.
  Mr. Dalton: The only point that I am making is that amongst the distinguished citizens of Luton—distinguished in the field of local government—there is not the unanimity, which I was previously led to suppose, in favour of the Bill. I am making that point in passing. I must confess that, as I said before when I had to intervene on another Bill of this kind, looking at the problem of local government realistically, I think that it is unlikely that this Parliament will pass any measure of reform. The balance of parties is, I think, such as would not allow the kind of tolerance which would be necessary for such a Measure, whatever its shape, to go through.
  1752
  Therefore, I think that we are deceiving ourselves if we imagine that it is more than an outside chance—the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) as did hon. Gentlemen opposite referred just now to consultations between the local authority associations—that, in the first place, these local authority associations would agree to a concrete scheme, and, secondly, if they did, that it would be possible to carry through measures of this kind with the support of a substantial majority of the House. I am not using that as an argument one way or the other tonight; I am merely seeking to give my sincere opinions about this matter.
  I do not regard local government as being totally frozen, because I draw a distinction between proposals for extension and proposals for changing status. I can concede that Bills may come along, promoted by local authorities, such as the Sheffield Bill, seeking moderate extensions to cover housing developments and other such things. In the case of the Sheffield Bill, I advised the House to give it a Second Reading. But a change of status is quite another matter and might be much more disruptive.
  I am convinced by such evidence that I have been able to gather—admittedly the calculations are not at all simple—that the effects upon the county of Bedford would be extremely unfortunate if this were to take place. A reference has been made to the Exchequer Equalisation Grants and I had something to do with the framing of that Measure. I was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, and I regarded it as a very distinct improvement upon previous arrangements. I am advised that it is the case that if Luton did obtain county borough status, although the calculations are complicated, Bedfordshire would be quite definitely the loser and a substantial loser, even when the repercussions of the Exchequer Equalisation Grants were taken into account. That, after all, is not only based upon the calculations of experts, but also on common sense. If we tear out from this not very large county so high a proportion of its rateable value, it must suffer.
  This is a Private Bill, and no Whip to my knowledge or authority has been circulated, and so Members may vote as they think fit. As far as I am concerned, I shall vote against the Second Reading,

  1753
  because it would be very unfortunate at this moment to introduce exceptional treatment even for this very virile and admirable community. I think that they would do better to bide their time a little longer. I cannot believe that there is any great urgency in putting forward this plea at this moment. Maybe later on, when it may be possible to contemplate this in a broader way and with all sorts of alternative proposals before us, they may not be unsuccessful. I suggest to all Members that it is not therefore proper tonight to give this Bill a Second Reading.
  8.37 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think it may be of interest if I also give a purely personal view. As the Minister has said, no Whips are on and each must speak for himself. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) has put the case very strongly and vigorously from the point of view of his constituency, as he was properly bound to do. I listened with hope to the Minister, because we heard him on a previous occasion give what I thought at the time was good counsel to the House. We have had an interesting discussion, and arguments have been brought out which fully merit the second occasion on which the House has had an opportunity to consider this matter.
  This is not a problem that can be shelved once and for all. It is the problem of adjusting local government to the growth of our country. It is not possible to freeze it indefinitely. The argument for bringing this Bill forward is that a year has passed. It is a very strong argument. All the arguments will require to be reviewed frequently so long as this condition continues. The right hon. Gentleman with admirable realism has said that the review, even if successful, of local government is not about to fructify in a Bill. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have had some experience of local authorities over a number of years. I should hesitate to adopt the optimistic view that a unanimous Measure will be framed by the local authority associations and brought forward for the support of the House. That may be the case. If so, it will be a very unusual occurrence in local government affairs. But, as realists, we ought to dismiss that possibility.
  1754
  The Minister went further. He said that even if this agreement were reached we must not expect a Bill to be brought forward in this Parliament. That rules out for the whole lifetime of this Parliament the comprehensive review to which all other arguments were made subordinate by those opposing the Bill. It may be that we are in for a period of Parliaments with narrow majorities. The only alternative is an overwhelming Conservative landslide, which naturally, as we are considering this on a purely non-party basis tonight, I do not ask the House unanimously to envisage. That is, however, the only argument which would justify the indefinite postponement tonight not merely of this Bill, but of all other Bills of this kind. For that was the proposal brought forward.
  It was not said that this Bill presents an unusual case, so we should dismiss it. It was said that the number of cases that would require consideration is so numerous that we should not allow one to go through just now. Surely that is an argument for adjustment to be made. The shoe pinches not one foot but dozens of feet and all the other cripples demand the services of the shoemaker. That is not an argument against the shoemaker but an argument for the shoemaker. It is not an argument against adjustment, but an argument for adjustment.
  Mr. Pannell: It is not an argument for the Tory Party.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the hon. Member likes to pay us the enormously high compliment that we are the only source to which the nation can look for removing grievances, I am willing to accept it. I would not have expected it from those Benches, but I accept it as the swallow, sign of a long delayed summer coming at last.
  I do not wish to detain the House, but I should have thought that there was a strong argument for this type of Bill being considered because of the lapse of time since other cases of the kind were agreed to. In the speeches which were delivered on the subject of the abolition of the Boundary Commission it was specifically stated that this procedure of Private Bills was being restored. This was the one remedy to which the House and the country were referred. Let this Bill then have its examination. It seems to me that otherwise we are letting ourselves in for

  1755
  an indefinite period of delay. I think that would not do anything but gradually increase the difficulties of local government in this country.
  Speaking still on an entirely personal basis, it seems quite clear to me on the evidence that a case has been made out for further examination of this Bill. My Tight hon. Friend and I have examined this measure very closely indeed and with the greatest desire to come to an agreement, but we find ourselves apart on the issue. If there is a Division we shall find ourselves in different Lobbies. I do not think that local government will be best served by refusing this remedy on the ground that on some date, which nobody can prophesy, an enormous comprehensive review will take place. Everyone is willing to look forward to a comprehensive review, because everyone believes that when the review takes place all his pet schemes will be promoted and all his enemies confounded. We shall be equally disappointed when we see the proposals under the comprehensive review. Then we shall regret all the years which have slipped away when we have done nothing because of this promise which has not been fulfilled of something ideal in the future.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Crossman: I should like to support the arguments put forward by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I have been considering this Bill as one who is not directly interested as Member either for parts of Bedfordshire or of Middlesex. Middlesex is a county which more than any other has succeeded in preventing any single borough achieving a county borough status, so that hon. Members from that county cannot claim that their speeches are disinterested in this matter. On the other hand, we have just listened to a disinterested speech from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  I, too, am concerned with the wider problem of local government as such, and I will say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning that his speech was an embarrassment to those who are opposing this Bill for this reason. When we listened to the speeches on the Ilford Bill and the Luton Bill on the first occasion we heard a Celtic and charming reply from the
  1756
  Minister then in charge. We also heard an overwhelming case made for both those boroughs to become county boroughs. Some of us were persuaded not to vote for them on that occasion, because the Minister suggested there might still be a comprehensive reform of local government. That was the main reason which persuaded many hon. Members on this side here not to vote. We thought, "It is very difficult if the Minister still really believes in reform."
  Mrs. Middleton: Not in this Parliament.
  Mr. Crossman: I think it was in this Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it was this Parliament."] Whichever Parliament it was is largely irrelevant. The argument used on that occasion for not making this change was that there still might be a comprehensive reform of local government. Now my right hon. Friend has a very different attitude. He has stated that there is no prospect of comprehensive change in local government and he has rebuked my hon. Friend who, with a great access of ardour, spoke of the possibility, or likelihood, of any completely new reorganisation. My right hon. Friend, with great candid English commonsense, has stated that in the near future there is no prospect of comprehensive change in local government.
  In view of that statement from someone who really ought to know, this whole problem of how to meet the actual demands of boroughs or non-county boroughs who want revision of boundaries or a change of status is surely transformed. And we must face that problem in its new form. We have been told a great deal about "opening the flood gates of change," but people on our side usually want to get improvements. They should not be terrified of change. It used to be considered a somewhat reactionary argument to say: "Wait for the great comprehensive change. Don't do anything practical now because something magnificent is coming."
  Mr. Messer: Does my hon. Friend say that all change is good? If there is a change of Government next time, will that be good?
  Mr. Crossman: What I was saying to my hon. Friend was that, by and large, we are all concerned in the improvement of local government but that he was offering

  1757
  us the advice: "Don't make any immediate changes because we must wait for the great big change in the future." I only remark that this excuse has often been made by reactionary people, as a reason for not doing anything at all.
  Let us turn to the substance of the Luton case. My right hon. Friend said that it would do great damage to the county. When has any boundary extension not been argued against on the grounds of its doing damage to the county? Not within my knowledge of local government. We have had a remarkable number of figures given by the Luton supporters to show that even after the change, the county would be no worse off than any other county. I think the point about Cambridgeshire was very far from irrelevant because Cambridge including Cambridge City, has a lower yield from 1d. rate than Bedford would have after the excision—to use that brutal word—of Luton. In the second place we might all be in favour of comprehensive change; but if by the proposed change we create another small area to the existing 16 or 20 small county areas surely the urgency of comprehensive change will be increased. To grant Luton's claim will help local government reform.
  Surely the arguments which have been put forward against the Bill mean that we would never make any changes at all. They mean a complete freeze. It is therefore not we who are arguing for the flood gates of change in this debate who are to be singled out for censure but our opponents who are arguing for a complete cessation of change.
  My right hon. Friend also said that, though he was in favour—I was glad of that, for future reference—of boundary revision where new housing was necessary, he was opposed to a change of status in this period. I do not know why he should be, provided that there is a sound ground for the change of status. I was reflecting upon what we should feel like in Coventry if we were in Luton's plight. I think of Luton as a city about 50 years behind us. We had a population of about 100,000, as Luton has, about 50 years ago. Then we were a growing and thrusting young industrial city. Suppose we had been suffering under the thraldom of Warwickshire as a mere borough. The fact that we possessed a cathedral and a charter enabled us to
  1758
  avoid the thraldom to which the industrial area of Luton is now subject. That is an argument which appeals to me.
  Nobody denies that on its merits Luton has a fair case to become a county borough. All the argument against is that it would be a loss to somebody else. But that is the only argument used. [Interruption.] Luton has no Lady Godiva and no great tradition, but she will have her tradition after a little longer life and after thrusting dynamically forward. Her great motor industry should help her. The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) urged his case much more powerfully than those who represented the county, showing the great superiority of the preparatory work in the town clerk's department of a borough compared over that of the county. I congratulate him on his brief, just as I commiserate with the hon. Members who spoke for the county areas. This was clear proof of the superiority of the industrial borough in its work of preparation for this debate over the reactionary county area. There is something symbolical in this contrast.
  The hon. Member for South Bedfordshire said that he was in favour of the Second Reading. He is the only member for a county area who has ever had the courage to say that he is in favour of the Second Reading of such a Bill. We must give him credit for that. When we find a member of a county area supporting such a Second Reading—even though he did so by balancing his arguments on the point of a needle—there can be no question that we who are disinterested should finally come down in favour of the view that this House should give its support to the Second Reading and then argue the Bill upstairs. But I do not pretend that in giving support to the Second Reading we are not giving support to the Bill in principle. That would be ridiculous. Of course, one has to say that Luton has, in principle, a good case in order to vote conscientiously for the Bill.
  I should never argue that we should send a Bill upstairs and deprive ourselves of the right to a Second Reading debate, but I believe that an overwhelming case was made out of the Minister's own mouth when he said that, in the new situation, with no chance of comprehensive change, both boundary revision and, if

  1759
  necessary, a change of status, if they are proved to have a good case, are things which should be accepted in principle by the House. Although we do not want the floodgates opened, I believe it is reasonable that boroughs should be allowed to go forward and present a considerable number of these Bills. Ought we not to establish the principle, in accordance with the wishes of the Minister, that a considerable number of these Bills should be allowed to go forward until such time as comprehensive local government reform has been undertaken?
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Bishop: I shall detain the House only a few minutes, Sir, and I am glad that you have found it possible to call another of the Middlesex Members, if only to satisfy the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), that we are not all as reactionary as those who sit on that side of the House.
  Mr. Crossman: I did not say that my hon. Friend was reactionary. I said that he appeared to behave almost as if he were reactionary.
  Mr. Bishop: It is a very subtle distinction. I listened with great pleasure to the speeches of both my colleagues on the opposite side. As they spoke, I agreed with every one of their arguments. The only thing I disagreed with was their conclusions.
  I, too, was greatly disappointed with the speech of the Minister, because I hoped that after a year's interval he might have been able to make some small advance upon the statement of Government policy made by his predecessor a year ago. But he has not done so and the position is left like this: that he says, clearly and definitely, that he is opposed to any change of status in any case, pending a radical re-organisation of all local government. That is the first point. The second point is that there is no chance whatever of any radical reorganisation of local government in the immediate future or, it may be, for a long time to come.
  That raises a principle which is of great importance to many local authorities throughout the country as well as Luton, including the one in which my constituency is situated, which is not even a borough
  1760
  but only an urban district. It happens to have twice the population of Luton and, if I have the figures right, more than the total rateable value of the entire county of Bedford, including Luton. It is still only an urban district, though well managed, and it is looking forward to an opportunity of increasing its status. I am not making a case for my own local authority—
  Mr. Messer: It has never asked for it.
  Mr. Bishop: Well, it has claimed it now. I quite agree with those hon. Members who have said that one claim, if granted, may lead to others. Why not, if they are justified on the merits? Surely it cannot be right that there should be a complete freeze up, and that for an indefinite period, during which we must wait for a comprehensive review. No act of justice can be performed to any local authority.
  As almost invariably happens when things are supposed to stand still, they do not stand still but slip back. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) made this point. Local government, while it is supposed, under Government direction, to be standing still, is slipping back. The recent tendency has been away from the healthy decentralisation which we ought to seek to promote in local government and towards the concentration of powers in the greater authorities, in some cases in Government Departments and in some cases in boards.
  The valuation responsibilities have been taken away from the local councils and transferred to the Inland Revenue. So have health services. My information is that almost invariably, if not always, the result of increased centralisation is to increase the cost both in manpower and in many of these services. What is worse still is that the effect of this tendency towards centralisation is to take local government further away from the people, to make it more remote from the people concerned with it. In my view that is a tendency which ought to be reversed.
  For that reason I take the view that any local authority, such as the borough of Luton, which has the necessary minimum claim to state its case for a higher status, has thereby established a prima facie case. There may be arguments against it. Arguments against it in this case have been advanced on behalf of the county of

  1761
  Bedford and on those arguments I say nothing because I know too little about the fact. But I consider that Luton has established a prima facie case for promotion to higher status. I agree with the promoters of the Bill that that case should be examined upstairs, where the arguments in matters of detail can be examined with expert assistance. I shall support the Second Reading for that reason and also for what I believe to be the general good of local government.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Booth: I say right away that I intend to support the Bill in the Lobby. When I came into the House tonight I did not know what attitude I should take up about it; I was prepared to listen to the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). I started with a bias in the sense that I have been a member of a local authority—one of the best in England, of course—for almost 20 years. I honestly think—and this is born of some experience in the very heart of Lancashire—the county borough is the best unit of local government in the country.
  All the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Luton, and reinforced by hon. Members on both sides of the House, have been positive arguments. All the things that have been said against the Bill by the Bedfordshire Members and rather surprisingly, by hon. Members on this side of the House who are ardent local government people and who, when they speak for themselves and their own authorities, are absolutely devoted to the county borough authority yet who on occasions like the present find reasons, which I cannot fathom, for opposing municipality—all these have helped to make the case for promotion to county borough status.
  I have had the memorandum from the Bedfordshire County Council and I have read that Luton has made a very considerable contribution to the government of that county. But when it goes on to say that some of the leading lights on the Bedfordshire County Council are the citizens of Luton, it implies, "If you take these people away from us, we shall not be able to manage." I do not see any other implication than that. It is a sign to me that Bedfordshire has a completely defeatist attitude. Everybody agrees that Bedfordshire, minus the 100,000 population of Luton, has approximately
  1762
  200,000 people. All that the county can say is, "We have the quantity, but for Heaven's sake do not touch it; we do not have the quality."
  What convinced me more than anything else were the words of the Minister. It was said a year ago that things were on the move, that there was to be a new set-up for local government, that we should not prejudice it, and that we should go into the Lobby and have regard to the comprehensive scheme which was to be placed before the House. I am satisfied now that there is nothing even on the stocks.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: My right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour was very careful on that occasion to say that it would be completely dishonest to hold out any immediate prospect of the comprehensive scheme to which my hon. Friend has referred.
  Mr. Booth: I was not referring to the Minister on that occasion but to the Minister tonight, when he said words to the effect that it would be dishonest for any Members to expect anything in the way of legislation to emerge within a reasonable time from the Government side.
  That is what was said. No one can deny that, and it has proved to me that we have not even got to the blue print stage. I think it is wrong for an authority which, in my opinion, has made out its case, to be fobbed off by the pretext that something is coming, we know not when and we certainly do not know how.
  To say that other authorities will suffer is the weakest of arguments, as one of the greatest ethics of British government is to treat things on their merits. Surely we are not going to hold this up for an indefinite time when the Minister says, "I have nothing to offer you. It is in the offing, but there is nothing more I can say." It is the wrong way to treat an authority with more than 100,000 people and with a rateable value in keeping with like authorities, which has made its claim and established its case and proved its case for county borough status.
  I am speaking from experience and I know that county councils always have and always will—like the railway companies in the past, whenever there was an application for a road service—opposed,

  1763
  whatever was the argument. They oppose on principle. Coming in tonight to see what was the case for Luton and to hear what the malcontents from Bedfordshire had to say, my view is that the case is proved. The little I have said is in favour of the Bill and I will follow it up by going into the Lobby to support what I hope soon will be the county borough of Luton.
  9.8 p.m.
  Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I am very much in support of the Bill. As hon. Members know I had the honour, last Session, to bring forward a Bill for the Ilford Corporation. Two very strong arguments have emerged from tonight's debate. The first was the speech of the Minister, which, I thought, constituted the strongest possible case for giving the Bill a Second Reading.
  It must not be forgotten, as has been pointed out by other hon. Members, that one of the prime reasons why the Bills put forward by Ilford and Luton were rejected last year was that some comprehensive reform of local government was being considered by the Minister and would be brought before the House very shortly. Indeed, during the passing of the Local Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Bill the then Minister of Health went so far as to say that the Government's reforms or proposals were likely to come forward in 1951—
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren)indicated dissent.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but it is in HANSARD to that effect.
  Mr. Lindgren: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman quote the statement that it was coming forward in 1951?
  Squadron Leader Cooper: This is the report of what the right hon. Gentleman the then Minister of Health said:
  "The reason why we are postponing the use of certain powers until the end of 1951 is because we are hoping that our proposals will have matured, and that, therefore, any attempts on the part of local authorities to change either their functions or their boundaries in the meantime will be assimilated and overtaken by the proposals of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 516–517.]
  It is therefore idle for the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) to criticise
  1764
  the expenditure which Luton has undertaken. Luton is forced into this position because His Majesty's Government have not carried out the pledges which they made to the House at that time; and it is essential that local authorities who feel aggrieved shall exert as much pressure as often as they can to see that this reform is carried into effect.
  I would refer to the rather pathetic statement which the Bedfordshire County Council have sent to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. The gravamen of the case for Bedfordshire, as contained in paragraph 5 of their statement, is that Luton provides them with such excellent aldermen and councillors that if they were taken away the county would not be able to operate effectively. I consider it an insult to the House that such a defence should be put forward by what is alleged to be a responsible county council. We are told also that if the Bill is to go forward, a number of other authorities will come to the House with similar proposals. As the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), said, what is wrong with that? If there are wrongs in local government structure; if local authorities up and down the country are aggrieved, what else can they do but come to the House and seek some redress for their grievances? Is that not the very function of Parliament?
  The two main grounds for the creation of county borough status for Luton and, indeed, for other authorities are efficiency and finance. We have heard a lot about the financial grounds, but they have all been arguments to show the losses which the Bedfordshire County Council would suffer. Nobody has said a word about the considerable financial saving which would accrue to the Luton Borough Council. I am not in a position to give precise figures, but having regard to the experience of my own authority, where the position is somewhat similar, we know that the savings which would accrue would be considerable. The former Minister of Health, when dealing with this question of county borough status, made a positive statement with which I entirely agree: that the chief ground for a change in status must be efficiency. It is a fact that under the present set-up efficiency is not maintained at the level which we are entitled

  1765
  to expect from local authorities. There are considerable delays especially in educational services and these delays entail considerable expense.
  There have been considerable changes in local government powers in the last five years, indeed since 1944. Under various Acts powers have been taken from the smaller local authorities and given to the greater county councils. I have not noticed that there have been any screams from the county councils because they were being given more and more power. On the contrary, they have been very glad to get these greater powers, and when it has been a question of delegating powers under various Acts of Parliament it has always been a great problem for local authorities to get adequate delegated powers.
  Local government in our country is the very pillar and foundation of our social life. These perpetual delays by the Government in providing a new comprehensive scheme for local government strike at the very roots of our democratic form of life. They are hampering social progress. The reasons put forward by the Government are not accepted by any local authority in the country as a sound argument for delay. We must have a comprehensive scheme for local government reform at once, but we must not hold up any longer Luton's Bill, which is just and for which there is a proven case.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. MacColl: The House has been singularly honoured tonight by having the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) in considering this Measure. My hon. Friend is accustomed to roam over great problems of world affairs and I waited with interest to hear him focus his attention on the comparatively small problem with which we are dealing. I had hoped to have considerable illumination from him. I must say, however, that he put forward an argument which, had I been a member of the party opposite and had I desired to ridicule and burlesque the views of the party on this side of the House, could not have provided a more admirable text.
  He advanced the argument that it does not matter how complicated the situation is; it does not matter how much injury may be done to people by making alterations such as these; it does not matter
  1766
  how important it is that the ground should be explored carefully before a move is made. He argued that the great thing was to have change—change at any price, regardless of its effect on other people. He put the point of view of what he described as the virile and progressive people of the county boroughs. He spoke almost with contempt of the rural sections of the community. He said how terrible it would be if Coventry were in shackles to Warwickshire and, therefore, how intolerable it must be for Luton to be bound to Bedfordshire.
  It seems to me that the way in which we must approach this problem is not to start from some such hypothesis based on one's own local interest, but to look at it from the point of view of the whole community that will be affected by the change. When I had a little brush with the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) over Cambridgeshire, I think that the comment I made about Cambridgeshire was perfectly fair. The situation there is that it has been recognised for many years that Cambridgeshire could not live without Cambridge, and that one could not extract a town of that size in proportion to the population of the county without serious effect.
  The argument that the hon. Gentleman put in reply was very startling. He said, "It does not matter how much of a hole you carve in somebody's middle. After all, he is a very fat man and there is plenty of him left." I should have thought that it was perfectly clear that if one is prepared, without regard to the balance of the county community, to carve out of the county a vigorous and progressive community, one is likely to cause the most serious and grave dislocation.
  If it be true—I do not say that it is true—as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, wishes us to think, that the urban communities are so virile and progressive that they have so much to offer, I should have thought that that was a good argument for leaving Bedfordshire with what has been regarded as the great advantage of these virile intellectual sections of the community, to bring a breath of fresh air to the rather musty county hall of Bedfordshire. I do not know whether that is true or not; I do not know the county at all. It may be true but, if it is true, it seems to me to be a particularly strong reason for not performing this operation.

  1767
  As I see the position, it is this. We recognise that it is difficult at the moment to have a comprehensive reform of local government. I do not think that the blame for that rests either with my right hon. Friend the present Minister or with his predecessor. I think the blame rests primarily with the local authorities themselves—primarily with Luton, which is one of the local authorities concerned, and with Bedfordshire, which is another. I think it rests with all local authorities who make up the local authority associations.
  My attitude to this problem is a very simple one. I would say to them that, until they are prepared to get together and come to some kind of workable agreement and put their house in order, I am not prepared to support any change in local government which will make a comprehensive reform still more difficult when it comes.
  Luton is in a particularly difficult position, because it is just on the borders of Greater London, and I made the point when the last Luton Bill was before the House, that to set up any county boroughs within areas which are covered by the Greater London plan would establish bodies which had created for themselves a vested interest, and, therefore, that it would be extremely difficult to change either their size or their status in the future. It was a little naïve of the hon. Member for Luton to say that, after all, if we cut out Luton from Bedfordshire, we will leave something like a few thousands—I forget the exact figure, but it was something like 2,000—over the minimum figure which the Boundary Commission would allow for a county.
  All I can say to that is that if Luton, having got county borough status, is to be content with its present boundaries and is not going to come forward with a Bill for boundary extensions, Luton is a very remarkable town and will be about the only county borough ever to have done it. I have little doubt that what we may describe as the hon. Member's annual will come about, and that, if he succeeds this year, he will come forward with a boundary extension Bill, as the result of which Bedfordshire would fall below the minimum requirements of the Boundary Commission.
  1768
  It is not primarily a question of treatment so much as a question of whether we have, in our local government units, an organism which can provide a balanced community, with resources of people, communications and the rest which should go to make up the basis of a unified local authority. I am quite prepared to accept the view that a solution of local government which depends upon carving out the vigorous towns and leaving the rest to get on as best they can, and without worrying what happens to them, is bound to lead to the wreckage of the whole system.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop), complained that in local government there was, today, a lack of healthy decentralisation. That is not an argument for setting up autonomous communities in the middle of an area, but an argument for tackling proper devolution and decentralisation within the county area. The argument which I thought would have been advanced by anyone having had the benefit of the great experience of Luton, would be to get the people of the county hall to work out such a system.
  Having listened to the debate, I can see no reason why we should alter the decision which the House reached 11 months ago. I do not want this Bill to go upstairs to be killed. My objections to it are objections of principle, and they are not likely to be altered by any decision taken upstairs. My objections are based on the fact that, however difficult it may be and however complex the situation, we have to treat the local government problem as a whole.
  However long we have to wait for the local authorities to reach final agreement among themselves it will be worth waiting for, because we cannot hope to buy time from the particularly aggressive local authorities by granting them this autonomy at the expense of the country and leaving the local government problems of the rest of the country unsolved. In my opinion, we should reject this Bill, and any other Bill of its kind.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Marlowe: The argument of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), which I think the House will agree, was both well constructed and attractively presented, had one complete fallacy in it. His whole argument was

  1769
  that the whole of this matter should be dealt with on a comprehensive basis, and few would disagree with that. The difficulty is that the Minister himself has come to the House tonight and said that he has no intention of doing any such thing. Therefore, the whole argument falls to the ground, and it is for that reason that it becomes necessary for corporations such as Luton to take individual action, because the Government have failed to take their own responsibility of dealing with the matter comprehensively.
  The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) said that Luton ought to be charged for daring to present this Bill again. But the whole reason why they had to do it again was because the Government failed to keep the pledge given by the present Minister of Labour when Minister of Health, that this matter would be dealt with. The Minister of Local Government and Planning this evening not only said that he will not deal with it, but fortified that by an argument which I think had some force. He said that such things could not be done in Parliaments with a narrow majority. That is an argument which certainly has some weight.
  But, again, the right hon. Gentleman has forfeited any support for that argument by the fact that in the last Parliament, which had a large majority, and when the matter could have been dealt with, the Government failed to do anything. Indeed, having created the machinery under the Local Government Boundaries Act, 1945, the Government then broke up the machinery and failed to take any action under it. That being the position, I am not really so daunted by the argument that the matter cannot be dealt with piecemeal. I believe that as the Government themselves are failing to take action on the very important problem of the reconsideration of the status of many of our boroughs, the only way to get them to act is to provide the spur of presenting Bills of this kind.
  It has been suggested that once a Bill of this sort is accepted, it opens the gates for more such Bills to come pouring in. I hope they do, because that, I believe, would urge the Government to take the necessary action. Of course, it is an old argument that we must not take particular action for fear of opening the gates, and there is a kind of nightmare vision which
  1770
  exists in Government Departments that, once the gates are opened, there are the most horrible things to be found behind them. That is not always so, because most of the cases presented in this House would be reasonable cases.
  I have examined the Luton case with the complete impartiality of one who represents a non-county borough which has similar aspirations to those of Luton. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if the floodgates are opened and a Bill comes forward from the Hove Corporation, it will not be such an alarming project for the Government. Indeed, they will find it an attractive proposition.
  Another argument which has been advanced is that if we take away the big borough council, what is to happen to the county? That argument has no validity either. I have no doubt that the same argument was put forward in Sussex when Brighton was made a county borough, and I have no doubt that hands went up in horror and that it was asked, "What is going to happen to Sussex if you take the great municipality of Brighton out of it?" But it was done, and Sussex is still there. It gets along quite happily, except that an unfair burden falls upon Hove. It is not really such an alarming prospect as some hon. Members seem to think.
  The argument for the county was presented to some extent by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Moeran) whose speech was commented upon by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). The hon. Member for Coventry, East, said he could not really understand how anybody could balance his argument on a pin-point, and argue his case one way and announce he was going to vote the other way. That sounded to me exactly like a speech by the hon. Member for Coventry, East on foreign affairs and I did not understand his difficulty in following that line of argument.
  I rather support the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South in this. One hesitates to say anything derogatory of this House, but I rather doubt whether the Second Reading stage in this House is the best tribunal to judge a matter of this kind because we do not have the evidence and are not able to judge the full weight of the arguments presented. If the Bill goes to

  1771
  a Committee, the evidence is then presented and it is far easier to arrive at a solution. There is a danger in the present situation that. Bills of this kind are apt to be dealt with on the basis that they are supported by hon. Members representing boroughs and opposed by hon. Members representing counties. That is not really satisfactory, particularly as I believe county Members outnumber borough Members.
  I hope, therefore, that this Bill will receive the support of the House and will get a Second Reading because there has been unanimity of opinion that the case for Luton is a good one and the opposition founds itself only on the fact that once one starts on this problem, one gets into all sorts of difficulties. I do not mind, of course, if the Government get into difficulty and I think there is an overwhelming case for a comprehensive reform of local government status. The only way in which we shall secure that, is by forcing these Bills on the Government until they are shaken with horror themselves at the flood-gates that have been opened, and give the matter comprehensive consideration.
  9.32 p.m.
  Mr. Pannell: The difficulties that arise in this matter come from assuming that the troubles of local government start with Luton. It is a fact that the present Lord Chancellor, I believe when he was Paymaster-General in 1942, started this series of hares. I remember the concern of at least three authorities since then with questions of merging into a county borough or enlarging into a non-county borough. The arguments against have come from all the counties with monotonous regularity.
  In an able speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) suggested that there should be agreement among the local authorities themselves. It is only somebody with knowledge of local authority matters within the limited Metropolitan area of London who would put that forward. It is quite easy for the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee to get agreement, but the type of liaison in local government which prevails in London is not the sort of thing that ought to prevail up and down the country.
  1772
  But that is not the case at all. The County Councils Associations, the municipal corporations, the urban and rural district councils associations, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, indeed everybody has produced pet schemes for the reform of local government. There is a veritable Babel of voices and I do not think there is anything like unanimity within the political parties themselves on this matter. Hon. Members of this House are convinced in their own mind that the particular system of local government they advocate is the very best. I have no doubt either that if the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) was the Member for Luton he would make something like the case which the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) made this evening. I say, with respect, that he would make the case for his constituents. I do not believe he knows so much about local government as all that, but he was making a constituency case, and that is the trouble which has bedevilled this matter from first to last.
  It seems to me that the Government of the day, whatever the political complexion of that Government, has got to make up its mind what is to be the solution, and we must have it fought out on the Floor of this House and if necessary upstairs. If we had suddenly embarked upon this matter there might be room for some argument, but it is now 10 years old if we count from the time of the commencement of the activities of the then Paymaster-General. We have had a steady deterioration in local government services, so far as the non-county boroughs are concerned, and there has been an increasing difficulty in getting the right people to enter into local government because its services have become so emasculated.
  Middlesex is a special case. It is a metropolitan county. It was recognised by the people who framed the Education Act, 1944, as a special case. It was for Middlesex that the concession with respect to excepted districts was contrived. Sir Percival Sharp, who was then the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees, said that it would create an impossible position otherwise, and he said that if those towns with a population of 60,000 or, I believe, 6,000 or 7,000 school population were knocked out from the county scheme. Middlesex would be like a colander.
  Mr. Messer: Sir Percival Sharp did not draft the Education Act. I was in the House during the passage of that Measure, and Middlesex received no special consideration.
  Mr. Pannell: I did not say that he drafted the Act. I said that he described Middlesex in that way. It would be true to say, I think, that it was with Middlesex in mind that the Act was drafted to allow for excepted districts.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): That is not so. I was concerned with the drafting of the Act, and although Middlesex presented some special difficulties, it was not the cause of the Act being drafted in the way in which it was drafted.
  Mr. Pannell: I am bound to say, then, that, it was the only justification for the drafting of the Act. It is not possible to produce another county which justifies the exceptions in that way. Cambridgeshire has a special arrangement under the Education Act, for a joint committee between the Cambridge Borough and the Cambridgeshire County Council. That involved special drafting to meet a local need. The fact is that local government was in such a haphazard condition that the first big scheme for the reorientation of powers under the Education Act, 1944, had to make allowances for geographical anomalies which existed. I am not going into the question of whether the Education Act should have been preceded by an Act concerned with local government. We all appreciate the difficulties which existed at that time.
  Coming back to the question of Luton—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] After all, I do not think we can discuss Luton out of its setting. The case of Middlesex was mentioned by way of argument, and I think it is reasonable that one should argue against it. In view of the fact that some political prejudice may be imported into this matter, I should like to say that the idea of a county borough for Luton did not start in the mind of the hon. Member for Luton. It was brought before Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve in the Boundary Commission and it was raised by the Labour Party. The Boundary Commission has gone. Some of us regret it. Some of us would have liked to see the creation of a permanent body presided over by a distinguished
  1774
  chairman, perhaps a judge, who would have presented from time to time reports to this House about the future of local government.
  I do not think that this place, with all its constituency prejudices, is the sort of place in which to discuss these matters. It is better that this should go to Committee upstairs. I do not think that there is any contradiction in the case put forward by an hon. Member behind me. This is a matter which might well be examined, with all the expert evidence, in another place. The previous Minister argued that this must wait until the result of another General Election. We know that the Minister of Labour who was then Minister of Health had in mind that the country would act sensibly by returning a Labour Government in sufficient numbers to carry it through. We have no guarantee at all that whatever way the next General Election will go, it will return any Government with a sufficient majority to grasp this nettle again.
  What is left to a local authority if it is not to promote its Bill in the way advised by the Minister of Labour who was then Minister of Health? Therefore, we come to the main proposition that the Government must make up its mind on policy. There are many better cases than that of Luton seeking for revision. I know of at least three local authorities in North-West Kent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ilford."] Ilford suffered through its advocates. They met with exactly the same arguments, not from a poverty striken county like Bedford but from the great county of Kent, one of the five great counties in the country. Exactly the same arguments, set out in the same brief by the same body—the County Councils' Association—were unloaded on to hon. Members.
  If we have a spate of these applications, it may occur to the mind of the Government that this is a matter that might be taken out of politics altogether and put on the floor of another place. Generally speaking in these matters, people seem to be affected not by political affiliation but by constituency affiliation. Bearing in mind the deterioration which we have seen in local government and the uncertainty of local government over all these years, Luton might provide the pilot scheme by which to induce the Government

  1775
  to proceed with the great reform which we all desire.
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Colegate: It is one of my qualifications for intervening in this debate that I am free from the constituency affiliations just mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell). My constituency has in it a county borough and three or four rural district councils, and I am President of the Rural District Councils Association for England and Wales. Therefore, I claim to look at this matter rather more impartially than some purely constituency Members who talk as county borough Members or as county Members.
  I am against this Bill. I say so frankly for this reason. I think that anything that is done now in the way of creating more county boroughs will merely make the task of future local government reform more difficult, and very much more difficult. In that connection, I should like to recall to the House what was said when the 1888 Act was introduced by the President of the then Local Government Board. He said that it was to provide for local government in this country, and that we were taking out of the ordinary county and county district system, London and 10 other urban areas which had, at that time, more than 100,000 population.
  Unfortunately, owing to the weakness of the President of the Local Government Board of that day, when the Bill finally became an Act no fewer than 53 county boroughs were created instead of the 10 that were originally contemplated. Since that time the numbers have steadily increased year by year, until I think I am right in saying that there are 83 county boroughs. What does that mean? It means that out of the county district system which was to be set up by the 1888 Act we have taken the pick of the population and wealth and encroached on rural and urban areas. We have reached the position where we have created certain wealthy county and county boroughs and left distressed areas which cannot, by reason of their low rateable value, look after all the numerous burdens which have been placed on their shoulders since those days.
  Some ask why the Bill should not be sent to Committee. I suggest that what we have to do on Second Reading is to decide the principle.
  Mr. Porter: Would the hon. Member have extended the same principle to the National Health Service, when that was being considered?
  Mr. Colegate: It would be impossible for me to discuss the National Health Service at this time. Local government contains enough problems to occupy us for many hours without going into the National Health Service. A great reform has to be carried out, and I hope that it will be carried out by the next Government, with a substantial majority—only a Government with a substantial majority can do it—and we have to ask ourselves why we should now weaken and make the position worse. If we accept Luton and Luton becomes a county borough, there are at least 28 other areas which have an equal right to say that they should be county boroughs.
  Dr. Hill: If population and financial resources are of any significance, how can my hon. Friend say that there are 28 other boroughs with an equal right?
  Mr. Colegate: I do not want to go into pedantic mathematics, so I shall say that they have a similar right. I suggest that my hon. Friend should read the reports of the Boundary Commission, where he will see set out by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve those which have a similar claim to Luton. Just imagine the task of any Government if 20 or 30 great wealthy areas are taken out of the local government system. We shall be in a position of having destroyed the district councils because they have no resources and wealth to undertake the increasingly heavy burdens that have been placed on their shoulders.
  I ask the House not to leave the matter to be decided in Committee upstairs, but to deal with the principle on Second Reading. If we agree with the principle let us argue it in Committee of the House. I will not attempt to deal with that tonight, I am only concerned with the principle, and I beg the House not to prejudice the future reform of local government by encroaching on those areas and on that finance which is absolutely necessary if we are to have a healthy and strong local government in this country.
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) claimed that he was acting impartially

  1777
  when he proposed opposing this Bill. I am much more impartial than he is, and I am going to vote in favour of it. My impartiality rests on a similar ground in that I have the honour to represent a county borough and also a county area. I have stronger claims to impartiality than that, because a year ago when this Bill came before the House, I stated that I would not vote in favour of it because I thought we could not deal with this great and important problem of local government boundaries in piecemeal fashion. I was persuaded to the contrary, reluctantly, it is true, by the Minister of Health, when he chopped the head off the Local Government Boundary Commission because experience had shown that the separation of functions from boundaries would not work. This separation, which was introduced during the Coalition, caused five years to be wasted.
  The Minister of Health wasted another year before making up his mind to wind up the Boundary Commission. The Minister came along and persuaded us that we ought to hold our hands for a little while longer as he was going to set up a departmental committee to tackle the problem of local government. A year ago when this Bill was considered, I thought there were going to be some results from this proposal. Nothing has happened. I do not know how many times the Committee has met. Perhaps some day we shall be told, but so far there are no results to be seen.
  I greatly sympathise with the Borough of Luton and those county boroughs which are situated as Dudley is, although I do not think there is any county borough in the whole of the country so adversely placed as Dudley, because there is no borough completely surrounded by a county area as we are. If the Bill tonight is defeated, what encouragement is there for the County Borough of Dudley or any other county borough to do anything to adopt a progressive policy? Unless we in Dudley can bring forward reasonable proposals—not the kind of proposals suggested by the hon. Member for Burton which would result in the cutting up of the whole of the neighbouring county—that will give us land on which to build houses and to establish schools, we cannot adopt the progressive policies which are
  1778
  necessary. Unless the House of Commons tackles the grave problems associated with local government, the future is not too bright for boroughs like Dudley.
  Very clearly we have moved some paces backwards since last year. The Minister of Local Government and Planning advised the House tonight to vote against this Bill. His policy in so doing is even more reactionary than that of the Minister of Health, when he abolished the Local Boundary Commission. If one looks clearly at the political situation, it is quite obvious that it is going to be a generation or more before we reach the time when we shall have a Government strong enough and willing enough to court unpopularity by dealing with the fundamental difficulties associated with local government problems.
  It is, therefore, no good the Minister coming here and saying that this problem can only be tackled when we have got a Government recently returned and supported by a large majority. It is clear that the problems which press upon us are so great that that situation cannot be foreseen. Therefore, if county boroughs are to be forced to follow the policy which has been forced upon Luton, I hope, in the interests of Luton, and of good local government, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that its details can be considered in Committee, so that Dudley and other county boroughs similarly placed will be encouraged thereby.
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: The question which the House has to determine tonight is not really whether Luton ought or ought not to be a county borough. This House has to decide whether Luton should have an opportunity of stating its case to the Committee upstairs which will decide whether they have made out a case for county borough status or not. The House is not able to judge these questions of facts upon which such matters have to be decided. There was even a dispute between the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) as to what the population of the county of Bedfordshire would be if Luton were to be taken out of it.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Local Government and Planning, when he was dealing with the financial consequences

  1779
  of this Bill, said that he had been advised that if Luton became a county borough, the county of Bedford would be the loser. I waited for the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he had been advised to what extent the county would be a loser, but he did not venture to go as far as that.
  The proper place to decide whether Luton should be a county borough or not is not on the Floor of the House but upstairs, before the appropriate committee. I can approach this matter, from a more detached standpoint than I could do when my hon. Friend presented his Bill last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] It has been said that the Ilford Corporation has decided not to promote a Bill this year.
  That does not indicate that there is any relaxation in their desire for county borough status. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."]
  The only principle which the House has to decide tonight is whether local authorities would be allowed to take steps to put their house, as they think, in order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."]—or whether we should prevent local authorities from doing so until the Government are able to make up their minds to propose a comprehensive scheme for the re-organisation of local government.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes. 122; Noes, 191.

  Division No. 72.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Morley, R.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Harrison, J.

  Nabarro, G.

  Baird, J.

  Heath, Edward

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pannell, T. C.

  Benson, G.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Paton, J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

  Porter, G.

  Booth, A.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Houghton, D.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Royle, C.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Russell, R. S.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Clyde, J. L.

  Kaberry, D.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)

  Keenan, W.

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Cooper, John (Deptford)

  Kinley, J.

  Storey, S.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Teeling, W.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Logan, D. G.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Low, A. R. W.

  Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Vernon, W. F.

  Duthie, W. S.

  McGovern, J.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Maclay, Hon. John

  Wallace, H. W.

  Ewart, R.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Fernyhough E.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Wheatley, Major M. J. (Pools)

  Foot, M. M.

  Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

  Wigg, G.

  Foster, John

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Gage, C. H.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mellor, Sir John

  Yates, V. F.

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Moeran, E. W.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Monckton, Sir Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

  Moody, A. S.

  Mr. McAdden and

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Mr. Garner-Evans.

  NOES

  Adams, Richard

  Bartley, P.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Black, C. W.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Carmichael, J.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Champion, A. J.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Braddock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Clunie, J.

  Balfour, A.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Coldrick, W.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

  Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

  Colegate, A.

  Collick, P.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Rees, Mrs. D.

  Collindridge, F.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Richards, R.

  Cook, T. F.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Jannar, B.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Robinson. Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Crawley, A.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Kenyan, C.

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Daines, P.

  Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Lang, Gordon

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Deer, G.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Slater, J.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Snow, J. W.

  Diamond, J.

  Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Digby, S. W.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Dodds, N. N.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Steele, T.

  Donnelly, D.

  McInnes, J.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Drewe, C.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  McLeavy, F.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Taylor, Robert (Morpeth

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Finch, H. J.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Forman, J. C.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Timmons, J.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Tomney, F.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Messer, F.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Turton, R. H.

  Gilzean, A.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Monslow, W.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Mort, D. L.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Grey, C. F.

  Moyle, A.

  West, D. G.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Murray, J. T.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

  Nally, W.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Padley, W. E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hannan, W.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)

  Hardman, D. R.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Hargreaves, A.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Hastings, S.

  Parker, J.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pearson, A.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Peart, T. F.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Poole, C.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Holman, P.

  Popplewell, E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Woods, Rev. G. S.

  Hoy, J.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Younger, Hon. K.

  Hubbard, T.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Rankin, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Captain Soames and Mr. Baker.

  SUPPLY
  Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," resumed.
  It being after Ten o'Clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Committee To-morrow.

  HOUSING (PRIVATE BUILDING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. Gilbert Longden: Tonight, I want to take the attention of the House from local and county issues and transfer it to national
  1782
  issues. I want to raise particularly the subject of house ownership in general and the ratio of private licences in particular.
  I feel that I must put it on record from the start that, in my view, in the whole catalogue of failure which His Majesty's Government will have to present to the bar of history there is no blacker page than their failure—not to solve, for that is not the proper job of government, but to create conditions in which the building industry can solve the housing problem for them. The housing policy of the Socialist Government seems to me to have been lacking both in common humanity and in common sense. Shelley was 100 years before his time when he wrote:
  "All things have a home, but one—
  Thou, Oh Englishman, hast none."
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: He wrote worse than that.
  Mr. Longden: And better. This problem to my mind is quite as grave as was the problem of the unemployed in the thirties. Today, well over a million people are living in damp and dismal hutments like sardines in a leaking tin, in cold and comfortless caravans and with uncongenial and unstable companions. This, I think, is the biggest single cause of the matrimonial unhappiness, juvenile delinquency and disease, particularly tuberculosis, which are all so sadly on the increase today. It is a very grievous thing that these conditions should still exist six years after the war; that a problem which, according to Sir Stafford Cripps, in 1945, could be solved in a fortnight, is still 20 or 30 years from solution.
  I simply do not believe that if it had been tackled with vigour, and even with average administrative ability and without doctrinal prejudice, it could not have been solved before now. But it is not solved, and let us admit that the stringent economic conditions in which we find ourselves today make it necessary for the Government for the time being to control capital expenditure and to decoy labour and materials to other spheres. Nevertheless, they have declared that they can build 200,000 houses a year. We say that that figure, which utterly fails to match need, could be bettered, but that is another story and this is bedtime.
  The present system, as hon. Members know, is that annual allocations are made to local housing authorities who may build that number of council houses and no more; that out of every five council houses which they build—for some time the number was 10—they may allot one licence to a private citizen who wants to build his own home. The systems for deciding these priorities differ in different areas, but that also is another story, which I hope one of my hon. Friends will take up on another occasion.
  I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to all those local councillors throughout the country who voluntarily undertake the arduous and responsible duty of trying fairly to assess the needs of the unfortunate applicants. In the case of the four local authorities whose areas I have the honour to represent in the House, an average of some 300 houses per annum has been built in the past four years, but out of a total
  1784
  population of about 70,000 there are still 2,100 unsatisfied applications for council houses and 500 unsatisfied applicants for private building licences. Every hon. Member will have similar figures for his own constituency, and I quote these only because I have them at hand. I stress, however, that they are by no means to be taken as typical, because they are much better than in many other areas.
  I hope the Minister will not jump to the wrong conclusion and say that I am decrying the need for council houses. There will always be a need for these, for many reasons, of which to facilitate the mobility of labour is but one. I think it was right for the Government in time of national emergency to make the local authorities their agents for solving the immediate need, but I do not deny that on these benches we had hoped by now to see local authorities engaged mainly in the task of slum-clearing and preventing overcrowding, and that we look forward to the day when there will be roughly one council to every five new houses, and not the other way round.
  Whom do we find today in council houses? We find many tenants who would gladly build their own homes and thus leave those houses free for others who would not.
  Mr. Fernyhough: What is the percentage?
  Mr. Longden: It varies in different places. If the hon. Member is interested, I can give the percentage in my constituency, but as time is short I should like to finish my speech. We find many other tenants whose incomes are such as to make it exceedingly inequitable and grossly uneconomic that the rents they are paying should be subsidised by their fellow citizens, many of whom are much worse off.
  That is a typical illustration of the flouting of a principle which is one of the main themes of our recent publication, "One Nation": namely, that the paramount object of the social services should be to help those in need, and that we cannot, at the moment at any rate, afford to help those who are not in need. That is the measure of the unbridgeable gulf between the Socialist philosophy and ours.
  The result of flouting this principle is that the Government's housing policy is costing the Exchequer and rates far more than it need. This extravagance is also

  1785
  beginning to be felt by the tenants and I warn the Minister that Nemesis awaits his successor in 10 or 15 years' time unless these policies are changed. I am quite sure that it would be for the benefit of the individual, of the Exchequer, and of the rates, if more people willing and able to do so were allowed to build their own homes now. I therefore welcome, as far as it goes, the recent reply of the Minister intimating that he would consider sanctioning a higher ratio than one in five in certain districts.
  I would like to ask two questions, of which I have given previous notice. How many authorities have applied for a higher ratio and how many such applications have been granted? I beg hon. Members opposite to realise that I am not appealing for the well-to-do. One of the most farcical examples of the new era of "Fair shares for all" is the fact that anyone with £4,000 or £5,000 in his pocket, or of sufficient standing to be able to borrow it, can get a house tomorrow. The people affected by these building restrictions are the people in a small way. They have not got £4,000 or £5,000 or anything like that. They simply want to invest £1,500 or £2,000 in a home of their own in which to bring up their families and even if most of the purchase price has to be borrowed the borrower pays no more than an economic rent and in 20 or 25 years the house is his.
  Thus the Exchequer benefits because it will not have to produce so many subsidies. The ratepayers benefit because there is at least one person whose rent they do not have to subsidise. Indeed, if the council advances the money under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, or the Housing Act, not only is such a scheme not a charge on the rate fund, but it might even make a contribution, by reason of the difference between the rate of interest charged to the authority and that which it charges to its borrower.
  Moreover, in towns at any rate, such houses would tend to be built where roads and services already exist and manpower and cost would be saved in constructing them while the rateable value would probably be higher than that of a council house. Another person who would benefit is the small builder, the man who does not work for the council but whose scant business consists in repair and jobbing work and would willingly contribute to
  1786
  the filling of this most urgent of national needs.
  The problem, granted for the time being the necessity for a ceiling in capital expenditure, is how to get as many houses with as little cost to the taxpayer and the ratepayer as possible while maintaining quality and as much satisfaction to the occupier. I appeal to the Minister to appeal to his right hon. Friend, who brings to the solution of the problem a fresh mind, to consider the following suggestions. First, until control ceases to be necessary, can he not leave the proportion of private licences entirely to the discretion of local authorities? "Trust the people" is a good motto, but "Trust the people on the spot" is a better. After all, if his trust is misplaced there are two sanctions. The electorate can visit their displeasure on local councils annually and, on the other hand, the Minister can annually review the record and change the ratio as may be necessary.
  That is the principal thing I ask the Minister to do. If he is not prepared to go as far as that, I ask him to publicise widely to all authorities the fact, which I am sure some of them do not know, that he will sympathetically consider their applications to issue a larger number of private licences. After all, it must be obvious that a rigid ratio cannot be equally proper everywhere.
  Even in my small part of the world one of the local authorities has a longer list of those who wish to build their own homes than its list of people wanting council houses; whereas in the case of its immediate neighbour the reverse is true. Especially in rural areas and by the sea a much higher percentage of private licences is reasonably required. Rigidity in this, as in practically all other matters, is illogical and absurd; and the scheme of transfers, though sound in theory, has, I think, not worked out in practice.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have complained that the ownership of property is concentrated in too few hands. If that is so, this is a way, and the best way, to spread the load. Let us so contrive that everyone may, if he so wishes, own his own home and look to himself and his own honest efforts to keep it, instead of sponging on his fellows. Independence and self-reliance are what we need most in this country today. It is those qualities which are most likely to bring the happiness

  1787
  and contentment which they deserve; and which are most likely to be found in a man who has a home he can call his own. For the exclusive benefit of the hon. Member for East Ayrshire—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member's geography is as bad as his economics.
  Mr. Longden: —South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) I shall conclude with a verse, if he will excuse my accent:
  "To make a happy fire-side clime"—
  Mr. Hughes: Terrible!
  Mr. Longden:
  "To weans and wife,
  "That's the true pathos and sublime
  "Of human life."
  10.22 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): We have just listened to what is typical Toryhumbug—
  Mr. Alport: Hypocrisy, call it hypocrisy!
  Mr. Lindgren: I sat quietly while the hon. Gentleman was making statements which were completely wild. Now therefore hon. Members opposite should just take their medicine and let me hit back. If they cannot take it on the chin they ought at least not to start to scrap. Some of us from the working classes have suffered from the slums of Toryism and they cannot wonder if we get a bit hot under the collar when we hear statements such as were made by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. G. Longden). I can take the hon. Gentleman to his own constituency and show him slums resulting from Toryism over the last 100 years about which no Tory Government did anything at all.
  I thought that the hon. Member was opening a reasonable case, or attempting to open a case, for a change of ratio. Instead he went into a virulent attack on the Labour Government for not having cured in five years the ills of Tory landlordism over the last 100 years.
  Mr. Iain MacLeod: They said they would do it in a fortnight.
  Mr. Lindgren: That may be the view of the hon. Member—
  Mr. MacLeod: That was the view of Sir Stafford Cripps, it was never mine.
  Mr. Lindgren: We have never in fact had this country housed properly. As a member of a local authority in Hertfordshire, year after year I have led deputations from this local authority to the then Tory Minister of Health asking for permission to increase council house building. On every occasion the Tory Minister of Health refused the application unless there was a greater number of un-housed persons on the list than the number of houses in our application. If we had 100 applicants on the list, no more than 50 houses would be granted. So every local authority was under-housed when the war broke out in 1939. Over and above that, we lost one-fifth of the houses in the country from enemy action during the war—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is an absolute misstatement, and the Minister knows it.
  Mr. Lindgren: I think it is true.
  Mr. Powell: It is completely untrue. The Minister should know perfectly well that the number of houses lost by enemy action during the war was less than half a million. Four million were damaged to a slight extent, but the number put out of occupation by enemy action was 450,000.
  Mr. Lindgren: I repeat that one-fifth of the houses in the country were either destroyed or damaged to such an extent as to require war damage repair. Let us deal with the problem. It is, within the capital resources of the country, to build as many houses as possible. That must be done in relation to our national resources. It has been the policy of the Government to build houses to meet needs, and what really upsets the Tory Party is that those houses have been built, as a change from Tory times—
  Mr. I. MacLeod Mr. I. MacLeod rose—
  Mr. Lindgren: I will not give way.
  Mr. Alport: You cannot take it.
  Mr. Lindgren: Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot take it. Every time a punch is coming they try to guard themselves.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: A punch!
  Mr. Lindgren: What upsets the Tory Party is that this Government have built the houses—
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Few and far between.
  Mr. Lindgren: Whilst the Tory Party built houses for those who could afford to buy, we have built houses for those who could afford only to rent. We have attempted—and we have succeeded—to meet the greatest need.
  Mr. I. MacLeod: Nonsense.
  Mr. Lindgren: I shall deal with the figures in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West, and we shall deal with any other constituency about which hon. Gentlemen care to put down Questions. The allocation has been on the basis of the building trade resources of the area concerned and the need in the area. My right hon. Friend has stated repeatedly that where a local authority, by performance, proves that it has the resources within its area to build more houses, the greater will be the allocation to that area.
  Mr. Alport: Then where does need come in?
  Mr. Lindgren: Resources, plus need.
  Mr. Alport: Nonsense.
  Mr. Lindgren: Let us take the hon. Gentleman's constituency. After all, he has raised in particular the question of ratio. If I miss out one of the rural or urban districts in his constituency, perhaps he will mention it and I will give the details. I am not certain whether Elstree is in the constituency.
  Mr. G. Longden: No.
  Mr. Lindgren: In the rural district of Watford there are 746 applicants for houses to rent and 180 applicants for licences to build. That is a ratio of four wanting to rent to one wanting to buy. Therefore, that meets with the general allocation of one in five. In Rickmansworth, strangely enough, the number wanting to rent is 746, and the number wanting to build for themselves is 92, which is a ratio of eight to one. In the Bushey urban district the number of applicants for houses to rent is 525 and the number of applications for licences to build is 51, which is a ratio of 10 to one.
  In Chorley Wood the number of applications for houses to rent is 154 and the number who want to build is 151.
  Mr. G. Longden: The number is 182.
  Mr. Lindgren: The figure I have is 151. Chorley Wood made an application for a variation. It has been known to all local authorities, right from the time of the introduction of allocations, that if they had a special case for a change of ratio it would be considered. That information was contained in a circular. Chorley Wood took advantage of that, and we said, "You have got applications for 154 to rent and 151 to build. That seems strange. It is quite different from the national average. Let us see what the real need is in the area."
  When it was analysed for the purpose of providing separate accommodation for those who had no separate accommodation, it came down to a real need for 65 houses to rent and 27 for private building. That is a ratio of three to one. So the Minister immediately agreed that there was a special case and that the local authority had proved their case for a ratio of three to one, and he approved. The Minister approved an increase in the ratio of private licences and made it three to one. That is the Minister's general practice.
  Let us take the hon. Gentleman's own constituency. The total number of applicants to rent was 2,082 and the total number of applicants to build 350, a ratio of six to one. If the hon. Gentleman says he was not speaking for the rich, he was asking for preference for 350 people over the other 2,082, irrespective of their relative needs. [Interruption.] This is not a Scottish, but an English argument. Let us fight our English war for the moment.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: A Socialist council in 16 years has done nothing to remove this grievance.
  Mr. Lindgren: The answer which the hon. Gentleman wanted was the number of special applications made for a change in the ratio, and the number granted. There have been 79 applications made and nine granted.
  Mr. Alport: That is sympathetic consideration.
  Mr. Lindgren: We give sympathetic consideration wherever the need has changed. Let me say quite frankly that we are not prepared to allow Tory authorities to permit private enterprise building for their own folk who can afford

  1791
  to buy while neglecting their duty to those who can only afford to rent.
  Mr. I. MacLeod: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the rich people of this country, in whom I am no more interested than he is, have no housing problems? Will he also agree that poor people coming to take the lease of a council house cannot afford the rent under Socialism?
  Mr. Lindgren: Rich is a relative term—and the hon. Gentleman need not be personal, because I can be personal also if necessary. It is equally true, and I am prepared to admit it, that I am better off than I was before. That is by no means due to the fact that the Tory Party has ever been in power in this country, but to the fact that we have had to fight for our existence for generations against Toryism and that, in the struggle, some of us have come out a little higher up the ladder than some of our colleagues.
  Mr. Alport: Fair shares.
  Mr. Lindgren: I am only a working class lad and had only an elementary school education. When I see the behaviour of hon. Members opposite with all their education and breeding, I am glad of it, because at least we can behave ourselves, unless we are unreasonably provoked, and even then we come clean.
  He would be a very foolish person who would say that the person who has the resources to satisfy a bank to enable him to borrow money to buy a house, is not substantially better off financially than the average worker who can only afford to rent. Generally speaking the need of these people is greater because when people have resources, even though they are not big resources, they are in a better position to make arrangements for housing accommodation than are those who have no resources. Our duty is to provide for those with the greatest need, and those with the greatest need are those who can only afford to rent.
  For those who can afford to buy, if the authorities show their willingness to provide houses for those who can only afford to rent, then by the mere operation of the ratio they will be provided with an increase in the allocation of private licences because of the increase in the houses provided by the authority for the
  1792
  ordinary person. Over and above that, where there are special circumstances as Chorley Wood has shown, then my right hon. Friend is quite prepared to give special consideration. But, I should be misleading the House if I gave the impression that that means that we are prepared to allow local authorities to neglect one of their primary duties, which is to provide houses for those who are in the greatest need—not those who have the greatest means.
  Reference has been made to the "small" builder; but what is really being said is that the "small" builder has not been patriotic, or alternatively that the local authorities have not been doing their job. But I would remind the House that Circular 92 of 1946, issued by the then Minister of Health, which was sent to local authorities from one end of the country to the other, urged that "small" builders should be asked to build one, two, three or four houses, and that the local authority should then buy them. There is scope for the "small" builder to build on behalf of the local authority.
  Miss Ward: Some local authorities will not buy.
  Mr. Lindgren: I did not know that, but that is not a criticism of the Government. It is a criticism of the local authorities concerned who have not taken into account the resources of the "small" builders in their areas; or it means that the "small" builders have been so unpatriotic that they would not build houses when they knew they would be watched by a clerk of works, who would be on the site carefully seeing that specifications were carried out but preferred to build for others who would not watch so closely.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot Lieut.-Colonel Elliot rose—
  Mr. Lindgren: Really, if hon. Members will keep interrupting—I know it is late in the evening, but not so late—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

SCOTLAND
  Book, Kirkcudbright (Withdrawal)
  Book, Kirkcudbright (Withdrawal)
  Housing Allocations
  Housing Allocations
BRITISH ARMY
  Class Z Reserve
  Class Z Reserve
  Troops, Korea (Press Articles)
  Troops, Korea (Press Articles)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Betting Duty (Receipts)
  Betting Duty (Receipts)
  Industry (Committees)
  Industry (Committees)
  Permanent Waving Outfits
  Permanent Waving Outfits
  Marshall Aid (Feedingstuffs)
  Marshall Aid (Feedingstuffs)
  Emigrants (Currency Control)
  Emigrants (Currency Control)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Imported Wines (Revenue)
  Imported Wines (Revenue)
  Post Office (Accounts)
  Post Office (Accounts)
  Borrowing
  Borrowing
  Russian Roubles
  Russian Roubles
  Foreign Travel Allowances
  Foreign Travel Allowances
  Imported Cigars (Revenue)
  Imported Cigars (Revenue)
  British Firms, Brazil (Tax)
  British Firms, Brazil (Tax)
  National Health Service (Limit)
  National Health Service (Limit)
  Tax Officials
  Tax Officials
  Defence Programme (Raw Materials)
  Defence Programme (Raw Materials)
  Hire Car Drivers (Tips)
  Hire Car Drivers (Tips)
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  Widows and Spinsters (Age Allowance)
  Widows and Spinsters (Age Allowance)
  Capital Issues Committee (Instructions)
  Capital Issues Committee (Instructions)
  Money Prizes (Tax)
  Money Prizes (Tax)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)
  Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)
  Sulphur
  Sulphur
  Equipment (Export to Hong Kong)
  Equipment (Export to Hong Kong)
  Monopolies Commission (Printed Fabrics)
  Monopolies Commission (Printed Fabrics)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MOTOR CARS)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MOTOR CARS)
HOUSING
  Heat Conservation
  Heat Conservation
  Building Costs (Softwood)
  Building Costs (Softwood)
  Flats (Steel)
  Flats (Steel)
  NEEDHAM MARKET
  NEEDHAM MARKET
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building Licences
  Building Licences
  House Repairs (Allowance)
  House Repairs (Allowance)
FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Festival Gardens
  Festival Gardens
  Tram Tracks (Cost)
  Tram Tracks (Cost)
  South Bank Exhibition (Radio Telescope)
  South Bank Exhibition (Radio Telescope)
  CLASS Z RESERVE (HOLIDAY)
  CLASS Z RESERVE (HOLIDAY)
  INDIA (U.K. PENSIONERS' TAX)
  INDIA (U.K. PENSIONERS' TAX)
  B.B.C. RECEPTION, MERSEYSIDE
  B.B.C. RECEPTION, MERSEYSIDE
  LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL (INCIDENT, GERMANY)
  LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL (INCIDENT, GERMANY)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [H.L.]
  2.35 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Dangerous Drugs Acts, 1920 to 1950, and Section 28 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read la. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

  UNITED NATIONS AND PEKIN GOVERNMENT
  2.36 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government what power exists under the Charter of the United Nations to enable that body to recognise a Government as the Government of any country which is one of the United Nations and to with-draw its recognition when it ceases to be the effective Government of that country; and how many of the United Nations have for themselves recognised the Pekin Government as the Government of China.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, the United Nations does not confer upon, nor withdraw from, Governments of Member States recognition as such, and no specific provision for such action is made in the Charter. Those United Nations bodies which are competent to do so must, however, decide upon the credentials of delegates claiming to represent Member States and, where more than one delegation claims to represent
  302
  the same State, must settle this procedural question by vote. In casting their votes on this issue, representatives of Member States will, of course, be influenced by the fact that their Governments have recognised one or other of the Governments claiming to represent the State concerned. Seventeen members of the United Nations have recognised the Central People's Government as the Government of China.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, will His Majesty's Government consider whether it would be possible to obtain, as a matter of urgency, the opinion of the International Court on the question of Chinese representation on the Security Council? Is the Minister aware that some of us believe that the Government which has its seat in Pekin is legally a member of the Security Council? Does he not, therefore, feel it desirable that the point should be clarified and, as it is rather a question of law and not of politics, does he not think that an advisory opinion of the Court would be of great value?
  LORD HENDERSON: With regard to the supplementary questions, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in another place on March 21, we consider that it is international law which defines the conditions under which a Government should be recognised. We believe that broadly the same principles govern the question of the representation of a Member State in the United Nations. It may well be, as the noble Earl has suggested, that an opinion of the International Court would be helpful in laying down the principles upon which such questions should be settled. Many Governments of Member States of the United Nations do not, however, agree with our views on recognition and on representation, and are of the opinion that the question is primarily a political one. As the noble Earl knows, it is necessary, in order to obtain an advisory opinion from the Court, for a resolution requesting it to be adopted by the Security Council or the General Assembly. In present circumstances, it is hardly likely that such a resolution would command a majority in either of those bodies.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Would it be right to assume that it would be well within the competence of the General Assembly of the United Nations, if they so chose, to give an opinion on this point?
  LORD HENDERSON: The position is as I have already stated in my first answer—that it is for the Credentials Committee and all the competent bodies to take a decision. The General Assembly is one of the competent bodies.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Would the Government agree that the exclusion of the Chinese Government from the Security Council is prolonging the war in Korea?

  DELEGATION FROM CHINA
  2.41 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government on what grounds a visa has been refused to the leader of an unofficial Chinese delegation now in Prague hoping for admission to this country; and whether steps could be taken to invite a representative body of Chinese to visit this country in order to promote understanding between the British and Chinese peoples.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, applications were received for visas to enable four Chinese delegates and one interpreter to attend a meeting organised by the Britain-China Friendship Association on April 8. The grant of visas to three of the delegates and the interpreter was authorised, but it was not considered to be in the public interest for Mr. Lee Yi-Mang, the leader of the delegation, to come to this country for this purpose. As regards the second part of the Question, His Majesty's Government would at all times welcome the free exchange of news and views between this country and China and, similarly, a visit to this country by a representative body of Chinese. It is, however, doubtful whether, pending the establishment of diplomatic relations, the Chinese Government would authorise the acceptance by
  304
  such a representative body of an official invitation to visit the United Kingdom. In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to take steps to extend any such invitation.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is there any evidence that the Chinese Government are opposed to the visit of this particular delegation to this country?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as I know, there is no opposition to the visit of this particular delegation, with which I have previously dealt. But with regard to another delegation, a wider delegation such as is contemplated, the opinion we have here is that probably the Chinese Government would not be willing to authorise acceptance of an invitation.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What importance can be attached to the offer to receive a delegation if the leader of such a delegation is to be excluded without any reason given?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We must consider in each case the credentials of the various peoples who are coming, and if, as we think, we have good reasons for declining to allow anybody to come, it is questionable whether it is wise to discuss it in public. I will tell the noble Lord privately what our reasons are, but I think he will agree with me, if he agrees that there must be a discretion, that it is not always right to disclose in public the reasons which have led us to exercise our discretion in a particular way.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
  2.44 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords. I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe it will be for the convenience of the House if I do so with brevity, leaving it to other noble Lords, and more particularly the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, to raise any special points in which they are interested. Then, with the leave of the House, I will venture to reply to the points raised. Before I move the Bill formally I should like in a few words to call attention to two clauses—I refer to Clauses 5 and 6. I

  305
  call attention to those clauses because they redeem pledges which I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, during the Committee stage of last year's Bill. I am sorry the noble Viscount is not with us, but, wherever he may be, I am sure that it will be good news to him to learn that these pledges are being carried out.
  Clause 5 relates to the disposal of soldiers and airmen of unsound mind who have homes in Northern Ireland. I have no reason to suppose that many gentlemen fall into this category. At different times I have been accused quite unfairly, of criticising Northern Ireland, but never have I suggested that there was any undue proportion of lunatics in that part of the world, and I feel that this clause has a very small reference indeed. Nevertheless, I would just point out that we have now established, with an amendment on the lines Lord Bridgeman wanted, that no further legislation in the Northern Ireland Parliament will be required. The present clause authorises the Army and Air Force Councils to direct by Order that the soldier or airman concerned shall be received into a particular hospital, instead of applying for his reception. It is just the difference between direction by order and application. I am sure your Lordships agree that we should carry out the promise we gave, and would wish me to express our gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for assisting us.
  Clause 6, I think, is of much wider interest. This, again, fulfils an understanding reached last year. Under the present law a soldier who has re-engaged to complete twenty-two years' service has to wait until his last year of service before he can apply to serve beyond twenty-two years. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, suggested last year that the appropriate time for giving notice of such an intention should be any time after the completion of fifteen years' service, and this in fact is the minimum period prescribed by this clause. This minimum period has been chosen because it is not considered that it will ever be possible to foresee the requirements of the Army sufficiently far ahead to enable applications for continuance to be entertained before the completion of fifteen years' service. I should say just this—it does not appear in the clause—that in the present circumstances of the Army, with the many uncertainties hanging over us,
  306
  it is doubtful whether it will be possible to entertain applications for continuance before the completion of eighteen years' service and, at the outset, this will be the period prescribed by regulations. But if, after experience, we find it possible to entertain applications at an earlier stage, then the figure of fifteen years is available in the Act. We hope that these arrangements will help the "career" soldier to plan further ahead for his future, and that thereby more men of value to the Service will be encouraged to stay on than is at present the case. With those few words, and awaiting the comments, suggestions and questions of your Lordships, and more particularly of the noble Marquess, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Pakenham.)
  2.48 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, your Lordships will, I have no doubt, agree that this is a practical and convenient method of dealing with a Bill of this kind, which is largely concerned with the annual reenactment of long-established provisions. The noble Lord was good enough to consult me in advance, and I readily agreed with his suggestion, it being open to myself and to other noble Lords who wish to do so in the course of the discussion to submit queries to which we believe he will reply at the end of the debate. I propose to make no comment upon what may be called the recurring decimals contained in this Bill—these clauses which reappear from year to year with unfailing regularity. There are proposed, however, certain amendments of a more or less minor character which I think raise a few queries. I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord for the two amendments to which he has already called attention. I do not propose to pause to discuss the position of military lunatics in the North of Ireland, but the amendment to Clause 6, as I think the noble Lord said, is of much wider significance and is a valuable concession. It is important that a man who is looking forward to a long career in the Service should be able to make up his mind at the earliest moment as to the lines on which it is to develop. It is also important from the regiment's point of view that they shall know how many of

  307
  their men are likely to be taking advantage of the opportunity to extend their service. The long-service soldier is so stable an element in many units that anything which can be done to increase the proportion of such men is to the general advantage.
  There are two clauses to which I should like to draw attention, in order to raise questions upon them; and there is also one somewhat surprising omission. The first clause to which I wish to draw attention is Clause 3, which deals with the somewhat peculiar constitutional status of the Federation of Malaya and seeks to make the terms of the Army and Air Force Acts applicable, as I understand it, to forces locally raised. Unhappily, warfare on a considerable scale has been proceeding in Malaya for some years, and considerable forces are already engaged. I thought that those forces had for some time past included forces raised actually on the spot. If that be so, I am a little puzzled to know why it is only now discovered that this particular provision is necessary in order to ensure the proper application of the Acts to those forces. The noble Lord no doubt has the answer. but it is not one which suggests itself offhand.
  The second clause to which I desire to draw attention is Clause 7, which substitutes for the words "regimental" and "regimental or garrison" the word "ser-vice" in a variety of contexts. I may be —and I hope that I am—unjustifiably suspicious as to the underlying purpose of that clause, or if not as to part of the purpose at least as to one of the possible con-sequences of it. There is a school of thought, which has ardent supporters, in favour of establishing a corps of infantry, which, it is claimed, would achieve far greater elasticity, even at the price of eliminating the traditional and territorial affiliations of existing regiments. I am afraid that I belong to the school of, possibly, not very deeply instructed thought which would not eagerly welcome such a change, and I should be glad if the noble Lord could assure us that that is not the purpose at which this clause is aimed, and that if we pass the clause we shall not be smoothing the path for the introduction at a later stage of this particular change.
  308
  The omission to which I referred as being somewhat startling concerns a subject on which I have rather frequently addressed your Lordships' House lately —that of courts-martial. Your Lordships may recall that the Lewis Report on the administration of justice in the Army and Air Force was presented three years ago —in April, 1948. That Report contained a number of recommendations which, if approved, would require statutory authority in order to give them effect. In the White Paper issued at the beginning of this year, in which the Government incorporated those recommendations which they accepted, a number of these recommendations appeared. Surely it was not unreasonable for us to expect that in the next Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill to be presented to Parliament after the acceptance of those recommendations steps would be taken to implement them, by giving them legal sanction. Yet not a single one of them appears in this Bill. I think I am justified in expressing some surprise at the omission. If these recommendations are accepted by the Government, presumably it is on the basis that they are considered beneficial. If they are beneficial, steps should be taken at the earliest possible moment to put them into operation. It can scarcely be argued that the Government have not had time to prepare the necessary draft provisions for inclusion in the Bill, for. as I have already said, they have had three years during which to meditate upon the necessary legislative drafting required. It seems to me that, since we shall presumably have to wait another full year before these recommendations can be brought into effect, all those concerned have been somewhat un-fairly treated. I should like to know from the noble Lord, first, why recommendations are not carried out in this Bill, and, secondly, whether it is proposed to introduce some intermediate legislation before the next Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is presented, in order to give these provisions the necessary legal effect. Those are the only points I desire to raise on this Bill. I shall, as always, await with interest the replies of the noble Lord.
  2.58 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Marquess has spoken to us with all his customary charm and acuteness. If I were not equipped with what seems to me to be an effective reply, I should wonder

  309
  whether an effective reply would be forthcoming. Happily, I am able to assure him that it will be made. May I take first what is perhaps the largest question which he raised?—I refer to the question of courts-martial procedure. He will not expect me—even if I had the competence—to try to cover once more the ground which he and other noble Lords, including the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, only recently covered with such authority in this House. I will just explain the situation in this very brief way. The White Paper to which the noble Marquess has referred shows which conclusions of these Committees (that is, the Lewis Committee and also the Pilcher Committee—though the Pilcher Committee is not, perhaps, under discussion to-day, since it refers to the Navy) the Government are prepared to accept, which are still under consideration and which cannot be accepted. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said in the recent debate, among the recommendations of the Lewis Committee which have been accepted (these are the only ones which the noble Marquess has in mind, I presume, for the purposes of this afternoon's discussion) there is little of importance requiring legislation which is not covered by the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill which is at present on its way through another place. The noble Marquess asked whether any other Bill was envisaged. There is that Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I know that, but that Bill does not cover everything.
  LORD PAKENHAM: It does not cover everything, but I think it is right to mention it for the benefit of the House. As the noble Viscount said, there is little of importance which requires legislation and which is not covered by the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill, or which cannot be anticipated by administrative action, as at least one of the recommendations has been. At the same time, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, informed the House that our intention is to sweep up any outstanding points in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, 1952, by which time final decisions will have been reached on the recommendations still under consideration. I concede to the noble Marquess that it would have been possible to give effect in the present Bill to the recommendations which have already been
  310
  accepted, but as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has said, they are of minor importance. I have three or four of them before me, and although, of course, they are desirable, they cannot be said to be really vital or urgent. One of these accepted recommendations has already been put into operation toy administrative action, as I have said, and it therefore seemed best to leave over the whole of the residual matter until next year, when the final decisions will have been reached on the outstanding recommendations, some of which are of considerably greater importance.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Lord says that one of these recommendations, stated in the White Paper to require legal sanction, has now been implemented by administrative action— or did I misunderstand the noble Lord?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I am afraid that I answered the question in my own terms, and did not follow the terms of the original question. The noble Marquess phrased it in that way, but my answer was not in quite the same terms. I am taking only the recommendations of the Lewis Committee which have been accepted, not restricting myself to those requiring legal sanction. This particular recommendation—the recommendation that the eight-day report should be rendered whenever the accused is in close arrest, whether he is on active service or not—will eventually require legislative sanction. The recommendations which have been accepted are of three kinds: they can be dealt with by the Bill now passing through another place; they can be put into operation, as they have in this case, by administrative action; or they are very small and can more tidily be dealt with next year, when the remaining recommendations to be put into operation will be included in the 1952 Bill. In placing recommendations under three headings, I feel that we have followed the neatest course.
  May I deal now with two other main points raised by the noble Marquess? I can assure him that no attack what-ever is intended on the regimental spirit by substituting the word "service" for the words "regimental" and "regimental or garrison" in Clause 7. All my colleagues, and certainly my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, are determined that that spirit

  311
  shall be enhanced in every possible way. The change in terminology is required only in the limited context of the Army Act, and in other cases the term "regimental" will continue to be used, with all its present wealth of meaning. The field covered by this change is that in which the words are used for strictly legal purposes, in qualification of "institution, necessaries, books, band, mess or property." The term "service" which is introduced comprehends, by the definition given to it in this clause, both "regimental" and "garrison" and makes it clear in simple language that what is referred to is any property belonging to, or connected with, the Army or any part of the Army.
  The noble Marquess may be aware of the reason for this change, but some of your Lordships may not. The Amendment is necessary because of a good deal of difficulty which has arisen about the theft or damage of Army property. Your Lordships would agree that any such offence should not go unpunished because of a doubt of interpretation whether such property is legally "regimental" or "garrison" property. At least on one occasion the offender escaped punishment because the charge was wrongly drafted. In order to make sure that that kind of thing cannot happen, we are using the broad word "service," so that no military criminal can escape through some verbal quibble. That is the simple reason. I assure the noble Marquess that there is nothing sinister in this, no arrière pensée. no intention of weakening the regimental spirit, to which we all subscribe as warmly as he does.
  Finally, I should like to say a word in reply to the noble Marquess's reference to Malaya. The purpose of Clause 3 is to enable the Federation of Malaya to apply the Army and Air Force Acts to forces which may be raised under local legislation. It does not affect men enlisted locally in Malaya for the British Forces. but only Malayan forces raised under local enactments. I do not know whether the noble Marquess was clear on that point. The Army and Air Force Acts already contain sections giving power to a Colony to apply these Acts, with modifications as desired, to any forces raised within the Colony. But Malaya is not a Colony as defined in the relevant legislation; it is a Federation of nine British
  312
  Protected States, and the British Settlements of Penang and Malacca. The application of these Acts to forces raised by the Federation is not at present provided for. The reason why this particular extension is now necessary (and I think this was the main point in the mind of the noble Marquess, who asked why this had suddenly become necessary) is that for the first time the Federation intend to raise volunteer forces under local legislation—for example, the Malayan Volunteer Force, a military force being raised soon—to which they would like the Army and the Air Force Acts to apply. That is the reason for the clause. It has never previously been needed, but the Federation would now like it, so that they may apply the Acts to their new volunteer forces. That is an explanation which I feel will probably satisfy the noble Marquess. Unless there are further points, I will thank the noble Marquess for the tone of his comments and ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (DEFENCE PURPOSES) BILL
  3.14 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am almost ashamed to think of how much of your Lordships' time I have taken in discussing Bills of this sort, and of the comments that I have made on the distinction between powers and purposes, and the like, extending over very many years. Your Lordships will remember that in the original Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, His Majesty —which, of course, means his Ministers —was given power to make such Regulations
  "as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm"
  and certain other purposes. Therefore, no court has jurisdiction to question them, so long as the Minister can honestly say that a particular Regulation is, in his opinion, necessary for one of these purposes. Therefore, it is necessary always to distinguish between the powers comprised in the Regulation and the purposes for which Regulations can be made.

  313
  The emphasis in 1939 was on the prosecution of the war that was then raging, and the defence of the realm. But in 1945 the war was over and, by common consent, we had to continue certain of the existing Regulations—there was no power to make new Regulations—and obviously the purpose was a different one. In the Act of 1945 the purpose may be summarised as follows: to secure a sufficiency of essential supplies and services to the wellbeing of the community; to facilitate demobilisation; to facilitate readjustment of industry; and to assist the relief of suffering. Those purposes indicate the sort of problems that confronted us after the war.
  Then came the year 1947, when the scene had changed again, when we were battling with the dollar problem and trying to close the dollar gap. We then passed the Act of 1947, again altering the purposes. There, they were for promoting the productivity of industry; the fostering and directing of exports; and generally for ensuring that the whole resources of the community were used in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community. That Act asked for very wide powers indeed. Speaking for myself, I feel no doubt that had one of the Ministers come to me—because this matter is not challengeable in the courts—with regard to any Regulation which we had passed, and said: "Do you think I am justified in promulgating this Regulation?", I should have said: "Well, if you think that this is making use of the resources of the community in a manner best calculated to serve their interests, I think you are perfectly entitled to do it." But, of course, I concede that, just because these powers are not challengeable in the courts, the Minister, in making them, ought to be especially careful to see that he is exercising his powers in a way which accords not only with the letter but with the spirit of the Act.
  Now, unfortunately and unhappily, we are again in a new position. What we have to do now is to see that this country is armed as quickly as may be to put her in the position to resist aggression, in the hope and belief that by so doing we stand the best chance of preventing a war. We must reorientate our point of view. Therefore I feel it right, lest we should be
  314
  accused of using powers which are wearing a little thin, that we should restate with emphasis the purposes which the Minister may now have in mind, not in promulgating new Regulations but in using the existing Regulations. That, my Lords, is this Bill. The Bill makes it plain that those Defence Regulations which are continued in force by the Act of 1945 can be used for purposes which are set out in Clause 1. Let me here state that we had a good deal of controversy at the time about whether we should have our five years. We got our five years, but the five years ran out, and your Lordships will remember that we recently had from this House an Address asking that the powers should be renewed. They are now on a yearly basis, and they come to an end on December 10 of this year. Therefore I am not to-day asking for anything at all after December 10 of this year, when it will be necessary, if these powers are to be used, to pass a new Act or to present a new Address.
  This Bill illlustrates the distinction between purposes and powers, because the second part of the Bill confers a temporary power to stop up highways passing through or near defence establishments where the stopping-up is urgently necessary for defence purposes. That power is not one of the powers that exist to-day. Whereas the first part of the Bill deals with the purposes to which the existing powers may be put, the second part of the Bill deals with new powers. From a strictly legal point of view, the Bill is not required for the great majority of the measures which will have to be taken under emergency powers for defence purposes. The Supplies and Services Acts of 1945 and 1947 are drawn in wide terms and give very wide powers, though there are one or two matters with which we might have to deal and which I shall indicate shortly, where I think some clarification is desirable.
  When in October last your Lordships agreed to present Addresses seeking the renewal of emergency powers for a further period of twelve months, I made it clear that among the reasons which made it necessary to continue emergency powers in force for a further period were the needs of the rearmament programme. I referred to the fact that not only would land already requisitioned have in many cases to be retained, but that further land

  315
  might have to be requisitioned in order that new airfields could be built and new training areas provided. I made that statement on the basis, which I do not think can seriously be challenged, that the needs of defence could be met within the framework of the existing powers. Therefore, our reason for bringing this Bill before Parliament is constitutional rather than legal.
  Since the renewal of emergency powers last autumn for a further period of one year, the world situation has brought defence needs more and more to the front, and a stage has been reached at which we feel it is desirable to secure Parliamentary sanction for the use of emergency powers for defence purposes. Defence and rearmament were not among the main purposes contemplated by Parliament when the Supplies and Services Acts of 1945 and 1947 were passed, even though we used language wide enough to include defence. Indeed, in 1945 defence purposes, under that specific description, were dropped when the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts were allowed to expire. The emphasis in 1945 was on the transition from war to peace and the economic needs of the transitional period. Then in 1947, when more drastic controls had to be imposed for the purpose of increasing exports and reducing imports, we passed the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947. Now, when once again it is necessary to bend our energies to the task of rearmament, it may be necessary to reimpose economic controls which have lapsed, and the supplies and services departments may have to requisition land and buildings.
  We could do nearly everything under the existing provisions of the Supplies and Services Acts, but, as I have indicated, we take the view that we ought to obtain express Parliamentary approval for what we are about to do, and not depend on Acts of Parliament which were primarily directed at a different state of affairs. Your Lordships may say—and I should agree—that it is indeed unfortunate that these emergency powers should have to be used, first, for the demobilisation of the Armed Forces after the end of the last war, and for all the economic problems of the period of demobilisation, then for the economic rehabilitation of the country and now,
  316
  finally, for the building up again of adequate defences to face a threatening world situation. All these different purposes, for which these emergency powers have had to be used, are strange bedfellows when you look at them as they appear in successive Acts and Bills, but this merely epitomises the history of the last six years when the hopes which we formed in the hour of victory in 1945 have been dashed or, at any rate, postponed for a time.
  The matters in respect of which we felt it desirable on legal grounds to seek the fresh powers contained in the Bill are as follows. One concerns the possible requisitioning of ships in connection with United Nations operations. The language of the 1945 and 1947 Acts is wide enough, in my view, to cover the general building up of the defence services, on the ground that such services are essential to the wellbeing of the community, or that the use of the resources of the community is calculated to serve the interests of the community. But these phrases are not very apt when it comes to the use of requisitioning powers for a specific military operation under the aegis of the United Nations in a remote part of the world. Such a use of the powers is hardly part of the general process of controlling the use of our economic resources with which the Acts are concerned. The necessity for these powers has not arisen as yet. Let me make that quite plain. The Minister of Transport has so far been able to charter all the ships he wants for Korea, but circumstances might arise in the future in which requisitioning powers would have to be used if the necessary shipping space were to be secured or, at any rate, secured at rates which were not wholly exorbitant. We think it a matter of ordinary prudence to be prepared to deal with this situation if it should arise in the future.
  The other strictly legal difficulty with which we are faced concerns the use of emergency powers to prevent Communist countries receiving supplies which might be of great value to them. If we need the supplies urgently ourselves the existing powers would suffice, but if the primary motive is to deny the supplies to other countries rather than to secure them for ourselves, it hardly falls within the powers conferred by the existing Act.

  317
  Your Lordships will see that paragraph (b) of Clause 1 of the Bill expressly covers this point. I do not think I need give a detailed description of the emergency powers to which the Bill relates. We covered the ground fairly thoroughly in the debate in October last on the renewal of powers for a further year. I should, however, like to refer briefly to two matters—labour controls and requisitioning powers.
  The present Bill would enlarge the field within which labour controls could be employed. As I explained in the debate on the Address on November 2 last, the Government have never contemplated that any permanent legislation continuing in existence the essential economic controls should include any provision for the direction of labour. In regard to the present temporary powers, while Defence Regulation 58A will be kept in existence and may be used for certain limited purposes, no further use will be made of the powers given by that Regulation, either to direct men and women to perform specified services or to require them to remain in specified employment, unless an immediate attack on this country is anticipated. If, for any other reason, such powers are deemed to be necessary, legislation will be introduced to deal with it.
  Now a word or two about the use of requisitioning powers. There will have to be some requisitioning of land and buildings for the Service Departments and for defence production, and possibly also for the accommodation and storage requirements of the Service and civil Departments. We shall, therefore, have to make more use than recently of certain Defence Regulations—namely, Regulations 50, 51 and 85. The Service Departments will also have to make some use of Defence Regulation 52 to obtain training rights over new areas. Where the requisitioning of land is contemplated, the civilian Departments concerned are consulted. These consultations will continue, though we have been endeavouring to work out a procedure which will ensure that the machinery acts sufficiently speedily in urgent cases.
  Before I leave the main provision of the Bill, there is one other matter which I should mention. The provision in Clause 1 (1) that Supplies and Services Acts are to be deemed always to have included the new purposes is not intended to render
  318
  legal past acts of the Government. The Government have not exceeded their powers. The words are required because the Bill itself, by expressly making defence one of the purposes for which Defence Regulations can be used, inevitably throws some doubt on the validity of the use of Defence Regulations in the past for this purpose. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 reproduces a provision which was inserted in the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947. I frankly doubt whether newspapers need this statutory protection, but as it was included in the Act of 1947 we thought it well to reproduce it here lest anybody should argue that it had been impliedly repealed.
  So much for the purposes. Now I come to the powers. In Clause 2 we are asking for the extension of our powers. We really have tried to dispense with Defence Regulations when they no longer appeared to be required; and, of course, a Regulation once revoked cannot be revived. The Sup-plies and Services Acts all relate to an existing body of Defence Regulations which is pruned from time to time and gradually reduced in volume and which cannot be increased. There are no powers for anything corresponding to government by decree. We dispensed with the powers about roads. There was a wartime Regulation—Regulation 16—which empowered a competent authority to close roads for defence establishments and factories. It was a necessary part of the machinery for the rapid extension of defence facilities, especially airfields. After the war it was thought and hoped that the Regulation would no longer be required for the fresh closing of roads near defence establishments, and it was narrowed to deal only with the closing of roads in connection with opencast coal working and the construction of generating stations. We now find ourselves in a situation in which it is obviously necessary to extend airfields and enlarge other defence establishments. Requisitioning powers in respect of land and buildings, and the powers to do work on land, are still in full force, but there is no emerfency procedure for the closing of roads. Under the ordinary peace-time procedure for stopping up highways under the High-ways Act, 1835, or the Town and Country' Planning Act, 1947, there may be delay in the extension of airfields for six or even nine months. Already there have been cases in which the extension of

  319
  runways at airfields required urgently have been delayed because of the necessity for lengthy procedure for stopping up a road passing over or near the proposed extension.
  As there is no procedure for reviving part of a Defence Regulation which has expired, it is necessary to obtain statutory authority for an expeditious procedure for the closing of a highway. We have, reluctantly, to recognise the need for bringing back this power in time of peace. We have done what we can to make the clause as acceptable as possible to all interests concerned. As I have said, the power is temporary in character, and will come to an end when the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, expires—which will be on December 10 next, unless Parliament decides to extend these powers further. It falls on the Minister of Trans-port and not on the Service Departments to exercise this power, and the Minister can exercise the power only if he is satisfied that the closing of a road is urgently required for defence reasons. He has to give twenty-one days notice before making the order. This will enable local authorities and other interested parties to notify the Minister of any objection to his proposal, but will not, of course, give time for a formal inquiry. The second part of the clause provides a procedure for the permanent stopping up of a highway which has been temporarily closed, and for the provision of a permanent alternative route if that is necessary. There is no corresponding provision in Defence Regulation 16. The procedure is that provided by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and gives protection for the interests of the public and of statutory undertakers. Where it is clear that the stopping up of a highway will be permanent, the Minister of Trans-port will apply the Town and Country Planning Act code procedure, and this will enable the Minister to provide permanent alternative facilities, including an alternative highway constructed at the expense of the Service or other Department responsible for the work necessitating the closure of the road. We have looked carefully into the question of the powers which we shall require for the defence programme. We believe that with the enlargement of the purposes for which the Defence Regulation might be required —these are set out in Clause 1 of this
  320
  Bill—together with the power to close roads for defence establishments, which is contained in Clause 2, we shall have all the power we need to deal with the tasks which lie ahead. We will endeavour to implement the defence programme whilst at the same time striving to carry on the work of economic recovery in which we have been engaged since the end of the war. No one on either side of the House unduly likes this type of legislation, but I think your Lordships will agree with me that, unhappily, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves it is necessary that we should introduce this Bill. I confidently rely upon your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  3.35 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before I come to the substance of this Bill, I should like to say a word of thanks to those responsible for what I believe, in technical circles, is called the format of the Bill which has been put forward for our consideration. I am glad to see that on this occasion we have been provided with an explanatory memorandum. As your Lordships—or, at any rate, those of your Lordships who have been in another place—know, although that is the universal practice there it has never up to now, I think, been generally accepted (I do not know why) in this House. It is obviously for the convenience of us all, and I hope that what has now started will become a general and enduring practice.
  To turn to the Bill itself, I do not propose to speak at any great length. On the face of it, and after what the Lord Chancellor has said, it seems to be comparatively innocuous. As I understand it, one of the main purposes of this measure is to get the Government out of possible embarrassments caused by their own past actions. They hope they have not been guilty of any moral turpitude, or even illegality, in their interpretation of existing legislation. But they are not quite certain; they are not absolutely comfortable. The last thing they wish, as the Lord Chancellor made clear, is that their character and rectitude in this matter should be in the slightest degree

  321
  impugned. They want to be ultra-respectable, and so they introduce a new Bill for the purpose of clarifying the position and giving them powers which they hope they already possess.
  If they will forgive my saying so, I cannot help feeling that, from a purely constitutional point of view, Bills of this kind, though they may sometimes be necessary, are not a very happy device, because they tend to launch Parliament on a rather slippery slope. If the Government are uncertain whether or not they have certain powers, it may well be that by the new legislation they are in fact extending those powers. Indeed, I gather from what the Lord Chancellor said this afternoon that that is true even of this Bill, though only to a very limited degree and for a special purpose. Moreover, I should have thought that it was in any case a little alarming that the Government who introduced the original legislation are themselves not quite certain what powers they have under that legislation. I should have thought that that situation showed clearly the potential dangers which are inherent in vast extensions of the powers of the Executive to govern by Regulation, which has been such a feature of our national administration since the war.
  I am sure that noble Lords opposite will understand if we on this side of the House feel bound to view such measures with a very wary eye, especially where controls are concerned. I do not for one moment say that it is possible at the present time to do without any controls. As I understand, controls are like tariffs: sometimes they are necessary, sometimes they are not. But most of us who sit in this House—and I should have thought that this applied to noble Lords opposite as much as to us on this side—wish to lay down certain general lines for our own guidance in dealing with such administrative devices as controls. First, they should be as few as are necessary for the welfare of the community; and, secondly, they must be under the constant review of Parliament. Parliament should never give a blank cheque to the Executive which might tend to take such matters permanently out of the purview of the representatives of the people. That, as I see it, is the essence of Parliamentary democracy. I am sure it is the principle which will always actuate us in this
  322
  House and, I hope, in another place also. To put it in one sentence, the control of Parliament must always override all other controls.
  Having said that, I would add that, fortunately, in the present case I do not think such fundamental issues arise. For one thing, as the Lord Chancellor has explained to us this afternoon, the duration of this Bill is not unlimited. It is limited, as I understand it, to the period of the main Act, the Supplies and Services Act, 1947, of which, in effect, this is only an interpretation; and that period, I understand from what the Lord Chancellor said to us this afternoon, comes to an end in December of this year. When, if ever, the Government decide to continue or to perpetuate that main Act, no doubt very important issues will arise which will need the most earnest consideration of us all. Meantime, however, I do not think we need disturb ourselves too much over the measure which we are discussing this afternoon. Moreover, the limited purpose to which this measure is directed is one, I should have thought, which must be viewed with sympathy by us all. It aims at easing the task of the Government in making the necessary provisions for national defence, and after all that is common ground among us all. Clearly, in the situation in which this country is placed to-day, urgent measures of this kind must not be held up.
  I was rather amused to see that when the present Foreign Secretary, as Lord President of the Council, introduced this Bill in another place, he said, or indicated with some horror, that without it the Government might have to go through all the delays and complications of the Town and Country Planning Act, which he clearly thought would be intolerable. We who are private citizens have to go almost daily through all the inconveniences and frustrations which are involved in that measure, and we can only sympathise with the Government in this respect. I hope that the relaxation which they are now claiming for themselves will soon be extended to private citizens, and I hope, too, that Government Departments, and especially the Service Departments, will use with moderation the powers which we are now giving to them. If I may be forgiven for saying so, they were apt to be both autocratic and even arrogant in their dealings with private

  323
  citizens during the days of the war. I hope, in particular, that some instructions will be given to the officers who will be in charge of administering these Regulations that, where they are taking over land or property of either owners or occupiers, they shall do those people the courtesy of telling them beforehand what they are going to do.
  The other day I had to take up with a Service Department the case of a man who found out that his land was being taken only because of the fact that a neighbouring labourer was engaged upon the construction of a new camp. Before that moment he had been told nothing about where this camp was being put, or even that there was going to be a camp at all. I think that is an intolerable intrusion upon the liberty of the individual. If land or buildings are necessary for the defence of the country, of course they must be made available; but courtesy should be observed in these matters. Having said that, I think it is common ground among us all that unnecessary delays in perfecting our defences should be avoided, and I am sure that we can all face this special limited purpose with some slight elasticity in the application of our principles.
  The question of whether we may find it necessary to suggest any Amendments to this Bill is, of course, one which we shall have to consider before the Committee stage. As your Lordships know, an Amendment was introduced in another place to make certain that this measure would not legalise the direction of labour, which I think would be regarded in all parts of the House as an intolerable intrusion upon civic liberty in peace time. But, as the Lord Chancellor has told us this afternoon, the Minister of Labour in another place made it perfectly clear that that is not the Government's intention. As I understood what was said —I may not have the words quite correctly, but I should like to repeat them— it is not the intention of the Government to make further use of powers given under Regulation 58A, either to direct men or women to perform specified services, or to require them to remain in specified employment, unless and until an immediate attack on the country is anticipated. I gather that the Minister of Labour added (and I am sure it would
  324
  be repeated by the noble and learned Viscount) that if for any other reason such powers were deemed to be necessary, legislation to obtain them would be introduced. In view of that categorical pledge, I hardly think it will be necessary for us in this House to press the matter further, though I have no doubt that the tabling of that Amendment by the Opposition in another place performed a valuable function in enabling the Government to make so clear a statement on the question.
  Then, my Lords, there is the retrospective aspect of the Bill, upon which I do not think the Lord Chancellor said very much. I suppose that we all hate retrospective legislation, and our instinct is to oppose it whenever it appears. The question in this case appears to me to be whether the Government are taking new powers retrospectively, or merely making certain that they have the old powers which they thought they had. I think the noble and learned Viscount has already made the position fairly clear. He holds that they are not claiming new powers; that they intend only to act under existing Regulations, and wish merely to interpret the purposes to which those Regulations can be moved. I should have thought that was all right. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will allow us to consider the matter a little further before the Committee stage but, broadly speaking, I am certain that we shall all agree that this particular Bill is not open to great objection. Its main purpose of building up our national defences is one which we should all approve, and we on these Benches do not intend to oppose the Second Reading.
  3.47 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may, with the leave of the House, briefly reply to the noble Marquess, I do not find myself in any opposition to what he has said. As has often been said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and I think it is the duty of all quarters of this House to scan these measures with great care to see that the Executive are not trying to get some new powers without disclosing them quite frankly to the House. Your Lordships know me well enough to know that if there were any such intention I should most certainly point it out to your Lordships. But there is no such intention

  325
  at all. Apart from Clause 2 about the stopping up of roads, which is a very small point, we are not asking for any new powers here. We simply make it plain that we are making use of the powers which we already possess for the purpose of what I may broadly call defence and building up our defences.
  The only retrospective element about it is this. I am frightened that if a Bill is introduced making it plain that in future these powers may be used for defence purposes, it may lead to the argument that before this had been done it was not legitimate to use them for defence purposes, and the mere fact that this Bill was passed might lead to this argument. I have no doubt in my own mind that every single power we have used is fully justified under the existing powers. The only case in which I feel the powers could be questioned is, as I have said before, if it were thought necessary to requisition tonnage for the Korean war. I think it is a little doubtful whether that could properly be done. Be it observed that the power is there, but I doubt whether the purpose for which it would be sought to exercise the power was one really contemplated. Therefore, I think we ought to come to Parliament and tell them that. The other purpose
  326
  about which I am a little doubtful is whether we should be entitled to prevent potential enemies from getting valuable goods which we ourselves do not require. There again, I think we ought to come to Parliament and make it quite plain that that is one of the purposes.
  I am only too glad that the noble Marquess should have ample opportunity for looking at this matter. If he wants to move any Amendment at a later stage of the Bill he is fully entitled to do so, and I will gladly assist, so far as I can, by explaining the very complicated nature of this Bill, which deals with a topic on which we have spent so much time in the past. As the noble Marquess has said, this is really an innocuous Bill, but I think it is right that we should come to the House to make it perfectly plain that we ask to be allowed to use our existing powers—and no more than our existing powers—for the new purposes which, unhappily, have emerged all too clearly. For that reason, I ask your Lordships to support this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before four o'clock.