Sitting of 7 December 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority he enforces the keeping of records, as required by Notice No. 77H, issued by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 20 (2) of the Finance Act, 1946.
    Mr. Shepherd: If my hon. Friend is satisfied that the legal position is sound, does he feel that the moral position of compelling traders to keep new records of transactions between two traders, each of whom is already registered, is really a sound one?
    Mr. Brooke: There has been a very general desire among traders themselves that the system of registration for Purchase Tax purposes should be enlarged. Consultations took place with the principal trade associations concerned when this new plan was evolved which make it possible to extend the system of registration, provided that these additional records are kept.
    Mr. K. Thompsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an early statement about his intentions with regard to Purchase Tax, so as to avoid the consequences of uncertainty to consumers, traders and manufacturers.
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he Will make a statement, similar to that made by him a year ago, on his intentions concerning changes in Purchase Tax in the coming year.
    Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend is aware of the considerations involved and is watching the position carefully, but I cannot say anything more on the matter at this stage.
    Mr. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take note that, while traders and consumers alike look for the early removal of this damaging tax, they would sooner have an immediate announcement now even if it meant that hope of the ultimate removal of the tax was deferred? An announcement of the Government's intentions would be of great importance to everybody.
    Mr. Brooke: The long-term future of the tax is, of course, a matter for the Budget, but I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Chancellor is well aware of the possible disturbance to trade that announcements may cause and is taking that into very careful consideration.
    Mr. Jay: As the Chancellor made an announcement of this kind a year ago, does not the Financial Secretary realise that failure to make a similar announcement now is a direct indication that there will be reductions in Purchase Tax in the Budget? Will not that have the most deterrent effect possible on trade meanwhile?
    Mr. Brooke: If the right hon. Gentleman will examine HANSARD, he will find that no Chancellor has made a statement on this subject in December.

    Trading Expenses (Advertising)
    Miss Burtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning his investigation of the circulation of soap coupons to housewives; and how far the money spent in that way is chargeable against Income Tax.
    Mr. P. Morrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his regulations provide that bonus schemes or free gifts offered by soap manufacturers shall be treated as legitimate trading expenses.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am advised that money spent in this way is admissible as a deduction in computing trading profits for Income Tax purposes if, not being of

    749
    a capital nature, it is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the trade.
    Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that it is reputed that Unilever has spent at least £1 million in this year alone on this form of advertising, and would he not agree that it would benefit the cost of living if prices were brought down instead of money being spent in this way on advertising?
    Mr. Brooke: It may help prices to be brought down if production and sales are stimulated; but the original Question referred to the state of the law, and I have informed the hon. Lady of the advice I received as to the proper Income Tax situation.
    Mr. Morris: Does the Minister not agree that it would be in the public interest for the prices to be reduced instead of there being these large advertising schemes for which the consumer always pays?
    Mr. Brooke: I am very glad indeed whenever I hear of prices being reduced.
    Mr. W. G. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that the housewife is delighted to get these free coupons?
    Mr. Brooke: Since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to this matter in a speech the other day, I understand that he has received spontaneously several pounds' worth of coupons.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that, for Income Tax purposes, money spent on advertising is either wholly, or in part, not an admissible deduction from company profits.
    Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that £230 million per year is being spent on advertising and that half that vast expenditure is, an effect, paid by the Exchequer in the form of tax rebates? When will he set the Treasury cat among the fat advertising pigeons, some of whom are resting snugly in the ranks of the Tory Party?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not know about the Treasury cat, but the hon. and gallant Member will remember that in 1947 Sir Stafford Cripps proposed certain changes in the law relating to advertising expenditure but, on reconsideration, they were withdrawn.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Does not my hon. Friend agree that properly conducted advertising is one of the essential ingredients of success in business?

    £ Sterling (Internal and External Values)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purchasing value of the £ sterling at the latest convenient date compared with 20s. in October, 1951.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The purchasing power of the £ sterling is estimated on the basis of the latest available figures to have been 18s. 8d. in October, 1954, compared with 20s. in October, 1951. This estimate is based on the price index of all consumer goods and services between 1951 and 1953. and the Interim Index of Retail Prices thereafter.
    Mr. Dodds: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has any hope of reaching 20s. in the £ again, and, if so, will he make a prophecy of how many years it may be before that happens?
    Mr. Maudling: I hesitate to make a prophecy, but I cannot help remembering that in the period of the Labour Government the £ fell from 20s. to 14s. 2d.
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purchasing power in shillings of the £ sterling, assuming it to have been 20s. in 1914, in 1939, 1946 and at the end of 1954.
    Mr. Maudling: Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ as 20s. in 1914, it is estimated that the corresponding figure for 1939 was 12s. 5d., for 1946 8s. 1d., and for October, 1954, 5s. 6d. This estimate is based on the cost-of-living index for the period between 1914 and 1938, the price index of all consumer goods and services for the period between 1938 and 1953, and the Interim Index of Retail Prices thereafter.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Does this mean that the hole in the purse is definitely not going

    751
    to be mended and that all the Government can promise is that it will not get bigger?
    Mr. Maudling: So far as there is a hole in the purse, it was enormously contributed to by the Labour Party.
    Mr. Peyton: Can my hon. Friend give the appropriate figure for 1951?
    Mr. Maudling: Not without notice.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what he attributes the decline in strength of the £ sterling.
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the current weakness in the exchange price of sterling.
    Mr. Maudling: The external value of the £ is affected by an immense variety of factors, some of them seasonal in character. While it would be a mistake to exaggerate the size and significance of these movements, my right hon. Friend is keeping a continuous watch on this and other indicators of the strength of sterling.
    Mr. Grimond: While I welcome the strength which the £ has shown in the last few days, can the Economic Secretary say whether the slight weakness was due to increasing inflation in this country?
    Mr. Maudling: It is always our experience that at this time of the year the £ is under pressure by reason of heavy seasonal purchases, particularly of grain, tobacco and oil. This year the purchases may have been somewhat delayed, and, therefore, the seasonal weakness that we normally anticipate in the autumn has been rather later than we expected.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the seasonal purchase of dollar commodities has been overwhelmingly the more important factor, or has there also been some movement of short-term funds away from this country?
    Mr. Maudling: It is difficult to be certain in these matters, but my very strong impression, after having studied the evidence, is that there has been no capital movement at all. This is a seasonal movement. This view is supported by the considerable strength of forward sterling quotations.

    Civil Service (Equal Pay)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can yet give any details of the result of the conversations with the staff representatives on the introduction of equal pay in the Civil Service.
    Mr. H. Brooke: These talks are in active progress, but my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement about them.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming and say how long it will be before the conversations are likely to end so that a statement can be made, and whether that is likely to be before Christmas?
    Mr. Brooke: With the best will in the world, I cannot give the hon. Member a definite answer to that question, because it depends not only on the Official Side but on the Staff Side. The talks have been going well, and I hope that they will not be unduly prolonged.

    Traders' Stocks (Tax Reductions)
    Mr. K. Thompsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further consideration he has given to proposals put before him for avoiding financial hardship to traders when Purchase Tax reductions are made on stocks held and on which tax has been paid.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I have considered this subject very carefully and sympathetically; but all the proposals which I have so far seen are open to the objections explained in the Report of the Hutton Committee, and for that reason it has not been possible to accept them.
    Mr. Thompson: May I take it from his reply that my hon. Friend's mind is not closed on the subject and that if further proposals are put before him offering a solution to the problem, he will be willing sympathetically to consider them?
    Mr. Brooke: I will certainly give that undertaking.

    Company Profits
    Miss Burtonasked the Chancellor of Exchequer whether he is aware that company profits have reached a record; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the situation.
    Mr. Maudling: The fact that, in our expanding economy, company profits have reached a record does not, by itself, call for Government action, any more than do the records reached by industrial production, wage rates and earnings. Such developments may, my right hon. Friend has often pointed out, raise new hopes and sometimes new problems for company managements. These are broad in their scope and better dealt with in debate rather than in reply to a Parliamentary Question.
    Miss Burton: The hon. Gentleman will be a more regular reader of the "Financial Times" than I am. Has he seen its recent statement that the gross profits of the tea trade, taken from company reports published in the first 10 months of this year, are £24,795,000 as against £8,044,000 last year, that being an extra £16,500,000? Does he not agree that what we want is not a further increase in prices but an investigation into what is going on in the tea trade?
    Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Lady will put a Question on the Order Paper dealing specifically with the tea trade, I will gladly give her an answer. However, it is wise in making comparisons to have regard not only to what the companies are earning when times are good, but also to the fact that companies were doing very badly when times were bad.
    Mr. Osborne: Is it not true that the Welfare State could not be carried on unless companies made good profits and from those profits contributed to the revenue?
    Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the Government are completely indifferent to a situation in which tea profits and prices are simultaneously rising steeply? Do the Government not care at all about the effect on housewives?
    Mr. Maudling: The Question which I answered dealt with profits generally, and my answer was that the Government are glad to see profits rising with incomes of all kinds.

    Northern Ireland Coal Subsidy
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the indirect cost to the United Kingdom Exchequer of the Northern Ireland subsidy on coal.
    Mr. H. Brooke: This is expenditure under Section 3 of the Aid to Industry Act (Northern Ireland), 1953, and is borne on moneys provided by the Parliament of Northern Ireland. The outlay for the financial year 1954–55 is estimated at £750,000. The cost of services under the Government of Northern Ireland is taken into account when the annual amount of the contribution which the Government of Northern Ireland make towards Imperial liabilities and expenditure is determined.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the answer mean that there is a reduction in the Imperial contribution from Northern Ireland on account of the subsidy? If so, would the Treasury look into the question of paying an equivalent subsidy in respect of other parts of Great Britain which are also across the sea and where the price of coal is exceptionally high?
    Mr. Brooke: I thought that supplementary question might follow. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on the subject.
    Captain Orr: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that such a proposal would be welcomed in Northern Ireland? In the context of this matter, will he examine the proposal that I made in a recent debate for the general subsidisation of transport?
    Mr. Brooke: Certainly, Sir.

    Overseas Information Services (Cost)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the current total cost of British overseas news and information services.
    Mr. H. Brooke: About £10¼ million.
    Mr. Grimond: Having regard to the immense good which the services are doing and the amount of money which is expended in other ways, cannot the Treasury provide some slight increase to enable the services to be maintained in certain countries where they are liable to be cut?
    Mr. Brooke: The Foreign Secretary recently made a statement on the subject, and I have nothing to add to what he said.

    National Economy
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Bank of England or from other banks about the current development of inflationary tendencies in the economy.
    Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the need to keep inflation in check, and that is one of the matters covered by the regular consultation that takes place between him and the Governor of the Bank of England.
    Mr. Jenkins: But the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that there has been a good deal of speculation about whether an inflationary situation now exists. Could he say whether, for instance, the view of the Government marches in step with that of the distinguished economist, Mr. Roy Harrod, who is associated with the Conservative Party, that we should cut down on investment to deal with inflation?
    Mr. Maudling: I thought the Question was referring particularly to any information received from the Bank of England, which is, of course, of a confidential character. As far as the Government's general attitude to the danger of inflation is concerned, I think that question could be more conveniently dealt with in the course of the debate this afternoon.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the inexpert mind how he reconciles his statement just now that the Government wish to control inflation with the statement he made a moment or two ago that they welcomed the rise in profits?
    Mr. Maudling: The whole point of avoiding inflation is to ensure that the rise in personal incomes keeps pace with the rise in productivity.

    P.A.Y.E.
    Mr. Walker-Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the possibility of a modification of the Pay-As-You-Earn system in respect of employers with only one or two employees.
    Mr. H. Brooke: If my hon. Friend has any specific suggestion to put forward, I will gladly consider it.

    School Fees (Tax Relief)
    Mr. Walker-Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give favourable consideration in his Budget statement to tax relief in respect of payments, by way of fees, to independent schools.
    Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion when he is reviewing the system of personal allowances and reliefs in connection with next year's Budget.
    Mr. Lewis: Surely the Minister is aware that the easiest way to save these people's money would be to close down these independent schools and let their children go to the State schools? Is he also aware that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does consider this, it will not benefit any of my constituents?
    Mr. Brooke: I can assure the hon. Member that the Chancellor will take everyone into consideration, including the hon. Member.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Will my hon. Friend not be deviated from his original statesmanlike answer by a partisan and unrepresentative supplementary by the hon. Gentleman opposite?
    Mr. Brooke: Nothing will cause me to deviate: but the final decision will rest with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Jay: Will the Financial Secretary take note that such a suggestion would meet with a great deal of opposition?

    Bookmakers (Licence Duty Receipts)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of licence fees he received from bookmakers on greyhound racecourses and horse racecourses during 1953; and how the figures compare with the revenue obtained in 1952.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The amount received in licence duty from bookmakers on greyhound racecourses in 1953 was £1,797,787, compared with £1,882,473 in 1952. Bookmakers on horse racecourses are not liable to this duty.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that there is at present a discriminatory tax on the tote at greyhound racecourses,

    757
    and will he ask the Chancellor to give favourable consideration to putting this tax and the totalisator tax on the same basis as all other taxes on betting?
    Mr. Brooke: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Member has said, but the reasons for this differentiation were given in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) on 11th February.
    Sir G. Braithwaite: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that, in the opinion of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), greyhounds are of greater importance than children?

    Income Tax
    Mr. Bingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the sum by which the standard rate of Income Tax would have to be raised in order to obtain a tax yield of 1s. per week from a gainfully employed person who is, respectively, single, married, and married with three children, and who earns, respectively, £4, £5, £6, £7, £8, £9, £10, £11, and £12 per week.
    Mr. H. Brooke: In none of the cases mentioned is any tax actually payable at the standard rate. Therefore the question what increase, if any, in that rate would be required to obtain the yields mentioned would depend upon the relationship that was fixed between the standard rate and the reduced rates, and upon the amounts of the bands of income chargeable at the reduced rates.
    Mr. Bing: Is not the hon. Gentleman capable of supposing that the same proportions were maintained, and would it not be valuable, before the debate tomorrow, to know that what, in fact, he is doing is raising to 15s. a week the rate to those who are paying the increased 1s. contribution? Is that what he is afraid of disclosing?
    Mr. Brooke: I think it would be a rash supposition on my part to assume that the relationship between the various rates would be maintained, because virtually on all other occasions when the standard rate has been changed the proportionate relationship has also been changed.
    Mr. Bingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the married allowance permitted under Income Tax law would have to be lowered in order that a gainfully-employed married man, without children, earning £5 a week would pay Income Tax at a rate equivalent to 1s. a week and by how much would the children's allowance have to be lowered in order that a similar amount of tax could be obtained from a similarly employed man with three children earning £9 per week.
    Mr. H. Brooke: By £29 and £41, respectively.
    Mr. Bing: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on not being able to get out of that one?
    Mr. Bairdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the estimated gain to the Exchequer of raising all Income Tax proportionately so that a married man with two children earning £10 per week would pay tax at an increased rate equivalent to 1s. per week.
    Mr. H. Brooke: It would be contrary to the principles of our Income Tax system to increase all tax liabilities proportionately in this way. I could not, therefore, give a figure that would not be misleading.
    Mr. Baird: Is it not a fact that it would be much better to raise Income Tax by 1d. than to raise the contribution 'to the National Insurance Fund by is., which would give the same return?
    Mr. Brooke: I think the hon. Member is anticipating the speech he hopes to make on Second Reading tomorrow, but 'he must not expect me to anticipate my speech, too.

    Betting Duty Receipts
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue received monthly from the 10 per cent. pool betting duty on greyhound racing totalisators during the period January-September, 1954; and whether the total for the nine months is greater or less than for the same period in 1953.
    Mr. H. Brooke: As the answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate that in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total for the nine months

    759
    is less than for the corresponding period in 1953.
    Wing Commander Bullus: Will my hon. Friend call the attention of his right hon. Friend to the fact that receipts show a consistent decline and ask him if he will once again look at this discriminatory tax with a view to some reduction or to its abolition?
    Mr. Brooke: Certainly I will call the attention of my hon. Friend to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.
    Mr. Lewis: While not disagreeing with the hon. and gallant Member as to this discriminatory tax, can the Minister give any other reason why there should be this continuing decline?
    Mr. Brooke: I was asked a question of fact and figures, and I think I had better not go into the realm of expressing opinions.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the returns from Entertainments Duty on football are also falling, and will he take off this tax which is strangling great clubs like Derby County?
    Mr. Brooke: That is an extremely important subject, but it is quite a different one.
    The following are the figures:

    £

    January

    …

    …

    …

    358,264

    February

    …

    …

    …

    330,321

    March

    …

    …

    …

    450,544

    April

    …

    …

    …

    535,370

    May

    …

    …

    …

    475,161

    June

    …

    …

    …

    576,407

    July

    …

    …

    …

    614,258

    August

    …

    …

    …

    598,350

    September

    …

    …

    …

    562,294

    4,500,969

    Chair Frames (Tax)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary to the Treasury the amount of Purchase Tax that has been collected on chair frames; and whether he will state the cost involved in its collection.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I have no precise information; traders are not required to furnish details of the amount of tax paid on each kind of article. But the amount of tax collected is certainly small, and the cost of collection negligible.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that the tax collected is from chair-frame makers who are not registered for tax and who supply upholsterers who are not registered; that this tax would not be payable were there registration, and that this is very unfair to a relatively small number in the trade?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is quite at liberty to raise that point, but I have given him all the information at my disposal. If he wishes to make further representations, naturally I shall pay attention to them.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Rating Valuation of Commercial Premises
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many protests he has received against the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, in so far as this affects rating of shops and offices; how many letters he has received from residents of West Ham on this subject; and what action he proposes to take to revise the provisions of this Act so far as it affects offices and shops.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that the method of assessment under the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, has been condemned by the members of the National Chamber of Trade and by occupiers of shops and offices generally as it places upon this section of the community an unfair portion of the rate burden as compared with other sections; and if he will therefore give further consideration to this matter.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many protests he has received from Cardiff concerning the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. P. Morrisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what reply he has sent to the national and local chambers of trade who asked for a revision of the provisions of the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, relating to offices, shops and business premises.
    Mr. Turner-Samuelsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he will introduce an

    761
    amendment to the existing law abolishing derating on industrial hereditaments;
    (2) whether he will take steps to amend the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, so as to abolish the present differentiation for rating purposes as regards shop and office properties, and houses, which exists under the said Act, and provide for a common basis for valuation for all types of property.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he has given consideration to the number of appeals made to him to amend the basis upon which shops and business premises are valued for rating purposes; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the dissatisfaction among those with offices and shops about the uneven incidence of rating, he will introduce a measure to abolish or modify the derating of industry and agriculture.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I would refer hon. Members to the replies given yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).
    Mr. Lewis: I saw that reply in HANSARD today, and my Question was, of course, put down before that written reply. If, as may well be the case, the interested parties are dissatisfied with that reply, would the Minister be prepared to look at the whole question and, if need be, meet deputations not only from the National Chamber of Trade but from other organisations interested in this question? May I have an answer, please?
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. George Thomas.
    Mr. Lewis: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: No point of order can arise. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt receive an answer if he is patient.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the written reply yesterday has nothing at all to do with Question No. 35, that there is considerable feeling in Cardiff about this question, and may I have some answer which I can give to my constituents?
    Mr. Sandys: On the question of the number of protests from Cardiff, I think the answer that I gave yesterday was that so far there are some 40,000 letters on this subject; but my copious mail is not classified geographically, so I am not able to give the hon. Member or the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) details for their particular areas. I said in my long reply in answer to a written Question—the reply was obviously too long to be given in answer to an oral Question—that, on the general position, I was prepared to give an assurance that as soon as the effects of the forthcoming revaluation can be fully measured the Government will review the position and consider whether any changes are necessary.
    Mr. Proctor: Does the Minister realise that this is definitely unfair to shopkeepers, considering that industrialists are now getting out of it by derating? Will he do something quickly, instead of waiting for the iniquity to be perpetrated?
    Mr. Sandys: There are a great number of uncertain factors in the whole business, and we cannot yet be sure how the new revaluation will work out in practice. I am reluctant to take any steps which will postpone yet again this process of revaluation, because the present system undoubtedly has many anomalies and creates many injustices quite as great as many of those about which fears are expressed in the present correspondence.
    Mr. Burke: How long will it be before the right hon. Gentleman can go into the matter again? It is causing very great hardship to certain sections of the community.
    Mr. Sandys: No hardship is being caused now, quite clearly.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Ought not the Minister to be a little more forthcoming? Is not the position that valuations for rating of houses and of business and shop premises differ in their bases and incidence? Does the Minister not agree that it would be proper to find some common basis for valuation as between these types of property?
    Mr. Sandys: That is the whole point.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of traders

    763
    who sent stereotyped complaints expressed complete satisfaction when the point was explained to them?

    Requisitioned Properties
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the property at Blackheath belonging to Mr. Davenport, of 20, Hazelbadge Road, Poynton, Cheshire, which was requisitioned in 1941, will be returned to its owners.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the house in Lewisham belonging to Mr. R. Fothergill, of 46, Kingswell Terrace, Perth, requisitioned in 1946, will be returned to its owner who is suffering considerable hardship.
    Mr. Sandys: I regret that I am not in a position to say when these two properties will be released.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend have another look at this matter? Is he aware that this house has been requisitioned for nearly 14 years and that my constituent has the house on mortgage and is actually losing money on it, apart from being unable to live in it? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter at a very early date?
    Mr. Sandys: I am well aware that there are many cases of hardship. I am at the moment considering the whole problem with a view to introducing legislation, as foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will send a circular to local authorities requiring them to provide suitable alternative accommodation for persons who, as a result of his Department's direction of November, 1952, are now under notice to quit the requisitioned premises to which they were sent during the war.
    Mr. Sandys: Local authorities normally satisfy themselves that occupants of houses which are being derequisitioned have alternative accommodation to which to go. If the hon. Member knows of cases of special difficulty, perhaps he will be good enough to send me particulars so that I can look into them.
    Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that some of these people were moved into
    764
    requisitioned houses to do war work when the war started and that some local authorities will not consider them for housing accommodation because they were not on the list in 1939?
    Mr. Sandys: In Burnley?
    Mr. Burke: Constituents of Burnley who have gone to other places.

    Mining Subsidence
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on his discussions with representatives of local authority associations on the problems arising from mining subsidence; and what action he will take to assist the local authorities affected.
    Mr. Sandys: I am not yet ready to make a statement on this subject.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister indicate when he will be ready? Is he aware that we understand that examination of the problem has been going on but that we recall that a pretty thorough examination was made by the Turner Committee which reported five years ago? Is he aware that the local authorities affected are very anxious that some urgent action should be taken to assist them? When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to bring forward the proposals?
    Mr. Sandys: I well understand the urgency of this matter but, before making a statement, I think that it might be a good thing if I went myself and saw one or two areas which are affected by mining subsidence. I am planning to do so during the Christmas Recess.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we warmly welcome that decision? Will he bear in mind that if the Turner Committee Report were fully implemented, we should get rid of a great social injustice at a relatively small cost to the National Exchequer?

    Atomic Waste Disposal (Forest of Dean)
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the dissatisfaction caused in the Forest of Dean by the failure of his Department to consult the local authorities concerned about the

    765
    disposal of atomic waste, except with the chairmen and officials of two district councils, he will, in future, when such issues arise, take no action till there has been a full meeting of the local authorities concerned at which proper consultation has taken place as required by Clause 5 (4) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954.
    Mr. Sandys: I have looked into the history of this case, and I am bound to admit that the consultation was far from adequate.
    Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that his reply to my Question will give satisfaction to those concerned in the Forest of Dean?

    House Purchase (Mortgage Guarantee Schemes)
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have put into operation the 95 per cent. mortgage guarantee scheme for house purchase described in his Department's Circular No. 42 of 1954.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): Seven hundred and seventy-two local authorities in England and Wales have resolved to put into operation the two schemes of guarantee described in the circular. I regret that I have no information as to the number of authorities who have actually given guarantees under one or other of the schemes.
    Mr. Page: While expressing satisfaction at the fact that a large number of local authorities have put this scheme into operation, may I ask my hon. Friend if he will ask his right hon. Friend to consider the issuing of a further circular to clear up some of the difficulties which many local authorities have found in trying to operate this scheme?
    Mr. Deedes: A number of points of difficulty have arisen, as might be expected in a new scheme, and a further circular giving guidance is in preparation.

    Hotels (Illuminated Signs)
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that, in many cases, hotels require for the efficient conduct of their business, adequate illuminated outdoor signs in the same way
    766
    as cinemas and theatres; whether, under the present regulations relating to outdoor advertisements, it is his practice in the event of appeals, to give the same consideration to hotels as to places of entertainment; and whether he will arrange for the regulations to be amended so as to ensure that the hotels of this country shall have reasonable facilities in this respect.
    Mr. Sandys: I do not know that there is much wrong with these regulations. However, if my hon. and gallant Friend will send me the precise text of the amendments he desires, I will gladly consider them.

    Development Plans (Objections)
    Mr. Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will specify the development plans in respect of which inquiry into objections concluded over 12 months ago and which he has so far not confirmed.
    Mr. Sandys: I will, with permission, circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the list:

    Anglesey County.

    Barnsley County Borough.

    Bath County Borough.

    Bedfordshire.

    Blackpool County Borough.

    Bolton County Borough.

    Bournemouth County Borough.

    Bristol County Borough.

    Cheshire: Part 2.

    Coventry County Borough.

    Cumberland County.

    Derbyshire

    Derby County Borough.

    Dorsetshire.

    Dudley County Borough.

    Eastbourne County Borough.

    East Ham County Borough.

    Glamorgan County: Part 1.

    Gloucestershire.

    Hampshire.

    Halifax County Borough.

    Hastings County Borough.

    Herefordshire.

    Isle of Ely County.

    Kent County: Part A.

    Lancashire.

    Leeds County Borough.

    Leicestershire.

    Leicester County Borough.

    Lincolnshire (Lindsey).

    London County.

    Manchester County Borough.

    Merthyr Tydfil County Borough.

    Middlesex County.

    Norfolk County.

    Northamptonshire.

    Northampton County Borough.

    767

    Northumberland County.

    Nottinghamshire.

    Peterborough, Sake of.

    Plymouth County Borough.

    Rotherham County Borough.

    Rutland County.

    Salford County Borough.

    Salop County.

    Sheffield County Borough.

    Smethwick County Borough.

    Southampton County Borough.

    Southend-on-Sea County Borough.

    Southport County Borough.

    Staffordshire.

    Stockport County Borough.

    Stoke-on-Trent County Borough.

    Sussex (West) County: Part 3.

    Wallasey County Borough.

    Walsall County Borough.

    Warwickshire.

    West Bromwich County Borough.

    West Ham County Borough.

    Wolverhampton County Borough.

    Worcestershire.

    York County Borough.

    Yorkshire (East Riding).

    Yorkshire (North Riding).

    Yorkshire (West Riding).

  HOUSING

    Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he proposes to limit the number of houses to be placed under contract in 1955 in Newcastle-under-Lyme to one-half of the number approved in 1954.
    Mr. Sandys: I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to this matter. I have asked for a report upon it.

    Rating Valuations (Improvements)
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that improvements to houses not involving additional building or structural alterations may give rise to an increase of rateable value which may take the houses over the range of composition allowances given to property owners by local authorities; and whether he will take steps to avoid this disincentive to the making of improvements to that class of property.
    Mr. Deedes: My right hon. Friend is aware that improvements to houses might bring their rateable value over the limit for the compulsory rating of owners, but he does not think that this would discourage owners from improving their property, especially as they might still
    768
    enter into agreement with the rating authority to pay the rates.
    Sir E. Errington: Does my hon. Friend realise that if it is desirable to put a bathroom into a house of this character, the effect is that there will be no possibility of increasing the rent?
    Mr. Deedes: That does not preclude agreement being reached on the rent collection subsequent to the increase in the rateable value.

    Built-up Areas (Applicants)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further consideration has been given to the problem of applicants for housing accommodation in areas now fully built or shortly to be so; and, in particular, to the need of some local authorities amalgamating their lists of applications in order more equitably to deal with outstanding applications.
    Mr. Sandy: I have just received a report from the Housing Management Sub-Committee on this and other related problems. I am in process of studying its recommendations.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to make a statement in the House with regard to this matter? Surely he appreciates that it deals with a particularly poignant grievance, because many applicants have no hope of ever getting accommodation. In the circumstances, can he speed up the report upon this matter to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Sandys: I am aware of the interest which exists in this report. As I explained, it comes from a sub-committee and has not yet been formally endorsed by the main committee. However, in order to save time, if the main committee has no objection I am going to publish the report as quickly as possible.

    Rent Increases
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many rent tribunals have now had requests to determine the amounts of increases in rent under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954; how many cases have been submitted to them; in how many of such cases decisions have

    769
    been arrived at; and in how many the amounts originally demanded by the landlords have been reduced.
    Mr. Deedes: The latest returns available at the moment cover the period up to and including 31st October, 1954. The hon. Member was given particulars of them on 23rd November. At that date 230 applications had been received by 19 tribunals, and 33 had been decided. I regret that the information asked for in the last part of the Question is not available
    Mr. Janner: In future, will the Minister be good enough to inquire what are the results of the various cases that come forward? Is he aware that in most of them there have been deductions?
    Mr. Deedes: The figure of the increase for which the landlords ask the tribunal would not give a factual rent, and we do not feel in a position to ask tribunals to give that figure. It would not provide a reliable guide.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman as least consider setting up further tribunals in order to deal satisfactorily with the increasing volume of work?
    Mr. Deedes: As the hon. Member is aware, that question was discussed recently. We are satisfied that these tribunals are able to meet the present amount of work. A watch is being kept upon that situation, and a progress report is being received upon it.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that rent tribunals have reduced amounts demanded by landlords in many cases which have been determined by those tribunals; and whether he will now consider revising the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, so that tenants of other flats or houses similar to those so affected who have agreed to pay more than a proper increase may not be compelled to do so.
    Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16th November.
    Mr. Janner: Has not the right hon. Gentleman taken the opportunity of inquiring what has been happening since he gave me that reply? Is he aware that a shocking state of affairs has arisen in
    770
    consequence of the fact that in some cases where the rents demanded by landlords are not granted by tribunals many people occupying adjoining flats are compelled to pay larger amounts, and have no relief at all? Is not the Minister prepared to alter the Act in view of these facts?
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member stated these facts in the Question which he put to me on 16th November. There has been no change since then. I pointed out to him that to tear up private agreements of this kind would, in some cases, certainly result in the tenant having to pay more than he had previously agreed with the landlord.

  ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION

    Sulphuric Acid Plant, King's Lynn
    Commander Scott-Millerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the latest report he has received from his district alkali inspector regarding the fumes from the pyrites-burning sulphuric acid plant in King's Lynn; if he is now satisfied that this nuisance, which may be a danger to health to those residing close to the works of the West Norfolk Farmers and Chemical Co-operative Company, which houses this plant, has now been abated; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Deedes: My right hon. Friend's inspector, who visited the works last month, reported that although conditions were then generally satisfactory, certain further measures could be taken to prevent the emission of fumes. The company has been asked to install the necessary equipment for this purpose.
    Commander Scott-Miller: May I take it from my hon. Friend that the nuisance will be abated the moment this further piece of machinery is installed?
    Mr. Deedes: Yes, Sir. The main trouble arises when this plant starts from cold. The company has made certain suggestions about putting the matter right, and we have every reason to believe that it will do so.

    Committee's Report
    Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he proposes to take to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Air Pollution.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to establish smokeless and smoke-control zones, as recommended in the Final Report of the Beaver Committee.
    Mr. Sandys: The Committee's recommendations are being considered and I shall make a statement of the Government's intentions in due course.
    Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was distinct dissatisfaction among people who were interested in this important subject that he could not have promised legislation on it in the Gracious Speech? How soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to tell the House the result of his consideration?
    Mr. Sandys: It is just as well to study this important Report before rushing into legislation.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: If hon. Members succeed in a forthcoming Ballot for Private Members' legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman give every encouragement to that way of trying to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think that Private Members' legislation is a suitable medium for introducing Measures involving very large public expenditure.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it not at least possible in a case of this sort to make sure that local authorities have power to set up smoke-control zones without any great addition to public expenditure?
    Mr. Sandys: I am just as keen on this subject as the hon. Member. I shall do all that I can to clear the air about the Government's intentions as soon as possible.

    GERMAN ARMAMENTS AND TROOPS (SECOND WORLD WAR)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister if he will publish in HANSARD the text of the order he sent to Field Marshal Montgomery in 1945 concerning
    772
    the need for careful stacking of captured German arms in case it should be necessary to return them to German troops for fighting against the Russians.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Prime Minister what were the instructions contained in his telegram to General Montgomery, in May, 1945, concerning captured German arms.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will now publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT Or in a White Paper the text of the messages sent in 1945 to Field Marshal Montgomery concerning the preparations to be made for the use of German troops to resist the advance of Soviet forces beyond a certain point;
    (2) whether he is now in a position to state the terms of the arrangements made in May, 1945 between Field Marshal Montgomery and Field Marshal von Busch, acting on behalf of Grand-Admiral Dönitz, for the maintenance in being of German armed forces and for the collection and stacking of their arms.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): It has not been found possible to find the text of any message sent by me to Field Marshal Montgomery in May, 1945, concerning captured German arms. Every effort has been made and will continue to be made to find it. I will, of course, publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT any result should it be achieved. I certainly proposed around this time that the destruction of captured German arms should be delayed and my telegrams have been published. With regard to Question No. 51, in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey), Field Marshal Montgomery has also reported to me that no arrangements of this kind were ever discussed between him and Field Marshal von Busch and no German armed forces were maintained in being after their unconditional surrender.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Prime Minister aware that people everywhere remain profoundly shocked at his revelation that he was prepared to rearm the Germans in 1945? Will he answer this question: in this search of the official records has any list been found of the official documents now held by Field Marshal Montgomery? If not, can a search be made for any list or catalogue that is kept of the documents that are apparently in the possession of the Field Marshal?
    The Prime Minister: As to people being profoundly shocked, of course some people are very hard up to find something to talk about. As to the question about Field Marshal Montgomery, I think the hon. Member is stealing a march on the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who has already got a Question down for Thursday.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are many people who are prepared to let bygones be bygones if only the Prime Minister will get a move on and attempt to meet Mr. Malenkov?
    Mr. Warbey: Is the Prime Minister aware of the significant broadcast made on 11th May, 1945, by Field Marshal von Busch in which he said that, in agreement with Admiral Doenitz and the British authorities, he was establishing control over the German troops in the area of the 21st Army Group? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it was on his instructions that Field Marshal Montgomery refrained from arresting Doenitz, Jodl, Busch, Speer and the other top-ranking Nazi leaders, but allowed them to function as a government at Flensburg in Schleswig-Holstein until over-ruled by General Eisenhower?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will put that on the Order Paper, I will give it very careful consideration.

  SCOTLAND

    Ministerial Statements
    Mr. Rossasked the Prime Minister if in future he will so arrange it that announcements of Government policy affecting those Scottish matters which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland will be made in the House by the Secretary of State.
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will continue to make statements as may be necessary on matters Which are his responsibility. It would not, however, be possible to arrange that any subject of general British interest which indirectly or incidentally affected Scotland should invariably require a separate speech from the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is, in practice, a limit to the number of Ministers who should speak in a debate. The Front Bench cannot monopolise the whole time of the House.
    Mr. Ross: Surely the Prime Minister will be aware that there are matters m the Gracious Speech that vitally affect Scotland. He will also be aware that he himself announced acceptance by the Government of the Royal Commission's Report. Is he aware that this sorry silence of the Secretary of State really violates what was considered by the Commission, whose Report he accepted to be their essential principle, namely, that Scotland's needs and points of view should Be known when policy is being considered, when it is decided and when policy is announced?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the statement was made by me at the desire of the House and the request of Scottish Members.
    Mr. Woodburn: While we are grateful to the Prime Minister for making that statement and appreciate his having done so, may I ask whether he is aware that Scotland does resent intimations of vital matters to Scotland being pushed in at the end of an English Minister's statement as, say, on education the other evening? In a matter such as the Queen's Speech, we felt that it was desirable that Scotland should have had equal opportunity to have her Minister make a statement so that it could be debated in the House. We feel that we have been treated just a little discourteously in the matter of the Queen's Speech.
    The Prime Minister: I am sure it is the desire, intention and interest of Her Majesty's Government to make sure that Scotland is not treated with injustice.

    Questions to Ministers
    Mr. Rossasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent and proposed transfers of responsibility from United Kingdom Ministers to the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will arrange for the Secretary of State to answer Questions on more than one day each week.
    The Prime Minister: The allocation of days for Questions to particular Ministers is decided by the Leader of the House after consultation through the usual channels with the Leader of the Opposition and with you, Sir. The Secretary of State for Scotland has for a long time answered Questions on Tuesdays.
    The proposal to take Scottish Questions for oral answer on more than one day a

    775
    week has been raised from time to time in the past. Further time for Scottish Questions could, however, only be provided at the expense of the time at present allocated to other subjects, and there is no indication that this would meet with the general approval of the House. I do not therefore consider that the proposed transfers of responsibility will make it necessary to allocate another day for Scottish Questions.
    Mr. Ross: Surely the Prime Minister will realise that the action of his Government, both in the past Session and the present one, has been to transfer to the Secretary of State for Scotland control over electricity in Scotland and now over roads. The result is that the Secretary of State has responsibility for seven different Departments which, in England, are the responsibilities of different Ministers. We have only one hour each Tuesday, which is also shared by six other Departments. That is completely inadequate, and, if the Prime Minister wishes to give justice to Scotland, her voice upon Questions relating to these matters must be heard in this House.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if too many Scottish Questions occasionally arise on one day and so exclude all the other Members of the House from participation in that day's Questions, it does cause a certain amount of irritation, which is disturbing to Scottish Members as well as to English Members? We feel that the work of the House would be better distributed if some of these Questions were transferred to other days.
    The Prime Minister: All these matters are internal matters of the business of the House and may well be made the subject of continuous interchange through the usual channels or, if need be, through exceptional channels.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have the fullest possible confidence in the present Secretary of State for Scotland and that this is a question of presentation rather than the difficulties of individual Ministers?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Prime Minister say whether the mysterious silence of the Secretary of State for Scotland is due to the fact that he does not
    776
    know what is going on in this House because he no longer receives the Tory Whip?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I am uninformed on that aspect of the question.

    Scottish Affairs (Transfer of Functions)
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that, before the Government puts into operation any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, this House will be afforded the opportunity of discussing the Report.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland proposes, with permission, to make a statement at the end of Questions on the detailed implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs. Last Thursday the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) requested an opportunity to debate these matters, and this can be considered through the usual channels.
    Mr. Carmichael: As the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to raise this issue later, shall I be allowed to put supplementary questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Speaker: This is a question for me. As there is to be a debate later, I hope that there will be very few supplementary questions.
    Later—
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): By leave of the House, I should like to make a statement. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 18th November, the Government accept, subject to one qualification, the recommendations of the Royal Commission that there should be transferred to the Secretary of State from the Lord Chancellor, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, their responsibilities in Scotland for justices of the peace, roads and animal health. The qualification concerns operational control of epidemic diseases of animals. For the reasons given by the Gowers Committee, which reported at

    777
    about the same time as the Royal Commission, the Government consider that this matter must continue to be dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for the whole of Great Britain; but the Minister will act in close consultation with the Secretary of State in matters of policy.
    As regards roads, I should explain, to remove any doubt, that the transfer of responsibility from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will extend to bridges and tunnels forming part of the highway system. Pending the transfer, I will, of course, keep in close touch with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on all aspects of Scottish roads administration and, in particular, in regard to the Scottish projects to be included in the extended roads programme to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred last week.
    It will, I hope, be possible to effect the transfer of functions from the three Ministers concerned by mean's of Orders under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946. Procedure under this Act requires the Order in Council to be 4aid before Parliament, where it is subject to negative resolution. Specific legislation may be required on certain matters—for example, the Road Fund, and to authorise the issue of Scottish documents relating to the appointment of justices under the Scottish Seal in place of the Great Seal of the Realm. Parliament will thus have an opportunity of considering the proposed changes before they are effected.
    As regards the date of transfer, much will depend on the detailed study which is now going on. I hope that in the case of justices of the peace it may be possible to make the change at the end of the present financial year, and during the summer in the case of animal health. In the case of roads administration it will be necessary to identify, out of the many statutory provisions relating to transport, those under which powers are to be transferred. There are accounting problems arising from the existence of the Road Fund which must be resolved. The necessary staff must be assembled and given an opportunity of acquainting itself with the work involved in advance of the change-over. I do not think that it will
    778
    be possible to complete the necessary preliminary work in time to make the change next April: and, as it can most conveniently be made at the beginning of a financial year, the present intention of Her Majesty's Government is that it will take place on 1st April, 1956.
    As regards law reform, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has reconstituted the existing informal committee as a permanent body with broader terms of reference as recommended by the Royal Commission. The new committee will be known as the Law Reform Committee for Scotland, and Lord Walker has agreed to act as its Chairman.
    The Commission also made a number of administrative recommendations with which, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Government are in general agreement. The President of the Board of Trade has since intimated that the powers of the Board's Scottish controller over the allocation of existing factory space have been substantially increased, and that he has been given authority to approve capital expenditure up to £20,000 on any extension: his Department and mine fully appreciate the importance of working in close cooperation on distribution of industry matters, and we intend they should continue to do so.
    As to the Commission's recommendation that there should be an interchange of senior civil servants between Whitehall and Edinburgh, I stated in reply to a Question on 25th November that the Government are in agreement and that arrangements for exchange of officers serving in my Departments and in London will be considered as and when suitable opportunities offer.
    Mr. Woodburn: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no personal antagonism in our wishing that he should make statements to this House on the affairs under his charge, and that we were anxious to have a detailed statement. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he has now made, which gives much of the information for which we asked.
    I should like to ask the Secretary of State—we hoped that he would do this today—to amplify what the Government propose to do in regard to education in Scotland, on the lines of the statement by

    779
    the Minister of Education in regard to England. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us at a later date whether he proposes to do anything in that regard.
    One very important point of the Royal Commission's recommendations was in regard to the status of civil servants in Scotland: that there should be civil servants in Scotland with authority to make decisions without too much reference being made to headquarters. That is the case in some Departments, but in other Departments there has been a resistance to making the civil servants of a sufficiently high status to be able to decide matters of policy in Scotland. Can the Minister amplify these two points?
    For the reason, which you, Mr. Speaker, and we have understood, that at some later date there will be an opportunity to discuss this subject, we do not propose to push the matter much further today.
    Mr. Stuart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I hope I am not thought to be conceited in saying that I did not think there was any personal antagonism towards me. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement on 18th November accepting in general terms the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
    Regarding education, about which the right hon. Gentleman asked, he has a Question on the Paper today which was not reached, but I have given a very full answer, which will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As to the status of civil servants in Scotland, we accept in principle the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and to the best of our ability we will carry them out.
    Mr. Carmichael: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to submit the Report to the House? Some of the recommendations, he suggests, will commence to operate in 1956. Surely, in justice to Scotland, the right thing is to debate the Report here, at once?
    Mr. Stuart: The Report of the Corn-mission is in the hands of hon. Members and of the public. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated today that if it was the desire of the House to debate
    780
    the Report, the matter would be considered through the usual channels. I have never objected to debate.
    Sir W. Darling: While congratulating my right hon. Friend upon his excellent statement, may I ask whether he can give any information as to the fate of projects which have already been agreed to by the Minister of Transport? I take it that they will not be delayed until 1956 but will be proceeded with normally.
    Mr. Stuart: I can only say that if there is to be a debate in the House at some date to be arranged, that question would be within the scope of the debate.
    Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the Scottish Members, on this side at least, expected him to make some statement on education? Is he also aware that to give an answer to a Question that is on the Order Paper will not satisfy either the Members of this House or the people of Scotland who are interested in education? Perhaps, with Mr. Speaker's permission, the right hon. Gentleman will answer it now.
    Mr. Stuart: I think that all I can say to the hon. Lady at the moment is that, as she has taken the trouble to tell the House before now that I have never been properly educated, I therefore took the opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to make a brief statement in his speech because—wait for it—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon, I do not think that the House would wish me to speak about twice on every day of debate on the Gracious Speech.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the recommendation made that a senior administrative officer of the Department of Agriculture should be transferred to the Highlands, to Inverness?
    Mr. Stuart: The answer to that is that we contemplate legislation to deal with Principal Taylor's Report on crofting conditions in Scotland, and that during the reorganisation that will then be necessary we can, I think, deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Are we to understand from the Secretary of State that, in his view, he is Ministerially, if not mentally, inferior to the English Minister

    781
    of Education? Has it now got to the point that the Secretary of State for Scotland, despite all the talk of the Government about the rights of Scotland, has delegated his duties of explaining Scottish educational policy to the English Minister?
    Mr. Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman is most unfair in his reading of what I said. He knows very well that I never said that I had not been educated. It was the hon. Lady who said that. I was educated in England, where the right hon. Gentleman was educated, so we are in the same boat. But the answer is, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that no Minister, Secretary of State for Scotland or any other, would be tolerated by this House if he intervened every day during the debate.
    Several Hon. Members
    Mr. Speaker: I must ask the House to bear with me. I have more Members wishing to speak on the subsequent Question, namely, the Address, than I can possibly accommodate, and, in these circumstances, I think it will be in the interest of the House as a whole—which I have to watch—to say that the Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

    Housing Applicants (Particulars)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that certain local authorities carrying out housing survey in terms of Sections 48 (1) and 56 (2) of the Housing Scotland Act, 1950. are insisting that occupiers and sub-tenants, in addition to providing information regarding the number, ages and sexes in the household, are also insisting that date of marriage be given and, since there is no statutory sanction for the asking of date of marriage, if he will circularise local authorities recommending them to cease this practice.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I understand that one local authority has asked for information of the kind referred to. This seems to be an isolated case and I do not think that any action on my part is necessary.
    Mr. McInnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer merely reveals how far removed he is from local government activities in Scotland? Is he
    782
    not aware that other local authorities demand the production of marriage certificates, and so on, when allocating houses? Would it not be better to issue a directive to local authorities on this matter?
    Mr. Stuart: I was not aware that other local authorities did this. If the hon. Member cares to supply me with information, I will certainly consider his suggestion.

    NATIONAL SERVICE (COAL MINERS)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now exempt all coal miners from National Service.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): It is already the practice to refrain from calling up underground coal miners so long as they remain satisfactorily so employed.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there exists in the coal mines at present a rather bad feeling that there is discrimination, which sometimes acts unfairly? In view of the interest in getting as much coal as possible, would not it be better to exempt from National Service all those who work in coal mines?
    Mr. Watkinson: There are no plans to exempt surface workers, but if there are any special anomalies which the hon. Member wishes to bring to my notice I shall certainly consider them.

  EMPLOYMENT

    King's Lynn
    Commander Scott-Millerasked the Minister of Labour how many people, male and female, in the borough of King's Lynn, have been unemployed for a period of more than six months at the latest convenient date and how these figures compare with those in 1953 and in 1951.
    Mr. Watkinson: Twenty-nine males and two females at 13th September, 1954. compared with 22 males and four females at 14th September, 1953, and 20 males and four females at 17th September. 1951.
    Commander Scott-Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for these very satisfactory figures. In the event of a further industry coming to the town, can he tell me whether these unemployed people will be of the type which can be absorbed into, say, a light industry?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is difficult to give an immediate reply to that question, but if my hon. Friend wishes to discuss it with me I shall be only too pleased.

    Industrial Health Advisory Committee
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Labour why it is not proposed to include any representatives of local health authorities, medical officers of health, or sanitary inspectors on his Advisory Committee on Industrial Health Services.
    Mr. Watkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend has received requests for membership of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee from a number of bodies who are interested in various aspects of industrial health. He is very appreciative of these offers of assistance which are now under consideration, but would prefer not to prejudge the outcome of this consideration. It is hoped that in any case it may be possible to make use of many of these offers of help in respect of specific problems or in particular areas.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware that that answer is quite unsatisfactory? Here we have a situation where local authorities have no representation at all upon this quite important advisory committee. As local authorities, sanitary inspectors and medical officers of health have already held responsibilities in this field, is not it absolutely vital that they should have some representation?
    Mr. Watkinson: On the contrary, it is very satisfactory, because my right hon. and learned Friend is carefully considering all the applications which come to us. We must also consider the question of
    784
    keeping this committee of such a size that it can operate efficiently.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it not possible to say now that these people should at least have some representatives upon this committee? Why is there any doubt about it?
    Mr. Watkinson: The difficulty is that if we were to make this committee fully representative of all local authorities we should have to quadruple its size. We are most carefully considering the representations which have been made, and I am not yet in a position to announce the decision to which my right hon. and learned Friend may come.
    Mr. Marquand: Has the Minister of Labour consulted the Minister of Health during this period of consideration?
    Mr. Watkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend has consulted the Minister of Health all through the formation of this committee, and he will continue to do so.

    Employment Exchanges (Applicants)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour what statistics are kept by his Department showing the nationality of applicants at employment exchanges.
    Mr. Watkinson: My Department keeps no statistics of this kind.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again, especially as it might prove enlightening with regard to many social problems? Will he consider it again with a view to securing these statistics?
    Mr. Watkinson: We are in the hands of the House in this matter. We have not kept these statistics—as I have explained on a previous occasion—because we do not differentiate between coloured workers and others in the work of the employment exchanges. On the other hand, it would be possible—although I cannot commit myself—to take a special count if it were felt that the information were necessary at the moment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  QUEEN'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [SIXTH DAY]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30th November]:
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]
    Question again proposed.
    3.44 p.m.
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
    but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech displays an unwarrantable complacency towards the continued existence of social injustice and a doctrinaire determination to abandon public enterprise, essential controls and other forms of intervention by the community designed to check inflation, protect consumers and encourage economic expansion.
    We are all extremely sorry to learn that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not able to take part in our debate this afternoon, and we greatly regret the reason for it. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we have the deepest sympathy for him at the present time.
    The Foreign Secretary, last Tuesday, in an unusual excursion into economic affairs, provoked a certain amount of comment on this side of the House. I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said and have since read it. I wish that my comments upon his economics could be favourable, because only last night the right hon. Gentleman was complimentary about something which I said in the Foreign Affairs debate. I must say that in the compliment he paid me his motives were suspect, but, all the same, he seemed to agree with what I had said. However, I am afraid that I cannot repay him the compliment.
    I felt that the right hon. Gentleman had dashed into this field without adequate
    786
    preparation, and that he probably ought to have consulted the Economic Secretary who, if I remember aright, used to advise the whole Conservative Party on economic policy. The Foreign Secretary spoke of production being at an all-time high level, and this, he thought, was an extraordinarily important point in favour of the Government. But I think that the Economic Secretary, in view of what he has said in reply to Questions this afternoon, would be inclined to say to his right hon. Friend, "Well, what do you expect?" Do we not expect an advancing economy in which production is going up every year? It would be a very serious thing indeed if production were not at an all-time high level, because it would indicate either that it had stopped rising or that it was actually falling.
    I think that the Foreign Secretary was taking a rather old-fashioned view, thinking, perhaps, of the days before the war when the Tories were in power, or perhaps just thinking back to 1952 when, of course, production was falling. He had evidently overlooked the fact that under the Labour Government production was at an all time high level every year that we were in power. He had obviously failed to grasp the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who recently held out the hope to the whole country that we might possibly double our standard of living within 25 years.
    I think that the right hon. Gentleman was a little unwise in referring to production, because, if we compare the record of the Labour Government with the record of the Conservative Government, we find a rather interesting situation. Between 1946 and 1951, industrial production in this country went up by 30 per cent., that is, at an average increase of 6 per cent. a year. In the three years of the Conservative Government—assuming that this year, 1954, the increase is 6 per cent., which, I think, is the highest it is likely to be—the average increase has been not 6 per cent. per year, but 3 per cent, per year, exactly half what it was under the Labour Government.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in what, I think, must have been an interview to the "New York Herald Tribune" which was published a little time ago, said, in a flash of wisdom, some rather sensible things. He said:
    "Economic analysis shows us that since 1945 production has risen much faster than

    787
    consumption because of the exceptional burdens on the economy in the post-war years. Between 1945 and 1950, the largest part of the increase in production"—
    that, of course, is all under the Labour Government—
    "went into exports. Since 1950, rearmament has absorbed nearly half the increase in national output, and the housing programme a good deal of the remainder."
    That is a sensible observation which is devoid, one must admit, of any party politics, and one which does emphasise the point that, first, we expect production to go up and that, if it does not continue to go up under a Government, something is wrong; secondly, that we should judge a Government very much on the basis at which the rate of production expands, and, thirdly, that any Government is liable to be faced with burdens of one kind or another which eat into the increment of production which is added each year to our national income. That was our experience, and, of course, to some extent, it has been the experience of the present Government.
    The Foreign Secretary made great play with the fact that in the early part of this Government's period of office they were engaged in a salvage operation. The trouble is that there was no question of salvage, and certainly no operation. That becomes very clear if we compare the balance of payments this year—which is what the Foreign Secretary was referring to—with that in 1951. There has been an improvement, of course, but what was the cause of this improvement?
    Was it, for instance, due to an increase in the volume of exports? The volume of exports has gone up very slightly since 1951. I think that it will be about 2 per cent. this year above the 1951 level, but we cannot really suppose that that tiny change—after a fall in 1952 and 1953 below the 1951 level—has been materially responsible for the improvement in the balance of payments.
    Was it a decline in the volume of imports? Were we able to manage with fewer imports than before? I think that there is some truth in that, and I shall have something to say about it in a moment or two. But if we take the figures as they are now, the volume of imports is also just a shade above what it was in 1951. There is, therefore, no change, beyond, as I say, about 2 per
    788
    cent., in the volume of exports or imports. Were we helped by a rise in export prices? No. There has again been no change. The level of export prices is just about the same this year as in 1951.
    We come, therefore, to the last of the possible changes—the prices of imports. We find, in fact, that those have fallen by about 16 per cent. since 1951. This has saved us about £500 million and is, overwhelmingly, the main reason for the improvement in the balance of payments. The real truth about this so-called salvage operation is well known. We have discussed it here. The Economic Secretary is quite familiar with it, and I only ask him to pass on to the Foreign Secretary the very brief summary which I shall give.
    In 1951, there was a tremendous increase in world prices. In one year, the prices of imports rose by one-third, and in that year we also added to our stocks by about £600 million. That, of course, gave rise to the famous phrase of the Lord Privy Seal about the skeletons hanging from the chandeliers and the cupboard being bare! Since the autumn of 1951—because the fall in prices had really begun before we left office—there has been a great improvement in the terms of trade, and, consequently, a recovery in the balance of payments position. Nor has it been necessary since then, because of the very large increase in stocks in 1951, to accumulate them at the same rate.
    The truth is that, in so far as the improvement in the balance of payments position is not due to the chance of more favourable terms of trade, it is due, first, to the tremendous—and successful—efforts made under the Labour Government to build up our export trade; and secondly, to substantial savings in imports. Neither of those could have been carried out had it not been for the Labour Government's austerity programme.
    At this point, I cannot help remarking that, had hon. Members opposite had their way when they were in opposition and when they were continually attacking Sir Stafford Cripps for keeping down consumption, this country would not be in its present fortunate position. It is those things plus, as I say, the improved terms

    789
    of trade—and despite a poor production record—that gives us a relatively favourable position.
    While all this has been going on, we have to ask ourselves what the Government have done to try to increase productivity and improve distribution. After all, these are the things by which we should judge a Government. What have they done to help production? How have they secured, or are they securing, a fair distribution of what is produced? Those are the two tests we should apply.
    I should like to turn at once to one of the points mentioned in our Amendment, which is the determination of the Government to restore so-called private enterprise and to abandon public enterprise. It is true that they have, in a sense, limited their policy here. They have not denationalised coal, gas, electricity, the railways or the airways. Now, at least, we can say that all the silly talk that used to be heard about nationalisation being inevitably inefficient is, by the Government's own action, shown to be complete nonsense. If anybody has any doubt about that he had better read the speeches of the Ministers now responsible for the nationalised industries.
    There are, however, two spheres in which the doctrinaire Tories have triumphed; and it was, I think, very much due to the doctrinaire Tories on the back benches that this has happened. They have denationalised road haulage and steel. I propose to leave the subject of road haulage to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who will be speaking later in the debate, but I should like to say something about the denationalisation of the steel industry.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: Steel production?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am happy to say that steel production went up when the industry was threatened with nationalisation, that it continued to go up—extremely fast—under nationalisation, and has not, I am also happy to say, yet been completely ruined by denationalisation.
    What, after all, was the case for the nationalisation of the steel industry? I suggest that it was based on three points. First—and I do not think that anybody would deny this—there already existed in
    790
    this industry an extremely tight monopoly. It was one of the closest monopoly organisations in the country. Secondly, we believed that, although a good deal of rationalisation had been carried out in the past 20 years there still remained a certain amount of concentration to be done. This concentration inevitably creates serious problems for the areas affected. We also believed that steel is an industry so vital to the whole of the rest of the economy that the country, through the Government, cannot be indifferent to its rate of development.
    Thirdly, we believed that, through public ownership, we could achieve not only by far the most satisfactory way of dealing with this monopoly situation—because we would remove the profit incentive which is the dangerous feature of it—not only could we also carry out, in a sensible and planned way, further measures of rationalisation, but we could also secure considerable economies in the charges to be met for capital. It must be remembered that this is an industry which requires a great deal of capital.
    We did not make any substantial changes in the structure of the industry. We set up a holding company—that is really what it amounted to—the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain which took over the shares of the companies, and, for the time being, largely left the individual units intact. We were prepared to wait to carry out the structural changes necessary in due course. I think that that, as a matter of fact, is one of the reasons why the output has gone so steadily upwards.
    Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman's party left it as it was.
    Mr. Gaitskell: We left it for the time being so that we could carry out the structural changes as and when they became necessary. The trouble about denationalisation is that, under it, it will not be possible to carry out those structural changes.
    A very much more important point is the damage done by denationalisation to the financial side of the industry. This handing over to private shareholders will cost the industry a great deal of money. There is a very real sense in which denationalisation has been bought at very high cost to the industry. Let me give the hon. Gentleman opposite the figures.

    791
    We now know that roughly half—the best half—of the industry has been sold back. About £72 million of equity capital has been issued, and the average yield on this capital is between 7 and 7½ per cent. per annum. That is what is offered to the shareholders to induce them to take up the shares. They will expect to be paid that.
    In contrast to that, when the industry was nationalised the previous shareholders, who had become stockholders and bondholders, were receiving 3½ per cent. per annum. Now they receive 7, 7½ or 8 per cent. I reckon that already the amount of denationalisation which has taken place involves an increased payment to shareholders, as compared with what was happening under nationalisation, of about £2½ million a year. If we continue with the sales on the present basis, it follows that the equity capital alone will be carrying an increase charge of something like £5 million a year, but that is not the end of it.
    In addition, we can be quite sure that when the disposal agency begins to sell off the debenture and preference stocks, it will also have to offer a return of 4, 4½ or 5 per cent., the latter is the most likely figure; about 1½ per cent. above what otherwise would have been paid.
    Mr. Osborne Mr. Osborne rose—
    Mr. Gaitskell: I will give way in a moment.
    There is a third point. This is an industry which needs a lot of extra capital. We know that Dorman Long wished to borrow another £37 million. Under nationalisation, they would have, got it, with a Government guarantee at the gilt-edged rate, but they will not get that now. I venture to say to the House—and I ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, because he must have knowledge of these figures—that the result of the whole of this operation, so far as the finances of the industry are concerned, is simply this: the industry will be paying to outside shareholders and bondholders between £6 million and £9 million a year more than they would have done under nationalisation.
    Mr. Osborne: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I want to make sure that he is comparing like with like. When he says that the shares
    792
    were taken over at 3½ per cent., does he say that 3½ per cent. is equity, because he is comparing 7½ per cent. as equity? Was it 3½ per cent. before?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I believe I am comparing like with like, but if the Government say that they really believe that offering a 7 or 7½ per cent. dividend is cheaper than offering 3½ per cent. I stand to be corrected, but I do think that is very good arithmetic.
    I turn to the question of controls. Our view on controls of the economy is not that we believe in controls for their own sake. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite have very short memories if they forget that we did, in fact, get rid of a very large number of controls during our period of office. What we do believe is that a return to complete laissez faire is bad for production, especially in certain fields, bad for consumers, bad for fair distribution and dangerous for full-employment.
    I should like to illustrate some of those points. We had a debate last week on agriculture. Here, of course, is one sphere where we believe that the Government's policy of going back to a much greater degree of free enterprise is an especially bad one. This point was made again and again during that debate, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). Experience surely does show that in this field—and I ask hon. Members opposite, many of whom sit for agricultural constituencies to think this over—we really do need to replace the free market mechanism with some kind of production guarantee, certainty—call it what one likes—to farmers. This is the view of the farming community. We must, I believe, if we are to get an expansion in agricultural production, which we, at any rate, believe vital to this country, provide some degree of certainty—a buffer between the uncertainties of the market and the ordinary farmer.
    The Minister of Agriculture says that the farmers must get used to judging the market and judging prices. That is all very well for large farmers who may have the skill, ability and experience to do it, but it seems to me to be exactly what is not wanted for the small farmers. I should have thought that it was those

    793
    farmers particularly who needed help, and their efficiency that we were so particularly anxious to raise. We believe that this degree of certainty can only be given by Government purchases for most agricultural products. We see no reason whatever why this should preclude freedom of choice for the consumer.
    Of course, in reply the Minister of Agriculture says this:
    "… during the past year or two we have moved … from a situation of food shortages to one of relative sufficiency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1954; Vol. 535, c, 331.]
    That is a rather astonishing remark to make, if he was referring, as I believe he was, to the food situation here at home. It seems to suggest that everyone has all the food he wants, and that there is no shortage or balance of payments problem, either now or in the future. I must say that he was supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a very remarkable statement which was not much noticed in the Press, and which he made at Blackpool. This is what the Chancellor said:
    "The real truth about the cost of living is this, in quite simple English. When things are scarce we tend to spend less, arid when there is plenty we tend to spend more. The real truth is that we are suffering now, as is reflected in the cost-of-living index, by great plenty and by the success of our policy."
    It is rather a poor look-out if, the more successful the policies are, the more we have to suffer! The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) will recall that he asked the Chancellor a Question the other day—we are all familiar with it. I hope that I shall not get him into trouble by quoting him. He asked:
    "How much of the increase in the national expenditure on food from £2,949 million in 1951 to £3,549 million in 1953 was due to higher prices, and how much to a greater volume of consumption."
    The Chancellor's answer was:
    "Of the increase of £600 million in consumer expenditure on food between 1951 and 1953, approximately £75 million represented an increase in the volume of consumption at 1951 prices and £525 million was due to the increase priccs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1954; Vol. 533, c. 200–1.]
    Mr. Osborne: In the same two years, wages and salaries had gone up by no less than £1,625 million, so that the £525 million extra cost of food was easily met by the increase in wages and salaries.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member does not quite see the point. What we are discussing is whether there is a relative sufficiency of food or not, and whether we are all embarrassed by the flood that is pouring in upon us, as the Chancellor suggested at Blackpool. When we go into it, we find that seven-eighths of the increase in expenditure is due to high prices and one-eighth due to more food. If the hon. Member for Louth goes into a shop and buys his groceries, he finds that he pays 4s. in the £ more in total. and 3s. 6d. of it is higher prices. Sixpence of it is for extra food, if he can afford to pay for it.
    The real truth of the matter is expressed extremely well in these figures. What has happened, as we all knew would happen, is that the Government have carried out a policy of subsidy cutting and derationing. That squeezes people out by simply allowing the law of supply and demand to work and prices to go up. That is all that happens. That is what derationing has meant. The same familiar point is shown by the relative movement of prices in the last few years.
    If I may go back for a moment, I would point out that under the Labour Government, between 1945 and 1951, this was the position. Retail prices went up by 34 per cent., or about one-third. But import prices, which we cannot control during the period of the Labour Government, went up by 120 per cent.—over three times as fast as the price level at home. The fact that we were able to keep prices down or to keep the rise at a so much slower rate than world prices was the reflection of our policy at the time. Since 1951, import prices have fallen by 16 per cent., retail prices at home have risen by 10 per cent., and food prices by 20 per cent.
    I noticed today at Question Time that a reference was made to the rise in the price of tea. I do not know what the Economic Secretary will say about it. I think he suggested that this was a subject that he might say something about. We should all be very interested to know whether there is any price of tea, whether it is 10s., 15s. or 20s. a lb., at which the Government really will intervene and do something about it.
    In the very sober and cautious words of the London and Cambridge Economic Survey, which I expect the Economic Secretary has read, which appeared a day or

    795
    two ago, the whole process is described like this:
    "At the beginning of 1952 the highest price increases from 1938 were for clothing and household goods, and for drink and tobacco. These are the items which have remained steady or declined in price in the last three years, and the first two are more important in middle-class than in working-class consumption. On the other hand, items which bulk large in the working-class budget—food, fuel, rents and such services as bus fares and cinema admissions—were kept down (by controls or otherwise) in the early post-war years. It is these items which have risen most in price in recent years. The general effect has been to remove some of the price distortions"—
    I have no doubt that that gladdens the hearts of the Front Bench opposite—
    "and, at the same time, to eradicate part of the gains registered by working-class as opposed to middle-class families in the war and early post-war period."
    There it is. I could not describe it better, and I do not think that anybody can deny the facts.
    I turn to another control—building. The Government, of course, pride themselves on having brought building licensing to an end. "Freedom for all," they say. "Anybody can build what he likes, when he likes and where he likes." Is it freedom for all? It is certainly freedom for private building, but if any hon. Member supposes that it is freedom for council building I must tell him that he is dead wrong. One can build a cinema or a garage or a shop or offices or private houses, but if a council wants to carry out a job of slum clearance, it finds itself up against the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
    If anybody doubts my word, I should like to mention what has just happened in a city, a part of which I represent. I have here a letter from the Town Clerk of Leeds. Many of my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, will have received this letter. The council had asked the Minister to be allowed to let contracts for 3,008 dwellings during 1955. What was the Ministry's reply? "Too much," they said, "2,042 is enough"—a cut to two-thirds of what was asked for. The housing committee say that they want all the 3,008 to carry out their slum clearance programme.
    796
    This will not be the end of the matter. The Minister of Housing and Local Government is probably aware that we, accompanied, I hope, by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, propose to see him and tell him that we are not having this. That is a very good illustration of what I know to be happening in many other places throughout the country.
    I dare say that my hon. Friends will say that the Government have abandoned priorities in this field. That is not true. They have reversed the priorities. They have given complete freedom, the green light, to every kind of building except municipal houses for the poorest tenants. That is what the end of control means. It will mean to all of us that we shall have more people than otherwise would have been the case coming to us asking for houses, and we know the kind of ghastly conditions in which, unfortunately, some of them are still living.
    There is another aspect of this end of building licensing which causes us a lot of concern. During our period of office we paid special attention to the Development Areas, and I am glad to say that since the war about 2,000 factories have been built in those areas. Its consequence in terms of employment and happiness in South Wales, the North-East Coast, Scotland and Lancashire are obvious to all of us, but I want to make it plain that the instrument we used to ensure that industrialists went to those areas and built their factories there was building licensing.
    That was how we kept people out of so-called red areas where there was a shortage of labour, and induced them to go to the areas where there was enough labour. There were, of course, other inducements, but that negative control was essential. Now it has gone, and apparently the Government propose to rely entirely on the Town and Country Planning Acts. I should like to know whether they really think it is possible to do this. Do they really think it is going to be possible to prevent industrialists setting up business in congested areas, and congested in relation to the rest of the country, not only in relation to the immediate locality?
    I pass to the wider aspects of controls. Our view is that to preserve full employment without inflation, it is necessary to

    797
    use both the so-called indirect controls—budgetary and credit controls—and direct controls at certain points of shortage—industrial building, imports and foreign exchange—and we also believe that the Government have to intervene at specific points to stimulate production. Agriculture is one example.
    The fact is that this Government's policy is to abandon everything but indirect controls, and that means that if they want to vary those controls they must be general in character. The Economic Secretary was talking at Question time today about the possible inflationary position. What is he going to do about it? What can he do about it if he comes to the conclusion that the position is inflationary? He can put up the Bank rate and discourage investment everywhere, even though there may be machine tool works which can fulfil orders and even though there may be all kinds of factories where there is no shortage at all.
    If, as may well happen, the terms of trade turn against us and we have balance of payments difficulties, what are the Government going to do? They have committed themselves not to permit quantitative restrictions except for a limited period. Their whole philosophy, so I understand from the President of the Board of Trade, is to get away from these quantitative restrictions. In that case, one falls back on these general measures, and one is driven to cutting down incomes and employment in order to get the balance of payments right. I regard that as profoundly dangerous, but I think we shall soon see the situation developing in the direction where the Government will have to use these general controls because they have no others.
    There is another obviously dangerous aspect of the situation. We are all familiar with the possibility of a cost inflation, of the wage-price spiral as we call it. From time to time we have had discussions on that subject. We know, too, that that is very much linked up with the question of dividends. We have asked for and obtained wage restraint; after the devaluation of the £ in 1949 we also asked for, and in the main obtained, dividend restraint.
    What is happening? I do not think that the Economic Secretary will deny these facts. Since the beginning of this
    798
    year wages and prices have both gone up by about the same amount, somewhat below 5 per cent.—3 per cent. or 4 per cent.; about 1s. in the £ or less. Profits, which the Economic Secretary was defending so recently, have gone up just twice as fast as wages—10 per cent., or 2s. in the £. Dividends have gone up twice as fast as profits—20 per cent. or 4s. in the £. Share values have risen by just under 40 per cent. in the last 10 months. The "Financial Times" index has risen from 131 to 180. That is an increase, in 10 months, of 8s. in the £.
    We must really ask the Government to make their position in the matter clear. Are they prepared to defend this? Is their view on dividend restraint so extraordinary that they think that this is a restrained increase in dividends? What did the Chancellor mean when he said, at the Chamber of Shipping, on 14th October:
    "In my opinion, this country still lags far behind in the general industrial outlook of its companies in the proportion it puts to reserve. The degree of investment in comparison with European countries is far too low, and, in my opinion, companies should pay far more attention to equipping ourselves to meet the severe and fierce competition which we are about to face than to distributing awards to shareholders or anyone else."
    Did he mean that? If so, what does he intend to do about it?
    I know that the argument which the hon. Member will present will be, "Oh, well, that is the total increase in dividends. If you measure it against the increase in capital it is much less." As a matter of fact, it is still about 12 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that we can tolerate the proposition that there must be an exactly proportionate increase in dividends to the increase in capital, I would ask him to consider this. Capital is increasing far more rapidly than national income, at about 10 per cent. a year according to his own figures. If that is the case, in comparison with a rise in the national income of, say, 11 per cent. a year, what he really says is that the distribution of income, on his own assumption, is bound to become more and more unequal and that the return to capital will get larger and larger in comparison with the return to labour.
    There is a final point that I would put to him. If he really presses that argument, what will he say to the trade unions

    799
    when they say, "We are in a difficulty if you urge restraint upon us. If we forgo a wage increase now, we forgo it for good, but you have arranged that the shareholders only forgo it for the time being, because they are going to get their increased dividend a little later because of the money put to reserve. The capital is increased, and then they get their increased dividends on the capital." It is impossible to pursuade the workers to accept restraint on that proposition. I hope very much that we shall not have any more of it from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
    I beg the hon. Gentleman also to consider this point. The situation, as we must surely all be aware, is creating increasing difficulties for the responsible leaders in the trade union movement. It is not their fault that they have to deal with this situation. Fundamentally, it is the Government's fault for having allowed the whole situation affecting dividends to get out of hand.
    We all know, of course, that the people who have suffered most in this period are those with the small fixed incomes, and we know that the biggest group are those who are dependent upon National Insurance and similar benefits. We shall be discussing the Government's proposals in this respect tomorrow, but I should just like to say now that every shred of an excuse for not raising the pensions and the other benefits earlier has completely disappeared. The fact that the Government have acted before the Phillips Report could be seen and immediately after the Government Actuary's Report shows that it was a completely bogus excuse which should never have been put forward.
    The Minister of Defence, in winding up a recent debate on pensions, made great play with something that I said during my Budget speech in 1951. He said that we then found £39 million for the increases in pensions and he poured scorn upon us. He said, "That is all they could afford," and he kept on repeating it as though it was an enormously impressive argument. I agree that at that time I thought it was all we could afford, because in one year we had an immense increase in defence expenditure to meet, but at least we can say that when we had to offset the increased expenditure
    800
    on pensions and other benefits as a result of the measures of 1951, we found the money entirely out of general taxation.
    What do we have now? We have a scheme costing altogether about £134 million, of which the Government are paying £25 million. Indeed, if we exclude the £15 million for war pensions, and if we are talking about National Insurance and National Assistance only, the Government are paying only £10 million and the contributors themselves are finding £100 million.
    We are entitled to ask the Government "Is that all they can afford?" Is that all they can afford this year when the defence bill seems far more likely to be down than up, when the Chancellor has told us, in the interview to which I referred, that our external burdens are much smaller and when he holds out hopes of a rapid increase in income? I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I think, and that is that the Government's proposals are a deliberate attempt to keep down to the bare minimum what the Exchequer has to pay to pave the way far a General Election Budget. The Amendment—
    Mr. Speaker: I dislike very much having to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he will be aware of our rule not to anticipate the debate on a Bill. I hope that what he has said will not tempt other hon. Members to anticipate tomorrow's discussion.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was concerned to reply to something which the Minister of Defence said in an earlier debate. Otherwise, I should not have mentioned the subject.
    Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the Queen's Speech mention a Bill? We are debating the Queen's Speech today.
    Mr. Speaker: That is true, but the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) was proposing an Amendment to the Address.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I had finished what I proposed to say on that subject, Mr. Speaker. In the Amendment—
    Mr. Speaker: Might I add to what I have said, for the sake of clarity, that once a Bill has been introduced, as has hap-

    801
    pened in this instance, hon. Members cannot debate it even on the Queen's Speech. The House cannot debate it until the Bill itself is before it.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In our Amendment we speak of the Government's complacency about social injustice. We make no apology for that. To protest against social injustice, to try to diminish it and to hope to abolish it has always been the deepest inspiration of the Labour Party. The central feature of social injustice is social inequality, indefensible differences between groups and persons, differences of status, income and class which still disfigure our society. We know that over the years these differences have diminished, and we are proud that the Labour Party has played such a leading role in helping to diminish them.
    We do not in the least regret it that the force of public opinion to some extent restrains hon. Members opposite, because we have roused that public opinion. But we also know that very much remains to be done. Wealth is still concentrated in far too few hands. The latest figures still show that 1 per cent. of the population owns half the wealth in the country. Great capital gains still accumulate day after day and week after week, not in the hands of the community but in the hands of private individuals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Football pools."] The Stock Exchange is very much better as a method of capital accumulation, but the difference is that it is limited to those who can afford to own shares.
    No one can say that we have yet achieved an educational system which gives every child equal opportunity. We realise, of course, that in our democratic society we can advance only slowly towards our Socialist ideals. But we do wish to advance, and in the last three years there has been a retreat. Inequality has increased again. The shares have become less, not more, equal. This is the logic of a return to a free-for-all economy and Tory fiscal policy.
    It is against these things that we make our protest in our Amendment. We oppose them as we oppose the Government which carries them out, because in our view they are against the true interests of the nation and contrary to the ideals in which we believe.
    4.31 p.m.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): I appear here this afternoon as a substitute for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in sad circumstances. I believe that the House as a whole is already aware that Mrs. Butler has been seriously ill for some time. Now she has become critically ill and, in those circumstances, my right hon. Friend is not able to be here. I know that he will be grateful to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) for his comments this afternoon.
    Until a very late hour yesterday the Chancellor had intended to speak today, and he had, therefore, prepared his speech. I am sure that, in these circumstances, the House will forgive me if I follow the prepared text a little more closely than usual, although I will permit myself a few comments on the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, and on the Amendment. The right hon. Member made a vigorous and effective party speech. I thought he made the very best of a bad job, at which he is getting quite adept.
    The Amendment with which we are dealing is fairly specific and contains a number of criticisms of Her Majesty's present Government. It starts by accusing us of complacency. That comes a little odd from some right hon. Members opposite, particularly the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who, I believe, will wind up the debate for the Opposition today. In 1950, that right hon. Member said:
    "We are rounding recovery corner."
    In 1946, he said:
    "We have turned our back on economic scarcity …"
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: Where does the hon. Gentleman think this Government would have been now if it were not for the work of the Labour Government, compared with the mess up after the First World War?
    Mr. Maudling: I was just reflecting that the corner we were rounding in 1950 led to the economic crisis of 1951. In 1946, the right hon. Member also said:
    "We are determined that we are not going to be caught unawares by blind economic forces …"
    Yet the burden of the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South was

    803
    that the crises which the former Government had to face in 1947 and 1951 were not their fault, but should be attributed to "blind economic forces," like world prices. I do not think that the accusation of complacency is necessarily one-sided. Then we are told in the Amendment that we are complacent about
    "the continued existence of social injustice."
    I am not quite sure what is meant by the word "continued." I would have expected that we would be accused of creating social injustice, but I have not heard any evidence of that in the speech of the right hon. Member nor seen it in the Amendment.
    When we come to the economic part of the Amendment we find that it is said that by abandoning nationalisation controls and State interference generally we have been failing to check inflation, have been allowing consumers to be exploited and failed to encourage economic expansion. I cannot think of a more adequate description of the opposite of the truth. There is no mention in the Amendment of the international financial situation which we encountered when we took up office, although there was some mention of it in the speech of the right hon. Member.
    He was comparing 1954 with 1951, which is a very interesting comparison, but what matters is what happened during the year 1951, because, by the latter half of that year, when we took up office, our reserves were running out at the rate of 10 million dollars a day—faster than they had ever run out before. That was the situation we inherited, a situation of imminent crisis in external affairs and, incidentally, of developing depression in the textile industries of the world.
    The right hon. Member still argues—I am rather surprised that he should—that the change in the balance of payments is solely due to the change in import prices.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The terms of trade.
    Mr. Maudling: I agree that export prices have not changed much. Does the right hon. Member still think that our policy has no effect on import prices? If he thinks that he cannot understand the position of the United Kingdom as
    804
    the world's biggest purchaser outside the dollar area. Our policy on the international wheat agreement, our policy of imposing restrictions which should have been imposed by the right hon. Member before the General Election—all these policies contributed to the change in the terms of trade, from which, I agree, we have largely benefited.
    Sir Richard Acland: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that this Government are responsible for creating changes in the terms of trade which create great difficulties for many countries, much poorer than ours, which depend on sterling prices?
    Mr. Maudling: I was merely trying to argue that the prices we pay for our imports are not entirely without relation to the policy we adopt as a country, and I think that that is not unfair.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: What does, "not entirely without relation to" mean?
    Mr. Maudling: I think the hon. Member is astute enough to work that out for himself.
    Mr. Silverman: I would rather the hon. Gentleman told us.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point about the responsibility of the Government for lower import prices, would he not concede that the commodity that fell most between 1951 and 1953 was wool, and that the price fall had already begun before the present Government came into power? So far from that being a changeover from public to private purchase, it had been in private hands since 1946.
    Mr. Maudling: I was saying that the textile crisis had been apparent in 1951.
    To turn to the internal economic situation, we are accused on a number of points. We are told that we have not been encouraging economic expansion, but what, in fact, has taken place? In the first 10 months of this year production was between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. up on the previous year. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South does not seem to think much of that. He seems to think that we should always have an increase of production year by year. That was exactly the trouble with the policy

    805
    of his Government. It is not good enough for a country like ours, depending on world trade, to produce something; we must produce the right things and must sell them.
    The trouble in 1945 to 1951 was that, although production was always rising, our balance of payments did not necessarily benefit therefrom. Now we are getting increased production and an improvement in the balance of payments. In the first six months of this year engineering output was 6½ per cent. up on last year. In eight months paper and printing was up 19 per cent. Vehicles were up 13 per cent. Those are all examples of the considerable increase which has been achieved in production.
    Exports in the first half of the year were 9 per cent. up on last year. Employment is at record levels; the latest figure gives 22,600,000 employed. I would have thought that that was economic expansion—record figures of production, employment and productivity. What more evidence do hon. Members opposite want? Surely those are examples of economic expansion. How can they say that we have failed to encourage economic expansion?
    I turn to the position of the consumer. We are told by the Amendment that we have failed to protect consumers, but consumption, like production, is at record levels. Between 1952 and 1953 consumption in Britain measured over the whole range of goods and services rose by 4 per cent. In 1954, this rise has continued and in the first half of the year food consumption was up by 3·8 per cent. and clothing consumption by 4·7 per cent. I do not see much evidence in those figures of failure to protect the consumer. I am not surprised that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), I gather, complained recently in his weekly publication that it was a little difficult to awaken any revolutionary urge among the electors of West Derby.
    Then we come to the question of homes, which, after all, is a form of consumption. In the first 10 months of this year, 287,000 permanent houses were completed, which is an increase of 12½ per cent. above last year's corresponding figure. Of these, 73,000 were completed by private enterprise, which, I think, is an extremely good thing for the social and economic health of the country. The
    806
    right hon. Gentleman said something about the level of council house building which is permitted. I should like to make a comparison with the level that was achieved under his own Government. Deducting the number of houses built by private enterprise, my calculation is that in the first 10 months this year, 210,000 permanent houses were built not by private enterprise, which is 10 per cent. more than the target of 200,000 houses which the party opposite accepted in 1951 as being the optimum at which they could aim.
    The party opposite seems to me to be in a little difficulty about the housing target. When we originally mentioned our figure of 300,000 houses, first of all hon. Members opposite said that it could not be done. When we started to do it, they said that it should not be done because it interfered with factories and schools. When we proved that that was nonsense, they said that they would have done it themselves anyway.
    The next complaint is that we are failing to check inflation. That is a remarkable case of Satan rebuking sin. I do not see the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) in the House. He, after all, was the most efficient exponent of the policy, which is a recognised and acceptable enough policy, that a steady and persistent monetary inflation should be kept in check by physical controls. That was the policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, as a result of which the value of the £ fell during their period of Government from 20s. to 14s. 2d. and we had a series of crises in our balance of payments. Surely, if we have learnt one lesson in the years since the war, we have learnt that with a domestic monetary inflation there will inevitably be a crisis on the balance of payments also. The two cannot be kept in entirely separate compartments.
    My right hon. Friend's object in raising the Bank rate and taking his other measures to restrict credit was to deal with the internal inflationary situation and thereby, at the same time, to put right the balance of payments situation, to restore the monetary reserves, and to restore the proper international value of sterling. His policy was dramatically and completely justified by the facts of 1951 and 1952.

    807
    Since then, we have been re-expanding our production and now have reached record levels of output and of employment; but we have reached them on a sound financial basis. We have been able to combine a vigorous flat-out expansion of our economy with the continuing international strength of sterling and a continuing satisfactory position on our balance of payments.
    I know that there are people at present who say that there is a danger of inflation, and the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) referred to it in his Question this afternoon. Of course, there is a danger of inflation. Any country pursuing a policy of full employment and economic expansion faces a constant danger of inflation. But that is exactly why the Government exists. Their purpose is to make sure that that danger of inflation does not transmute itself into a reality of inflation.
    After all, when driving a motor car along a road, there is always a danger of collision with a telegraph post or something else if the driver does not steer straight, but that is not an argument for not driving down the road. It emphasises the need for keeping an eye on the road. Therefore, we should not be frightened by prosperity. Let us beware of the people who say that because things are going well the success cannot endure. That is not the basis on which we can build and expand our economic policy.
    The next accusation was that of social injustice, on which I should like to make one or two comments. In the last year of office of the Labour Government real wages were moving downwards; that is a point which we should remember. Since October, 1951, wages have risen by 17 per cent. and earnings by 20 per cent. Prices have risen by 11½ per cent. If my calculations are correct, the effect of that is that real earnings have gone up by 81 per cent., or about 1s. 8d. in the £. That is in contrast with a declining curve of real earnings during the last year of the Labour Government. And these calculations do not take into account the tax reductions which we have been able to put into force nor the increases in family allowances.
    Now, I come to the question of dividends, on which the right hon. Gentleman addressed some serious remarks and comments.
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Maudling: I am sorry, I have given way too often.
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): If the Economic Secretary does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister afraid?
    Mr. Maudling: I was hoping to come to the subject of dividends, on which I am not the least afraid.
    A good deal has been said about the increase in dividends in 1954 compared with 1953. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the calculation of dividends as a percentage of capital employed. I agree that it is an interesting problem, which we could argue at length, but in considering the level of dividends it is just as relevant to take account of the amount of capital employed as it is in considering the level of wages to take into account the number of people employed.
    Dividends are a return on capital, as wages are the reward for labour. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite do not appear to like this argument, possibly because it is not convenient, but it is accurate. Taking into account the return on capital employed, and comparing 1953 with 1954, the gross return has risen from 5·2 to 5·9 per cent. and the net return from 2·8 to 3·2 per cent. That, I agree, is a substantial rise; I am not in any way denying it. But it is not as dramatic, exciting or melodramatic a rise as is sometimes suggested by hon. Members opposite in their speeches. We must look at these figures in that background. It is misleading to take short-term movements without considering the long-term background into which they must be fitted.
    By comparing 1953 with 1938, one finds that dividends have risen by 50 per cent., prices have doubled, and wages have trebled. That is a quite important consideration. I do not suggest that anyone wants to put back the clock to 1938, but when regarding a short movement over a period of a few months it is not sensible to disregard a big movement over a period of 15 years.

    809
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the policy, introduced by Sir Stafford Cripps, of the voluntary restraint on personal incomes. It is interesting that the figures since that was introduced show that wages have risen by 39 per cent. and dividends and interest of companies have risen by 37 per cent. Therefore, it does not seem to me that the two sides have been getting very much out of line since that time.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Up to now.
    Mr. Maudling: Up to now, yes.
    In trying to calculate the actual effect of these movements in dividends and wages upon the economy, and in the light of the argument as to the share of increased production which goes to various recipients within the economy, the best calculation I can make—I agree that it is subject to a margin of error—is that this year gross dividends are unlikely to rise by more than £100 million, whereas wages and salaries are likely to rise by £600 million. That is an interesting measure of the difference within the economy and is an answer to the argument, which I see in some newspapers, that all the benefit of the great increase in production has gone to the terrible shareholders.
    But we must look at the problem of dividends in the light of the requirements of an economy that is, and will remain, predominantly a private enterprise economy. There are two sources for the expansion of our industry. There is the ploughing back of profits within a company, and there is the raising of new money on the market by new or existing ventures. I am quite certain of this, that firms cannot engage in healthy development without the provision of fresh capital for industrial expansion. It cannot be confined solely to the ploughing back of the profits of existing companies. We must ensure a proper, healthy flow of new capital from private investors for new ventures and new expansions, and we cannot do that unless the investors can expect a reasonable return upon the capital they invest.
    Therefore, in the long-term interests of the country I am quite sure that it is desirable not only on the one hand that reasonable restraint should be exercised in the distribution of dividends, as it is in all other personal incomes, but that,
    810
    on the other hand, the person who invests his own capital in a risky venture should be able to expect a reasonable return on the capital he invests.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Like steel?
    Mr. Maudling: I shall have a word to say on steel a little later. Indeed, I will mention it now, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned it.
    It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South was of the opinion that by nationalisation we eliminated not only the private shareholder but all the risks of commercial operation, which is far from being the truth. All we do is to transfer the risk from the shareholder to the taxpayer. The Amendment refers to the abandonment of public enterprise as though it were a protection to the consumer. From the letters I have received from my constituents about the price of coal and the price of transport, I must say that I do not think that they share the view that nationalisation was a very good protection for the consumer.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Electricity?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not find that electricity is any cheaper than it was a few years ago.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman must not rely too much on the Tory Central Office.
    Mr. Maudling: The Central Office, at least, is usually accurate.
    To sum up, the argument I have been trying to deploy in reply to the Amendment is this, that we have, since we were elected, dealt with the balance of payments crisis which was bequeathed to us, and that we have restored the international value of the £; we have dealt with the legacy of inflation which was handed over to us; we are achieving a record level of output and productivity on a sound financial basis; and we have been able to achieve great social advances both in house building and now in pensions. In the light of these facts this Amendment makes absolutely no sense-whatever.
    I should like to turn to some of the difficulties that we are still facing, because although we have made a great deal of

    811
    progress we should be falling into precisely the error of which the Opposition accuse us if we should become complacent about the prospects this country is facing. The balance of payments has been recently encouraging; the achievements of British industry have been encouraging; but there is, no doubt, a tendency for imports to rise rather faster than exports. The great expansion of our industrial activity is calling for a very large expansion in the imports of raw materials, which cannot be avoided, and imports of coal, which, perhaps, we ought to hope to avoid. I must say it is disappointing that we cannot get the increase of coal output to keep pace with the marked increase in the rate of industrial production.
    Let us look at some of the figures. In 1953, the United Kingdom had a surplus on current account of £211 million. In the first half of this year it was £178 million; that is, an annual rate of £350 million, which, I should say, was an extremely healthy figure. In the second half of this year it will probably not reach quite that level, partly because imports are rising, as I have been explaining, and partly because of the effect of the wet weather on the grain requirements of this country and also on the grain requirements of Europe, which tend to bear on our own balance of payments. Nevertheless, we are achieving a very substantial surplus in our balance of payments.
    Mr. Ian Mikardo: Since the hon. Gentleman is claiming credit for the Government for the improvement of our balance of payments position, may I ask how he accounts for the fact that since 1953 the improvement in the reserve position of sterling is less great proportionately than the corresponding improvement in the reserve position of the currencies of almost all other Western European countries?
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Would it be possible for the Minister to explain to your satisfaction and to hon. Members generally why, on this occasion, he has chosen to give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—despite the fact that he did not give way just now to me?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Maudling: I like to give way as much as possible if I can do so without breaking up the sequence of an argument, which is probably not to the advantage of anyone.
    I think that if the hon. Member for Reading. South (Mr. Mikardo) will study the answer I gave a little while ago on the comparative figures for the reserves of this country and of Western Europe he will find that the facts on which his intervention was based are far from being accurate. The United Kingdom's balance on current account is healthy, though it is true that on non-sterling account it is showing a definite tendency to decline. That, of course, is largely associated with the reduction in aid from the United States, which we expected to see, and which in many ways is inevitable and natural.
    Turning to the sterling area as a whole, whose trading experience, of course, has an effect on our own reserve position, we see that those other countries are also finding that their imports are tending to increase, whereas on the other hand the exports of the rest of the sterling area are not showing the same buoyancy as the exports of the United Kingdom, particularly wool and cocoa, which are very important products in commanding good prices and returns in world markets. Therefore, we have a tendency which we must watch very carefully because it bears very particularly on our reserves.
    The position of our reserves is as follows. In 1953 they increased by £240 million. In the first half of this year they increased by £179 million. In the third quarter of this year there was a decline in our reserves of £42 million, but that was more than accounted for by repayment of debt to the International Monetary Fund and the European Payments Union of £75 million.
    So we can see that over the last year the capital position of the United Kingdom has shown a very substantial improvement and very substantial strength. So far as the future is concerned, I think it is fair and right to say that, our reserves having substantially improved, the prospects are still very good for their steady advance.
    I would now say a word about the question of Government expenditure and its effect on the internal economy.

    813
    Defence expenditure is very heavy. We have absorbed by now a doubling of the level of defence costs, but, as the House will have observed from recent speeches by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, we are striving to get defence expenditure on a plateau and, if possible, on declining folds on the plateau.
    Agriculture is another big item of expenditure. I could not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South when he seemed to think there was no guarantee of any kind to the farmers. I found it difficult because on other occasions he has criticised us very severely because of the cost of such guarantees, and so I found him inconsistent. The fact is that, in the case of most commodities, the estimates we made of the cost of our system of guarantees to agriculture are working out as we expected. The cost in respect of pigs is more than was expected.
    Although expenditure on single items has increased, the Revenue itself, and the expansion of our economy, is very buoyant. If one wants evidence of the rate of expansion of our economy I suggest one looks at the regular Exchequer returns, which show the buoyancy of the Revenue arising from the buoyancy and the expansion of the economy and show that the Revenue position is very favourable, and has been even during the last year. It is because, despite these burdens, our position is more favourable that we have been able to undertake the new burdens in the shape of pensions and in the rate of expenditure on roads.
    I would, I gather, be out of order if I went into detail into the question of the expenditure on pensions, for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will, I understand, be dealing with that in the course of a debate later in the week. It is relevant to point out, however, that these increases will benefit seven to eight million people, and that they will restore the purchasing power of the benefits at least to the level which they reached in 1946—not 1951.
    I turn, now, to the question of roads. Everyone agrees that it is necessary to increase the rate of expansion of our road system, and I see present today my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Sir G. Braithwaite), who has been active in urging that upon the Govern-
    814
    ment; but I think it is possible to exaggerate the short-term effect of an expanded road programme upon the Exchequer, because it takes a long time to get a road programme working fully.
    The plans have to be worked out and discussed with local authorities, and land has to be acquired, before expenditure reaches a high level. I do not think that the financial burden of our new and forward-looking programme will be very serious in the first year or two, but no doubt as the programme develops, its impact on the Budget will be heavier, and we may then have to review our methods of financing expenditure on roads.
    Sir Gurney Braithwaite: Could my hon. Friend indicate when it is expected that we shall reach the plateau of road expenditure?
    Mr. Maudling: I think I should leave it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to deal with the character of the road programme. All I was saying was that it takes some years to build it to its maximum rate and if, when it has been built to its maximum rate, it creates a Budgetary problem, we may have to review the method of financing the road expenditure of this country.
    Generally speaking, the picture of Government revenue and expenditure is one which should encourage us not to indulge in complacency but certainly to feel a measure of confidence. It is interesting—and hon. Members may have observed that this has just been announced—that in the conversion offer of Exchequer stock maturing next February, out of £734 million worth, no less than £650 million worth has been converted. That is very good evidence of the confidence still felt in the Government, and of the level of the Government's credit.
    I come to the question of the policy which we must follow in order to continue the progress which we have been achieving in the expansion of our economy, while maintaining financial soundness, both external and internal. Surely the two things on which we must concentrate are investment and freedom.
    The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to like freedom. He dislikes any control for control's sake, but I was not quite sure from what he said which controls he regards as necessary and which as unnecessary. He talked about con-

    815
    trols over building and controls over imports. Does he consider it necessary to maintain permanently in this country a system of building licensing control and a system of import licensing control? If not, he must be clear in what he means to say.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about our desire to get away from quantitative restrictions and quotas. Of course we want to get away from them, and so does he, for all of us are bound by our international obligations, including G.A.T.T., particularly, but also including many other international obligations to which right hon. Gentlemen opposite, rightly, placed their signatures. It is not good enough for those who have supported a policy of getting away from quantitative restrictions to say, now, that we are reckless and foolish in trying to get away from them, and in trying to get back to a less restrictive system of international trade.
    I will say a word about investment. In his recent financial policies, my right hon. Friend has aimed at increasing the level of investment in this country. It is difficult to get exact statistics of comparative levels of investment between different countries, because a basis of comparison is not always easy to find, but we can agree that, compared with our competitors of America and Germany, in particular, we must, if we are to be happy about our economic development, increase the rate of investment in our factories, in our machine tools, and in equipment, generally, for production. That is what my right hon. Friend has been aiming at in his recent policy, and those policies are now beginning to show results.
    In the first half of 1954—and I think these figures will interest the House—14·8 million square feet of factory building was approved, compared with 8·3 million in the same period last year. That is a very big increase indeed—from 8 million to 14 million—and it is the first concrete evidence of significant improvement in the investment situation arising from my right hon. Friend's policy.
    After all, these things take a little time. One does not expect to get an immediate result, in the form of factories shooting up all over the place, because of the financial measures one adopts. It
    816
    takes time for companies and businesses to work out their plans. Here, however, is concrete evidence of a substantial 'increase in the desire and in plans to increase factory building. This goes together with definite signs of a healthy improvement in the rate of new orders to the machine tool industry for machine tools to put into those factories. On the physical side of investment, we are beginning to get results from my right hon. Friend's deliberate policies.
    Of course, apart from the physical side of investment there is the human side. Just as it could be argued that we are falling behind competitors in the level of physical investment, so it could be argued that we are falling behind what should be our target in the level of investment in engineering and technical skill in this country; and I want to make some comments about technical education. My right hon. Friend, who is sorry that he cannot be here, has been giving special attention to that problem, and there were a number of developments, as a result of the studies which he has been making, about which he wished to inform the House. I hope the House will bear with me if I tell them what the position is.
    My right hon. Friend has been giving particular study to the question of technical education, and he has very much valued the far-sighted advice which he has received from the University Grants Committee and their Technological Sub-Committee. His plans provide for the massive expansion of the Imperial College, South Kensington. They also provide for major development at Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham—as announced in July—and they include developments on a fairly large scale at Cambridge and Sheffield, and specialised developments at other centres in the country, including, as Welsh Members have asked, the Principality.
    Some are financed by industry and some by Treasury grant. The more notable are at Edinburgh, Newcastle, Southampton, Nottingham, and Swansea. We are trying to steer an effective middle course between excessive centralisation and undue dispersal of our efforts, and we are concentrating on those institutions which are already receiving Treasury grants.
    In the Government's view, higher technological education must be closely linked

    817
    with other university studies. We must make sure that those studying technology will work closely with those who are occupied with the more fundamental problems of science, and with its application in other fields. I think it is increasingly realised on the Continent, in America, and in this country that men who are to hold positions of the highest responsibility in industry need a broader education than could be given in institutions devoted entirely to technology, or even to science.
    The problems of industry are human problems—problems of human relations—as well as problems of science, and in training for industry the humanities, in our opinion, have an important pant to play. We felt that where a technological institution and a university were at the same place and associated together, as in London and Glasgow, this linking of studies could be achieved, but that if new universities were to be established in other centres by upgrading technical colleges, it would be necessary to provide these new universities, in addition, with departments of pure science and the arts, which is a burden in terms of teachers, buildings, and money which we could not afford.
    The Government consider that we should make the best progress by building on what is already there, and by linking the technological development with existing university institutions, rather than by starting entirely new technological institutions. We also seek a close association between the universities and industry in this field, and I think we should particularly stress that.
    My right hon. Friend has been encouraged to hear recently of the founding of new chairs in technological subjects, with funds raised from industry, in the universities of Durham, Edinburgh, Nottingham and Wales, and in many other forms industry gives valuable financial support. The universities, for their part, for example, by designing post-graduate courses, and by asking industry to help with instruction, are becoming more quickly responsive to industrial needs to meet particular local requirements of industry.
    Perhaps I may give some financial figures. First let me mention recurrent expenditure—teaching staffs, laboratory running costs, and so on. About one-
    818
    eighth of the total recurrent grants to the universities are used for technology, and that is about £3 million a year. We are now making additional recurrent grants for technology of £196,000 for the academic year which has just begun, £404,000 for the next year, and £704,000 for the academic year 1956–57. In the next two years, there will thus be a growth of recurrent expenditure of about 25 per cent. in special extra grants alone, in addition, of course, to the extra cost of salaries which was announced last month.
    For building and equipment, the capital expenditure and liabilities against public funds which have already been incurred in recent years—again on a very narrow definition of technology, excluding all pure science—amount to about £10 million, including the work now in progress at Imperial College, at the Royal Technical College at Glasgow, and the Manchester College of Technology. That includes a number of projects which were authorised last July.
    My right hon. Friend has just authorised further buildings of £1 million, in addition to the normal university building programme to be started in the financial year 1955–56, and he will be prepared to consider, for starts in the following year, other technological projects included in the University Grants Committee's plans for development, beginning in the quinquennium. Finally, in regard to the Imperial College, I am circulating a written answer in today's OFFICIAL REPORT to describe the progress we are making.
    The total capital cost of this project over a period of 10 years or more may well be about £15 million. Certainly the universities are getting ahead very fast with the expansion of higher technological education, and the figures show that very substantial resources are being devoted to this work. While this investment cannot give quick results, I am sure the House will recognise that, just as much as investment in plant and machinery, it is a really valuable investment for the future prosperity of this country, and for the development of its industry.
    I was saying that the things on which we must concentrate are investment and freedom, and I should like to say one word about the question of world trade and our international trading policy. I

    819
    believe this country depends fundamentally upon the expansion of world trade, the reduction of barriers, and the freer movement of trade payments. We need the things we import a great deal more than many of our customers need the things we export.
    We import essential foodstuffs and raw materials. Many of the things which we export are essential, but many of them, while they are not luxuries, are amenities of life. So, when the total volume of world trade falls, the weight of that fall descends more heavily on us than it does upon our customers, who can at a pinch do without many of the things which we have to sell. For that fundamental reason our policy must be to expand the volume of world trade, and to remove the barriers that still get in the way of trade and of international payment.
    We have tried to proceed steadily along that road of the removal of barriers, particularly licensing restrictions and import restrictions—restrictions which the right hon. Gentleman seems to gather close to his heart. We have deliberately been trying to get away from them because we believe that is the right policy. We have been doing it as fast as we are permitted by the strength of our reserves and economy; as fast as we are permitted by the development of our technical and organisational plans, particularly in Europe; and as fast as we are permitted by the prospects of a dependable balance between the dollar and sterling areas.
    The Government feel it would be wrong to go the whole way to freedom and convertibility unless we can see a balanced trade between the dollar area and the rest of the world, based on factors which are not transient, like aid, but are of a permanent nature. Aid to this country has been dwindling, and has become a very minor factor. I understand that the United States Administration are turning their thoughts to a substantial degree to South-East Asia. I am sure the whole House will welcome that as an imaginative and forward-looking step, but we must recognise that so far as we are concerned aid is now a minimal factor, and I am glad that it is.
    If we are to pursue this policy of freeing trade and removing restrictions, we
    820
    must have the means of earning dollars to finance the things we want to buy when restrictions are removed. That depends partly on our own efforts and efficiency, and also on the policy of our friends and allies in giving us the opportunity to earn the dollars that we must acquire.
    We are encouraged by the policy statements of the President of the United States who on more than one occasion has clearly declared his interest in, and adherence to, these forward-looking international policies. We certainly intend to proceed along those lines of removing the barriers on trade and payment and increasing the total volume of world trade so far as our resources, position, and prospects of world payment permit us to proceed. I have transgressed too long on the time of the House.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that question of trade, there are a number of points which have been raised, both in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), and also by others of my hon. Friends during the course of this debate on the Address, to which we hoped there might be some answers. We understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulties this afternoon, but the President of the Board of Trade did not speak the other day, and we had hoped to get replies this evening. I am not going to press the hon. Gentleman for information about the distribution of industry policy, something about which we have asked many questions, or building licences, and so on, but we should like answers to some of the questions we put about the removing of restrictions on world trade. We hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something about the questions put to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last Wednesday night on the subject of East-West trade and trade with China.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been endeavouring to deal, in the first place, with the Amendment on the Order Paper, and I have strayed a little on these questions of trade and quota restrictions, partly in line with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I do not think there is much doubt about the position of the Government on the subject of East-West trade. We believe in the expansion of that trade in peaceful goods, and I do not think there

    821
    is anything more I can usefully add on that subject.
    I have endeavoured to deal with the Amendment. As I have said, it accuses us of complacency—a strange accusation. It accuses us of failing to do all these things by way of public interference in private business, which, under the previous Administration, nearly brought this country to the edge of ruin. If that is the accusation I do not think it is a very damaging one. We are also accused of social injustice, but I think we can take courage from the voice of the electors. If we look back over this century, we find it is unprecedented for a Government to hold their position between Elections, let alone improve it. The party opposite have been saying how well they did between 1945 and 1950. They did do well, but we have done a great deal better. Not only have we held our position, but what is unprecedented, we have improved our position, and the latest results have tended to show that that improvement is continuing.
    On the general issue I have done my best to show why I do not think that this Amendment should be accepted. As to the general sentiment of the country on the matter of social injustice, and the performance of our respective Administrations, I am quite content to accept the verdict so recently expressed by those who have the best cause to express their feelings.
    5.19 p.m.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: I am very surprised indeed at the speech which we have just heard from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I was not at all surprised at the statement of the Foreign Secretary, since in my nine years in this House it is the first time that I have heard the right hon. Gentleman speak on domestic matters, But for the Economic Secretary to make the claim that the present Government, in the past three years, have brought this country from the verge of ruin, was just nonsense, and no one knows it better than the hon. Gentleman himself.
    The Foreign Secretary said that perhaps he could speak with less responsibility when he was speaking on domestic matters than when he was dealing with his own Department. After having listened to his speech on domestic matters, I feel that it was not just a case
    822
    of irresponsibility, but a case of gross ignorance. As for the final words of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I cannot say that it was a case of gross ignorance, for he knows the facts. It was a case of trying to get over to the country Tory propaganda with very little truth behind it.
    I want to deal with the two statements: first, the Foreign Secretary's statement that the Government had been engaged on what was mainly a salvage operation, and secondly, the Economic Secretary's statement that the Government have brought us from the verge of ruin. If either Minister had been describing the position of the country in 1945 both statements would have been apposite. But when applied to the country in 1951 both statements are completely irrelevant to the situation as it was when the party opposite took office.
    Every hon. Member opposite who thinks at all and tries to be honest in these matters knows perfectly well that the position which we found in 1945 was a much more difficult and serious position economically and financially than was the position of the country in 1951.
    Sir Thomas Moore: If the economic Utopia which the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends describe existed in 1951, I wonder why they ran away from it. Was it to seek shelter from the gathering storm?
    Miss Herbison: The hon. Member's interjection is one that I would expect from him.
    Sir T. Moore: The hon. Lady should answer it.
    Dr. H. Morgan: There is nothing to answer.
    Miss Herbison: The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) demands an answer. He will get it. The hon. Member talked about the situation being as wonderful as we said it was, but the Labour Government never went to the country and said that we were prosperous and that things were easy or would be easy. We put to the country the facts of the situation. We who are now on these benches were never afraid to say to our people exactly what was the position, and during the 1951 General Election my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) made a clear statement on the

    823
    financial and economic situation. In no way at any time during the period when we were in office did we ever try to hide from the people the economic and financial facts.
    The hon. Member asked why we ran away. We did not run away at all. We went to the people to give them the chance of deciding whether or not they wanted the policies which we felt were essential.
    Sir T. Moore: And they did decide.
    Miss Herbison: More people voted for the policies which we put to the country than voted for the policies put forward by the Tory Party. Not only did more people vote for us, but many people voted for the Tory Party because of the propaganda which they put over and the fulsome promises which they made. It cannot be refuted that in that propaganda there were two distinct sets of promises. I am glad that the majority of the people realised that if the present Government carried out one of those sets of promises it was inevitable that they should break the other set. That is exactly what has happened in the last three years.
    In 1945, 4,683,000 of our men were in uniform and our industries were devoted to wartime production. There were shortages of almost all materials and, in addition, there was much war damage to industry and houses. There were shortages of manpower. That was the serious position which we had to face in 1945. The Tories now claim at by-elections and in their propaganda generally that they have created prosperity for the country in the last three years. The claim was made again today by the Economic Secretary. He has claimed that the country has an outstanding record in production and exports. The party opposite calls it an all-time record.
    Even if production had been increased by only ½ per cent. the party opposite could still claim that we had an all-time record, because when we on this side of the House left office in 1951 both production and exports were at an all-time record. Therefore, merely to say now that we have an all-time record does not mean anything. When we were in office we had an average increase in industrial production of 6 per cent. The present
    824
    Government can claim an increase of only 3 per cent. It is not much to boast about, yet the Economic Secretary, who knows better, did a great deal of boasting about it.
    Even when he was dealing with the balance of payments position the Economic Secretary tried to make some case that the policies of this country had had an effect on import prices. It was almost a bald statement. He was able to give no detail of the policy of the present Government which had had an effect on import prices while in terms of trade the Government were benefiting to the tune of £500 million.
    Another claim which has been made during the debates on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech is that more people are working. It is true that more are working today than were working in 1951, but, just as we have more working, we have more unemployed today than were unemployed in 1951. I quote from the Government's own figures. The unemployment figure in 1951 was 185,000. The unemployment figure in the same month of 1954 was 220,000.
    Sir T. Moore: What are the comparable percentage increases?
    Miss Herbison: An hon. Member like the hon. Member for Ayr would want percentages, but what we on this side of the House think about is the effect of unemployment on our people. Under a Tory Government 35,000 more people in Britain are suffering all the ills, evils and tragedies that unemployment brings to them. We find that the unemployment figures for Scotland are higher in 1954 than they were in 1951. It is obvious, therefore, that this claim about increased employment which the Government are making is one which should be examined and one in relation to which the real facts should be given to the people.
    I will leave the general position and come to a particular position as it applies to certain parts of Scotland. I make no apology for raising a matter which I have raised time and time again. We had a two-day debate on industry and employment in July of this year. Many important matters were raised by the Front Bench and by back-bench Labour Members during that debate. We found, at the end of that two-day debate, that

    825
    no answers were given to many of these questions that are vital to the present and to the future prosperity of Scotland.
    When I was preparing for this speech, I read again the reply of the Joint Under-Secretary, whom I am glad to see in his seat. That reply, from beginning to end, showed his complacency and that of the Scottish Ministers about the real problems that are facing us. One could have termed it a slick, smart Alec approach. I can assure him that many people read his reply, particularly those for whom I am speaking, and that they did not like it.
    They felt that the problems that have so often forcibly been brought to his notice, and that of the other Scottish and United Kingdom Ministers, were problems getting no attention whatever. This problem is not confined to Lanark-shire. It is being found in Durham and in certain places in South Wales, in areas where in the past few years quite a number of pits have closed and where, in a few years, many more closures are forecast.
    I and many other hon. Members have raised this matter by Question and in debate in the House and by deputation to the Minister. Only a fortnight ago four Lanarkshire Members of Parliament met local authority representatives from Coatbridge and Airdrie, to discuss this problem not only as it faces my part of Lanarkshire, but also as it faces the Whole of Lanarkshire, which has the second biggest population of any place in Scotland.
    Last week I put down a number of Questions to the Secretary of State and to the President of the Board of Trade, The Secretary of State has told us on a number of occasions that his Department is continually bringing the area to the attention of industrialists looking for new factory space. I put down a Question to the Minister to try to find out—since no factory has been built and there is no sign of any industrialists coming to the area—what the trouble was. I was given this answer—it was transferred to the Board of Trade:
    "The Board of Trade brings the possibilities of North Lanatkshire to the attention of industrialists in all appropriate cases. I could not undertake to disclose the names or the course of the discussions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1954; Vol. 534, c. 13.]
    826
    That does not satisfy me or the people in Lanarkshire. We wonder whether industrialists have had this area brought to their notice. We have the right to know why it is that during these years, when it has been brought to the notice of the Government, no industrialist has chosen to start in that area.
    I put a Question to the Secretary of State, but he gave the usual answer—that consultation does take place between Ministers and the Board of Trade on attracting new industries, but he went no further to indicate Government policy.
    Then I asked the President of the Board of Trade if he would build advance factories in Lanarkshire. He replied:
    "I do not consider that the building of Government-financed factories in advance of demand is justified in present circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1954; Vol. 534, c. 14.]
    Can the circumstances be worse than they are now in the area? Let us look at what was done under the Labour Government, which was faced with all the stringencies that I pointed out at the beginning of my speech.
    Under the Distribution of Industries Act there were approved between 1945 and 1951 for Scotland alone 1,004 factories. By the end of 1951, 662 of those factories had been completed and in the Development Areas, where there were 661 factories, 370 had been completed. Those factories have brought work to many thousands of our people If this Government really believe, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that they have made this country so prosperous, why is it that the President of the Board of Trade thinks that it would not be good policy to build advance factories?
    That is one of the reasons I asked that Question. If the notice of industrialists has been brought to this area and they have chosen not to go there, surely it would be an incentive to industrialists to find a factory built ready to enter, instead of having to wait two years to get it. It was the policy of the Labour Government to build factories in advance. In this area, where it is not just a case of a few unemployed, but where in a short time the whole area will be derelict, only by building advance factories will there be any future.

    827
    When the President of the Board of Trade said, "justified in present circumstances" I did not know what that meant. The people in my area and the other areas concerned have the right to know exactly what that does mean. Does it mean we cannot afford it? Our people should know. Is this prosperity about which the Government are always talking just a myth? My people want to know, because they see no signs of it in my area. Or did it mean that the President of the Board of Trade and all the galaxy of Scottish Ministers have not given any thought to this matter which has been raised so often. The Joint Under-Secretary indicates that they have given thought to it. Do they not, then, have the intelligence to find a solution to this problem?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): As the hon. Lady knows very well, not everybody even in the area would agree with her that the solution—and it is the only solution she has offered—is the building of advance factories. That is not the whole solution.
    Miss Herbison: I do not know what the Minister is referring to. The only other thing that has been put forward for this area is the de-watering of the Lanarkshire coalfield. I would welcome a promise that that is to happen for this area. No, the hon. Gentleman does not give the promise, although that is the only alternative which has ever been put forward by any hon. Member.
    Mr. Stewart Mr. Stewart indicated dissent.
    Miss Herbison: If the hon. Gentleman shakes his head again to indicate that that is not an alternative, then the only other possible alternative is to bring new industries to this area.
    The real reason is not that the Government have not thought about the problem, or have not the intelligence to deal with it, but that they have no desire to take the necessary action to bring about some hope of security for my people, just as previous Tory Governments had no desire to do anything to prevent the depopulation of the Highlands. Those of us who have examined this problem believe that one way in which the Government could show an earnest of their
    828
    desire to cope with the problem is by deciding to build some advance factories and, in that way, ensure that industrialists who are looking for a place in which to expand will settle there.
    I stress this point because of something which has been said on many occasions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that during last year there was not sufficient investment in industry, and in our last debate upon the subject the Secretary of State for Scotland said that it was clear that we did not invest enough with manufacturing industries. In this case, the Government can give the lead. Let them invest money in advance factories. In doing that they would be increasing the economic and industrial potential of a very important part of Scotland, whose interests they are supposed to safeguard. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) spoke of the Government's increasing emphasis upon Scottish needs, but I fail to notice it, and I am certain that most of my Scottish hon. Friends have the same feeling.
    I have shown that the future of industry in quite an important part of Scotland is a very black one. The policy of the Labour Government has been reversed by that of this Government, and social distress has been brought to quite a number of our people. The hon. Member for Govan also said that most of us could buy more than we did in 1946. He did not seem to have read the reply given in this connection by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall not quote it; it has already been quoted today. The hon. Member for Govan did not seem to know that food alone had risen in price by 20 per cent., or that since the beginning of the year there has been a 2s. per lb. increase in the price of tea.
    When I read of these increases in the price of tea, one after another, I am reminded of another propaganda statement of the Tories, when they were seeking power. They said, "Return us to power and we will set the people free." My word—they have set some people free; they have set the profiteers free to make the biggest profits they can out of the ordinary people. [Laughter.] It is no use hon. Members opposite trying to laugh it off.

    829
    The figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, show that the increases in workers' remuneration amount to 1s. in the £; for the profiteers it is 2s. in the £, and for the dividend earners 4s. in the £. This shows a reversal of the distribution of wealth, and that reversal is hitting very severely the worse-off part of our community.
    No matter which part of the Amendment one looks at one realises that the criticism contained in it is correct, and it is criticism to which the Economic Secretary to the Treasury had no answer and no constructive policy to offer in place of that of my right hon. Friend.
    5.46 p.m.
    Sir Lionel Heald: As this is the first time that I have had the honour of being called to speak as a private Member since 1950, perhaps I may be allowed to begin with a purely personal word. During the past three years I have thought it more in keeping with the office that I had the great honour to hold to abstain from acute party conflict so far as I possibly could.
    Some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been good enough to express their approval of this course. In turn, I should like to thank them and the whole House for the invariable courtesy and consideration with which I have been treated in all my various and multifarious dealings with hon. Members. During those years I made many good friends in all parts of the House, and, whatever our political differences may be—and they certainly exist, as I hope to show in a few moments—I shall hope always to preserve and strengthen those friendships in accordance with the spirit and traditions of this place.
    But in this process of bi-partisanship some of my constituents may have almost begun to wonder whether I still represent them, or at least whether I have become, perhaps, an independent Member of some kind, with no party views. Thanks to your calling me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and thanks to the action of the Opposition in putting down this period-piece of an Amendment, I hope that my constituents will not be left in any doubt as to my political position.
    My first objection to the Amendment is very simple and obvious, but it goes beyond any mere party debating point. It
    830
    arises from the entire inconsistency of the Amendment and of the speech with which it was introduced this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) with any concern for the rights of the private citizen as against the State. I welcome and support the whole of the Gracious Speech, especially its reference to
    "social policies directed to the happiness and well-being of all My People"
    but I should have liked to see that accompanied by a positive assurance of the Government's views and intentions on this question of individual liberty and personal independence, which involves a fundamental distinction between our views and those of the Opposition.
    I was greatly struck the other day by an article in a weekly periodical by the Bishop of Fulham, who was writing in an entirely independent and non-party spirit, and I believe that his views are worthy of the close attention of this House today. The bishop there referred to the deep concern and dismay with which thinking people all over the country remember the names of Crichel Down and Mr. Pilgrim, and their anxiety lest these might be only two of many more similar but anonymous cases. The bishop also spoke of the dangerous trend towards de-personalising human beings by State standardisation and mass control, and he ended by saying this, which, I think, is worth repeating:
    "There is no security without freedom, and no freedom without respect for human personality."
    What that means in terms of politics —and I am afraid that I shall annoy the hon. Lady opposite by saying so—is that by 1951 the virus of Socialism had already penetrated so far and so deeply into our body politic that we should certainly be guilty of complacency today if we said that in the last three years the poison had been completely eliminated. As was said on a similar subject a long time ago:
    "This kind will not go out but by prayer and fasting."
    Arbitrary power is a very tidy and convenient thing to have in a Government Department, and I believe myself that the country would welcome today an assurance on behalf of the Government, when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate—certainly, a number of hon.

    831
    Members on this side of the House would welcome it—that the Government fully recognise this public concern and are determined to insist on the rule of law, on complete access to the courts for everyone stating, also their determination to root out from Whitehall every petty tyranny, every unfairness, every interference with the individual, every abandonment or evasion of Government responsibility towards the private citizen.
    I hope, too, that they will agree that the private citizen must remain, at all costs, the master and not the servant, the employer and not the victim, of State machinery, whether we are talking about economic controls, statutory regulations, compulsory purchase orders, administrative tribunals, or anything else where Ministers have arbitrary powers.
    May I make it perfectly plain, in that connection, that I am not making any attack of any kind whatever on civil servants? Far from it. In my experience, when a Minister is impugned for something that has happened, civil servants are attacked, but almost invariably the civil servants concerned were doing what they thought was the policy of the Minister and what he would like to have done. The remedy for bureaucratic control lies in the hands of the Minister himself who possesses the arbitrary powers. It is the Minister's responsibility, and his alone, to look after the rights of the individual, and I believe that a reiteration of that principle would be welcomed in all parts of the House today.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: As the Minister responsible for or in charge of the interpretation of the law for the Government for the last three years, is not this an indictment of himself when he held an offioial position?
    Sir L. Heald: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. The Law Officers are not concerned with matters of administration, but with the interpretation of the law. If the hon. Gentleman thought that that was what I was talking about, then I fear that he has not been following my argument very closely.
    All that I have been saying is entirely inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Amendment, and with the speeches which we have heard from the other side of the House. It is, of course, entirely
    832
    inconsistent with the whole spirit and outlook of Socialism, because the attitude of Socialism towards the individual is just the same as the attitude of George Stephenson when he was asked what was to happen to animals when his trains began running. I understand that he replied that it would be very bad for the cow. [Interruption.] Yes, it was also very bad for a certain Cabinet Minister who got out of the wrong side of one of those trains one day.
    Another point upon which we should like to be assured, and I am sure this ought to be stated, relates to the concern of the Government for the middle classes and the professional people, who have a very difficult time today. In case any hon. Members opposite may draw some comfort from that, I should like to quote what was said by Mr. Francis Williams, who, in the palmy days of Socialism, was Chief Adviser on Public Relations to the Prime Minister, so that he ought to know something about the matter on which he was writing. On page 126 of his book "The Triple Challenge" he says this:
    "It is, indeed, a fair criticism of the Socialist Government that, although in its philosophy the value and importance of the middle classes and of the managerial and professional groups is fully recognised, in its administration of policy insufficient attention has been paid to their difficulties in a period of great social adjustment. This is a defect that will have to be put right."
    Do not let us have any suggestion that the Opposition have any solicitude for these people. I am asking the Government to make quite clear what their view is on this matter.
    The great problem of government today is that of how to reconcile the freedom of the individual with that degree of interference by the State which is, at all events, necessary at any given time. We cannot expect any real assistance in that direction from Socialism, but we do expect it from a Conservative Government, and I hope that it will be considered possible to make some firm and clear declaration on that subject at the end of this debate.
    Looking at the actual wording of the Amendment, I wonder whether some hon. Members opposite were not rather disappointed when they saw it on the Order Paper. After all, it was heralded, not perhaps by a blast of trumpets, but by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who, in the

    833
    course of the debate on 1st December, said this:
    "… we propose, in the course of this debate on the Address, to challenge the whole range of Government policy. We propose to do more than that. We propose to challenge the Tory Party conception of the organisation of society—of its conception of the right social order. That is our intention—let it face that challenge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1954; Vol. 535. c. 169.]
    After the mountain has been in labour, it has produced this small Socialist mouse. Not only is the right hon. Gentleman who heralded this Amendment not here today, but his name is not even to be seen in support of the Amendment, so that, when it came to be drafted, it looks as though he was not very pleased with it. I found that it was published in every newspaper except one—the "Daily Herald" never even mentioned it at all, so that indicates what they thought about it.
    Coming to the actual wording of the Amendment, I will not deal with its details, because it would be mere impertinence for me to add anything to what was said so completely by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. I am not going to say a word about the details except that I should have thought that if any example were needed of a display of complacency, it was that shown by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, in his account of what the last Government had done.
    Hon. Members may be interested to consider very briefly the real origin and explanation of this Amendment. It is obviously not electioneering. After all, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who, I am sorry to say, is not present—though we are to hear from him later—is far too skilled a tactician in politics to think that he will get anything out of this Amendment in a General Election. There is nothing in it to attract the floating vote or to retain the old faithfuls either.
    It is the same old material. We had it at the last General Election, it was put out at Croydon—where I was interested to spend a day learning what people were thinking about there—and it is the same stuff that was put forward at West Derby. There is nothing here for which Labour supporters will go to the stake. Indeed, we heard from Mr. Morgan Phillips, the great expert, that they would not even go through the fog for it.
    834
    Why, then, does the right hon. Gentleman agree to this kind of thing? It certainly cannot be because he thinks that it will help his party to win the next General Election, because this is what he said in his famous speech at Bradford, in 1953, about the five essentials for winning the next election:
    "The first essential for success in the next election is a policy which is bold and constructive in relation to facts which the people can undersand and accept, sensible and relevant to the problems of our times."
    The right hon. Gentleman, I think, would hardly say that that fitted the Amendment today. Indeed, I could almost see his difficulty of refraining from smiling when the terms of the Amendment were read out this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South.
    I think that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South would much rather describe this Amendment in the terms he used when making a speech about Labour propaganda, which, I think, was a very valuable and very remarkable speech, just before Christmas last year, when he said:
    "We must not assume that public expenditure comes from some inexhaustible Father Christmas. We must remember that today a very substantial number of manual workers are much better off. They pay Income Tax. So the general level of tax is a matter of direct interest to them."
    That is a very cynical observation for a member of the Labour Party to make, but nevertheless a very revealing one.
    What the right hon. Gentleman meant was that they may have been able to fool the people to vote Socialist in the past by promising them this and that—the soaking of the rich, and all that sort of thing—but that today under the "wicked Tory system of misrule" the workers are too intelligent and, in many cases, are doing too well to stand for that sort of nonsense.
    If that is the position, how can this Amendment be explained? I think that it can be explained quite simply. In 1845, Disraeli accused Sir Robert Peel of catching the Whigs bathing and of walking away with their clothes. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South is not at all afraid of taking a leaf out of the book of his political opponents, past or present. He is quite prepared to make use of any machinery that comes to hand.
    In this matter, the right hon. Gentleman acted with characteristic speed, because

    835
    there were two articles in two Left-wing publications in the last week. This is what the "New Statesman" said on 27th November last:
    "If the shadow Cabinet is so bankrupt of leadership, it is the bounden duty of the Left-wing critics to show that a practical alternative to Butskellism exists."
    That is what has driven them into this. Six days later, the "Tribune" had this to say:
    "What is the common factor which Labour people share and which sharply distinguishes them from the Tories? It is Socialism. If it is not that, it is nothing at all, at least nothing worth bothering about. The fight for Socialism will unite and excite the party."
    So, today, there is a united and excited Socialist Party.
    That is the origin of the Amendment, and in putting it forward the right hon. Gentleman has, if I may use a pun, out-peeled Peel himself, because what he has done is this. He has skinned the Left-wing alive and has dressed up his right hon. Friends in their pelts. One or two of the right hon. Gentlemen, perhaps, look slightly sheepish in their unaccustomed clothing. But at any rate one who has just come in, and who has now gone out again, and who, after all, was once a member of the pack, may feel a bit more comfortable about it.
    That is the position. It has been described as "muscling in on the Left." It may have been successful from the point of view of mere party manœuvring and discipline, but it certainly will not have any effect in the country, except to increase the certainty that the Labour Party has now little or no hope of even attempting to win the next General Election. I hope I have succeeded in showing that I have not become a Socialist since 1950.
    6.8 p.m.
    Mr. J. Grimond: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has convinced the House that he is not a Socialist, and I think that he has also convinced his constituents that his muscles have not become too closely bound—atrophied—in the service of the Government. He led off, I thought, with a smart tap on the nose for his colleagues. He accused them of disregarding the individual and of perpetrating such things as Crichel Down.
    836
    I thought that one of the curious features of Crichel Down was that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries was advised by his legal advisers that he had no right to part with the property. I may be wrong about that, but it is certainly what I thought. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have a look at the legal set-up of the Government to see whether he cannot get it put right and to get the watchdogs of the law brought to bear in the interests of the unfortunate down-trodden populace.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us the origin of this Amendment. I hope that I shall not be considered presumptuous if I return to its terms. It seems to me that the guts of the matter are in its last three words where it talks about encouraging economic expansion. That, surely, is what this country has to do.
    The question before the House is, I think, this: will the suggestions in the rest of the Amendment lead to such an expansion? I must say that I have my doubts about that. The Amendment mentions social injustice, which is a conveniently vague phrase. If it means that the poor are too poor and the rich too rich, then maybe that is so, but it is quite certain that the gap between the two has been rapidly closing in the last 50 years, and is still closing.
    Indeed, the process has reached a point—of which I do not at all disapprove—where the whole thing has led to certain difficulties. For instance skilled workers and the professional people are complaining that the differential between themselves and unskilled workers is not sufficient. Quite apart from their personal feelings it is surely in the interests of the community to reward people who are prepared to take responsibility who are trained, and who are able to exercise superior skills.
    Mr. Lee: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the skilled worker is not saying that the unskilled worker is getting too much but that he, the skilled worker, is not getting enough?
    Mr. Grimond: The skilled worker says that the differential is too small. The engine driver says that the porters' remuneration is getting very close to his.
    Furthermore, it is not, apparently, the view of the Labour Party that everyone

    837
    is to be paid the same. That was proved by the rate which they agreed to pay to the people who run the nationalised industries. They rewarded those men, quite rightly, with adequate salaries. If it means that the wrong people make money in society today, there is, again, something in that, but we know that, during the period of controls from 1945 to 1951, the result was often to penalise enterprising people and to safeguard those already established and in comparatively comfortable circumstances.
    The Amendment goes on with some adjectives with which we are all familiar. Nationalisation and denationalisation are always doctrinaire in the view of their opponents. Controls are always essential in the eyes of those who want to impose them. And what some of us would call the intervention of the gentlemen in Whitehall is called the intervention of the community.
    The question we should ask ourselves is not whether we are to have more or less nationalisation but how the existing amount of nationalisation can be made to work better. There are still problems in the nationalised industries to which we have not found the answers. The same is true of planning. We are all agreed, I think, that we must have a considerable degree of planning, but we have learned in the last six or seven years—and I blame no one for this—that it is an extremely difficult matter. Even in its comparatively simple forms of town and country planning we have run into every conceivable form of difficulty. We can well spend some time in improving the present machinery without embarking on new schemes.
    What really faces us is the need to encourage economic expansion. I do not believe that that will be achieved by a fresh bout of controls and Government intervention. We have to check inflation, of course, but there, too, we have had some experience of attempts to check inflation by physical controls. The result has been rather like putting a fat lady in stays. One reduces the bulge in one place and it comes out in places where it is even less becoming. In the same way, if one controls certain parts of the economy by trying to hold the prices there, one may, in an inflationary situation, find prices rising elsewhere.
    838
    The fact is that if this country is to maintain—and improve—its standard of life, and if it is to provide adequate social services, we have to undertake a very large programme of saving and investment. We all know the size to which the social services will grow. In 20 years' time pensions alone will cost £800 million or more a year. The cost of the social services today is over £1,300 million, and that has to be found out of the pockets of the people.
    I would have no objection, nor, I am sure, would anyone else, to a certain amount of inequality—to people earning good rewards for their work—if we could be assured that the poorer and the more unfortunate people are safeguarded by a really adequate system of social service. If we are to provide that we must have the money to do it, and we must maintain the value of that money, otherwise any system of social services will be defeated.
    It is no use our complaining of the size of the American economy and of the amount of capital the American people can put into their industry. Nor, on the other hand, does any good come from complaining of cheap labour in the East which enables the countries there to compete with our exports. We must put ourselves in a position equally to compete with both. We must do that by increasing the rate of capital investment. That means not only savings, but also directing those savings into the most economically worth-while projects.
    The problem today is not that all companies lack money or reserves. On the contrary, some of the biggest companies have very large reserves. To me the difficulty seems to be that new enterprises still find it difficult to raise capital. That is one reason I am not convinced that it would be right to limit dividends. Nor am I convinced that the solution is to put heavier taxation on distributed company profits. The only result of that would be to supply more and more capital, as the Economic Secretary himself said, for existing companies, and to remove that capital from the general market where it might be more usefully employed by smaller or newer companies.
    Even if more and more profits are distributed, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said, when

    839
    one looks at the amount of capital employed the amount of dividend is not great. But it is rising, and if the rise is to continue we must try to see that a percentage of the distributed profits is saved.
    One of the most welcome features of the past year has been the rise in personal savings, but is there adequate machinery for mobilising savings for risk investment? The National Savings movement has, apparently, been impressing on factories where there are savings schemes the importance of productivity, but, while the National Savings movement does excellent work in encouraging savings, it puts them, of course, into Government loans. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfied that there is adequate machinery for directing savings into risk investment?
    No doubt the ideal would be something on the lines of the investment trusts run by private enterprise, and so spreading the risk to safeguard the small investor. Or perhaps there might be the sort of scheme which has been tried in America. If these developments are not enough, I would like to know whether the Government have any views on the matter, and whether they regard the rate of savings as sufficient and going to the right places.
    It does not seem to me that we have yet any adequate method of deciding between the various directions in which investments should go. There are the private industries, the public industries, and overseas investment. I make the calculation that the nationalised fuel industries alone, including atomic power, have been entitled to borrow up to £3,500 million—though not at once. It is suggested that, over the years, they may do that. They will do so at a low rate of interest and with a guarantee. Haw has it been decided that we can afford that for these nationalised industries without starving, for instance, the roads, or private industry, or overseas investment? I should like information on that.
    If we are to have a high rate of investment, and if a high rate of dividends is to be acceptable, we must obviously have the co-operation of the workers, and while, on the whole, I think that the economic and financial policies of the Government have been reasonably successful, I regret that they have taken little
    840
    action to spread the ownership of industry more widely. It is still true to say that the private companies are owned by fewer than 3 million people. Statistics have been given of the accumulation of wealth there is in comparatively few hands.
    I am not satisfied that the Chancellor cannot do mare to encourage profit-sharing and co-partnership schemes. The Associated Electrical Industries scheme was killed, I think, because the Treasury would have taxed the capital gains which had been made by the workers. In America, 12,000 companies now have profit-sharing schemes as against only 750 at the end of the war. During the past year several big companies in this country have gone in for such schemes, and I should like the Chancellor to encourage them in any way that he can, by tax remissions or any other method, because I believe that in that direction progress lies. We should bring the workers in and let them share in the profits of the industries in which they are engaged.
    If we are to get savings, if we are to get political and economic progress in this country, we must have the good will of the people who work in industry. As I say, it will be impossible to maintain the welfare services if we have inflation and discontent. It is for the Government to check inflation by their financial policy and by necessary controls, but I feel that it is regrettable that, while profits have been rising and dividends have been increasing, there has been so little reduction in prices.
    I know that the amount which has gone in extra profits is very small and, no doubt, would have allowed a very small reduction in prices, but we cannot accept it as the normal thing in this country that every year there should be a run of wage and price increases. If private enterprise and competition are to work, there must be falls in prices occasionally. There are too many price rings. There must be times when companies bring down the prices of their products at a cost of some reduction in profits and to the inconvenience of their competitors.
    I noticed that the Economic Secretary who, like all those who are learned in economics, seems to me to take on the role of the Almighty from time to time, claimed that he had played a substantial part in the reducing prices of imports into

    841
    this country. That is a bold claim, and a dangerous one. If he claims the credit for reducing some, he must, I suppose, take the blame for increasing others. If he could reduce the price of wheat, why does he not reduce the price of oil? [HON. MEMBERS: "And tea.'"] Yes, and tea.
    The truth of the matter is that this country depends far more on the maintenance of peace in the world and on scientific progress than it does on the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, saving the presence even of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South. Nevertheless, he can and does have a very considerable influence on financial and banking circles, and I would beg him to use that influence and get the companies to show the way even in the smallest reduction in prices. Otherwise we cannot hope to hold a stable cost of living, without which we shall make our progress and social services impossible to maintain.
    6.23 p.m.
    Sir Gurney Braithwaite: I think it will be agreed on both sides of the House that on these occasions, when we spend a day debating the economic situation, we can properly spare a few minutes for consideration of the problem of communications. I notice in the Gracious Speech a paragraph, which I greatly welcome, dealing with road construction, and I rise briefly to interrogate the Government and invite them to amplify that paragraph in the Gracious Speech.
    The Foreign Secretary, at the commencement of the debate on the Address, referred to the Government's policy in this field, and his reference was important for two reasons. First, my right hon. Friend made a specific announcement regarding new construction and major improvements, separating these activities completely from ordinary road maintenance. Secondly, he mentioned annual expenditure as rising, under the new Government plan, by two or three times the £14 million or £15 million expected by 1957–58 under the programme which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the former Minister of Transport, announced some months ago.
    Therefore, it seems to me that, leaving maintenance entirely on one side,
    842
    the amount to be spent on new construction is apparently to be increased by two or three times the plateau level expected to be reached in 1957–58 under the £50 million programme of 1953. I made an intervention during the speech of the Economic Secretary in the hope of elucidating this point, but I repeat it now in the hope that possibly my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal can obtain the information for us by the time he winds up the debate tonight.
    As I see it, at its peak the programme outlined by the Foreign Secretary a week ago will devote between £30 million and £45 million to new construction, which will be about the same, in terms of real money, as was spent in the years immediately prior to the outbreak of war in 1939. But the Economic Secretary's statement did not make it clear whether the peak of the new programme will, in fact, be reached in 1957–58, and I must put this question to the Government: has the new programme the same plateau date as its predecessor, which was announced a few months ago?
    Surely it will be agreed on both sides of the House—happily this is not a party question, like so many others that we have been debating—that the road situation demands that the annual expenditure on physical construction be built up to its plateau level as soon as possible. It seems to me, who spent some time in the Department, that 10 years may elapse before the active annual expenditure reaches the £30 million to £45 million level mentioned by the Foreign Secretary. On that point I should like some information, and I imagine that I am not alone in that.
    Moreover, no matter how quickly the new programme reaches its peak—and this point was well made this afternoon by the Economic Secretary—there can be no doubt that the demands on the Exchequer during the next 12 months cannot be much greater than those envisaged before last Tuesday's announcement was made. Some means must be found to ensure that the present Government's instructions are carried out rapidly, economically, and so as to produce the quickest benefits to the community.
    From the evidence so far available to us, it would appear to me that progress on the schemes under the 1953 programme has been somewhat erratic. I

    843
    do not think that is surprising. After all, the machinery of the Ministry of Transport, so far as new construction is concerned, was allowed to rust for some 15 years, during the late war and its aftermath, and much as I learned to admire the personnel of the Highways Department, it must inevitably take time for them to raise full steam.
    There is one matter which I confess is causing me some disquiet, and that is the method of financing the Government's new and more rapid programme o; new construction. It is not clear from the Gracious Speech, nor is it clear from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the other day, but it would seem to me—I shall be glad to be contradicted—that it is intended to raise the money required out of revenue.
    If that is so and I am correct, I am apprehensive, with unhappy memories of the £100 million five-year plan of 1935, and the plan advanced by the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), who was the Minister of Transport in the Socialist Government. Hon. Members will remember that the right hon. Gentleman, in 1946, announced a 10-year plan, a very admirable plan to which I will refer briefly as the Barnes plan. The Barnes plan of 1946 has not yet even started. No start was made at the time, because in 1947 came the convertibility crisis, when Sir Stafford Cripps turned off the tap, and no further road construction was possible during that phase of our economic troubles.
    I trust the present Chancellor.
    Mr. John Rankin: Oh.
    Sir G. Braithwaite: Certainly I do; but, like all humans and all Governments, he is mortal—like the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), and like myself. We are all born to die; so are Chancellors of the Exchequer, and so are Governments. Some successor to the present Chancellor might arrive on the scene and turn off the tap, as did Sir Stafford Cripps in 1947.
    Mr. Rankin: Who would that be?
    Sir G. Braithwaite: I will not say what type of Chancellor would be likely
    844
    to do it. I am anxious to keep this topic out of party controversy.
    It was the Socialist Government which wrecked the Barnes 10-year plan; that is a matter of history and not a matter of controversy. In 1947 the whole programme came to a standstill, and it has not been restarted. If the hon. Member for Tradeston will give me his attention for just two more minutes I will complete what I have to say. It is very simple, and I hope that he will not dispute it.
    If the Government are now prepared to spend up to £45 million a year on new road construction, there can surely be no objection to the proposal which I made last February, that this should be financed by borrowing—by launching a long-term road development loan under arrangements similar to those granted by the House in July to the nationalised gas and electricity industries. I should be far happier if the road scheme could be financed by that method.
    Mr. Percy Shurmer: At what rate of interest?
    Sir G. Braithwaite: At the time one launches the loan one launches it in accordance with the market terms.
    What I suggested last February—and I do not think circumstances have altered very much since—was a 30-year loan of £500 million at 3½ per cent., which would have been financed quite comfortably out of 3½d. a gallon of the Petrol Duty. That suggestion was rejected. If the hon. Member asks me the question about the terms of the loan, that is my answer, but of course the circumstances in which the Government can borrow vary according to the economic circumstances of the time.
    The only point I am trying to make is this: once a great road scheme is financed by that method, it is removed from the danger of some economic crisis causing the tap to be turned off and no more revenue to be made available; a step which, when it happens, means that we are once more deprived of the progress which all hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see.
    I am very glad to see the paragraph in the Gracious Speech to which I have referred, and I am very glad that the Government are anxious to go forward in this matter. I hope that the necessary

    845
    finance will be forthcoming, although I quite appreciate the point which the Economic Secretary made—that nothing much is likely to happen for 12 months or two years; although there are in the Ministry the 30-year plan and the Barnes 10-year plan of 1946. We have not yet reached the year nought, the starting point. Perhaps this is it. Let us hope so.
    In addition, I most cordially welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to the Road Traffic Bill, I am very glad that a place is to be found for it this Session. It has been on the stocks for the past two years. We have had no such Measure before us for 20 years, and I feel sure that the whole House will co-operate with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in passing the remedial legislation so necessary in this sphere of safety on the highways.
    6.35 p.m.
    Mr. William Coldrick: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Sir G. Braithwaite), bearing in mind that I represent an adjoining constituency, but he will appreciate that for the last three years he has been following "The Right Road for Britain," and that it has apparently landed him in the wrong place. I will give him an assurance that if he will plot away with a campaign to get the Government to do something about road construction, and particularly to build a bridge over the Severn so as to facilitate travel to Bristol, he will have my co-operation.
    It is my intention, in this debate, which has roamed over so many subjects, to say a word or two on behalf of the consumers in this country. We have heard a number of learned disquisitions about a large number of subjects, but it has been patent to me that the great mass of the people interpret things very differently from the interpretations which we give. I listened to the Economic Secretary trying to give a complete justification of the policies which the Tory Party has been pursuing, but it was evident that he spoke as the contented chairman of a prosperous joint stock company who was in a position to hand out splendid dividends to the shareholders, regardless of the source from which the dividends had been obtained.
    846
    It is obvious to me that, for the producers, the welfare of the consumer is a by-product of competing and conflicting industrial interests, but I suggest that the only rational justification for production is the satisfaction of consumer needs; and the plain fact is that if we spoke to ordinary men and women, both in this country and throughout the world, they would make it abundantly clear to us that, although we might talk about the balance of payments, sterling balances, hard and soft currencies and things of that nature, what they are concerned about is the production of food, clothing, housing and all those other things which administer to a full and free life.
    Those are the things they want but it seems to me that, to satisfy these legitimate needs in this strange, irrational society in which we live, we conceal the real purpose of production and we build up all these complex institutions, such as counting houses, finance houses, stock exchanges, and so on, and we talk so much about them that we forget the purpose of production itself.
    That is why I think that the fundamental difference between hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said, that we believe, as intelligent people, that we should consciously direct the economic resources of the country to clearly-defined communal needs, instead of allowing ourselves simply to be puppets of these blind sources themselves. Recognising that we have that principal purpose, I think it is about time that we gave much more attention to the protection of the consumers.
    We recognise that we have created a number of Ministries to look after the welfare of the productive side. We have created the office of the President of the Board of Trade—I am not minimising the importance of the office—to foster trade and industry; and we have created the office of Minister of Agriculture, quite rightly, to develop agriculture.
    We have Ministers for production, for fuel and power, and so forth, but apparently, the Government are very happy to bring the Ministry of Food to an end. It is a strange thing that when the country is confronted with grave danger from an aggressor it immediately

    847
    realises that it must do something to protect the consumer by giving him a guarantee of a fair share of the goods available at prices that are within his reach, but that during a period when we are constantly confronted with the danger of some people, for their own benefit, taking advantage of the rest of the community, we immediately dissolve these Ministries.
    I am not advocating the resuscitation of the Ministry of Food, but now is the time to create a Ministry which would have regard, not merely to food, but to the whole welfare of consumers. In the course of years the House has been compelled to pass various Measures to protect different consuming elements within the community. We have had a pharmacy and poisons Act, in which stringent conditions are laid down in connection with the sale of drugs and poisons. We did that to make it impossible for people to poison us. We proceeded to pass other legislation to prevent the adulteration of food. The very fact that this House has been constrained to do these things is positive proof that within the community there are people who, to gain profit for themselves, are prepared to degrade the quality of things they are selling to the people.
    Although hon. Members opposite, particularly the Economic Secretary, are constantly preaching the virtues of competition, we find invariably that people who support them do not carry that preaching into practice, but proceed to combine to form trading associations and industrial monopolies. To restrain them we are compelled to pass a Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act. We confer on the Board of Trade the responsibility of deciding what matters shall be referred to the Monopolies Commission for investigation. What, in my estimation, is as bad, we allow the President of the Board of Trade to exercise the right to what he will do with the findings of such an inquiry. Judging by what has happened, although we have had faithful and painstaking inquiries, we have had precious little action on the part of the President of the Board of Trade in remedying the defects which the Commission has shown to exist.
    Although we have passed a number of Measures of that nature, the powers
    848
    they confer are scattered throughout various Ministries and Departments, and are treated as quite subsidiary to the main functions of those Ministries. Instead of these duties, designed to protect the consumer, being sometimes administered by the Home Office, at other times toy the Board of Trade, and at other times by the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Ministry of Health—I will not weary the House with the whole catalogue of Acts on the Statute Book—I suggest that now is the time, when we are concluding the operations of the Ministry of Food, to take these powers from the different Departments and co-ordinate them in one Ministry.
    There should be a Minister responsible for the protection of the consumer. A great deal of our time in the House has been taken up with these questions during the last year or so, and not altogether with matters concerning food. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has demonstrated that in these days of synthetic materials it almost requires a chemist to detect precisely the substances from which articles are made. I think we should charge a Minister with making it obligatory for goods to be clearly marked and labelled so that the consumer should know precisely what he or she is buying and that the goods are what they purport to be on the label or marking.
    I do not think it essential to create elaborate machinery to do this. Under the direction of a determined Minister, many of these functions could be operated very effectively through local authorities. All of us who have been connected with local government know perfectly well that local authorities today exercise rights in regard to inspection of shops, rights referring to the clean handling of food, rights dealing with weights and measures and things of that nature. Under the aegis of a Ministry they could use their resources to provide facilities whereby people with legitimate grievances against traders and others who sought to indulge in sharp practice would be able to register those grievances, sort them out and send them to the Ministry with the assurance of effective action being taken.
    I suggest that the time has come when we should strive to take fraud and exploitation out of the distributive and retail trades. I do not think that can

    849
    be done so long as we have Ministers who, primarily, are responsible for productive activity, being entrusted with the safeguarding of consumers' interests. It is consumers who, in the mass, determine the composition of this House. If the House is genuinely interested in the welfare of those people, I believe that the Government can create a Ministry to do the things that they have neglected to do up to the present.
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. Hamilton Ken: The hon. Member for Bristol. North-East (Mr. Coldrick) has pleaded eloquently on behalf of the consumer. I thought his remarks linked naturally to two points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in his admirable speech. The first was the question of production, and the second was, does our present form of economic organisation offer the best chances of expansion in the future?
    In the course of this debate the natural divisions in this House have confined themselves to the one point—do we best increase national production, and thereby help the consumer, by a free economy, by a controlled economy, or by a mixed economy as we have at present? I wish to look briefly into the future in connection with that question.
    My experience in this House has taught me that prediction in politics and economics is a dangerous pastime. I illustrate that by looking back 20 years. In 1934, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sat—a magnificent but lonely figure—where my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) now sits. Who then could have foretold that my right hon. Friend would be Prime Minister twice in his lifetime, and leader in a great moment of crisis in our national history? In 1934, we were still slowly recovering from a period of grave unemployment— 1½ million or so, if my memory serves me aright.
    Who could have foretold that in this year of 1954 we should be in a period of full employment? Who could have foretold, in 1934, that the United States of America, then dominated by the policy of isolationism, would now be maintaining forces in defence of the free world in Europe, in the Mediterranean, and in Asia?
    850
    And so tonight, very briefly, I should like to look ahead for 20 years, to see how our various national problems will then relate themselves to the world picture, and to say a brief word, in particular, about the problems of an ageing population. We are told that in 1977 we shall be a very different nation from what we are now.
    In 1954, I gather from the few available statistics, about 6½ million of our people are over minimum pensionable age, and about 870,000 still remain at work over that age. In 1977, we shall have an increase in the number of those over the pensionable age of 65 of from 6½ million to 9½ million, an increase equivalent to roughly one-third of the population of the whole of London. We shall have an increase of 500,000 in the working population, and a fall of about 1 million in the child population—-those under 15 years of age.
    How will this affect the problem of our production? How will it affect our heavy industries—coalmining, shipbuilding, and engineering—which are so vital for our exports? How will it affect the industries which particularly serve people of older years? Older people, it seems to me, need houses, gas, electricity, and, perhaps, more medical attention. Will this mean a shift to these particular industries? Finally, will fewer children mean that we shall have to build fewer schools and divert our national energies into other channels?
    What will then happen with regard to world problems in general? It seems to me that we shall have a number of commitments for a number of years. Unless we reach an agreement with Soviet Russia, we shall have to maintain, as we have promised to do under the London Agreements, four divisions in Europe, supported by a tactical Air Force, and, doubtless, Forces in other parts of the world. We shall find the overriding necessity of an investment programme overseas.
    If we are to feed the rising population of the world, we shall have to put sums of money into various parts of the world. We shall have to fulfil our obligations under the Colombo Plan, and we shall have to develop the great new Federation in Central Africa. And, of course, such territories as Canada offer limitless possibilities of expansion. At home, we shall have to maintain the Welfare State

    851
    and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Sir G. Braithwaite) has just said, we shall have to develop our road system to a far greater degree than we have done up to now.
    With all these obligations, shall we in 20 years' time be able to afford a subsistence rate to the growing number of old-age pensioners? I cannot help thinking that, with this variety of obligations which we have to undertake, we should encourage schemes of national savings to supplement the old-age pension. If we could have a new issue of National Savings Certificates, with a ceiling of, perhaps, £1,000 or so, that would permit an old-age pensioner, on reaching the age of 65, to buy an annuity to give him an increased income of about £2 a week. Might this not be a device for supplementing the old-age pension, which will be a severe financial burden on our country in 20 years' time?
    But, of course, it may be that we are on the threshold of a great period of prosperity. It may be that the atomic age will soon present us, in fewer years than we possibly think, with the problems of a society cursed, not by poverty, but by plenty—the poverty of leisure, and how our people should use that newly-found leisure.
    It may well be, as the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said in his eloquent speech yesterday, that the great problem which will then face us will be whether we adapt Christian principles to the new industrial age or surrender ourselves to the doctrines of Karl Marx and dialectical materialism. Whatever may happen in the future I am certain only of one thing: that 20 years from now, hon. Members like myself, on all sides of the House, will probably be sit ting by our firesides, looking through our National Health spectacles, surrounded by National Health bottles, and talking, perhaps, to a bright young thing—
    Mr. Rankin: What about the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Ken-: He will probably still be here, and better than all of us.
    Mr. Rankin: He will be leading the Opposition then.
    Mr. Kerr: Probably we may be talking to a bright young thing who has just
    852
    nipped over to New York for a cocktail party, or who is planning a week-end trip to the moon. But we shall say to him, "My boy, of one thing I am certain. The Members of the House of Commons now are nothing to what we were in our day."
    6.56 p.m.
    Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: So far in the debate, only two Members on the benches opposite have really referred to the Amendment. Both of them have been extremely revealing, because they have done what, I think, was the proper aim and intention of the Amendment: to focus the attention of the country on the real, fundamental and philosophical differences between the two sides of the House.
    We had, first, the speech of the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who treated us to a dissertation on personal freedom after we had had an excursion on Stephenson's "Rocket," the sum total of which was a statement of the right hon. and learned Member's belief that the apotheosis of personal freedom is the unrestricted right of the private owners of land to use that land as they will, without any reference to the needs of the community as a whole. That was one of the startling differences which, I am glad, the debate has so far brought out.
    Secondly, we had the contribution of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, whose speech presented a startling contrast to the speech made by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). In the speech of my right hon. Friend, we did, at least, begin to glimpse—we more than adequately glimpsed, I think—the framework of the kind of new social order which we on the Socialist benches in the House of Commons seek to build in this country.
    From the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, we got a sordid moling and ferreting among irrelevant statistics. I know that the hon. Gentleman had a difficult job—he had to weld together his own speech and that of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I felt sorry for him. In the result, he deflated us with tedium and he failed lamentably to maintain the

    853
    standards of accuracy and academic honesty which some of us ascribed to him in the past. We know that the hon. Gentleman's past was in the Conservative Central Office, but some of us assumed that the more tawdry bits of publicity coming out of that office were produced by people of a much lower academic standard than his. Now we know that the hon. Gentleman was producing them all the time, for one of the quotations which he proudly presented as an argument was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), when he said in 1950 that he thought we had turned "Recovery Corner." That, said the Economic Secretary, was unwarrantable complacency in the circumstances of the time.
    But it was nothing of the sort, because it can fairly be said that in 1950, after five years of a Labour Government, we were beginning to turn "Recovery Corner." We were beginning to get rid of some of the more irksome and less necessary controls, in a bonfire ignited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). We were relaxing the rationing schemes and there was a very good and real increase in the standard of living of this community.
    All that happened by 1950. Then, after that, came the Korean war. After that, came the need to increase our armament expenditure. After that, came the need to intervene on behalf of collective security in Korea. After that, came the startling and catastrophic change in the terms of trade throughout the world. All these things happened after 1950, and it is a measure of the success of the Socialist Government before 1950 that we survived those shocks as well as we did.
    Therefore, the Economic Secretary is doubly guilty of complacency, because the major feature of his speech was an aura of placid complacency. He is complacent because, after three years of office by his Government, production has just about staggered back to the limit at which it stood when the Labour Government were in power in 1950.
    Mr. John Hall: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that in the years to which he is referring, from 1945 to 1950, or nearly to 1950, the Government whom he supported received
    854
    Marshall Aid on a very considerable scale?
    Mr. Fienburgh: Certainly, but if we look at the world disposition of aid we see that we sent to other parts of the world, to the underdeveloped and the war-torn areas, in terms of sterling just as much as we received in terms of dollars.
    Let us return to the complacency of the Economic Secretary. He is complacent because production has just about staggered back to 1951 levels. He is complacent because reserves are not quite as high as they were in 1951. He is complacent because full employment, which was handed to the Government, is maintained. He is complacent in a situation in which the real standard of living of the working class section of the community is advancing at a much slower rate than the standard of living of other sections of the community.
    There have been significant and startling advances in the social structure of this country in the 50 years since the Labour Party was formed. Example after example has been thrown up during the debate. I think it is fair to say that it has usually been the organised public pressure of the Labour, the Socialist, the trade union, and the Cooperative movements in this country that has provoked hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite into taking action which otherwise they would not have taken. There is one classical definition of the Conservative Party, that it has cultivated more than any other political party the art of survival. It is the only reason for its existence, the only reason for its continuance. It has learnt that the way to discourage survival is to fight in the last ditch. It never fights in the last ditch. Its members always hop out of it and find another convenient hole in the ground a little farther on, where they continue to chatter and sneer at the oncoming forces demanding social change.
    There have been social changes. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), speaking for his political party, the Liberal Party, and the only representative of that party here to hear his speech, pointed out that there have been advances in co-partnership, to some extent, during the past few years.

    855
    Let us look at some of the advances in co-partnership, in profit sharing, within the last few years. We find that they are exclusively in major industries which were, it seemed, under the threat of public ownership.
    Tate and Lyle, in 1950, when we included them in our programme at the General Election, riposted by introducing a scheme of profit sharing. Imperial Chemical Industries have done the same thing because they feel themselves under the same sort of threat in "Challenge To Britain." So we can go on, not only in terms of profit-sharing and in terms of social service but in terms of the general social climate of this country today. We find that the major advances shown in the acceptance, by the community, of a higher moral principle have always been due, not to the reluctant concessions of the party opposite, but to the organised and determined pressure of the party temporarily on this side of the House.
    How secure are the gains made in the last 50 years or so? My fear is that they are extremely insecure. Partly they have come about because we have enjoyed an advance in technology, and partly this has been an advance in the technology of manipulating the economy. We all know now, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite also know and accept, that it is possible, by manipulating the economy to get rid of some of the major evils of unemployment and poverty which existed even as recently as in the 'thirties. The tragedy, however, of the position of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that although they understand and know what steps they could take economically in certain circumstances, they perniciously still go on robbing themselves of the armoury they could have and which they are going to need.
    One of the ways in which to maintain full employment when there is a decline of investment is to increase investment in the public sector of industry, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are dismantling the publicly-owned sector of industry and dismantling, too, the degree of control over the private sector of industry. The result is that even now, when in terms of the economy we are enjoying a boom period, they find them-selves unable to make their friends in
    856
    the country, the controllers of private industry, invest sufficient to ensure the future. The only levels of investment which in any way match the need of today and the need of tomorrow, which is even more important, are the rates of investment in public industry.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have read Keynes—we are all Keynesians now—understand that if this present prosperity boom, which is not a very secure or safe one, is to be maintained there must be sufficient investment. I say that it is not a very secure or safe one because there are already signs that savings are at a higher level than investment. That is one of the classical signs of the beginning of a deflationary spiral. I shall not prognosticate that this will last or how it will develop. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) that it is most unsafe to prognosticate economic developments, either in this House or anywhere else.
    However, there are already signs of a deflationary spiral, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will very much regret the attitude he has taken as the Chancellor in a Conservative Government which has been extremely keen to disarm him, to take away from him the weapons with which he might have fought an incipient depression. So, even to maintain the present standards, tenuous though they be, we must have more public ownership in appropriate sectors. We must have more control over the private sector of industry.
    I get rather tired of the way hon. Gentlemen opposite metaphorically hide their eyes and bow their heads whenever they hear mentioned the word "control." I am controlled now every time I drive into London, and rightly so. I am restricted to driving at 30 miles an hour—and am usually passed by Tory Members of Parliament on Constitution Hill. This control is a restriction of my freedom, and when I am in a hurry I resent it, but that control on me is an additional freedom to other people who want to cross the road.
    To talk glibly about all controls being restrictive is nonsense. Many controls are not restrictive but, rather, are productive of even greater freedom for other people. Therefore, there must be not

    857
    only more public ownership, but more control of the private sector of the economy; in other words, more Socialism; and that is the substance of the Amendment.
    We members of the Labour Party believe in four main propositions. We want real equality of opportunity in this country for everybody, regardless of background, and we have not got it in this country at the moment, nor are we in any way remotely near it. Despite the fact that some of us happen to sit on these benches, there is no real equality of opportunity in the proper sense of the word. We want greater equality of wealth in this country. That is the second major proposition that we hold.
    We hold that it is a moral and Christian duty to look after the sick and the weak in society. That is our third proposition. We demand a creative, a really virile, active democracy, a democracy which is not just a ballot box democracy but is an economic arid industrial democracy as well. Without detaining the House too long I want to comment upon those four main propositions.
    First, equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is not the erection of a kind of educational greasy pole up which people with superior memories and retentive minds can climb so that a boy from a working-class home can become a bank manager and join the Tory Party and forget all about his background. That is not the real spirit of equality of opportunity. Real equality of opportunity should extend far beyond the mere mechanical framework of education and should exist throughout the whole of life. After many years of educational equality of opportunity we in this country are still stratified in a job structure, a class structure. I am not talking class warfare. It is hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who operate class warfare, and I am not advocating it at the moment.
    The London School of Economics has recently published a very erudite work. It has many graphs in it. I cannot expect hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to take it as light bedtime reading, but I do hope that they will just have a glance at it. It shows that after many years of a fair degree of educational opportunity it is still true that a person who wants to become a professional man has to take
    858
    the elementary precaution of being born the son of a professional man. It is still true that the safest way of ensuring a life as a general labourer is to take the precaution of being born the son of a general labourer. There is a social immobility in this country which is anathema to those of us on these benches who believe in equality of opportunity.
    It is still true in industry as a whole that one can get on in the world. A person can go to school and learn, then go to night school and learn some more, can take all the technical degrees and qualifications possible, and, having assembled all this armoury of knowledge, can make himself a competent member of the managerial class and secure his position by marrying the boss's daughter. But it is not everybody who can take the last step.
    It is true that, with the exception of some major corporations whose instinct for survival is so strong that they must absorb the best brains irrespective of where they get them, industry, and particularly private enterprise, is riddled and strangled by hereditary management. People are occupying managerial and technical positions not on the basis of their knowledge or capacity, but on the fortuitous circumstances of their birth.
    We cannot afford that in this country. We are a population of 50 million people on a tiny island and we have no right to that population. If the Economic Secretary were to blueprint a population for this island, he would provide for a population of 30 million. But we cannot blueprint the kind of population we ought to have. We have a population of 50 million based upon an economy ill provided with raw materials and with an agricultural economy which can at the very best feed only two people out of three. And the third man demands to be fed. We feed him by the exploitation of our inferior resources in raw materials—some very good coal, some indifferent iron ore. For the rest, the only thing we can exploit is the skill ingenuity, craftsmanship and common sense of the people.
    Therefore, if there is, anywhere in the community a man in a blind alley occupation who would have the capacity to advance himself, given the chance, if there is a man in a foreman's job who, given the opportunity, could be a good manager, if there is a man frustrated by

    859
    denial of a chance to exercise his full capacity because of lack of opportunity, then it is not only the man who is suffering; it is the community as a whole which is being robbed by the wastage of one of its prime assets.
    There were no adequate proposals from the Economic Secretary on this question. He did suggest certain technological educational facilities, but there were no proposals to deal with the basic problem of equality of opportunity in the managerial field throughout private industry. That leads some of us to say that it would be better to extend public ownership if only for this reason, that it is only in the mines and in certain nationalised industries that we have eradicated the nepotism which so corrupts capitalist industry in Britain. Opportunities are entirely different in private industry from the opportunities which exist in the nationalised industries, where nepotism has been removed.
    The second point which I want briefly to expand is that there should be a greater equality of income and wealth. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South pointed out—and we ought to rub it in—that at present in this Christian community we admit and accept a system whereby 1 per cent, of the people own 50 per cent, of the real wealth, and where, inevitably, 100 per cent. of the real wealth has been produced by the other 99 per cent. of the people by their labour, their ingenuity and their craftsmanship. That is an intolerable situation. There must be greater equality of income and greater equality of wealth.
    It is a strange thing that the higher one goes up the income scale in this country, less of the income is directly earned and more of it unearned. I think that is immoral and wrong and it is not the basis on which we can build a really productive economy. We have in this community not only this differential in income but, just as serious, a differential in wealth. Whenever hon. Members opposite think in terms of someone attacking differentials in wealth a sort of wave of moral indignation sweeps over them, and they exclaim, "You are going to attack someone's private property."
    860
    Even though a man has inherited a considerable sum of money—and there are some on the benches opposite who have inherited some within recent months—[An HON. MEMBER: "And on the Labour benches, too."] And on these benches, too. That is quite true. But there is an assumption by hon. Gentlemen opposite not shared by anyone on this side of the House, that they have an inalienable right to it and no one should take it from them because it is private property and private property is sacrosanct.
    In looking at the morality of the ownership of inherited wealth perhaps I may take as an example—maybe this is an exaggerated example—what happened some time ago in the United States of America. A Senatorial Committee, headed by Senator Kefauver investigated vice and crime there, and it came to the shocking conclusion that many people who had amassed fortunes out of vice and crime were investing those fortunes in private enterprise and becoming responsible and respectable businessmen. That shocked many people in this country. But if we care to look at the origin of some of the fortunes here and investigate the shoddy origins of the system of land ownership and of land tenure which some gentlemen in another place have inherited, we will indeed find some startling and disturbing facts.
    Colonel O. E. Crosthwaite-Eyre: On a point of order. Is it correct to cast reflections on hon. Members in another place and on the way in which they have inherited their wealth, as has been done by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh)?
    Mr. Speaker: I think it is undesirable to mention Members of another place in this Chamber more than is strictly necessary, but the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) was making a general statement and was not speaking about any particular Member of the other place. But there should be respect shown by each House for the other.
    Mr. Mikardo: It is all in the history books, anyway.
    Mr. Fienburgh: There is nothing of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be ashamed. What I am saying is well-known. All I am saying—and

    861
    I am not making a big point of it—is that if anyone suggests that there is nothing immoral in the foundations of large fortunes in this country, then I would refer him to the circumstances surrounding the original amassing of these fortunes, many of which were amassed either by land enclosure, which was, in fact, robbing the people of the common land, or by the closure of the monasteries. Even if we ignore the facts surrounding the origin of inherited wealth, what is even more immoral is that inherited wealth gives an individual a claim on current production in return for which he makes no contribution at all.
    Mr. Rankin: How many carry with their wealth the bar sinister?
    Mr. Fienburgh: I am not making a great deal of this particular point. All I am saying is that there can be no defence on the grounds of absolute morality of the system of inheritance on which large private fortunes are based, which gives the inheritors a call on the current production of ordinary working men and women in this country without having to make any contribution at all to that current production.
    I want to pick up another point, which was made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland when, quite rightly, he said that there must be a vast increase in investment in this country. I agree that there must be. I have constantly argued this in the House, but investment means denying oneself current consumption. One must do without some of the things one would like to enjoy. In other words, investment means a relative sacrifice, and there is no way of having a proper equality of sacrifice while there is basic inequality.
    Many of my hon. Friends will remember the 1931 General Election. I was 12 years old at the time, but I remember a cartoon by Horrabin in which he epitomised the whole conception of equality of sacrifice. It was the cry of the National Government in 1931, and Horrabin showed it graphically with a drawing of a flooded basement out of which came a ladder. On the bottom rung was a working man with the water lapping his chin. A prosperous individual with a bowler hat, brief-case and umbrella—I suppose there was no Anthony Eden homburg in those days—stood on the ladder with the water
    862
    lapping at his knees. At the top of the ladder was the usual cartoon of a wealthy man, and his feet were well above the water level. He was saying, "Let there be equality of sacrifice. All take one step down." The result was that all one could see of the "bloke" at the bottom of the ladder was a series of rising bubbles.
    That is no conception of equality of opportunity. If we are to rebuild this country to face the industrial age and new competition throughout the world, if there is to be equality of sacrifice to this end, it can be achieved only by reducing current consumption; and one cannot expect the masses of the people to deny themselves current consumption while they see the ostentatious flaunting of wealth by other people. One of the major crimes of the Government has been their failure to back up the Trades Union Congress when it was willing to accept a proper degree of restraint in income. The Government preferred to allow a grotesque and exaggerated distribution of dividends for personal consumption. In the long term that will be one of the most sorry crimes of the Government in a very long list.
    My third proposition is that we must look after the weak and the sick in the community. We on this side of the House and many on the benches opposite accept this as a Christian and moral duty to the community as a whole, but it is significant that since the party opposite have been in power there has been a gradual erosion of public responsibility towards the weaker sections of the community, and a whittling away of provisions designed to look after those who are unfortunate.
    Even in this latest prospective increase in old-age pensions this attitude is typified again. It is too little and far too late. If there had been a real will on that side of the House, we know that the decision could have been taken in midsummer and the money could have been in the old people's pockets by this month. That is an illustration of a very strong difference of emphasis and purpose between the two sides of the House.
    My last point is that we believe in the creation of a proper sort of democracy, which is more than a ballot box democracy. There must be a ballot box democracy, of course, a democracy

    863
    based on quinquennial elections to Parliament and elections to local councils, but if we are restricted in the exercise of democracy merely to the election of public representatives and if they, after election, have no control on our behalf over the key economic decisions in the community, our democracy is a hollow mockery. It means that those people who occupy key positions in the economy on an irresponsible basis—and I do not mean that they are personally irresponsible, but that they are answerable to nobody—will make the decisions. They will decide whether investment should be higher or lower, as the Government know to their economic cost, whether there should be employment or unemployment, restrictive cartelism or an expanding economy. We say that it is intolerable that democracy should call itself such if proper control of economic affairs is not exercised by the community as a whole.
    This inevitably involves some expansion of public ownership in appropriate sections, and a further assumption of control in other sections. Allied to that there must be an industrial democracy so that in the workshop, the mines and the railways people are given a proper status as individuals and are not regarded merely as turners of wheels and carriers of loads. Man must have his proper dignity, and this must be exercised in the workshop without, of course, destruction of managerial responsibility.
    I resent the imputations in the speech of the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey, that our aim is to restrict freedom and to constrict and tie down the natural genius of the people. Our aim is to create a new and greater freedom. I am not suggesting that some of the ills of the past, which we all inherited, were not at the time inevitable. We owe a great deal to the Industrial Revolution and to the industrial and social capital which was built up in those days. I do not say that it could have been achieved without the rough and tumble of the capitalist economy of that time.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: A terrible price.
    Mr. Fienburgh: A terrible price was paid, but I do not believe that it could have been otherwise in the roaring, snorting capitalism of those days, just as
    864
    I do not believe that the Sphinx and the pyramids of Egypt could have been built without slave labour. In the conditions which prevailed at the time that was how industrial capital in the shape of mines and railways and workshops were built; but we have moved away from all that.
    We, on this side of the House, in our Amendment and in our general social philosophy, seek to move into a new kind of social order in which freedom will not be inhibited but will be enhanced, in which people will have the right and the dignity to live their lives in their own way, to enjoy those things which they want to enjoy and to have the opportunity to exercise freedom of choice as widely as possible.
    We say that the chaotic, stupid, ignorant, bitter kind of life which was the byproduct of tine Industrial Revolution is not the sort of life we want today. We do not pretend that we shall recreate humanity but we on this side of the House have a complete belief, if not in the perfectability of man, in the im-provability of man. We believe that in the right kind of atmosphere, in the social climate of advancement and improvement of economic standards, we really can and will produce in this country a finer and nobler race of people who will give a lead to the whole world.
    7.29 p.m.
    Mr. Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) has given us a vigorous speech. It was not a very accurate one, and I do not know a cliché which he did not employ. During the last 20 years, I have listened to Socialist speeches and the hon. Member seemed to have collected together all the perorations of those speeches and built them up to make his speech tonight. But they are outmoded.
    In passing, may I comment that I did not know that a good memory "helped one to climb a greasy pole." I share with the hon. Member his disappointment at not marrying the boss's daughter. The only difference between us there is that I have got over it, because I got something better.
    The hon. Member spoke of the new social order which was dealt with in the speech of his right hon. Friend the

    865
    Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). The only new social order that I recognised in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that we should have building licences back, and have controls back, which would mean a return to the ration book. It was in keeping with the words used in the Amendment which we are now discussing.
    I believe we can say, if we look at the facts as they are today, that in every field in which the Government have any control any impartial examination will clearly show that there have been gratifying improvements all along the line since this Government took office. In some aspects the improvements are so clear and so obvious that people do not want any reminding from either my right hon. Friends or the hon. Members on the other side of the House.
    The first I want to mention is housing. I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South, on that particular topic thought fit to spend any time at all in the way of criticism, because one thing which is absolutely clear, and which is recognised by everybody in the country, is that 200,000 houses was the most that he and his friends could promise—they only reached that figure once—and this last year we have actually built 350,000 houses, or more.
    The time for the right hon. Gentleman to start criticising will be when the number of houses that we build for renting falls below the figure that was produced by 'him and his friends for about five years. At the moment we are building 210,000 houses for renting by the local authorities every year, and that is a figure that was rarely reached, if at all, by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they had the responsibility of Government.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: If the hon. Member is going to be fair, he should mention that at the time the present Government started building they closed down all hospital building. I am the chairman of a hospital management committee, and instructions were given that there was to be no building of any kind for a period of six months. There has also been restriction on other building throughout the country.
    Mr. Nicholls: I do not know what the hon. Member means about the closing down of hospital buildings. During the whole period of the Labour Government they did not complete one hospital, so how could we have closed down something that they did not start?
    The position of schools has been dealt with. We know that for a few months that was used as a delightful red herring to try to cover our success in the housing field. But when one examines industrial development, hospital building or school expansion, it is the fact 'that our return to freedom in the building industry meant more houses and more of those other amenities to cover all other aspects.
    From the Chancellor of the Exchequer we have had three Budgets with no new taxes, three Budgets with existing taxes reduced. In this Budgets we saw 16 million workers who previously paid taxes being relieved entirely or partly of that pernicious obligation. People know that for themselves when they find P.A.Y.E. deductions from their wage packets no longer as large as they had been. Sixteen million have benefited from tax reductions brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    I want now to refer to the general position of freedom. The hon. Member for Islington, North said that the Labour Party wanted to bring back all the great freedoms. What is the fact? Over the last three years we have been the ones who have done away with the identity card, the ration card, and building licences. Those are items on which we need not spend a lot of time, because people know about them from their own personal experiences.
    But there are other benefits—and this is tied up with this Amendment—that have been obtained as a result of bold and shrewd Government policies, which, although they are beneficial, are not so easily recognised because of their complexity. It is because of their complexity that they are being twisted by hon. Gentlemen opposite both in this House and when they speak in the country.
    Take the question of living standards and costs generally as they affect ordinary people. As an opening statement on this position, I can say with confidence that any fair assessment in this field can only confirm that more people in Britain than

    867
    ever before are buying and consuming more of the necessities of life. That is a fact. More people in Britain than ever before are buying and employing the so-called luxuries of life. That is a fact. More people in Britain than ever before are saving more in small savings.
    More are living longer than ever before. That all flows from the long line of health improvements which have been sponsored by Members of my party in the past. When early next year we get the improvement in the position of the old-age pensioners, then we shall have brought about a transformation which seems really miraculous when one compares it with the austerity-ration-ridden days of the Socialists only three years ago.
    I should like to examine each of these propositions and produce evidence in support of them, because they were somewhat denied by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South. The first is that more people are buying the necessities of life. From January to September this year the nation consumed about 3 per cent. more food than in the three previous years. That is reflected in the sales from ordinary shops and from the co-operative societies. The latter had £743 million worth of sales last year, which is about £30 million higher than their best year ever before. It is reflected by the sales from stores like Woolworth's, who sell to the ordinary working people of this country, whom we represent in this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Price or quantity?"] One can take either price or quantity. So far as the quantity is concerned these are the figures. I have given essentials.
    There were 480,000 tons more meat. Is that price or quantity? There were 152,000 tons more bacon; 200,000 tons more sugar than in 1951. That is quantity. Do hon. Members want it in percentages? In the first six months of this year, as compared with 1951, there was 75 per cent. more meat; 30 per cent. more bacon and ham; 20 per cent. more sugar; 20 per cent. more tea, despite the price; 50 per cent. more sweets—the highest consumption in the world. All those are improvements in consumption over 1951 figures.
    This consumption has been shared by the ordinary householders and old-age pensioners. I have here the official figures issued by an impartial Department, which
    868
    are worth keeping in mind. In 1951, in normal households, on average, people were having 5·2 pints of milk, which is down to 51 pints in 1954; tea has gone up from 2·8 ounces in 1951 to 3 in 1954; eggs have gone up from 2·8 to 4·6; margarine from 4·1 to 4·8; meat, including bacon, 26·7 to 33·5 ounces; sugar is up from 11·4 to 16·2; tea has gone up from 2 to 2·8, and butter, as an hon. Member interjected, has gone down from 3·9 to 3·8.
    The consumption of all of these necessities, with the exception of two items has gone up. That is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT of this House. The point I am making is that of necessities—and these are necessities—we find that people are consuming more, more is going into ordinary homes. So far as an impartial investigation can show anything, it shows just that. If hon. Members are fair, they will know from their experience of visiting friends, relations, and constituents that that reflects what are the facts.
    What about so-called luxuries, because we want to have a share of these new ideas and inventions of which we are so proud, and in which we have been the pioneers? One can get a whole list from the official digest, but a fair report of these so-called luxuries shows that 3½ million families have television sets in 1954, compared with 1 million in 1951. That is a fair barometer. It means that 2½ million people have found £80 or £90 to buy a television set. That is a fair reflection of the fact that 1,500,000 families have found themselves in a position to afford this luxury.
    During this summer, 25 per cent. more cars and motor bicycles were on the roads than in 1951. They were not used merely by the rich people. Every hon. Member knows dozens of places where ordinary working men have pooled their resources to purchase a motor car to get themselves to their various jobs of work. That fact is reflected in the 25 per cent. increase. Five years ago, only 300,000 washing machines were in use in this country. Today, there are 2 million, and they cannot usually be bought for less than 40 or 50 guineas each.
    I suggest that the last three and a half years have shown clearly that more people have more of the necessities of life, and more of the so-called luxuries of life. They have achieved that, not by having to

    869
    scrape the bottom of the barrel in relation to their incomes. More people are saving more. At the end of October the net savings figure for the first 31 weeks of the year was £52½ million.
    Last year, and in other years, there was an excess of withdrawals of about £10 million to £30 million of National Savings—we were taking out more than we put in; but this year we have that excess of £52½ million in ordinary National Savings. The total remaining in National Savings is now £6,038 million, or over £30 million more than was the case last year.
    Any of these tests shows that this talk of robbing people of social justice, and not allowing them to share in the benefits which we have brought about by our skill and ingenuity, is stupid and wrong. The point of giving these figures is to show that the cost of living, and especially the cost of food, must have compared favourably with the weekly wage packets. If that had not been the case consumption could not have risen, and, at the same time, small savings increased—as is the fact.
    This has been confirmed. On 26th October, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in answer to a Question, told us that in the United Kingdom, in 1948, the total amount of wages paid was £4,160 million, and in 1953 it was £5,770 million —which represents an increase of £1,610 million. That is reflected in the figures which I have given.
    It is amazing that, despite the very clear and overriding picture of this better living standard, hon. Members opposite are able to cause misunderstanding. For the most part they do it—and none more adeptly than the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil)—by what the "Manchester Guardian" called
    "conjuring up a new mythology."
    They seize upon any rise in prices and ignore any fall.
    If the price of tea goes up by 1s. a lb., and the price of eggs goes down by 1s. a dozen, hon. Members opposite ignore the eggs and concentrate on the tea. If the price of mutton and pork goes down by 3d. a lb. and nothing goes up in price, they invent a scare—such as 'the 1s. egg, or the beef at 7s. a lb., or the butter at 6s. a lb.—or, as suggested by the "Daily Herald," tea at 10s. a lb. That is something which is never likely to happen so long as my right hon. Friend is in charge
    870
    of affairs. Good, honest people are puzzled, because they are told about the rises, but the falls are covered up by these clichés and phrases.
    Mr. Fienburgh: Would the hon. Member call it a cliché, a phrase, or a piece of mythology when his party said, in 1951, "We are going to mend the hole in the purse," instead of which the cost of living has gone up practically every month, and is now considerably higher than it was then?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am trying to demonstrate to the hon. Member that we have patched the hole in the purse, and that if there had been a hole in the purse and the money had gone into the gutter it could not have gone into National Savings. That is as clear a piece of evidence as any reasonable man could desire to prove that a patch has been put upon the purse.
    I do not suggest that everything has come down in price. Some things have gone up and others have gone down, but on balance, since 1951, it is a fact that wage increases have more than made up for increases in costs. Any alterations, viewed in relation to the recent wage changes, show that wages have risen to a greater extent than prices. In the past 12 months, the weekly wage rate has risen by 4·3 per cent., compared with an increase of 2–4 per cent. in retail prices.
    Mr. Hector McNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman state the comparative figures of wages as against food prices?
    Mr. Nicholls: Yes, I shall deal with that.
    The point is that, in the past 12 months, the weekly wage rate has risen by 4·3 per cent., compared with an increase in retail prices of 2·4 per cent. From the beginning of this year to September, wages have risen by 17 per cent., and prices by 11 per cent. From 1947 to 1951, wages went up by 22 per cent. and prices by 29 per cent. Those figures are on the record.
    To sum up our record as compared with that of hon. Members opposite, the position is that, in 1951, the cost of living rose by 12 per cent. and of food by 18 per cent. with a commensurate increase in wages—I am sorry; perhaps I may correct that.
    Mr. Mikardo: It is a long job, son.
    Mr. Nicholls: I should like to correct it, because this matter is so important. In 1951, the last year of office of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the cost of living went up by 12 per cent. and the cost of food by 18 per cent., and there was no corresponding increase in wages. In 1954, from 1st January to the month of September, the cost of food rose by 4·5 per cent. and the cost of living by 2·4 per cent., but there was a commensurate increase in wages. The result, very clearly, is that we are now eating, wearing and using more of the modern world's goods, and saving more, than has ever been the case in the past.
    The important fact is that confirmation of this statement comes from a source quite outside the Government.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: The logic of the hon. Member's statement—and I accept his figures, because they do not affect some of us—is that he is now indulging in a very severe criticism of those who advocated wage restraint.
    Mr. Nicholls: No; I am coming to that point.
    I am saying that the last 12 months show that the increase in the cost of food and in the cost of living generally, if looked at in the light of wage increases, cannot be used as an argument for further wage increases. There may be others. It is right that workers and people of this country today share in the extra prosperity of the nation. But I am saying that the impartial Report of the Cost-of-Living Advisory Committee, the authors of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, shows that, whatever grounds there may be for claiming increases, they cannot be claimed on the basis of an increase in the cost of living generally.
    I make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to pay attention to the importance of not undermining the authority of the retail price index. It was set up by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, and it has been working to rules which were laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, and I feel that it is up to all of us to accept the evidence we get from it, and to work on the basis of that evidence being authentic, and not try to undermine it, as so many people do on platforms in the country.
    Mr. Lee: If the hon. Gentleman is now defending the index, why is it that his hon. Friends have said that we were deliberately rigging the index?
    Mr. Nicholls: That was wrong. If the Cost-of-Living Advisory Committee allowed any Government, of whatever political complexion, to interfere with its impartial work it would be a great mistake. I am arguing that the Advisory Committee, the authors of this index, is an impartial body, and that for the last 10 years it has acted impartially and that therefore, it is the responsibility of hon. Members in this House to face up to that fact.
    With all this evidence, why is it that certain people can still be doubtful about the cost of living? The first reason is that there is more for people to buy. Money does not seem to go so far, because there is more to spend it on. The second reason is that the wage increases which the workers have enjoyed, and the reduction in taxation, have not always been passed on to their wives, who pay any cost of living increase. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether their own recent increase has been passed on. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you? "] If I have not passed on my own increase, when I read my speech tomorrow I shall be constrained to do so. The third reason concerns a small section of the people, the old-age pensioners, though not all of them. About one in four of old-age pensioners were facing real hardship, because they did not have the increase to help them to meet the increase in the cost of living which men earnings wages had.
    I believe that, if we want social justice, which is the mainspring of this Amendment, we have ample evidence to show that, during the last three years, what we have done is more likely to spread and extend that social justice than anything that happened in the previous six years. I feel that the vigour with which speeches have been made from the other side today shows that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have something of an inferiority complex on this matter. It is my belief that they are entitled to have that feeling.
    7.54 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: Having listened to most of this debate, I feel that we are still able to say from this side of the House that the indictment levelled

    873
    against the Government by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), in opening the debate, has still not been answered. I felt that my right hon. Friend's speech was one of the finest expositions of the present economic situation, and of the culpability of the Government for it, that we have heard in this Parliament, and I wish that more of my hon. Friends had taken the opportunity of making such speeches in years gone by.
    I am concerned with that part of the Gracious Speech which deals with industrial matters, and with two parts of it in particular. We read:
    "My Ministers will continue to encourage the expansion of industry and the full employment of My People."
    Later, there is this passage in the Gracious Speech:
    "My Government will stimulate the expansion of facilities for higher technological education, so that advances in scientific research may be matched by increased industrial efficiency and production."
    The Amendment deals with these two issues.
    On the first point of expanding industry and full employment, I challenge the right of the present Government to assert that they have done anything at all to encourage such expansion. On the second issue of scientific research, their actions have, in fact, retarded scientific research and its application to industry. In their first full year of office—1952— we saw the first fall in productive levels since the end of the war. During that period, our overseas competitors increased their productive levels, and very much of the strength of our economic position which was achieved under the Labour Government was, in fact, lost. It is true that in 1953, and again in 1954, production has again gone up, but, if we look at the Statistical Bulletin of O.E.E.C, we see that even now we are losing our share of world trade.
    Therefore, there is nothing whatever about which the Government should be complacent in the present economic situation. Indeed, when one reviews in perspective the last three years and the things which the present Government inherited, we see that among the skeletons hanging from the candelabra, which the Leader of the House used to tell us about, was an economy on which the basis of
    874
    full employment was laid, and a higher average increase in productivity per annum than had ever been achieved in our history before or since.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury was arguing with one of my hon. Friends as to whether there is more full employment than in the days when we were in power. It is rather a ridiculous argument. When we were in power, the fact was that there was a slightly smaller working population, and the number of vacancies which we might have filled ran into almost 750,000. Had there been the physical presence of 750,000 more people, the jobs were there to be taken. To argue that there might have been a few thousand more in employment fails to take into consideration the fact that there are now more people to be employed, and there are certainly not the same number of vacancies in existence today as when we vacated office in 1951. That argument is quite a negative one.
    Again, when we look at the issue of the expansion of industry, let us look first at one or two particular industries. Will the Government tell us that they have expanded the agricultural industry, which they found prosperous and contented? Their own policy has caused a contraction of both manpower and capital investment, and we may yet reap quite a harvest, though in another sense, as a result.
    Will they tell us that their policies have had a good effect on the railway industry, which is now in dire trouble? Beyond doubt, this trouble is due to the Government's own policy in taking away road transport and putting it in the hands of private enterprise, because it was the only section of the industry from which profits could be obtained, and it has had a most detrimental effect on the whole railway industry.
    What about the second point to which I have referred—that concerning advances in scientific research to match increased industrial efficiency? I am not disputing that, as far as actual technological education is concerned, the Government are at last doing something about it, but let us recall that, while the Labour Government were in office, we expanded the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research very considerably indeed. As I pointed

    875
    out in the debate on science and productivity on 20th July, 1953, in 1944–45 expenditure on toe D.S.I.R. was £913,000. By 1951. when we left office, it had risen to £4,596,000. In early 1952, the present Government slashed the allocation to the D.S.I.R. and deliberately retarded its development.
    It was only after we on these benches had exposed the lunacy of this policy that the Government allowed the expansion of the D.S.I.R. to be resumed. But, of course, two vital years had been lost during which our competitors abroad had gone even further ahead of us, and, no matter what the Government do now, it will be quite impossible for us to make good the losses of those two years.
    In that debate, I quoted something from the Report of the Department for 1952, and I make no apology for quoting it again. In the preamble to that Report, the Department had this to say:
    "In the economic position which prevailed at the beginning of the year we reluctantly decided that some contribution must be made by the Department to the general economies that were being made in the Government Service as a whole."
    On page 13 of the Report, we see this:
    "In our last report we expressed considerable anxiety at the delay in giving effect to D.S.I.R.'s post-war plans. We pointed out that they had been approved by Government in 1946 as the minimum necessary to enable D.S.I.R. to play its part in ensuring that science made its full contribution to national problems and particularly to increasing industrial efficiency.
    We urged that special steps should be taken to remove the obstacles hindering the development of these plans which the economic position of the country and its defence alike required. Nothing has since occurred to mitigate our anxiety. In fact, we find ourselves reviewing the relation between our scientific needs and our scientific resources with steadily deepening concern."
    What about advances in scientific research matching increasing industrial efficiency? It is humbug to mention such a thing now, but that is something on which everything in industry depends.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: It discourages them.
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend says that it is actually discouraging.
    We now hear from hon. Members opposite that we are enjoying a business boom. What do they mean by the word
    876
    "boom"? I have already said that the Labour Government created the conditions which brought about full employment and a rapidly expanding production. Coming so soon after the war, that was a remarkable performance. Perhaps of even greater significance was the fact that we disposed of the economic theories about trade cycles, booms and slumps.
    I believe that we went far to prove that even with the inadequate controls then at our disposal a planned economy can bring that which mere profit scrambles never can, namely, a busy, expanding economy with maximum employment producing, in the main, the things most needed by the nation. Under those conditions one never heard the word "boom." It was taken for granted that that was the sort of economy into which Britain would continue to go so long as there was a Labour Government in charge.
    What, then, is the difference between the conditions I have described and those which we know as boom condition's? I suggest that the difference is expressed in the greater freedom now enjoyed by the Stock Exchange to regulate industrial investment as a vehicle for short-term gambling with a view to irresponsible profit-taking without any consideration of its effect on the particular firm or industry concerned or of any overall national consideration.
    I suggest that the more we move into these conditions, the nearer we get to the pre-war situation in which the word "slump," which we learned was complementary to boom, comes into it. On 9th January, 1954, the "Financial Times"—I see that it is represented on the benches opposite—told us that 2,911 companies published reports in 1953 showing that total gross profits fell from £1,528·8 million in 1952 to £1,397·5 million in 1953. In spite of that fall of 8 per cent. in total gross profits, net dividends distributed rose from £130·2 million in 1952 to £143 million in 1953, a rise of 10 per cent.
    My right hon. Friend estimated this afternoon that that 10 per cent. has now gone up to 20 per cent. I suggest that that picture typifies the differences between what I have described as a busy, expanding economy in which the well-being of the nation is the prime motive

    877
    and the beginning of the "spiv" type of economy in which all other considerations must be secondary to the "rake off."
    If that development is allowed to continue, it is really difficult to find any difference between it and the pre-war economy which produced the booms and the slumps which became so familiar to those of us in industry in those days. I believe that we shall then hear the old story from the Government's tame economists that these matters are beyond the power of Governments to control. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and I were victims of the days when they tried to "kid" us that that was the case.
    The Chancellor has already refused to condemn these policies, but then, as he is probably their author, it is perhaps hardly surprising that that should be so. So much, then, for the boast in the Gracious Speech that the Government will continue to encourage the expansion of industry and full employment.
    I do not claim that the Labour Government during their period of office did more than curb the more highly injurious effects upon our economy of Stock Exchange gambling. The war-time controls which we had at our disposal were not designed for such a purpose. I do not think we can claim that we ever really challenged the powers of the Stock Ex-change in these matters. For instance, we never attempted permanently to transfer those powers to the Government. Yet I believe that this operation is absolutely essential if the Government are to control and plan the British economy.
    We have much to do in this field before we can claim adequately to plan the economy of the nation. By our taxation policy in those days we restrained dividend distribution in the hope that more capital investment would take place. We had no power to compel it. Indeed, the accumulated reserves which resulted from our policy are now the basis of the dividend spree about which we complain
    I suggest to my hon. Friends that it is necessary for us to have a wide alteration in company law. Alterations should be considered which would relate private ownership of industry to public responsibility for its conduct. At present, the dividend restraint under Labour Govern-
    878
    ments can only be considered as temporary. What the people concerned can do is to wait for another Tory Government to come along to give the all clear to reduce the Profits Tax and to distribute those reserves at far less cost in taxation than would have been the case had we remained in power.
    We claim that we aim to create a planned economy. How does one plan an economy while leaving such powers of distortion in the hands of those whose profit rates increase as chaos prevails over planning? Enormous power for good or ill resides with those who exercise control over these undistributed dividends. No Government can determine the pattern of industrial development unless they have the power to control the uses to which those dividends are put.
    I think that it is morally right and economically essential to use them, not for dividend sprees, but in a manner most likely to benefit the nation as a whole. Our thinking on this matter is by no means complete. Just as we have led the way in proving that social disturbances resulting from slumps were quite unnecessary, so, I think, we must now turn our minds to evolving methods by which, for instance, while still retaining full employment we can yet curtail inflation, with all its dangers.
    Full employment is something which will need to be worked for it is is to be retained. Today, we see the fear of men like Walter Reuther in the United States, that we are entering a push-button era, in which vast numbers of people can be displaced from industry because of the great degree of mechanisation possible. To those of us who think of these matters that presents enormous problems.
    If we wait too long without evolving some method to deal with the problem we shall find a new Luddite mentality will have been generated among the workers. Unless we can determine a broad ratio of the displacement involved in the manufacturing industries by this new push-button age, I am afraid we shall find a great unbalance in many industries. We shall find that, while it is necessary to have thousands of people going out of those industries, in the hand tool industries there will still be the need for systematic overtime to keep the manufacturing industries fully employed. Now

    879
    is the time—though here I speak to my own party only, because I have no hope of the other side—when we, realising that this is the future economy we shall have to work, should be considering how to deal with such problems.
    In the industrial debate which took place on 3rd March, this year, I tried to give my impression of the results on trade union thinking of the policies of the present Government. I remember that, in that debate, I was followed by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher), who described my speech as a "wicked analysis." Perhaps even on the other side of the House no one will now describe the life of the Minister of Labour in the nine months which have elapsed since that debate as exactly a bed of roses.
    Perhaps the party opposite will take a little more notice of the report of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress than they were, apparently, willing to take of me when I was suggesting what could flow, industrially, from the present Government's policies. In his presidential address, Mr. Jack Tanner said this:
    "I would warn industrialists and the Government that unless by their actions they show that they also are prepared to play their part, then they will be extinguishing the very spirit of trade union co-operation which has made possible the increase of industrial production already achieved."
    Later in the report, in page 93, there is the following passage:
    "Turning to the economic field, the General Council regret that the Government's economic policy has done so little to tackle the vital problem of increasing industrial investment and to put a brake on the steady me in the prices of so many necessary items "on which workers' families have to spend their incomes. Moreover, the General Council are disturbed that the present policy of the Government has been gradually to reverse the redistribution of income achieved by the Coalition and Labour Governments. This is not in the best interests of the nation."
    The last quotation I shall make is from page 297 of the report:
    "It is a fact that at present the biggest relative increases in incomes are those going to shareholders. Moreover, since 1951 incomes from rents, dividends and interest have been rising more rapidly than wages and salaries; as we pointed out in our statement on the 1954 Budget, there has been under the present Government a gradual but definite reversal of the redistribution of income achieved by the Coalition and Labour Governments. Trade unionists cannot be
    880
    expected to stand idly by while improvements they have secured are whittled away by action or inaction on the Government's part, or by attempts by the richer sections of the community to improve their already privileged position.
    The Chancellor can hardly be satisfied with the response to his appeals for restraint in dividend distribution, but it must be emphasised that these higher dividends have largely resulted from reductions in company taxation and from the general laisser-faire policy of the present Government. Perhaps the chief danger of this policy is that it may induce a sense of false optimism that we are already out of the wood. We are not, and the longer we wander about trusting to luck and to market forces to guide us out the longer it will take us. What is more, if the doctrinaire supporters of free and unfettered enterprise are to be allowed free scope they will have only themselves to blame if trade unionists join in. In particular, increases in dividends are bound to act as a continual irritant and to weaken the influence of those who recognise the often temporary nature of the advantages that money wage increases bring."
    That is the opinion of the Trades Union Congress. I suggest that we on this side, who have tried to influence Government policy by our warnings that the deliberate class bias which the Government are showing in their financial and economic policies will undoubtedly bring a reaction among the workers themselves, are now justified in saying that very much of the industrial unrest which has been, and still is, evident, has been brought about by the deliberate policies of the Government themselves.
    The General Council of the Trades Union Congress will not, I know, be looked upon as a body which makes statements which it cannot substantiate. I believe that the Government, by their desire to recreate the pre-war type of economy, are endangering the living standards and jobs of many millions of people now in industry. I believe that the Government have shown that they are completely unfit to be trusted with the vital problems which concern this great industrial nation, and that the sooner we get rid of them the better.
    8.18 p.m.
    Colonel O. E. Crosthwaite-Eyre: I should assure the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) that I shall not refer to his speech, as someone, apparently, did when he last spoke, as a "wicked analysis." He has, however, made some rather remarkable statements, particularly in regard to railways. I think

    881
    that we are the first Government for a great many years who have produced a completely new plan for railways, and one which far transcends anything done in that industry for well over 100 years, and probably since it first commenced. That, surely, is something of which we should be proud, and for which we should not be subjected to criticism by the hon. Member.
    The hon. Member then referred to re serves and capital development, and said that we have been too slow in the private sector. Surely, of all the people who stand to be blamed for slowness, the National Coal Board must be outstanding. I am very glad to see opposite the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who was Minister of Fuel and Power—
    Mr. Lee Mr. Lee rose—
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Let me finish, and I will then give way immediately.
    The right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Fuel and Power, and will remember the plan which was set out for capital development. Only this year, for the first time, have we caught up with the plan which was set out five or six years' ago, when the party opposite was in charge of fuel and power.
    Mr. Lee: The hon. and gallant Member referred to the Coal Board. Will he tell us of any private industry which has gone so far in the last few years in capital investment as has the National Coal Board, and many other of the nationalised industries?
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I was not trying to answer that particular point, and I was taking the point of the nationalised sector.
    If we are to be asked—and I think that it would be correct to do so—for the private sector improvement, I immediately quote the oil companies, who have achieved a programme of expansion which is beyond belief. Any hon. Member knows that that is just one, but a very good, example.
    Perhaps I might refer to one further matter which the hon. Member mentioned. I think that it is very dangerous to bring the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research into party politics. It has been a very valuable Department. I
    882
    happen to be on the Public Accounts Committee, and every year we investigate all that that Department has done. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that last year the work that it did outstripped anything that it had thought possible. We ought to pay it a tribute, and we should not try to bring it into party politics.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: What about the expenditure?
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am talking about expenditure.
    As I said, I was on the Public Accounts Committee. We have been into the Department's expenditure, and we know what it spent. Last year, it spent £50,000 on a new machine—do not ask me how it works, because I do not know—which is designed to pick out nebular bodies in outer space which do not have any light refraction. I do not know why, but apparently it is necessary to pick them out, so that we know where they are.
    Mr. Lee: What I said was that whereas there had been a continuous expansion under the Labour Government, there was a deliberate reduction in allocations to D.S.I.R. the moment the present Government came into power.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That is quite true—for a short time. I have never denied it. I was merely saying that the work has gone on.
    It is true that there were a number of cuts when this Government came into power, but what I object to is the way in which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and is supporters behind him have tried to make out, first, that they told the truth to the country about the economic situation in 1951, and, second, that between 1945 and 1951 they set some pattern of economy which was excellent, was vivid in possibility, and which has been destroyed in three years by the Conservative Party. I hope that we may be able once and for all to kill that idea.
    The right hon. Gentleman spent some time saying that there was no "salvage operation," that there was no "salvage" and no "operation." I think I am quoting him correctly. He never told the country in that vital period of the General Election what was the drain on the financial reserves. He made a statement

    883
    at one dinner, but that statement referred to a period at least six weeks prior to the date on which he was speaking.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know better than that. The speech was made at the Mansion House dinner in accordance with precedent, and the figure of reserves that I gave related to 30th September, which was four days before.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It was roughly six weeks prior to the Election.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The Election was on 16th October, if I remember aright, or at any rate it was in the 20s of that month. It related to three weeks before the Election.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I apologise, and I accept the correction, but it was certainly a considerable period before the actual date of the Election.
    I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, he had day-to-day knowledge of the state of the gold and dollar reserves of the country. I am assured that that is so, and I should like to have it confirmed whether or not it is the duty of the Treasury to report daily to the Chancellor, and, if not daily, certainly at frequent intervals, as to the exact state of the gold and dollar reserves of the country.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly not. I was not informed of the exact position from day to day. I was travelling all over the country, as a matter of fact. I gave the fullest possible account I could of the situation. As a matter of fact, to do him justice, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer paid a tribute to my frankness.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am only asking whether those figures were available to the right hon. Gentleman if he wanted them. It seems strange that the country was never informed that at the time of the General Election the country was losing gold and dollars to the extent of £3 million a day, or 300 million dollars a month.
    We were told that many things went wrong when we took office. The facts about what happened in the first nine months alter we took office should be
    884
    borne in mind. We should remember the drain of 1,268 million dollars that took place between October, when we took office and June, when we said we had staunched the wounds which had been inflicted on the economy.
    The right hon. Member for Battersea, South said that in the last two years our reserves have risen much more slowly than in the rest of Western Europe. The fact is that if we allow for those nine months, during which we staunched those wounds, our reserves have risen at the rate of 70 per cent. as against 18 per cent. for the rest of Western Europe. Surely that is something of which we should be proud instead of, like the right hon. Member for Battersea, South, sneering at the effects of what we did.
    Mr. E. Partridge: May I make a correction? The hon. Member for Battersea, South is sitting behind the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre).
    Dr. Morgan: Wrong again. Always wrong.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I may be wrong on that point—I was referring, of course, to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—but I was not wrong about the figures that I quoted.
    Let us remember, further, that in the period between 1945 and 1951 the Socialists, who say that they set this pattern of advancement, had to borrow not less than 6,193 million dollars in order to do so. That was the sum that they borrowed on our behalf, and if all goes well, and no further borrowing is necessary, it will not be until 2000 A.D that we shall get out of the debts that they incurred in those six years. Is that what they call a successful financial period?
    Dr. Morgan: Yes.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am glad that one hon. Member does. We have pledged our credit to that enormous sum—
    Dr. Morgan: Why not?
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Somebody has got to pay for it. Hon. Members opposite are saying what an excellent job they did when we are now faced with the job of paying for it.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman also state the amount that we invested abroad during that period?
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The question of the sterling balances, to which I understand the right hon. Gentleman is referring, relates merely to the sums that we released in order to promote our own internal and domestic Empire economy, and we did it for very good reasons. The sums that the right hon. Gentleman borrowed by way of this 6,193 million dollars to which I referred were to finance immediate imports and to secure the day-to-day running of the Socialist Government. The two do not correspond in the least.
    It has been urged that we should take into account the sums that hon. Members opposite repaid in return for what was borrowed during the war. It is interesting to note that the total sum expended by hon. Members opposite in relation to war debts incurred during the six years that they were in power amounted to exactly 9 million dollars. On the other hand, in the first six months when we were in office we had to pay 176 million dollars in order to service the debts that they had incurred. It is that sort of figure which shows the difference between the way in which hon. Members opposite squandered their resources and the debts that we now have to pay.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, South talked about commodity prices, but he forgot to mention the very large amounts of commodities bought by his Government at peak prices in 1950–51, which we have had to sell at a loss, because prices have fallen. Had it not been for the unwise commodity buying which took place during that period we should not have had such a heavy bill to face in paying their debt.
    Let us remember, too, the amount of overseas investments sold by hon. Members opposite to promote their day-today trade. One example is that of the South American railways, which were sold for less than nine months' supply of meat. That is the type of thing which the planned economy of the Socialists has inflicted upon the country.
    We are told that we are distributing too much in dividends. The "Financial Times" has been quoted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I
    886
    hope I may be excused if I give another figure from it. It shows that less than half the profits which could be distributed by companies are being distributed. The figure is 48 per cent. I do not think that any economy is bad where one is distributing less than half one has earned. There cannot be very much wrong with that.
    We should remember that these new savings, in the form of distributed dividends, are required to build up our new industries. The trouble under Socialism, with the Capital Issues Committee and all the other rigorous restrictions, was that we could not get a new industry going. We could not get new capital. At the same time, an old industry, however inefficient it was, could get capital, just because it was there, just because it was on a list, just because it appeared in a schedule. One of the best ways of promoting the many new industries and new activities which we must have is by seeing that a proper but not unreasonable share of money is distributed through dividends.
    I hope the House will insist that when we talk of dividend distribution we should forget the idea that dividends go only into the hands of a few rich people. That suggestion is absolute nonsense. The late Mr. Hargreaves Parkinson carried out a survey of the leading industrial companies of the country, and found that over 70 per cent. of the shareholding in those companies was at the rate of less than £100 worth of shares per man. I have no reason to think that that is an unfair test, because I did a rapid check with a company in which I am interested and found very few shareholders with large blocks of shares. In the main, they are small people.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, South talked this afternoon, as we have talked from this side of the House, about pensions, and about the need to help various sections of the community. We are apt to forget, and we ought to remember, those on small, fixed incomes—the people who saved and who, by thrift, invested just enough so that when they retired they might, with their dividends, have a life of moderate ease. They have found, particularly since the war, that, instead of giving them that moderate ease, their investments have proved a snare and a delusion, with no return whatever.
    Mr. Percy Daises: Surely the hon. and gallant Member should complete the picture. It is not simply a question of what a man owns in one company; it is a question of what he owns in all the companies with which he is concerned.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I agree, and I wish I could give the figure. I am afraid I cannot. I think it is highly unlikely that anybody who is rich will take the trouble to run round investing £100 in 200 different companies so as to avoid criticism from hon. Members opposite. I think that the average investor invests because he believes in the company, and he could not care less about the criticisms of hon. Members opposite. This innuendo which is made against the small investor should be made only if there is some proof to show that it is reasonable.
    Part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South was about the inequality of incomes. From this side of the House, we have said that whilst we naturally look at the pattern of 1938 compared with today to see what changes have occurred, we certainly do not want to go back to that particular pattern. But I do think the right hon. Member ought to be careful in what he says, because so much could be taken as a vengeful attack against people who succeed and companies which succeed.
    If we are to have productivity, if we are to retain the brains and talent of this country in this country and not see them go abroad to other countries and other companies, it is necessary for us to provide an adequate and proper return for success. The sooner we realise that the sooner and better we shall get on. We talk about a Surtax-payer as though he were some criminal, a map who obviously by nature is undesirable and the sooner he is dispossessed, possibly throttled or strangled, the better. But what a mistake.
    What did the right hon. Member say when, as Minister of Fuel and Power, he was introducing the Electricity Bill and the Gas Bill? The first thing he said was, "We must get people who are worth while to run these industries. Therefore we must pay them the money they need for that job." He was Minister of Fuel and Power when the National Coal Board gave itself £10,000 a year by
    888
    way of expenses. Not one hon. Member opposite raised a sign of disapproval. I quite agree that if one is to run the coal industry one must have salary and expenses to do the job. Why, then, tackle the unfortunate man in the private sector of enterprise and treat him as a criminal?
    Mr. Rankin: We do not.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If one is running a company and wishes to make any arrangement for the betterment of one's employees by way of educational facilities, a health or pensions scheme, or for recreation, one may give all that without any trouble to any man in the firm who is not earning £2,000 a year. Try to give it to someone earning more than £2,000 a year, and it is found that he is not allowed to receive it. The Inland Revenue comes down, and it is disallowed to the company as a tax expense. That is stupid. The very fact that a man is paid by a company more than £2,000 a year means, by way of definition, that he is of use to that company, and should be given the reward of his use, not penalised.
    Surtax is nothing more than a discriminatory tax; it has never been a revenue tax, and never can be. Its sum last year was about £130 million out of a total Budget of £4,500 million. I am all in favour of that tax so long as it remains a tax merely to take from those who are better off what they can afford to give, but in the hands of hon. Members opposite it becomes a tax merely of spite to dispossess the possessors and I think that is wrong. [An HON. MEMBER: "Come off it."] I suggest as a first step that we should reduce the top level of Surtax to 15s. By doing that we should be doing far less than is done by any other country in Europe, particularly Germany, which will be our great competitor in the next five years.
    I went to Germany on a Parliamentary delegation to see the coal and steel industries of the Ruhr. The one thing which struck me more than anything else in Germany was that, whether a man be a director or workman, he has the reward of his effort. It was no exception to see men building at night under are lights. It was nothing unusual to find the average worker in a coal-mine making arrangements with the company to build his

    889
    house. It was nothing to see new shops, and cinemas, and every form of building going on in a town which, when I was last there, was nothing but a pile of rubble. I say in all humility that when one saw that in the Ruhr, and when one saw what they had achieved, one realised what enterprise and the reward of enterprise can be.
    Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Member is painting a rather dismal picture of the position of British industry at present. I have in my hand a list of bonus share issues since 1952. Will he tell me where those are coming from?
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not wish to get involved in that one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] The answer is an easy one. For about 12 years, money has been put back to reserve, ploughed back into the companies, so that now in most companies there is the share capital and the general reserve beneath it, and very often the general reserve outweighs the nominal capital. In these circumstances, all that a bonus issue means is that the company is now giving to the shareholders what was always their right. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tax-free."] No, it is not giving anything tax-free. What a stupid answer.
    If I plough back money into a company and then I double the share capital, what advantage do I get? Instead of having one share worth £1, I have two shares worth 10s. each. That is all that happens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is quite simple. One has only to look at any bonus issue to see that that is so. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why do it?"] The reserves have been ploughed back, and all that is done is to bring the nominal capital into line with the actual capital, and Income Tax has to be paid on top of it.
    A point about which I wart to ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is the need for making easier the buying of British goods by the Colonies. I am very perturbed about the present situation with the currency boards that exist in regard to the Colonies. On Friday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations said that about £1,450 million of sterling assets owned by the Colonies were now held in London.
    As a matter of principle, it must be agreed that for the Colonies to place their
    890
    sterling assets in this country in short-term loans whilst they themselves are borrowing at long-term rates, is a bad thing. We are not getting the proper exchange, nor are we getting the proper value for the help that we are giving to the Colonies. Above all, we reach the position that if any of the Colonies wants to issue notes, it has to provide 100 per cent. cover by way of sterling in London. This means that the more prosperous a Colony, the more money it has to deposit in London because it wants more currency at home, and it is, therefore, less able to spend in the British markets.
    We ought to reduce the amount of cover that is required in London. To suggest a figure, I would ask my hon. Friend to accept 40 per cent. This would enable these funds, which, after all, are earned by the Colonies, to be spent by them in buying from us, instead of having the present absurd position that the more they earn the less they are able to spend.
    To sum up. I not only disagree with the Amendment, but, whilst so far we have had only a single dose of this medicine, I hope that we shall now have a double dose, because the more of this medicine that we get, the better our country will prosper.
    8.43 p.m.
    Mr. Ian Mikardo: The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), in the course of his short excursion, got into rough water at Leeds, Newton-le-Willows and South Battersea, and received rather a hammering. He had to make one withdrawal on the grounds of chronology and another on the grounds of geography. I do not propose, therefore, to add to his difficulties or embarrassments except to remark that doubtless the old-age pensioners in his constituency will notice that in the contribution which the hon. and gallant Member has made to our proceedings, on the eve of an important debate about pensions, the only plea which he made was on behalf of Surtax payers.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Member will, of course, remember Mr. Speaker's Ruling, earlier today, that any mention of pensions today was out of order in this debate.
    Mr. Mikardo: That is not the point I was making. I was not condemning the hon. and gallant Member for not men-

    891
    tioning the pensioners. I was just pointing out to him that the only class in the community for whom he shed a tear and made a moving plea was that of the poor, hard-done-by Surtax payers. The hon. Gentleman's speech illustrates, perhaps better than anything else in the debate, the very sharp division of basic principle that exists between the two sides of the House.
    The Amendment refers to the extent to which doctrinaire considerations have influenced the policy of the Government. I want to consider for a moment what are the doctrines which have influenced the Government in the economic and social policies which they have pursued over the last three years. I think it is not unfair to them to sum up their doctrines in this way—and I think they will probably accept the summing up—that if we give individuals an incentive to maximise their own individual welfare that will result in the total welfare of the community being maximised. That is the whole meaning of their constant talk about incentives and exercising initiative and getting people to push along harder.
    They visualise society as being a crowd of people trying to cross a bridge or get into a cinema or into a football ground, and their idea is that if we say to each one of those in the crowd, "You move as fast as you can. Get through the crowd as quickly as you can. Elbow your way through, push along, kick your way through, scrum your way through. Never mind who gets elbowed out of the way or who gets trodden on," the whole crowd will move over the bridge or into the cinema or into the football ground with the maximum speed.
    Mr. William Shepherd Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle) rose—
    Mr. Mikardo: I should be delighted to give way to any hon. Member who has been present for the major part of the debate.
    That theory of the party opposite is an attractive theory on the face of it—the idea that if everybody tries to grab for himself a bit when the going is good, then the community as a whole will be benefited. As a theory it has its attractions, especially, of course, for the people who succeed in grabbing a bit. I observed in the Press a little while
    892
    ago that even the Church authorities have now made usury respectable by claiming that they managed to grab a bit for themselves out of their investments while the going was good.
    I would only say, with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), that the Government must not be surprised or disappointed if the workers say, "O.K. What is good for others is good for us." If it is good for shareholders in tea companies to see their income more than trebled in a year, it may be good for railwaymen, bus drivers, dockers or engineers.
    If in the next few months the Minister of Labour finds himself with an unusual amount of labour trouble on his hands he will not have to look far to find somebody to blame. He will only have to look down the Treasury Bench, and point an accusing finger at the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has spent the last three years, with the enthusiastic support of his colleagues, trying to inculcate into this country the philosophy, "I am all right, Jack. To hell with you," trying to inculcate in this country the philosophy of "Every man for himself and devil take the hindmost"; every man for himself, even if it leads to the old and the sick, the women and the children—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—being very much worse off. If the workers of the country try to grab their bit, there will be nobody to blame but members of the Government.
    What happens in this sort of condition? When we try and run the country on the basis of this sort of philosophy two things go wrong. The first is that in industry itself this is the sort of policy which leads to a short-term view being taken and, therefore, militates against the encouragement of economic expansion, to which the Amendment refers.
    Mr. Osborne Mr. Osborne rose—
    Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member comes in, having fed, to interrupt an hon. Gentleman who has not had a cup of tea all day.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer fully understands me when I say that his policy militates against proper industrial expansion, because he takes such a pessimistic view of prospects under the Government of which he is a member.

    893
    He has told us quite recently that if we continue to follow the policies we are pursuing we might double our national income in 25 years. That is not much of an objective. Indeed, that is a poor objective because it is at the rate cumulatively of 3 per cent. per annum. If we continued the 6 per cent. rate which the Labour Government averaged, or if the Chancellor had any confidence that the current rate of 6 per cent. could be maintained by this Government, then 6 per cent. per annum cumulatively over 25 years would not double our national income; it would multiply it by more than 4¼ times.
    It is obvious, therefore, that the Chancellor must realise that his own policy is inhibiting a full measure of industrial expansion. That is not surprising, because in a period when speculation is rife and when commercial "spivery" is the most profitable occupation, people cannot be persuaded to concentrate their efforts on the raising of industrial efficiency. A man who is engaged in an industrial enterprise has to spend a lot of money and time, and give a lot of thought and use a lot of technical skill, to get a few per cent. increase in industrial efficiency. But he could get much more out of a single take-over bid than the products of several years improved efficiency in industry. We are encouraging our people to turn their backs on the solid business of the long-term raising of our industrial effectiveness in order to turn aside to the pleasant paths of financial speculations, turn-over bids, buying futures on the market, and practices of this sort.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest who spoke just now but who already, unfortunately, has had to leave us, referred to what he found when he was in Germany. I do not know what consolation he was deriving from that, but what he was doing by implication was to say that industry is much better organised in Western Germany than it is in this country. I do not see why he should think that that reflects any credit on the Government which he supports.
    It is a fact that that is so, and if the Economic Secretary would stop being complacent on the grounds that we are doing better now than in 1938 and think
    894
    about the present and the future instead of the dim and distant past, and if he would consider how well we are making out not by comparison with what we did 15 years ago but by comparison with what is being done now by other countries with whom we have to compete in the export market, he would find much in the scene which would disturb him very considerably indeed.
    I would advise the hon. Gentleman to borrow from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply the report of the proceedings of the Minister's Engineering Advisory Council at its meeting on 13th October last, when it considered an expert analysis of the effects of German competition on British engineering industries, which examined very closely the reasons German engineering exports are rising at the expense of our own engineering exports. That very careful, closely documented, expert survey makes absolute nonsense of all the mythology which is being built up by employers' organisations and by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite about this position.
    That expert survey demonstrates with absolute clarity that increased German competitiveness is not due to Germans working longer or harder than Britons—they do not—or due to their working for less money. They do not. It is not due to German industry buying its raw materials, fuel, transport and credit more cheaply than ours. In fact, on the evidence of this expert document, it does not. The document demonstrates that it is not true that German industry suffers less from the disincentive effects of taxation than our industry does. It demonstrates that their deliveries are not shorter than ours and they do not get orders by extended credits compared with our industries.
    All these contentions are examined and dismissed in this document which the Minister of Supply considered. There is left only one single factor, which is that German industrialists are less greedy than British industrialists. They think in the long-term instead of in the short-term. If I may quote from this document, the conclusion to which this expert body comes is:
    "The increase in German productivity must owe a great deal to the rising rate of expenditure on industrial re-equipment … in the last few years … Germany devoted a higher proportion [than Britain] of her national income to industrial development … dividends

    895
    have been small and a high rate of investment has been achieved by German industry."
    It is that which goes wrong when one creates this atmosphere of everybody dashing in and grabbing a bit for himself while the going is good.
    The second thing which goes wrong is that out of roughly the same global total of national welfare one has a reallocation of welfare on a regressive basis. That is the second great doctrine of the party opposite, that
    "Unto every one that hath shall be given. …"
    What we have seen is very little change in the resources available to the community as a whole but within roughly the same global total a very considerable redistribution in the direction of improving the lot of those who are already fairly well off and worsening the lot of those who are not well off at all.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) quoted an answer which was given to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) a week or two ago. If hon. Members would like to make a piece of simple arithmetical calculation, they will find that that answer shows that since the present Government have come into power the increased amount of food available is equal to ld. per head per day for the whole population. There has been virtually no change in global consumption, but we know that some people are eating much better and more varied food than they were eating a few years ago. They write to the papers to say so. If one has approximately the same global total, it can only be because some people are being made to suffer to provide more for others.
    It is certainly true that some elements in the community have prospered as a result of this Government's activities. They are speculators of all sorts, purchasers of steel shares, to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South referred, the purchasers of road transport assets, all those with high incomes who have had some substantial tax reliefs, and the landlords who are to benefit under the new legislation on rents.
    But if one is to operate the principle of every man for himself and let the crowd all rush to get through the gate at once, who is it that is elbowed aside? It is, of course, always the sick—
    Mr. Osborne: The Bevanites.
    Mr. Mikardo: —the young and the old. That is precisely what has happened in this free-for-all that the present Government have created. The running down of the hospital services, as a result of the cuts in capital expenditure, affected the sick. The overcrowding of schools affects the children and no one needs to say anything about the lot of the old-age pensioners.
    That is why I am glad that on this side of the House we have moved an Amendment which makes clear in the sharpest form the doctrinal differences between the two sides of the House. That is why I hope that we shall see tonight a vote which will give the Government and their supporters something to think about.
    9.2 p.m.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: This debate was opened with a very able, competent, and, I would say, devastating speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). It is perfectly true that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, with his professional propagandist training behind him, did his best to answer, and he usually does a pretty good best.
    I did not think he was in his best form this afternoon. I do not blame him. I am not always in the best form myself. One gets on one's feet in this Assembly and is not sure what will happen to one before one sits down. He spent some time resisting my right hon. Friend's allegation that there was any complacency about the Government. If ever I saw a man who looked complacent, sounded complacent, who had complacency all over his face, and spoke complacently all through his speech, it was certainly the Economic Secretary to the Treasury this afternoon.
    I begin, as did my right hon. Friend and the Economic Secretary, by expressing my sympathy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the anxiety that is in his mind, and say how well we understand that he cannot be with us today. I very much hope that he will have better news.
    The Economic Secretary, among other things, said there were certain blind economic forces which have to be taken into account. It is quite true that there sometimes operate world forces which individual Governments cannot control at this point in world organisation. In the

    897
    days of the Labour Government of 1929–31 the present Prime Minister once referred to the world economic blizzard. We did not get any sympathy about that; the Conservative Party assumed that everything was our fault.
    If the world situation, such as at the outbreak of the Korean war, or when world prices are rising, is such that the British Government cannot well control it—something can be done about it, but not everything—if a Labour Government is in office it has to be the Government's fault. On the other hand, if, as was expounded by my right hon. Friend, world prices come down under a Conservative Government—and it should be remembered that they had begun to come down under a Labour Government, partly owing to the international action which we took in regard to the International Materials Conference—in so far as they continue to do so, and redound to the luck of the Conservative Government, the Government say, "Ah, alone we did it." If International forces hit us it is our fault; if international forces give them a bit of benefit, it is owing to their virtue.
    The Economic Secretary said that dividends had risen only to the same extent as wages. This statement reveals the Tory state of mind—the scrupulously equal comparison between dividends and wages. There is this material and moral difference between the two, that as regards the great bulk of the recipients of dividends, they have done little or nothing to earn them.
    Mr. Osborne Mr. Osborne rose—
    Mr. Morrison: If there is much more provocation I shall give a few personal illustrations. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has had a good time interrupting everybody today. It is time that he left off doing so.
    There is a great moral and material difference between dividends, which in many cases the recipients do not earn, and wages, which everybody earns, although there may be criticisms here and there. The argument of the Economic Secretary that wages and dividends should be treated on the basis of equality is typical of the Conservative frame of mind. The only sign of progress on their part is that 50, or even 30 years ago they would have put an increase in dividends above an increase in wages, and thought that it was
    898
    a good thing. They have made some progress, but it is not very much.
    The Economic Secretary gave us an interesting account of technological educational development, and this subject is important, but I have a feeling that the gentleman in Whitehall who wrote it enjoyed writing it more than the House, as a whole, enjoyed listening to it.
    The Amendment starts by condemning the Government for their complacency with regard to continuing social injustice. It is not surprising that they should be complacent about social injustice. It is traditional in the Tory state of mind, and it found expression in the spirit of the speech of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Consequently, the Conservatives approach the whole economic and social problem of the community from a position opposite to that of the Socialists, trade unionists, co-operators and the Labour Party.
    It is natural that that should be so, because the philosophy of the Conservative Party is based upon the belief that the private ownership of land and capital, and their use for private profit, are essentials which are fundamental to the well being of the nation, whereas we believe that the assertion of the national night to determine the use of our economic resources, including public ownership in all spheres where it is appropriate and useful—
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Which ones?
    Mr. Morrison: Hon. Members opposite had better be careful, because I am going to quote some Tory Ministers in a moment. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has a loud voice, and a laugh broader than his thinking about these things, and he ought to think a bit more.
    That is the fundamental difference which exists between us, and, indeed, it was expressed by the Prime Minister himself on 8th October, 1951, in his election broadcast. This will please hon. Gentlemen opposite, until I come to my second quotation. This is what the Prime Minister said:
    "Nationalisation is now admitted to have been a failure. It has been very costly to the public. It has given a poorer service to the user or consumer, and, except perhaps in the

    899
    coal mines, it is not popular amongst the employees. This ill-starred experiment has caused immense injury both to our harassed finances and our creative energy."
    Now, let us see what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power said on 25th October, 1954, three years later, and it does not relate to management by this Government, because public corporations manage these concerns. The Parliamentary Secretary said the same thing which had been said by the Minister of Fuel and Power himself. The Government had been asked if they thought nationalisation to be a complete and utter failure, and the Parliamentary Secretary replied:
    "… that is disproved, and certainly we do not consider that the industry for which we are responsible is a 'complete and utter failure.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 1715.]
    That is a complete contradiction of the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, and let it be remembered that the Ministry of Fuel and Power is responsible for three industries—electricity, gas and coal. After all, if the Government thought that things were as bad as this laughter rather indicates, why have the Government left them in public ownership?
    The Government have not hesitated to mess about with commercial road transport, with the British Broadcasting Corporation, or with iron and steel, but they have not dared to touch coal, electricity, and gas, or even the railways, partly because of a sentimental attachment of the Prime Minister to the railways, and partly because they know that if private enterprise took over the railways again, private enterprise would be in an utter mess. They know it perfectly well.
    Let us take a look at transport. The declared intention of the Act of last year was to denationalise a large proportion of commercial road transport, to re-introduce wholesale competition into road haulage, and to enable the small man, so it was said, to re-enter the industry. The Government intended to sell off these units as quickly as they could. They have not done so.
    They have not been able to sell combinations of vehicles in premises. The sales of the larger units have been difficult, and the smaller units have not gone to the small man so much as they have been added to the fleets of those who
    900
    wish to have further licences to their credit. As a matter of fact, the Disposal Board is faced with a terribly difficult job, and the time will come when the Government will have to decide whether this farce is to go on or whether, they should stop it, so that we may have some sort of comprehensive road organisation in the public sector, and even some sort the other way.
    As it is, we are in danger of getting a bad commercial road service which is insufficient for the needs of British industry. The finances of the public road service have been steadily improving. Incidentally, the profit which was last made by the British Road Services is roughly the same as the sum in dispute between the railwaymen and the British Transport Commission at the present time. Moreover, the element of safety is also a considerable one.
    The coal industry has shown great improvement under public ownership. We are now working mines which were started many years ago, particularly difficult mines which are bound to be economically difficult. The Minister has praised the success of the publicly-owned mining industry, and has praised the additional output. Despite all the difficulties—and there are some real difficulties—the coal industry has improved under public ownership.
    Is there any sane man in this House who would urge that the coal industry should be denationalised and that we should go back to where we were before the war? If, as it claims to be, the Conservative Party is the steady opponent of nationalisation, why does it not come out and say that it is going to denationalise the mines and hand them back to the coalowners who operated them before nationalisation? Members of the party opposite know that they dare not do that, and that nationalisation is preferable to private ownership.
    Civil aviation, which years ago was started on the assumption that it would have to be subsidised for an indefinite period of time, is now reaching the point when it is making ends meet. At any rate, the subsidy has decreased, and, as a whole, civil aviation is successful and has a remarkably fine record as far as deaths and injuries are concerned.
    In electricity, the production is up. Its finances are healthy and, compared with

    901
    pre-war days, its costs are reasonable. If the House could find many industries where charges have increased so little as in British gas and electricity it would be very lucky.
    I now come to the controls, to some of which my right lion. Friend has already referred. This is one of the difficulties which we are in about the building industry. The Government say that they have set the building industry free, and that more building of one sort and another is going on than has ever gone on before. Recently "The Builder" published a graph. I have not the time to deal with it in detail. It shows an increase in wages.
    There has been an increase in the cost of materials, although that has eased off a little, but building costs generally have considerably increased in recent years. In 1951 they represented an index of about 250 as compared with 100 in 1938. In 1954, they have reached an index of 330, and local authorities are experiencing difficulty in getting deliveries of materials. Prices submitted in tenders are going up, and prices to private individuals who are having houses built for themselves are also going up.
    These disadvantages are largely the result of the Government allowing the industry to go to pieces without any reasonable supervision, or insistence on there being some social purpose about it. I venture to say that it will not be very long before the Government find that municipal and private housing will be in difficulties, partly owing to the slowness with which materials are delivered, and partly owing to the price at which things are made.
    As another illustration I wish to make some reference to Northern Ireland. I make no apology for a Member representing a London constituency referring to Northern Ireland. Indeed, three of my hon. Friends—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), former Minister of Labour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), former Secretary for Overseas Trade, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—none of them Members for Northern Ireland, have recently been there. Northern Ireland needs some champions in the House of Commons.
    902
    The Unionist Party over there is not always understood. It consists partly of Conservatives, partly of Liberals, and partly of trade union officials who, in this country, would undoubtedly be Labour. It is a coalition of people based upon the protection of the border from the Northern Ireland point of view. I am not saying that that is right or wrong. What is unfortunate is that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland in this House are nearly all die-hard Tories of the most reactionary type. They are mere Lobby fodder for the Tory Whips, and take little or no interest in the well being of Northern Ireland.
    Unemployment in Northern Ireland is substantial. The percentage is now 6·4; among men it is 7·3 per cent., and among women it is 5 per cent. What is worse is that, in some places, it is particularly heavy. In some places it reaches 25 per cent. It is, undoubtedly, exceedingly serious that those black spots should exist. It may be said in some quarters that it is all the fault of the Northern Ireland Government. I do not accept that view. I think that there is a duty on Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to collaborate with the authorities in Northern Ireland to do the best they can either to solve or to ameliorate the problems which exist in that part of the United Kingdom.
    Captain L. P. S. Orr: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted unemployment as running at 6·4 per cent. When I first raised the matter three years ago in this House, it was running at 10·4 per cent. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why it was that he did not take an interest in our affairs then?
    Hon. Members: 1952.
    Mr. Morrison: I gather that that was in 1952, and it is really of no use blaming the Labour Party for 1952. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has landed himself in difficulties.
    How many of the hon. Members for Northern Ireland raise their voices in emphatic agitation in the House of Commons? The truth is that they come here systematically for the purpose of voting for the Tory Government. That is the main purpose of their existence in the House of Commons.
    I next mention tea. May I remind the House—and here the evidence is on the

    903
    records of HANSARD—that when, on 9th April, 1952, the Minister of Food dealt with the withdrawal of the subsidy on tea, after it had been announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that was to take effect from 15th June—he said:
    "The trade has undertaken that blends of sound quality tea will be on sale at 3s. 8d. a lb. in sufficient quantities to meet any foreseeable demand. This is the same as the present average price and only 4d. more than the present low priced tea. This means that although the subsidy is withdrawn the existing weekly ration of low priced tea will cost only ½d. more."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 2738.]
    That was a clear-cut statement by the then Minister of Food who is now the Home Secretary.
    There is another passage that I should like to quote, when my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) asked:
    "Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the price?"
    and the Minister of Food replied:
    "I have mentioned before that the price position is perfectly clear. There will be tea available at a very cheap price."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) then asked:
    "What does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman call 'cheap'?"
    and the Minister of Food replied:
    "The hon. Lady knows more about tea than I do."
    I think that is probably true.
    He continued:
    "Of course she does. At the present time there is tea available at all prices and there will be ample tea available at a reasonable price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 1653–4.]
    Plenty of supplies of cheap tea in the foreseeable future, at 3s. 8d. a lb. Where is it now?
    Mr. David Llewellyn: West Derby.
    Mr. Morrison: The interjection of the hon. Gentleman, whose name I hope will be recorded, was witty, but it is an illustration of his complete indifference, his blatant, silly indifference to the difficulties which the housewife is experiencing in this matter. The present price of tea, I gather, is somewhere between 6s. and 8s.
    904
    or more a lb., and there are now prophecies in the newspapers that it will go up to 10s. But that is not the only thing.
    The profits of the tea companies have advanced enormously. So the undertaking of the Government that in the foreseeable future there will be adequate supplies of cheap tea at about 3s. 8d. a lb. has been broken. The price has soared, and the profits of the companies have increased. That is what the Conservative Party is for.
    So it is with monopolies, to which the Conservative Party is indifferent. They are slowly operating the Monopolies Act. However, an amending Act was passed, but its main purpose was to give the Chairman of the Commission a pension. The Commission has conducted a limited number of inquiries. The trade associations are slow in their observations upon the recommendations, and the Government have let them be slow. The Board of Trade is slow in coming to a decision on these matters, and we are developing in the country monopolies under the auspices of a Government that attacks every public service organisation that it can on the doctrine of monopoly.
    The truth is that the Government, again in accordance with strict Conservative principles, are opposed to public service organisations and anything of the nature of a public service and public ownership. Both in Government and in their private lives, many of them are developing private monopoly to the greatest extent they can, and as a Government they are protecting it.
    The Government seem to be pretty indifferent to the general interests of the consumer, and I wish they would put before their minds the fact that they have a duty to protect the consumers of the country to the maximum practicable extent. They are forgetting the consumers, and seem to be pretty indifferent to their welfare and their point of view.
    We argue that the Amendment is amply justified. We condemn the fundamental approach of the Government to all these things. We think they are actuated by anti-social beliefs, that they put private interests before the public interest, and that they are dogmatic in their approach to public problems and we therefore venture to suggest to the House that the Amendment for which

    905
    we have argued today is justified, and ought to be carried on the merits of the case, in condemnation of the policy and outlook of Her Majesty's Government.
    9.31 p.m.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): This is the end of the annual debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech and it closes with the official Opposition Amendment of condemnation of Her Majesty's Ministers. As usual, the Amendment is an amalgamation of resounding Socialist platitudes and mutually inconsistent verbiage. There is nothing new about that. So little was thought of it in Labour circles, apparently, that the "Daily Herald," spokesman of the party, did not even mention it on the day on which it was tabled.
    But, in spite of the final words of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), it has one strange feature—and this occurred last year, too: the traditional words of the official Amendment are not there, the words which ask the House to express no confidence in the Government. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends dare not put that to the hazard, because they know the growing confidence which exists in the country. We have only to look at the bye-election results.
    If I may paraphrase some words which are well known to you, Mr. Speaker, in referring to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I would say that age cannot wither him, nor custom stale his infinite sameness. This is the sort of speech which we have heard so often before—starting with high-sounding phrases about the Socialist philosophy and being unable to resist the temptation to beat about the bush.
    This time the victims are the Northern Ireland Members—only due to the fact that there was an expedition. Some of the Labour ex-Ministers went East during the holidays. Others went West or North-West. Some found themselves in Ulster, others in Pekin or Moscow. The Leader of the Opposition was not quite sure whether he was in Auckland or Wellington.
    But the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, is wrong. The Northern Ireland Members have been persistent ever since there was this
    906
    resurgence of unemployment two years ago.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Where are they?
    Mr. Crookshank: They have been persistent in the unending representations which they have made to Her Majesty's Government, and in fact the figures of unemployment in Northern Ireland have fallen very considerably during the last two years, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) pointed out in a speech the other day. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured, as can my hon. Friends, that this problem is constantly before us and that we are working, together with the Government of Northern Ireland, to see what can be done to deal with this sad and grievous situation.
    Mr. H. Morrison: If the right hon. Gentleman can get out of his usual winding-up form, with which we are very familiar, will he say whether he is aware that hon. Friends of mine have persistently requested that responsible Ministers in these matters in the United Kingdom Government should meet responsible Ministers of the Northern Ireland Government in conference, with a view to action being taken? We have had no favourable answer yet; can we have a favourable answer?
    Mr. Crookshank: I answered a Question on behalf of the Prime Minister the other day on that subject. I said that constant conferences were going on, but that the idea of having a mass meeting of United Kingdom Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers and everyone else was not necessarily the best way of dealing with it.
    We have had from the right hon. Member all the usual platitudes and everything which has been said before by him on this topic, but the Amendment has the impertinence to complain of alleged complacency on our part. That is one thing from which we do not suffer and the one thing in which right hon. Members opposite were past masters. The right hon. Member had quoted against him today the famous phrase about "rounding recovery corner." He did not like to be reminded of that.
    The right hon. Gentleman also said that his Government had left behind the

    907
    old scarcity economics of the capitalist world. So they did, and in 1946 bread was rationed for the first time in history. In 1947, potatoes were rationed for the first time in history—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and in 1948 the bacon ration was reduced—it hardly seems credible today—to one ounce. So much for having left behind the old scarcity economics.
    What about the complacency of a predecessor of the right hon. Member, who said:
    "The fear of inflation is diminishing; it has largely passed away."
    Yet the Opposition have tried to make out that we are complacent about the present situation. What did their complacency lead them into in 1947? We had a coal crisis and 2 million people out of work. In 1949, we had the convertibility crisis and the cost of a great number of our imports automatically went up 40 per cent. In 1951 we had the final crisis, which may have been worth enduring because it had one great redeeming feature—it lead to the resignation of the Labour Government.
    We have never shown the slightest sign of complacency; we have always been cautious in our explanations of the improvements that are being made. We have approached these problems—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member has anything to say, I will give way.
    Mr. F. Beswick: I thought that possibly the right hon. Gentleman might remember the advice given by the Prime Minister about getting history into its context. If he is giving the figures about 1945 to 1951, let him put that into the context of 1939 to 1945 and what we had to recover from.
    Mr. Crookshank: We all admit that the war caused great difficulties, but we also say that while the Leader of the Opposition may have been right in speaking about the salvaging his Government had to do, we had to do plenty of salvaging in 1951.
    We have announced various improvements as they came along, but we have never been complacent. We have always been cautious and shown that we were nowhere near the top of the hill. We are nowhere near there yet. [Interruption.] I hope the hon. Member will let me say what I want to say. What a day the
    908
    Opposition choose to talk about the social injustice about which we are supposed to be complacent when, tomorrow, we are to have the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill. What a day to choose when one remembers the social injustice 6 million or 7 million people suffered in their day when the value of the 1946 benefit of 26s. dropped to under £1. No wonder the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was saying in the "Sunday Pictorial," less than a month ago, that the pensioners
    "were cheated of the modest slice of national cake which they had been promised."
    The cheating has not been done by us. We are seeing that that modest slice is restored to them and is added to, and this has been made possible by the increasing national prosperity.
    Mr. James Hudson: On a point of order. Have you not already ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that a Bill dealing with pensions is down for Second Reading this week makes it impossible for any reference to this matter to be made in the debate on the Queen's Speech? Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in pursuing this matter?
    Mr. Speaker: It depends how far the matter is pursued. The matter was introduced by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), when he was speaking. I had to intervene on that occasion to ask the right hon. Member not to go too far, and he complied with that request. What I have heard now has not gone as far as the speech of the right hon. Member who opened the matter.
    Mr. George Porter: Further to that point of order. On the previous occasion, when my right hon. Friend was called to order, you said, Mr. Speaker, that the matter was out of order. I suggest that having given a definite Ruling that a matter is out of order, no matter what latitude was given before your Ruling, you cannot give any latitude to anybody now.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite wrong. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South, who first referred to this topic and also opened the debate, was going into the relation between the contribution and the benefit. This is a matter

    909
    for the Bill and goes far further than the Lord Privy Seal has tried to go. Therefore, I think that the hon. Member can leave it to me to see that the debate is kept in order.
    Mr. Crookshank: There is a colloquial phrase in this country, "They can't take it."
    The Amendment endeavours to censure us for abandoning
    "public enterprise, essential controls and other forms of intervention by the community."
    All that is being abandoned, apparently, was supposed to be desiged
    "to check inflation, protect consumers and encourage economic expansion."
    Really! For one thing, we have not abandoned all public enterprise; the right hon. Gentleman pointed that out just now. We have, indeed been the reverse of doctrinaire in these matters. When the right hon. Gentleman mentioned coal, I was reminded that this year the Government have introduced, and Parliament has passed, a great Measure of reform for safety and health in the mines, a topic ignored by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    When it comes to
    "controls and … intervention by the community."
    I am not quite sure what "intervention by the community" means. If the community in this sense is the electors, they have intervened all the way from Sunderland to West Derby. But if it means that we have abolished intervention by the community in the sense of intervention by Whitehall, the more we do that the better. We certainly do not agree with the famous dictum, "The gentleman in Whitehall knows best," nor do we believe in the theory of a former Attorney-General the right hon. and learned Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross), "We are the masters now," not only for the moment, but for a long time to come. That prophecy was not fulfilled.
    If we are to be censured for the controls that we have removed, the inference is that the Oppostion will put them back. I am fortified in that thought by the statement in "Challenge to Britain," which says:
    "Labour will restore the powers of control which have been removed by the Tory Government."
    That is the statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on.''] I will do my own reading.
    910
    I want to know whether that means that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends envisage returning to a situation such as that in which there were in the courts 1,700 cases a month of citizens being prosecuted for petty offences, many of which they did not know were offences. Is that the sort of situation into which we are to move? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No? All right. Does the restoration of controls removed by Her Majesty's present Ministers in this Parliament mean that we are going straight back to food rationing? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What, then, becomes of the statement that these controls are to be restored?
    Are they going to take us back to control through building licences? Are we to be taken back to a situation in which 200,000 houses are built in a year? Are they going back to the 34 Statutory Orders to control meat? Or the 16 different kinds of forms and 4 million coupons issued every month to farmers about feedingstuffs? Are we to have no answer? Are we to go back to pool petrol, to pool margarine?
    The House is entitled to know and the country is entitled to know because it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who said that the point of this Amendment was to bring into sharp conflict the views of both sides of the House. That is what he said it was for. It was for laying out the philosophy of the Opposition as compared with the alleged complacency and all the rest of it of the Government side, and now, when I ask him, on his own words, lifted out of his own Amendment, what he means by "essential controls" that he and his hon. Friends are going to put on, he does not give me any answer at all. The Amendment says that these controls which have been taken off were
    "… designed to … encourage economic expansion."
    How, in the nature of things, can a control expand anything? The whole point of a control is to restrict and to prevent, and it cannot do expanding. This progressive restoration of economic freedom and flexibility is an essential part of our philosophy, and it is succeeding, and I pray in aid some words from "U.S. News and World Report" of 16th July of this year:
    "Something like a new economic era is beginning in Britain. The British, having finally

    911
    shaken off wartime controls and turned away from Socialist adventures, appear to be in high gear."
    Hon. Members: High tea?
    Mr. Crookshank: It seems to have affected some hon. Members more than it should. "High gear" has meant, in this connection, in the departure from controls, that words familiar three years ago have passed out of the daily vocabulary. "Austerity," "short supply," "registered customers," "cuts," "bottlenecks," "points," "utility," "black market," "under the counter" have all disappeared—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tea."]—and the things for which they stood have gone as well.
    It is astonishing that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen want to get back to this rigid economy. As I have already pointed out, many of them went East this year. They have been behind the Iron Curtain and have seen the most rigid economy functioning. When they came back from what one might describe as the flight of the red herrings, they want to place upon us all these fetters of control. I just do not believe it. I think this Amendment is nonsense, from their point of view. They would not do the thing they allege they would do. That is shown by the fact that they do not answer any of my questions.
    This Amendment is just an expression once again of the old doctrinaire views for the record and no more. The whole suggestion here is that we should reverse engines and go back to the old methods of 1945–51, methods which failed. During the Socialists' time of office, all their theories, planning and controls did not prevent the cost of living soaring 40 per cent.; and did not prevent it going up by 12 per cent. in the last year of office. They did not prevent recurring crises or chronic shortages which had to be dealt with by temporary expedients, as Sir Stafford Cripps used to say. They did not prevent the most fantastic increases in taxation, both direct and indirect. From what they protected the consumers I do not know except, possibly, happiness.
    The saddest people in the world today are the Socialist intellectuals. When they came into office, according to their theories the country should have prospered as
    912
    never before. In point of fact, it did have crises, it did have chronic shortages, and it did have no houses. The theorists failed and when we came in the Socialist intellectuals said, "Now that planning and controls are abandoned, there will be 1 million unemployed, prices will rocket"—
    Hon. Members: Tea.
    Mr. Crookshank: —"there will be mansions for the rich and no houses for the poor as well as cuts in the social services." Again, the theorists failed. The poor Socialist intellectuals. They are pundits in planning and potterers in practice. To reverse engines now is a very poor alternative. What we have been able to do in our time has been to avoid these crises every two years. We have paid our way in the world and we have got more stable prices.
    Hon. Members: Tea.
    Mr. Crookshank: In the last two years prices have only risen 4.3 per cent., whereas during the last year of the Socialist Government they rose by 12 per cent.
    Mr. H. Morrison Mr. H. Morrison rose—
    Mr. Crookshank: No, I have not got the time to give way.
    Hon. Members: Tea.
    Mr. Crookshank: I was going to say a word about tea about which hon. Members are shouting. I thought I would be allowed to make my own speech. I was going to deal with tea when I was dealing with prices.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South quoted statements by my right hon. and gallant Friend the present Home Secretary as to the good prospects for tea in the foreseeable future. Those prospects have been falsified for a number of reasons. One has been the enormous increase in tea consumption throughout the world owing to the failure of the coffee crops. The second reason for the increase in price has been the imposition by Ceylon of an export duty of 1s. 6d. per lb. That, naturally, has had a very great effect.
    We have seen more houses erected since we came to office. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about houses for Leeds, and I understand that no official

    913
    figure has yet been settled. The right hon. Gentleman said, of all things, that we had been letting down the industry, letting it go to pieces with no social purpose behind that. More factory space has been arranged this year. The figures were given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Twice as many schools were built in the last three years as were built in the six years of the Labour Government's administration. We are embarking on a great programme of reorganisation.
    I can sum up by saying that
    "growing prosperity is writ large over the country as a whole. We see rising production, increasing exports, the £ pressing upon the upper limits of the exchange rates, improved sterling balances, a nearly stationary price level, a partial return to cheap money and a minimum of labour unrest … private savings for the purpose of investment have been steadily going up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st July, 1954; Vol. 188. c. 1256.]
    That is my summary of the situation, given by my voice, but the words are those of the second greatest financial ex-
    pert of the party opposite—Lord Pethick-Lawrence in another place last July.
    We now come to the Division, and in the Division we come to our conclusion on the Amendment. The Amendment rehearses the Socialist belief in planning, control, restriction. Our general line of policy is reaffirmed by the terms of the Gracious Speech. We shall be dealing with a number of important Bills during the Session but it is by our administration and our good housekeeping that we are being judged, and the Gracious Speech marks an advance along that road. We accept the challenge in this debate in the confidence that the House and the country are behind our policies, unshaken in the belief that it is the individual family and not Whitehall which is the hinge of national endeavour and national strength.
    Question put, That those words be there added:—
    The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 298.

    Division No. 3.]

    AYES

    [9.58 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Adams, Richard

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

    Albu, A. H.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Deer, G.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Holman, P.

    Baird, J.

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

    Holmes, Horace

    Balfour, A.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Edelman, M.

    Hey, J. H.

    Bartley, P.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Bence, C. R.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Benson, G.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Beswick, F.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Hynd, H (Accrington)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Finch, H. J.

    Irvine, A. J (Edge Hill)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Boardman, H.

    Follick, M.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Foot, M. M.

    Janner, B.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Forman, J. C.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Burke, W. A.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Glanville, James

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Carmichael, J.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon, P. C.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Champion, A. J.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Keenan, W.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Grey, C. F.

    Kenyon, C.

    Clunie, J.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Key, Rt Hon. C. W.

    Coldrick, W.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    King, Dr H. M.

    Collins, V. J.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Kinley, J.

    Corbel, Mrs. Freda

    Hale, Leslie

    Lawson, G. M.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Grossman, R. H. S.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hannan, W.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Danes, P.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Lindgren. G. S.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Logan, D. G.

    Parker, J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Paton, J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    McGovern, J.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    McInnes, J.

    Porter, G.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    McLeavy, F.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Thornton, E

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Probert, A. R.

    Timmons, J

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Rankin, John

    Usborne, H. C.

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

    Reeves, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Marquand, Rt, Hon. H. A.

    Rhodes, H.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Mason, Roy

    Richards, R.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Weitzmann, D.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    West, D. G.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Ross, William

    Wheeldon, W. E

    Monslow, W.

    Royle, C.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Moody, A. S.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Morley, R.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Short, E. W.

    Wigg, George

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

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

    Mort, D. L.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Moyle, A.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Willey, F. T.

    Malley, F. W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Murray, J. D

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Williams, Rev Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Nally, W.

    Slater, Mrs. H, (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    O'Brien, T.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

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

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Snow, J, W.

    Willis, E. G.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Orbach, M.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Oswald, T.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Owen, W. J.

    Steele, T.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Padley, W. E.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Paget, R. T.

    Stakes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Yates, V. F.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Pannell, Charles

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Popplewell.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Eden, Rt. His. Sir A. (Wrwk & Lmgtn)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Carr, Robert

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. F. (Blackburn, W.)

    Channon, H.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Fell, A.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Banks, Col. C.

    Cole, Norman

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Barber, Anthony

    Colegate, W. A.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Fort, R.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Foster, John

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Bevies, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Birch, Nigel

    Darling, Sir Willlam (Edinburgh S.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Glover, D.

    Black, C. W.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Godber, J. B.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    De la Bere, Sir Rupert

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Gower, H. R.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Braine, B. R.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Grimond, J.

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    916

    917

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Russell, R. S.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W

    Harrison, Col J. H. (Eye)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Sharples, Maj. R. C.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Shepherd, William

    Hay, John

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lione

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Heath, Edward

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Marples, A. E.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Speir, R. M.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Maude, Angus

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Maudling, R.

    Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Holland-Martin, G. J.

    Mellor, Sir John

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

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Storey, S.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Neave, Airey

    Summers, G. S.

    Hughes Hallelt, Vice-Admiral J.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Teeling, W.

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Odey, G. W.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Osborrie, C.

    Tilney, John

    Joynson-Hicks, Han. L. W.

    Page, R. G.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Kaberry, D.

    Partridge, E.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Turton, R. H.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Lampton, Viscount

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

    Ramsdon, J. E.

    Wellwood, W.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Redmayne, M.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Wills, G.

    Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Trure)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Woollan, John Victor

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Robson-Brown, W.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    McCallum, Major D.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Sir Cedric Drewe.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United King-
    918
    dom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

    Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
    WAYS AND MEANS
    Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DAGENHAM
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. John Parker: Last October, Messrs. Ford announced a £65 million five-year development plan of expansion in Essex, and I should like tonight to ask the Board of Trade what action it is proposing to take to try to deal with the various difficulties which seem likely to arise should that plan be carried out.
  Under that plan, according to the Press statement, there would be four million extra square feet of factory space, mainly in Essex, and about 9,000 or 10,000 extra workers are to be employed. The various schemes which are to be carried out include taking over, at Woolwich Arsenal, factory space which would be about 180,000 square feet in extent, building a factory in Aveley of about 400,000 square feet, another near Basildon of about 250,000 square feet, and small extensions to works at Leamington. Over three million square feet of new factory space would appear to be contemplated at Dagenham or adjoining in Hornchurch, to employ at least 5,000 workers, or possibly 7,000 or more extra persons.
  This scheme has aroused a great deal of disquiet in Dagenham. First, the Borough Council unanimously expressed its disquiet; both the Labour majority and the Conservative opposition joined together in doing so. The Trades Council expressed its fears, and all the various important trade union branches to which Ford's workers belong have also expressed their opposition. Representations have been made to me, the Mem-
  920
  ber of Parliament for the area, by many prominent local people.
  This is a very remarkable departure from the past attitude. It is rare that people in a locality should come forward to protest at the possibility of extra work being provided there, and certainly nothing of that kind happened between the wars. In many parts of the country today, new factories would certainly be welcome and the possibility of employment which they might bring, but it is widely felt in Dagenham at the present time that, under existing conditions, it is highly undesirable that this expansion should take place.
  Dagenham is the centre of the South Essex industrial area, and 60,000 people are employed, half of them living there and the other half coming in from round about, from towns like Hornchurch, Romford, Barking, and Ilford. Some come from long distances; 10 per cent. come from 10 miles or more away from Dagenham. More than half of the industrial labour force in Dagenham is already working at the various Ford works; 31,000 are employed at Ford's, Briggs, and Kelseyhayes. Forty-eight per cent. of them live in Dagenham, and the rest come in from outside.
  At present, most of the work in this industrial area is for adult males. There is very little work there for women and juveniles. Only 21 per cent. of those employed are women. There is an enormous influx of labour into the town, but it is accompanied by an equally enormous exodus of labour from the town. Some men work at the docks, others work in the City, and many women and juveniles travel in large numbers to East End factories. Dagenham at present is a thriving town. Never has unemployment there been so low as at present.
  If there is to be this large extra labour force coming to the town, where are those people to live? That is the first problem which the local authority has to face. There is certainly no housing available for these extra workers. At present, there is only room for 1,200 houses to be built in the borough, and nearly 5,000 people are on the local housing list. Three thousand families on the list were recently told by the borough council that they would be well advised to look elsewhere for a house.

  921
  Of the existing houses, two-thirds belong to the London County Council, and when any vacancies occur they go to Londoners, and not to local people. The result is a tremendous feeling of frustration. Young men and women born and brought up in the area have little or no chance of making a home there. Naturally, they feel extraordinarily outraged when suddenly it is announced that a large extra labour force is to be brought into the area, for that would have the effect of worsening still further the very bad housing conditions that at present exist.
  The surrounding boroughs also have very similar housing problems. Houses for these extra workers would have to be found seven or 10 miles away. Transport facilities are far from good in the area, and, during the rush hours, travelling conditions both into Dagenham and to and from the City are really quite unbelievable.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I hope that when my hon. Friend refers to the surrounding boroughs he excepts the Borough of Woolwich, where we very much welcome the arrival of Ford's, especially in view of the reorganisation of the Arsenal.
  Mr. Parker: I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope to come to that matter later.
  As far as the north side of the Thames is concerned, it would be quite impracticable to house workers some way away and then try to bring them into the area by public transport, or even in their own cars without completely upsetting all the existing travelling arrangements.
  I think it is highly undesirable that other firms in the area should be forced out of the district because they cannot get the necessary labour. That is already happening, and it means that we are steadily moving towards the position, in which one firm becomes more and more dominant locally. That is a thoroughly unhealthy position.
  We have to face the fact that a trade recession may come in the future. At the present time, the younger generation, owing to the fact that there has been no unemployment since the war, do not think this a very important matter. It is, however, a very serious danger in an economy
  922
  such as ours, which depends to such a large extent on foreign trade. It is particularly important in an area like Dagenham, where a large part of the production is for export.
  I think it would be generally agreed on both sides of the House that it is the Government's job to do their best to try to stimulate employment. Of course, there are bound to be differences between both sides as to what the Government should do if bad times should come. However much any Government, of whatever political complexion, might try to neutralise the effect on our markets of a recession overseas, I do not think that they would succeed in overcoming altogether the bad effects on a town like Dagenham.
  The motor car industry, in particular, is especially open to the influences of depression in other parts of the world. The experience of America and ourselves between the wars showed the enormous rise and fall in output in this industry resulting from world conditions. If bad trade came again we could not expect that Dagenham would not suffer.
  We are fully in favour of expanding our export markets, and of the Ford Company doing its best to get a bigger volume of exports. We wish, however, that the risks should be spread. Woolwich and other nearby places should take their share of the risks. We in Dagenham feel that we have our full share already.
  I should like to make one slight reference to the only voice in the area which is in favour of the Ford scheme. The voice is that of the "Romford Times." It dismisses all danger from a slump on the ground that this is "an argument from the economic text books." It does seem that only a cub reporter who had no knowledge of the problems of unemployment between the wars, or of our present serious dangers, could utter such words of wisdom.
  What do we desire in Dagenham? We welcome the idea of a five-year plan of this magnitude, and we welcome the attempt to capture export markets, but we believe that such plans must be related to local conditions, and should take account of local difficulties.
  We are all in favour of rebuilding existing plants, if necessary. The foundry at Dagenham certainly needs rebuilding.

  923
  Working conditions there are very bad, and there is an enormous turnover of labour. We are, of course, in favour of better working conditions throughout the works, and any reconstruction to bring that about, and to make for larger output, would be welcome.
  But we do want to insist that, in any reconstruction, the labour force should remain stable and should not be increased. We are in favour of the suggested new extensions at Woolwich, Aveley and Basildon. They would draw on new labour supplies; it would be possible for Dagenham workers, who could be replaced by local men as they grow up, to get houses there. But we would like rather larger schemes in these places than those suggested by Ford's.
  A great advantage of Dagenham as a site for Ford's is that it is a deep water port into which raw materials can be brought, and finished products exported direct down the Thames. If we are not to extend greatly the Dagenham factory, I suggest that another site might be found on the Thames, say at Purfleet, or Grays, where there is also deep water, and where labour supplies from Aveley could easily be tapped. I should like to stress the point that, before decisions are taken all these problems should be discussed thoroughly. I should like the Board of Trade to take the initiative in that regard.
  If we are to have useful discussions quite a different attitude must be adopted by Ford's. Dagenham is not an American company town, and there is strong local resentment at it being treated as such. The company should realise that it would get on much better with the people of Dagenham if it was felt to be following the British way of life in its behaviour. Last week, after the local council asked for a meeting, Ford's issued the following statement:
  "Our plans were not undertaken without full consideration of these local difficulties, and indeed are designed so far as is within our power to relieve them."
  Towards the end of that statement the company says:
  "There seemed therefore, no special reason to approach Dagenham Council. We shall, of course, be pleased to discuss our plans in detail with our friends on the Council."
  It is extraordinary for such a concern not to consult the local authorities in such a matter. If planning is to be successful
  924
  it must be democratic. It cannot be a "dictat" issued by a big firm.
  I should like to make a point about rating. Much as Ford's may contribute to national taxation, it is a fact that these various schemes would lead to a big increase in the local rates, which pay for education and all the other services. Under derating, Ford's would make a very small contribution to the cost of these services. Ford's have now stated that
  "they mainly are building and expanding outside the Dagenham area."
  That statement seems to contradict their earlier statement. They went on to say that
  "although the overall number of employees could increase substantially in the years ahead, they envisaged only a moderate trend in Dagenham which would arise from year to year."
  What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that they are not going to expand as they said earlier, or does it mean that they are going to have an increase of about 1,000 a year and call that a moderate trend? If discussions are to be successful, Ford's must place all the facts on the table; there must be no browbeating, and no soft soap.
  I well understand that the Board of Trade is interested in the export trade, and wishes to see Ford's expand in overseas markets. Ford's have said that
  "it is not economical to have factories scattered all over the place. All costs are cut by producing at one location."
  That is probably true from "the economic text book point of view," but other considerations must be borne in mind. We have to consider the community point of view as well as the point of view of the firm. May it not be more costly if we put all the plants together, and then provide for extra transport and other services than it would be if the plants were scattered about?
  Then, again, there is the welfare of the workers to consider. If they have to travel long distances, they will be far less efficient than they will be if they live near their work. Present labour relations in Ford's are far from satisfactory. There are continual disputes, and If we are now to have a big expansion in employment, and the people have to travel long distances, it does not look as if labour relations will be better in the future.

  925
  I understand that new factories or extensions have to get Industrial Development Certificates from the Board of Trade. Before such certificates are issued, account is taken of local housing and labour conditions, both present and future. Has the Board of Trade given Industrial Development Certificates for all or any of these schemes? I understand that the Essex County Council, which is a planning authority, has so far received only one scheme, and that for a foundry just across the Hornchurch border. If and when the Board of Trade gives Industrial Development Certificates, then the Essex County Council can decide whether it should give permission for these schemes to go ahead. If it refuses, there will have to be a public inquiry, and the matter will have to be thoroughly investigated.
  We do not want to go through all these different procedures. It would be much better if the Ministry would now take the initiative, and get the Essex County Council, the Dagenham, Hornchurch and other interested authorities together with Ford's to thrash out a workable scheme, advantageous to all. I am certain that the firm would then gain very much from the good will which will result from carrying out an agreed scheme. I hope that the Government will take a lead in this matter.
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Bing: As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has said, part of this scheme is to be carried out in my own constituency, and, therefore, the House will perhaps excuse me if I speak in support of what my hon. Friend has said.
  I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that there should be a meeting of the local authorities. I do not want to make a party point here, but in Horn-church we have been severely limited in our housing. We have been prohibited from building as many council houses as we would wish. If, at the same time, we are expected to house the people who are brought in for a new foundry, obviously a new situation will arise.
  One of the biggest capital expenditures we have to face is that on sewerage, and one of our particular problems is the drainage against flooding of an area, where the foundry is to be situated. All
  926
  these may or may not be major problems, and all I want to urge now is that we should reach an arrangement so that there should be an amicable discussion between the council where the foundry is to be built, the council from whose area the people are coming — Dagenham — the Essex County Council and the Ministry, so that we can solve all these problems.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that at least he will consult the Hornchurch Council, in whose area the foundry is to be placed, as to what will be the social consequences of this action.
  10.31 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I can say at the outset that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) have raised an important and difficult subject. I would say at once that on this point I agree with them; any large extension of industry within the Greater London area clearly raises many problems such as those which have been described and which are also in the mind of the local authority.
  May I clear up one small point? It falls to the Board of Trade to decide whether it is proper to issue what is known as an Industrial Development Certificate, but if that certificate is granted, the Board does not decide the subsequent fate of any planning application which may be made. As both hon. Members realise, questions of physical planning and of housing do not fall within the Board of Trade's sphere of responsibility.
  Having regard to what I have said, I will not differ much from what the bon. Members have said about the difficulties and the importance of the topics raised but I would remind the House—and this is important—that the distribution of industry is not an exact science, nor one which always lends itself to an ideal solution to a given problem. We have to satisfy many needs, none of which can safely be ignored. On the one side are such important questions as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Dagenham—the proper size of towns, means of transport and access, the desirability of diversification of employment, amenities and the rest. I agree that all those matters are

  927
  important but we must not ignore, on the other side, another set of needs—the needs of industry to expand and prosper and, not least, to conduct a great export trade.
  In the problem raised tonight we are dealing with a great industry already established at Dagenham—where it was warmly welcomed in the 1920s—which is now making a great contribution to our exports and which is seeking to increase its competitive efficiency by the most modern developments involving a vast capital expenditure.
  The United Kingdom industry, of which Ford's form an important part, is the largest exporter of motor vehicles in the world. Exports of motor vehicles and parts in the first 10 months of this year were valued at £190 million, compared with £177 million in the same period of 1953. Our motor vehicle industry is determined to meet the increasing competition not only of North America, but of the Continent. It is impossible to keep a great industry in a strait-jacket, or to ignore its existing location, as I believe both hon. Members will agree. I am sure the House should never make the mistake of assuming that we can drive an industry to another area merely by refusing it permission to expand where it wishes to expand. An industry which has proved itself efficient is not the worst judge of the conditions of success.
  If the House agrees with me so far, I think we can probably agree that what is clearly desirable in cases such as this is that there should be the maximum co-operation and the earliest consultation between the Government and industry. The House may like to know that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has seen the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Ford Company and discussed matters with them. The company knows and recognises the importance of putting as much of its expansion as is economically practicable outside Dagenham.
  928
  I think that the hon. Member for Dagenham, who wrote a thoughtful letter to my right hon. Friend on this subject some time ago, recognises that the Ford Company has taken some steps in that direction. Three examples have been mentioned tonight, the new developments at Basildon New Town and at Aveley in Essex, and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) intervened, rightly I thought, to point out that Ford's were taking over some existing buildings on the other side of the river to help to relieve that same problem.
  We certainly recognise the importance of the matters which the hon. Members have raised, and we shall bear them in mind, but I ask them and the House to remember the equally exigent requirements of competitive industry on which our livelihood and future depend.
  Mr. Bing: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned Dagenham and Woolwich, but has not seen fit to mention Hornchurch, where the foundry is to be situated. Would he add to the exhortations to the Ford Company the suggestion that it should at least confer with the Hornchurch Council about the situation which will be created?
  Mr. Strauss: If I did not deal so fully with Hornchurch it was 'because that was not mentioned as the subject of this Adjournment debate. I ought, however, to say to the hon. and learned Member straight away that the Board of Trade's task is solely to consider the question of whether a particular development is consistent with the proper distribution of industry. Further questions of housing, and so on, are more for the planning authorities, probably the county council in the first instance and, ultimately, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

SCOTLAND
  Farm, Achnabourin
  Farm, Achnabourin
  Certificates of Disrepair
  Certificates of Disrepair
  Thoracic Operations (Waiting Time)
  Thoracic Operations (Waiting Time)
  Housing (Repairs and Rents) Act (Provisions)
  Housing (Repairs and Rents) Act (Provisions)
  Swiss Sanatoria
  Swiss Sanatoria
  Watercress Production
  Watercress Production
  Motor Vehicle Duties (Receipts)
  Motor Vehicle Duties (Receipts)
  Water Supplies and Sewerage Schemes (Payments)
  Water Supplies and Sewerage Schemes (Payments)
EDUCATION, SCOTLAND
  School Attendance Officers (Pay)
  School Attendance Officers (Pay)
  Programme
  Programme
  University Awards
  University Awards
  School Transport, Sutherland (Personal Case)
  School Transport, Sutherland (Personal Case)
BRITISH ARMY
  Soldier's Death (Medical Attention)
  Soldier's Death (Medical Attention)
  Anti-Aircraft Reorganisation (Cambridgeshire Regiment)
  Anti-Aircraft Reorganisation (Cambridgeshire Regiment)
  Home Guard (Expenditure)
  Home Guard (Expenditure)
  MILITARY CEMETERY, FAYID
  MILITARY CEMETERY, FAYID
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  North-Eastern Trading Estate
  North-Eastern Trading Estate
  Tariffs
  Tariffs
  China and Soviet Bloc (Embargo List)
  China and Soviet Bloc (Embargo List)
  Cross-Channel Day Trips (Passports)
  Cross-Channel Day Trips (Passports)
  FOUR-POWER TALKS (FRENCH PROPOSAL)
  FOUR-POWER TALKS (FRENCH PROPOSAL)
  EAST-WEST NOTES (WHITE PAPER)
  EAST-WEST NOTES (WHITE PAPER)
  INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES, EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTIONS)
  INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES, EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM SUBSCRIPTIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM SUBSCRIPTIONS)
  EVACUATED POLICE, TRIESTE (MAINTENANCE)
  EVACUATED POLICE, TRIESTE (MAINTENANCE)
  PENSIONS INCREASES (NATIONAL ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS)
  PENSIONS INCREASES (NATIONAL ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS)
  RATING VALUATION OF COMMERCIAL PREMISES
  RATING VALUATION OF COMMERCIAL PREMISES
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE (GRANTS)
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE (GRANTS)
  THEATRICAL ENTERTAINMENT (LOCAL AUTHORITY CONTRIBUTIONS)
  THEATRICAL ENTERTAINMENT (LOCAL AUTHORITY CONTRIBUTIONS)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Medical Examinations (Numbers and Cost)
  Medical Examinations (Numbers and Cost)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
EMPLOYMENT
  Recruitment of Nurses, Irish Republic
  Recruitment of Nurses, Irish Republic
  Industrial Hostel, Stonehouse (Closure)
  Industrial Hostel, Stonehouse (Closure)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Private Companies (Directors' Bonuses)
  Private Companies (Directors' Bonuses)
  Weekly Wages
  Weekly Wages
  £ Sterling Value (Food Price Calculations)
  £ Sterling Value (Food Price Calculations)
  UNIVERSITY AND MUSEUM ACTIVITIES, SOUTH KENSINGTON (RESITING)
  UNIVERSITY AND MUSEUM ACTIVITIES, SOUTH KENSINGTON (RESITING)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  2.35 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed with her own hand. It is in these terms:
  "I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE LORD SHEPHERD
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, before we proceed with the business of the Day, there is something which I am sure the whole House would wish me to say. Your Lordships will have heard with deep regret of the sudden and unexpected death during the week-end of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It has, I know, come as a shock to us all, for during his time in this House the noble Lord gained more and more the affection and esteem of Peers in all parts of the House. The position of Chief Whip, which he occupied during the last few years for the Labour Party, is not an easy one. There is, I suppose, none where success or failure depends so much on the personality of the holder. A bad Chief Whip can do irreparable harm; a good Chief Whip, on the other hand, not only means a happy and contented Party, but makes an enormous contribution to the smooth working of the House as a whole.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had just the qualities that are needed for that post. He had an innate tact and kindliness and he was always completely fair in his dealings both with his own and with other Parties. He came to have a deep interest in this House and
182
all that pertains to it. I had a number of conversations with him at various times on the subject of the reform of the House of Lords, and he always showed a fresh and alert interest in the subject and a great desire to make this House an effective body. In these ways and in many others he gained our respect and, I repeat, our very real affection. We shall all miss him; and our sympathy goes out to Lady Shepherd in her grievous sorrow, which I has come so suddenly upon her.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I feel the whole House will be grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for the touching tribute which he has paid to the late Lord Shepherd. Only a week before the week in which he died, he rang me up on the telephone to ask about the arrangements of your Lordships' House, and he was very restive about not being able to be here. Only a week ago to-day, after Her Majesty had opened Parliament, I was talking to Lady Shepherd, who had no idea of the serious state of her husband's health. It was a blessed thing that it was so, and I like to think that when the end came, it came in that way.
We on this side of the House are deeply conscious of the fact that we have suffered an irreparable blow, because in Lord Shepherd we had someone who had given his life to politics. There was no one with a wider political experience than the noble Lord. Indeed, the triumph of the Labour Party in 1945, so far as it was due to any one man, was due to him as much as to anyone else. Consequently, being, as we are, a small Party in this House, we relied very greatly on the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, both during the time when he was Government Whip and in these later years when he has been Chief Opposition Whip. It is idle to pretend that any one man can fill Lord Shepherd's place at the present time. Consequently, we have sustained a grievous loss, and I think the whole House has sustained a grievous loss. I agree with what the noble Marquess has said: that what is wanted in a Chief Whip beyond everything else is complete and obvious integrity, so that every one and every side of the House can rely on his word. That was manifestly the case with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. If a bargain was made with him, it was as good as a written document. For us, in addition to that, he had this vast experience, which was always at the disposal of

183
those with whom he worked. I am very grateful to the noble Marquess for what he has said and should certainly like to join in expressing our deep sympathy with Lady Shepherd and her relatives.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches would desire to join in the tribute to one of our most esteemed Members, who has been taken from amongst us with such great suddenness. He has rendered long service both to your Lordships' House and to the State. As a Whip, he helped to maintain those friendly inter-Party relations on which the smooth working of the procedure of the House so largely depends. In addition, he took part in our debates on many occasions on matters in which he took a keen personal interest. We all mourn his loss and sympathise with Lady Shepherd and his family.

KINGSWAY TUNNEL
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will see that the Kingsway Tunnel, which has been out of use since it was used for the passage of tramcars, is brought into use for road traffic, and so make a contribution to the relief of the congestion on London streets.]
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the possibility of using the Kingsway Tunnel, which is the property of the British Transport Commission, for road traffic was the subject of a careful investigation carried out in 1952 by a technical committee appointed by the Minister of Transport. That committee came to the conclusion, after examining various alternatives, that if the subway was to be used for traffic, the most satisfactory scheme would cost £1,200,000, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was then Minister of Transport, decided that, having regard to the likely advantages of such an adaptation of the subway or indeed of any other alternative scheme and the very high costs, the money, if available, could be used to better advantage in other ways. The report is of a highly technical nature and I am arranging to have a copy placed in the Library for noble Lords to study.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept my thanks for the fullness of his reply. I do not intend to say anything now that might prejudice my own or anyone else's study of the report. But would the noble Lord convey to his right honourable friend the surprise that has been occasioned to most of us, in these times when his right honourable friend is at his wit's end to know what to do about the congestion of London traffic, to learn that a tunnel 2,000 yards long cannot even be used as a one-way street?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I will certainly convey those sentiments to my right honourable friend, who is, of course, beset with expensive schemes but has only a limited amount of money with which to carry them out.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, would my noble friend consider its possible use as a car park if it cannot be used as a traffic artery?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the Committee went into this matter carefully, and their conclusion was that as, as a car park, it would hold only 95 cars. there again the cost was out of proportion to the benefit.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to road traffic, the provision of parking places, driving licences and certificates of insurance, the licensing of vehicles and the regulation of public service vehicles; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DUNOON BURGH (PAVILION EX PENDITURE) ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
2.45 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Viscount Mersey, the Lord Teynham, the Lord Merthyr, the Lord Blackford, the Lord O'Hagan, the Lord Terrington, the Lord Crook, the Lord Chorley, the Lord Kershaw, the Earl of Buckinghamshire and the Load Rea, be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drogheda, who is indisposed, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Reading,

M. Willingdon,

E. Fortescue,

E. Jowitt,

V. Samuel,

V. Swinton,

V. Hall,

L. Carrington,

E. Listowel,

L. Rea,

L. Nathan,

L. Ogmore.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lard Drogheda.
Moved, That the Standing Orders Committee be appointed, and that the
186
Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Fortescue,

E. Jowitt,

V. Samuel,

L. Teynham,

L. Carrington,

E. Listowel,

L. Merthyr,

L. Cozens-Hardy,

L. Faringdon,

L. Clwyd,

L. Milne,

L. Tweedsmuir,

L. Rea,

L. Ammon,

L. Schuster.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That all Petitions relating to the compliance with the Standing Orders on Private Bills which shall be presented during the present Session be referred to the Committee, unless otherwise ordered.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Motion be agreed too.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Willingdon,

E. Hardwicke,

E. Iveagh,

V. Mersey,

V. Samuel,

L. Teynham,

E. Listowel,

L. O'Hagan,

L. Hindlip,

L. Merthyr,

L. Rochdale,

L. Cozens-Hardy,

L. Faringdon,

L. Terrington,

L. Blackford,

L. Rea,

L. Belstead,

L. Ammon,

L. Schuster,

L. Kershaw,

L. Campion.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Motion be agreed to.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Fortescue,

E. Jowitt,

V. Samuel,

V. Swinton,

V. Stansgate,

V. Alexander of Hillsborough,

E. Lucan,

L. Schuster,

L. Rea,

L. Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

HIGHER TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATIONS
2.47 p.m.
LORD GLYN LORD GLYN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given consideration to the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee with regard to the further development of higher technological education in Great Britain; and to move for Papers.
188
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper in regard to the Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. I think it is due to your Lordships' House that I should mention that this Committee is an unofficial body, but it has already been in existence for a long time and, in my view at any rate, it has rendered great service to both Houses of Parliament. The Committee is an unofficial group of Members of both Houses of Parliament, and representatives of certain scientific and technical institutions are also members of it. In this particular case, it was agreed that the Committee should set up a sub-committee consisting of twelve members of both Houses of Parliament, to take evidence, so far as they could, and to go into the whole question of the position of technological education: what was required in the country, and what were the desires of those people—often people of limited means—who are anxious to improve their education from the technological point of view.
I should like to say here how grateful we were to the witnesses who were good enough to come, at their own expense, to give evidence before the Committee, because we had no right to ask them to come. It was an indication of the importance that those witnesses attached to making known their views that they were good enough to come and give us the evidence which they, and they alone, could give. There is one thing further that I ought to say at the beginning. All of us who served on that Committee recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already stated, in answer to Questions in another place, his interest in this matter, and I trust and hope that his interest will be translated into practical measures of giving assistance
There are certain aspects of this matter which are worth consideration. One is that, in my view, it is a mistake for any Member of your Lordships' House to think that the universities have not rendered tremendous service to the country in carrying out what work they have done of a technological character. But I am afraid one must say that there are certain members of universities who feel that technological education is rather a young and wishful person who wants to ingratiate himself into the

189
formal set-up of a university. We felt strongly, and we found in evidence, that there is plenty of room both for the universities and for building up and improving the position of certain technical colleges. I know there are those who feel that technological education is something one talks about with bated breath and who say: "We got on very well without before, so why should we bother about it now?" But that is not the position. This country lags behind almost every other country in the amenities and facilities that are provided to give people the opportunity of becoming qualified in that form of work which involves technological knowledge. The object of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee's Report was, first of all, to draw the attention of Parliament and the country to the demand by the people for increasing the facilities for technological instruction; and the Report which is available in the Printed Paper Office indicates the lines which we think, as a result of the evidence we had, might usefully be followed.
There is another matter which presents really the most important aspect of this whole complicated problem—that is, the University Grants Committee. The University Grants Committee is unique in one particular, namely this: it does not function, like almost everything else, on en annual basis, but is permitted by the Treasury to function on a quinquennial basis. That is a great advantage, and nothing ought to be done to change it. But what some of us would like to see—and we cannot, for the life of us, understand why it cannot be done—is the setting up of a parallel organisation to the University Grants Committee which would help technological education, and would have the same status and position as the University Grants Committee. If one could only hope it might happen, one hopes that the two bodies would work in harmony. If they were genuinely anxious to help technological education, it might indeed be a branch of the U.G.C. But it must be admitted that up to now the great bulk of the money which has been provided for the University Grants Committee has not gone towards the development of technological education to the extent that many people would like to see. On the other hand, there
190
is no doubt at all that the University Grants Committee is the right sort of body by which funds should be administered for technological education. I have found that the members of that Committee, individually, are all keen and anxious to help in this development. They recognise that, important as are the arts—and nobody is going to say they are not important—this country will be able to live only if it is able to export its valuable products produced with the knowledge and skill of men and women who have a sound basis in technology.
A short time ago a reference was made in your Lordships' House to the Imperial College. I do not propose to deal with that today, except to say that, as many of your Lordships know, the Imperial College has done wonderful work in London. There is a tremendous demand for expansion which must be met. Over two years ago a promise was given that this would be proceeded with, and yet hardly anything has been done. That is an outward and visible sign of inaction at a time when action is absolutely imperative. There is one other matter in this connection—it is a difficulty which I hope will be dealt with by one of your Lordships who can speak with far more authority than I can. When we paid a visit to the Imperial College we found that post-graduate work was almost impossible for British people, and that a proportion of post-graduate students from other parts of the British Commonwealth were provided by grants from their Governments or in other ways. Far be it from me to condemn that practice, because it seems to me an admirable thing to have happened; but it does seem rather strange that we should have to learn a lesson from some British Colonies on how to help post-graduates to get the full advantage which is obtainable of the Imperial College. I think the whole question of post-graduate bursaries, or whatever one may call them, should be gone into, because it is of the greatest importance.
I am anxious not to delay your Lordships a moment longer than is necessary, but I would refer to the other point which appears in our Report. There are those in the country who do not seem to realist that technologists really are scientists who apply their knowledge for specific purposes. There is a tremendously wide

191
range, and some figures (I do not want to bore the House) are worth repeating. The United States, per head of the population—taken on that basis and no other—are turning out four and a half times as many technologists as we are in this country. On the other hand, the United Kingdom turns out nearly five times as many pure scientists per head of the population as the United States. Those are two surprising facts. To what does that situation lead? It certainly has led to the fact that, while this country spends a great deal of effort on research, others reap the benefit of its application and development, because they have the people trained as technologists who can seize on these ideas and, through the association of various industrial organisations, can follow them through and take the advantage that ought to have come to us and, no doubt, would have done had we had more technologists to follow up the work done by the scientists.
I hasten to tell your Lordships that I am not an educated person in the strict sense of the term. I went to Sandhurst, but, to my great regret, I have not had the benefit of a university education. Therefore I can speak of these things without the jealousies that seem to result if the speaker has been at Oxford, Cambridge or any other university. In a way, I can look at this matter from the sidelines. It seems to me that one thing which is important is that all examinations of young people should be based on extracting from them common-sense ideas, rather than ideas which involve a great many dates and then having to go to a "crammer." It seems to me that the system of "cramming" in order to pass an examination is not, in these modern days, so subtle and flexible as to enable people to meet the country's needs from a technological point of view.
There is one other point: there seems to be some ignorance of the fact that there are large numbers of young men and women in this country who are coming up by what we call "the hard way." We got in the habit of using that expression in hearing evidence, and it comes easily off the tongue. But what it really means is that, until the evidence is made available, it is impossible to know how many people who work hard all day in a factory, mine or office, go
192
afterwards for evening classes in instruction. There are a certain number of places which are available for them to enable them to get further up the ladder they wish to climb, but this depends largely on where they happen to be. There are some parts of the country where the facilities for these young people to improve themselves, and therefore to qualify for positions which will give them an increased income and so on, are not so good as they are in other places. We on the Committee were very much interested in the evidence that we had on this question of districts. Part of the proposals that we ventured to put forward in our Report was that certain technical colleges, provided they had achieved a very high standard—and that is absolutely essential—might be upgraded and called Royal Charter colleges. If they were given that name, which is not a name that associates them only with this country, it would be possible for similar colleges to be established in some of the great Dominions, under the same title. There could be an interchange of young people between one part of the Commonwealth and another.
Then, of course, one would hope that appropriate awards would be given by those Royal Charter colleges. To me, at any rate, it was extraordinary that, although at the universities a person could be called a Bachelor of Arts or a Master of Arts, he could not be called a Bachelor of Technology or a Master of Technology. I do not know who has copyrighted the title "Master." At any rate, it seems strange that if a man can be a Master of Arts or a Bachelor of Arts, he cannot also be a Master of Technology or a Bachelor of Technology. I know that that produces the most acute feelings of alarm and sensation in the breasts of a good many people. On the other hand, if we are going to have these Royal Charter colleges, inevitably it will mean that they will draw to certain places those interests which are predominant in that district from an industrial point of view. I should like to mention, for instance, Manchester, where you would have textiles; Bradford, where you would have the wool trade; Newcastle for engineering and so on. That would mean that a man looking for a competent person to help forward his particular work would look to the graduate having a qualification from such a college known

193
to be fitted for that particular task. We were greatly struck with the evidence that we heard in regard to Glasgow University and Glasgow Technical College, where wonderful work is being done. They are wonderful people to work with, too. Then also at Manchester we had some evidence from the Manchester College of Technology and from Manchester University. They get along well, but there is plenty of room for more.
I do not think that jealousy or vested interests ought to prevent young men and women who "have got it in them" from going up. That is the basis of our Report. We had on our sub-committee, twelve Members of both Houses, three from your Lordships' House and the rest from another place, and they were of all Parties. I do not think we mentioned Party politics once, because this is not a Party political question. It is essentially a matter for the good of the country and the benefit of those in the country who want to make a contribution to what is essential. We must realise that in our schools to-day there is a terrible shortage of teachers with adequate knowledge. That is where the tap has been turned off. Many promising people go to the primary and secondary schools, and they are there discouraged from taking up technological education. The argument seems to be that the teacher may say, "Well, I am not a technologist. Why should you be? Go in for arts." I hope that none of your Lordships will feel that anything I have said is derogatory to the ability of a person to express himself in good English, because it is no use a man having a technological education unless he has also the ability to write or talk about what he knows.
But surely there are enough examples, in all our Dominions and in the United States, of what can be done about this problem. It breaks ore's heart to see so many people struggling to get on in the world without the amenities that will enable them to do so. The papers are full of all the stupidities of some youths, but no mention is made of those who are working hard, night after night, giving up their spare time and finding great difficulty in obtaining the books they need. The county libraries are full of detective novels for people to draw on, but they contain very few technical books. Why should the ratepayers pay for Agatha Christie's books or books of that sort?
194
I am all in favour of reading those as a relaxation, but why should the ratepayers have to pay for them when there are people who want to study modern subjects from a technological point of view and the books are not there? That is a matter that needs going into.
Finally (I apologise for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time), I would say this. This matter is of such paramount importance for the future of this country that it is worth while taking tremendous trouble about it. Every member of the Committee attended, I think, practically every meeting. The technical colleges which exist at present, and which are doing wonderful work, cannot all be upgraded, but we hope that those which are upgraded will be removed from the sphere of local rates and be made an independent organisation, with all that that means. That will leave more money to the ratepayers to help in the secondary education and the other technical schools, so that more and more boys and girls will be drawn forward and given those qualifications which will enable them to make a great contribution to the wealth of this country. I beg to move for Papers.
3.8 p.m.
LORD SELKIN: My Lords, the House will be under a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Lord who has moved this Motion, both for moving it and enabling us to discuss this vital question, and also because of his Report, which many of us have read with great interest. It is to me a special pleasure to follow the noble Lord because I remember (and I am sure he does) the five years that we spent together during the war, making investigations of this kind, as fellow chairmen of sub-committees of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. I am afraid we were both at times a thorn in the flesh of the Government, because it was our duty to discover inefficiencies in various aspects of our war economy. I was particularly concerned with war production and he was concerned with the Services. I think at times we brought to light defects, the revealing of which I hope was worth while and was of help in our war effort.
To-day, the noble Lord has rendered one more signal service in bringing before us this question. If I am a little critical, I hope he will nevertheless feel that we are all deeply concerned about the problem that he has raised, We all want the

195
maximum number, the right number, of suitable technologists in this country. We need them not only for the reasons which the noble Lord has given, but also to enable us to exploit and develop the Colonies. We are members of the Colombo Plan, and it is essential, if we are to develop our Colonies to the fullest extent and give to their inhabitants a rising standard of life, that we should provide the technologists to enable that development to take place. The responsibility rests on us. There was an article in the Economist, I think last week, drawing attention to the cost of providing technological education in the Colonies and in this country, and I believe it is infinitely cheaper to send Colonials to this country to get their technological education than it is to provide it in the Colonies. Moreover, there is our rearmament effort, and technologists are required for defence purposes.
In this House there is a tradition that those who speak on any subject speak with considerable authority. I want to disavow at once any question of my being an authority on the question of technology; I am not. My only claim to speak in this debate is that I have read all the Reports that have been issued in the last few years and I have given some thought to the problem. I challenge the noble Lord's statement that this country lags behind almost every other country in the provision of technologists. I do not challenge it in the sense of disagreeing with it; I merely challenge it in the sense of putting the noble Lord to proof.
I have heard these statements made, over and over again. In every one of the Reports that have been presented on this subject the statement has been made that we are desperately short of technologists, that we are behind Switzerland and America, and that we are behind the whole world. I have tried to see what is the evidence for this statement. Frankly, I have not been able to find any. I know that all industrialists appear to be unanimous in making that statement. Again, I say, it may be true; but, if that be so, surely it ought to be possible to make some kind of quantitative analysis of the shortage of technologists in this country. I maintain that that has not been done. Before we can assess what is the shortage, ought there not to be an assessment of the number that we need
196
—I do not say down to the last decimal point, of course, but before embarking on a vast programme of expansion of technology ought we not to have some idea as to what sort of numbers we are aiming at? I fail to find any clue to what the objective in that field should be.
Then qualitatively, what is a technologist? In a broad sort of way one can say (I think it has been stated in some of the Reports that have been presented) that a technologist is a person who goes in for science with a view to applying it to industry and who attains the lowest degree of the first rank—something of that sort. But degrees differ in quality. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, is, I am glad to say, to take part in the debate. I know he will agree with this: that a degree of one university is a very different thing from a degree of another; the standards are vastly different. A pass degree of one university is very different from a pass degree of another; an honours degree is vastly different again. I do not want to be offensive to any particular university, but a pass degree, say, of London University cannot possibly be compared with an honours degree of one of the older universities. The standard is possibly one of first year, and a student attains a pass degree at London University on the equivalent of one year's study at one of the older universities. On the other hand, an honours degree at London University is probably as high as an honours degree anywhere else. I could go on comparing one university with another, but I do not propose to do so.
It is, however, not sufficient merely to say that a technologist is a person who is up to the standard of a degree in this country. Therefore a good deal more thought must be given both to the quantity and to the quality of the technologists that we require. Where do we distinguish between a technician and a technologist? At what stage does a technician become a technologist? I am satisfied, from reading the various Reports that have been published, that inadequate consideration has been given to both those factors. It is not as if we are doing nothing at all—a good deal is being done in this country. I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to what is in fact being done. Again I want to emphasise that I am not arguing for a moment that what is being done is sufficient—I do not know; it may be or it

197
may not be. I think we ought to find out first, before we criticise either this Government or their predecessors for not doing enough.
In his Report the noble Lord has given us some information as to the number of people required, and there is information in the earlier Reports. For instance, we were told in the Barlow recommendation that we should doable the number of university students. I am not sure that it particularised as between technologists and others. I think the recommendations were quite general, and I assume that they meant that the various kinds of students should all rise proportionately. That Committee thought that the increase should take place over a period of ten years. In fact, within three years after the end of the war the number of technologists had risen by more than double, and there were at the universities alone by 1948 something like 11,000 students of technology. Again, in the technical schools and colleges and in other places there were large numbers, aggregating, if one takes people attending full-time courses, part-time courses, evening classes and so on, something like 40,000 students. Between them they add up to quite a considerable number. If we assume that they were all taking a three years' course, it would follow, putting it in rough figures, that we should get an output of technologists of something of the order of 50,000 every three years. Assuming that they have a working life of some thirty years, your Lordships can see that the number is increasing by arithmetical progression very considerably; so that we are producing technologists in fairly substantial numbers.
Is that sufficient? I do not know and, with all respect, I do not think the noble Lord knows. He certainly does not know how many we need. It appears to be putting the cart before the horse to talk of vast increases in numbers before we know what we actually require. In the noble Lord's comparisons with other countries he says it is generally accepted that the proportion of graduates of British honours degree level and above is about equal as between the United States and ourselves. That is certainly not evidence of a shortage of high-powered scientists. But there is a general consensus of opinion that if American higher national certificates are included (I am not sure whether by that the
198
noble Lord is following the definition of what a technologist is: a person with a degree or up to the level of a degree), and having regard to the numbers with an American first degree in technology, the number of technical personnel available per head is something like three times as high in the United States. Are we really comparing like with like? Are we, in fact, comparing technologists at all? I admit that the noble Lord and his Committee have made a valuable attempt to arrive at some justification of the thesis; but are they comparing like with like?
Finally we arrive at the extraordinary conclusion that this consideration has an important bearing on the fact that American productivity is something like two-and-a-half times that of this country. Is there the slightest evidence for suggesting that the higher American productivity is really due solely to the larger number of technologists in the United States? Is that not a somewhat misleading statement to make? I am not sure whether or not American productivity is that much higher; I should consider it a very debatable statement. But even were it true, are there not many other factors, apart from comparative numbers of technologists, to account for it? The noble Lord surely is not being very scientific in his approach when he attributes that difference—whether or not it is true—to our shortage of technologists.
Another fact brought out by some of these reports is that the number of students in universities is declining and has declined since 1948. One would have expected that, if this immense demand for technicians existed, provision for them would by some means have been increased both in the universities and elsewhere. Yet it has not been found possible even to fill existing provisions in the universities. I do not know the position in regard to technical colleges and so on—it is not stated—but one would have expected that the universities, at any rate, would have been filled had there been this immense unsatisfied demand for technologists. I would ask the House to suspend judgment on this question until it has had an opportunity of a full investigation into our requirements and into the existing and prospective facilities for meeting those requirements.
It is not sufficient merely to provide facilities; one has to persuade people to

199
take advantage of them. It is somewhat significant that we have not been able to fill existing places at the universities and that numbers there are declining. I have been considering, as other noble Lords will have done, what is the reason for this decline. I cannot help thinking that one of the reasons may be that the technologist is not held in high esteem. Technology has not the status of other professions. One method of marking esteem is by remuneration, and technologists and technicians are not paid as highly as are people engaged in other professions, or even administrators within the same organisation. Even in Government Departments high-powered technicians never reach the rank of the administrators, though I have never been able to understand why the Permanent Secretary of a Department should not be a technician. Why should he always come from the ranks of the administrators? In many Government Departments it would be an advantage to have at the top a man who is a technician as well as an administrator. The Department has to be efficiently administered, but I see no inherent reason why a technologist should not be a good administrator. Yet somehow the rewards of the technician are not as high and the esteem is not as great as that accorded to administrators or to those in other professions. That may well be one of the factors causing a decline in the number of students entering branches of technology in the universities and at technical colleges.
People who take up technology in the university may have taken it up via pure science. They may go to a university, get a science scholarship and then take up some form of technology; but in the technical colleges they make their decision as a rule at the age of eleven. It then has to be decided for them (they are certainly incapable of deciding for themselves) whether they are to enter a grammar school or a modern or technical school; and it is very rare for a person who enters a grammar school to go in for technology. Again, I attribute that fact largely to this question of esteem. If it were regarded as equally important and equally attractive to become a technologist as to become a research scientist or an administrator, no doubt more people would enter technology through the grammar or modern schools; but it
200
seems to be assumed that a person who goes to a grammar school will generally, but not always, take up arts; that one who goes to a modern school will take up languages or something similar and that only those who go to technical schools will eventually become technologists.
The noble Lord referred to the question of teaching. Without teachers it is, of course, quite impossible to begin to build up increased facilities for technology. The question then is, where do we start? Do we start training teachers, or provide the facilities and then wait to train teachers? These are problems to which I do not profess to have a ready answer, but I submit that they are problems which ought to be fully investigated. The Government, it is true, have made a gesture, and I think it was something the previous Government would have done. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, that there is no Party issue which divides us on this matter; we are all out for the same thing—an adequate number of technologists. The Government have done something at the Imperial College of Science and Technology: they are increasing, the numbers there, perhaps not by very many, but by 1,600 or 1,700 students. They have shown interest in the question. Nevertheless, neither this nor any other Government, it seems to me, have taken the trouble to go into the question thoroughly and to investigate what are our needs and the right way to satisfy those needs.
The Party for which I am speaking to-day have given some consideration to the question, and in the document Challenge to Britain they have said this:
"The rapid expansion of technological education must have a high priority. We propose at once to set up a college of technology of comparable status with the existing universities."
Then they go on to say:
"What is needed is an investigation into the whole question."
And there, I agree with them. But, in my judgment, they have fallen into the same error as all Governments, of assuming requirements before establishing what they are. I am afraid that this is not a very helpful contribution. I do not propose to comment at all on the various disputes which have arisen between

201
various educationalists as to whether provision could best be made in one form or another. I think educational institutions of all forms have a part to play in this matter, and I think they can all be used.
I do not think that we should occupy a great deal of our energies in quarrelling as to what should be the particular form of award. The noble Lord, Lord Glyn, I feel was quite right in saying that there should be an established form of recognition of a person who has completed a technological course; that that should be common currency throughout the country, and that it ought not to be left to each individual institution to decide for itself what is the standard, as is done at the present time in the ease of the universities. I think it would be a great mistake if we followed that precedent and did not follow the precedent which has been recommended by the Committee which was the predecessor of the noble Lord's Committee, on the future development of higher technological education, to provide a definite standard which students of technology should be required to attain.
I do not know whether it is desirable or not to set up a Royal College such as has been recommended by the Committee. These are matters which I think could be settled without much difficulty if we made up our minds as to what our requirements were and as to the best means of achieving them. Assuming that those requirements are established, I would agree with a speech that was made in February, 1951, in a debate in this House. It states (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 170, col. 174):
"All I beg is that something should happen, Many people—I should think the majority—want some sort of technological university Whether we found a new one or expand and transform Imperial college into one, or whether by some metamorphosis we change a provincial university into one, or, finally, whether we translate (in the Shakespearean sense) a technical college into one, all I can say is, let us do something and do it soon Otherwise the exhortations to produce more will not carry great conviction."
The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, will recognise that statement. It was made by him in the days when he was a member of the Opposition, and he was exhorting the previous Government, not this one. If he was in that speech assuming what I think still has to be proved—that is,
202
what are our requirements—to what extent are we going in satisfying those requirements? And what more do we need to-day? It seems to me that until we have made up our minds on that subject it is premature to decide on the exact method of solution.
My Lords, that is all I wish to say. I have tried several times in my speech to make it clear that I am in no sense opposed to the recommendations of the noble Lord in his excellent Report. All I am saying is that I think before we proceed to adopt those recommendations we should take steps to find out what are our requirements, or our prospective requirements, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, I confess that I find myself in some slight difficulty in rising to address your Lordships today, because I was under the impression that we were going to be told not only about the importance of increasing the capacity for technological education in this country but also in some detail where that capacity was required and what alternative accommodation would need to be taken over for its provision. Frankly, I came here this afternoon expecting to have to put up a passionate defence for the continuance of an institution which was threatened, as I understood, by the noble Lord and his friends with extinction. I speak, of course, of the Imperial Institute. I was under the impression that the protagonists of greater technological education required a centre in London, preferably the Imperial College of Science and Technology, which was to take over the bulk, if not the whole, of the existing site of the Imperial Institute. Now, somewhat to my difficulty, I find no mention of that suggestion—indeed, in part of his speech the noble Lord who has just spoken expressed considerable doubt whether there is any need to increase technological education at all. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will forgive me if my thesis appears a little bereft of some of its foundations.
From what little I know, or have read, there is a good case for an increased supply of technological education in this country to compete, not necessarily with the United States but certainly with Germany and Switzerland; and I feel that we

203
ought to consider whether we can do anything to assist to that end by removing any of the difficulties that at present exist. If the theory is that this new centre or body ought to be sited in London (though I gather there is a certain amount of dubiety about that), apparently there are strong arguments in favour of its being established in South Kensington; and I am bound to say that there are fairly strong arguments for taking over and rebuilding on the site of the Imperial Institute. That raises in acute form the question of what is to happen to the Imperial Institute. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, for a moment, I try to persuade you that the Imperial Institute has served a useful purpose, is serving a useful purpose and can serve a still more useful purpose in the future. In other words, as Chairman of the Governors of the Institute I should be perfectly prepared to see the site taken over if, or rather when, an alternative building has been provided for my Imperial Institute. I gather that I am in a fairly strong technical position, because the site of the Institute cannot be "pinched" for any other purpose without a specific Act of Parliament. If I were one of Her Majesty's Ministers, I should not greatly relish the task of introducing into your Lordships' House legislation designed to abolish the Imperial Institute without any compensation. However, as I see it, there are alternatives. There happens to be a vacant site available on the South Bank.
I should like to say a word to your Lordships about why I think the Imperial Institute has served a useful purpose and, in fact, in the present-day development of our Commonwealth, is more essential than ever. I start off by saying that I do not like the present Imperial Institute. I do not like its architecture and its internal accommodation, which is extremely inconvenient and inadequate; moreover, its site is far too remote to serve its real needs. The purposes of the Institute as it has existed, and certainly as I see them to-day, are threefold. Its main object is to teach the people of the United Kingdom, and more especially the younger generation, to understand and believe in the Commonwealth; and, above all, to realise their responsibilities. Some of your Lordships may imagine that that goes without saying, but if your Lordships can take the time to read a
204
small document which has just been issued by Political and Economic Planning—usually known as P.E.P.—I think you will realise that the education of the people of this country regarding the Commonwealth has been sadly neglected in the past. Up to 1952–it is almost unbelievable, but it is a fact—the Commonwealth as a subject has not been taught in any schools in this country. Parts of Commonwealth history are taught as part of ordinary history, and parts of Commonwealth geography are taught as part of ordinary geography; but the Commonwealth has never appeared as a subject in the syllabus of any school, elementary or secondary, or of any university. Believe it or not, the total amount of money actually spent during the years up to 1952 in teaching about the Commonwealth, so far as such teaching existed at all, was the magnificent sum of £16,000 a year. As your Lordships may know, the Institute was reorganised as the result of the Report of the Tweedsmuir Committee. After a good deal of pressure, the Government increased its allowance from £16,000 to £24,000 a year, and, inspired by that lead, the Commonwealth and Colonial Governments increased their contributions appreciably.
This P.E.P. document to which I have referred describes the reactions of Colonial students in this country to questionnaires sent to them over the last year or two. I will not detain your Lordships by reading a great many extracts, but there are one or two apposite to this question. Let me quote them:
"Students also strongly resented being laughed at, or being chased, as they sometimes were, by shouting children. This especially, for, as a Nigerian student pointed out, 'It is tragic that the younger generation should grow up so ill-educated about us.'
"Colonial students often remarked on the ignorance and the apathy they met when the colonies were under discussion. They were asked questions, too, which … showed also that people did not care about the colonies, although as members of the electorate they voted on colonial affairs, and although the colonial peoples themselves were brought up to learn about Britain and British history.
"A Nigerian woman teacher who was training made several points: 'I find many of the questions that people ask are intensely irritating. I have been asked if I knew how to use a knife and fork before I arrived in England. … I think the attitude of the public is not surprising when you see what they are taught in school.'

205
"A West Indian woman medical student also blamed the educational system: 'I think the educational system is at fault here. English people should really try to make an effort to learn and stop asking stupid questions, which often leave me aghast and wondering if the person really has thought about what he or she has asked.'
"A West Indian teacher: 'Insipid questions are often being asked, about me and about my country: whether I know when my skin needs washing or when I need a bath, and so on.'
"A Sierra Leone student commented: The one thing that strikes me is the ignorance of people of what goes on outside, especially in Africa and the West Indies, or say in Asia. …'"
It is staggering that in 1953 and 1954 questions of that kind should currently be asked; and it is worth remembering that there are 10,000 Colonial students in London all the time.
With the pitifully inadequate increased sums now given, the Imperial Institute is setting out to try to remove some of that ignorance. In the course of the last few months we have succeeded in increasing by about 25 per cent., though even that is a miserable amount, the extent of our lectures and conferences. We are teaching just over one million young people about the Commonwealth, and we are extending substantially the system of conferences for sixth form pupils, and these are meeting with great success. One of the main difficulties is that the Imperial Institute is sited in London, and it is therefore difficult for children other than those in London to come to our meetings. As I see it, what is required is that branches of the Imperial Institute should be established in all the chief provincial cities of England, or at all events, measures adopted, when we have the necessary money, for travelling conferences to go round all the chief provincial cities in turn, so that, if we cannot take the children to the Commonwealth, at least we shall take the Commonwealth to the children. But all that needs money, and £24,000, even supplemented by what the Dominions and Colonies give us, is obviously hopelessly inadequate.
I have had some preliminary sketches prepared far this site on the South Bank, and I am reasonably certain that we could provide a building well worthy of the site near the Festival Hall which would provide us not only with the galleries and accommodation we have already but, more important still, with a really worthy
206
centre for Commonwealth studies in London. It is quite clear that, despite what all Parties say about their detestation of the colour bar, in fact the colour bar exists in London to a great extent, largerly because of this lack of education among our own people. But we are also up against the problem of the prejudices of many of these Colonial students themselves. More evidence will be found in this Report about some of the difficulties which they meet when in ordinary social intercourse with the various inhabitants of London, although it is pointed out that the people in the provinces are much easier to get on with than those in London. We have just started a sort of club in the inadequate premises that we have at the moment, in which we are trying to get a reasonable proportion of these various students interested in music, drama and so on, so that they may take part in these activities not as West Indians, Africans, Nigerians or Englishmen, but as musicians, authors, dramatists, and so on. It looks as though by that means that we may help to break down the colour bar.
May I give one small example? At a recent Sunday afternoon meeting, the dramatic group of this club put on a play by Tagore called "Chitra." The heroine, Princess Chitra, was played by a girl from Trinidad, two Hindu gods were played respectively by an East Indian from British Guiana and a Moslem from Pakistan, while the hero was played by a man of African descent from British Guiana. The remaining part was played by an English girl. I feel that if we could provide accommodation for that sort of thing not only in London but in branches all over the country, we could make a real contribution towards destroying the colour bar or, at all events, towards enabling these various people to meet in easier social conditions than they do to-day.
That is briefly the case, as I see it, for removing the Imperial Institute and handing the site over to the Imperial College of Science and Technology against the provision of a new and adequate building. The total amount involved is comparatively small. The site of the Imperial Institute is worth, I am told, about £1 million sterling; and I am advised that we could put up a most satisfactory building on the South Bank for something of that order; so there would be

207
little extra money involved. I am certain that, with the development of the Commonwealth that is taking place, it is going to become more and more important for the people of this country to realise how the different parts are developing. I would submit that the problem of racial minorities throughout the whole of the Commonwealth requires a much better educated public here if we are going to appreciate the possibility of its fullest development.
In another place they talk about huge sums for developing the Colonies and the Dominions; but that would be largely wasted unless by increased education we make the people in the Commonwealth and of this country aware of how interdependent we are. That is not being done at the moment, and I feel it is vital for the future survival of the Commonwealth that we should set our hand to this task without further delay. I venture to hope that, when the noble Marquess the Leader of the House comes to reply, he will be able to hold out an indication that Her Majesty's Government realise the importance and the size of the opportunity that is being presented by the demand of the technologists for greater facilities of education.
3.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, we have had numerous debates on this important subject, and I think I am right in saying that when the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was President of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee we had an interesting discussion on this same matter. The point really at issue is how we are to produce efficient, trained technical men to meet the immense demands which are being made upon us. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, seemed to be doubtful of the position, but I can assure him from my own personal experience that the demand for higher grade technologists and scientists is immense. British industry is making great claims. In addition, the various Government Departments, with their great technical development programmes to-day, are making large calls on scientists and technologists. Then again, there are the Dominions and Colonies, all of which are making demands for geologists, entomologists and technologists of all kinds to meet their requirements.
208
So far as I can see from my experience, there is no question about the demand reaching saturation point for many years to come.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, for having introduced this Motion, and I should like to pay tribute to him as Chairman of the sub-committee of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee which was set up to consider this matter. It is obviously a complicated and difficult problem on which many people with great knowledge hold different views. The whole technical education system rests on three columns: the universities, the central technical colleges and the local technical colleges. These three institutions are responsible for training our scientists, our technologists and our technicians. Those last two words are horrible words and must cause great difficulty in discussion, because frequently one finds people talking about the same thing in different terms. By "technologists" I mean a man whose education is on a broad basis and who is able to apply scientific principles to the various problems he meets in the course of his professional career. A technician is a man whose training is more specialised, and he must be able to apply technological practice to day-to-day problems which occur in his industry. That is a brief definition, but if your Lordships want a more careful explanation of the field which is covered by these two important classes of technical experts, you will find it in a statement recently issued by the principal engineering institutions and the Royal Society of Chemistry, who have carefully defined the spheres occupied by these two classes.
The report of the Committee draws attention to the interesting fact of the numbers of technologists and technicians who are employed in the United States. It has always been rather a moot point as to whether they are employing many more than we are, and I think it is quite clear that if the first degree men in the U.S.A. are cut out and included with the technicians, the position of the technologists per head of the population is not so bad. But when one comes to the technicians the position is entirely different. Those who are included as technicians are what they call "first degree men", and there is no doubt whatever that the predominant position that the United States has in production is largely

209
due to the high-grade men they have on the floor of their shops. These men, brought up with a scientific bias, are able to see in what direction improvements can quickly be made, and it is largely due to them that we see this enviable improvement in productive capacity compared with what we have in this country.
In dealing with this question of numbers, I cannot agree for one moment with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The position is that the situation is not saturated at all, and this country can absorb many more of these men. There is one difficulty which I see, and that is in the number of boys who are coming forward end who want to carry out technical studies. It is strange to me that, in a period when we seem to be getting more and more technically inclined, a great many of what might be called the sixth form type of boy do not want to go into technology. It may be due to the fact that a boy of that calibre does not make up his mind about his profession until relatively late in his school career. He then finds that there are other boys whose mental capacity is not quite as good as his who have specialised earlier and are therefore able to cut him out when it comes to an examination. That points to the fact that it might be well worth while for versities and technical colleges to consider whether they should not have a previous year of instruction, to catch the boys of that class whom we are losing at the present moment, and who, I am certain, will form the best material for the technical work of the future.
There is another point I should like to take up. I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, when he said that we in this country lag behind other countries. The excellence of our teachers and the quality of the products of our technical education establishments are unrivalled. When we come to the other aspect of the problem, the material side—the unsatisfactory buildings, the cramped laboratory space and so on—there I think we can be justly criticised. As regards the main issue, however, the type of teaching and the type of our product, we are absolutely second to none; and long may that remain so!
Various suggestions have been put up as to how the position of technical education can be improved. One of the suggestions which has had support from
210
different quarters—and I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was supporting it officially for the Party opposite—is that we should establish a technological or technical university. I have recently had the pleasure of visiting one of the great technical universities on the Continent, and I envied them the new buildings which were springing up on every side. How I wish we could have those buildings transplanted to this country! I was interested in discussing the matter with some of the senior staff. They admitted that, in their opinion, it was a great mistake to have a university of that calibre with only two disciplines, science and technology. They felt that the study of humanities should be included in their curriculum.
Turning to the other side of the Atlantic, I think it is interesting to see what is happening now at that famous institution, "Cal. Tec."—the Californian Institute of Technology. As we know, that is one of the leading institutions of its kind in the world. There they have decided that students must spend one-fifth of their time in studying the humanities. Again, in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—another world-famous body—they have also decided, following the lead of "Cal. Tec.," that their students must spend one-sixth of their four years' study of technical subject; in taking humanities or social subjects. In other words, the tendency of these great technical institutions is to adopt what we in this country should call a university outlook. From my experience on the Continent recently, and the examples I have quoted from the U.S.A., I feel that it is a retrograde step to go forward with the idea of establishing a technical university. I am myself connected with the Imperial College which has been mentioned in the debate this afternoon, and we are proud to belong to the London University. It would be a great mistake if the relationship between the University and ourselves were cut off and we were made independent, because there are great advantages in being tied up with a great body of this kind which is so well able to teach the humanities when one requires courses of this nature.
Another point which is stressed in the Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, and to which we gave

211
great attention, is that of the upgrading of technical colleges. There has been a big demand in the educational world that a number of these colleges should be given university status. We went very carefully into this matter, and we came to the conclusion that, except in a relatively few cases—four or five, or half a dozen—this was not a proposal which would be an advantage to the education system of the country. I should like to quote what is happening at Manchester at the present moment. I am sorry to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, is not in his place for he is, as we know, the Chancellor of Manchester University. Manchester has a great technical college and a great university. The plan that is being adopted at the moment is that the Technical College should have its own governing body; that its Governors should no longer be appointed by the City Council; that it should be an independent body, able to deal with the funds placed at its disposal by the University Grants Committee and by the City Council in the best way it thinks fit for the education of its students. In other words, it will have financial independence. A very satisfactory arrangement has, however, been made between the College and the University whereby suitable courses at the College are given what might be called university status, and students taking those courses are able to proceed to a university degree. In addition, I understand that the College can award its own diploma if it thinks fit.
We see there a close association between two great bodies, bodies which have a considerable historical association and which are working harmoniously together, enjoying the same privileges and the getting of degrees. That seems to me an admirable procedure which might be adopted elsewhere. There are, we know, a number of other colleges which might be considered for such an arrangement, but I would ask the Government not to be too precipitate in forcing such a scheme upon other colleges. I am certain that it will come by slow, steady growth, and by good will on all sides. As we know, however, in different districts different ideas have grown up; what I might almost call prejudices and so on have arisen, and the fact that students are working in institutions of this kind has given rise to a certain
212
amount of friction. I hope, therefore, that this matter will be approached slowly. I trust that people of good will on all sides will overcome these difficulties and will try to establish what appears to me to be an excellent scheme, that which is to be adopted by Manchester in the immediate future.
To my mind, there remains one great difficulty, and that is the local technical colleges. Here, we have a number of colleges not in receipt of University Grants Committee funds but supported by the Ministry of Education. They are dotted about different parts of the country. Many of them are closely associated with the particular industries which happen to be in the town in which they are situated. They give excellent education in those fields to which they are particularly suited. To my mind, they play an enormously important part in the educational system of the country, because it is to those colleges that we must look largely for the training of our technicians. There are certain colleges in which difficulties arise. There may be a college, for example, situated in a district where there are two or three large electrical firms. Those firms, with their highly trained, specialised staff, are able, and very often are encouraged, to give courses and lectures at these colleges. As a result, certain courses at some of these colleges are extremely good: they reach university standard. But because the college is a local technical college it is not accepted for university grading. I am not asking that such a college itself should be so accepted, because it might well be that, while it has a very good electrical engineering course, it has a poor chemistry course, for the reason that there may be no chemical industry in the area with which it is associated. I would ask, however, that colleges of this kind might be able to approach the central college to ask whether the particular course could not be affiliated with the courses of the central college, so that the students taking a course at the local college would be able to proceed to a university degree. An arrangement like this would, I am certain, get over many heart-burnings which are felt at the present time, and would do justice to those students in these particular colleges who are often of a very high standard—just as high a standard, in fact, as one gets at a university.

213
The question of degrees or awards has been mentioned in the Report. I have carefully considered this problem again. I do not think that we want any more awards. We already have the awards given by the universities. We have the national certificate; we have the higher national certificate, and we have the national diploma, which is particularly looked after by the technical institutions. In addition, we have the associate membership of the great technical institutions which is, in itself, an award of a very high character. Apart from that, there is also the City of Guilds Institute, which gives awards covering a very wide field in all sorts of technologies. So it seems to me that it would be redundant for us to have the additional award which some people seem to think we should have. It would be complicated. When we talk about national awards of that kind, we are apt to forget the immense amount of complication and difficulty involved, and the high-grade people's time that is taken up behind the scenes, in setting and marking the examination papers. That is a terrific business. I hope that we shall not occupy the time of our leading technical professors, scientists and what-not any more than we do to-day in marking examination papers.
I had not intended to say anything about the Imperial College because I am associated with that body, but after the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, I feel that I should like to ask the Government one or two questions. The College was told two years ago that it was to have the South Kensington site. From time to time we have been given Starting dates for different areas of that site. It is most important for the College to have a definite starting date for the site now occupied by the Imperial Institute, because, until it knows the starting date, and what the exact size of the site is to be, it is impossible for the College to prepare details, which is a very expensive matter. So, after hearing what the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, had to say, that he was only too anxious to remove from the site, I hope that the Government will soon be able to give the College an indication as to when that site will be available. I hope that when the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, moves, he will take with him the board-room of the
214
Imperial Institute: it is the most marvellous example of mid-Victorian furniture that I have ever seen, and it is one of the things that should certainly be preserved.
We are very much indebted for the interest that the Government have in many ways shown in regard to this important matter. We are also much indebted for the recent statement about the increase the salaries of professors and lecturers. By this means I hope that it may be possible to attract more high-grade men to the teaching profession in the universities, and that it will prevent some of our men from being drawn away into industry—something which is, of course, going on all the time. As I say, I, personally, together with my colleagues, welcome the statement made two years ago as regards the Imperial Institute. My Lords, I am quite certain that the whole of this immensely important problem is being appreciatively considered by the Government, and I sincerely hope that, as time goes on (we must be careful not to force it), we shall see a considerable improvement in the technical facilities available in the country as a whole; but let us never forget that we in this country are to-day second to none in the quality of the work that we produce.
4.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I fully agree with noble Lords who have already spoken, that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, for initiating this debate, and also, and not less, for the kind of speech, penetrating but not too technical, with which he introduced it. I start from the position that the importance of developing technology in this country to the fullest possible extent is now universally recognised. It is, I believe, a matter of industrial life or death for us.
I listened attentively to the remarks that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I am afraid I did not find myself in agreement with him when he urged that we should suspend judgment in this matter pending further investigation. I think that over recent years, with two Reports from the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee and more than one debate in this House, there has been a full consideration of the basic elements in this problem. It is of course the case that an arithmetical comparison with the

215
United States is apt to be misleading. For example, degrees in the United States do not, I believe, mean exactly the same as they do here. I have always been given to understand that in America students who have proceeded to a degree after a course in pure science frequently, if not usually, emerge not with any science degree at all but with an arts degree; and it follows from that, that those who come out with a degree in science have, in great measure, been devoting themselves to technology. The fact remains, however—it can admit of no real question—that in the matter of producing well-trained technologists we are far behind not only America but a number of European countries.
May I here just guard myself by saying how fully I agree—I have said this publicly more than once—with the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, in what he said about the quality of our teaching, particularly in pure science. In that respect I firmly believe that we are second to none. I said so most emphatically not very long ago, at a meeting of what I think is called the Research Council, or something of the sort, in Manchester, where there is a valuable coming together of the University, the Chamber of Commerce and the local authority.
I also find myself in complete agreement here with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the importance of what he called "esteem"—what I would prefer to call "prestige." I do not believe we shall ever get things right in this matter until technology is recognised to be academically in no respect inferior to pure science or arts. In that connection, I fully agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, in another matter on which he dwelt—namely, the importance of combining with a technological training a wide instruction on the side of the humanities. I have had opportunities of discussing this matter with the late Dr. Karl Compton, whose untimely death we must all deplore, and also with Dr. Dubridge who is responsible for what is called "Cal. Tec." I hope that in our development, to which we look forward, of technological universities, we shall pay proper attention to that aspect.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, emphasised that we want really well-educated technologists. It is, as I said
216
in the previous debate, quite pathetic sometimes to see the handicaps that are in the way of men who are reasonably well instructed and well qualified in their own speciality, but who, for one reason or another, find the greatest difficulty in expressing themselves and in holding their own in discussions at a high level with other people. If we are, as I think is the case, satisfied as to the importance of technological instruction at a university level, at the highest level, I think that that conviction ought to be reflected in the structure of our educational system. I do not think it is so at present. I would not necessarily seek to advocate vast developments in a hurry. What I regard as of the utmost importance is that as we develop we should make certain that we are developing on right lines—on lines that promise well for the future. The Government have made a first and a welcome step in deciding on the development of the Imperial College of Science and Technology in the manner that has been advocated in this and in the previous debate. Now I think the time has come—I hope and believe that that is recognised by the Government—to go further.
As has already been suggested in this debate, I think it is the case that the developments foreshadowed are viewed with some concern in university quarters. I see no reason why such developments as my noble friends and I have in view should be construed as implying any reflection upon, or any impairment of the position of, the older university institutions. I see no reason why there should not be, as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, the closest associations between such new technological universities as may be established and the older universities. Similarly, I see no reason why, for example, the engineering faculty of an old university should not be free to develop to the fullest extent. There should be no obstacle placed in the way of such development. I think that our arrangements ought certainly to be sufficiently flexible to admit of the closest association between the old and the new.
I want to suggest that among the things that are necessary is a change at the very centre. If I may say a word about my own background, I am in the rather exceptional position of having been able

217
to look at the functioning of the University Grants Committee from two viewpoints, that of a Chancellor of the Exchequer and that of a Lord President of the Council. When I became Chancellor of the Exchequer, the University Grants Committee was still functioning in the old way as an outpost of the Treasury—as a body primarily concerned with passing judgment on applications for Government assistance, exercising a kind of judicial function in ensuring the most equitable distribution of such funds as the Treasury found it possible to make available, but without having any clear administrative function. I was able to make certain changes in the constitution of the University Grants Committee, changes which, in my judgment, were rendered necessary by a decision reached at that time to make grants available towards capital as, well as current expenditure. Although I may be a little out of date, I believe that the University Grants Committee as now constituted fulfils a very important function in reconciling the continued academic independence of the universities with a liberal system of Government grants.
I would, however, advocate the setting up of what the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, has described as a "parallel body" another reason altogether. Here I come to the second phase of my own education in these matters. I found, when I first became responsible for the scientific interests of the Government that there was no adequate technical advice available to the Lord President of the Council. He had no ordinary department upon which he could rely. I am quite prepared to believe—in fact I have very little dotubt—that the facilities at the disposal of the Lord President have been greatly improved since my time; but I feel that a body dealing with higher technical education set up in parallel with the University Grants Committee could serve an extremely useful purpose in advising and guiding the Lord President of the Council in these matters. That would be a function of a kind wholly outside the scope of the University Grants Committee as it at present exists.
I am making no reflection on the Technological Advisory Committee, which I believe is already in existence and working in association with the University
218
Grants Committee, in urging strongly upon your Lordships that the step suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, would be most valuable, not only in fulfilling the original functions of the University Grants Committee in relation to technological education but also as an addition to the resources available to the Lord President of the Council. I believe that such a change would go a very long way and would do more than anything else to put technology properly on the map.
There is, in the course being advocated, no danger or threat to existing technical colleges. There is no reason at all why those not to be upgraded and given university status should not continue as part of our educational system. There is no reason why they should not be used, as universities or institutions of university standard, with academic independence, as instruments of Government policy. I see no reason why those colleges should have any apprehension on that score. One final point: there is evidently a difference of opinion as to whether or not the new technological universities should be given degree-granting powers. On that point, I frankly disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth. I believe that, if we do not give these universities degree-granting powers, and thus put them on a level of equality with the older institutions, we shall inevitably convey the impression that we are not in earnest in this matter. We are not half-hearted, and it is essential that in this very vital matter we should not appear to be in any respect half-hearted.
4.35 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I have bored the House so frequently on this topic that noble Lords will not be surprised than I rise to support, very warmly, the views put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Glyn and Lord Waverley. I consider this matter to be of absolutely paramount importance to the future of our country, and unless we can deal with it usefully and take a real step forward, then our hope of maintaining our position in the world is very feeble. I am hopeful that we may get a more favourable response, since the gracious Speech has stated that it is the intention of the Government to "stimulate the

219
expansion of facilities for higher technological education."
I had hoped that the distinction between technical and technological education was now really recognised. It is obviously recognised by Her Majesty's Government because the two types of education are specifically mentioned separately in the Speech and two different Ministers have answered for them on two different days in two different weeks; but I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did not seem to make the distinction I should wish to see drawn between them. The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, dealt with that point to a certain degree. May I make it clear by a simile I have used before? Technical colleges produce technicians who are, so to speak, the noncommissioned officers of industry. They are being trained in, and are gaining a very good knowledge of, how to operate and perhaps to repair existing machinery. They may even suggest minor improvements.
The training of the higher ranks demands much more elaborate facilities and a much higher degree of teaching. More and more in the modern world, especially, for instance, in the sphere of atomic energy, one is faced with brand new problems of a type never before encountered. It is not a question of taking something that already exists and improving upon it—that can often be done by rule of thumb; and a good deal was done by rule of thumb in the nineteenth century. Deep fundamental knowledge, scientific, mathematical, chemical or whatever it may be, is required besides technological knowledge; and, of course, inventive capacity and originality are needed in order to conceive, design and bring into use some really new mode of production, a new chemical process, a fresh type of machine, novel electronic devices and so on. Technicians are men who have to work with existing machines and on existing factory processes. They are excellently trained in our technical colleges and I am sure we all wish them well. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has said, there is no reason whatsoever why they should feel they are being attacked if we proceed along the lines advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Glyn. Most of the technical colleges are good, and some are very good. One or
220
two—I need only mention the Royal Technical College at Glasgow, about which I shall have a word or two to say later—verge upon institutions of university rank.
But no one who knows anything about the subject will claim that the ordinary technical colleges are fit to produce technologists of the highest grade, such as are absolutely necessary if we are to hold our own in industrial production in this competitive world. It is not a question of having a degree or not having a degree, it is a question of the man having the training and the knowledge; it is a matter of the three or four years' full-time training to get it that is required if a man is to be a really useful member of a technological profession. Lord Silkin threw doubt upon whether the greater productivity of the United States was due to their larger number of technologists. It certainly played a part in it. I am not quite clear to what Lord Silkin did attribute the greater productivity of the United States—perhaps it was to the capitalist system that prevails there; or perhaps to lower taxation. I do not know. But unless we can keep a stop ahead of our rivals in our methods we shall not maintain our place in the export markets; our standard of life will fall, and, indeed, we shall very likely be hard put to it to survive.
I had hoped that that was common ground. I am sure that the Government agree, as most of the noble Lords who have had experience of it agree, that there is a great need for many more technologists of the highest grade in this country. I am sure, therefore, that the Government will not dissent from the general conclusions of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee's Memorandum—in fact, in some ways they are echoed in the gracious Speech. But despite the good intentions of the Government, which have been expressed on several occasions over the last three years, very little seems to be done. The reason appears to be that, though everyone—or nearly everyone—is agreed on the need for more first-class technologists, there does not seem to be equal agreement on the best way to get them. The Government have frankly stated on one or two occasions that it was their intention to build up What we might call technological universities—technological institutions of university rank. But the University Grants

221
Committee seem to think that this is the wrong procedure, and that the right course is to expand the engineering and other technological facilities in existing universities. I am coming here to a point where I must, like Agag, walk very delicately; for not only the finance of Oxford University but the grant to my own Department of Physics there derives from the University Grants Committee. I must, therefore, couch my disagreement with their conclusions in the mildest possible terms consistent with candour. But the House has a right to demand frankness from me, and I am sure the members of the Committee will understand the position and will not penalise me or my university for anything I may say.
The Committee have done invaluable work—I say that at once—as a buffer between the Treasury and the universities in maintaining the independence of the universities, which I think we all value. And I am the first to admit that our universities, thanks largely to the help of the University Grants Committee, are as good as any in the world, and as near perfection as we have any right to expect for the particular purpose for which they are intended. But that does not mean that they are ideal for all purposes. What the country wants to-day is a large increase in the type of man quite different from those produced in the older faculties of Theology, Law, Medicine, History, English, or even Science; and I am convinced that we cannot get them—certainly not in the required numbers—from the existing universities.
Not unnaturally, the members of the Committee are inclined to think that the existing universities, to which they have devoted all their labours, and which are second to none in the world, can provide all that is required. The members of the Committee are themselves mostly former members of the various universities—and even university men are not immune from the tendency to think that "there is nothing like leather." I was, therefore, particularly interested in Lord Waverley's suggestion that technological universities, though financed just like other universities by the Treasury, should obtain their grant through a different body—a sort of technological University Grants Committee. After all, it is not really fair to the University Grants Committee, holding the views that they do, to ask them to develop technological universities, any more than it
222
would be fair to ask the College of Cardinals to increase the number of Baptist preachers. If we are to achieve success, we must have someone whose heart is in the job and who believes that the Government's desire to build up technological universities is right. Apparently that is not the belief of the University Grants Committee; they do not think we ought to have here universities with the emphasis on technology, such as exist in every other country, rather than on the older subjects.
My Lords, I find it hard to believe that all the rest of the world is wrong; that everyone is out of step except Great Britain. I have great respect for the views of the University Grants Committee, and I have therefore been at some pains to discover the reasons for the difference of view, or, at any rate, the arguments by which those who take a contrary line to mine have convinced themselves that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. The main argument seems to be that they insist that the technologist must have a solid grounding in the humanities, and that he can get this only if his place of studies is integrated in, or at any rate closely affiliated to, an ordinary university. I wish the view that every arts man ought to have a solid grounding in science and technology was pressed with equal vigour—but that is another story. In any event, the right place to get this general back-ground is at school. When a boy reaches the university, though retaining, as I hope, a lively interest in aspects of life and knowledge which are not his particular concern, he should be able to specialise in what is to be his life's work.
I am the last to underrate or decry the importance of the humanities. All the arts subjects are intensely interesting and should be closely studied. Indeed, I often envy men whose life's work it is to investigate these topics, and I wish that all of us had more time to devote to them. But in the modern world most of us must be content with a more or less superficial acquaintance with these aspects of knowledge. It may be—and I do not deny it—that the students of the humanities are more cultured than we are; that a man who has spent his life investigating the details of some historical mystery is a more agreeable companion than one who has to spend most of his time solving differential equations. It

223
may be that a man whose main activities lie in the drawing office or the factory misses something that people enjoy who read in the original The Satires of Juvenal or Ovid's Ars Amandi. But, however interesting this sort of knowledge may be, it does not increase our productive efficiency; and it is that upon which our exports depend, our exports which literally "bring home the bacon." I cannot help feeling that over-emphasis of the arts subjects is something of a luxury.
After all, times have changed. No Member of the House sitting on the other side need have the same misgivings when asked to tea by one of the Government Front Bench as were caused in the old days by an invitation to take pot luck with the Borgias. We live in a different world, in which an arts background, however agreeable and interesting, does not really help us in ordering our daily lives. "Ah," I am told, "labour relations in the modern world are of overriding importance and the humanities teach you how to deal with men."
Well, I wonder. I seem to remember one big strike in the ancient world, led by a certain Mr. Spartacus. But I do not think the way that dispute was settled—by crucifying ten thousand of the strikers along the Appian Way—would commend itself to any Members on this side of your Lordships' House or even noble Lords opposite, in spite of their strict sense of discipline. I doubt whether reading about this sort of thing has really helped officials in the Ministry of Labour to cope with their difficulties.
Of course, no one suggests that arts subjects should be barred from technological universities. Of course not. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, said, in "Cal. Tec." and M.I.T. students have to take a certain amount of arts and in many cases they are much more all-round men than those who take university courses and do not have to take any science. But I do claim that confining the teaching of technology to ordinary universities has disadvantages which are by no means compensated by the extra emphasis on arts subjects there.
I am still entirely convinced that if we are to ensure, as the Government wish, "that advance in scientific research should be matched by increased industrial efficiency and production," then we
224
must have in this country full-scale technological universities. I am sure that this also was the view of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee though they maybe thought it more politic to call them Royal Chartered colleges. That is where I differ from the proposal: I do not like this terminology. For it is essential, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, stressed, that these new institutions should enjoy parity of esteem (I think this is the correct modern phrase, but the noble Viscount preferred to call it "prestige" and I agree) with the older universities, and this will be impossible to achieve unless they are called universities. It is the ambition in life of a good many fathers to send their boys to a university. To call these essential institutions for which I am pleading anything except universities will deflect many promising boys from them. Unless they enjoy parity of esteem, the technological centres will never attract the best people, either as teachers or students.
Some people still ask: "Why not let them learn technology in the existing universities?" What those who put this question do not seem to realise is the importance of giving a boy—and for this purpose, as for some others, "boy" embraces "girl"—some insight into the outlines of the various branches of technology before he has to make his choice about which of them appeals to him and is the one to which he wishes to devote his life. In order that he should be able to do this, he should be able to Study as many branches of technology as possible in rudimentary form before choosing, and therefore they must all be represented in one university. For if you have, say, engineering taught in one university, textile technology in another, chemical engineering in a third, metallurgy in a fourth, and so on, the boy will have to make up his mind which one he wishes to follow before he knows anything much about any of them, and then find out which university teaches it and arrange to go there. Unless he does this—and it is not at all an easy thing for a schoolboy to do—he will find that, having chosen his university, he will virtually be compelled to take up the particular branch of technology taught there, whether it appeals to him or not.
That, it seems to me, is the short answer to those who claim that building

225
up various branches of technology in individual universities will solve the problem. For clearly we cannot put a large variety of technologists, with the thirty or so departments involved and the fifty or sixty professors, into each and every university. It would cost a million pounds a year or so per university and this would not be justified for fewer than 3,000 students. London could absorb such a body without being thrown entirely out of balance, and this is why the plan to expand the Imperial College is feasible and admirable. But no other university in this country could, would or ought to do so.
If we are to give our young men a proper choice, so that they can select the branch of technology to which they are most adapted, we must concentrate our resources and build up a variety of technologies in relatively few technological universities or centres. When we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a massive building programme of £25 million in five years has beer sanctioned, I suggest that it is vital to decide wisely Where the building are to go. It is no use frittering the money away all over the place. It must be properly organised and concentrated so that the various different technologies are available to students who may not have, and indeed ought not to have, made up their minds which one to choose before they have had two or three terms at the university.
It is somewhat invidious to pick out institutions which should be expanded in this way. The Government have already decided to build up the Imperial College and of this I am very glad, although it appears to be a distressingly slow process. But I should really like to put in a plea for the Royal Technical College in Glasgow which, I understand, is willing and anxious to make the experiment which has been so successful everywhere abroad—namely, to become an independent technological university with its own charter and degree-giving powers. Why not let it try? (After all the University of North Staffordshire was suddenly conceived, erected and given a charter, all within a few months. It is there that the first Chancellor, or Vice-Chancellor, was a noble Lord who was very well liked by the Government of the day, but I do not think we should let anything like that interfere with the question.)
226
It is surely no answer to say that the Government intend to build up technology at Glasgow and then to insist on the affiliation of the Royal Technical College to the University. Its voice would be smothered by the claims of all the other faculties. I am sure that no good will come of this sort of shot-gun marriage, even if the Royal Technical College is forced into it. I beg the Government to give them a free hand. If this were done, if am sure it would prove possible at no undue expense to develop it into the Royal Technological University of Scotland, if you like, independent in status and able to stand on its own feet. Why not give it a chance? If it is a success, maybe some of the other institutions, possibly even the Imperial College, may wish to follow its example. Or is this perhaps what people are afraid of?
Finally, I should like to reiterate the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Glyn, and Lord Waverley. I feel great disappointment at the apparent lack of any sense of urgency in this matter. It really is shameful how far we are behind other countries. In Russia, 40,000 engineering graduates were turned out in 1952 and 54,000 in 1953–almost twice as many as in the United States. Over and above this, they have 1½ million or more at what we should call technical colleges, as opposed to the 50,000 of which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, boasted here. They have 300,000 pupils at technological institutions at university level—the sort of thing I have been arguing for. As against this, we have only 11,000 technological students in our universities. And Russia is a self-contained country which can live on its own production, and is not, as we are, entirely dependent on a high technological level to survive. If I can get any support from the humane members of my audience, I might say Fas est et ab hoste doceri. For twenty years or more I have been pressing this subject upon the country. I hope that the Government this time will brush aside all forms of obstruction, and will insist upon their expressed intention of building up technological universities in which our people clan be trained so that they will be able to compete on equal terms with kite leaders of industry

227
abroad. It is late, but perhaps not too late. But further delay might well prove fatal.
5.2 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, I had thought that this debate in one respect would have taken a somewhat different course, and therefore I shall not trouble your Lordships with a lengthy speech. I thought that it might be found that the proposal would involve the elimination or the removal of the Imperial Institute. To-day we have had an interesting debate upon a different issue—namely, the issue raised by paragraph 46 of the Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. This is an issue, though interesting and important, upon which I do not feel in any way fitted to give an opinion one way or the other, although I shall listen with great interest to the views of Her Majesty's Government. I therefore ask your Lordships to excuse me from making a speech. As I say, I was going to deal with the issue of the Imperial Institute, which the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, being an old and experienced campaigner, has not raised to-day. I simply ask the Government, when they are dealing with this important issue, to realise that the work of the Institute is of great importance, and that any interference with it would cause a considerable amount of dislocation in our work in this country to make the Commonwealth countries and the Colonial territories known to the people of our own land. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, would not quarrel with that statement; and he will agree, also, that the work is badly needed in our own country.
As I think I am expected to bat for a short time longer, I should like to suggest to your Lordships that we might give a word of praise, both to the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, and to the committee and staff of the Imperial Institute. Last week I went on a tour of inspection of the Institute, and I was most impressed with what I saw. A good deal more needs to be done, no doubt; and in particular I think it needs to take over the facade of the building and the entrance hall. At the present moment the entrance hall is used for the admission of students for examination by the
228
University of London, and it has a woebegone and desolate look. If the Institute can take over the entrance hall and make it a fine spectacle, it will induce passers-by and others to enter the Institute, and in that way they will gain a large number of attendants. At the present moment the entrance is round at what might be called the tradesmen's side door, and unless they know the Institute is there few people are induced to enter. With those few words, I leave the matter in the hands of the noble Marquess, who has now returned, and I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BAILLIEU: My Lords, I do not wish to throw the "batting order" into confusion, but I rise to make two points. First of all, I should like to join the chorus of praise of those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, for raising this issue, which is one of transcendent importance to the people and industry in this country. Secondly, I would venture, in quite general terms, a possible answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. If I understood him correctly, whilst in no way expressing disagreement with the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee he was concerned that he had not received the proof which, in his opinion, was necessary to support the view that we required the additional number of technologists.
I would suggest that that proof can be found possibly along two lines. The first is in the weekly advertisements of the trade and technical Press, where there is to be seen clear evidence of the need of technologists of the kind we are looking for. Then with regard to the second line, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, will recall, I had the honour, a year ago, of opening the new building of the National College of Rubber Technology. Only a week ago I attended there to confer the first diplomas given since the college was established in 1948. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the industry with which I have some connection would not have supported so liberally as they have done the establishment of that college, and they would not have taken the continual practical interest in the development of that college, expressed in many ways, unless

229
they had been firmly convinced of the need for a growing number of technologists. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will find that generally that is the answer in industry.
5.8 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I feel that the time has come when the House may wish to hear some views on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. This has been, as I expected it would be, a most distinguished debate. It has been distinguished both in respect of the eminence of those who have taken part and the character of their speeches and, also, the great interest of the subject with which they have had to deal. Inevitably the discussions have ranged fairly wide—that could not be avoided. I hope, therefore, that the House will forgive me if I take some considerable time in giving, my answer—indeed, speech looks like being so protracted that I confess that it has rather appalled me. I feel about it rather like the Duke of Wellington must have felt when he said about his troops:
"I do not know what effect they will have on the enemy but, by God! they frighten me."
At the same time, I can only say to noble Lords that if they feel I am outstaying my welcome they have brought it on themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Glyn, in the speech with which he introduced this Motion, emphasised the great and growing importance to all of us, in whatever walk of life we are, of the subject with which he dealt. I think that no one, certainly in this House, would dispute that. This is not a mere dry academic topic; it is (I think the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, used the words) a matter of life aid death to us. At the same time, the general recognition of that fact is something new in this country. I am ashamed to say that, until comparatively lately, I, like, I imagine, a good many other noble Lords, had no full appreciation of its importance. Indeed, until I came to my present office I never had much personal contact with the world of science and technology. Unless they had a special scientific bent, the generation to which I belonged were brought up predominantly on the older type of education—the education which claims for itself the rather grand title of "humane letters." The other world, the world of scientific knowledge, was more
230
or less a closed book to the great majority of us, and, I think, to the great majority of people in this country.
That is, I feel, an admirable illustration of one of the bad results of the intellectual specialisation of our time—itself, I think the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, might agree, largely due to the extraordinary growth of scientific knowledge which has tended to make it so much a subject on its own. The Renaissance humanists drew no dividing line between natural knowledge and literature and the arts; and, indeed, the early founders of the Royal Society were like that, too. For instance, Wren was an astronomer and mathematician, as well as an architect; and even in the generation before mine—the generation of my own grandfather, Arthur Balfour and Lord Haldane—the really cultivated man was generally well up in the important developments of science as he was in those of art and literature.
But by my day, I am sorry to say, that was no longer true; and therefore, if I may be allowed this personal reference, when I took up the office of Lord President I expected to find myself better equipped for the ordinary work of the Privy Council than for the Lord President's scientific responsibilities. But in all my contacts with the great scientific organisations which have come under me—the medical and agricultural research organisations, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and now the Atomic Energy Authority—I soon found one general and, I thought, extremely fascinating theme running through this particular sphere of my work. That theme is, of course, the importance of ensuring that the educational system of this country is so organised that it produces a supply of scientists and technologists, not only adequate to meet the ever increasing numbers that are needed but also of the highest quality. Therefore, since I have been Lord President—now two years or more—I have had to go into this subject in considerable detail. The more I have seen of it, the more convinced I have been of its immense national importance, for it is becoming increasingly clear that on the quality of our scientists and technologists, and on the technical efficiency of our industry, depend, quite simply, whether we can maintain the exports without which we cannot feed ourselves or maintain our standard of living at all.

231
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, apparently still has doubts about whether or not there is a shortage of the necessary number of technologists. As the noble Lord, Lord Baillieu, has just told him, he will not find those doubts echoed if he gets in touch with the leaders of industry at the present time. The noble Lord also asked how many would be needed. He thought some inquiry should be made of that. Of course, it is difficult to say exactly how many technologists are needed to cover all the various spheres of our national life, but I think he can be quite certain that anything which we can do today will not produce too many. At the present time, we are not anywhere near the saturation point.
In view of that fact I, as Lord President, have devoted more and more time to the subject of scientific and technological education. On this, I have been fortunate enough to be able to enlist the advice of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, which includes, as your Lordships know, both industrialists and scientists—a body well-balanced for its purpose. That Council has produced—and I say this in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—a most valuable Report, which certainly does not confirm his views. We have also had the assistance of the Advisory Council's Scientific Manpower Committee. That Committee, as I expect many of your Lordships know, is a lineal descendant of the committee under Sir Alan Barlow which, at the end of the war, set up a target, which has already been achieved by the universities, of doubling the pre-war annual output of scientists and technologists from the universities. Though I and my advisers must take, and do take, a keen and increasing interest in this subject, that does not, of course, mean—and I should like to emphasise this, because there seems to be some misapprehension about it—that I am the Minister who bears the main responsibility in this field. My concern in the matter arises partly from the fact that I, or rather the scientific organisations that come under me, are the consumer of the product—that is, of trained scientists and technologists—and we therefore have an obvious interest in their supply and in the type of training that they should get.
Through the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, since this came into existence,
232
successive Lord Presidents, not only myself but all those who came before me, have had a general concern with the arrangements for securing an adequate flow of scientific manpower to meet the needs both of the Government and of industry. I should like to emphasise as strongly as I can—because, as I say, I believe that there is still some misapprehension in the minds of a good many people of this country—that the financial and statutory responsibility for providing the educational services of the country rest not on the Lord President but, so far as university level is concerned, on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is advised on these matters by the University Grants Committee, and, so far as the schools are concerned, and the technical colleges not aided by the University Grants Committee, on the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I should add, of course, that in this particular debate I am speaking for the Government as a whole and not merely as Lord President.
Now I should like to come to the detailed issues raised in the debate. As your Lordships know, the Motion which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, draws attention to the Memorandum on Higher Technological Education published by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee last July. In what follows, I propose as far as possible, in the time which is available, to deal with the main recommendations of that Committee, as well as with some of the other suggestions which have been made by noble Lords this afternoon. Let me say at once that, as Lord President, I naturally regard as of first importance any Reports which come from the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, for the Committee speaks, as we all know, with very special authority, since it includes both Members of your Lordships' House and of another place, and also distinguished scientists and directors of research institutes from outside. The great value of a widely composed body of that kind needs no emphasis from me, and it is in, that spirit that I have studied this Report.
That brings me to the first point I should like to make on the Report, which concerns the schools of our country. The position with regard to the schools is clearly of fundamental

233
importance, for if boys and girls of the right quality and quantity are not made available from the schools to study science and technology at university level, we shall not get the scientists and technologists which the country and industry need. The Government, therefore, I would say at once, fully recognise the vital importance of getting an adequate supply of teachers for the schools. Although the position is not yet critical, it is, I frankly admit, very serious; and the problem is unfortunately made more difficult for all kinds of reasons into which I need not go today.
The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee did not make any detailed comment on this aspect, and therefore I would only slay here that we entirely agree with the Committee's broad view that this is a matter of the most extreme urgency. In what is said about the schools, and about what it calls the "climate relating to science and technology," the Report is extremely interesting. Indeed, I think the Committee go so far as to refer to what they call
"the outworn tradition in so many of our grammar and public schools that the proper goal for all bright boys is a classical education, an arts course at the university and avoidance of anything to do with industry and factories."
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, would agree with that opinion of the Committee. Of course, I entirely agree—I imagine we all do—that, so far as a tradition of that kind persists, we have to do our best to modify it. But surely the position is not quite so bad as the Report suggests.
It may well be that there are some public schools where only a minority of the abler boys look forward to careers in science and technology; but there are, equally, many public schools where that is certainly not true. Indeed, I am told in figures that have been given to me that, so far as the grammar schools are concerned—and these account for by far the bigger proportion of the boys who go on to the university—about two-thirds of the boys of the sixth forms of grammar schools as a whole are taking science as their main subject of study. That certainly does not bear out the contention of the Committee. Indeed, the figure of two-thirds that I have quoted is so high that actually there may not be much
234
room for a substantial increase in it. I am also told, by the way, that the Committee have withdrawn as inaccurate their statement that
"of the 8,000 State scholars in the country only about 600 are specialising in scientific subjects."
Of the 8,000, some 5,000 are studying science, and many of those no doubt will become technologists in one form or another. We must, of course, recognise that the arts will continue to exercise a strong attraction for some of the best minds, particularly in some of the schools; and personally I do not regret that. Surely none of us is going to maintain that the humanities are of no importance in the modern world. At the same time, all possible steps should be taken to attract a good proportion of the best brains to science.
May I allude, in passing, to an interesting point which was mentioned by the Parliamentary and scientific Committee about the possibility of inducing some of those who have studied the arts at school to turn over to science or engineering at the university. That is part of the wide and interesting problem of the degree to which early specialisation in science and other subjects is carried in the schools. Some valuable remarks on this subject appear in the Annual Report of the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy, published recently. There is no time now to deal with it at length to-day. Indeed, I think the Report of the Council is available to noble Lords and no doubt some of your Lordships have already read it. It is a subject which I am sure both deserves and is getting a good deal of thought and attention by far-sighted educationists. I think there is a good deal in what the Parliamentary Committee say on this particular topic.
Now I should like to turn directly from the schools to the universities. In the context of the universities, I should like to deal in particular with the question of the so-called "higher technology," that is to say, the teaching—in a university or other institution financed by the University Grants Committee—of the applied sciences and various forms of engineering, particularly the latter. On this general question of the universities, I was delighted to see that the Committee felt able to give Governments—that is to say, both tins Government and the late

235
Government—a "pat on the back." They express the definite view that financial provision has been made by all Governments since the war on a "bold and generous scale." I think that is perfectly justified by the figures which are available. The progress which has been achieved is, I think, equally dramatic. The total number of university students has increased by two-thirds, and the universities have already reached, some time ago, as I said earlier, the Barlow Committee's objective of doubling the pre-war number of science and technology students. In view of this remarkable result I think it was a little hard that the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee should talk of an
"arbitrary dictum of the Barlow Committee that the numbers of arts students at the universities should be doubled as well as the number of science students."
Actually, there was no such dictum, nor would it be helpful to try to deal with a matter of this kind on a sort of basis of percentages.
What is important is that there has been a spectacular rise in the numbers of scientific and technological students, and I was glad to hear the tribute that was paid in this matter by the noble Lord, Lord Glyn. I might also mention a point here which perhaps is sometimes missed. Some noble Lords—and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, himself—tend sometimes to think mainly of universities in terms of the great University of Oxford (of which I was privileged to be a member) where he himself occupies so very distinguished a position. At Oxford I think it is true to say—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that only one-quarter of the students are working in science and technology at the present time. But Oxford is, in this particular respect, not really typical. I should like to contrast with it the examples of Birmingham and my own University of Liverpool, where the number of science and technology students approximates to about 70 per cent. of the whole—a very different picture from that which we get from looking at such universities as Oxford.
I propose, in a minute or two to read to the House a statement on this question of higher technology. It is a very important statement which is also being made to-day in another place. The purpose of
236
the statement is to bring up to date and to set out in detail the programme of the Government on higher technological development. But, before I read it, there is just one thing I want to say, as one who has had to give, as I have explained, special attention to this particular aspect of the higher technological education of scientists and technologists during the two years that I have been Lord President. It is this. When I first approached the subject I was immensely attracted—I think the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, knows this perfectly well—by the idea which he has put forward so forcibly this afternoon, of a technological university, a university on the lines of certain institutions which noble Lords know flourish on the Continent. The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, referred to them in his speech this afternoon.
I go further and say that I personally still feel that the idea has considerable charms, but I am bound to say this, too, to the House. Since I first arrived in my office, I have, of course, made contact with a great many of our foremost scientists, and they, or a great many of them, emphatically do not share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, on this particular topic. Some of them do not like it for the students, and they do not like it for the professors either. A good many of them oppose the idea as strongly as the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has supported it this afternoon. Therefore, although I still feel the charms of the idea myself, I must confess that I have been gradually driven to the view that, whatever the theoretical merits of the proposal, the technological university is not at present a practical possibility, and that the right policy for developing technology in this country in the foreseeable future is to do what is expounded in the announcement which I am going to make and concentrate on the building up and development of certain existing institutions, both universities and technical colleges, where science and technology already flourish and sometimes predominate. The statement will indicate, as your Lordships will see, that we cannot and should not make so rigid a division between applied science and technology, on the one hand, and the arts and pure sciences on the other.
May I hope that, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said to your

237
Lordships this afternoon, a possible way at any rate of attaching to technology the prestige and status which I think he and others believe it still lacks—I do not say by any means that they are wrong—is to develop these subjects in connection with some great university institution which already possesses status and prestige. That is an argument which I think could quite clearly be put forward. That at any rate, is the view of many scientists who certainly do not want science and technology to be regarded as poor relations of the arts; and it has been borne out by what has been said with so great authority by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, this afternoon, in the light of what he himself had heard at technological universities on the Continent.
In this connection, the noble Viscount referred in his speech to Manchester, and he praised Manchester, as anyone will who has been there and seen that great college. But as I understood him, he urged Her Majesty's Government not to be too precipitate in forcing the exact Manchester model on other areas. If I may say so with all deference, I entirely agree with him about that. Possibly each individual case will require a certain measure of individual treatment in the light of past history and local conditions. My impression, however (I say this with all deference to Lord Waverley, who also advocated, as I understand it, a number of technological universities), is that his suggestion of entirely independent technological colleges would, at present, be going too far, and would not be acceptable to a large body of scientific opinion. But, equally, my impression (he will correct me if I am wrong) is that if he could not get that he would not differ very widely from what was said by Lord Falmouth. If that is so I do not think we are so far apart.
My Lords, having said that, I should like to read to the House the statement which, as I have said, has already been made in another place. It is this:
"To meet foreign competition we must improve our own skill through technological education. In this, my right horourable friend has the valuable and far-sighted advice of the University Grants Committee and their technological Sub-Committee.
"Our plans provide for the massive expansion of the imperial College at South Kensington. They provide for major developments at Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds,
238
Birmingham—as my right honourable friend announced in July. They include developments on a fairly large scale at Cambridge and Sheffield, and specialised developments at other centres in the country including, as my right honourable friend was asked by Welsh Members of Parliament, the Principality. Some of them are financed by industry and some by Treasury grant. The more notable are at Edinburgh. Newcastle, Southampton, Nottingham and Swansea.
"We are trying to steer an effective middle course between excessive centralisation and an undue dispersal of resources, and we are concentrating our efforts on institutions which are already receiving Treasury grants. In our view, higher technological education must be closely linked with other university studies. We must make sure that those who are studying technology should work closely with these who are occupied with the more fundamental problems of science and with its application in other fields.
"It is increasingly realised—in America and on the Continent as well as here—that the men who are to hold positions of the highest responsibility in industry need a broader education than could be given in institutions devoted entirely to technology or even to science. The problems of industry are problems of human relations, as well as of science, and in training for industry the humanities have an important part to play. Where there is a technological institution and a university at the same place and in association together—as of course at London, at Glasgow and at Manchester—this linking of studies can be achieved. But if new universities were to be established in other centres by up-grading technical colleges, it would be necessary to provide them also in addition with departments for pure science and arts—a burden in terms of teachers, buildings and money which we could not afford.
"So we make the best progress by building on what is already there, and by linking the technological development as closely as possible with existing university institutions rather than by starting entirely new technological institutions. We also seek close association between the universities and industry in this field. My right honourable friend has been encouraged to hear recently of the founding of new Chairs in technological subjects with funds raised from industry in the Universities of Durham, Edinburgh, Nottingham and Wales, and in many other forms industry gives valuable financial support.
"The universities, for their part, are becoming more quickly responsive to industrial needs; for example, by designing post-graduate courses to meet particular local requirements of industry; and by asking industry to help with instruction.
"Now for the financial figures. First let me mention recurrent expenditure—teaching staffs, laboratory running costs, and so on. About one-eighth of the total recurrent grants to the universities are used for technology—in a narrow sense of the term; that is, about £3 million a year. We are now making additional recurrent grants for technology of £196,000 for the academic year which has just begun, £404,000 for the next year, and

239
£704,000 for the academic year 1956–57. In the next two years, there will thus be a growth of recurrent expenditure of something like 25 per cent, in special extra grants alone, in addition, of course, to the extra cost of salaries which I announced last month.
"For building and equipment, the capital expenditure and liabilities against public funds which have already been incurred in recent years—again on a very narrow definition of technology, excluding all pure science—amount to about £10 million, including the work now in progress at Imperial College, at the Royal Technical College at Glasgow and the Manchester College of Technology. This includes a number of projects which my right honourable friend authorised last July.
"My right honourable friend has just authorised further buildings of £1 million in addition to the normal university building programme to be started in the financial year 1955–56, and he will be prepared to consider for starts in the following year other technological projects included in the University Grants Committee's plans for developments beginning in the quinquennium. On Imperial College, I am circulating a Written Answer"—
this is in the statement—
"in to-day's OFFICIAL REPORT to describe the progress we are making"—
I will refer to that matter in a moment.
"The total capital cost of this project over a period of ten years or more may well be of the order of £15 million. Certainly the universities are getting ahead very fast with the expansion of higher technological education, and the figures show that very substantial resources are being devoted to this work. This is an investment which cannot yield quick results, but its existence is one of the best sources for confidence in our industrial future."
Noble Lords will obviously want time to consider the details of that, I hope they will think, important statement; but I hope the House will recognise immediately that it makes it abundantly clear that the Government are thoroughly in earnest about the importance of developing technology. The financial commitments alone should be proof of this. I hope that, having heard that statement, the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, will perhaps modify his statement that nothing has been done at all. Actually at present, at all these institutions which I have mentioned, as much is being done as can be done—that is to say, even if there were a larger supply of money than is being given, they could not get ahead faster than they are at present.
That brings me to the subject of the Imperial College and the Imperial Institute, to which Lord Hudson, Lord Ogmore and others devoted a considerable proportion of their remarks. I
240
can assure them that I personally am very much aware of both the urgency and the complexity of this particular problem. Indeed, as a Trustee of the Imperial Institute, by virtue of my position as Lord President, it has been brought most forcibly to my notice, and I fully share the view expressed by Lord Hudson as to the valuable work which has been done by the Institute. I am quite certain that every one of us who has heard his very forceful speech will certainly ponder what he has said to us this afternoon. I wish that I could give the House a really full statement clearing up all the questions which the noble Lord and others have asked, but, unfortunately, I am not yet in a position to do so.
I can, however, say something contained in the Answer which has been given in another place—I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for reading again. Though it is not very long, the Answer does give a certain amount of important information. It is as follows:
"The plans of Her Majesty's Government for the expansion of Imperial College were announced on 29th January, 1953. It was then said that they involved giving the College first claim on those parts of the rectangular island site in South Kensington (lying between Prince Consort Road and Imperial Institute Road) which it did not already occupy.
"Building work is already in progress on the northern part of the site in South Kensington—works of the order of £1·2 million, including equipment. Further progress will soon require the release of some other parts of the site from their existing use. The displacement of these activities and their re-housing elsewhere has presented difficult problems, but with the help of my right honourable friends the Minister of Education and the Minister of Works, we can now see the way clear.
"My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has authorised new building work to proceed in Bloomsbury to enable existing London University activities (such as the Warburg Institute) to be transferred there in due course from South Kensington.
"In order to release the accommodation now occupied by the Aeronautical Collection of the Science Museum, approval has been given for the erection of part of the North Section of the Natural History Museum and the completion of the new Centre Block of the Science Museum. These are of course very worthwhile museum developments in their own right.
"In order to reduce to a minimum the disturbance of the Indian Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum, plans have been approved, involving some building, which will enable a substantial part of this collection to be permanently on view in the main building of the Museum.
"Alternative accommodation will be needed eventually for that part of the Royal College of

241
Art which is housed in the same building as the Aeronautical Collection. But this is not an immediate problem. Nor does any difficulty arise over the Royal College of Music, which will remain in its present premises.
"There remains the important question of the future of the Imperial Institute. The Government are actively considering this in relation to the Imperial College plan, and hope to reach an early decision."
That is all I am able to say at the present moment, but when I say that the matter has been "actively examined" I can assure the noble Lord that that is abundantly true, and if I could find a more active word than "actively" I would use it. I can only assure him of my hope that a statement will not be unduly delayed. If there is anything I can say I will let I him know, to enable him to put down a Question.
That brings me to the parallel question, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, of the position of overseas students. Her Majesty's Government realise that more of our first-rate scientists and technologists need further training beyond the first degree level, and the expansion of university facilities has been planned accordingly. It would be a great mistake to permit these extra facilities to be wholly absorbed by students from abroad, and this must not happen. The responsibility is one which must be shared by industry, as well as by Her Majesty's Government. Industry must be willing to release and assist selected staff to attend these courses, for often the type of man which would benefit most from a post-graduate course is the type most difficult to spare. Only by temporary sacrifices of this nature can industry secure the highly-trained individuals who are at present in such short supply. The noble Lord, Lord Glyn, will see that Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the position. I certainly think the words which the noble Lord has spoken this afternoon will not fall on unfruitful soil.
I come next to the position in Glasgow, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. There is not much that I can say about Glasgow to-day. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that it is very important that no one of us should say anything to exacerbate the present unhappy difficulties which we all know exist. I will only, therefore, make this comment: Her Majesty's Government hope that Glasgow University and the Royal Technical College will be successful in working out a relationship which,
242
without in any way hampering the development of the College, would enable their work to be co-ordinated. This recommendation has been conveyed to the two institutions, and since discussions have been proceeding to see whether a scheme could be worked out which would be satisfactory to both parties, I and my colleagues hope that these discussions will have a satisfactory outcome which will give the Royal Technical College, Glasgow, full opportunity to develop. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and others will do what they can to further such an agreed solution. It is regrettable that these difficulties should have arisen, but at any rate the door does not seem to have been slammed by anybody; and that is the main thing.
Finally, in view of the large part of the Committee's Report devoted to the subject, I must say something about technical colleges. In dealing with this aspect I feel that we must remember that, unlike university institutions, which are national in scope, the technical colleges are local or regional in character, and their chief task is to provide this country with opportunities for the training of the part-time student who is earning his living in industry. In other words, they have a major responsibility for the technical education of those who, as the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, says, have come up the hard way, through the ranks of industry, and also of those who enter industry from the universities and require advanced education on a part-time basis. They are thus called upon to provide part-time technical education at all levels. This is not to imply that the technical colleges are limited to part-time work; they are not. Many colleges provide full-time courses, some leading to minor professional and industrial qualifications, and others to external London degrees and equivalent qualifications, and even beyond. But in every college the greater proportion of the work is part-time, and is likely to remain so if the needs of industrial, professional and commercial workers are to be met.
What is now suggested or implied in the Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee is that measures be taken to remove some of these colleges from the control of the local education authorities and convert them into national institutions under some parallel University Grants Committee of their own,

243
thus supplementing provision already being made for universities. I gather from what I have heard this afternoon that the argument in justification of this revolutionary proposal is that progress in developing the colleges has been slow, that their development has been hampered by controversy, and that only by removing them from the jurisdiction of the local education authorities can they be expected to develop satisfactorily. These are rather sweeping assertions, and I think they deserve a little examination.
Since the war, there has been a very large development of the work of these institutions. In 1938, the number of Higher National Certificates which were awarded was a little more than a thousand in total. In 1951, this number had grown to 5,000; in 1952 to more than 6,000, and in 1953 to nearly 7,000. That represents almost a seven-fold increase since the war in the number of certificates which enable candidates to aspire to professional status. In addition, the number of short courses of a post-graduate nature has risen from a tiny few in pre-war days to 500 in 1952–53 and to 700 in 1953–54. Even in the matter of buildings the story is not unimpressive. Building work is, in fact, going forward at the rate of nearly £5 million worth of work in a year, and it is not the fault of the local authorities that these figures are not all larger. It is national policy that has made it necessary to limit the programme to the most essential work. Local authorities are at the moment anxious to get ahead with a number of additional projects over and above those already sanctioned, and they will be ready, I am told, to put them in hand as soon as national policy makes it possible to get on faster with work which we all agree to be needed for improving industrial efficiency.
I do not pretend that local education authority administration is perfect—nothing is perfect in this very imperfect world—but the evidence of the past few years indicates that the majority of authorities now realise the needs of technical education and are doing their best to meet them. The local education authorities are, I think, justifiably proud of their colleges, and their interest since the war has proved invaluable in establishing those links with local industry which are essential if part-time technical education is to flourish. It
244
may at least be doubted whether it would be wise to destroy this good will by forcibly removing some of the best colleges from the local authorities which have nurtured and sustained them so far. It is true that there has been a good deal of controversy during the past few years over the question of an award for advanced courses at a degree level, and this question, no doubt, needs to be settled. But it would, I suggest, be a mistake to assume that if a number of technical colleges were developed into colleges devoted entirely to advanced work, there would be a large increase in the demand for full-time courses of a non-university type. In any case, such courses are more likely to be developed regionally in association with local industry than on a national basis.
Moreover, if we are going to build up full-time courses of an advanced character in the technical colleges, what about the policy which I have just been discussing for spending immense sums in providing exactly similar courses in the universities? It may well be right for some boys leaving school at eighteen to go on to technical colleges rather than to universities. But, I suggest, we do not want cut-throat competition between the universities and a new type of technical college for the same type of student and the same type of work. No doubt there is room for advanced work in selected technical colleges, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, said in his speech, but I suggest that it ought to be for work, complementary, indeed, to that provided by the universities, but of rather a different kind: advanced courses, both full-time and part-time, and research work, in close association with industry and in close relation to the other less advanced work of the technical college system. This is realised, I am sure, by all the good colleges, and it is shown, I understand, by the developments which are taking place.
And even in that field, as was suggested by Lord Glyn, much is being done by bodies closely allied to universities, like the College of Technology at Manchester, where most valuable work is being done on textiles. I myself have been to Manchester—and a great many other noble Lords have, too. It would be a great mistake to assume that as at the universities themselves and these technological colleges very valuable detailed work on the local industries is at present being

245
done, it is therefore not necessary to have this grading-up of technical colleges to do that form of work.
This brings me to the question of regional planning. Some thirty colleges have been planned to develop ultimately into advanced regional colleges. It is felt—quite rightly—that the lower-grade work should be segregated as soon as possible from the more advanced work, so as to leave the selected colleges with more freedom to provide advanced technology and research for the needs of industry, and steps have already been taken in this direction. But a great deal remains still to be done, and it is quite unrealistic to suggest, as I think the Report does, that arrangements could easily and quickly be made for local education authorities to deal with the less advanced work in other institutions. Where this is the right course it will be done; but of course it will take time and money, and any attempt to remove the lower-grade work before facilities are available elsewhere would actually reduce existing facilities for the training of technicians and craftsmen.
To sum up, the Government believe that we should look mainly to the university system for educating a boy leaving a grammar school who continues his fulltime education in science and technology up to degree and post-graduate levels, and our policy for university expansion has been framed with that end in view. But, as I have shown—at least I hope I have—the technical colleges are not altogether excluded from this field of higher technology. On the contrary, the Government realise that regional colleges must meet the increasing demands for high-level training, both for those who are actually working in industry and also for others who require special technological courses. For that reason, we are only too anxious to improve facilities as quickly as possible.
It was for this reason that the Minister of Education announced a short time ago that an additional rate of grant would be provided to enable selected colleges to improve their staffing, accommodation and equipment. This grant is limited to those colleges which will ultimately emerge as advanced colleges of the type envisaged by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, and conditions under which the grant is given expressly include provision for governing bodies,
246
research facilities and the elimination as rapidly as possible of lower-grade courses, all of which is in line—I think the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, will agree—with the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee Report. In fact, the only difference between the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee and the Government I think is this. The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee suggest the establishment of advanced technical colleges of a new type by what I have, perhaps rashly, called a revolutionary procedure. The Government prefer to develop advanced work in selected colleges by evolutionary methods, making sure that developments fit in with the requirements of industry on a local or regional basis and that they will not impair the equally important development of provision for technicians and craftsmen. It must not be forgotten that for every technologist the nation needs five or six technicians and many first-rate craftsmen, and these are, and must remain, an important responsibility of the local education authorities and the technical colleges of this country.
The Government are aware of the fact that much remains to be done before the position can be regarded as reasonably satisfactory. We know that more courses are required to meet the ever-changing needs of industry, and more buildings in which to house the students and train them suitably, and action will be taken in these matters. I hope that what I have said will have shown beyond any doubt the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to this subject. If any further proof were needed, it would be found in the statement of Government policy which I have read to you this afternoon. In conclusion, I would make only two comments. First, if we are to succeed, we must ensure, so far as lies in our power, that, whether in schools, technical colleges or universities, a high proportion of our cleverest children and young people should feel drawn to science and its practical application, as the branch of knowledge to which they aspire. And secondly—and equally important—we must attract to the teaching of science in schools enough people with a real vocation. For the children will need to be guided by teachers who are not only masters of the technical mysteries of science, but can also inspire their pupils and are able to

247
put what they teach into the wider framework of our civilisation as a whole. In that way, and in that way alone, I suggest, can science and the arts be welded together to a greater and better humanism than any the world has yet seen.
But if we are to get the best out of both arts and science, somehow or other we have to break down the barrier which at present tends to separate them and also that other barrier which divides "pure" science, on the one hand, from technological and applied science, on the other. As between science and the arts and as between so-called pure science and applied science we cannot afford in these days to have, if I may so put it, Montagues and Capulets. We must try to divert to the applied sciences and technologies some of the prestige and esteem which, if I dare say so, scientists are inclined to focus somewhat exclusively on the "pure" sciences. It may take a long time to achieve this ideal balance. It may take generations, I am afraid, to achieve much success. It may indeed never be possible to strike a balance which will be appropriate in all cases. But it is because we believe that a combination of science and the arts is necessary to produce the best results that Her Majesty's Government are advancing on the lines which I have tried to describe to your Lordships this afternoon. For that policy I ask to-day for your Lordships' strong and united support.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Marquess the Lord President of the Council has set me a difficult task in following him. He has made a most important statement and ranged over a wide field. I am sure that we shall all want to study carefully the statement he has made, but equally I am sure that we shall all give it our warm support and welcome, both for the wide range which it covers and for its promise for the future. If I say that it does not go quite so far as some of us hoped it would, I hope the Government will not think that we are ungrateful for what is being done.
As I see it, the statement is to the effect that a greatly increased amount of money is to be put at the disposal of many universities, because the Government feel that that is the most fruitful
248
source of more and better technologists. There seems to me one difficulty which makes me slightly unhappy about that policy. University engineering technology departments are not full at present; there is quite a bit of "slack," which could absorb more students. I think the reason, possibly, is that university courses are not suitable for every student who wants to go into technology or engineering. Many students would find more suitable courses with a more practical bias such as could well be given in technical colleges, particularly in the more recently developed advanced courses, on which I shall have something to say later on. I think many of your Lordships would agree, therefore, that technical colleges can offer something different, in addition to what the universities can offer in technological training.
I am afraid that, after the Lord President's important statement, anything I say will seem something of an anti-climax, but I hope your Lordships will be patient with me. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, for introducing this important subject and for all his work on the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. I support him most strongly when he says (I think the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said the same thing) that it is important for the older universities to accept the increased importance of technology compared to the humanities: sometimes it is rather disturbing to find how difficult it is to get that accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, discussed the connection between technologists and degrees. I should like to make it clear that there is no connection between degrees and technologists. Many technologists—in fact, probably the majority—are members of professional institutions but have not been to a university and have no degrees.
The first part of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee's Report deals mainly with universities. I do not think it is necessary to point out again, because it has been pointed out so often, how urgent is the need for more technologists of a high quality. That urgency becomes greater every day as competition grows in our export markets. Broadly, the Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee supports the present schemes for the universities and hopes for the wider use of their facilities. I think that the statement which the noble Marquess

249
has made to-day will go a long way to meet the points made on that subject.
In the post-graduate field, there is no doubt that the courses that have been started at the universities are most valuable. These courses are surely tie quickest way of getting new knowledge into industry. Unhappily, it sometimes seems that the co-operation of industry in sending suitable men to these courses is not so good as it might be. The reasons are not far to find. In the smaller firms suitable men are all too few, and in the larger it is that the firm's own laboratories and research organisations can supply all the knowledge that the universities may be able to give. I think it is a pity to carry that argument too far. The new ideas that grow up in the universities can be "put over" in industry only by people who have complete and full understanding of the fundamental principles involved. That knowledge cannot be gained by casual contact with universities; it can be obtained only by studying in such post-graduate courses as are provided. Nevertheless, the existence of these courses should not obscure the continued very great importance of close contact between universities and industry, so that the up-to-date thinking of the universities can get into industry and the problems of industry can get to the universities. These are matters merely of emphasis.
It is when we come to the contribution of the technical colleges to our problem that we plunge into deeper and more confused waters. It is four years since the National Advisory Council for Education in Commerce and Industry published their Report on the future of higher technical education. They proposed to set up a Royal College of Technology, a somewhat cumbersome organisation, which would approve courses and grant awards. For many reasons, which were discussed in several debates in your Lordships' House, that Report was not well received and no action was taken. Since then, so far as technical colleges are concerned, there has been sadly slow progress. It is true that there have been encouraging statements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the noble Marquess the Lord President of the Council to-day, on increased grants to the universities; but, as I said at the beginning, I do not think that is the only way we should proceed
250
to improve the supply of technologists. We should, I think, welcome very much this Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which devotes so much of its space to the importance of the improvement and upgrading of certain technical colleges.
To turn to the Report, in Section 4 it lays great stress on using the present technical colleges as the basis for development. That seems to me to be a wise course. Surely it is better to build on that foundation, which has served us well in the past but which no doubt needs improvement now, rather than import some new and foreign method which is quite out of keeping with the way that things have grown up in this country. It has been a slow progress so far in building up the Imperial College in London, and surety it would be an equally slow, if not slower, process to build up a large number of new foundations. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said that we should be out of step if we did not have a great new technological university. But surely we should be out of step if we did that; because the universities we have heard about in America are even now going back—or going forward, so far as they are concerned—to what we have already had for many years; that is to say, a close co-operation between the humanities and technical education. Surely the noble Lord would agree, too, that not only can those studying the humanities teach the technologists something, but the technologists, in turn, can, teach those studying mainly the humanities a great deal.
I would support the proposals in paragraph 31 of the Report, which lay emphasis on the new sandwich courses, where a student spends six months in industry and six months in a technical college, and can thereby combine his theoretical knowledge with a close insight into the practical applications. I suggest that there is no best way to train a technologist. We must have methods of education which are suitable for every type of intellect if we are to make the best use of the limited human material available. A wider recognition of that fact by the universities would result in more students taking ordinary degrees and fewer taking honours degrees for which they are not suitable, with a marked improvement in the final product. Such sandwich courses as I have

251
mentioned can be properly carried out only if the standard of staff and facilities, laboratory and otherwise, are very much improved in the technical colleges. As has already been pointed out, it is not possible to carry on that sort of education in the same establishment as, for example, the part-time evening class instruction that is given to the technician. It puts far too great a load on the staff, and it does not give them time to undertake their own investigations. But it is not every college that can be selected to give these sandwich courses and to shed the lower grade instruction. I am sure it is absolutely essential for the success of such a scheme as is recommended in the Report that the number of colleges selected in the first place should be kept small. I realise that at the moment it is the policy of the Government—at least, that is what I understood from the statement made—not to proceed with the type of reorganisation which is suggested in the Report. Nevertheless, I hope that in time that will be possible, as well as the improvements in the grants to the universities that have just been announced. I am quite convinced that if the scheme that is suggested in the Report is to be a success it is absolutely essential to spread the available resources over a few colleges only, where those resources will do most good, irrespective of all other considerations.
There is another point that has been mentioned; that is, that such Royal colleges should be given independence, and that they should have their own governing bodies. That means clearly that the control of the local education authorities over the colleges which are upgraded would have to cease. I think we all realise that that would not be welcomed, for many of the local education authorities have played an active part in building up these technical colleges and have a great pride in them, as well they may. But surely we should realise that some of the colleges have progressed far enough to be given an opportunity of carrying out new work in a slightly different sphere. I should like to add another word on the importance that I attach to giving the staff of such upgraded colleges time to do their own research. We shall never get really high-class staff to go to those colleges if they
252
have no time to do their own investigation; and the only way that that time can be given is for the colleges to shed a great deal of the lower grade work. It may not always be possible, at least for a long time, for the colleges to have all the facilities in laboratories that will be necessary, but I am sure that local industry will co-operate with those colleges and provide facilities for exchange of staff and for the staff of the technical colleges to work in industry to help them to get research experience.
LORD PAKENHAM: There is one point that is troubling me a little. If this work is to be shed, as the noble Viscount suggests, on whom would it be shed? I do not know whether he has a ready answer to that.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I agree with what the noble Marquess the Lord President said: that it would be quite wrong to do away with the lower grade work until there was somewhere else to put it. That is the first thing to be provided. All I am saying is that we cannot expect the technical colleges to do the new higher grade work unless the lower grade part-time work is taken away from them. Certainly it is essential to provide somewhere for the lower grade work to be done, because it is of the greatest importance to industry.
A great deal has been said about awards in the upgraded technical colleges. I do not want to take up too much time, but I feel that this is an important point, although I entirely agree that in an ideal world it should not really matter what letters a man has after his name. It is true that membership of the professional institutions gives a much better guide to technological capacity than any degree, but membership of those institutions involves not only academic achievement but also practical experience and responsibility in industry. Therefore, I do not think that is an argument for not having a suitable award for those improved courses in technical colleges. The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee suggest that the new colleges should award a Bachelor of Technology degree; and that proposal, as has been said, has caused a certain amount of alarm in university circles. I should like to emphasise that that alarm is not due to mere selfishness; it is not a bad example of vested interest. It arises simply from

253
the fear that, if these new institutions are able to give degrees, the value of the degree will become obscured, and so will its meaning.
It may be asked: if the colleges are to be independent and are to have broad education, as is recommended in the Report, then how will they differ from universities? That is a difficult question to answer. If I may try to answer it briefly, the point is this. There is a tendency nowadays for universities to become residential, with all the benefits for a university student that that involves. In addition, the universities have a collection of students studying widely different subjects, whereas in a technical college the interests will be more canalised. It seems to me that to give a degree for a new and quite different achievement would be misleading and unwise. The Royal colleges, if they were established, would give courses quite distinct from those of universities. It is quite wrong to pretend that the courses they would give would be in competition with those given by the universities. The award that they give should, therefore, indicate a distinction in its own sphere; it should not try to compete in any way with a degree. It might be that in the future certain technical colleges which provide high-class education in sandwich courses—with a broad basis, including the humanities—would in time reach a suitable status for the granting of degrees; but at the moment I feel that it would only lead to confusion to do so.
Surely, the solution to this award problem is indicated by the current practice in, for instance, Glasgow, where the Royal Technical College gives an associateship for the successful completion of its courses. The associateship is intimately linked with the name of the college. It has a high reputation and, similarly, with such an associateship awarded by new Royal technical colleges, its reputation would increase as the colleges developed. I cannot see that there is any difficulty there; nor is there any difficulty in a higher award beyond the first degree stage, particularly if the universities would accept the award of associateship of the Royal technical colleges as a suitable qualification for going on to a higher degree. Already certain universities do not insist on a degree as a necessary qualification for
254
taking their post-graduate courses, and I am sure that if universities were not ready to extend their facilities for taking higher degrees to associates of the Royal technical colleges they would be open to a clear charge of lack of co-operation.
There remains the immediate problem, because clearly it is not possible by a stroke of the pen to select, improve and grant independence to technical colleges. There is the difficulty to which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, drew attention just now, amongst others. We should therefore need to have some interim award, which would be on a national basis, while these new colleges were gaining their individual reputation before they became independent bodies. It would be possible, perhaps, to go back to the solution which was turned down in, I think, paragraph 62 of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee's Report, and to award a diploma in engineering or in technology. Such diploma would have to be, in the first case, supervised by a national council of some kind. There might possibly have to be two—one for engineering and one for other technologies. They would have to select the colleges and approve the standard of their work, and would also have to moderate their examinations, either by external examiners or in some other way. In time, those colleges would emerge as suitable to be granted independence and able to grant their own associateships, which would rapidly acquire a high national reputation.
I hope that the Government will look at such proposals again, and that they may be accepted as a basis for improving the future education which can be provided by technical colleges. I feel that there is a need in addition to improved facilities at universities for this type of education for technologists with a more practical basis, tied, perhaps, more closely to the needs of local industry. I need hardly say that I have not worked out the scheme which I propose—it has been worked out by others with whom I have talked—but it does seem to me to hold out the best hope for the future in this sphere. May I sum it up? Let a few technical colleges be selected for increased grants. Let them be upgraded and called Royal technical colleges, with the ultimate aim of being independent and being able to give their own associateship award which would

255
rapidly gain a high reputation. The awards would be equal in value, although different in scope, to a degree. As an interim scheme, let there be a national diploma supervised by a central board whose members should be qualified academically and professionally. Such a scheme would, I know, require considerable co-operation in the national interest. Some sacrifice would be needed by local authorities, some by professional institutions and some by the universities; but surely we can proceed on the basis that such co-operation would be forthcoming.
I have not touched on many important points—the supply of science teachers, the advice to those taking up a career from schools and the status of technologists. I have spoken too long already, but it is not easy to compress these ideas. I welcome the valuable Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, with the amendments which I have suggested. I would end by quoting a paragraph from the excellent Seventh Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy:
"…we wish to emphasise that policy is in the end judged not by what is said, but by what is done; and by the effects of the things that are done."
Let that be our guiding principle, for I believe that the effects of our decisions taken on these matters are of vital importance to the country.
6.28 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, the memorandum that we have been discussing this afternoon is certainly a most important and a most comprehensive document. I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend as Chairman of the Committee which produced that document, and also for the excellent way in which he has presented it to us this afternoon. I will comment extremely briefly this evening on certain points, and I wish to do so from the point of view of what one might call the user of technologists and not the producer of them. In other words, I want to make one or two comments from the point of view of industry, and, seeing that I have the privilege at the present time of being President of the National Union of Manufacturers, I wish to put particular emphasis on the needs of the smaller and medium-sized industrial firms.
256
All of us in industry must welcome the Government's plans that were announced before this afternoon; and to-day's very important announcement is one that, whilst one obviously cannot comment on it in detail, gives what might be described, I think, as a declaration of intention which is extremely encouraging and welcome. I should imagine that, when all these plans come to maturity, there should be a reasonably adequate supply of highly-trained scientists. But the question I wonder about is, how long is it going to be before maturity is, in fact, reached? When the buildings and the equipment are all there, are the teaching staffs, the professors and the students going to be there? Are the attractions going to be adequate to bring them there? Of course, both are essential.
In particular, I have in mind, will there be an increasing annual grant for bursaries for the growing number of postgraduate students, if the best type are to be attracted? I can well imagine that there are different points of view as to what the best type of man is for this training, but, from the point of view of industry, I should have thought that the best type would be a man who has taken an ordinary science degree, has then gone into industry for two, three, or even five years, and then goes back to do a postgraduate course. That means that maintenance grants for such a man, who may by that time have incurred certain family and other responsibilities, will have to be higher than if he went straight to this post-graduate course at a younger age. I understand that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research already gives considerable help in this matter, but I think it is an important point that ought to be borne in mind.
We have heard a good deal said today about the very favourable position in which we in this country appear to be vis-á-vis the United States when it comes to holders of honours degrees and above; but when we come lower down the scale it is quite clear that the position is not so good. It is here that industry, and particularly, I suggest, the smaller firms, are likely to be affected. After all—and I do not want to repeat all that I have said so often in your Lordships' House on other occasions, but I must just repeat this—these smaller firms represent together a large bloc of British industry

257
as a whole. It has been calculated that 60 per cent. of British exports come from firms of 200 employees or less. These smaller firms require not perhaps the most highly-trained research workers—there may be exceptional firms who do—but men with a sound basic knowledge of science who can apply the results of other men's researches.
When one comes to realise the growing complexity of the ordinary industrial firm, one sees that these men are required, and in growing numbers, not merely in the laboratory, if a firm has one, not merely in the design department or in some special department, but for the day-to-day running of the business. There has been some doubt cast during this debate on the size of the demand for these men. All I have to say on that score is that there are something like 40,000 recognised industrial firms in this country, and if we take that figure we can say that the demand for this type of man is, and will be for a great number of years to come, quite unlimited. In so far as there is a substantial gap to-day—and a far greater gap than exists in the United States—I would agree with those who say that the lower productivity that is evident in certain industries in this country is due, to some extent, to that very point.
That having been said, I think it is fair for industry to turn round and say, "What can we in industry do to help?" The noble Marquess the Leader of the House has already indicated certain ways in which industry is getting together with the universities and helping, but the Report refers to a number of other ways in which industry can help or can be represented in this work. In paragraph 46, the Report say that there should be on the "governing bodies" of the suggested Royal Chartered colleges of technology industrial and commercial representation. Or, again, paragraph 76 refers to the suggestion that the three great national industrial bodies might together do something about publicising in the schools "what careers are available in industry on the technological side." I strongly support that view, because I have no doubt whatever that there still exists a certain prejudice in some of the schools against encouraging the most brilliant pupils to train themselves for posts of this type in industry. Industry cannot afford not to have a high
258
proportion of the best brains that the country has to offer to-day.
Then, in paragraph 77, reference is made to the question of sponsored research. I should have thought that when it comes to research, a team of industry and the universities could but do good; that industry would be far more likely to put to early application the results of research if they had had rather more of a say in what research was to be done. I understand that that is so to a greater extent in the United States than in this country. That, again, may be one other reason for the greater productivity on the other side of the Atlantic about which we have heard to much.
I sense in this Report that there is some hesitancy as regards sponsored research. I know there is a certain amount of such research even to-day, but there seems to me to be some hesitancy, and I am not sure where that hesitancy comes from. Is it from the universities or from industry, or where does it come from? I should like to know. There is one small point on which a number of noble Lords have commented—this question of awards. When a firm in industry is looking for a man, they do not pay a great deal of attention to the letters after the man's name. It is very nice for the individual to have some letters after his name, but a board of directors who are looking for a young man of suitable training look much more at the confidential reports of tutors, and things of that sort, than at the fact that he has letters after his name.
Finally, I would comment on one other point. It has been mentioned that the sub-committee which produced this Report was a sub-committee composed of both the main political Parties. To my mind, that is an immensely important fact, because this must be an entirely non-Party problem. It is a problem that has to be tackled with energy and force over a great number of years, and it is a problem that must be pursued in good times and in bad times, whether trade is good or whether it is bad. That means that it must be tackled irrespective of what Party may be in power at any given time. Therefore I would say that the long-term plan that has been outlined this afternoon by our noble Leader is one that looks well to the future, and certainly I am immensely encouraged by it.
6.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, in common with the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, I find it difficult at short notice to make any responsible comment on the very important pronouncement which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has made on Government policy this afternoon. Clearly, it cuts the ground from under the main issue of the debate, which is the implementation of the Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, the chief architect of which was, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, to whom we are all indebted for the opportunity of discussing these matters this afternoon. On the face of it the statement of the noble Marquess sounded very encouraging. I appreciate that it is not entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, would like, but if it is implemented resolutely it seems to me that it may go some way to providing what we need.
I myself have never felt entirely enthusiastic about the need for a technological university as such. The history of education in this country has proceeded on rather different lines from the history of education on the Continent. The continental universities set their faces against teaching subjects like engineering, or chemical engineering or glass technology or textile technology, with the result that technology became the concern of the Technische Hoch-Schule—schools which now enjoy high reputations. American educational practice has always been strongly influenced by the continental point of view, and that amongst other things resulted in bringing to birth organisations such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, whose achievements now command such high respect in the academic world. But in this country the universities never set their faces obstinately against teaching technology. Subjects such as engineering and textile technology have developed within the framework of the universities and not outside.
It has always seemed to me that the proposals to set up independent technological universities in this country are to some extent rather abstract, because there is no subject which is learned at a continental Technische Hoch-Schule which is not taught at
260
some British university. On the other hand, where we have universities in great cities, cities with great industrial populations in particular, like London, Manchester and Glasgow, then it has always seemed to me that the technological faculty of the university may expand to the point where it may become desirable to allow the technological department to break free. The Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, in a permissive sense, made provision for that happening at some stage if it was thought desirable. The well-known fact that Imperial College (which has, from the time of its foundation through the amalgamation of its constituent parts, always been a constituent college of London University) is happy with its status is no reason for saying that, because Imperial College does not wish to break away from its university, no other college should. Again, the fact that Manchester College of Technology (which has always been the technological faculty of the Victoria University, Manchester) is happy and content with its position should not be used as an argument for saying that no other college should break away. It seems to me that some kind of independent academic status as adumbrated in the Report of Lord Glyn's Committee, is a worthy terminal ambition to set before the technical and technological colleges of this country. They can achieve it at some later stage if they wish.
The noble Marquess has asked us to say nothing that would exacerbate one or two rather delicate matters which are now under discussion between the Royal Technological College, Glasgow, and the University. Naturally, everybody would wish to respond to his request in that respect. I shall therefore discuss those matters no further. But whether one accepts the views put forward by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, or whether one accepts the proposals of the Government as what we must get to work with, none of them can bear anything but a harvest of dead sea fruit unless it is implemented with a certain amount of resolution and despatch. This debate is taking place at the end of 1954–that is nine and a half years after the end of the war. The war took us five years of intense effort, during which time we achieved remarkable things. Even on the technological front we achieved remarkable things, quite apart from our military achievements

261
Think what we did in those five years. We developed penicillin, radar, jet propulsion, nuclear energy, "Pluto," Mulberry Harbour and many other projects, each of which required resolution and despatch in giving effect to the decisions which were required from day to day.
During the nine years since the war, however, we seem to have become overcome by a national neurosis of indecision when it comes to getting a move on, and this seems to me to apply to the taking of decisions and the implementation of decisions that have been taken in relation to bodies such as Imperial College. They relate to problems which do not depend for their resolution upon whether Imperial College should break free from London University or be given a separate chanter or anything like that; they depend upon such questions as the layout of a building site. To have taken two years—longer than we took to (plan the invasion of Europe—to decide on the layout of a building site in South Kensington is just too long. If your Lordships go to the Manchester College of Technology, you will find what they are building most heartening; but you would find it less heartening to learn that what they are actually building was proposed in 1932 and authorised in 1933. Those plans have been set back and set back. We are riot doing something modern in Manchester; we are doing something which was needed a generation ago. In the wisdom of the city fathers of Manchester of 1902 this Technological Faculty of the University was set up. They intended it to be a great competitor to the Technische Hoch-Schule at Charlottenburg, in Berlin; they provided laid for the future of the college and an endowment out of the rates.
The Prime Minister of the day, then Mr. Arthur Balfour, visited the opening of the College. In declaring it open, he made a speech in which he said that this was a typical example of the kind of enterprise one expected from Manchester and from Lancashire. How very woefully has the provision made for the College sunk below those fine ambitious days of the 1900 period! The College has exhausted all its land; it has all been earmarked for building. The College now urgently needs more land. The College has not asked for separate academic status; it has not asked for the right to
262
give separate degrees. It would be quite wrong to thrust separate degrees and Royal Charters down its throat. What it is asking for is land for a new department of chemical engineering. You cannot expand the College to include a department of chemical engineering merely by saying "shove up a bit" in order to take on more students, as you can when expanding a department that already exists. A new department has to be built, and land is required for the purpose. All this requires decision. What is holding up the decision? The untidy state of its administrative arrangements for finance. Finance at the Manchester College of Technology is distributed over the University Grants Committee, the Corporation of the City of Manchester, the Ministry of Education, the local education authority and other bodies. In that situation everybody is in a position to say, in small boy language, "Feigns I" when it comes to buying some new land for the college.
To overcome this difficulty the College has proposed constitutional reforms of which we have heard this afternoon, but these still require ratification, and if year after year goes by before they are ratified, then again we shall he taking too long over the job. I often think it is a very good thing for those of us who have anything to do with building to leave this Parliament at Westminster and walk on to the Embankment past Victoria Tower, to look at the big Imperial Chemical Industries building and to remember that it was built in eighteen months. We have got used to a snail's pace rate of progress. We have all heard of Achilles and the tortoise, and know that, whatever Zeno said to the contrary, Achilles will always catch up with the tortoise; but if the argument were the other way round, and he had said that the tortoise would not catch up with Achilles, then his argument would have been valid. Our competitors are not standing still. We have drifted into contentment with a tortoiselike rate of progress and I do not believe that we can afford it.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to a document called Challenge to Britain. I know where the next challenge to Britain is coming from—from the industries of West Germany and Japan. There are certain fields in which we can never compete with them. In the field of standard

263
products which lie in the public domain of technology, those which anybody can make, the Japanese are prepared to accept lower wages than we shall ever be prepared to accept, and the Germans are prepared to work harder than we shall ever be willing to work. In those fields they must inevitably undercut our products. It is only in the field of quality, particularly the quality of new products, that we can hope to compete with the rest of the world. It seems to me absolutely essential that the greatest attention should be given to the speed at which we move in these matters.
I have been very much concerned, during the last five years, with the development of one of these new quality products, high-speed electronic calculating machines, properly known as digital computors and sometimes known in the popular press as "electronic brains." From my knowledge of what is going on I can carry out a little census in my head of how many engineers we have on these projects in this country. It amounts to not more than 200. I recently visited the United States of America to check up on reports I had been receiving of progress being made there. I found in one development centre of one company, 1,700 engineers, and they were not low grade first degree men. Many were Ph.D's, second degree men. There were 1,700 in one firm alone—and that was only one of three big firms. In addition, there were half a dozen intermediate size firms working in this field, and over and above them 150 small firms. Although tributes have been paid to the quality of British technology—tributes which are perfectly true—and although in the field of fundamental science much of the American development is taking place under licence from inventions made in this country, there comes a point where numerical strength becomes so overwhelmingly great that the mediocre big man knocks down the little man, no matter how good the little man may be. It appears to be a law of nature that when the wealth per head of one country rises above that of another it gets invested in education. If we compare certain statistical ratios as between the United States and this country, we get a population ratio of three to one, a wealth ratio of ten to one; and this shows up in a university ratio of thirty to one,
264
so that, with a new product, the United States can crowd engineers into it in a ratio of fifty to one or one hundred to one as compared with anything that we in this country can do.
I should like now to underline and emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, because I consider it of extreme importance: the question of the provision for post-graduate studies, not post-graduate research. There is a scheme in this country for post-graduate research. Anybody who, having graduated and taken a degree, wishes to carry on at a university so as to take a Ph.D. for two or three years' research work, can get a grant for that purpose from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. There is official routine provision for it, and it happens over and over again. Many students are thus maintained in their post-graduate years by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. In fact the scheme goes further, and students wishing to take a second degree in a subject associated with their own may do so. Should an engineer wish to take a degree in economics, the Department will make provision for that also. But when it comes to a fourth year at a university taken as a postgraduate year of study (rather than research), where the student is going to emerge not with Ph.D. but with a diploma for post-graduate specialisation or an M.Sc., there is no routine provision in the educational scheme of this country to cover it.
One may argue about what is the best way for technologists to learn. One school of thought says, for example, that the best way to teach glass technology is to set up a degree course in glass technology and to let a man study it for three years. That is a reasonable argument. Another argument is that the best way to become a glass technologist is to take a degree in physics, chemistry or engineering first and then take a postgraduate course, at Sheffield say, in glass technology. I believe that the universities should be freer than they are to turn out these two alternative types, in order that industry may have a chance to decide which of the two it prefers to employ. At the moment, industry is not being given an adequate selection of alternative types to employ because there are no means of producing one of these types. I believe that the point made by the noble Lord,

265
Lord Rochdale, is a very important one and merits the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
6.58 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, after so comprehensive a debate I think we may agree that there is little to add, but it gives me an opportunity on behalf of the House of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, for introducing this debate and for putting before your Lordship and outlining this important Report. It also gives me an opportunity of thanking the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for his speech. Because the noble Lord is so busy we seldom see him here, but is part of the strength of this House that we are able on occasions to call up noble Lords to make contributions of the type he has just made to our debates.
We are all fully agreed on the fundamental point: the vital importance—I use the word "vital" consciously and advisedly—of this subject. I was particularly glad, as noble Lords must have been, that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Waverley, both mentioned the quality of the work done in this field. A great deal has been said about the quantity, possibly the inadequate quantity, but we are, I believe, all agreed about the quality of the work done in our research institutes, and your Lordships would be sorry to close this debate without paying a tribute from the whole of this House to the work that is being done in our great research institutions. Noble Lords have had the policy of Her Majesty's Government laid before them quite clearly and definitely by our Leader. We know it does not give my noble friend, Lord Cherwell, what he wants, but I think the Lord President made it clear—and doubtless Lord Cherwell would be the first to agree—that we are discussing not a matter of mechanics but a question of principle. The principle favoured by Her Majesty's Government is embodied in the words used by one noble Lord when he spoke of our need of "educated technologists." If, as we all want, the technologist or technician is to be able to go to the top, it is vital that he should be a really educated man.
I speak with, perhaps, some Departmental pride here. Lord Silkin mentioned
266
that in his view the technician was too often suppressed in the Government machine. I have, during the last month, appointed, as Deputy-Director-General in an administrative capacity at the Post Office, one who is well known in the field of electronic research. He has been our chief engineer, and has been in charge of Dollis Hill Research Station. I am not going to discuss that subject; we have discussed it at great length already. I will say only this—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, will agree with me—that it is perhaps a pity to dispute what is a comparative detail on a day when an announcement of the character of the one which we have heard from the noble Marquess has been made.
This is a very important day in the history of research in this country, and the fact that not only are we able to speak to-day of the immensely increased assistance from the Government for research work, but also we have had contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Baillieu and Lord Rochdale, about the ever-increasing interest that is being taken by industry in this research, must make us feel that we shall be able to go ahead with these new developments, if not in complete agreement about all the mechanical details, at least with good will and encouragement from all sides. Once again, on behalf of all your Lordships, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, for introducing this subject and for the manner in which he has done so.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, I rise to express the thanks, if I may, of all who served on that Committee for the discussion to-day, especially as it has synchronised with the making—after many postponements—of that very important statement in another place. I hope I shall live long enough to see the noble Marquess the Lord President go down to Harwell to open it as the first regional technical college for atomic energy. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

KENT WATER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the examiners.
House adjourned at four minutes past seven o'clock.