Sitting of 26 July 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o 'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir Herbert Geraint Williams, Baronet, Member for Croydon, East, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Baronet.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
BEIT TRUST BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered.
Amendments made to the Bill.
Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

PRIVATE BILLS
Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) suspended until the Summer Adjournment:
As regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments to be considered at the next Sitting of the House after the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords. When Amendments thereto are intended to be proposed by the Promoters, a copy of such Amendments to be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and Notice thereof given not later than the day before that on which the Amendments made by the House of Lords are proposed to be taken into consideration.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  MINISTRY OF MATERIALS (TRADING LOSS)
  Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of State, Board of Trade, as representing the Minister of Materials, what loss has been incurred by the trading operations of the Ministry of Materials, from the date of its inauguration during 1951, to the latest convenient date.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The trading loss up to 31st March last was approximately £55 million.
  Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is the end of the story of these dismal and improvident losses or are there further terminal losses yet to be incurred? May I also ask him to give the House an assurance that there will be no further adventures of this kind in State trading in commodities?
  Mr. Amory: As far as the first part of the supplementary question is concerned, this provides for the situation until 31st March last. There may well be some further loss resulting from the terminal clearing up. As regards the second part of the question, I think we should let the future unfold.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is improper for the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to make this attack upon State trading without asking questions which would reveal that State trading makes a profit? For instance, is it not true that the Ministry of Food is making a quarter of a million pounds a week profit from selling Danish bacon?
  Mr. Amory: I do not think I will say anything which would result in my hon. Friend asking still more questions.

  HOUSING ACTIONS (FREE LEGAL AID)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Attorney-General whether he is now in a position to give information concerning the Government's proposals to extend the Free Legal Aid Scheme to cover cases arising from actions taken under the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill; and whether he will make a statement.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): No, Sir.
  Mr. Lewis: As there are many poor people, particularly old-age pensioners, who still find great difficulty in getting legal assistance, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least promise to help them to get legal aid so that they can contest the provisions of the pernicious Housing Repairs and Rents Bill?
  The Attorney-General: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this point is very much in mind.
  Mr. Lewis: But will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something?
  The Attorney-General: I should like to see this service given as much as the hon. Member would but, as he knows, it is only one of many services for which money is being pressed for at the moment, and the question of priority has to be considered.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Does the Attorney-General's original answer mean that the Government have decided not to introduce the Free Legal Aid Scheme in time to benefit the thousands of poor persons who want advice about the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill?
  The Attorney-General: My answer meant what it said, No, Sir.

  FATHER INGRAM (NEWSPAPER COMMENTS)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Attorney-General if he is aware that, before the expiration of the necessary time for appeal in the case of the sentenced Father Ingram, the "Sunday Pictorial" and the "Daily Mirror" passed adverse comment and opinions concerning Father Ingram, on matters not mentioned in the trial; and, as this will prejudice this man's appeal, what action he proposes to take.
  The Attorney-General: I have considered the newspaper articles referred to in the hon. Member's Question. On the information at present available to me I do not propose to take any action.
  Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Government and the Attorney-General for that reply, and appreciating that the newspapers originally did a public service, may I ask whether, though the Attorney-General may not be able to take legal action against them, newspapers should not be advised not to pass adverse comment and attack individuals pending the time of their appeal, so as to allow people proper opportunity to go through the Court of Appeal?
  The Attorney-General: This is a matter on which the House can express its own view without any assistance from

  5
  me. I was dealing only with the legal aspect of the matter, and at the moment I am not in a position to take any action.

  IRISH COMPANIES (REAL ESTATE OWNERSHIP)
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Attorney-General what further action he proposes to take arising from a recent judgment that companies registered in Eire cannot legally own real estate in Great Britain without a licence from the Crown.
  The Attorney-General: The implications of this judgment are being studied. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Attorney-General aware that when the Crown takes over all the properties in Brixton and elsewhere which are illegally owned by these Irish companies, it will go a long way towards smashing the Eire property racket, operated in the name of D. Brady? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 16th June occupiers of these properties are no longer liable for any payment whatever to these Irish companies?
  The Attorney-General: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must himself give them advice if he thinks that desirable. I am waiting until I have had a full study of the matter.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Night Shift Workers (Payment of Benefits)
    Mr. W. Wellsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will make arrangements with the British Transport Commission to ensure that his Department's selection of the excluded day for purposes of National Insurance benefit shall coincide with the British Transport Commission's calculation of the first day on which the employee was absent from work.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): I assume that the hon. Member has night shift workers in mind. I am satisfied that the
    6
    present regulations governing the payment of National Insurance benefits to such workers are fair and reasonable. In any case, it would not be practicable to make different arrangements for different industries.
    Mr. Wells: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the consequence of that answer is that in a number of cases, including one from my own constituency of which I have sent him particulars, a worker must go two days without either pay or benefit? Would it not be appropriate that employers, particularly in nationalised industry, should be asked to follow the Ministry's own simple rule that the last day on which a man or woman works should be the day in respect of which he or she receives pay?
    Mr. Peake: I am glad that the hon. Member accepts that it would be impracticable for me to alter my practice in order to adapt my regulations to conditions in a particular industry. Conditions in a particular industry are not matters for me, but should be settled by the parties directly concerned.

    Old-Age Pensioners
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that, since decontrol of meat, prices have risen to such a high degree as to make choice cuts of meat beyond the purchasing power of old-age pensioners; and whether he will, therefore, increase old-age pensions to compensate them for this loss in the purchasing value of their pensions.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: That is the reply which I expected. The right hon. Gentleman seems quite oblivious of the sufferings of old-age pensioners, particularly with regard to the rapid and excessive rise in the price of meat. Is he aware that this rise means that old-age pensioners cannot afford to buy any decent cuts of meat? Surely the right hon. Gentleman could do something for these old people before the further increases in prices which are expected later this year.
    Mr. Peake: I am told that the cheaper cuts of meat—
    Mr. Lewis: Scrags.
    Mr. Peake: —on which some of the old-age pensioners rely has gone down in price since derationing.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on what dates since 1947 increases have been made in the basic rate of pensions paid to old-age pensioners; on what dates since 1947 increases have been made in the maximum scales of National Assistance; and to what extent his Department are making known to retirement pensioners the facilities and grants provided by the National Assistance Board.
    Mr. Peake: The basic rate of retirement pension was increased for certain pensioners in September, 1951. In September, 1952, an increase was made for all retirement pensioners. The scales of assistance were increased in July, 1948, when the National Assistance scheme was introduced, and again in June, 1950, September, 1951, and June, 1952.
    As regards the last part of the Question, the pension order book gives information about National Assistance and explanatory leaflets and application forms are readily available at local offices of my Ministry, in post offices and elsewhere.
    Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. Friend think that the information in the first part of the answer is generally known to the public, including the editors of most newspapers? Could he also tell us in what circumstances his officers are authorised to advise pensioners to apply to the National Assistance Board if it is apparent that their means would entitle them to assistance?
    Mr. Peake: I can only say that anybody who appears to be entitled to assistance is advised to apply for it. The trouble is much more reluctance to apply for assistance than ignorance of the facilities which exist.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: In view of the obvious reluctance on the part of a large number of very deserving old-age pensioners to apply for assistance from the National Assistance Board, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, during the Recess, whether a change in title from National Assistance Board to something which is less suggestive of assistance might be worth while, so as to remove from these old people doubts about making an application?
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. As I have said before, it would be a mistake to forfeit the large amount of good will which has been built up by the National Assistance Board.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) the number of old-age pensioners in receipt of supplementation from the National Assistance Board in June, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1953 and 1954, respectively;
    (2) the average weekly rate of supplementation received by old-age pensioners during the years 1948, 1950, 1952, 1953 and 1954, respectively.
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) the number of old-age pensioners in Wales, and the number in receipt of supplementation from the National Assistance Board for July, 1948, and the month of June in 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954;
    (2) the average weekly rate of supplementation to old-age pensioners in Wales for the years 1948 to 1953 inclusive, and the latest convenient week in 1954.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) the number of retirement pensioners in Scotland receiving a supplementary allowance from the National Assistance Board in June, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954, respectively;
    (2) the average weekly rate of supplementation received from the National Assistance Board by retirement pensioners during the years 1948 to 1954, inclusive.
    Mr. Peake: As the replies contain a number of figures, I am arranging to circulate them in a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Is it right that the Minister should say he will answer en bloc all Questions that entail a column of figures when those Questions deal with different subjects? The Questions asked by my hon. Friends deal with England and Wales, but my Question deals specifically with Scotland and an entirely different set of figures. I do not think it is fair for the Minister to give an answer of that kind.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order. The Minister said that he would publish a table of figures which included the answer to the Question of the hon. Member and I see nothing wrong with that.

    NATIONAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

    —

    Number in Payment (thousands)

    Average Weekly Rate

    Great Britain

    Scotland

    Wales

    Great Britain

    Wales

    To Old-Age Pensioner Households

    To Retirement Pensioner Households

    To Old-Age Pensioner Households

    Old-Age Pensioner Households

    Retirement Pensioner Households

    Old-Age Pensioner Households

    1948

    …

    …

    510

    28

    35

    Not available

    1949

    …

    …

    621

    38

    45

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    1950

    …

    …

    700

    45

    51

    11

    8

    11

    5

    11

    2

    1951

    …

    …

    831

    55

    59

    11

    10

    11

    1

    11

    1

    1952

    …

    …

    927

    61

    67

    14

    9

    14

    1

    14

    5

    1953

    …

    …

    1,051

    70

    74

    14

    11

    14

    3

    14

    9

    1954

    …

    …

    1,131

    77

    78

    Not yet available

    Note

    (1) "Old-Age Pensioner" includes retirement pensioner and non-contributory old age pensioner

    (2) The number national assistance grants in payment is for a date in July, 1948, and for a date in June in later years.

    (3) The average weekly rate of National Assistance grant is an estimate based on a sample taken in the Autumn of each year

    (4) The number of old-age pensioners in wales in each year was about 250,000.

    Mr. Keenanasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) how many old-age pensioners in Liverpool are receiving supplementary grants from the National Assistance Board to the latest date;
    (2) how many old-age pensioners in Liverpool are receiving contributory pensions and how many are receiving noncontributory pensions to the latest date.
    Mr. Peake: The number of retirement pensioners in Liverpool is not known. The National Assistance Board tell me that many of their Liverpool offices cover areas outside the city. They estimate, however, that at the end of June there were in the city about 3,650 non-contributory pensioners and about 18,000 cases in which assistance was supplementing retirement or non-contributory pensions. Some of the latter include the needs of more than one pensioner.
    Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that the first part of the answer indicates that the National Assistance Board offices
    Mr. Ross: It is an entirely different table of figures, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: That may be so, but the answer may include the figures for which the hon. Member asked.
    Following are the figures:
    must be fewer in number than they ought to be if they have to cover areas greater than that of Liverpool? Is he aware that it is surprising that he cannot give fuller information and that that indicates that the concern of National Assistance officers is such that they are not aware of the picture of the poverty of old-age pensioners which is being constantly brought to the notice of the Department in this House?
    Mr. Peake: The hon. Member will recognise that the records of retirement pensioners are kept centrally at Newcastle and do not take account of municipal or constituency boundaries. There are four National Assistance offices inside the city of Liverpool and five offices outside it which deal with cases partly from inside the city and partly from outside.
    Mr. Keenan: Will the Minister look at the matter again? Is he aware that these arrangements largely concern elderly people, that one office covers nearly two

    11
    constituencies and that considerable travelling distances are involved for those who have to attend at them?
    Mr. Peake: I will certainly ask the Assistance Board to have a look at the matter.

    Consolidating Regulations (Publication)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when the proposed pamphlet consolidating regulations governing contributions and benefits under the National Insurance and Family Allowances Acts will be available.
    Mr. Peake: I have come to the conclusion that it would be advisable to defer publication for the time being.
    Mr. Davies: Has the Minister finally made up his mind? Is he aware that over two years ago he informed me that he would publish such a comprehensive pamphlet, which would be most helpful not only to hon. Members but to the public generally? Is he aware that it is very difficult when one has to go through all the pamphlets to obtain relevant information?
    Mr. Peake: I quite appreciate that a revised edition of the general guide would be useful, but in view of the changes which are now coming along I think that it would be better to postpone publication until those changes are made.
    Mr. Davies: Would the Minister undertake that as soon as the changes take place he will speedily produce a comprehensive code?
    Mr. Peake: I think I can give that undertaking.

    War Pensioners (Comforts Allowance)
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will take immediate steps, by a more generous interpretation of the comforts allowance, to compensate war pensioners of the 1914–18 war for disability and lack of mobility aggravated as a result of increasing age.
    Mr. Peake: I am satisfied that the provisions laid down in the Royal Warrant
    12
    for the award of this allowance are interpreted generously. If the hon. Member has in mind any individual case I shall be happy to look into it if he will send me particulars.
    Mr. Simmons: Does the Minister realise that I suggest this only as one of the reasons of dealing with this problem of the ageing war pensioners? Has he any alternative suggestions for securing that objective?
    Mr. Peake: I know that the hon. Member was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry when this comforts allowance was first introduced. I should like to pay my tribute to the useful purpose which it has served; but I think we shall have to look for other and better ways of helping the larger number of pensioners whose cases I am considering, as I indicated in the debate on Wednesday of last week.

    Limbless Ex-Service Men (Allowances)
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, in view of the fact that, of the 23,740 limbless survivors of the 1914–18 war, only 2,156 are in receipt of any of the supplementary allowances, he will have a review of their position made with a view to alleviating their position as soon as possible.
    Mr. Peake: We can, I think, be glad that the number of 1914 war limbless pensioners in the categories calling for supplementary allowances is comparatively few. I am satisfied that the conditions governing payment of these allowances are generously applied.
    Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that it is a very small percentage of the total number of 1914–18 men who are receiving any supplementary assistance? Will he see that they are all receiving what they ought to be receiving?
    Mr. Peake: On two occasions in recent years leaflets have been circulated to all pensioners to inquire whether they are quite sure that they are getting all the allowances to which they are entitled. I shall certainly consider a further circulation of that sort at the appropriate moment.
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will investigate the effect on the paired limb of wearing an artificial limb from the purely physical, rather than medical aspect, by means of an immediate and swift examination of 25 per cent. of 1914–18 limbless war pensioners.
    Mr. Peake: As the hon. Member knows, about 4,500 limbless pensioners of the 1914 war have recently been examined in connection with the investigations of the Rock Carling Committee and I think we had better wait and see what that Committee reports before making up our minds on this point.
    Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that we are concerned, not with the foibles of the medical profession, but with the facts about these aged limbless men? The suggestion in my Question does not mean a medical examination but an examination, say, by the welfare staff of the Department, to see what the physical effect of the wearing of an artificial limb is rather than the medical effect, which can mean anything according to the interpretation of the medical officer.
    Mr. Peake: I am not quite sure what is the distinction the hon. Member draws between a medical and a physical effect, but I am sure that the investigation by the Rock Carling Committee will throw light on this point.
    Mr. Simmons: The distinction which I draw is that medical men are concerned with medical terms and the physical condition is concerned with whether men are more quickly tired and more easily handicapped by advancing age because of the wearing of an artificial limb. That is a purely physical matter which can be determined by observation by sympathetic observers rather than by medical men, who are purely concerned with medical terms.
    Mr. Peake: I trust that the hon. Member is not suggesting that medical men are not sympathetic.
    Mr. G. Jeger: When does the Minister expect to receive the Report of the Rock Carling Committee?
    Mr. Peake: There is another Question later about that.

    National Assistance Allowances (Disregards)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will introduce legislation to increase the minimum scales of National Assistance allowances and disregards.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to Section 6 of the National Assistance Act.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Minister reconsider that answer in the light of the closely reasoned, factual article that appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" last Friday? Does the Minister agree that the standard of these scales was fixed against one of the darkest backgrounds of British history? In view of rising productivity, does he not think that those who suffer through no fault of their own should have their standards improved?
    Mr. Peake: Section 6 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, places fairly and squarely on the Board the duty from time to time of preparing and submitting to the Minister draft regulations covering the scale of assistance. The Board, on a number of occasions, has shown itself prepared to act under Section 6 without any prompting from me. Therefore, I think we should follow the course laid down by Parliament in 1948.
    Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the disregards are the subject of examination by the Phillips Committee, bearing in mind that they are concerned with financial provision for the aged?
    Mr. Peake: I am not aware that the Phillips Committee is considering disregards for National Assistance purposes.
    Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend kindly ask the Phillips Committee to consider them? Is he aware that in my opinion it is most important that this aspect of provision for the aged, which involves thrift and saving, should be considered by the Phillips Committee?
    Mr. Peake: All I said was that I was not aware that the Phillips Committee was considering the matter. I cannot say, however, that it is not considering this matter. It certainly is not for me to

    15
    dictate to that Committee what it should or should not consider within its terms of reference.
    Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that the scales of National Assistance for two people are 5s. higher than for a contributory pensioner? The time is long overdue when he should have a look at that.

    Married Persons (Pension Rate)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he has considered the desirability of granting the same old-age pension to each married person as to single persons, widows or widowers, or of reducing the difference between that paid to the former and to the latter.
    Mr. Peake: Where a husband and wife are both insured they will each be granted a pension at the single person's rate. I see no reason for providing similar treatment where the wife relies on her husband's insurance.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware of the anomaly of two people living in two separate rooms, in the same household, or, indeed, actually cohabiting, each receiving a pension and, therefore, receiving an aggregate income, by pension, much larger than if they were married?
    Mr. Peake: That may well be so, where each has been a contributor to the Insurance Fund.

    Old People (Coal Supplies)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will consider making a winter-time allowance for old-age pensioners for the purchase of coal, beyond any increase that may be made in the pension.
    Mr. Peake: I have no power to make such an allowance.
    Mr. Sorensen: As the Minister has power to make an allowance for the purchase of tobacco, could be not secure power to make this very necessary grant?
    Mr. Peake: No, I can assure the hon. Member that it is quite beyond my power to interfere in that way with the working of the National Assistance Board. There
    16
    used to be a special winter-time allowance for fuel which was abolished by general consent in 1944 because it was found to be unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Bottomley: As old-age pensioners find it impossible to lay in stocks of coal during the summer, could not the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Fuel and Power to ensure that stocks are put aside especially for them?
    Mr. Peake: That is not a question for me.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he has yet considered the comments of the National Council of Social Service in their recent report on the difficulties about the coal supplies of people over 70 years of age; and if he will discuss with the appropriate authorities before the winter the problems involved with a view to finding a solution.
    Mr. Peake: I have not yet had an opportunity of examining this report which, I gather, was only published on 23rd July.
    Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, by the time the House reassembles after the Recess, he will have studied this report? May I take it that then, as heating fuel of all kinds is most important to old people, he will, after he has read the report, consider the proposals which it makes and ensure that action is taken? If I put down a Question by the time we return, will my right hon. Friend have an answer for me?
    Mr. Peake: I will certainly take an opportunity of reading this excellent report during the summer Recess—[An HON. MEMBER: "Excellent?"] I gathered from Press reports that it was well worthy of careful consideration—but I hope that I shall not come to a conclusion on it quite as quickly as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward).
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: In view of the fact that some of these people will be limbless ex-Service men, could the Minister tell us when he hopes to have the report of the Rock Carling Committee?
    Mr. Peake: I think I should be right in saying that I hope to receive this report before many months have gone by.

    Widow's Benefits (Disregarded Earnings)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what decision has been reached on the question of increasing the amount that may be earned by a widow without this affecting the drawing of a full widow's pension.
    Mr. Peake: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on 12th July, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister realise that that does not really alter the grievance that there are widows to whom it is a burden and an anomaly that they cannot earn more than a certain amount without affecting their pension; and that they might be encouraged to work more and longer if they had a better allowance in respect of earnings?
    Mr. Peake: As the answer to which I referred made clear, this is one of the matters which I have referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee.

  COAL

    Supplies, Slough
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will take steps to improve the supply of coal to Slough.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): If the hon. Member would let me have particulars of any supply difficulties, I will gladly make inquiries.
    Mr. Brockway: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is a two-month delay in deliveries in Slough; that delivery men are having to take up another job; that orders for summer supplies cannot be met; and what are to be the prospects for the winter?
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am not aware of these facts. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars, I will gladly look into them.

    Industrial Supplies
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent industry is obtaining coal below the cost of production.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The costs of production vary between different pits and coalfields but, taken as a whole, the prices charged by the National Coal Board for industrial and other coals are designed to cover the average costs of production.
    Mr. Russell: Can my hon. Friend give us any idea, if necessary, in general terms, whether British industry is obtaining its coal cheaper than its foreign competitors are doing?
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: No; I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that some pits are selling coal to industrial undertakings at actually below the cost of production?
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should think that that is very likely, but it is not within the competence of the Ministry to inquire into the internal workings of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Logan: If industry can obtain coal at cost price, is it not possible to establish, in the centre of each of the great cities, a place where the poor and the pensioned can obtain coal at cost price?
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: That is an entirely different question.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was not within the power of the Minister to ascertain the facts that were put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Surely the Minister can ask questions of the Coal Board. Have we reached a stage when the Minister cannot even ask for information from the Coal Board?
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My right hon. Friend can certainly ascertain the facts. I said that it was not within his competence to intervene in this matter.

    Imports
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal has been imported since the end of the last coal winter to the latest convenient date; how much of these imports have been house-coal; how much more imported house-coal he expects to arrive before 31st December, 1954; and whether he is satisfied that all these imports when

    19
    added to indigenous supplies will be sufficient to avert a shortage during the forthcoming winter.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: A quarter of a million tons, all of which, apart from screening losses, represents a direct or indirect addition to house coal supplies. I cannot say how much more will arrive this year, but the object of the steps being taken by my right hon. Friend is to safeguard supplies for next winter.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does that reply mean that the winter prospects for house coal are now a good deal brighter than when the rather guarded statement was made six weeks ago?
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I think that it is a matter of degree.

    Price Increases (Protest)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what representations he has received protesting against the inequitable price increases applied to house coal, as compared with the then current prices for industrial coal at the time of the last increases in house coal prices; and what factors he had regard to when sanctioning the last house coal price increase in the spring of 1954.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: A protest was lodged by the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council. The basic factor in the price of a particular coal is its quality but the increases on 3rd May took account of other factors, including the relative scarcity of large coals. There was no discrimination against house coals for which the average price increases were about the same as those for comparable supplies to industrial and other consumers.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the complaint is now widespread from domestic consumers and their organisations that a disproportionately large amount was added to the cost of house coal, and that industrial coal did not so suffer? To allay these anxieties, will my hon. Friend undertake to publish a schedule of comparative statistics showing that the increases in the price of coal were, indeed, equitably distributed between industry and domestic consumers?
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I think I can reassure my hon. Friend, so long as he is
    20
    dealing with comparable coals. In the case of the main users of large coal the price for household coal was raised by 4s. 4d., for railways by 4s. 4½d. a ton and for coastal and trawler bunkers by 4s. 8d. a ton.

  EGYPT

    Spanish Arms (Imports)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Spanish Government to his protest against the export of arms to Egypt by Spain.
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the supply of arms to Egypt by Spain, and the representations which he has made to the Spanish Government on this subject.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): In response to representations on this subject by Her Majesty's Government, the Spanish Foreign Minister gave an assurance to Her Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid on 21st June that the Spanish Government had decided, in view of the present disturbed international situation, to prohibit the export from Spain of all arms and munitions unless destined for N.A.T.O. countries.
    Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any arms have actually been sent by Spain to Egypt, and if so, as there are reports that they have been, does he not consider that the lifting of the ban on the export of arms to Spain was a mistake? Does it not show that every time a concession is made to Franco, he abuses the situation?
    Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be gratified by this assurance. So far as reports are concerned that munitions of war have been sent to Egypt, we recently received information that a large shipment of Spanish arms was about to be made, and the Ambassador has accordingly reminded the Spanish Foreign Minister of this assurance. So far, we have no information that this shipment has gone.
    Mr. Jeger: While we are very pleased with the action taken and with the results that have been achieved, does it not show, by the tardiness of the action that has

    21
    been taken—Spain has said that in view of the disturbed relations at the moment she has banned this export of arms, but have not the disturbed relations been in existence for a long time; have not our men been killed in Egypt, possibly with some of these arms?—that Spain is most unreliable and untrustworthy as a friend or ally? Would not the hon. Gentleman make representations to our American friends on these lines?

    Suez Canal (Neutral Zone)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will discuss with the Egyptian Government the establishment of a neutral zone in the Suez Canal area, in view of the Commonwealth support for this proposal.
    Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any such suggestion by any Commonwealth Government.
    Mr. Teeling: Although this may not have been an official suggestion from Commonwealth Governments, is my hon. Friend aware that there was strong feeling in the Commonwealth that this solution, similar to that reached by the United States over Panama in 1903, might he a very useful one? Is he aware that if we had a separate nation there—a neutral nation, probably with an Arab prince as ruler—it would make for a much safer situation and command considerable support from the members of the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Nutting: We can deal only with the views which have been expressed by Commonwealth Governments, and, as I have informed my hon. Friend, in this case no Commonwealth Government has made any such suggestion.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the methods whereby the United States obtained control over the Panama region have not always been universally admired, and that there are many hon. Members who would not wish Her Majesty's Government to adopt the same methods with Egypt?

    Strategic Action (Commonwealth Consultation)
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that the final passage of the statement on seeking the
    22
    direct agreement of Commonwealth Governments on occasions of the highest strategical importance, made by the Prime Minister on 8th May, 1946, remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 8th May, 1946, should be read as a whole. That statement continues to represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Maitland: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether that applies to the final part of the text and, therefore, whether we have sought and obtained direct agreement with the Commonwealth Governments before taking action in regard to the proposal now before Egypt to withdraw all our forces?
    Mr. Eden: I think my hon. Friend has been informed that the Commonwealth Governments have been kept most fully and closely informed at every stage of these long negotiations, which have now extended over a period of years. That is our usual method of dealing with these matters. If any Commonwealth Government has any point it wishes to raise at any time it is fully within its power to do so; but it must speak for its policy. We cannot speak for its policy here.

    MEDICAL FACILITIES, EUROPE (CONVENTION)
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the case of a British subject, Mrs. Mary Mason, who was recently compelled to return to the United Kingdom from Belgium in circumstances liable to endanger her health, owing to her inability to pay hospital charges in Belgium; if he is aware that the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance is intended to cover such cases and that the delay in ratifying it is causing similar hardships to other British subjects; and when Her Majesty's Government propose to ratify the convention.
    Mr. Stewardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will now ratify the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance.
    Mr. Nutting: I have no information about Mrs. Mason's case, but will be glad to look into the matter if the right hon. Gentleman will supply me with the necessary particulars.
    As regards ratification of the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance, the text was laid before Parliament as a White Paper on 1st July. It is the intention of the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention upon the expiry of the customary period.
    Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the case to which I refer is that of a British subject who felt herself compelled to return to this country from Belgium in a state of health in which she was not fit to travel because she was being required to pay £6 a day in a Belgian hospital? In view of the great generosity shown to foreigners under our Health Service, does not the hon. Gentleman think that we ought to get some reciprocity at least from our allies in the Council of Europe and the signatories to the Brussels Treaty?
    Mr. Nutting: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to reciprocity I must inform him that we can only ask that the Belgians, and other signatory Powers to the Convention to which I have referred, should provide for British subjects the same facilities which they provide for their own people. If they do not have a national health service such as we have, we cannot insist that such benefits should be provided.
    Mr. Younger: Would it not be correct to say that all Western European countries make provision, at any rate for emergency medical attention, for people who have not the means to pay?
    Mr. Nutting: I will look into the case which the right hon. Gentleman has sent to me. It is possible that Mrs. Mason's case may be covered by the Brussels Convention, but as that deals only with lawful residents in the country, and if she was a tourist, I doubt it.

    SOUTH-EAST ASIAN SECURITY (STUDY GROUP)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the discussions of the Anglo-United States study
    24
    group on a South-East Asian security organisation have been discontinued.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what conclusion the Anglo-American study group on South-East Asian defence has arrived.
    Mr. Eden: The report of the Anglo-American Study Group is confidential to Governments. I am not, therefore, able to make any statement upon its conclusions. The discussions were discontinued because the Study Group had completed its studies.
    Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the members of the Study Group were in agreement and submitted an agreed report to their respective Governments? Can he further say whether, arising out of these discussions, Her Majesty's Government are planning to enter into any fresh commitments when the House is in Recess?
    Mr. Eden: I can only say that we were satisfied with the result of the work of the Study Group, and that the commitments of Her Majesty's Government are those which have been already stated publicly in this House.
    Mr. Wyatt: Can the Foreign Secretary at least say whether or not our American friends had a better understanding of what was meant by the Locarno Pact at the end of the activities of the Study Group than at the beginning?
    Mr. Eden: I am confident that the growth of understanding was mutual.

    GERMANY (DR. OTTO JOHN)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has concerning the disappearance in Berlin of Dr. Otto John, head of the German Office for Security of the German Constitution; and how far requests for diplomatic assistance have been made of the British representative in Germany by the German Federal Government.
    Mr. Eden: Dr. Otto John left the hotel in West Berlin where he was staying on the evening of 20th July and went to the East Zone of Berlin. A statement purporting to have been recorded by him

    25
    on 20th July was broadcast by the East German wireless on the evening of 24th July. The full facts are still not established and, in particular, the circumstances in which the broadcast was made are unknown.
    The German Federal authorities are in touch with the Allied High Commission on the question of an approach to the Soviet authorities.
    Mr. Bellenger: As it is stated in certain quarters in Germany that the appointment of Dr. John was apparently made on the recommendation of the United Kingdom Government of that time, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any vestige of truth in that allegation?
    Mr. Eden: The appointment was, and is, a matter for the German authority although all three Western allies were, naturally, consulted at the time of his appointment in 1950; and the three Western allies raised no objection in view of his excellent anti-Nazi record.
    Mr. Bowles: Does the Foreign Secretary believe that there is any truth in the statement that Dr. John left West Germany because of the rise in power of the Nazis there now?
    Mr. Eden: I find it impossible to comment on the information we have now got, and I should like to ask the House to show some restraint in this matter in these circumstances. A statement is being made this afternoon by the German Minister of the Interior, and in view of the responsibility which rests with him, I hope that the House will not wish to put any more questions until we hear what he has to say.

    UNITED NATIONS (CHINESE REPRESENTATION)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the satisfactory settlement at the Geneva Conference, Her Majesty's Government will now support the application of the People's Government of China for membership of the United Nations at the next General Assembly of the United Nations organisation.
    Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's statement of 12th July, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Beswick: Is it not the fact that since then we have had the outcome of the Geneva conference'? Is it not a fact that on a number of occasions spokesmen for Her Majesty's Government have said that the outcome of the discussions at the conference about Indo-China would be the ultimate test of the suitability of China for membership of the United Nations? If Geneva is to be the test of the suitability of membership, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not China who comes out of the test in any unfavourable light?
    Mr. Eden: It is true, fortunately, that there has been agreement reached at Geneva; and if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look at the statement of the Prime Minister he will see that that is covered, and so are some other points.

    EUROPEAN SECURITY (SOVIET NOTE)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals have recently been received from the Soviet Government for further big Power talks.
    Mr. Eden: As the House will be aware, on 24th July the Soviet Government addressed Notes to Her Majesty's Government and to the United States and French Governments, proposing a conference of all European States and the United States of America to consider the Soviet proposals put forward some months ago for collective security in Europe. It is also proposed that the Chinese People's Republic should send an observer to this conference.
    Her Majesty's Government will wish to consult the United States and French Governments as well as the other interested Governments, including their partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, about the reply to be sent to the Soviet Note.
    Mr. Attlee: In a matter of this kind, is it not most desirable that all the allies should consult together before sending a reply? Further, as this is a very long document, would it be the policy of Her Majesty's Government to examine it with great care to see whether there is in it any basis, or something new, on which there could be a "get together"? It

    27
    has been suggested that this Note is merely a repetition of Berlin, but I hope that the very closest examination will be made of it before it is turned down out of hand.
    Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that that is why my answer is so reserved. We want to make the most careful examination of the Soviet proposals. I should prefer not to make any hasty judgment upon it, whatever conclusions may form themselves automatically when one reads some of the paragraphs. I assure the House that we shall consult all our colleagues, particularly the N.A.T.O. Powers, before a reply is sent.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House hope that he will be as successful in this instance as he was at Geneva?

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Livestock (Slaughtering)
    Mr. Boyleasked the Minister of Food how many cattle, sheep, lambs and pigs were purchased for slaughter in the week ended 17th July.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): My Department can provide figures only of animals accepted for guarantee payments. The figures for the week ended 18th July are not yet complete, but the provisional figure of certifications in Great Britain for the week ended 11th July are 36,600 cattle, 148,100 sheep and lambs and 139,000 pigs.
    Mr. Boyle: Can the hon. Gentleman say how this compares with the last week of control and purchase by the Ministry?
    Dr. Hill: The appropriate week is the corresponding week last year. There is a very substantial increase over that week.

    Cattle (Deficiency Payments)
    Mr. Royleasked the Minister of Food if he will state, to the latest possible date, the amount which is due for deficiency payments in respect of cattle.
    Dr. Hill: About £119,000 up to 11th July, which is the latest date for which an estimate can be made.
    Mr. Royle: Is that for two weeks?
    Dr. Hill: It is to 11th July, which means one week.

    North American Fruits
    Commander Donaldsonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that continued refusal to restore the traditional imports into this country of North American apples and pears may lead to a readjustment of production which will deprive British consumers of this class of fruit for which, in the past, they have shown appreciation, and which provides an essential addition to the supplies available from home-grown sources; and when he anticipates it will be possible for him to indicate what policy will be followed in the forthcoming winter.
    Dr. Hill: It is hoped that the fears of my hon. and gallant Friend will prove unfounded. Unfortunately there are many competitors for our limited dollar resources and it is not yet possible to anticipate the answer to the last part of the Question.
    Commander Donaldson: Is my hon. Friend sympathetic towards the importation of fruits from Canada and the United States if dollars are available? There is a demand in the winter time by the public for such fruits and this will not be detrimental to fruit growing interests in Great Britain?
    Dr. Hill: It is essentially a matter of dollar resources. My hon. and gallant Friend should address his Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that ample supplies of fruit are available not only from internal sources but also from Europe and Commonwealth countries, and that there is no need to waste dollars when we can get the goods elsewhere?
    Dr. Hill: I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but the case for the importation of this fruit is that it arrives in the early months of the year when supplies of dessert fruit are not particularly good.

    New Zealand and Danish Butter
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement regarding supplies of butter from New Zealand and Denmark.
    Dr. Hill: The long-term contract for the purchase of butter from New Zealand, was originally due to expire on the 31st July, 1955, but will now be terminated, by mutual agreement, on the 31st July, 1954. The Danish contract is not due to expire until September, 1955, but discussions about the final year will take place shortly.
    Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a good deal of criticism in New Zealand because his Department has been making a profit on New Zealand butter? Is not this most unfortunate? Will he do what he can to ensure that it does not affect future supplies?
    Dr. Hill: The termination of the arrangement a year earlier than was originally intended is by mutual agreement between the New Zealand Commission and ourselves.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is that termination one of the reasons why the Ministry is now buying some ancient butter from the United States?
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir. We have assured the New Zealand Commission that we shall not import butter from other than our normal suppliers except to the extent of the shortfall on New Zealand butter this year, which will be some 20,000 tons below the expected figure.
    Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman inform himself about New Zealand opinion?

    Slaughterhouses
    Mr. Wileyasked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement about the future use of the Government-built slaughterhouses at Grimsby and Wimborne.
    Dr. Hill: No decision has yet been reached. The question whether they should be purchased by the local authorities is still the subject of negotiation. In the meantime and as a temporary measure the Department is operating these premises as a public service.
    Mr. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary do what he can to expedite a settlement? I am sure he will agree that the sooner a settlement is reached the better.
    Dr. Hill: We are very anxious to reach a settlement, and we hope to know one way or the other in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Food when he proposes to publish new model byelaws about slaughterhouses.
    Dr. Hill: Within about three months.

    MINISTER OF SUPPLY (U.S.A. VISIT)
    Mr. G. R. Straussasked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement about the scope and outcome of his discussions with United States defence authorities during his recent visit.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Supply (1) what information we are supplied with by the United States on their development of guided missiles;
    (2) what are the terms of the agreement with the United States of America with regard to guided missiles.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): My right hon. Friend proposes to make a statement on this subject later this week and I hope the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will be willing to await that statement.

  SCOTLAND

    Private Houses (Subsidy)
    Mr, G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the houses built for private ownership during 1953 received a subsidy.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): Of the 2,610 houses completed in Scotland in 1953 for private ownership, 295 qualified for financial assistance. All were for persons connected with agriculture.

    French and Dutch Carrots
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that recent importations of French and Dutch carrots are making it impossible for Scottish carrot growers to sell their produce; and whether he will take action.
    Mr. J. Stuart: My information does not bear out my hon. and gallant Friend's

    31
    contention. I understand that supplies of French carrots are no longer available in Scotland, and that supplies of Dutch carrots are very limited. Scottish carrots were selling at the same price as French supplies, but few Scottish carrots are as yet in the market.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: May we take it from that satisfactory reply that the position is now all right?
    Mr. Stuart: It is all right now.

    SEWERAGE SCHEME, LODDINGTON
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that parts of Loddington, Northamptonshire, are distinctly malodorous for lack of proper sewage disposal arrangements; and whether he will now authorise a starting date for the small scheme submitted in August, 1950, by the Kettering Rural District Council, which he has approved in principle.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): My right hon. Friend appreciates the need for this scheme, but he cannot authorise an early starting date. There are many other areas where the need is as great or greater.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend consider not necessarily an early starting date but some starting date? The village continues to smell worse every year.
    Mr. Marples: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is sorry that there is a smell in the village, but I wrote to the hon. and learned Gentleman on 7th July saying that the scheme would be reviewed in a few months' time in connection with next year's programme.

    SUB-POST OFFICE, AUCHTERHOUSE
    Captain Duncanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when a new sub-postmaster will be appointed at Auchterhouse, Angus, as the lack of one causes inconvenience to this scattered rural community, particularly pensioners.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): There is now a good prospect that a suitable candidate will be forthcoming and, if so, the sub-office will be reopened without delay. Meanwhile, special arrangements have been made for paying old-age pensions in the district.

    ARMY TRAINING (CONSTRUCTIONAL WORK)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for War in how many cases in 1952 and 1953, respectively, Army units, as an exercise, constructed roads or bridges for local authorities; what was the mileage of roads and the number of bridges so constructed; and what means were taken in 1954 to inform local authorities of the constructional services available to them from Army units.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Royal Engineer units built for local authorities four bridges in 1952 and ten in 1953. They did no road construction for local authorities in these years. Only a few engineer units require training in this type of work and, in view of their other tasks, they are available only at a small number of times and places. No special approach to local authorities has therefore been made.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will name the estates on which roadwork is being done by the 117 Field Engineer Regiment, Territorial Army, in Aberdeenshire; and what payments are being made to his Department for the work being performed.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: The Glen Muick, Balmoral and Invercauld Estates. All materials are being supplied by the estates and there is no cost to the Army over and above normal training expenditure.
    Mr. Thomson: In the light of that answer, will not the hon. Gentleman agree that private estates ought to make a proper payment for the labour of members of the Forces? In the light of the information in his answer to the previous Question, ought he not to ban the use of Army units for work on private estates which results in an increase in the value

    33
    of purely private property when there is so much work to be done on public roads and bridges?
    Mr. Hutchison: I think the hon. Member is confused about the type of work being done. This was virtually only a track. The estates did not ask for the work to be done. It is very doubtful if it has improved the value of the estates at all. If the estates had been asked to pay for the work, it is very doubtful whether they would have given assent to the Army's doing it. The Army wanted training. This was an isolated area where there were no local authority roads anyhow and there was this track on which the Army could learn.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does my hon. Friend agree that all reasonable people with knowledge of training would be most grateful for this opportunity?
    Mr. G. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that there are many isolated farms which would welcome the opportunity of a well-laid track being provided, connecting the farm with the highway, and if I send him a list of some in the Goole area will he get some work done on them?
    Mr. Hutchison: I have already said, in reply to a Question put to me last week, that if there are suitable units—and there are very few of them—and there are suitable tasks for them to do, and it provides useful training, we should be very glad to look into it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make on business?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. It may be convenient for the House to know that the proposed date of meeting after the Summer Recess will be Tuesday, 19th October.
Perhaps I might also state that on Wednesday, at the end of business, we shall ask the House to consider the Lords Amendments to the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle).
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to say definitely that, if any matter of the Bonn Agreement without E.D.C. were to come forward during the Recess, the House will be called together before any decision was come to?
Mr. Crookshank: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give me notice of that question. On the general issue about the recall of the House, I did say on Thursday that a Standing Order now provides for this to be done if necessary.
Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I have raised this matter before, and that I made a special point that it should be considered.

BRITISH AIRLINER, HAINAN (SHOOTING DOWN)
Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the shooting down of a British aircraft off Hainan.
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. On the morning of 23rd July, a passenger aircraft of the British company, Cathay Pacific Airways, crashed into the sea near Hainan island while on a regular scheduled flight from Bangkok to Hong Kong. The aircraft was carrying 18 persons including the crew. After a search in which British and United States aircraft cooperated, nine survivors, including the pilot, were rescued by an amphibious aircraft of the United States Navy and brought to Hong Kong. One of the survivors has since died. The nationalities of all those killed, rescued and missing are being ascertained.
The pilot, who was injured, stated that while flying at 9,000 feet about 30 miles from Hainan his co-pilot drew attention to two low-winged radial-engined fighter aircraft with red markings. These aircraft were on the tail of the passenger aircraft and opened fire apparently with incendiary bullets setting two engines on fire. The pilot of the passenger aircraft took evasive action as the fighter aircraft followed him and continued firing. He landed in the sea at 160 miles per hour.

35
Since the fighter aircraft could clearly only have come from Chinese territory, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Peking was instructed to protest most strongly to the Chinese Government against this wanton attack on a clearly marked British civil aircraft flying on a normal international air route.
We have now been informed by the Chinese Government that they admit responsibility for this attack which, they say, was entirely accidental. They have expressed their sympathy and regret, and say that they are willing to give consideration to the payment of appropriate benefit and compensation for the loss of life and for the damage to property. They also state that they are taking appropriate measures to deal with the incident. Her Majesty's Government welcome this prompt offer to make amends for this savage and inexcusable attack upon an unarmed passenger aircraft.
Her Majesty's Government wish to express the deepest sympathy for all those who have suffered tragic loss as the result of this wanton attack. We should also like to express our gratitude for the cooperation and assistance in rescue and search operations given by aircraft of the United States services.
The texts of the two Notes delivered by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Peking over the week-end and of the Chinese Government's reply will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Attlee: I should like to associate hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House with the Foreign Secretary's expression of regret at this incident, and express our sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives, and with those who suffered. While expressing our satisfaction at the fact that an apology has been made, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this is not the first time in which attacks have been made on civil aircraft by members of foreign air forces, who ought to be better informed? It seems to be absolutely inexcusable in this case. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the strongest representations cannot be made internationally for the avoidance of these incidents?
Mr. Eden: They have been made, and I must add that, in the judgment of Her
36
Majesty's Government, and in view of the clear markings on the aircraft attacked, we consider that disciplinary action should be taken by the Chinese Government against those concerned. We also think that measures must be taken at once to prevent a recurrence of such incidents as this.
Sir W. Fletcher: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions arising from his statement? First, is this not an instance pointing to the fact that the control of the Central People's Government of China, in Peking, in the outlying areas, particularly in South and South-West China and the area near Hainan, is very slight indeed, and that they really do not possess sufficient control to ensure their wishes being carried out? Secondly, in view of the misrepresentations that may be made and the danger to life and limb, will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to see that the proposed visit of the Leader of the Opposition and his fellow travellers to China does not take place?
Mr. Eden: I think my answer shows that, whatever we feel about the action—and the House has expressed itself on that—the counter-action has also been swiftly taken. I think that, while the House retains all its feelings about these incidents, we should measure them in relation to what has actually taken place.
Mr. Beswick: Is it not also a fact that the Chinese People's Government have said that this machine, which is an American-type plane, was mistaken for a machine from Formosa. Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that machines of this type do, in fact, fly in this area from Formosa?
Mr. Eden: A great many things are being said in various parts of the world about this at the moment. I have only given the House the actual facts, as I know them, and, whatever the excuse or lack of excuse, as far as the British Government are concerned, this is an incident which ought not to have taken place; and we must ask the Chinese Government to ensure that it will never take place again.
Air Commodore Harvey: While we are all most grateful to the Americans for the rescue work which they carried out,

37
would my right hon. Friend satisfy himself that there are sufficient British aircraft which could carry out similar rescues if required; and, secondly, will he see that, for a period at any rate, there are escorts for these civil aircraft flying on their legitimate routes?
Mr. Eden: I think that civil aircraft have a right not to be interfered with, and that is really the basis upon which we stand. We understand that British aircraft did go on rescue work, but any question as to their type and number is a matter for the Secretary of State for Air.
Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask the Foreign Secretary if he would take some action whereby the feeling of admiration and appreciation of all of us for the bravery and competence of the pilot and crew in handling this situation, which, no doubt, contributed to the saving of a number of lives in this very unhappy disaster, might be conveyed to them?
Mr. Eden: I should be very happy to do so. I think that that represents the feeling of the whole House.
Following are the texts of the two Notes:
1st Note: 24 th July, 1954.
I have been instructed by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to bring the following matter to your attention.
On the morning of 23rd July a DC4 passenger aircraft of the British Company Cathay Pacific Airways, registration No. VRHEU, crashed into the sea near Hainan while on a regular scheduled flight from Bangkok to Hong Kong. The last signal received from the aircraft was an emergency call at 7.45 a.m. Peking time and stated that the port engine was on fire. The aircraft was carrying 17 persons including the crew. Subsequently 10 survivors, including the pilot, were rescued by amphibious aircraft and brought to Hong Kong.
The pilot who is injured, has now stated that while flying at 9,000 feet about 30 miles from Hainan in position 18 degrees north 110 degrees east his co-pilot drew attention to two cream coloured low wing piston engined fighter aircraft, rather like Japanese type Zeros with red filled-in markings. These aircraft were on the tail of the passenger aircraft and opened fire apparently with incendiary bullets setting two engines on fire. The instrument panel was marked by bullets. The pilot of the passenger aircraft took evasive action as the fighter aircraft followed him and continued firing. He landed in the sea at 160 miles per hour. It seems clear the fighter aircraft which attacked the aircraft VRHEU could only have
38
come from Chinese territory. I have been instructed to protest most strongly against this wanton attack on a British civil aircraft flying on a normal scheduled flight. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom must hold the Peoples Government of the Peoples Republic of China responsible for the tragic loss of life and the injuries sustained. Her Majesty's Government reserve the right to claim full compensation.
2nd Note: 25 th July. 1954.
The Office of Her Britannic Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires present their compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese Central Government of the Peoples' Republic of China and have the honour to refer to Note No. 122 dated 24th July, 1954, addressed by Her Britannic Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires to His Excellency, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Chang Han-fu, concerning a passenger aircraft of the British company Cathay Pacific Airways. The following information has now been received. The statements taken from the passengers give further details of the two fighter aircraft which shot down the passenger aircraft. According to these statements they were single engine fighters with radial piston engines, coloured cream or light grey and carrying a red circle on the fuselage as identification marks. They also had red spinners and a white stripe about three feet wide running across the wings just in from the wing tip. The pilot has reported that the aircraft disappeared in the direction of Son-ya.
The Office of Her Britannic Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires also wishes to inquire whether the Central Peoples' Government have any news of other survivors from the aircraft. Nine persons are still missing.

CHINESE GOVERNMENT'S REPLY—25TH JULY
Your Note No. 122 dated 24th July, 1954, has been received with regard to the case involving a British transport aircraft. I am instructed by the Central Peoples' Government to give the following account of the circumstances obtained through investigation, which you are requested to transmit to the British Government. The Chinese people as well as the peoples of the world rejoice at the easing of the international situation through the recent holding of the Geneva Conference and the agreement reached on the question of restoring peace in Indo-China. Meanwhile, however, aircraft of the remnant Chiang Kai-shek bandit gang in Taiwan have enlarged even further the scope of their harassment of the coastal areas and islands of China, including Hainan Island, have dropped secret agents into China and have piratically intercepted and plundered merchant vessels of various nations sailing to China for trade in a desperate attempt to create tension in Asia. Therefore, fighting has frequently taken place over the coastal areas and islands of China.
According to the report received by our military authorities from Hainan Island, on the morning of 23rd July, patrol aircraft of the Peoples' Republic of China, while carrying out patrol duty over Port Yulin on Hainan Island, encountered an aircraft of the Chiang Kai-shek bandit gang over shat locality and fighting

39
took place. Upon receiving this report, the Government of the Peoples' Republic of China undertook an investigation through various channels and only then did it become known that the aircraft involved was actually a British-owned transport aircraft, mistaken by our patrol aircraft for an aircraft of the Kuomintang gang on a mission to raid our military base at Port Yulin. The occurrence of this unfortunate incident was, indeed, entirely accidental.
The Central Peoples' Government of the Peoples' Republic of China expresses its regret at this accidental and unfortunate incident involving the British transport aircraft, and is taking appropriate measures in dealing with it. It extends its sympathy, concern and condolences to the dead and injured in this incident and to their relatives. It is willing to give consideration to the payment of appropriate relief and compensation for the loss of life and property involved.

EAST-WEST TRADE (STRATEGIC CONTROLS AGREEMENT)
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on the discussions we have been having with the United States and other countries about a revision of the strategic controls on exports to the Soviet bloc, as distinct from exports to China. As hon. Members are aware, the object of these talks has been to narrow substantially the area of control, consistent always with national security, while improving the methods of enforcement.
I am glad to say that we have now achieved substantial results. There are a few technical problems outstanding and we have not yet reached agreement on controls over the sale of ships; but discussions on these will continue. We have, however, reached unanimous agreement on a considerable reduction in the control lists. In brief, what we have agreed is that, as from 16th August, the present embargo list will be reduced by one-third from about 250 to 170 items and the quantitative control list will be drastically cut from 90 to 20. A further 60 items will be kept on a watch list so that we can follow the trend of these exports. Included in these lists are a few items which have been added for security reasons. The overall result will be a substantial increase in the area of permitted trade, which will, at the same time, be fully compatible with the needs of national security.
40
Agreement has also been reached on improved methods of enforcement. The other countries concerned already apply financial controls or controls on merchanting transactions, and it has now been agreed that those which have hitherto freely permitted the transit of goods will take steps to introduce controls in line with the transhipment control which we ourselves have operated since 1951. For our part, we shall supplement this action by imposing control over merchanting transactions with the Soviet bloc. An Order to establish this control will be laid before the House in due course.
I hope to be able to publish the revised control lists, but some problems of definition remain to be worked out, and this will have to be considered with the other interested countries. Meanwhile, any interested exporter who wishes to know whether a licence would be granted in respect of a particular product will be able to obtain all necessary information and advice from the export licensing branch of the Board of Trade or from the production department.
Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that nearly six months have elapsed since the Prime Minister made his encouraging statement about East-West trade and stated that these discussions would take place. It is still not clear from the statement of the President whether these are sweeping reductions or not. It seems as though they are not. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House—since these figures may mean nothing or very little—whether, as a case in point, machine tools will now be more freely exported to the areas that have been under control? Further, will he tell the House when he expects to be able to announce the decision of the Government, first about ships, and secondly, about what is now the quite meangingless boycott on exports to China?
Mr. Thorneycroft: On the last point, exports to China are a quite separate question, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper. On the question of the time which this has taken, I make no apology for the fact that this matter has been under serious consideration for two or three months. It has been an important matter in which some 14 other countries are involved, and I think it is right that we

41
should have discussed the matter carefully with them. On the question of the items which are included, I cannot go into details in the House until the lists are eventually published, but I can say that some machine tools are included.
Mr. Wilson: What about ships?
Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, asked me about ships. I referred to the matter in my original statement. The position, as he probably knows, is not altogether satisfactory and discussions are still going on. I hope to be able to make an announcement later.
Sir W. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend gave the figure of the reduction in the number of items as about one-third. May I ask whether that would represent roughly about a one-third reduction in value?
Mr. Thorneycroft: It is difficult to compare volume, or the number of items, with the value because, besides reducing the number of items, there has been some redefinition of those which remain subject to embargo, which will, of itself, be of considerable assistance in our trade. The effect of these rearrangements will be of substantial benefit to the trade of this country, and will still be consistent with national security.
Mr. Wilson: With regard to shipbuilding, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment we are in danger of losing very considerable orders to other countries, including an order which would go to a firm very near to the right hon. hon. Gentleman's own constituency? Will he take note of the fact that even those ships that are allowed at the present time under the present control list are not all the subject of orders, because of some strange reluctance on the part of the British shipbuilding industry, which complains about lack of orders, to accept the Soviet orders that are open to it? Will the right hon. Gentleman press the shipbuilding industry to take some of those orders?
Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this country is under the same restrictive control, so far as the rules of the Co-ordinating Committee are concerned. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the
42
Admiralty has direct responsibility in this matter, and I believe that he is prepared to examine any inquiry or order for ships which comes forward at the present time, and we will look at it on its merits.
Mr. Robson Brown: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the international agreement arrived at will be warmly welcomed by British industry, because the present position is entirely unsatisfactory, chaotic and unrealistic?
Mr. Wade: To what extent is the differentiation in control over the export of goods to countries in the Soviet bloc and to China resulting in abnormal increase in the re-export of goods from the countries in the Soviet bloc to China?
Mr. Thorneycroft: These particular discussions have been the result of the work of the Co-ordinating Committee in Paris. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the restrictions upon China work under a completely different system, under a resolution of the United Nations.
Mr. M. Lindsay: While appreciating the value of my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him whether he cannot reply in most general terms to the supplementary question asked by the right hon. Member the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), since it is quite meaningless to apply an embargo to China which we cannot apply to Soviet Russia?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the right hon Member for Huyton has a Question down on Wednesday next about exports to China. It is difficult to deal with that subject in the context of this statement, because all our discussions have been restricted solely to exports to the Soviet bloc. If we start confusing China with the Soviet bloc we shall get into difficulties.
Mr. S. Silverman: Although what the right hon. Gentleman has said is perfectly true, does he not realise, nevertheless, that the approach to the Soviet bloc side of the matter has been an international approach and is useful for that very reason? Many of us would like to know whether the Government propose to take any initiative to deal with the China situation along the same lines?
Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me, on this statement, into a very much wider field than

43
the question with which we are concerned here of the effect that the strategic control will have on the Soviet and its European satellites.
Mr. Bottomley: I recently put a Question to the First Lord of the Admiralty on the supply of ships to the Soviet Union, and he told me that responsibility rested with the President of the Board of Trade. The President now says that that is not so. Can we be told who is responsible?
Mr. Thorneycroft: If the right hon. Gentleman will see me afterwards I will try to sort it out.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the anxiety in the locomotive industry in Glasgow among both employers and employed about unemployment, and as they would like to see an increase in the trade in locomotives with the Soviet bloc, can the President of the Board of Trade tell us anything about that position?
Mr. Thorneycroft: If the local industry have orders which they wish to send, and have any difficulty about definition or the like and if they will get into touch with me or with the production department concerned they will get the information that they require.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Professor Sir Douglas Savory: I beg leave to ask to be allowed to make a personal statement. I find that in my speech in the House of Commons on 14th July I stated, when referring to the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland, that no communication had been received asking for any change to be made. I am informed that I was mistaken, and that at least one letter was received on 26th May, making suggestions for an alteration in the boundaries. I therefore desire to express my regret for unwittingly misleading the House of Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'Clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 22nd July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'Clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'Clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [26TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  REPORT [22nd July]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1954–55; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1954–55; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1954–55.
  Resolutions reported,
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1954–55, ARMY ESTIMATES, 1954–55, AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1954–55
  1. £179,079,578 for the following services connected with Education in England and Wales, namely:—

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1954–55

  Class IV, Vote 1, Ministry of Education

  £

  164,497,078

  Class IV, Vote 11, Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain

  14,582,500

  Total

  £179,079,578

  2. £47,080,588 for the following services connected with Kenya, namely:—

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1954–55, ARMY ESTIMATES, 1954–55, AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1954–55

  £

  Class II, Vote 8, Colonial Office

  714,660

  Class II, Vote 9, Colonial Services (including a Supplementary sum of £227,000)

  26,475,928

  Class II, Vote 11, Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)

  12,500,000

  Army Estimates, Vote 3, War Office

  3,200,000

  Air Estimates, Vote 3, Air Ministry

  4,190,000

  Total

  £47,080,588

  3. That a sum, not exceeding £7,763,558, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with House of Commons Accommodation, etc., for the year ending on 31st March, 1955, namely:—

  CIVIL ESTIMATES (AMD SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1954–55

  £

  Class VII, Vote 2, Houses of Parliament Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £34,000)

  283,000

  Class VII, Vote 1, Ministry of Works

  4,676,960

  Class I, Vote 4, Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  2,044,132

  Class I, Vote 2, House of Commons (including a Supplementary sum of £126,000)

  759,466

  Total

  £7,763,558

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1954–55
    CLASS I
    4. That a sum, not exceeding £10,365,176, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS II
    5. That a sum, not exceeding £29,829,015, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS III
    6. That a sum, not exceeding £61,174,808, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS IV
    7. That a sum, not exceeding £38,948,212, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS V
    8. That a sum, not exceeding £414,358,720, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS VI
    9. That a sum, not exceeding £188,990,110, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS VII
    10. That a sum, not exceeding £40,720,866, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS VIII
    11. That a sum, not exceeding £243,444,973, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS IX
    12. That a sum, not exceeding £90,428,420, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS X
    13. That a sum, not exceeding £269,683,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates.
    ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1954–55
    14. That a sum, not exceeding £189,229,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments.
    MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1954–55
    15. That a sum, not exceeding £16,154,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence, expenses in connection with the International Defence Organisations, including a grant in aid; and a grant in aid of certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.
    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1954–55
    16. That a sum, not exceeding £207,407,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services.
    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1954–55
    17. That a sum, not exceeding £303,300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services.

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1954–55
    18. That a sum, not exceeding £141,810,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services.
    [For details of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 22 nd July, 1954, cols. 1694–1700]
    First Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

    EDUCATION
    3.52 p.m.
    Miss Alice Bacon: The small amount of time devoted to education in this House bears no relation to the interest shown in the subject by parents and others in the country especially at this time of year when children are coming home with their school reports and when the results of examinations are becoming known. I hope that today we shall have a debate about education, and that during the debate we shall hear something from the Government about what their plans are—that is, if they have any plans. All we know up to now is what is contained in two sentences of the Tory Party's last General Election manifesto, which said:
    "In Education and in Health some of the most crying needs are not being met. For the money now being spent we will provide better services and so fulfil the high hopes we all had when we planned improvements during the war."
    It did not take the Tory Party and the Tory Government very long to show how they were going to fulfil those very high hopes, because the first action of the Tory Government was to effect economies in education. First of all, we had Circular 242, which made local education authorities make some very petty economies. After that, we had Circular 245, which gravely affected the school building programme. Indeed, the most that the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education appears to have done since that time is to stop others doing what they wanted to do.
    Many of the speeches made by the right hon. Lady during her first two years of office were devoted to showing how clever she was to have put the roofs on schools the walls of which had been built by her predecessor. It is a great pity that nearly all our education debates, both in this House and outside, have to be concerned, not with education itself, but with bricks and mortar; but that is inevitable, because we must have buildings in which to put the children before they can be educated.
    However, I hope that during this debate we are not going to spend all the time arguing who did what when, nor, I hope, are we going to have those unfair comparisons such as the one made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of

    49
    Housing and Local Government in the debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates on school buildings on 1st July, 1953, when he compared the present Government's school building for 1952 with the average for the five years before 1951. I think it is self-evident that such a comparison is very unfair. How can we compare 1952–53—having been told that the building position has so improved that we can set the builders free and take off all controls—with the years 1947–48, just at the end of the war, when we had so many shortages?
    We on this side of the House have a record in regard to education of which we can be proud. In spite of the increase in the birth-rate, and in spite of the raising of the school-leaving age, which brought hundreds of thousands of extra children into the schools during our years of office, the number of pupils per teacher fell in every year.
    Let us compare the Report of 1951 with that of 1953. While the Report for 1951 was signed by the right hon. Lady, it in fact covered 10 months of the period when the late Mr. George Tomlinson was in office and only two months when she herself was in office. That Report covered the Labour Government's last year in office and showed that the number of pupils per teacher was still falling, and that the number of over-large classes had been decreased. I will not go into the details of the figures, because they are there to be seen by all.
    How different is the position shown in the Report for 1953, the one issued a few weeks ago. From that we see that during 1953 the number of pupils per teacher was rising, and that the number of over-large classes had increased. In short, the true test is not the amount of building undertaken; it is that, whereas under the Labour Government the situation was steadily improving, under a Tory Government it has been getting gradually worse. The effort is not matching the problem. I hope that in this debate we shall look at the position as it is today, and at what is being done to effect an improvement in the next few years.
    I wish, first, to talk about building. Circular 245, which was issued in February, 1952, laid down conditions under which local authorities could build schools. Those conditions were very stringent and represented the bare minimum. Many schools were deferred
    50
    altogether. At the time, local authorities and educational bodies protested that Circular 245 represented too little. However, that is the basis on which we have been proceeding since 1952.
    What has happened during this past year? Recently, local authorities have been sending to the Minister the estimates of the amount of school building which they think is the bare minimum necessary to satisfy the needs of Circular 245 for the next year. It has been calculated that, altogether, the local authorities have estimated that £88 million of buildings are needed by 146 local authorities in order to meet this bare minimum.
    Up to the present time, the Minister has replied to 75 of these local authorities, who between them wanted £42 million for building during the coming year. The right hon. Lady has cut the £42 to £24 million. Indeed, it looks as if the Government have decided that £45 million to £50 million is the maximum which can be spent on building for the next year, and that the estimates of the local authorities have to be cut down to that amount. It is quite clear that this sum is not sufficient to provide even the bare minimum as laid down in Circular 245.
    I could give the House many examples of what this policy has meant in the various localities. Dr. Alexander, the secretary of the Association of Education Committees—no debate on education would be complete without a quotation from him—said, when these figures became known:
    "We shall be seeing the Ministry about the cuts. It is disturbing that when Britain is supposed to be winning through, school-building restrictions are worse than at any time since the war."
    That is the statement of the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees.
    If we look at the actual results of what has happened in the localities, this is what we see. Nottingham asked for £1 million worth of school buildings. It is to be allowed to build only £445,000 worth. Two new secondary schools, two new primary schools and the completion of one infants school, are to be allowed, but three secondary and two primary schools have to be postponed altogether. Northumberland asked for £1,360,000 worth. That has been cut to £432,000.

    51
    It asked for 12 new schools for 4,590 pupils. Only four schools for 1,670 pupils have been allowed.
    This is the sort of thing that is happening all over the country. What I should like to impress upon the Minister is that the local authorities know the situation. They know the local problem. They have to deal with it in their own localities. They see the children needing schools but know that they have no schools in which to put those children.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Lady this question. Did the various local authorities in their estimates go beyond the requirements of Circular 245? If they did not, is the Minister now prepared to admit that Circular 245 is not now the Government's policy, but that there are some more stringent regulations? That is what we want to know from the right hon. Lady this afternoon. I believe that the time has come—nine years after the war—when we ought to be getting beyond Circular 245. The fact that nearly all our new schools have to be built on new housing estates means that those children who have to live in old houses are condemned also to be educated in old schools, whereas those children who have the advantages of living on a new housing estate live in new houses and have new schools.
    Recently when we were discussing the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that he was surveying the houses and dividing them into certain categories. There were, first, the slum houses which ought to be knocked down. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why didn't you pull them down?"] Well, who built them? Then there were dilapidated houses that needed money spending on them, and the structurally good houses which really needed some modern amenities. I believe the time has come when we need a similar survey of our schools.
    There are, first of all, the slum schools, the black-listed schools, which are absolutely beyond hope and which need to be replaced as soon as possible. It has been estimated by various educational bodies that from £1 million to £2 million a year spent on replacing obsolete buildings would work a veritable miracle, but the right hon. Lady told a deputation
    52
    that this sum could not be spent. Nevertheless, there are the slum schools that need pulling down as quickly as possible.
    Secondly, there are the structurally good schools. In some cases those are three-storeyed buildings, built at the end of the 19th century, and, alas, built to last for too many years. We have thousands of them with us today. We have to remember that these schools are not coming down in the next two or three years. They are structurally good and will probably be in use for another 30 to 50 years. They are dark, they are dreary, they are airless. They are sometimes badly equipped and full of old furniture. I believe that we now need a bold plan to do something about them.
    First, they need light and air. Those can be obtained by the simple process of knocking out a few bricks and putting in a few windows. All schools should have first-rate sanitary fittings and hot water. It is amazing, too, what a few coats of light-coloured paint can do. When I go round I am always struck by the number of old schools which have old furniture and old equipment. I was in a school in Leeds only a fortnight ago, when I was distributing the prizes. The school was built in 1883, and the local education authority decided to give that old school a really first-class library. At a cost of £750 there is in that old school as good a library as there is in any of the new schools that we have since built.
    I know that the right hon. Lady may reply that it is up to the local authorities to apply for money for minor capital projects in order to do this work. Of course it is, but let us see what happens when they do apply. Last year, requests for supplementary allocations for minor capital projects were received by the Minister from 102 authorities. Only 14 of those were allowed in full, 81 in part, and seven were refused altogether. I have here a few figures to show in detail the kind of thing that has happened. They are figures given in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley).
    Southampton County Borough wanted to spend £42,690 on these minor capital works, but the right hon. Lady cut that sum to £13,600. Hampshire wanted to spend £94,470 on these minor works; she cut it to £40,000. Portsmouth wished to spend £28,844 she cut that to £9,165.

    53
    So we could go on. Indeed, much of the money which is being allowed and which should be used for these minor capital projects is today having to be spent by local authorities on extensions to existing school buildings.
    When we think that this small amount of money which she is refusing to allow the local authorities to spend represents work that would make life a little more tolerable, we can see the extent of the economy of this Government on education. Children who live in the back streets of our industrial towns should be educated in more cheerful schools, and the Minister should do all that she can to encourage that.
    I pass to rural schools. Here there is a different problem—that of reorganisation. Half the children in our rural areas are still in unreorganised schools. For them it is not a choice of which secondary school they shall attend. For them there is no secondary education at all. The Association of Education Committees has estimated that it would need the expenditure of £3 million to £4 million a year for five years to complete the reorganisation in the rural areas. However, when a deputation put that to the right hon. Lady, she refused the request. Yet, let us not forget that this same Government are spending £2 million on capital works for commercial television and £750,000 each year for ordinary expenditure— and this is not to benefit the children of our country. Indeed, this money is being spent on a project which all educational bodies agree will be to the detriment of our children.
    I feel very strongly about this matter, because until I came to this House I spent my time in council schools. I first entered a council school when I was 2½ years old. I took myself to the school at the back of our house. I passed on from there to the grammar school, and, except for a period at college, I taught in council schools up to the day that I came here. I know what it is like to teach in an old school with only a partition between one class-room and another.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: And sometimes with no partition.
    Miss Bacon: Yes, and sometimes with no partition. I know what it is like to try to concentrate on arithmetic when the
    54
    class next door, which is separated by a thin partition, is having a lesson in music. I know what it is like to go out of those old buildings into the really beautiful new schools, and I know the difference that this can make. I am not unique on this side of the House; many of my hon. Friends have had this experience, but this kind of thing is practically a closed book to hon. Members opposite. I doubt whether many of them have ever been in a council school except to speak at General Election meetings.
    Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: May I appeal to the hon. Lady not to add insults to her very weak case? There are hon. Members on this side of the House who had the whole of their education in council schools and who have a very long and honourable service in council administration. The hon. Lady does herself and her party no good by imagining that they and they alone have experience in these schools.
    Miss Bacon: I agree that there are one or two unique persons on the opposite side of the House. I said that most of them had not been educated in council schools.
    In the next few years the effect of the increased birth-rate will be passing from the primary to the secondary schools. Overcrowding in any school is shocking, but in the primary school there is a certain amount of equality in that all children in one area are in the same school. But we have different types of secondary school—the grammar, the modern and the technical. Today the classes in grammar schools are much smaller than the classes in modern schools, and I am wondering what is going to happen when the increased number of children pass from the primary schools into the secondary schools.
    Will the grammar school classes still remain as small as they are now, or will all the overcrowding take place in the secondary modern schools? If that is so, and if very few new grammar schools are built, there will be another result of this policy; there will be a reduction in the percentage of children of 11 years passing to grammar schools, and already in some cases the percentage of children passing to grammar schools is extremely low.
    Surely this is a time to consider the whole question of secondary education in this country. We on this side of the.

    55
    House are quite honest about it. We believe that it is a wrong principle to select children at the age of 11 for different types of school. We say quite honestly that we believe in the comprehensive school, which is, after all, merely a secondary school to which all children in a district go, and where they find their special bent and follow it as long as they and their parents wish.
    Last week I visited Kidbrooke, which I think is very unfortunate to be starting its life in the midst of political controversy. Kidbrooke is a marvellous place, a place where there are normal and specialised courses for the children. There is a pre-nursing course. There are all kinds of practical courses such as millinery, tailoring, pottery, art, and commercial courses, plus all the academic courses found in a grammar school, such as languages, classics and so on, and children can proceed from there to the university.
    One hon. Member opposite who was in the party that visited Kidbrooke last week was honest enough to say that he was most impressed by Kidbrooke and that if he had only realised what a comprehensive school was, he would not have opposed it. It is as well to know what one is criticising before one criticises, but there has been a great deal of misrepresentation about this matter, and I am sorry that it has been brought into the realm of party politics, because I regard it as an educational issue. I am a politician but, as I say, I taught children from the ages of 11 to 15 for some years before I came here, and my belief in the comprehensive school is derived, not from my membership of the Labour Party, but from my experience with children aged 11 to 15.
    What about the attitude of the Minister in this respect? She and her party have repeatedly said that we should allow experiments in the comprehensive schools, and she offered no objection to London or to Coventry. Her method was much more subtle than outright opposition. She thought how clever she would be and she went and made a misleading speech to the Conservative women, which incited them to send in a petition, and so she had the grounds for refusing to close Eltham Hill Grammar School, which was to be incorporated in Kidbrooke. I believe that the right hon.
    56
    Lady's conduct in this matter has been most reprehensible. She approved Kidbrooke, but what was the use of approving it if, when the school was built, she sabotaged the whole idea by making sure that the school was not going to be fully comprehensive? This was the back-door method.
    Will the right hon. Lady tell the local authority at Coventry and the other authorities that are making experiments in comprehensive schools whether or not she is going to do the same sort of thing in their localities, because it would be much more honest to say so now than to wait until the school is ready for opening? Her action in respect of Kidbrooke has meant that the academic type of child can be found only in the classes catering for the 11-year-olds, and it means that it will be some six or seven years before a true assessment of the experiment can be made. Nevertheless, Kidbrooke will succeed in spite of what she has done.
    The truth is that the right hon. Lady wants Kidbrooke to fail, and it is not difficult to see why. I was reading in the "Schoolmaster" on 18th June an article by someone who had visited Kidbrooke school, and the article ended by saying:
    "On a doorstep of a nearby prefab I asked one of the 3,000 local parents her views on the new school. She summed it up neatly. 'Well, I mean,' she said, 'it's giving them all such a chance, isn't it?' "
    That is the answer. This school is giving all a chance, and it seems to be against the philosophy of the Tory Party to give everybody a fair chance.
    As I say, my belief in the comprehensive school is based on educational grounds, and I believe that the Minister's opposition is nothing but party political prejudice against giving all children a fair chance. The schools of Eton and Harrow are really comprehensive schools. [Interruption.] That is quite true. I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would have passed the common entrance selection test if he had not gone to Harrow.
    This clash with London is only one of the many clashes that there have been between the Minister and the local education authorities. Never in the history of the Department has the Ministry been so unpopular with local authorities. Only last week we had an example, which was reported in the newspapers on Friday

    57
    morning, of what happened in North-amptonshire. I have here a copy of the "Daily Mirror." These are quotations from the actual words used by responsible members of local authorities:
    "Councillor Harold Taylor said: 'One cannot express oneself too strongly about her arrogant attitude. The sooner this person is dismissed from her post the better for the whole community.' "
    He went on to state what had happened with regard to Northamptonshire.
    I want to be very clear about this. The Minister has powers of direction under the Education Act, 1944. In the past there has been too much permissive legislation, which has resulted in unequal opportunity. For that reason, I agree that the Minister should have powers of control and direction if we are to have a national system of education, and backward education authorities are to be brought up to standard; but those powers must be used in the interests of the children. Under the right hon. Lady's administration they are being used against the best interests of the children, in order to prevent local education authorities from being progressive.
    Many other questions arise from the Report that we have had from the Minister. I cannot deal with all of them. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be dealing in great detail with some. Her Report discloses the fact that, although there was an increase of 240,000 children in our schools last year, the number of school meals served dropped from three million to 2,750,000. I should like to hear something from the Minister about training college grants. These grants for intending teachers are inadequate, and there is great variation among the different authorities. On the whole, they compare very unfavourably with grants for students going to universities. I should also like to hear more from the right hon. Lady about technical and technological education, and what was meant by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement last week. A very important report on this subject has been published by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee.
    I know that the right hon. Lady will say that the things I have been asking for today would cost a lot more money, but every Government—the Tory Government of today and the future Labour
    58
    Government—must face the fact that more money must be spent on education. Allowing for the fall in the value of the pound, for increasing costs and for the increased numbers of children in our schools, we are not spending as much per child as we were before the war. We must face that fact quite squarely.
    It is essential that local government finance should be looked at in relation to educational expenditure. In the Tory Party's programme, "Britain Strong and Free," page 28, contains these words:
    "A review of the impact of the cost of education on local government finance should be undertaken."
    The party opposite have been in office for three years, but up to now there has been no evidence that such a review is being undertaken or is likely to be undertaken in the near future.
    I think I have said sufficient to show that we have no confidence in the ability of this Government to provide education. This Government put brewers, steel owners, road hauliers and advertising firms before children. They have no plans for education; indeed, I have never heard the right hon. Lady make a speech about education. Meanwhile the position gets worse, and there seems to be no grasp of the gravity of the situation.
    The right hon. Lady and the Parliamentary Secretary remind me of people in a type of old-fashioned school which is now happily extinct. The right hon. Lady is like the old-fashioned type of headmistress who used to survey the world from her high desk. She gave orders and entered into no arguments. Her word was law. She thought that everything she did was right, and never even considered that it could possibly be wrong. Then we have the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know whether he is going to speak today. Those of us who have been teachers recognise that he is like the teacher who cannot keep order, and whom the children love to rag. He walks about with his head in the air, in a world of his own, and has not a clue whether what he is doing is right or wrong.
    Meanwhile, we have the Government, who are content to leave everything to the headmistress—rather like the old-fashioned school governors—provided that she does not spend too much. They do not care very much whether everything is right or wrong, because their

    59
    children are not going to the school anyway.
    In short, the Minister is complacent; the Parliamentary Secretary is incompetent, and the Government are indifferent. The tragedy is that these are the people who are in charge of six million of the nation's children—our most precious national asset. It is clear that the country cannot afford to tolerate them any longer, and that they ought to leave the charge of these six million children to people who really care about education.
    4.26 p.m.
    Mr. Henry Brooke: I listened to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) with great respect. She promised that she would speak about education, but she appeared to me to devote practically the whole of her speech to talking party politics. That is a regrettable fact about the approach of the Labour Party to education. They give so little thought to the essence of education, and devote themselves almost exclusively to seeking to steal votes at the next Election by misrepresenting the facts.
    It was said that a parent of stern Victorian ideas went to his boy's headmaster the other day and said, "I do not know what you are teaching my boy, but I do not like it, because he seems to be enjoying it." That illustrates the vast change which has taken place in the schools in the last 50 years. For all that the hon. Lady has said she will surely agree with me, in her heart, that with all their known defects present-day schools are happy places. We should give credit to everybody, at whatever level, who is helping to make them so.
    Miss Bacon: To the teachers.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady insinuated that I did not know what the inside of a council school looked like.
    Miss Bacon Miss Bacon indicated dissent.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady may shake her head, but that is what she said about the Tory Members sitting opposite her, and I must take her as meaning what she said. I happen to have been a school manager for many years. This is the season of the year when school prizes are given, and I should say that a good many Members on both sides of the House have recently been in and out of schools,
    60
    at prize-givings, to see the children or, as I was last week, at a presentation to a primary school headmaster who was retiring after more than 25 years in that position.
    I think the hon. Lady will agree with me that one can tell the quality of a school almost as soon as one steps over the threshold. I had a specially interesting talk with this headmaster—not so very far away from this building—after the presentation ceremony, and he told me of the continuous improvement which he had noted during his 40 years' teaching service, both among the children and in the schools. The barefoot child has disappeared, at any rate in London. I was particularly struck by his remark that the 11-year-olds had nowadays acquired an ease and poise in talking to grown-ups which he would have hardly imagined at the beginning of his teaching service.
    What we have to do in the schools is to create happiness and achieve high standards, and if both sides of the House can agree on that, then we shall have a common starting point. We must debate among ourselves the questions of principle that divide us, such as, for instance, the organisation of secondary education, but I submit to the House that it is no service to the cause of education to inject so much bitterness as the hon. Lady sought to engender today. Bitterness and true education do not mix, any more than oil and water, and it will be an excellent thing if in the rest of this debate we can address ourselves to the real educational problems which stare us in the face.
    I grant this to the hon. Lady at once. We on this side are as fully aware as she is of the very many shortcomings in the schools which still have to be made good. But the real business of education is not done in the Ministry of Education, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, or in local education offices, or in Parliament. The real business of education goes on in the class-rooms, on the playing fields, if schools are lucky enough to have playing fields, on the playgrounds and in all the out-of-school activities.
    All the jargon of educational administration, and a great deal of the party abuse we throw at one another, can do more harm than good. Perhaps the

    61
    House knows the story of the small boy who was found sobbing on the pavement outside school by an old gentleman who came by. The old gentleman sought to console and encourage him, and to show him the way in, and he said to the boy, "This is the boys' entrance." The small boy, still sobbing, replied, "Boohoo. I am not a boy. I am a mixed infant." That illustrates how remote most of the jargon in which educational reports have to be written is from the real life of boys and girls.
    What each Government since the war has had to do is to set about the task, first, of catching up on the war years and, second, of providing for the enormous bulge—there is no means of escaping that horrid word—consequent on the increase in the birth-rate since the war. The success of my right hon. Friend in tackling both those tasks has been a magnificent achievement, and everybody who has studied the facts and figures knows that that is so. The number of teachers has been going up by nearly 6,000 a year. I think it was in 1951 that the National Advisory Council said that we would need an additional 40,000 teachers by 1960. That was a bit of an under-estimate, but it is perfectly clear, as things are going at present, that we are going to have far more than the additional 40,000 teachers by 1960. The entries to the training colleges at the present time are running at a satisfying level.
    That means that, as we have very nearly reached the peak of numbers in the primary schools, the time is coming close when it will be possible to reduce the size of classes—either to reduce the size of classes, I should say, or to fill the gaps by letting in larger numbers of the under-fives. That is an important question that will have to be decided. My own sincere hope is that we shall choose the first alternative, because I attach overwhelming importance to the primary school as the very foundation of education, and I do not believe that adequate education can be given in classes of the size that are now all too common in primary schools. I hope, therefore, that the House, without distinction of party, will go on record as saying that we must not throw the doors wider and wider open to the under-fives as the bulge passes out of the primary schools, but rather that we
    62
    must use that opportunity to decrease the numbers in classes.
    After all, however one may argue educationally or politically about the independent schools as distinct from the State system, what we all know in out hearts is that the independent schools at the present time possess one indisputable advantage, and that is that there, and there alone, parents can be sure of their children being educated in sufficiently small classes to make education a reality. I bitterly deplore the size of the gap between the two, but let us, for heaven's sake, aim primarily at bringing down the size of classes in the State schools, rather than abuse the independent schools for being able to do what in present circumstances the State schools cannot yet attain.
    The hon. Lady spoke a great deal about school building. The answer to all that she has said is in the graph which she will surely have studied on page 40 of the new Report of the Ministry which came out the other day. If hon. Members will look at that graph they will see that it indicates the rate of progress of educational building since the war. The line which shows the contracts completed suddenly takes an upward turn at the end of 1951, just about the time when my right hon. Friend took office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but that is the only way in which they can possibly answer what I am going to say, because it cannot be answered by any logic of their own. The facts are entirely on my side.
    The rate of school building was too low in the years immediately after the war and school buildings were being finished too slowly in 1951, and what my right hon. Friend took over was a situation very nearly comparable to that which existed in house building in 1947, when there were far too many houses under construction and too few being finished. It was the same with the schools, and my right hon. Friend took precisely the correct action to ensure that the schools were finished and that the number of school places provided went up swiftly.
    I have here the figures of value of work done on school building, and they certainly contrast strangely with the impression the hon. Lady sought to make. The total value of work done on school

    63
    building in 1951 was approximately £35½ million. In 1952 it was about £36½ million. In 1953 it was £40 million. That is the achievement of my right hon. Friend, who has been vehemently attacked from the other side today for not doing enough to provide additional school places.
    The hon. Lady said that Circular 245 gravely affected the school building programme. It did gravely affect it. It gravely affected it for the better. There is only one real test of success in the school building programme. It is the number of extra school places provided. In 1951, the last year of the Labour Government, the number of places provided was 159,000. In 1952, under my right hon. Friend, it went up to 218,000, and in 1953 it was 260,000. Perhaps my right hon. Friend, at the end of the debate, will be able to give even more recent figures.
    Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Member quoted Circular 245. If he has read that Circular, he will have seen that it confirms the deliberate decision on the part of the Government to reduce the steel allocation for school building, and this is emphasised throughout the Circular.
    Miss Bacon: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that point, may I ask whether he denies the figures which I have quoted to show that classes are getting larger?
    Mr. Brooke: I well know that classes are getting larger; so they have been for a number of years. It is the remarkable achievement of my right hon. Friend that, although over a short period of years the total number of children in the schools is in process of going up by no less than 35 per cent., nevertheless it has proved possible to provide a place for every additional child going into the schools. The hon. Lady made great play with the alleged cuts in the building programme.
    Mr. Peart: What about the steel?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member referred to the steel shortage, which we have now fortunately overcome. I am referring to the overall result, which has delivered the goods. The hon. Lady spoke of cuts. She must know, because
    64
    she has had the benefit of a splendid education, that it is possible for any local authority to show an apparent cut in its school building programme if it asks for a sufficiently large amount. Let me give an illustration. The London County Council, under the control of members of her party, in 1949, asked for an educational building programme of, if I remember rightly, approximately £7 million, which was twice as much as it had managed to do in any previous year, and the late Mr. Tomlinson cut that programme to something in the neighbourhood of £4 million. I do not remember that there was then the same violent outcry from hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, there was."] The fact remains that that £4 million, which showed an apparent cut of £3 million on what was asked for, turned out to be a perfectly reasonable decision because it represented the maximum which the authority could do.
    I have no doubt whatever that if the House could analyse each of these cuts put forward by the hon. Lady, it would be found that in each case what the Ministry is permitting is an amount commensurate with the actual powers of that particular local education authority to start.
    Mr. Arthur Skeffington: Surely the hon. Member recollects that when the cut was made by Mr. Tomlinson, the county council made a number of representations to him. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend was a member of the delegation. It is true that the council said that in a particular year it might not be able to spend the whole of that amount, and that is why the council proposed a three-year programme, which has now in fact been granted.
    Mr. Brooke: I was not a member of the delegation, and I do not think that the hon. Member was a member of the county council in those days. I used that illustration to show how a cut takes place when a local authority in fact asks for more than it can manage, much as it might like to be able to carry out the whole programme for which it asked.
    The hon. Lady asked for a survey of the older schools. I am all for surveys if the technical people are available to carry them out, but I doubt whether we have come to the stage when we have

    65
    sufficient technical men readily available in the local education authority offices and in the Ministry to undertake a fact-finding nation-wide survey of this kind. I would say that it was better to concentrate upon getting on with the job of improvements as quickly as possible.
    The hon. Lady criticised my right hon. Friend for having cut down the minor works programmes of some of the local education authorities, but the hon. Lady forgot to tell the House that the total of the minor works programmes approved by my right hon. Friend for the current year is considerably higher than the programmes approved in any year during the Labour Government, so that the local education authorities are getting a better chance now than ever before to continue with the so-called minor works—the smaller items to bring the schools up to date.
    Miss Bacon: Perhaps the hon. Member did not read the right hon. Lady's answer to me last week, which showed that most of the money that is being allocated for minor works was to be used for extra class-rooms and not for improvements.
    Mr. Brooke: I will leave my right hon. Friend who, I believe, is winding-up the debate, to speak for herself on that point. I think I am justified in pointing out to the hon. Lady that the minor works programme approved by this Government is substantially higher than that approved in any year by the Government which she supported.
    All these very remarkable figures—the increase in the number of teachers, the vast increase in the number of school places provided, the expenditure met out of public funds, larger than ever before—all this is being attained despite the financial crisis of 1951, which we fortunately survived, and despite the pressure of an unprecedented defence programme on men, materials and money.
    I hope that we shall not have later in the debate any suggestion that the solution for all educational stringencies is a drastic reduction in the defence programme. The schools cannot be insulated from what is going on elsewhere. The most shattering blow which our educational system ever sustained was the war of 1939 and the evacuation of the schools which was then thought necessary. It certainly brought forth the magnificent
    66
    powers of adaptation and improvisation which both teachers and local education authorities, but particularly the teachers, possessed, and it provided some memorable incidents in the history of education; but any Government action which might in the least degree increase the risk of war by neglect of its defence programme would be a grave blow to the future of British education.
    Education is a living part of the nation. I am troubled when I hear people at educational conferences and elsewhere arguing that we ought to go on doing all that we want and providing everything that is needed in the educational sphere, whatever cuts that might necessitate in other directions, and whatever the total demands on our national resources. I think that there is great truth in the saying:
    "We shall not be able to make much progress with these tasks as long as our livelihood as a nation is insecure."
    I quote that from "Challenge to Britain." It seems to me exactly to express the situation which my right hon. Friend and her colleagues had to meet in 1951. At that time our livelihood was insecure. It is now far more secure, and we are seeing the fruits of progress.
    I come to the second part of the hon. Lady's speech about the future organisation of secondary education. My own belief is that up to 1939 we tended to concentrate too large a proportion of our efforts on the secondary grammar schools, and that one of the great problems which needed to be tackled after the 1944 Act was how to give full educational opportunity to those boys and girls who were not of grammar school type.
    For that purpose all kinds of experiments were clearly desirable. When the hon. Lady expressed her regret that comprehensive schools had been brought into the realm of party politics, I was reminded that it was her party that did it, by laying down that the meeting of the need for new secondary schools by comprehensive schools, and comprehensive schools alone, was their party policy. Inevitably that made it a party issue, because we on this side think that, before the comprehensive school has been tried out, it is educationally wrong to say that by no other possible way whatever can the problem of providing good secondary education for the non-bookish children be solved.

    67
    I have seen some new secondary modern schools built by various authorities which believe in them, and I am certain that they will give a first-rate education. I have seen places where the education authority have taken over old senior elementary schools, adapted them intelligently and created what are in effect new secondary schools, of which both teachers and children are proud. I want to see those experiments continuing along with the experiments on comprehensive schools which my right hon. Friend has sanctioned.
    The hon. Lady astonished the House by saying that my right hon. Friend had sabotaged Kidbrooke, and that Kidbrooke would not now be a typical example of a comprehensive school. Kidbrooke as planned by the London County Council could not have started off as a typical example of a comprehensive school. The idea of the council was to give Kidbrooke a flying start by bringing into it the whole of the grammar school tradition, with the transfer of a whole existing grammar school of girls. That is not a normal comprehensive school. It will not be possible all over the country to create comprehensive schools by destroying a grammar school at the same time. These new schools must stand on their own feet. They must not stand on the legs of grammar schools.
    Miss Bacon: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot start a comprehensive school without taking children from somewhere. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is all right to take children from a modern school but not from a grammar school.
    Mr. Brooke: We must build up a comprehensive school as we build up every school. It is not in the least reasonable to carry over into a new school the whole of an existing first-rate grammar school and then to say that it is a typical example of a comprehensive school.
    Mrs. Freda Corbet: I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon). This is precisely what was happening in connection with one of the central schools and two or three modern schools. The idea was to bring the
    68
    grammar school children in at the same age and to have all the children at the same level.
    Mr. Brooke: The London County Council and other authorities may think that it is possible to sweeten the success of the comprehensive experiment by stealing for that purpose the grammar school tradition from an existing school, but that is not the way in which we are accustomed to seeing new schools built up.
    Mr. James Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman deny to the Anglesey County Council, which has taken all the children of 11-plus into its new comprehensive school, the right to do what it did? Would he have kept out the old grammar school established in Holyhead? Surely, to give a fair start, we must take all the youngsters in the area whatever their I.Q.
    Mr. Brooke: I have not seen Holyhead. I think that the hon. Gentleman has visited it, as has my right hon. Friend. I was addressing myself to the hon. Lady's specific reference to Kidbrooke, about which I know.
    I return to the confusion of thought which appears to exist among hon. Members opposite in their advocacy of comprehensive schools. We have even had the statement from the hon. Lady that Eton and Harrow are comprehensive schools. If they are, they are far more highly selective than any of the comprehensive schools which we are talking about.
    Mr. W. G. Cove: Educationally Eton and Harrow are comprehensive schools; socially they are not.
    Mr. Brooke: I have heard the argument adduced, in favour of the very large London County Council schools, that Manchester Grammar School has 1,500 boys, and is highly successful. But they do not fill Manchester Grammar School just by bringing in all the boys in a certain area of Manchester. No boy gets into that school unless he has considerable ability at the time of entrance. Also, schools like Manchester Grammar School have a much higher staffing ratio of masters to boys than the proposed comprehensive schools of which we are speaking.

    69
    I shall be intensely interested in the comprehensive school experiment. There appear to be a number of questions quite unanswered as yet by its advocates. Kidbrooke and other schools may provide the answers. My sole objection is to the attitude of the party opposite, as a party, in saying at this stage, before we know the answers to those questions, that the answers are bound to come out right, and therefore we can put all our eggs into the one basket. It was the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland which some years ago condemned roundly the very large comprehensive schools which are being advocated now in London and elsewhere.
    Mr. William Ross: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be fair to the Advisory Council and say that it came down in favour of the comprehensive school.
    Mr. Brooke: Yes. I have not been ruling out the comprehensive school. I am inclined to think that the questions which have to be answered are going to be less difficult in the case of the smaller schools recommended in Scotland than in the very large schools of which we have no previous experience.
    In the debate for and against, it always seems to me that the strongest argument for the comprehensive school is that by that means the 11-plus examination might be got rid of. No one likes that examination in itself. The question we have to ask is whether the comprehensive school will get rid of it. I can see that happening if in fact in an area there are nothing but comprehensive schools. But so long as there remain any schools, such as direct grant schools, county grammar schools and so on, to which some parents wish to send their children from the primary schools, I cannot see how some form of 11-plus examination is to be eliminated. Therefore, what would appear at first sight to be the strongest argument in favour breaks down when it is analysed.
    The hon. Lady said that more money must be spent on education. More money is being spent on education, but I agree that more must be spent. One of the finest achievements of my right hon. Friend is that during a time of the greatest financial stringency, when it was not certain whether this country could be sure
    70
    of its livelihood, she protected the educational system against all those critics who wished to influence her in the direction of cutting a year either at the beginning or at the end of school life.
    The period of school attendance has been preserved, the number of places has gone up, the number of teachers has gone up. There is still great progress waiting to be made, however, and the one thing in which I join the hon. Lady is her contention that before long we must have some change in the system of local government finance. I do not see how local education authorities can continue to provide out of the rates the amount of money which will be required, unless there is some alteration in the present Exchequer grant formula.
    The hon. Lady will see that I am seeking as wide a measure of agreement with her as I can, and I do not want to end on any contentious note. I hope I have proved to the House that there are hon. Members on this side who are as deeply interested in education and in the children as are hon. Gentlemen opposite, and who are prepared to work as hard, and sacrifice as much, for the good of the children and the teachers and the schools.
    5.1 p.m.
    Mrs. Freda Corbet: I am grateful to you. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for allowing me to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), because he and I have so many experiences in common that it has fallen to my lot to notice whither he was leading on this matter of the comprehensive school. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) put it correctly when she said that this party has not made that a matter of party politics.
    On the other side of the river, the large council which tries to run London education for the benefit of its children came to the decision that a comprehensive school education system was the right one for the future. In laying down the lines of its development plan, it said that all schools would eventually be comprehensive schools. That plan, however, was timed to take place over a long period. We estimated then 18 years, but it is now much more likely to be 30 years or longer. The hon. Gentleman and his party, in their great desire to see an

    71
    experiment, were therefore being given an opportunity to see a long-term experiment.
    If in the course of those years the comprehensive school idea falls down, it is obvious that no authority and no Minister will allow it to proceed. It may be that a number of schools are succeeding at the moment because the bulge in the birth rate, the building of new housing estates, etc., make it necessary to provide new schools. It is only right, therefore, if the London County Council is to provide new schools, that they should be on the same principle. So I get a little tired of hearing the party opposite talking constantly about experiments, when that is the most that the London County Council or any other authority is able to do at this time.
    Only the other day I listened to the Minister, in answer to a Question about the Bec School, saying that while she had turned down the proposal to enlarge the Bec Grammar School, she had nevertheless approved a proposal to build a comprehensive school in the north of London. It is hardly right of the right hon. Lady to give the impression by such a statement that she is doing one thing with one hand and doing exactly the reverse with the other; that is to say, keeping the schools nicely and evenly weighted, because the school in the north of London has nothing to do with the enlargement or incorporation of any existing grammar school, and it is to be built simply to take in the children of the neighbourhood and will not interfere with any of the eight adjacent grammar schools.
    Therefore I suggest, when the Minister gives answers, that she ought not to give such examples, and I hope she will refrain from doing so in the future. The fact of the matter is that in so far as the London plan is concerned, the Minister has approved two comprehensive schools which do not affect grammar schools and has turned down the two comprehensive schools which affect grammar schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, was right when she wanted to know from the Minister, for other areas as well as the London County Council area, what is to be her attitude in all cases where existing grammar schools are concerned.
    72
    I imagine the right hon. Lady will be interested to learn that her action in regard to Kidbrook has resulted in enormous propaganda value for the London County Council. It has been an advertisement such as the London County Council could not have contrived for itself. The result has been that up to 20th July 10,000 people—members of the public, local authorities, educational bodies, children and parents—have inspected the building at Kidbrooke. As I think the Minister knows, the reports in the Press are full of eulogy and I doubt whether we should have had such Press reports had it not been for her action. I doubt whether she is happy about it, but I can assure her that we are.
    I also want to tell the Minister that in the London area a demand is coming from parents for the comprehensive type of education; so much so, that where we have interim comprehensive schools set up and working in the old buildings, the heads of the schools are being obliged to turn away as many children as they are able to accommodate. I can tell the right hon. Lady also that in the case of one, the neighbouring grammar school has 100 spare places, whereas this particular comprehensive school is overflowing and cannot accommodate all those who wish to come.
    I think the Minister knows, too, that throughout the country there is developing in the secondary modern school so-called a desire to have a grammar school side. This is a natural development which has been helped only in the case of London, Coventry and one or two other areas, whereas what is happening in other parts of the country is that the educational authorities who are continuing to build schools catering for the old segregated type of education are going against the stream and in years to come will find themselves in a detrimental position.
    Apart from the question of the comprehensive school, the hon. Member for Hampstead spoke about the lack of educational matter in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, but I think he forgot that the entire idea of the comprehensive school is one of educational value. I remember a few days ago reading a letter in one of the

    73
    evening papers in which I was extremely interested, because it ran thus:
    "Of my many contemporary dullards at a fee-paying school I can recall an eminent economist, one director of the largest steel firm in India, three generals, one air commodore and one ex-Attorney-General. None were brainy enough to win scholarships, nor were 99 per cent, of the remainder who, I have no doubt, are doing equally sound jobs of work."
    That is the argument in which we who have been teachers believe, and we have been advising our party to go that way.
    We have found that the average children, the great bulk of those whom we teach, are almost invariably responsive to teaching and to the educational opportunity given to them. That is what parents who are able to pay fees have found. That is why, as the hon. Member for Hampstead said, the independent schools have a value. Parents can pay to have their children taught in smaller units. We are anxious that the average child should have his or her opportunity. That is why we want to reduce the size of classes and to provide that these children shall have every possible range of course so that they may find their bent and interests.
    Since the Education Act of 1944 came into operation, I have been increasingly worried because the opportunities for parents to pay for their children's education have diminished. I appreciate that those who can afford to pay are members of the community and that their children should be educated just as much as anybody else's children. That is why I am concerned that, more and more, the children who go to grammar schools, the key to which is the passing of an entrance examination, are 100 per cent. brainy people.
    These schools are becoming schools where children are segregated strictly according to their brain-power. That did not happen in the old maintained and aided grammar schools. It was the normal thing for a large percentage of parents to gain entry for their children by the payment of fees. Those children were average and below-average children, and they helped to make the grammar schools into normal, comprehensive schools.
    All these are educational arguments. These are the things that we want. We were told on the wireless today about the shortage of qualified engineers, and yet
    74
    there are in the ordinary schools average boys whose abilities could be brought out by proper education and who could very well become qualified engineers. There are in the grammar schools also boys who have passed the common entrance test but who do not take readily to the academic side and do not want to learn for learning's sake. They might well be given a vocational, technical course which might ultimately lead them to science and engineering. We must not leave these sources of great power and ability untapped. We on this side of the House say that the comprehensive schools provide the opportunity whereby we can employ to the fullest extent the capacity of all our children.
    I ask the Minister to look also at the question of maintenance grants. Some of us who are keen on education and are teachers try to encourage children to stay in school for a fifth year. In the London area we inaugurated a scale of grants for such pupils. It was a modest scale in those days, a matter of £30 a year where the parental income did not exceed £150. The Minister will realise that £150 was a small sum for all except a widow or someone on retirement or infirmity pay and therefore there were not many cases.
    The scale descended until at a parental income of £300 the grant was only £6 a year. At that time the average wage was £5 8s. 6d. a week, and we paid out in 3,421 cases. The number of children in that age group was 8,411, which meant that we were giving a grant in 40 per cent of cases of children who stayed in school over the age of 15 in that year.
    The Minister knows that the purchasing power of money has declined and in consequence wages have gone up. The average wage in October was £8 1s. and today, instead of grants being payable in 3,421 cases, only 641 grants are paid and yet there are 11,521 children in the age group. Therefore, the percentage receiving grants today is five instead of 40, and only an infinitesimal sum of money is paid out to help these children.
    London County Council has asked the Minister to be allowed to restore grants, and the parental incomes on which they are based, to figures roughly comparable with those which applied when the scheme was inaugurated. The Minister

    75
    is showing herself extremely unsympathetic to the idea. I hope that she will not wait very much longer, because all educationists know that there are boys and girls who are very desirous of staying for that extra year of school life but who cannot ask their parents to make the sacrifice when no grant is made towards the cost.
    I ask the right hon. Lady to look again at these scales and also at the further scales for pupils of between 16 and 18 years who are suffering from the same difficulties. I ask her to act without waiting for the report of the Departmental Committee which is investigating the question of why so many grammar school children leave before the age of 16. We are concerned with average children and we want to encourage them to stay on and complete their course of study. I hope that the right hon. Lady will do her utmost to restore the old position.
    5.19 p.m.
    Mr. John Eden: I wish to make only one point in following the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), and that is in agreeing with her that it is time that we reviewed the whole field of secondary education. I wish to review one particular aspect of that large field—that connected with independent schools. I have an interest to declare in this subject. Probably I suffer from two major defects in the eyes of hon. Members opposite. One is that I was educated at what I believe to be the greatest independent school in this country, Eton College. The other defect is that I am at present, and have been for some time, a director of a private school company concerned with the education of 200 children. Therefore, if I make some comments on independent schools, I hope that hon. Members will realise that I do so with some knowledge and experience—albeit limited—in this field. In putting these forward hon. Members on both sides might be prepared to accept them as a somewhat independent view on independent schools.
    I have found it difficult to understand why, when hon. Members opposite are fighting an election, they attack independent schools with very great vehemence on the assumption that independent
    76
    schools represent today one of the last remaining strongholds of privilege. Indeed, they said in their party paper "Challenge to Britain" that they do not like
    "The existence of … 'prep' schools, and 'public' schools with small classes and high social prestige."
    Yet, when it comes to speaking to a debate such as this, when we are all—myself included—endeavouring to be moderate and constructive in proposing our views, they make a point of referring to the situation in the independent schools with some alarm, saying that they are disturbed about the standard of education and equally disturbed, as was mentioned several times when the Minister was making her statement in the House the other day, about the standard of the teachers in independent schools.
    I should like to say one or two things about the standard of teachers and the standard of independent schools. I do not believe that we can expect to increase the standard of any school or the standard of any educational system necessarily by legislation or by standardisation. It seems that I differ from the views of many hon. Members opposite in their assumption that if we either bring all children together into one comprehensive school, or legislate that certain subjects shall be taught otherwise the schools will be closed, we necessarily improve the standard of education.
    We obviously must have men and women who have the greatest possible knowledge to teach in all schools. They themselves must be fully educated in that they have had a good background training in the subject they are trying to teach. But it is not only a question of having a diploma. Today nearly everyone seems to demand that before anyone should be allowed, or considered eligible, to teach children he should have a particular certificate or diploma as having achieved a certain standard. That is very desirable, but it is not the whole story.
    What we now tend to ignore is the fact that not only do teachers need to have considerable knowledge, but they also need to have considerable character. They must be able to put across to their children the knowledge they have and be able to understand the workings of a child's mind. I believe very strongly that

    77
    there is too much accent today on standardisation and the belief that we can achieve some remarkable degree of equality merely by legislating for it. I do not believe any more that we can have standardised schools than that we can have standardised teachers. In view of what the Minister said on 1st July in this House, when referring to the introduction of Part III of the Education Act by May, 1957, or as near as possible, we are moving forward to a period in the history of education in this country when we shall gradually do away with independent schools. As far as I understand it, we are trying to move towards a system whereby no schools will be tolerated unless a certain agreed minimum standard is maintained in that school. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] Many hon. Members on all sides of the House obviously think that extremely desirable. I think it is desirable only insofar as we should expect a high standard; I do not think it is desirable that we should demand a high standard.
    If we are hoping to preserve a wide freedom of choice for the individual parent in selecting the school to which he wishes to send his child, there should be the choice, such as now, of comprehensive schools, grammar schools, secondary modern schools and also independent schools. This free selection should continue. I do not see why we should aim at bringing all these different schools and ways of education into one comprehensive school and doing away with the independent schools, which have given so much towards the education of the children of the country.
    No more than standardised schools or standardised teachers can we have standardised pupils. I would stress that every individual is born with different qualities and different gifts. Every effort must be made to draw out from the child the particular qualities or gifts with which the child is born. That is the whole purpose of education, and that is what the very word means—to draw out.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Sixty in a class.
    Mr. Eden: It is extremely important that we should appreciate that, since we have children of varying degrees of competence, varying degrees of skill, gifts and qualities, we cannot possibly hope either to level them all down or to level
    78
    them all up, because they are different entities. Therefore, the greatest degree of competition we can possibly have in the educational system is to the advantage of the children whom we are trying to educate. That is why I am firmly convinced that we must maintain the present free system of independent schools and of enabling parents to exercise their right of choice in sending their children to the schools they think fit for them.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: How does the hon. Member relate that to the parents with very little money, or none at all?
    Mr. Eden: We wish the parents with limited means to be able to send their children to the local schools within their particular area so far as possible. In advocating this point of view for the independent school, I am not in any way trying to say that we should have only independent schools. I should like to see the standard of education in the State schools raised to the same level as now exists in independent schools. Then we could get full equality of opportunity such as hon. Members opposite want.
    Mr. Mellish: How can a docker with three children, who is earning £7 a week, hope to send his child to one of these independent schools, however good that child may be?
    Mr. Eden: The answer is that the State is concerning itself with trying to provide an equally good system of education for the children of those parents who cannot themselves afford to send their children to a fee-paying school. That is the whole purpose of State education. That is the reason why we—on both sides of the House—believe in this system. But that is not an excuse, because we believe in that, to destroy something which we already have, which is extremely worth while, namely, first-class independent schools which are saving the taxpayer money and also producing children who are well educated and have a wide outlook on the problems of the world.
    We have heard a great deal in this debate about the large sums of money now being spent. It is spent on buildings, on transporting children from home to school and back again, etc. We all know extraordinary cases of this sort of thing where a child could easily cycle to school, but a bus is provided for him. We have all

    79
    heard of many cases such as that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] In a village in Hampshire. I shall send the hon. Member details not only of that case but of a considerable number of others, if he will kindly apply to me later.
    As we are spending large sums of money on education, a sum which is constantly increasing under the auspices of the present Administration, which we welcome, it is all the more important we should make quite certain that we are getting value for the money we are spending. I do not believe that we can necessarily judge that value by the standard of glorious new buildings, by the amenities which children have or the beauty of their surroundings. The right way to judge the value we are getting for money is by the standard of education which is now being given; how well educated are the children who are now going through the system; and do we accept the fact that all this money now being spent is well spent when it is reported that there is an increasingly higher standard of illiteracy in this country today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] I must draw attention to these facts, because certainly when we spend money on such a large scale as we are spending it today on a system of education, we must be absolutely certain that we are getting full value for it.
    Mr. W. T. Williams: The hon. Member is saying that it is a fact that illiteracy has increased in this country. Has he any evidence of it on which he is basing that statement?
    Mr. Eden: I ask the hon. Member if he will kindly refer later to the report of what I did say. So far as my memory goes, I asked, "Are we prepared to accept the spending of these sums of money when it is reported that there is now an increasing state of illiteracy?" I am merely asking that question and I am asking on the basis of various reports which are available. I would draw the hon. Member's attention to last Sunday's "Observer," in which there was a small article referring to the teaching of reading to children today. If the hon. Member will read the first paragraph of that article he will see that my rhetorical question—or direct question—was not completely unsupported by outside evidence.
    80
    I feel very strongly that the quality of education which our children are now getting in the State-aided and State schools is nothing like high enough. There is a tendency today to concentrate on the aptitude-test type of education, on the practical type of education of requiring children to go and dig in the sand or play with some bricks or something of that sort. There is very little accent today on the training of the minds of children, and it is in the training of the mind that the most important field of education exists.
    I do not think at all—
    Sir Frederick Messer: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Eden: —that there is a very good prospect for the children of this country if we continue to ignore the training of the mind which can be given through the teaching of poetry and the teaching of classics; also, we must not ignore the teaching of history, English history in particular. I do not for a moment say that the training of the mind is being ignored wholesale throughout the State schools and is only being appreciated in independent schools. I only say that there is a tendency in all education today to lean towards the practical side of teaching, towards what I call the operational side of teaching, and for there to be a little less emphasis on the old system of the Three Rs and the mental training which is the real basis of education.
    Hon. Members opposite have frequently shown themselves extremely concerned about the desirability of certain teachers in the independent schools. When the Minister made her statement on 1st July about independent schools there were a number of questions put to her asking that certain undesirable teachers should not be allowed to carry on their work in independent schools. Those questions did not only refer to one specific aspect of undesirability; they referred by and large to teachers in independent schools who had not particular diplomas or particular qualifications or certain certificates such as are possessed by other teachers who have been through training colleges, etc.
    I should like to ask hon. Members, before they attack a system such as that of the independent schools, which is

    81
    working well and producing good results, to look, first, to the standard of teaching which exists in the State schools. I would go further. If hon. Members think that there are many undesirable teachers in independent schools, I would remind them that some hon. Members also think occasionally that there are undesirable teachers in the State schools. It would be a much better principle to put that system right first.
    For example, there are undesirable teachers and undesirable teachers; and one type of undesirable teacher which I do not like to see tolerated in State schools is the teacher who is definitely a Communist, who is politically biased to the extreme Left and who uses his particular office to promulgate policies and beliefs and to influence the minds of children in policies and beliefs which are wholly unacceptable to the people of this country.
    Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): The hon. Member has made a very serious accusation against the teaching profession of this country. Will he now be perfectly honest and quote to this House one single case in which that has occurred?
    Mr. Eden: First let me dispel any fears which the hon. Member might have had in assuming that I was making an accusation against the teaching profession. I have been extremely careful to say that while many hon. Members may like to think that there are undesirable teachers in independent schools, there are some, who include myself, who think that there are certain undesirable teachers in State schools. I was in no way making any attack whatever on the general standard or qualifications of teachers in the whole State system of education.
    If the hon. Member wants one specific instance, I will give it. I do not wish in any way to overstep the bounds of Privilege, and being a new Member of this House I am not competent to judge how far I can go in this particular instance. I should like to assure hon. Members that I have the complete chapter and verse of this particular case and I should be prepared to give it to hon. Members who are interested. I know the complete history of this case, and after the debate is over I shall be glad to give it.
    Mr. Short: I will wait for the hon. Member outside the Chamber after the debate is over to receive the particulars, to give them to the national Press.
    Mr. George Thomas: Before the hon. Member continues, may I ask if he has considered the advisability of giving his information to the Minister earlier on? Is he further aware that it is not our job, as hon. Members of this House, to be a "Gestapo" over anyone?
    Mr. Eden: I am conscious—
    Mr. Skeffington: But only just.
    Mr. Eden: I was confident that the remarks that I made would not be wholly acceptable to some hon. Members opposite, and I was careful to make quite certain that, if necessary, I could support what I said with facts. Having inquired of one or two of my hon. Friends, I am now only too anxious to give details to the House about which school I was referring to; and in doing so I am perfectly aware that my right hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, have had details of this particular case for some considerable time.
    Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of order. Since the hon. Gentleman is about to name a school which is bound to suffer —and all the members of the staff of that school are bound to suffer—is it within your discretion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to ask him to exercise a little care?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It is not a point of order. We are completely privileged here, and the hon. Member may say anything he likes.
    Mr. Thomas: Can you ask him to—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden) is privileged to say anything he likes in this Chamber.
    Sir William Darling: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden) was making this statement in reply to a direct challenge to name the school.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no point of order. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West is entitled to continue.
    Mr. Eden: I have no desire to press this matter in open debate. But if hon. Members opposite persist in bringing this challenge, and are not prepared to accept my word that I know of this specific instance, and that it is one which has been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend; if they insist that I should name this particular school, I have no alternative but to do so. The school to which I am referring is the Acton County School for boys, where the headmaster is a known member of the Communist Party; has frequently spoken at Communist sponsored meetings, and is primarily responsible for promulgating—in conjunction with some members of his staff, but by no means all—Communist ideologies and Communist ideas. I am extremely sorry, but I hope—
    Sir F. Messer: On a point of order.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see how any point of order can arise.
    Sir F. Messer: The point of order is this. Is it right for the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden) to mention a school in connection with the subject to which he is now referring without stating that this matter has been investigated by the county council which is the education authority concerned—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
    Sir F. Messer: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, how can you know that it is not a point of order until you have heard it?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have heard enough to know that it is not a point of order.
    Mr, Eden: I have little more to say—
    Miss Bacon rose—
    Mr. Eden: I cannot give way any more. There are other hon. Members who wish to speak, and I am trying to bring my remarks to a conclusion in order to allow hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to answer the points which I have raised.
    Miss Bacon: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make accusations about what a teacher has done in school and then to offer no evidence—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are privileged in this Chamber. That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Eden: If the hon. Lady and other hon. Members will permit me, I will now bring my remarks to a conclusion. I absolutely agree that one should never generalise about any issue and that is what I have been careful not to do. I merely say that in trying to right whatever wrongs there may be in our educational system in this country I would ask hon. Members opposite to appreciate that not all the wrongs exist in the independent schools; and that they should first look at the State schools and try to make that system of education work well before attacking and destroying something else which is extremely valuable in this country.
    5.46 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden) said at the commencement of his speech that he had two major defects. Having listened to his speech, I am certain that he was modest in his claim. Apart from that, I think that we have just witnessed in a debate on education what I would call "smear tactics," a practice which seems to be growing not only in our own country, but in other parts of the world. I think that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, who has made his first contribution to a debate on education in this House, ought to be ashamed of himself. When he reads the report of his speech tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I hope that he will decide to keep his mouth closed during future debates on education so long as he represents a Bournemouth constituency.
    I think that it was a dreadful smear to say something about a man's political activities. In our community a man has a perfect right to be a Communist. He has a perfect right to be an anti-Communist, outside—
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Or a Freemason.
    Mr. Peart: He has a perfect right to to be a Conservative or a member of the Labour Party. Of course, he has no right to indoctrinate children with certain theories. One of the charges made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West against the headmaster of this particular school is that he indulged in political activities outside—
    Sir F. Messer: May I interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) to ask if he is aware that the authority concerned investigated this case and found that there was no evidence of any indoctrination of children?
    Hon. Members: Withdraw. Be a man.
    Mr. Peart: It is obvious that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West has not the courage to stand up and apologise and withdraw his remarks, especially when a responsible statement has been made by a member of the authority concerned. I think that we may leave it that the hon. Member, who is a product of the expensive school which he mentioned, is thoroughly ashamed of himself.
    Let us now turn to the debate, and from the interlude by a product of an expensive independent school. I wish to concentrate on the Ministerial policy as it affects the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon). She was charged with introducing politics into this debate. I think that was the view of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) who spoke immediately after her. It is a rather strange doctrine that if one approves of the Minister of Education, one is being non-political, but if one opposes vigorously her policy, then one is introducing politics into our debate.
    I will not go into the details mentioned by my hon. Friend in her excellent speech. I repeat what I have said previously. I believe the Minister is a grey shadow over the educational system; the Parliamentary Secretary is just a shadow. The Minister has consistently created an atmosphere which has harmed the educational system. Circulars 242 and 245 and the Minister's attitude towards adult education, which was challenged in this House, are instances of the policy which has been pursued for the past few years. It is accepted in the educational world that the present Administration has created an atmosphere which has worked against the true interests of the schools and of the profession. It will be a good day for the educational world when there is a change in the Administration.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) talked about the Minister's
    86
    critics. Many of those critics are members of the Conservative Party. The hon. Member referred to those who would have cut the school age. Surely he has read the Conservative pamphlet "One Nation." to which the Chancellor has written a preface, in which there is a suggestion that the difficulties facing the educational world should be met by a cut in the school age. Surely the hon. Member has read the speeches of his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) who, in this House, advocated a cut in the school age. Surely hon. Members opposite remember Lord Waverley, when a leading figure in the Conservative Opposition, chiding the Labour Government for raising the school age. The critics have all along been members of the Conservative Party, and time and time again they have suggested that the Labour Government should not raise the school leaving age and they now advocate a cut in the school age in order to meet the difficulty of overcrowding in school.
    Mr. Christopher Hollis: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) is not in the Chamber, might I say that I am certain that he never advocated a cut in the school age. He said that if it was found necessary to cut, he would prefer it to be done in the first year rather than the last year.
    Mr. Peart: I am glad to hear that what was said by the hon. Member for Ealing, South was prefaced by an "if," but I was under the impression that the hon. Member advocated a cut as a solution to the problem if the Minister had to face the difficulties in relation to steel, finance and other resources which operated in 1952. Conservative Members of another place time and time again advocated a cut in the school age.
    There are many children in many parts of the country who are unable to get places at the age of five because of overcrowding. I sent my small boy to a new L.C.C. school, and that is already overcrowded. That is a measure of the urgency of the problem. I am glad that my hon. Friend focussed attention on the 1953 Report; it shows that there has been an increase in overcrowding in schools. For that reason, there is no ground for complacency if we are to make a real attack on the problem.

    87
    I want to concentrate on the field of technical education. I believe that the Government have been complacent. The Chancellor recently announced proposals for giving assistance to certain technical colleges. Although the Minister of Education has no direct responsibility for the University Grants Committee, I wish we could have some specific information about the direct financial assistance to be given to higher technical education. We ought to have something more than the vague statement that we were given. I admit that it was difficult for the Chancellor to give details, but he promised that we should be given more detailed information.
    I hope the Minister will give us some information about the policy of her Department and the Government for this important part of education. I know that in 1952 the Minister issued Circular 255 and that there were increased grants up to 75 per cent, for approved courses in technical education, but in view of the Chancellor's statement we ought to have something more specific. We ought also to know whether or not the policy of the Government has changed and whether or not the Government will really seek to give university status to some of the technical colleges which have been mentioned. It is important to have a decision on this matter. After all, many committees have reported. We have had the Select Committee, and we have had a series of reports from private committees. We have also had important reports from the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. It has just issued a report on higher technological education.
    We ought to know what the Government's policy is. Will there be an improvement in status? I welcome the assistance which has been mentioned, but I want to know the amount of it. It is not sufficient just to give grants for approved courses. I want more money spent on building in relation to technical colleges. I want the recommendations of the Select Committee implemented.
    What is the Minister going to do about technical education in relation to the Select Committee's 12th Report which we had in July, 1953? I am sorry that we have not had a full debate on it. I know that the Minister and her Department have replied to the recommenda-
    88
    tions, but I should like to know what they are really going to do about technical education. Is the Department really going to implement the findings of the Select Committee? The findings were carefully surveyed by a committee, and I have no doubt that they have been carefully studied by the Department. However, as yet, I see no development.
    To take the first recommendation, has the Ministry decided to re-examine the problem of building in instalments with a view to eliminating to the maximum extent the financial loss involved? That was the Select Committee's first recommendation. What is the Department going to do about it? The appendix to the 15th Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, which indicates the Minister's policy is certainly not adequate.
    What about the other recommendation that the Minister should consider the suggestion that money for technical colleges should be allocated to local authorities on a five-year basis? Can we have some information about the Ministry's policy in that respect? May I know how much will be allocated for technical education this year? Various committees tell us over and over again that we are lagging behind in this matter. The Report on higher technological education published by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee shows how we are lagging behind many European countries and America in this field.
    After all, it is an important matter, and we should have an indication of the Government's policy about it. It is a matter which goes beyond the field of education; it is a matter which affects industry. If we are to win the trade battle, we must have more craftsmen and technicians. If we are to develop the Colonial Territories, we must have a greater supply of technicians and experts, geologists and agricultural scientists. These are the people we need if we are to develop those territories and if we are to win our economic battles. Therefore, this is not a matter to be dealt with purely from the educational point of view, but something which concerns our general economic future, and I think it is important that the Minister should give us today an indication of the Government's policy and should tell us what the Government are to do about implementing the Report of the Select Committee.

    89
    I compliment my hon. Friends who sat on that Committee, as well as hon. Members opposite. I only wish that they had taken a wider survey of technical education, because I am certain that we are not pursuing the proper policy in this respect. If we examine the tendencies in the wider field of technical education, we can see that there are still grave defects. After the war, the Percy Committee, which investigated the subject of higher technological education, thought that, through the Education Act, 1944, we should build up a great system of modern secondary technical education. We know that has not been done, and we know the reasons why.
    I think we can see where the emphasis was placed from the figures given to me by the Minister herself in reply to a Question which I asked her on 22nd February this year, when I asked for the present distribution of children aged 11 and over in the secondary grammar, technical and modern schools, respectively. The figures she gave me were these: secondary grammar, 511,008; technical, only 79,194; and modern schools, 1,133,488. So we can see that the ideals that were envisaged by the Percy Committee in its Report, which placed such emphasis on the Education Act, 1944, have not been realised. There has been no extension of technical education in the secondary field. I believe that the Government should concentrate on this, although I am not suggesting that we should build immediately new tech-
    nical schools—
    Mr. Stephen Swingler: I think it is an exaggeration to say that there has been none, because in many of the best of our secondary modern schools a good part of the education is technical. I do not say that it is completely satisfactory, but a great deal of technical education is being given in secondary modern schools.
    Mr. Peart: I think my hon. Friend mistook what I said. I said that the new secondary modern technical school has not developed. The secondary technical school was expected to develop from the old junior technical school, and it has not done so. Therefore, I am suggesting that the Government should encourage more and more emphasis on technical education in our secondary modern
    90
    schools, in our comprehensive schools and even in our grammar schools.
    I believe that there is too much emphasis in the grammar school on the more formal side of education. For example, there is too much emphasis on pure science, as distinct from applied science. This is a serious problem, because it is related to the supply of technologists. Time and again, committees have surveyed this problem and have argued that we must tackle it now in the school. We must have more children in the grammar schools reading applied science and going on to the universities to take the various technological courses which the universities provide.
    I hope we shall try to encourage a technical bias more and more in our new schools, and certainly in our comprehensive schools. I wish we had more technical facilities—the provision of more facilities for technical education on the ground floor, so that these schools will feed the various colleges and universities which provide technological education. In that way, we shall be making a contribution to the improvement of our trade and helping towards a solution of our economic problems by improving or increasing the bias towards technical education in the various institutions that we have.
    The Minister has announced a policy which I mentioned in relation to the technical colleages and various grants given to them, and consideration has been given by the Select Committee to the national colleges. I see that there is to be a new national college of technology this year. I hope that this process will continue and that the Minister will constantly review the matter. I hope that the position of the Imperial College of Science will be improved, and that we will certainly use it as a national college to provide these expert technologists we require in various fields of industry. There must be no slackening in this field. There must be a higher proportion of our financial resources now used for education diverted for the purpose of technical education. I am quite prepared to argue that if it comes to a point at which we have to make a decision as to priorities or the allocation of resources I would certainly advocate that we should now concentrate on technical education, in view of the need to expand our economy and develop our industrial efficiency.

    91
    My last point is something quite different. We have been told today that we are to have a large experiment in the use of television in our schools, and I understand that 77 local authorities have agreed to co-operate. A resolution was passed recently by the Conference of the Association of Education Committees in support of this proposal. I trust the Minister will watch the use of television in the schools. I know that education has lost the battle in the field of commercial television, and I am sorry that the Minister of Education has condoned the action of her Government in that direction. I think that commercial television is a potential menace to the community, but also I believe that even publicly controlled television can be a menace if it is not watched properly. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Lady will watch very carefully the use of television in our schools.
    I confess that I am alarmed at the effect which television has in the wider field of education. I have been reading a most interesting book by Dr. Ernest Green, entitled "Adult Education: Why this Apathy?" The book contains an educational survey which has been carried out by various adult bodies, and, here and there, we see already how television has affected liberal studies provided by adult education. It may well be that, if we use it properly, it will encourage such studies, but I hope that the Minister will watch it, because I think it is important, and she will certainly need to watch the quality of the programmes.
    Children's television is very good, and the programmes are much better than the adult programmes provided by the B.B.C., but, even so, I think it must be watched, because there is a great danger in the wider field that it may make people become placid spectators of a machine which provides them with entertainment, whether it be publicly controlled or commercial.
    After all, what is the purpose of education? What are we really seeking to do in our desire to improve our schools? Even though we may have political differences, we are trying to provide a system which will enable the products of that system to think for themselves and become gracious men and women living in a democracy. Therefore, I believe that television can be a menace, because
    92
    it can create an uncritical mind, a passive mind, and it can create a mind which accepts irresponsibility and which runs away from responsibility. In that sense, it can be very harmful to our modern democracy.
    I have tried over and over again to emphasise this aspect of education as something which both sides of this House must watch carefully. We must watch this growth of centralised propaganda, this seeking to capture the minds of people who passively accept. Make no mistake; if our democracy is lazy in that sense, it is doomed. For that reason, our educational system should be an intellectual barrier against this propaganda. Therefore, the Minister of Education should be most active in surveying carefully these new instruments which are intruding themselves very vigorously into our school life. She must watch carefully the experiments of each local authority, and, if necessary, she must take action if she feels that any experiment can harm the community by creating that unthinking mentality which is so disastrous to democratic thought and action.
    6.12 p.m.
    Mr. David Renton: I think most hon. Gentlemen on this side will agree with the concluding remarks made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in regard to television. The hon. Gentleman has deployed one of the principal arguments against having only one system of television and in favour of our Television Bill.
    This is the first time in the nine years during which I have had the honour to be a Member of this House, that I have ventured to try to take part in a debate on education. I am not a pundit on education. My experience has been limited to being manager of a small village school, although I am proud of having some teaching in the blood. Having decided to attempt to speak in this debate, I have been agreeably surprised to find what a lively debate it has been. My recollection of the debates on education to which I have listened in the past, is that they were confined much more to the technicalities of education and very much less to polemics between the parties. I do not wish to carry on those polemics. I want to go straight on to the technicalities.

    93
    One of the most important things to bear in mind, in order to follow the present situation in education, is the subtle distinction between an all-age school and a comprehensive school. They both seem to me to cater for children between the ages of five and 15; but at the comprehensive school it is still later. There is an attempt in both those types of school, to divide the children into classes according to the number of teachers available for the subjects that have to be taught. I concede a point to the Opposition. I have no doctrinal prejudice against comprehensive schools. I suppose I was at what may be described as a "comprehensive" school. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which was that?"] I was at Oundle, which had not only the public-school range of ages from 14 to 19, but also a preparatory school, where the ages ranged from nine to 14. There we had a comprehensive school. There is no doubt about it.
    It is, however, no use trying suddenly to create comprehensive schools by bulldozing away other schools, which are to some extent comprehensive in themselves, like some of the grammar schools which have been mentioned here this afternoon. It is no use removing good existing schools merely to make a big, new comprehensive school. Let us be fair to the Minister. Her position has been made clear. She too has no doctrinal prejudice against the comprehensive school, but she sees the dangers if she sanctions a comprehensive school every time a request is made to her.
    The all-age school is essentially a rural problem. Mine is essentially a rural constituency, and I have a small criticism to offer. One cannot glean this from the Report; but I guess that my constituency is at a bigger disadvantage than any other rural area in regard to all-age schools. There is nothing in the Report to show this, and I can only go by my own observations; and such as I can glean from other people. So far as the nation-wide situation is concerned, the Report, speaking of village schools generally, says, in paragraph 14, page 8:
    "At the same time these schools may suffer from a number of serious disadvantages. More than a quarter of them are still all-age schools, so that two or three teachers, and not infrequently one, must try to do justice to the needs of 10 age groups, with the problems of satisfactory classification that they present. This is a challenge to the skill and adaptability
    94
    of the teachers to which many rise with distinction."
    We all know of examples of teachers in village schools who rose with distinction. They have done so for generations. The Report goes on:
    "It may well be asked whether it is a task that the average teacher can reasonably be expected to achieve successfully."
    Let us acknowledge that, in spite of honest endeavour by Socialist Governments and three years of still greater endeavour by my right hon. Friend, there are two main weaknesses in our present educational system. One is that in the rural areas we have too many all-age classes and the other is that in urban areas we have too much overcrowding. What is the result on the minds of the people living in rural areas? They know something about the overcrowding in the towns, but they have it firmly fixed in their heads that teaching is better in the towns because there are fewer all-age schools.
    What shall we do about this problem? Are we to go on pouring all the money we can into improving the situation in the towns and making education there still more attractive by overcoming the overcrowding? That is one way of doing it, but what will happen? We shall entice people still further from the country to the town. Country people will near of more money being spent on the town schools, of classes being reduced in size and more comprehensive schools being built, while there is no change in the villages. The drift from the country to the town will be aggravated, if that process goes on.
    I suggest to my right hon. Friend that she should concentrate to a much greater extent than has been done so far, either by herself or by her predecessors, on reorganisation of schools in the villages. I believe I shall have the backing of all hon. Members representing rural constituencies in making that suggestion. The problem has been the subject of special study quite recently by the Association of Education Authorities, which has made a survey. It has come to the conclusion that the cost of completing rural reorganisation is between £15 million and £20 million of capital expenditure. They have suggested that, if that money was spread over five years, and we spent between £3 million and £4 million a year, the reorganisation would be complete and the task would be completed.

    95
    It may be that to do it just like that would be asking either for too much money to be diverted from the towns—although I would have no hesitation at all in doing so—or for too much money to be provided for education as a whole. I am one of those who believe in an overall economy in expenditure, so I would rather see the money diverted from the towns.
    I am quite sure that we shall be working in a vicious circle, if we go on increasing the number of places in the towns and go on enticing people from the villages to the towns. By doing that, we merely fill up the increased places which we provide. What we should do is to stop the trouble at its beginning, which is that the village schools have not yet been sufficiently reorganised. In my constituency alone—I know that it is only a very small county—we need seven new secondary modern schools.
    I really think that my right hon. Friend has got to do some fresh thinking about this, because, otherwise, the drift from the land will go on. I do not say that merely on the vague ground that the drift from the land is bad and should be halted, but because I believe most passionately that the future wellbeing of this country depends to a great extent, not upon the townspeople, but upon the country people. If the country people go down, the country as a whole goes down.
    This is a social and moral problem of the very highest importance, and the foundation of its solution is better education in the villages. That can only be achieved by getting on with the reorganisation, which, if necessary, I suggest, must be attained at the expense of providing new places in the towns. I have no hesitation in saying this, and I do not apologise for saying it, whatever any urban Member may say.
    Mr. Swingler: When the hon. Gentleman talks about diverting money from the towns to the country, is he aware that that is not really the proper way to put it, because many urban authorities are only too anxious that such money should be spent on rural reorganisation owing to the fact that they have to find the places for the village children, which aggravates their overcrowding? Therefore, by spending the money on rural reorganisation, it
    96
    would relieve some of the urban authorities of part of the overcrowding.
    Mr. Renton: I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has emphasised and clarified a point which I was trying to make three or four minutes ago. I am glad that I have him on my side. I hope that I have made the matter sufficiently clear to enable me to pass from it to one or two points to which, though I attach less importance to them. I wish to refer.
    First, there is the burning question of grammar school masters. There is no doubt that, unless grammar school masters are given the consideration to which their—let us face it—superior status entitles them, and which they require, we shall not get as many of them as the hon. Member for Workington would like to see, if he is to get the technical education for which he is asking and which, in the main, can only be got in the grammar schools.
    The grammar school masters have undoubtedly a feeling—justified or otherwise —of grievance at the moment, in that when their salaries and conditions of service are being negotiated they are lumped in with other secondary school teachers so far as their representation on the Burnham Committee is concerned. I cannot see why they should not have separate representation. Unless somebody is playing a sort of empire building game against them, I do not see why they should not have separate representation.
    I now wish to refer to another matter which the Report, so it seems to me, appears to miss out. There is Provision under the Education Act for scholarships to be provided by education authorities to the public schools, including the very best public school's. Indeed, I believe that the head boy at Harrow not very long ago was such a boy who had won a State scholarship to the school. I maintain that our public schools are without the slightest shadow of doubt the best in the world, and I should like to see more use made by local authorities in the provision of such scholarships. After all, this is a matter for them and not for the Minister.
    However, unless we have a little bit of publicity in the form of something in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Education showing how this process is going on, it is not very easy to make

    97
    local authorities conscious of their obligation in the matter. If only to show how few boys are getting these scholarships, I hope that in the current year something along these lines will be said.
    In conclusion, I wish to say that the Education Act, 1944, which was an all-party Measure, was given the great opportunity of being put into operation immediately after the war. So far, apart from what I think was a highly regrettable speech by an otherwise very worthy Member of this House, the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) today, we have mostly managed to keep party politics out of this subject. It is better that we should.
    Mr. F. Blackburn: What about the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke)?
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) was only making a justified retort to the hon. Lady. If we can keep politics out of this matter, it is much better. I speak with great humility, because I have not spoken before in any general debate on education. With that in mind, may I concede another point in agreeing with an hon. Member opposite? I think that the time has come for us to think once more about this final, fateful decision, which has to be made for every child at the age of 11, in the matter of State education. I must say, looking back over the years, that, if I had had to make that decision, or, worse still, had had to have it made for me, I should not relish what might have happened. Hundreds of thousands of children in this country now have to have that decision made for them.
    It bears hardest of all upon the children of men serving in the Forces, the regular sailors, soldiers and airmen. As they move around doing their duty to their country, they have to take the schools as they find them. A child can be put back very badly before the age of 11, and it is most unfortunate that the children of serving men should have to suffer through no fault of their own.
    Then there are the others of us who develop late in life. I was always told that I was one such person. Perhaps even now I have not developed enough; but there it is. I say most seriously, in a non-party and non-contentious spirit, that
    98
    after 10 years of the administration of the 1944 Act the time has come for fresh thinking on this fundamental matter.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. W. G. Cove: I am sure that all hon. Members on this side of the House agree with the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) in his appreciation of the value of rural schools. We also agree with his view concerning the reorganisation that should take place in the rural areas throughout the country. Having expressed that view I would invite him tonight to walk into the Lobby with us against this Minister.
    As a matter of fact the Minister has laid down conditions which will prevent the reorganisation of schools in the rural areas. If the hon. and learned Member will look at Circular 245 he will see this phrase in a document which is an instruction to rural authorities:
    "The Minister will, therefore, still be unable to include in an annual building programme any work designed:—…(c) to enable all-age schools to be reorganised."
    She is there putting on a bar against the reorganisation of our schools. We all agree that the 1944 Act cannot be put into effect at all unless we have reorganisation; it cannot be put into effect except on the basis of all-age schools. In Circular 245 the Minister has laid down conditions which completely prevent that reorganisation in the rural areas or anywhere else.
    I have been here for many years. I have seen Ministers come and Ministers go. I say quite definitely that it is time for the right hon. Lady to go. I have looked at statements in the Press, I have looked at the Press of the education authorities and at the teacher's Press. I have reviewed copies of "Education" for many a week. I cannot find—particularly in the official organ of the education authorities—one single word of praise or commendation for the right hon. Lady in the job which she is doing. She has the confidence neither of the local authorities nor of the teachers. The superannuation scheme decimated any faith or belief which the teachers had in her integrity. I do not want to quote too much from the official journal "Education," but in the issue of 11th June it states:
    "The Minister's report for 1953 tries hard to be a record of progress. That it fails in

    99
    that is no fault of the draughtsman. It is because the material available does not lead to that conclusion."
    Here I am being non-political, and Dr. Alexander is non-political, but he has nothing but criticism for the school building programme and the programme for technical education. His views are non-political. They are concerned only with education as such. I do not want to read the resolution which was passed at the conference of education authorities but it was completely condemnatory of the right hon. Lady's policy. I could find no single word of commendation for her policy. Indeed, Alderman Robinson said in his speech that though he was a Conservative and supported the political policies of this Government he did not support their educational policy. He said he had no trust in that at all.
    It seems to me, therefore, that if it is true that there is to be reshuffling in the Government it may be for the benefit of the nation and for the benefit of education that the right hon. Lady should go. I am sorry to say this, but it is how I feel, and I agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I have listened to the Minister's Conservative friends. I am not quite sure whether even her Conservative friends strongly support her. I do not think that she ever recovered from the blunder she made upstairs. I say honestly and frankly that she has decimated faith and hope inside the educational system, into which the dry rot of educational administration is eating.
    Is it thought that by turning down Kidbrooke and Tooting Bec schemes the right hon. Lady gained the confidence of the local authority? What becomes of the responsibility of local authorities. There is a clause in Circular 144 which states that there should not be duplication within a local catchment area of the same type of education unless there are special considerations. What are the special considerations that have caused the right hon. Lady to turn down Kidbrooke and Tooting Bee? The considerations are not educational but political.
    Finally, I warn her and her hon. Friends behind her in regard to the comprehensive school. I do not want to argue the merits of the comprehensive school except to say that it is the only medium
    100
    by which the lower and middle classes can get the normal child educated beyond the age of 15. I was impressed the other day by a case of a bank cashier whom I know. Under the 1944 Act his two boys had to pass an examination to get into the grammar school. They were not brilliant boys, but they were normal. They were worth further education, but they could not pass the examination. His sons having failed the examination at 11 plus the cashier's choice was to send them to either a secondary modern school or a private school.
    It may seem strange for me, a Socialist, to talk like this but I think that the burden on middle class—and particularly lower middle class parents—in educating their children in private schools is too heavy, too costly to bear. The comprehensive school is the answer to the development of the normal child. We stand firm on the right of the normal child, with varying capacities and aptitudes, to be given his or her chance by admission. I say quite frankly to the right hon. Lady that, owing to political prejudice, she is standing in the way of the development and opportunities of the normal child.
    I hate quoting in this House, because it takes too long, but I must quote one paragraph at the end of an article in the "Schoolmaster":
    "The whole sorry business really seems to resolve itself into this: is the government of public education to be by co-operation, consultation and agreement between all the partners concerned, including parents, or is it to be at the beck and call of local agitation?"
    The cases of Eltham and Kidbrooke have been the cause of local agitation. Therefore, taking the picture as a whole, I say that it is time that the right hon. Lady left her position and that somebody with more imagination, more dynamism and more idealism took her place.
    6.41 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Hurd: I do not hold any decided views about comprehensive schools. I should like them to prove their value, as, indeed, the value of the longer established schools has been proved.
    The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said that many middle-class parents—and he quoted a cashier at a bank—had no choice if their children

    101
    failed the examination to go to a grammar school. Many parents have come to see me on this. Of course, finance is a difficult problem for the parent with two or three children who are about to reach the age of 11, but that reinforces the plea which we on these benches have made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a tax allowance to be made to parents who wish to send their children to approved independent schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know perfectly well from the parents who come to see me that this would solve the problem for some.
    I want to reinforce what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) said about the position in the rural areas, particularly with regard to secondary school facilities. The whole of the rural community is united on this point. Until the other day I had never seen a joint deputation from the National Farmers' Union, the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the Transport and General Workers' Union. I had the pleasure of being in the chair when those three bodies, which are so often opposed to each other, came together to plead with Members of Parliament that the Minister of Education should give greater equality of opportunity to rural children.
    The reckoning put to us the other day —and I would ask the Minister whether this is a true reckoning, because I cannot find the figures in any departmental publication—was that one child in 12 in the town areas did not have an opportunity of secondary education whereas in the rural areas one child in three still did not have that opportunity and had to continue at an all-age school.
    I have made some inquiries in my county of Berkshire about the progress that we are making in the reorganisation of our schools and as to how long it will be before every child in the county, which is a fair mix between town and country, will have the opportunity of going to a secondary school. It will be several years before that opportunity comes to all the children in Berkshire. We are building now secondary schools, and I suppose that our progress is in line with that of other counties, but if we look to see where those schools are being sited, we find that they are being built in the town areas where there is the
    102
    greatest pressure for places. What effect does that have on the rural parent—on the farm worker and his wife or a man like my gardener and his wife, who have children approaching the age of 11? If they do not succeed in passing the examination into the grammar school they are expected today to continue at the same school from the age of five until 15.
    I know that extra buildings are being provided, but if a child stays at the same school there is not that psychological life which the parents and the child have a right to expect at the age of 11. I believe that it is important for the child to move on and not to be travelling in the same bus with the same children, to school under the same headmaster from five right on to 15. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider this problem sympathetically. We in the rural areas are most anxious that parents in the villages should not feel that they must move into or near the towns in order to obtain proper educational facilities for their children. They have just the same rights as those in the towns; they pay just the same rates and taxes.
    I know from talking to schoolmasters and mistresses that they feel there should be provision for more secondary modern and secondary technical schools, not only in the towns but deliberately placed in rural areas. More of the existing schools which are sound structurally might very well be turned into secondary schools to take the 11-plus children from the neighbouring villages.
    I would ask my right hon. Friend to look again at the amount of money that she allows the counties to spend, particularly to ensure that the rural children are at least getting as fair a chance as the town children. We need fully educated children in modern agriculture, and the same is true of the many other industries sited in rural areas; at least, that is so in my constituency. For our technical advance in the rural areas, notably in farming, we are depending more and more on a sound education. If our children have to remain in all-age schools, we shall not be giving them as good an opportunity as they deserve.
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. Ralph Morley: I agree with what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said, with one exception. I think that if there

    103
    were any proposal by the Government to give some form of tax relief to enable people to send their children to private schools, it would receive criticism not only from these benches but also from educational circles generally. If a child has sufficient ability to pass the selective test, he can receive a grammar school education at the public expense, and if he has not sufficient ability then a place is offered to him to enable him to receive an education suitable to his aptitude and his abilities at the modern secondary school.
    To enable a child to attend a private school, which is a sort of grammar school, by means of granting taxation relief to parents who refuse to send their child to a modern secondary school, would be a sort of State endowment of snobbery, and it would also mean that the State would be paying for a kind of grammar school education at a private school while refusing to pay to educate the child at a public grammar school. I hope that that illogical attitude will not be pursued by hon. Members opposite.
    We have had a very interesting debate, marred only by the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden). It is a very great pity that a new Member—the nephew of a very distinguished statesman—whose youth, aptitude and abilities augur a successful career in this House should have blotted his copybook as badly as he did by making extravagant statements. He accused teachers in a certain school of disseminating Communist propaganda within that school.
    It is quite true that the headmaster of Acton County School is a member of the Communist Party and that, outside school, he has taken part in Communist propaganda in various directions. But there is no shadow of evidence that the headmaster or any member of his staff has indulged in Communist propaganda inside the school. I believe I am correct in saying that the whole matter was very carefully investigated by a special committee appointed by the county council, and that the headmaster and the whole staff were exonerated from the charge of attempting to disseminate Communist propaganda within the school.
    Many headmasters are members of the Tory Party, but it does not follow that
    104
    because of that fact they have to indulge in Tory propaganda within their schools. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that it would be just as blameworthy for a teacher to indulge in Tory propaganda among his children as it would be to indulge in Communist propaganda. The teaching profession has a sense of professional integrity. All teachers would very strongly condemn any member of their profession who abused his office by endeavouring to instil political propaganda —whether it was Communist, Tory, Labour or Liberal—into his children. No professional organisation would defend him; in fact, it would act against him if it were proved that he had been guilty of such a thing.
    Mr. Robson Brown: I do not want to misunderstand the hon. Member. I gather that in his view there is not very much difference between Tory propaganda and Communist propaganda. I believe that Socialist views and Conservative views bear no comparison at all with the Communistic view of the destruction of the State or democracy. They are entirely different things.
    Mr. Morley: I did not say that I thought there was no difference between Tory and Communist propaganda. I think there is a great deal of difference, but am Ito understand from the interruption of the hon. Member that be would look not unfavourably on Tory propaganda in the school, while condemning unreservedly any Communist propaganda?
    Mr. Robson Brown: I want no propaganda at all in schools, but I would say that the views of either a Socialist or a Conservative teacher would differ so much from that of a Communist teacher that the two questions are entirely different ones in every sense of the word.
    Mr. Morley: When the hon. Member says that he wants no propaganda in the schools he entirely agrees with what I have just said. If he says that the Communist mentality is such that a Communist teacher would be obliged to indulge in Communist propaganda in his school, I must question that very much. I think that the professional integrity of such a teacher would overcome his inclination to indulge in such propaganda in front of his children. If it did not, he would

    105
    be worthy of any condign punishment which the local authority or the Minister might feel inclined to inflict upon him.
    I want to make a few comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke). The hon. Member said that the main consideration was to see that children were happy in school. I agree that that is an extremely important thing. If, during the 40 or more years that I was a teacher in a class room, any child in my class had been unhappy I should have been very unhappy myself.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I said that the two aims must be happiness and a high standard.
    Mr. Morley: We will take the question of happiness first. The hon. Member emphasised that. It is quite true that our school children are happier than their predecessors of 30 or 40 years ago, but the increase in their happiness has nothing whatever to do with any efforts made by the present Minister of Education. It is due to the more easy-going and kindly discipline; to the more interesting and varied syllabuses placed before the children; to the more skilled and interesting teaching and also, in a very great measure, to the fact that children are much better fed and clothed. That is not due to any effort by the right hon. Lady; it is due to the Measures passed by the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead said that the curve of building shown on page 40 of the Report, "Education in 1953" went up in 1951, when the present Administration assumed office. I have looked at that curve, and it seems to me to have mounted fairly gradually and regularly all the time. It does not seem to have mounted more steeply since this Administration came into power than it did when the Labour Party were in office. It is true that more schools were finished in 1952 than in 1951, but nine-tenths of those schools were started under the Labour Administration in 1951. I would point out to the hon. Member for Hampstead that a school cannot be finished unless it is first started. This year, 100 fewer schools have been started than were started in 1953.
    Local authorities asked for an allocation of £88 million in respect of school
    106
    buildings for the year 1955–56. According to the reply which was given me last Thursday by the Parliamentary Secretary, their actual allocation is to be £45 million —just over 50 per cent. of what they asked for. I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Hampstead alleged, that local authorities have been extravagant in their demands for building allocations, or that they asked for more building than was really necessary. Local authorities have to bear their share of the cost of new buildings; the whole cost is not met out of Treasury grants. At least 40 per cent. of it is met out of the rates.
    It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business) further Proceeding stood postponed.

    STROUDWATER NAVIGATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. B. T. Parkin: I shall not detain the House long. This Bill is as bad as it was on the day it was born. The only demand for this Bill comes from those who are interested in bringing the bridges up to date to cope with the modern traffic, and I can well understand their feelings and sympathise with them, but there ought to have been promoted a Bill by the county council dealing with the bridges alone. The county council, one can well understand, has doubts whether the opponents of the Bill can make practical suggestions 'or substantial contributions, and in the circumstances I think that the attitude now taken by the chairman of the county council is a very generous one.
    I have received a letter this morning from the clerk to the county council saying:
    "The Chairman has asked me to say that he is prepared, if the Bill becomes law, to recommend the Highways Committee and the County Council to consider sympathetically any proposals in connection with the reconstruction of the bridges I have referred to, which may be submitted to them by a responsible body of

    107
    persons who have in mind the development of a section of the Canal for pleasure boating purposes."
    I hope that that sympathetic attitude will receive the support of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, whom I see in his place, and who intervened in the Second Reading debate to express the concern of the Ministry that this job should be properly done.
    I have no doubt that there is now sufficient time for consideration at leisure of the real facts of the problem, particularly since there is a new development, confirmation of which I received only this morning when I received the letter from the county council. It is that the responsible body, which hardly existed at the time when the clerk to the county council wrote his letter last Saturday, does now exist, in so far as the Canal Restoration Committee has acquired a controlling interest in the shares of the Navigation Company itself.
    We should like to express thanks to the public spirit and generosity of a number of shareholders, including two old and well-known local families, in putting their shares at the disposal of the Committee for that purpose. It will achieve two things at once, the complete removal of the possibility of profit seeking by those who hold the minority of the shares and it will now render it unnecessary to create any kind of trust or new company.
    I think that the Navigation Company will now have the energy and new technique required, and I have no doubt that the new spirit, of mutual responsibility and good will will lead to the solution of the problem that has been sought on all sides. The Bill does not compel anyone to do anything, as I understand it. It gives permissive powers, and in the hope that nothing is done wantonly, hurriedly, or in a spirit of controversy, and as there is time for a solution to be found, I am asking my hon. Friends on this side of the House not to press the matter to a Division.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  SUPPLY

    REPORT [22nd July]
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    7.3 p.m.
    Mr. Morley: I was saying, when we were interrupted for the Third Reading of the Private Bill, that I do not think that the local authorities would ask for unnecessary expenditure for school building because part of that expenditure falls upon the rates and it would not wholly be borne by Treasury grants. Therefore it is not likely that any local authority, as the hon. Member for Hampstead suggested, would overstate its demands. When the local authorities asked next year for £88 million worth of school building it meant that they thought that they could not carry out successfully their educational system within their localities unless that £88 million was granted. Instead of £88 million being granted only £45 million was granted, just over 50 per cent. of their legitimate demands.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead made some statements about comprehensive schools which seemed to me rather peculiar and rather contradictory. He denied that Eton and Harrow are comprehensive schools. Of course, Eton and Harrow are not comprehensive schools in the full sense of the term, in that they do not embody the total range of intellect from the lowest I.Q. to the highest I.Q., and in that respect are not completely comprehensive schools, but they do have amongst their boys a very wide range of intellectual ability. There are boys who obtain admission to Eton and Harrow who would not be able to qualify in the selection examination for entry to many a grammar school conducted by local authorities. So, although not completely comprehensive schools, they are to a degree comprehensive schools, and the success of Eton and Harrow may legitimately be cited as proof of the success of comprehensive schools.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead said, further, that he agreed with the comprehensive school idea. He agreed with the comprehensive school idea, but he did not

    109
    want grammar schools to be absorbed into the comprehensive schools. However, we cannot have a comprehensive school unless the children of the highest I.Q. as well as of average I.Q. and of the lowest I.Q. are pupils within the comprehensive school. We cannot have a comprehensive school unless we have pupils of the grammar school type within that school. So what, in effect, the hon. Member for Hampstead said was that he was in favour of a comprehensive school so long as it was not a comprehensive school.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I said I agreed with carrying out the comprehensive school experiment and that we should learn a great deal from it. What the hon. Member must understand is that Eton and Harrow are recruited from boys who are deemed suitable for that type of education, and he must distinguish between Eton and Harrow on the one hand, and the comprehensive school he is talking about on the other, for entry to which there would be no selection whatever.
    Mr. Morley: I do not want to continue this argument because I do not want to be too long, but I think the hon. Member will agree that Eton and Harrow and most of our great public schools are in a sense comprehensive schools because they contain within them a very wide range of intellectual ability. They contain, I suppose, boys of an I.Q. range from 100 up to 180, which makes them, in a sense, comprehensive schools.
    I do not wish to occupy much more of the time of the House because I know that there are other Members who desire to speak in the debate and who have been waiting to do so for some time, but I want to emphasise two things. First of all, I want to deal with what is to be the future of the secondary phase of education. It seems to me that the greatest problem we have before us at the present time in education is the organisation of the secondary stage.
    By 1960 we shall have 700,000 more children in our secondary schools than we have at present, when the bulge has fully passed into the secondary schools. Today, we are giving about 21 per cent. of our children of secondary school age a grammar school education. An increase of 700,000 in the number of scholars of secondary school age means we have to—
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): I am so sorry to interrupt, but I did not catch the percentage.
    Mr. Morley: Twenty-one per cent.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I thank the hon. Member. I am very sorry to interrupt.
    Mr. Morley: At present, we are giving 21 per cent. of our children of secondary school age a grammar school education —21 per cent, on the average throughout the country. The number of children of secondary school age will increase by 700,000. Indeed, if we are to continue to give 21 per cent. of grammar school places to all children of secondary school age, that means that we have to find 142,000 additional grammar school places within the next few years. The problem is, how are we to continue that situation? I do not think that we ought to build extra grammar schools to provide 142,000 additional places.
    It is quite true that the existing grammar schools cannot possibly be stretched to contain 142,000 additional pupils, and to build additional grammar schools at this time would be to run counter to the very great volume of public opinion which is opposed to the tripartite system in education and to a considerable volume of public opinion which prefers the comprehensive school to the tripartite system. I believe, therefore, that the best way to deal with this problem, with which we shall shortly be faced, would be for the local authorities to build comprehensive schools in their areas, which would contain not only the children of average and below average ability, but also these 142,000, or some of them, brighter children for whom there will be no places in the existing grammar schools.
    In that way, we could partially solve this problem by having a number of comprehensive schools in a number of different areas. That would mean establishing the comprehensive school system in our usual English way, not by a violent or complete break with the past, but by making the changes which are necessary to meet the changing social conditions and changing currents of public opinion. If these additional children of secondary school age cannot be absorbed into the grammar schools, then I suggest some attention should be given to the experiments made at Southampton and elsewhere in which the grammar school

    111
    streams are placed in the existing modern secondary schools.
    In Southampton, we have a scheme by which several modern secondary schools are selected in order to have what is called a "general course" for the pupils, and the general course is, in effect, a grammar school course. The parents of the pupils who take these courses are asked to keep them there until the age of 16, and at the age of 16 they take the General Certificate of Education. If they pass in a sufficient number of subjects, they are transferred to the sixth form of the grammar school.
    In Southampton, this scheme has only been in operation for a few years. It was not until 1952 and 1953 that the pupils in the grammar school stream were able to take the General Certificate of Education. But, in 1952 and 1953, we had 341 passes from the modern secondary school in G.C.E. and 34 pupils in the modern secondary schools went on to the sixth form of the grammar school. The average number of passes in G.C.E. was three but some of the pupils were successful in getting six passes, and this year, which will be the first time that pupils have completed the full five years' course, we are expecting still better results.
    I think that these are two ways of dealing with the organisation of the increased number of secondary school pupils with which we shall have to deal in the next few years—by establishing more comprehensive schools, and by placing grammar school streams in a number of selected modern secondary schools. I think that the Minister, if alive to the urgency of this problem, should now be inquiring of local authorities what are their plans for the organisation of the secondary stage of education, in view of the largely increased number of children of secondary school age which will have to be dealt with in the next few years.
    Finally, I should like to touch upon a subject which has already been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and the hon. Member for Newbury, just to dot the i's and cross the t's of what they have said about all-age schools. There are over 700,000 children being taught in all-age schools of which nearly 300,000 are
    112
    children of secondary school age. The all-age school is classed as a primary school and all the 700,000 children are getting is a primary school education.
    The 1944 Act promises secondary school education to all children, but 15 per cent. of the children are not getting it in these all-age schools. All over the rural areas there are schools of 50 to 150 children with an age range from five years to 15 years in buildings with no proper lavatory facilities, no art rooms, no metal work rooms, and no woodwork rooms, where the children have not the slightest chance of getting anything approximating to a secondary school education.
    We all regret very deeply the fact that the Agricultural Wages Committee did not give an increase in wages to the agricultural workers in the recent negotiations. As a result, we are told by the representatives of the agricultural workers that many of the agricultural workers are leaving the countryside and seeking occupation in the towns. It is not only low wages which drives workers from the countryside; it is also lack of ordinary social amenities and, above all, lack of decent educational opportunities for their children.
    I do not say that the teachers in the country schools are not doing their job efficiently. They are doing very well indeed under bad conditions, but they cannot work miracles, and the best teacher in the world cannot cope with an all-age school of children ranging from five to 15 without proper equipment or apparatus and without sufficient numbers to classify them according to their abilities and aptitudes.
    I think it has already been mentioned that it would cost only £4 million a year for five years to reorganise completely the all-age schools. Surely that is a sum which the Minister ought to be quite willing to pay to put an end to this problem and restore some decent educational standards to the countryside, so that parents there may feel that their children are getting as good a chance as the children in the towns.
    I do not wish to attack the Minister of Education. That has already been very effectively and dramatically done by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), but during the 50 years in

    113
    which I have been closely connected with the practice and polemics of education, I have never known such a feeling of frustration and disappointment, of what our forefathers called the "wanhope," as exists among the teachers today.
    We have seen the size of classes increased. There are 8,000 more classes of over 40 pupils in our schools today than there where when the present Administration took office. We have seen the building programme fail to keep pace with the needs of the children. We have seen nothing substantial done about the reorganisation of the all-age schools. Nothing has been done to remedy the serious evils which were brought to light by the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates in connection with the old slum school buildings. We feel that we are not really making the progress in education that we ought to make.
    I do not know exactly what is the reason. The right hon. Lady is now a member of the Cabinet, so she has a voice, and should have an influence, in the innermost counsels of the nation. It may be that the right hon. Lady, like many other occupants of the Government Front Bench, is mortally afraid of the 1922 Committee. We know that the 1922 Committee wants to destroy the new look garment which the Conservative Party donned in 1951 and which enabled it to win the Election of that year, and, instead of that garment, to dress the party in Edwardian habiliments.
    The 1922 Committee is "gunning" for every progressive Minister. It has already got rid of one progressive Minister and rumour has it that it is attacking another. If the 1922 Committee likes to persuade the Conservative Party to commit political suicide by going back to a 19th century policy then we will not weep any tears, crocodile or otherwise, over that.
    However, we are discussing education. We are discussing children. Education and the children should be above the contest of party politics. We ask the Minister to do something a little bit more constructive, to show a little hit more energy, a little bit more dynamism, in her educational policy during the 18 months which remain to the life of the Government than she has shown during the past three years. If she does not
    114
    do that, then she must go down in history as one of the most ineffectual Ministers of Education that this country has ever known.
    7.23 p.m.
    Mr. Christopher Hollis: I always listen with pleasure and attention to speeches by the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley). On this occasion I think that he was a little bit more happy in the middle of his speech than he was either at the beginning or at the end. So far as the debate has been concerned with an attack upon my right hon. Friend, we must all agree that it has been a considerable fizzle.
    The arguments of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) about building programmes and so on were most effectively answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke). The attempt of the hon. Member for Itchen to put the hon. Lady —if I may call her Humpty Dumpty—together again was not very effective, because the only statistic in building in which the record of the Government is, prima facie, not better than that of their predecessors was the one which the hon. Member quoted about the number of new schools started. The hon. Member omitted to remind the House that these new schools are now predominantly secondary schools whereas previously, and properly, they were predominantly primary schools, and the secondary school costs more money to build. Therefore, the amount of money which is being spent is greater now than it was under the previous Administration.
    There was even less in the observations of the hon. Member about the 1922 Committee. The 1922 Committee is not the subject of debate this afternoon, and I do not think that there is any special point in following up the hon. Gentleman's observations.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said that she hoped that we should have an education debate. I certainly hoped that myself. I will assume that there was no tinge of party politics in any of her observations and that in her views on comprehensive schools she was passing —as she is perfectly entitled to do from her experience—a judgment purely and entirely as an educationist. I assumed

    115
    that exactly the same was the judgment of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove).
    I admit that they are perfectly entitled to have a view, purely as educationists, that the comprehensive school is the best type of school. I do not quarrel with them holding that opinion, but if we are simply talking about this as educationists I would merely make the comment that they must recognise that that opinion is not universally held in educational circles. A number of schoolmasters hold the view and a number do not, and I am sure that the hon. Members will agree that their opinion is not universally held in educational circles. One school of thought favours the comprehensive school. Another school of thought is more restive about some of the problems caused by the comprehensive school.
    The opinion is, I think, restive predominantly for two reasons which have nothing to do with politics and which we cannot deny are valid and important reasons. The first reason is that—though there may be exceptions in Scotland, for instance—as the idea of the comprehensive school is usually preached it will mean a very large school indeed, and there are plenty of people who think that there are dangers in having a school so large that the headmaster cannot have personal knowledge of all the boys.
    Hon. Members opposite have been telling us that Eton is a comprehensive school. I do not think that it is a comprehensive school in the full sense of the word, but it is a very large school and, frankly, without any prevarication, I should say that its great defect is that it is so large. It is a great defect in the Etonian system that the headmaster is not able to get to know all the boys. If we sacked half the boys at Eton tomorrow I think that it would be a better school.
    Mr. Ede: If the number of boys had been reduced by half in the hon. Gentleman's day, would he have been happy to go?
    Mr. Hollis: I do not say that I should have been happy to go. The question is whether it would have been for the public good that I should go, and that is a matter of opinion. In any case, I think that it has grown too large.
    116
    The second reason is perhaps the more important one. The hon. Member for Aberavon spoke of the necessity of having comprehensive schools because that was the only way in which the average middle-class boy or girl could get a run for his money. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East praised the comprehensive school on the ground that it was a system which gave a fair chance to all. That is a point of view which doubtless the hon. Members honestly hold, but they cannot put it forward as an agreed point of view.
    That is self-evident, because there is another school of thought which attacks the comprehensive school precisely on that ground. To prove that this is not a school of thought supported by only a few cranks, I quote from the document, "Reading Ability" issued when the Labour Government were in power and the late Mr. George Tomlinson was Minister of Education. It is not a party document. I do not say that the Government as such were responsible for it, but it certainly is not a Conservative document and it certainly was not issued by the 1922 Committee. It was issued by a Committee set up by the late Mr. George Tomlinson. That document said:
    "Duller children are liable to discouragement in any kind of school where they are in company with those who are much more able."
    The argument was—a perfectly reasonable argument—that a certain moderate degree of competition is doubtless good for the child but to shove him into an environment of wholly unequal competition far from encouraging the child, would discourage him and militate against his opportunities in life. It would doubtless be very good for my cricket, were I to bat against the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). It would be good for it, were I to bat against Mr. Lindwall.
    Miss Bacon: Would the hon. Member agree that the defects to which he has just drawn attention are much more prevalent in the village school where all the children are within one class in a small school, rather than in a large school where there are different classes?
    Mr. Hollis: That may be so in the village school, but I do not feel that that has any bearing on this particular argument. I agree that we can have too small

    117
    schools, but that does not refute this argument. It is true that one may have comprehensive schools under different systems. If we have a system in which there is absolute rigid segregation between children by different streams in the same building, I think that is as bad a system as could be imagined.
    In the educational world it is by no means a settled issue that there is an absolutely the best sort of school and that one sort of school is the answer to all our educational problems. I am by no means opposed to experiments being tried in building comprehensive schools where there is need for new building, but I do not like experiments to be at the expense of existing schools which are already doing their work well.
    The difficulty which the hon. Member for Itchen felt in following the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead, did not seem a real difficulty for he himself answered it. There is an expanding school population and plenty of places where we can try these experiments without destroying existing institutions. I refer again to the document "On Reading Ability." We have to face the alarming statistics about the difficulties of reading in various classes of pupils and different sorts of schools, and the two sorts of school which are doing this best, as it shows, are the public schools and the grammar schools. It would be a foolish educational policy if in the name of theory we were to destroy the two sorts of school which are performing this essential function better than any other sort of school.
    I turn to a consideration of a phrase, which is very easy to use and which there is a very easy political temptation to use —"equality of opportunity." It is rather important to examine it, not from the political, but from a purely scientific point of view, to find its real meaning and what degree of truth it holds. Some hon. Members say very easily that no child should have special advantage in life because of its parents. First, to some extent equality of opportunity is a fact, whether we like it or not, for it is a great advantage to have good parents and a disadvantage to have bad parents. No one would suggest that because some parents are alcoholics, therefore we should infect all children with alcoholism so that none should have an unfair advantage. For that reason it
    118
    does not necessarily follow that we should say that because to some extent it is a fact in nature we should not take measures to correct this injustice with which nature has visited certain children, but there again we have to consider what really are the qualities and origins of ability. If we forget politics for the moment and turn to science, observation and commonsense, we find there is no doubt about it that academic ability is very largely inherited.
    If we take the Report of the Royal Commission on Population, we find persons, among others, as little likely to be suspected of Tory bias as J. B. S. Haldane and Mrs. Douglas Jay giving their names with very weighty evidence which was put before the Commission, to the theory that ability by and large was inherited. That being so, rather than a good thing I think it would be a great pity to create a system in which it would be quite impossible for a parent in any kind of way—however hard he had worked—to get any benefit for his son. A great motive for service to the community would be removed.
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: How would the hon. Member prove which child has ability and which child has not? How could he put it to the test unless equal opportunities were given to prove that one child is able and the other child is not able?
    Mr. Hollis: Certainly I would not test it in every case. As to how I would prove it, the last thing we want is to create a society in which people are mutually competing against one another for the whole time and doing nothing else. Therefore, we have to make certain assumptions.
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member has not got the point which I am seeking to draw from him, namely, that ability is inherited. How can ability, whether inherited or not, be proved unless the opportunity for full education is available in all cases?
    Mr. Hollis: It depends on what one means by full education—
    Mr. Thomas: I would accept the hon. Member's definition.
    Mr. Hollis: None of us in this House would say that every child should have exactly the same education so that we

    119
    should have a competition to see which comes out top. We all agree that there must be some system, whether a comprehensive school or different schools, by which certain children study one subject and certain children study another subject.
    If we simply examine, not the children, but their parents, we probably would make a much better choice in the long run about who is to benefit from education than by examination of the children themselves. It would be to rule out all education if we were to suggest that all should have exactly the same education. That would be a very great mistake and would make it impossible for parents to benefit their children or it would destroy the various educational institutions in this country which have a great tradition behind them.
    The wise as well as the traditional thing to do is to use the traditions of the nation and to modify them, as circumstances demand, to fit the conditions of the day. So I would have independent schools; I should be very sorry if they came to an end. I agree that so far as opportunities to attend them is concerned that there should be a test, and it is not so easy to get into a public school now as some hon. Members seem to think. There should be a stiff entrance examination and stiff tests to justify a boy staying there.
    On the other hand I entirely agree that, while I believe in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, there are certain people whom biologists call "sports," who develop abilities greater than could be expected of them. It is enormously important that machinery should be provided whereby those people should not be frustrated and hat they should be given the fullest education—if the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) likes that term—imaginable; that is a great task which must be undertaken. I do not by any means agree with people who think that an aristocracy has played no great and creative part in the history of this nation or any other nation. I think the condition of survival has been that the aristocracy should allow a reasonably free entrance, from lower down, of the exceptional individual into its ranks.
    It is of enormous importance to make public schools as public as possible. I
    120
    agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) in supporting the recommendations of the Fleming Committee by which as many as 25 per cent. of the boys at public schools should be of that kind. I agree with him in deploring the fact that the public schools have not been able to recruit anything approaching that number. I do not think it will be as easy to achieve that as my hon. and learned Friend thought. It is not merely a matter of advertising. There are great difficulties. My hon. and learned Friend was not a member of the Standing Committee which discussed the recent Education Bill, or I think he would agree that the difficulties by no means come mainly from the public schools.
    The truth is that there are a certain number of people who, for a variety of reasons, do not wish to see this type of recruitment into he public schools. On the whole such people come from the Left Wing rather than the Right Wing. It is perfectly easy to see the difficulties of the individual parent whose boy at the age of 11 shows great promise and for whom there is an opportunity to go forward to a public school with a view to gaining a scholarship to a university and then going on to become Lord Chancellor. The parent may reflect that matters may not work out in that way—that it depends on whether the boy gets a scholarship at the age of 18 and that if he does not he will return to the village, perhaps more disgruntled and will be jeered at by the other boys.
    Dr. Horace King: The hon. Member has talked about the failure of somebody to carry out the terms of the Fleming Report, which suggested 25 per cent. of the places in public schools being allocated in the way he has mentioned. Does the hon. Member know any public school in the country which has offered to any education authority or the Ministry 25 per cent. of its places?
    Mr. Hollis: If the hon. Member means some formal offer on a piece of paper, I cannot say that I do, but if he is asking whether I know of a public school which would be perfectly willing to follow that recommendation I would say that some years ago I remember the late master of Marlborough telling me that he was longing to get more such boys. I have heard the headmaster of Eton say as

    121
    much. I have talked to many public schoolmasters about this, and I have never heard any of them utter anything other than the highest of praise of such boys and the wish that they could get more of them.
    Mr. Dryden Brook: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that local authorities, who have been under pressure from the Ministry to economise in their budgets, should put first on their programmes the sending of a large number of boys and girls to boarding schools, which will cost £300 or £400 per pupil a year?
    Mr. Hollis: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for making my speech for me. His intervention has largely dealt with the point raised by his hon. Friend. It shows that the objection does not come mainly from the public schools. Also, his remark leads me to the point I was going to make, that it is scarcely reasonable to expect local authorities, in such circumstances, to be much more generous than they are. I intended to suggest to my right hon. Friend that if this scheme was to be made a success it would require central Government assistance in the financing of it.
    I wish to make a point on the question of inequality in respect of the number of students who go to grammar school in different areas of the country. It is a perfectly valid point and, as we know, there is a gross disparity in the figures, and I certainly hope that my right hon. Friend will press forward with her policy of ensuring that there should at any rate be some minimum standard or proportion in all the areas and an adequate provision of grammar schools in all the areas.
    On the other hand, there is another side to the question which is often overlooked. People so often talk as if there was an equality of ability, not merely between individuals but between different localities, and that if only justice was done precisely the same proportion or almost the same proportion of children would qualify for grammar school, on some sensible, objective test, in all the different parts of the country. I do not believe that ability is spread in that sort of way. If one looks at history, one finds that the greatest artistic contributions are not equally spaced over the nations of the world or within nations but, on the
    122
    contrary, have been overwhelmingly concentrated, throughout the greater part of history, in tiny little areas and very small countries—Athens or Florence or Elizabethan England—and have flourished there for a short time.
    So, though in some mystic way we are doubtless all equal in the sight of God, it is sometimes assumed that the ability to profit by the humanism of a grammar school education is equally divided among us. I very much doubt that. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) may perhaps agree. Yet a general complaint in relation to grammar school education is that the Welsh send too many children to grammar schools. On the whole I think they should have a lot. It is obvious that the Welsh have much more feeling for language than have the English and it is right that more Welsh people should have the opportunity of such an education. The English doubtless have many other characteristics of their own, for this feeling for language is not equally spread. Vocabulary is richer in one part of Britain than another. Thus we need a variety of education not merely between individual and individual but between one part of the country and another.
    Mr. W. T. Williams: The hon. Member says that it is perfectly proper that there should be variety of education and that there should be some possibility—I agree that he says that the public schools should be as public as possible—of part of the educational facilities being reserved for people who in present circumstances can pay for it. Does he say that it should be confined to people who can afford to pay for it? Because surely a good deal of the argument which he is now making will be vitiated by the fact that the only privilege he is really claiming, whatever gloss he puts upon it, it one for those who can afford to pay for their children's education.
    Mr. Hollis: I do not know what the hon. Member means. I made certain points about public schools some time ago and my argument now is quite a different one, which has nothing to do with income.
    Mr. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to say something more. He is now saying—and he is speaking particularly of Wales—that it is

    123
    the case in Wales that too many people go to the grammar schools, or that it is said that too many people—
    Mr. Hollis: No, I said the opposite.
    Mr. Williams: —go to the grammar schools. I merely said—whether that be true or not—that in Wales the children of poor parents can go to grammar schools to get a training in the humanities of a kind which they cannot get in England, or in most parts of England, unless their parents can afford to send them to the public schools. Is the hon. Member for Devizes suggesting that that is fair either in the sight of God or man—
    Mr. G. Thomas: Or the Minister.
    Mr. Williams: —or that there is any justice in that privilege being reserved for children in England who go to public schools without having any particular merit of their own?
    Dr. H. Morgan: Do not be too hard on the poor chap, he does not know anything at all about it.
    Mr. Hollis: I do not think I can follow what the hon. Member for Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams) is saying about those people in Wales who rejoice in a grammar school education and that no one in England could get a similar education without going to a public school. I do not follow that at all. But so far as they do get a similar education, and so far as it be true that in Wales the people at large are willing to pay a higher education rate than people in some other counties, that is a wholly good and admirable thing on the part of the people of Wales. But how it has anything to do with the other people not being educated unless they are rich I cannot imagine.
    7.51 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Mulley: We have listened with attention to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) because we know that he has shown a sincere interest in education over a great number of years; but I am bound to say that tonight he was rather less clear than usual. In fact, I would say that it is rarely that one hears such a hotchpotch of ideas in so short a time. I will not try to disentangle some of the things he has put forward, but I will content myself with a couple of observations.
    124
    Listening to the hon. Member, it seemed to me that to get a good education one should choose the right parents, who should be rich and of a high intellectual standard. If one could not manage that then one should at least choose parents who lived in Wales.
    The whole of the argument of the hon. Member for Devizes based on the influence of heredity and was, I think, quite unfounded; because it so happens that high parental academic ability usually goes with a favourable environment. I do not think that any statistics showing how many sons of university dons achieve high academic honours could be based on the heredity factor alone, because these two factors go together. There are plenty of statistics of the opposite kind which show how the children of labourers have gone to universities and secured first-class honours degrees. But, in the interests of brevity, I feel sure that the hon. Member for Devizes will forgive me if I do not pursue his speech any further.
    The outstanding problem in education today, in my opinion, is to attain a reduction in the size of classes. Obviously, that cannot be done without the provision of more buildings and teachers. With that, and as a first priority, I would put the elimination of the worst buildings, the very disgraceful buildings, which still exist in some parts of the country. I will not attempt now to illustrate how these things can be done, because already we have had a number of speeches on the subject, including a notable contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon). I wish to deal at length with some university problems. When we are trying to solve these short-term problems, which are becoming increasingly pressing as the bulge in the school population is moving into the secondary schools, it is as well that we should seriously consider the organisation of secondary schools.
    For that reason I am glad that the argument for comprehensive schools has been ventilated during this debate. I regret that in exercising her powers of direction, the Minister interfered with the proper development of the Kidbrooke School. Hon. Members opposite have revealed in their speeches that they do not understand what is meant by a comprehensive school. It is impossible for an experimental comprehensive school to

    125
    have a fair chance unless it contains the whole range of I.Q.s and interests and aptitudes which are essential if the experiment is to be given a fair test.
    I do not dispute that the right hon. Lady has the power to intervene. I Hold that education should be a partnership between local authorities and the Ministry, and that the views of local authorities should be given the greatest consideration. At the same time, I would say that the Minister is the senior partner because, by virtue of Parliamentary grant, most of the money comes from the central Government. But I think it unfortunate that on the only occasions on which she has intervened, the right hon. Lady has done so in a reactionary rather than in a progressive manner.
    One matter to which we should all like to see her give some thought, and about which she might exercise her powers, is the problem of what is commonly called the test at 11; the method of the selection of children for the various channels and streams in the educational system. Although a comprehensive school would, to a large extent, do away with the need for such an examination, even were the right hon. Lady more favourably inclined towards comprehensive schools, we could not transform the whole system within a number of years; and, therefore, some system of sorting out the children must remain with us for a long time.
    I have no quarrel with the examination system. As a matter of fact, I think that I have been much more successful in examinations than I 'probably deserved to be.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: That is probably an argument against them.
    Mr. Mulley: As my hon. Friend says, that is probably an argument against the examination system rather than something in its favour. But I mention it to show that I have no personal sense of frustration because I was unfortunate in examinations.
    Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend says that he has no quarrel with the examination system, because in his judgment, and in his own case, he did better than he thought he ought to have done. Is not that in itself a criticism which finds favour with most people; that the whole
    126
    examination system proves how well a child does on a particular occasion, but is no safe guide to the ability or the attainments of the child?
    Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who has made my next point for me. I made the personal reference to indicate that I had no personal—I used the word "personal" deliberately—objection to examinations. But the examination system is open precisely to the objection which my hon. Friend voiced so much better than I could have done.
    As the House will know, generally speaking there is quite serious concern among parents about the outcome of this test. It is clear that this is primarily a local authority responsibility and not one for the Minister. But I think that local authorities should be encouraged to find a way—some authorities have already gone some distance in this direction—to avoid the idea that the whole future of a child depends on its performance in a particular examination on a particular day.
    It would appear to me possible, by the keeping of proper primary school records, for the records and reports of headmasters and headmistresses to be taken into account. My own local authority in Sheffield organises sample tests in order to give the children the psychological advantage of taking one or two trial tests. I think that it is possible for these tests to be taken into account to remove the fear that the whole future of a child may depend on its performance on a particular date.
    It is true, of course, that no matter how one organises the educational system, even within a comprehensive school, there must be some form of selection. While I believe that much more weight should be given to reports and records, I feel that there should also be some objective test of the kind which is now given. Otherwise, the door is open to the exercise of certain pressures upon teachers and there may be fear, probably unfounded, about teachers being prejudiced against certain children. It is a very difficult matter, but I feel that a lot can be done to allay public suspicion and, equally important, very largely to remove the pent-up feeling some months before an examination takes place, which results in great strain on both children and parents. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about this.

    127
    I now wish to turn to the subject of selection for university grants and scholarships. The Minister has been good enough to supply me from time to time with facts and figures about this matter. Although there are both university college scholarships and State scholarships, about 40 per cent. of all the students at universities depend upon local education authority grants or awards. There are great discrepancies in the numbers of grants given by local education authorities and in the amounts given to students going to the same college or university.
    I admit that there has been a big increase—I am glad to say this, because it is a matter which I have raised previously—in the number of local authorities which have accepted the Minister's scale. The majority of local authorities now pay grants according to the Minister's recommended scale, although, to say the least, it is on the modest side.
    There is in particular, the great problem about vacation payments. I have no objection, and I am sure that most hon. Members have no objection, to university students working during vacations—it is probably beneficial educationally as well as of assistance financially—but there is all the difference between earning a little money and the financial anxiety which goes with having to earn full wages during vacations in order to be able to remain at a university. I hope the Minister will consider the possibility of making more satisfactory arrangements for vacation grants for both university and teacher-training students.
    One of the consequences of the fact that local education authorities are observing the amounts of the Minister's scale is that many of them are reducing the number of awards which they give. It is not unfair to say that today one's chance of going to a university depends as much upon having a rich parent or a parent who has chosen his residence wisely as it does upon the inherent ability of the child.
    I will illustrate that by giving some figures. I do not want to make too much of them because I realise that their bases are not always comparable; for instance, they depend upon the number of home students and the number of students going to Oxford and Cambridge. In 1951–52 the average award made by Bury
    128
    was £96 compared with £276 by the City of Gloucester. The number of awards per 10,000 population in the same academic year varied from 1·51 in Leeds to 20·46 in Cardiganshire. Leeds spent 5¾d. per head of the population upon university education in that period compared with 7s. 5d. per head in Carmarthenshire.
    I am sorry to make a special point about Leeds in view of the very great interest in this subject of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon). However, I believe it is fair to make a comparison between Leeds and Sheffield. Sheffield has a slightly larger population than Leeds, and, of course, we claim to be a much superior city. Each has a university and each has a population of about 500,000. Yet in 1952–53 Leeds spent £32,600 on grants for university and non-university purposes, whereas Sheffield spent £96,000, three times as much. By looking at the statistics, one could produce many more anomalies of this sort.
    Does not the Minister consider it time to reduce the number of local education authority awards or perhaps to abolish them altogether and substitute State scholarships to be granted on the basis of ability and not the accident of geography?
    Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): I am very glad that my hon. Friend has quoted the position in some of the counties of Wales. However, is not the position that some very wealthy local education authorities are very little interested in education? Would not the suggestion that my hon. Friend is now making do a great deal of harm to progressive local education authorities? I would point out with a great deal of pride that my own local education authority insists upon spending all it possibly can in educating children.
    Mr. Mulley: I was talking only about university scholarships. It should also be realised that the authorities which are generous are generous with the taxpayers' money also because 60 per cent. of the cost comes from the central Exchequer. I agree that any system of this kind should leave local authorities the option to supplement State scholarships if they so desire.

    129
    With regard to grants to teachers, I believe that the Minister recognises that the dual system of having a grant from the Ministry and another grant from the local authority is unsatisfactory. There is evidence to show that many students at teacher-training colleges are suffering considerable hardship. There have been prosecutions for theft, and so on, to which I am sure the Minister's attention has been drawn.
    The Principal of the Sheffield Training College has suggested that a minimum of £90 per year is desirable for incidental expenses. The National Union of Students has suggested £75 to cover all items apart from tuition and board at the college during term—travelling, books, clothing, sports equipment, theatres, cigarettes, and the rest. The Union figure represents 30s. per week; the average now paid by local education authorities is £30 per year, a little over 10s. per week to meet all items outside tuition and board at the college.
    The difficulties which are being experienced are likely to be reflected in the quality of those who will be going to the teacher-training colleges and will, therefore, have an indirect effect on the future of education itself. As the 1944 Act continues to operate and more of the better children go to universities and become graduates, that aspect of the teaching profession should also be given further study.
    I wanted to say a word about the problem of the technical colleges, but in view of the late hour I will content myself with an observation or two about the universities. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has spent a good deal of time here, it would be a pity if someone did not speak about the field for which there is Treasury responsibility.
    I think it is a matter for congratulation that the Barlow Committee's recommendation, in 1946, that the number of science and technical students should be doubled has been achieved, but I feel that there is still a great need for an expansion of university students in the directions of science and technology. At present, roughly 20 per cent. are science students and 12 per cent. students of technology, while other students have remained at about the same percentage—43 per cent.—as was the case before the war, when it was 44·8 per cent.
    130
    Since it is not possible, in my judgment, rapidly to expand the number of students at the universities, and, at the same time, to obtain a more favourable percentage of those studying science, this question should be given priority, and if the Minister were to adopt the system which I have suggested of giving State scholarships, rather than leaving it to the local education authorities to provide awards, the awarding of State scholarships might actually be used as a means of getting a better balance between the various faculties in the universities.
    I suggest it would be wrong to place the responsibility solely on the university or university college concerned for making the awards. It is, in my judgment, desirable that there should be a minimum standard or objective test also. There are backdoors even into Oxford and Cambridge.
    I should like to plead with the Government to give rather more thought to university education than has been given so far. Many aspects of university life have been investigated, and we have had a number of reports, including that from the Select Committee on Estimates in 1952, which examined the financial aspects and the Barlow Committee on Scientific Manpower and committees on medical schools and dentistry, but nobody has so far been charged with the responsibility of having a look at the role of the university in present day society. It is quite clear that the function and position of the universities today is quite different from what it was before the war, and, while we want to retain the independence of the universities, it is quite clear from every report which we read that we must get a larger number of highly qualified scientists and technicians. Certain recommendations were made in this direction quite recently.
    I would suggest to the right hon. Lady that she should suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, since the Government are very fond of committees and commissions, there is a lot to be said for having a Royal Commission to have a look at the role of the universities and the whole problem of university education. I suggest that such a Commission should have very wide terms of reference, and if I may suggest one or two, I think the Commission might consider

    131
    the problem of retaining the independence of the universities while they are increasingly dependent, directly and indirectly, on Parliament grants, and ensure that the money is well spent.
    Roughly speaking, the universities receive between £25 and £30 million a year, which is likely to increase, and another £6 or £7 million indirectly from fees from public funds. I believe that the money is well spent, but this House should have the satisfaction of seeing that the money which it is providing is being properly spent.
    Next, there is the question of the provision of facilities for a proper balance between the faculties, and, particularly, the preference of the students for Oxford and Cambridge or London Universities. I think it will be found that Oxford and Cambridge come first, with London University second and any provincial university a poor third, and I think that some attention should be paid to the size of the university population.
    More attention should be paid to what happens to university students when they leave their university. Most universities have appointments boards, but I am not quite sure that they devote the same amount of thought and care in placing their students in employment as do the colleges themselves in selecting students for entry to the universities. It seems to me that, while a great deal of time is spent in trying to get the best students into the universities, very much less time is given to placing these people in employment or in advising them how to obtain the maximum advantage from their university education, and I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to impart some of these suggestions to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    It is perhaps unfortunate—and a reflection on what the right hon. Lady has done—that it is difficult to see that she has done very much, if anything at all, to further the idea of equal educational opportunity or which we all hoped so much when the 1944 Act was passed. It is quite possible that it is not really all her fault. I think she has been tied down in the Government in that she has not been allowed as much money as she would have liked for her purpose. While she has not provided that greater educational opportunity, perhaps this has saved
    132
    her from pressure on the part of the 1922 Committee, and thus she has been given a longer term of office than would otherwise have been the case. Yet I can assure her that the educational record of this Government is not such as will commend it to the country when the time of reckoning comes.
    8.17 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Doughty: I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) will forgive me if I do not follow him in everything he said, though there are one or two points which I should like to take up from his speech, with a large part of which I agree. Unfortunately, at the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman made a cheap gibe about the 1922 Committee, which has nothing to do with the matter at all. May I point out to him that the committees on this side of the House are concerned about education just as much as any committee on that side of the House, and possibly more?
    In regard to the independence of the universities, the hon. Member said that he did not want Government control, and yet proceeded to set out a large number of suggestions which would mean that the universities were being run by a Government Department. I am sure that he will agree with me when I say that the universities must be entirely free of Government, Ministers and Departments, and be able to pursue their own educational studies in their own way.
    Mr. Mulley rose—
    Mr. Doughty: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but he spoke for a long time, and I have only six or seven minutes.
    I should also like to say something on another point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He also spoke on the relations between the education authorities and the Minister, which has been the theme of many of the speeches today, but that leaves out the most important people in the whole matter—the parents. They are the people, who far more than any Minister or teacher, or even any politician, can influence a child's character and to a certain extent its knowledge. Given the fact that the child is capable of assimilating education, we must remember that of the money spent

    133
    on that child a large proportion is wasted, and therefore we have to consider the views of the parents on the question of education even before those of the teacher, and certainly before those of the Minister. That is why I welcome the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) that there should be some form of assistance for parents who make great personal sacrifices to provide for their own children's education and thereby save the country a certain amount of expense.
    I was sorry that the hon. Member for lichen (Mr. Morley) made an attack upon one of my hon. Friends for having brought to the notice of the House the fact that at a certain school the headmaster is a member of the Communist Party. When people cannot come to this House and explain matters which they think should be brought to the attention of the public, the days of this House are numbered. It was perfectly right that my hon. Friend should do so. He might be criticised for doing it, but he was performing a public duty.
    Sir F. Messer: He did not give the whole story.
    Mr. Doughty: A very large number of people in this country would be shocked to hear that active Communists are, in fact, teaching the young children of this country.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Nonsense.
    Mr. Doughty: That is a matter which must shock a large number of parents, especially of children of tender years.
    Mr. Davies: What about active Tories teaching children?
    Mr. Doughty: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that interruption. I will use the few minutes that are left to me to show its fallacy. I believe that, on the whole, Tory views put the welfare of the country first. We know that Communists do nothing of the sort. Their views are not political views but treacherous views, and we do not want our children taught by traitors.
    Mr. Davies: The biggest educational menace is the Tory, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows it very well.
    Mr. Doughty: If the hon. Gentleman interrupts much more I shall be unable to sit down in time, and he will then get into trouble with his own Front Bench.
    134
    The Government of the day, whatever its political colour, must look after education, which is one of the very important social services; but the first social service that any Government owe to their people is to keep them alive and free. If they do not do that, the other questions just do not arise. In allocating the amount of money that can be spent upon additional social services it is not always possible to give everybody everything he wants. We are engaged upon the task, under the 1944 Act, of rebuilding and improving the educational system. That is not a matter which can be done by one Government or by two Governments in a short time. It will certainly be a generation before it can be finished.
    The present Government can well be proud of their trusteeship of the educational system during the three short years in which they have been in power. I have no time now t o give the full figures, but I would refer to Circular 242, which has already been mentioned. It was brought out at a time when, because of the activities and the mistakes of the late Government, we were in a financial crisis and everything had to be looked at from the financial point of view. Since then, conditions have very much improved. Now, the Education Estimates, together with the local authority rate-borne charge for education, are more than £244 million for 1954–55 whereas for 1951–52 they were only just £200 million. Nobody can truthfully say that we have not spent on education the full amount that could possibly be spent, and far more than any other Government.
    In 1953, 250,000 new primary and secondary school-places were provided in England and Wales, or twice as many as in 1950. There may be overcrowding, because of the so-called "bulge" in the number of school children—I do not know why it should be called a "bulge." To say "an increase in numbers" would be much better English and would say just what we mean. The increase in the number of teachers averages 6,000. We therefore have not only more children but more teachers as well.
    Unfortunately, time does not permit of my speaking fully about comprehensive schools. I am certainly not in favour of abolishing grammar schools in order to put in their place comprehensive schools which are, at best, an experiment. I am

    135
    against them, because they are too big. We do not want young children to be taught in big establishments of about 2,000 scholars. Reference has been made to Eton College as being a comprehensive school, but the position is completely different because boys at Eton are in houses of about 30 or 40 scholars each, whereas in the comprehensive schools the children are all together in the same building.
    The Government may well be proud of their record in education. The political attack which has been made on the Minister today will rebound on those who made it, and it ought never to have been made. We ought to keep education out of politics just in the same way as we ought to keep politics out of education.
    8.26 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I do not intend to keep politics out of education or education out of politics. The training of future citizens is the most important task that the present generation can undertake, and if that were outside politics I would lose all my interest in politics. I therefore hope that the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) will understand that we come to this place to express contrary views on subjects on which we honestly differ. My views on the organisation and practice of education are, and always have been, fundamentally different from those of hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches.
    Therefore, knowing that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) is by no means a non-political figure in London, I was a bit surprised that he found the robust, vigorous and well-informed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) to be something that ought to he criticised as "political." I enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend, and I am hoping to hear the answer to it eventually. This has been a most surprising debate on Report of Supply. We have the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary sitting opposite to us, and the only words we shall get from the Government will be made too late for any reply to be offered to them.
    I do not know how much longer the Parliamentary Secretary intends to submit to the successive humiliations that are
    136
    imposed upon him. He must have realised from the response that he got last Thursday afternoon when he rose to answer at Question time how anxious we always are to hear what he has to say. It is a great pity that we should be precluded from hearing him this evening, because I am quite certain that if the Minister did not give the case away, he would.
    We have had a very interesting and vigorous debate, and the contributions made from both sides of the House have, I think, been well in keeping with the importance of the subject which we are discussing. If I refer first to the speeches made from this side of the House, it is because I find myself in complete agreement with everything that has been said in them, and because I only want to emphasise one or two points in the hope that the Minister will reply to them.
    We still want to know why the Minister went to a meeting and told the people attending it to organise a petition so that she could turn down the Kidbrooke School. After all, the Minister has to exercise a judicial function in the matter, and it is news to me, as a mere country "beak"—you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, having been a Metropolitan magistrate may know this; things may differ in the Metropolis—that the person who has to exercise the judicial function should suggest to one side or the other the way in which they are to conduct their case and the points that will appeal to the person who has to exercise the final decision.
    It was quite clear from that moment that the Kidbrooke School as proposed by the London County Council was dead. After all, what happened afterwards must have been expected from that moment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) make, as he always does, a most interesting speech on the subject of technical education. Of course, technical education has always done badly in this country. A book written by a gentleman who was a member of the staff of the old Board of Education for a good many years, Mr. G. A. N. Lowndes, tells us that:
    "Members of the staff transferred from the Charity Commission to the Board of Education to deal with secondary schools, used to recall the saying in pre-Board of Education days that the secondary schools are administered by gentlemen for gentlemen, the elementary school by men for men, but technical schools by cads for cads."

    137
    May I say, as one whose memories go back to that time, that it is not an inapt description of the attitude of the central Government towards technical education at that time. Let us make no mistake about it, the actions of the present Government are, to the limited extent that they have moved, a confirmation of what I am going to say.
    Unless we improve the quality of our technical education and the number of students who participate in it, and give it an appropriate place in the education firmament, this country is doomed. We have to live by the creative genius of our designers and by the skill of our craftsmen. Greek poems do not rank very high in the export market, and the man who wants to write Greek poems, if he wants to live in this country, will only do so because other men design, get, make and carry goods. There must be no doubt about that when we get down to the ultimate things of life and for as long as we can foresee, it will be the success of our technical education that will determine our standard of life. Therefore, I am very glad that my hon. Friend dealt with the subject as he did.
    I particularly want to emphasise what my hon. Friend said about technical instruction in grammar schools. It is quite wrong to think that in our great industries we want the second-best brains. Not merely in management but on the practical side of industry we want the best brains that can apply themselves to the practical problems that are involved in the carrying on and improvement of our historic industrial processes. That is the real answer to one of the points put by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden). Unfortunately, even people who are born with silver spoons in their mouths will find that unless our best brains regard technical things as not below their notice there will be nothing to put in the silver spoons and they will choke those having them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said a thing with which I profoundly agree. He said that the comprehensive school is the only hope in the near future for the lower middle classes being able to get the types of education in the sufficient variety which they require. I shall come hack to the comprehensive school later.
    138
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) appears to have had a highly successful professional career, for he told us that if any of his pupils had ever been unhappy he, also, would be unhappy.
    Mr. Morley: I was unhappy.
    Mr. Ede: And so was I very often—but perhaps, an act of oblivion has been passed over the worst excesses by our ex-pupils. I am bound to say that when I first taught I had a class of 73—and never had a class of fewer than 55—I did very well when I did not make everyone unhappy every day.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) dealt with some of the problems relating to the universities. I am sorry that the Financial Secretary was not here at the time. I would ask him to read very carefully my hon. Friend's remarks. He will find that my hon. Friend made a good many practical suggestions that were not, I think, very controversial but which ought to be brought to the notice of the University Grants Committee. If they can be acted upon I am quite certain that the contact of the universities with the ordinary life of the country will be very greatly improved.
    I would ask the right hon. Lady to pay particular attention to what my hon. Friend had to say about grants to persons in training colleges. I know from my own personal correspondence and my contacts with son-le of the young people there that at the moment very acute financial pressure is being felt by some of the students.
    We have spent a good deal of time this afternoon in dealing one side and the other with the comprehensive school. I am quite sure that many of the anxieties that are being felt now, especially among the parents of the children in the primary and all-age schools, arise almost entirely from their belief that the Education Act, 1944, has misfired.
    What was the aim of the Education Act, 1944? In 1943, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer issued Command Paper 6458, and I want to read an essential paragraph in it, for this was the White Paper on which the debate in 1943 took place before the Bill was introduced. It

    139
    deals with this problem of the age of 11, and it says:
    "More serious still is the effect on the junior schools and on their pupils of the arrangements for transition from the junior schools to the various types of post-primary education. At the age of 11 the children sit for an examination on the results of which depends the nature of their further full-time schooling. The most successful—amounting to only about 9·5 per cent.—proceed to secondary schools, while the remainder, with the exception of a few who go to junior technical schools, receive the rest of their full-time education, either in separate schools for senior pupils, or in the upper classes of the old-age schools to which they already belong.
    There is nothing to be said in favour of a system which subjects children at the age of 11 to the strain of a competitive examination on which, not only their future schooling, but their future careers may depend. Apart from the effect on the children, there is the effect on the curriculum of the schools themselves. Instead of the junior schools performing their proper and highly important function of fostering the potentialities of children at an age when their minds are nimble and receptive, their curiosity strong, their imagination fertile and their spirits high, the curriculum is too often cramped and distorted by over-emphasis on examination subjects and on ways and means of defeating the examiners. The blame for this rests not with the teachers but with the system."
    The avowed object of the 1944 Act was to destroy that system. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the debate on that White Paper in 1943, said:
    "The Government now propose a radical reconstruction of the whole scheme. We propose that the system shall be so reorganised that over 11 years of age secondary opportunities of varying types shall be offered to ad pupils according to their aptitude, and, if the choice at 11 is not satisfactory, there shall be a re-sorting up to the age of 13."
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
    "Moreover, hanging over the whole of the junior world is the special-place examination, which we propose to do away with, so that in future a child may be selected according to its talent for the various different types and choices of secondary education which I propose to describe. The poor parent gets very little consideration in our education"—
    I commend this to the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East—
    "and it is suggested that, although we shall not give way to the parents' belief that they think they know everything about their children and think they are the best children in the world…we shall try to bring them in to making the choice for the secondary opportunities which we propose to give to the children after the opinion of the teacher has
    140
    been given."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1943; Vol. 391, c. 1827–28.]
    I must say, as one who was not unconcerned with the Bill at that stage, that my feeling of frustration at the failure to implement that clear indication of the feeling of the whole House 11 years ago, gives me more disappointment than anything else that I have known in the whole of my public life.
    Mr. Archer Baldwin: The right hon. Gentleman's party had five years in which to carry that out. Why did not they do so?
    Mr. Ede: We got on with it. My objection is that—as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon—the reorganisation of rural schools was deliberately stopped by the Minister, according to the circular which my hon. Friend read out. Reasonable development has been stopped.
    Mr. Cove: It is the denial of the 1944 Act.
    Mr. Ede: I feel very strongly about it for this reason: I sat for this examination as long ago as 1895. In the whole county of Surrey only 64 candidates presented themselves for examination, and 32 scholarships were available. I passed No. 32 on the list—three marks ahead of No. 33, who has led an honest life ever since. In the year in which the Education Act was passed 900 places were available in the secondary schools of Surrey. That seems a great advance on 32 places, but there were 9,000 candidates instead of 64.
    In 1895 I landed an even money chance. In the year in which the Education Act was passed the candidates had to land odds of 9 to 1 against to get into the winning section. If I had taken the examination in that year I should have had a very good view of the race from Tattenham Corner, when the winners were going past the post.
    The ambitions of parents and the needs of the nation convince me that people at least as low down on the I.Q. test—and any other test one likes to mention—as I should be today ought to be among the winners, as I was in 1895. Although it may be presumption on my part, I think that we draw the line a great deal too high, at the moment, and when we have drawn the line we condemn those above it to too narrow a curriculum. Unlike

    141
    the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, who deplored the tendency to make use of aptitude tests, I think that the chief job of the educator is to deal with those tests. He cannot alter ability, but he can improve aptitude, and also prevent one aptitude from running away with a whole personality and leaving it improperly developed.
    I hope that the Minister will soon agree to the completion of the reorganisation of rural schools. She must have been impressed, as I was, by the speeches made by the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) about the problem of rural parents. I do not know what experience the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has had in this matter, but mine is that when a farmworker is about to seek a new job he is very often told by his wife to ask where the school is situated in relation to the place where he will have to work, and what that school is like.
    Mr. Baldwin: I entirely endorse all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd). In fact, if I had been called in the debate, I should have mentioned that my county comes fourth on the black list.
    Mr. Ede: I am very glad to have given the hon. Member the opportunity of reinforcing the case.
    I would ask the right hon. Lady to realise the altered outlook of the agricultural community on education, an alteration in outlook that has occurred during the last 20 years. There was a time when those of us who were keen on education regarded the farmers—not unnaturally, in some counties—as our strongest opponents; the mechanisation of agriculture and the ambitions of the workers' wives have altered that position. I very sincerely hope that the right hon. Lady will pay attention to the demands that have been made.
    The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West alleged that there was a head teacher, whom he named, and whom I know—
    Sir F. Messer: He was a President of the N.U.T.
    Mr. Ede: He was the principal supporter in the N.U.T. of the 1944 Act. He
    142
    was President when the Measure went through, and on more than one occasion I have heard him reprove other members for being lukewarm in their support of it. I want to make this quite clear. What we objected to in what the hon. Member said was this, that this man used his position inside the school to influence the minds of children in the school. That particular issue was examined by the Middlesex County Council—
    Sir F. Messer: I was on it.
    Mr. Ede: —and it found that the accusation was unfounded. When one looks at the deplorable state of the schools in the United States at the present time, and even of some of the universities, one perceives that it will be a bad day for this country if ever we apply a political test to a teacher and put him under any penalty at all for holding any views unless he tries to influence the children in his school in that direction.
    As one who regards the Tory Party as a greater menace than the Communist Party in this country I want to make it quite clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In this country the Communist Party is only a figure of fun, because we have been wise enough not to persecute it. I want to make it quite clear that if any Tory teacher or Socialist teacher used his position to influence the children in the school in forming their political views from a party point of view I should regard him as being an unsuitable person to teach.
    Mr. Renton: I am sure there is one thing the right hon. Gentleman would wish to make clear. He may wish to qualify his statement. He is on record, as I understand, as having said that he regards the Communist Party with less seriousness than he regards the Conservative.
    Mr. G. Lindgren: As a greater menace.
    Mr. Renton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would clear up the point. The Conservative Party is the party from which Her Majesty's present Government are drawn, and the Communist Party, on the other hand, is something which most people in this country, very rightly, seriously suspect.
    Mr. Ede: I hope I said that I regard the Tory Party as a bigger danger than the Communist Party. I was brought up from my earliest days to believe that there was no greater danger to this country than a prolonged period of Tory Party rule. I shall go on believing that.
    There is one final thing which I wish to say. There is a great deal of frustration in the country, and no small part of it is due to the attitude which the right hon. Lady adopts towards the local education authorities. What she has recently done in Northamptonshire appears to me to be quite indefensible. Twice the Northamptonshire County Council have put at the head of their list a school at a place called Guilsborough in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and my hon. and learned Friend and the Solicitor-General asked her, I understand, to receive the Northamptonshire Education Committee in order to discuss with her the reasons for eliminating that school in two successive years from the list.
    Her reply to my hon. and learned Friend, which I have seen, was to the effect that she did not discuss building programmes; that was a matter for the officials. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I want to read to the right hon. Lady and to the House a letter which I received from the Clerk of the Northamptonshire County Council. He states:
    "What my Council are bitterly fighting is the unwarranted and arrogant assumption by the Minister's officers that they know better than the Education Committee which are the most urgent and most important educational building projects required in this County. For two consecutive years this Guilsborough school has been given first priority in the programme submitted by my Committee and for two years some official at the Ministry—assuming that the Minister herself does not see the programme—has taken it upon himself to delete this project in favour of others which my Committee had placed at the bottom of the list."
    As one who has spent 35 years on a local education authority, I think that if, in two successive years part of our programme had been deleted and we had asked to see the Minister I should have regarded it as a great affront to a great local governing body like a county council if the Minister had decided not to see us. This spirit of frustration is at large today because people feel that there is no desire on the part of the Minister to see this service grow, and if they find
    144
    that local feeling is ignored, they believe that she just does not care what happens.
    I sincerely hope that in any reshuffling of the Government which is to take place, both Ministers in this Department will not be found in their present posts after the reshuffle.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Miss Horsbrugh.
    Mr. Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I understood that I was the only Member on my feet, and I thought that I had the Floor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I had called Miss Horsbrugh before the hon. Member rose.
    9.0 p.m.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): I have, as the House will realise, a great many questions on a great many different topics to answer, and I shall do my best to deal with them all as quickly as I can. I can only speak until 9.30. When we considered the speakers for the debate, and I realised that it had to stop at 9.30 and also that we were to be interrupted at 7 o'clock, I thought that it was better, in view of the complaints last year that so few back benchers have been able to speak, that there should be only one speaker from the Government Front Bench. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was available to answer any questions about finance if they had been asked.
    On the occasion of our last debate, I thought it best to have only one Government speaker so that there might be more time for others, and on that occasion my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made the speech; so we have taken it in turns. Perhaps the best plan is to deal with the various questions which have been asked and not to go through the debate commenting on each speech.
    The first point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) was about the building programme. She asked whether we were building enough schools, whether we were building more schools and whether we were building them more slowly or more quickly. I do not want to go through all the figures again, but I would say that there has been more educational building

    145
    work done in each year since I took office than was done before. There has been more building work done on primary and secondary schools. If necessary, I can give the figures.
    On primary and secondary schools alone, in 1949, £21·3 million were spent; in 1950, £35·8 million were spent and in 1951 the figure was £35·5 million. It went down that year after the crisis of 1949. Figures for the next three years are: 1952, £36·4 million; 1953, £40·3 million; and done or to be done in 1954, £40·7 million. If we take educational building as a whole the figures are: 1949, £38 million; 1950, £49·7 million, and 1951, £48·3 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "But money has lost its value."] All these figures are on 1951 prices.
    In 1951, the figure was £48·3 million and in 1952, the year when I was told that we had cut building, the figure went up to £50·1 million. That was work done. In 1953 it was £54·3 million, and in 1954 we hope to spend £55·1 million.
    Miss Bacon: Classes are getting bigger.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I will come to that. I have not very long in which to speak, but if I am not interrupted I will answer every question that has been put.
    We are putting the emphasis on the secondary schools and away from the primary schools. In June of this year the number of primary school places under construction was 143,940—a decrease of 22·4 per cent. In secondary school places, there was an increase of 20·1 per cent. The amount being done is more, but gradually the emphasis is being put on secondary school places.
    Mr. Morley: And 100 fewer schools were started.
    Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Gentleman will let me continue, I think that I can give most of the facts which hon. Members have asked for. We are doing more school building and more educational building than has ever been done before. I think that we have got the work better organised, and schools are being built more quickly. The work on some was taking up to four years in the earlier days, and my predecessor, the late Mr. George Tomlinson, pointed out in Birmingham in 1950 that they were taking too long and were too expensive.
    146
    There has been a progressive improvement. Perhaps I might put the cost in this way. For £1 million in 1949 there were provided 2,800 secondary school places. There has been an improvement, gradual at first but better later, and now for £1 million instead of 2,800 places we get about 4,000.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Thanks to George Tomlinson.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have made this point clear; my predecessor, the late Mr. George Tomlinson, said in 1950 that they were taking too long.
    Mr. Thomas: Credit is due to him.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Member will agree that I have pointed that out—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have pointed out that gradually architects and those interested in schools and local authorities have all got together to speed up the building of schools. I think they have done a very good job.
    At present, for primary school building, we have under construction places for 185,000. That is to cope with the further increase of 80,000 which will be coming into the primary schools. I give these figures to show the House that it is not merely the number of children we have to cope with, but the distribution of the population. We have to see that there are more places than the actual number of children, because we shall have empty places in some cases in the towns where people have moved out to new housing estates. There extra schools have to be provided. In the same way with the programme we now have for the secondary schools, I am convinced, that what is planned now will be sufficient for the extra children as they come into the secondary schools.
    The next subject is the right type of secondary school. Several hon. Members have pointed out that in some cases there are not enough grammar school places, and in some cases it has been suggested there may be either too many or a great many more than are required. It is difficult to get a really good view of this situation for the following reasons. In certain areas few children are going to maintained or assisted grammar schools, but they may be going to direct-grant grammar schools, or to independent schools, and there have been extensions of existing secondary schools. We have

    147
    the provision of selective places in secondary technical and modern schools, in other words where the technical stream or grammar stream is added to an existing school. At present 54 local education authorities are building grammar schools. We are watching and discussing with them whether we should increase the number of grammar schools, technical schools, or modern schools.
    I now come to the subject of rural reorganisation. A great deal has been said about Circular 245. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) read out parts of that circular and he read them out quite correctly.
    Mr. Cove: Ten out of 10.
    Miss Horsbrugh: We noticed how he read it—as some people have not read it in the past—that that particular policy must "still" be carried on. The word "still" is perfectly correct. Why should it be there? It is because I was carrying on the policy laid down by the Labour Government—
    Mr. Cove: That does not excuse it.
    Miss Horsbrugh: —I think quite rightly. It was laid down in December, 1947, in Circular 155:
    "Since it will be essential to avoid new building wherever possible, the Minister will require to be assured in each case that there are no existing premises which can reasonably be used to meet the need."
    The policy was laid down that building should be done in order to get the extra number of children into the schools, and that there should not be building either for decrowding or reorganisation. At a later date that was again confirmed.
    I can tell the House that when I went to the Ministry and saw this, I should have liked to change that policy. I should have liked to make other suggestions, but I came to the conclusion that the policy laid down by my predecessor was right, and that if we changed that policy we should have to change something else— the compulsory school age of from five to 15. We should have had to do so because we should not have had sufficient schools built to get the children in. Hon. Members may check that as much as they like, but these are the facts, that unless we keep that priority—I am coming to some other points about reorganisation in a
    148
    moment—all children would not be in school.
    Mr. Cove: Dr. Alexander says—
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am not bothering with what Dr. Alexander says.
    I have always claimed that reorganisation would be a by-product of our building of new secondary schools, and I think that is being proved to be so. I have already said that the main emphasis is now going into the building of secondary schools, and, as that emphasis goes on, I think we shall see that reorganisation is a by-product continuing—
    Mr. Harold Davies: Would the right hon. Lady—
    Miss Horsbrugh: No. The number of 13 and 14 year-old children in all-age schools has declined from 16·9 per cent. in January, 1951, to 14–3 per cent. in January, 1953. In 10 typical rural counties I have programmed since taking office more than 40 secondary modern projects, which, when completed, will enable 225 all-age schools to be reorganised. We are getting to the stage where, because of increased numbers, keeping within Circular 245, we can build new secondary modem schools large enough to take in the children from all-age schools.
    Mr. Davies rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): If the right hon. Lady does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry, but I wish to answer all the questions that have been put, and I have only until 9.30 p.m. to do so.
    In those areas alone, the number of all-age schools was reduced—a lot of it was in my predecessor's time—by 420 between January, 1947, and January, 1953.
    I have looked at the case of Berkshire, because my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) put a point with which I thoroughly agreed. I think that hon. Members know of my interest in education in rural areas and in keeping the children in their villages and giving them their education in the country areas. In fact, on many occasions in this House and outside I have been criticised for not allowing the closing of village schools. I feel it is enormously

    149
    important that country children should have their education, when possible, in the country and that the small children, above all, should have it in their own villages.
    I could give examples in many counties but I will deal only with Berkshire, as time presses. In 1947, there were 115 all-age schools and departments; by 1954 that number had been reduced to 59. Twenty-three schools and departments will certainly be reorganised when the new secondary schools now under construction or programmed are completed, nearly all of them in rural areas. In addition, 14 others, all but one in rural areas, will probably be reorganised when these new schools are ready.
    So the schools are under construction, or in progress. I should like to see more rapid progress, but the fact is that the amount of building we are doing and our efforts to get the children into the schools and to reduce the size of classes makes it impossible to do all we should like to do at once. I would only say that between 1947 and 1955, in five local authority areas which I have picked at random the reorganisation has meant a reduction of 244 schools.
    It has been said that I have cut the programmes of local authorities. Each year local authorities send in proposals for the number of schools which they woud like to build. It has been clear that we have to keep—as my predecessor did, and I think he was right, within the scheme outlined in Circular 245—[HON. MEMBERS: "Poor old George!"] I think it only fair, when I say that I think his policy was right, that I should defend him from this Box, if no one else does.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East gave certain examples, and I wish also to give some. How is it that some proposals sent in by local education authorities are not accepted? I will say straight away to the hon. Lady that many local authorities who are anxious to build put in for far more than they could do, even if they got the authority. Hon. Members may say, "Ah, but they would not be able to do so, because the planning authority would not pass it" But it need not of necessity be passed by the planning authority. In many cases local authorities think that if they put in a large list some may be cut out, but the bigger the list the more they will
    150
    get—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]— that is a known fact. I shall give one or two examples, bearing in mind that we must keep within the terms of Circular 245.
    One small county borough, where the secondary school classes were very small, asked for a programme amounting to £330,000 to enable it to rebuild two large secondary schools. Authority was not given. In those schools there were small classes and plenty of room. Another rural authority asked for approval for work amounting to £600,000. It was given a programme costing £82,000 in order to do one urgent job which was justified under the terms of Circular 245.
    Dr. King: Will the Minister name these authorities?
    Miss Horsbrugh: One authority asked for a programme amounting to £1,360,000 and it got a programme of £433,000. On its past performance I am doubtful if it would have been able even to start such a building programme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give the names."] I shall give one, but I wish to get on.
    Miss Bacon: Will the right hon. Lady give the name of the authority asking for the £l million programme?
    Miss Horsbrugh: It was Northumberland, which the hon. Lady mentioned.
    As we go on with the programme—even if it is exactly on the same basis as at present with no increases whatsoever—by 1960 there will probably be accommodation for about 40 per cent. more children than were in school in 1947. A few years later there are likely to be only about 20 per cent. more children in the schools than in 1947. As the school population passes its peak, we shall—as we shall soon begin to do—have more and more empty places in certain schools; and at that time I hope that we shall be able to stop using a lot of unsatisfactory accommodation.
    As for improvements and repairs, as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said, there are many schools which could be improved enormously. She referred to dark and dreary schools, and she was quite right. But with repainting, and similar improvements, they would be made into good schools, from the point of view both of the teachers and of the children.

    151
    What I have done is to increase the amount allocated for minor works. This year it is £5·8 million; when I took office it was a little over £3 million. Out of that amount, £2·4 million at least may be used on improvements; the rest may be needed for enlargements. Repairs are entirely a matter for local education authorities. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-Feast that there are schools which ought to be painted and would look much more cheerful if properly repaired and painted. That is the responsibility of local education authorities. I have asked Her Majesty's Inspectors to report places where repairs and upkeep are not properly attended to. I have had some reports, and have taken the matter up.
    The hon. Lady said that when the Labour Government were in office the size of classes was smaller and that under the Conservative Government the size of classes has increased. What is the reason? The highest intake into the schools has occurred during the last two years; the total has been about 500,000. I am glad to say that we are now past the worst. The teachers for these children had already been recruited and trained, and we could not do anything more about it during those two years. I am not blaming those in the Labour Government who were in charge. The fact remains that the teachers who had been recruited—it takes two years to train a teacher—were taking up posts at the time that we had this enormous increase in the number of school children. At that time no one could do anything about it.
    I am glad to say that the size of classes is now going down because we have increased building and recruiting. The cheerful thing this year is that we are past the worst. The effect of the increase in the number of children will now be more gradual; we experienced the peak during the last two years. The figures for school buildings and recruitment of teachers are now increasing more rapidly, and from now onwards we shall see a distinct improvement.
    As the hon. Lady said, the number of oversized classes in primary schools is 3 per cent. higher than in 1950. At the same time the numbers of such classes in secondary schools is 4 per cent. lower. We knew that the last few years would
    152
    be the most difficult. Now the peak in primary schools has passed. In future buildings and teachers will increase in greater measure than in the past in relation to the increase in the number of children.
    Last year was a record year for recruitment of teachers, the number accepted for the training colleges being 8,360 women and 2,120 men at this time. This year acceptances for women are 8,960, so that we have beaten last year's record. It is the same in the case of the men. We now have an opportunity to get a decrease in the over-large classes. The opportunity must be granted.
    I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) said; it is in the minds of all of us. What will happen next? Will the schools admit children under five and restore the pressure to what it was? I am communicating with the local authorities. I am not discussing but putting the problem to them; I believe that we all agree upon it. The regulation at present provides for 40 children in a primary school class.
    What I am putting to the local education authorities is that I would not waive the regulation if a figure in excess of 40 would be brought about by the admission of children under five. Nor shall I consider that it is right to use a school hall if it is being done for the purpose of admitting children under five, and by children under five I mean children admitted at the beginning of the term at which they become five years of age. In that way, during the next term we shall see some improvement there. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the comprehensive schools?"] I can come now to the comprehensive schools and leave out the technical schools, but there was something I wanted to say on selection at 11 plus, but I shall only say that I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The experiment has been going on, and I think we are getting to the stage when there will be much more flexibility.
    Now I want to say something about the comprehensive schools. It has been suggested that I will not approve comprehensive schools and that when proposals for comprehensive schools come before me I reject them. Let me give these figures. There are 21 comprehensive schools, or instalments of such schools, now under construction in England and Wales,

    153
    and of these I myself have programmed and approved the plans of 18. Of the 12 under construction in London, I have programmed and approved plans of no less than 10, and the London County Council are working on plans of five more which I have included in their programme. There are eight comprehensive schools now in existence in London, 12 are under construction, five are in an approved programme, six have been approved under Section 13 but are not yet programmed, and one has been rejected.
    I rejected one—the Bec School—for these reasons. It is a good school, giving good education. Parents in that area who wish to send their children to a comprehensive school will soon find that there will be three in that area—the Wands-worth area—or very nearby, and they will have a choice. Parents who do not wish to send their children there will still have the choice of the grammar school. The Bec School is a good school. I want to see experiments all the time, but I will
    not agree to destroy what has been proved to be good.
    Mr. Harold Davies: I did not want to interrupt the right hon. Lady during her speech, but may I now ask her if she will answer one question? Will she give some priority to rural areas for secondary modern schools to meet the difficulties which have arisen in the winter in parts of Staffordshire?
    Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Gentleman will look at HANSARD tomorrow, he will see what I have said about that.
    It being half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 248.

    Division No. 206.]

    AYES

    [9.30 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hay, John

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Heath, Edward

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

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

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Banks, Col. C.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C E. McA

    Horobin, I. M.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Doughty, C. J. A

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

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

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

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

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Birch, Nigel

    Erroll, F. J.

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Fell, A.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Black, C. W.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fort, R.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Braine, B. R.

    Foster, John

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

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

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Kaberry, D.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G Lloyd

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Glover, D.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Bullard, D. G.

    Godber, J. B.

    Leather, E. H. C

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Lindsay, Martin

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Gower, H. R.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Grimston, Hon. James (St. Albans)

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

    Carr, Robert

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

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

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Channon, H.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Low, A. R. W.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Cole, Norman

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Storey, S.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Summers, G. S.

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

    Pitman, I. J.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Teeling, W.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

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

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Marples, A. E.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

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

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Redmayne, M.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Maude, Angus

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

    Maudling, R.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Tilney, John

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

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Turton, R. H.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Vosper, D. F.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Russell, R. S.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Neave, Airey

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Shepherd, William

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

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

    Wellwood, W.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Odey, G. W

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

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

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Wills, G.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Speir, R. M

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

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

    Wood, Hon. R.

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

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Osborne, C.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Page, R. G.

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

    Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Legh.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Adams, Richard

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Albu, A. H.

    Grossman, R. H. S.

    Hale, Leslie

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Daines, P.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hannan, W.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Balrd, J.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hastings, S.

    Balfour, A.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hayman, F. H.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Deer, G.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Bartley, P.

    Delargy, H. J.

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

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Benson, G.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Beswick, F.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Hobson, C. R.

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

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

    Holman, P.

    Blackburn, F.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Holmes, Horace

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Holt, A. F.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Boardman, H.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Fienburgh, W.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Finch, H. J.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Foot, M. M.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Forman, J. C.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

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

    Callaghan, L. J.

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

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Carmichael, J.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Glanville, James

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Champion, A. J.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Clunie, J.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Coldrick, W.

    Grenfelt, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Grey, C. F.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Cove, W. G.

    Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)

    Keenan, W.

    156

    157

    Kenyon, C.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Pannell, Charles

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Parker J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Paton, J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Peart, T. F.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Porter, G

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thornton, E.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Tomney, F

    Logan, D. G

    Proctor, W. T.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    McInnes, J,

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Viant, S. P.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Rankin, John

    Wade, D. W.

    McLeavy, F.

    Reeves, J.

    Wallace, H. W.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Watkins, T. E.

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

    Rhodes, H.

    Weitzman, D.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Richards, R.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Mason, Roy

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    West, D. G.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Ross, William

    Wigg, George

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Royle, C

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A B

    Moody, A. S.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Willey, F. T.

    Morley, R.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Short, E. W.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

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

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

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

    Mort, D. L.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Moyle, A.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

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

    Mulley, F. W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon,. Harold (Huyton)

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

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    O'Brien, T.

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

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Orbach, M.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Yates, V. F.

    Oswald, T.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Padley, W. E.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

    Paget, R. T.

    Sparks, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

    Steele, T.

    Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to X of the Civil Estimates and of the Revenue Departments Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1954–55
    CLASS I

      CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE
      Question,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates."
      put, and agreed to.

  CLASS II

    COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions
    158
    reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates."
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS III

    HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates."
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS IV

    EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates."
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS V

    HEALTH, HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution

    159
    reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates."
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VI

    TRADE, LABOUR, MATERIALS AND SUPPLY
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates."
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VII

    COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, &C.)
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates."
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VIII

    AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS IX

    TRANSPORT, FUEL, POWER, AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS X

    PENSIONS, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND NATIONAL ASSISTANCE
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1954–55
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1954–55
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate,"
    put, and agreed to.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1954–55
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1954–55
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Army Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1954–55
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Air Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS [22nd July]
    Resolution reported,
    That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, the sum of £2,479,769,524, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
    "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-five and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

    MINISTRY OF MATERIALS (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS)
    9.44 p.m.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crook-shank): I beg to move,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Materials) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 15th July.
    It is just over a year ago that I moved a Motion, somewhat similar to this, involving the Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Pensions. This time the Motion is to absorb the Ministry of Materials into the Board of Trade, and all the Order does, by Article 2, is to dissolve the Ministry and transfer its remaining functions to the Board of Trade.
    The circumstances of today are very different from those of 1951, when the Ministry was established and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) took charge of it. There was then the Korean War, the accelerated rearmament programme and the stockpiling which was put in hand. Those factors indicated at that time that there might be a shortage of raw materials for many years to come and, no doubt, that was what influenced our predecessors in setting up the Ministry.
    Actually, the period of stringency was much shorter than anybody had foreseen. In fact, by the middle of last year it was possible to discuss winding up the International Materials Conference which was an essential part of this organisation. So the need for this Department has rapidly diminished, quite apart from the fact that it is our policy, as a Government, to dismantle controls and to end public trading in raw materials. The conjunction of those two factors makes this Order possible tonight.
    The bulk of this public trading in raw materials will have been completed by the end of this financial year. Indeed, it is already far advanced and, if I may give one figure, it is anticipated that by the end of this financial year about £1,400,000 of terminal stocks will have been disposed of, to a sales value of about £125 million at fair market prices without any serious disturbance to trade. Great skill has been shown in timing these disposals, and as
    162
    we part with this Ministry we should congratulate those who have been so efficient in this disposal work.
    The staff of the Ministry has already very largely been reduced. From the maximum figure of 1,850 which it reached it was down to 800 at the beginning of this month. The result is that the work which now remains to be done, though important, does not really justify the whole apparatus of a separate Department—that is to say, the higher management, the Minister, the separate branches dealing with finances, with establishment and with central services. Therefore, if the House passes this Order that Ministry will be dissolved.
    The question is to whom should the remaining functions go, the remaining functions being what still remain of State trading and its disposal, the disposal of the remaining trading stocks, the stockpile policy and general work about commodities. That being what is left to do, the answer, I am sure, is quite obvious to all hon. Members, and that is that it is quite natural for the Board of Trade to take over those remaining functions. It all fits in, and it is a very neat solution.
    There will not be any immediate spectacular staff reduction, of course, but comparatively soon one can anticipate at least a 10 per cent. further reduction, about 80 being dispensed with—perhaps £45,000 or £55,000 off the expenditure— and the fact that the remaining staff will go over to the Board of Trade will not, I think, be distasteful to them, because when the Ministry was originally set up about 80 per cent, of its staff came from the Board of Trade, so they are really going back home.
    The Board of Trade is a large Department, but its general work is such that it can take on this additional burden quite easily. Perhaps I might point out that the Board of Trade's staff itself has been very considerably reduced. In fact, the figure is 20 per cent. since we took office. So we have got the big reductions already in the Ministry of Materials staff, and we have the reductions in the Board of Trade's staff, though now with this change-over, the Board of Trade staff will increase very considerably. I think the whole House will probably agree that this is the tidy solution to this problem, and will accept it—at least, I hope so.

    163
    I do not think I need explain the Order, because it is common form. Article 2 is the effective one, transferring the functions to the Board of Trade, and Article 3 is the routine Article dealing with a number of subsidiary matters. I hope that the House will agree that this is a wise step to take. If it approves the Order it will mean that one more of the large number of Departments which now exist in the Administration will be brought to a triumphant conclusion.
    9.51 p.m.
    Mr. R. R. Stokes: In presenting this Order the Lord Privy Seal stated that the result of abolishing the Ministry of Materials would not lead to any spectacular reductions in staff, any more than it had led to an increase in staff, globally, when the Ministry was formed in 1951 and I was appointed Minister of Materials.
    Mr. Crookshank: I said "no spectacular immediate reductions.".
    Mr. Stokes: If the right hon. Gentleman means that it may drip away, that is what we all hope for, as long as it does so very quickly. I am referring to the Government, of course. Perhaps I misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman to that extent. In that case, it must be hope deferred.
    When I introduced the Bill setting up the Ministry in 1951, I never for one moment suggested that it would lead to any reduction in staff. All I said was that I hoped it would not lead to any increase, and I do not think I am overstating the position when I say that we succeeded in forming a Ministry without any substantial increase in the number of civil servants employed.
    The right hon. Gentleman also said that the staff is now going back to the Board of Trade. My own view, as an industrialist, is that the Board of Trade is already far too large. The whole organisation is far too complicated. I have not yet seen a Minister—I have not been appointed myself; of course, I should then recognise him—who was capable of conducting the Board of Trade. I do not think it is humanly possible. At this moment, to say, "This Ministry is no longer necessary; we will wind it up and give back the staff to the Board of Trade," is small comfort to those of us who are interested in seeing
    164
    a more efficient handling of our trading conditions.
    I did not detect anything which was said by the Lord Privy Seal to be a criticism of the action of my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister in deciding to form the Ministry of Materials, with the possible exception that he might have criticised my appointment. The fact is that we were then faced with very acute shortages. The Board of Trade was very much overburdened, and I think it was right to change over then, so that somebody, at a time when raw materials were short, prices were high, the scarcity was likely to become more rather than less acute, and the danger of war was far more intense than it is today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—through no fault of any Government of this country, could give his mind to the vitally important matter of focusing attention upon the supply of essential raw materials, the greater proportion of which—I was going to say 90 per cent., but that may not be the right figure; it includes everything but coal and iron ore—comes from outside the country, when demands upon our industrial machine were becoming ever greater.
    I agree that times have changed—thank Heaven. If the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) will think about it before putting his "swede" on the "downy" tonight—the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a friend of mine and will understand the implication—he will have to accept the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has done a bunk, probably because he was afraid of what I was going to say, had it handed to him on a platter.
    At the time when, to the disadvantage of this country, the Labour Pary lost office, in 1951, prices were high and materials scarce. One of the things that has happened is that the price of materials all over the world have dropped and supplies correspondingly have become more plentiful. That is not as a result of the wizardry with which the Chancellor is now credited. It is not the result of his great intelligence. I accept that he is a very intelligent and capable Chancellor. I accept all that, but, goodness gracious, he did not know for certain this was going to happen, any more than I did.
    Captain J. A. L. Duncan: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?
    Mr. Stokes: I did not know, because I am not the Almighty. No one knew these prices would drop and that materials would become more plentiful as and when they have. All the nonsense that politicians talk—[Interruption.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are now the Government, and I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite applaud the nonsense the Government talk. However, the Chancellor could not possibly have foreseen that prices would drop and that materials would become plentiful. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite take the trouble to study those minutes of evidence that are available to them behind the scenes they will find that my right hon. Friend who was President of the Board of Trade and I were practically entirely right in our anticipation of what was likely to happen.
    However, leaving that aside, because there is no use boasting about this, if the Government insist on pursuing the charge of the Gadarene swine down the unstoppable slope towards a return to private enterprise everywhere, this is not the time for me to attempt to stop them. Nor do I wish to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Not for the reason that hon. Gentlemen think. I know that the intended sneer is that I am a great supporter of private enterprise. Well, I am, within reason. I am frank about it. I am, within reason; but I am wholeheartedly in favour of the restriction and control of private enterprise where it interferes with the welfare of the people as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Even of the right hon. Gentleman's own business."] Hon. Gentlemen can have all I have got if that should be for the general welfare. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their supporters are prepared, as I suppose they are prepared, to career down this non-stop slippery slope, the sooner they get there the better, as far as I am concerned.
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: On a point of order. I consulted you, Mr. Speaker, before this debate took place, about the scope of the debate, and you informed me, very kindly, that this scope was exceedingly narrow, merely the administrative act of transfer of the remaining functions of the
    166
    Ministry of Materials to the Board of Trade. In those circumstances, if the right hon. Gentleman's speech, ranging over the whole of the economic implications of raw material supplies, is in order, will it not be in order to discuss jute and newsprint?
    Mr. Speaker: The answer shortly to the hon. Member is in the negative. As I understood it, the right hon. Gentleman was arguing that materials are more plentiful nowadays than they were when the Ministry of Materials was instituted. That struck me as relevant to the Order, but further digression into wider questions of economics would be out of order on this little Order before us.
    Mr. Nabarro: You have kindly ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that materials are more plentiful. May I say, with great respect, that that was precisely my argument to you—that newsprint and jute are more plentiful—and is it not, therefore, in order for me to speak on these matters?
    Mr. Speaker: That would be going far too far. The existing controls are merely transferred by this Order. This Order does not in itself affect the existence of the controls, nor does it bring in the discussion of materials which are now affected by the controls. Therefore, these two branches of the discussion are out of order. The general argument that the Ministry of Materials was properly set up at one time and is now being properly abolished is, I think, germane.
    Mr. Stokes: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that Ruling, and I will endeavour not to stray. I said that I would endeavour. If you, Mr. Speaker, would like an assurance, I will undertake not to digress from the economic problem into the panacea of the taxation and rating of site values tonight.
    One always likes to remind the House of what one said before. What I said on 27th June, 1951, when talking on this question of the formation of the Ministry of Materials, in concluding a speech on which I had better not comment, was this:
    "There is no permanent cure for the Communist menace by force. There is no such way out, although we may deter it for the time being. The long-term cure is the steady improvement in the standard of living of the masses of the people everywhere. That surely means better use, better availability and better

    167
    distribution of essential raw materials."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 1411–12.]
    That is the note on which I want to conclude my remarks tonight. What I want to learn from the Lord Privy Seal, if he can get permission from the House to speak again, or from some other Minister, is this: What is their intended policy with regard to the long-term problem? We know perfectly well that there is no cure for this long-term problem except by increased supply of capital goods everywhere, and we know—
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is now referring to the long-term problem and policy for raw materials. That is exactly what I am anxious to refer to. You have ruled me out of order, Mr. Speaker. Why is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that?
    Mr. Speaker: I should like to call attention to the fact that this Order does not really affect the long-term policy of the Government with regard to materials. It merely changes over the control of these materials from one Department to another. The Order itself mentions no change of policy, and, indeed, there is no policy in the Order at all; there is merely machinery and nothing else.
    Mr. Stokes: The machinery was organised in my day for the purpose of focusing attention on the essential problem of supplying raw materials for all needs the world over. I do not want to go into foreign affairs at all, but I want to know what the Lord Privy Seal intends, and who is to be responsible for seeing to it that what we regarded—and surely I am entitled to argue this when the Ministry is being dissolved—as an essential point when the Ministry was formed, namely, that not only should it look after the short and long-term needs of materials supplied to this country—taking them out of the Board of Trade because we thought that the Board of Trade had too much to do—but also that it should pay attention and prod, prick and poke the various Departments responsible for development in the Commonwealth Relations Office and the local office into making greater efforts to produce more. That surely is germane to this discussion. While I do not want to argue on quantities and values, I do want
    168
    to know what the Lord Privy Seal is proposing shall take the place of this Ministry which, until today, was focused, but was not focused as it ought to have been, on the essential problem of ensuring that these raw materials within the Commonwealth are sufficiently supplied to enable us to meet the requirements of the backward nations.
    I want specially to emphasise that in his considerations the Lord Privy Seal should leave out the humbug of finance in replying to me, as I hope he will. It does not look as if he had any intention whatever of getting on to his feet again, but I seriously ask this question. I had the matter particularly at heart when I was Minister, and it led to the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministers to discuss the problem. Who is now to be responsible? Is it to be the President of the Board of Trade?
    Captain L. P. S. Orr: Yes.
    Mr. Stokes: We took it away from the President of the Board of Trade because we thought that the Board of Trade had too much to do. Now the Government are giving it back because the Department has too little to do. My experience of the Board of Trade is that it already does a great deal too much and my suspicion is that this essential work will go by default. I should like to hear from the Lord Privy Seal that there really is something in the mind of the Government to deal with the matter.
    The second point about which I should like to hear something, if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to inform me, is what is to be done about the very important question of the international share-out of raw materials. It is no use thinking that because there is a plentiful supply at cheap prices at present that state of affairs will continue indefinitely. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read the Paley Report. I do not suppose that he has read it, and I doubt very much whether anybody on the Government Front Bench have, either. It is a most portentious Report, and anybody interested in the supply of raw materials should give time for it. By these remarks, I do not mean to suggest that the officers in the Board of Trade have not read it.

    169
    The Paley Report states that by 1975 there will be a 15 per cent. overall shortage of the essential raw materials judged on the basis of today's progressive increase in demand. That statement has not been altered by anything which has happened since the Labour Government left office. Who is to attend to that matter? This is really important. I am not playing politics about whether the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Materials should do it; but at the time I had something to do with it. My tenure of office was unfortunately interrupted by my sortie to try to assuage the ambitions of Dr. Mossadeq, and that interfered with my progress at the Ministry of Materials, after which there was a General Election.
    However, I conceived the main importance of my job to be the solving of the long-term problem—not merely the international materials conference problem, and so on, but the long-term problem of this comprehensive survey, introduced as a result of the initiative of President Truman which showed that there would be a 15 per cent. overall shortage in 1975. The job was to deal with that problem and to decide how that shortage was to be met. As far as I have observed, nothing whatever has been done in the Commonwealth or in the Colonies to attempt to put this right. There are enormous resources which ought to be developed which, while they could not primarily be the responsibility of the Minister of Materials—
    Mr. Nabarro: Before you resumed the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it was ruled by your predecessor that questions affecting the availability of raw materials and the method of procurement did not come within the provisions of the Order. As the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech has become a dissertation on the availability of raw materials, can it possibly be in order?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) had given me a moment I was just about to stop the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes).
    Mr. Stokes: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Order deals with the transfer of the Ministry of Materials to the Board of Trade. The reason why the control of materials was taken away from
    170
    the President of the Board of Trade was not because he was incompetent. He was highly respectable, very intelligent ex-Law Officer of the Crown when I was given the job. There was nothing incompetent about him, but it was a case of overloading the camel. My right hon. Friend will forgive me for calling him that, but you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will understand what I mean.
    What I am trying to say to the House is not that I insist that the Government should drop this Motion. No, what I am asking for is some indication to us of an assurance that provision will be made whereby these very essential requirements, which we had so much at heart when we formed the Ministry of Materials at the time when the Board of Trade was equally overloaded as it is today, will be properly and efficiently carried out. I could go off into a discussion of foreign affairs, but you would not allow me.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the right hon. Member could argue that one more straw would break the camel's back.
    Mr. Stokes: Without pursuing the exact description of my late right hon. Friend—which of course does not apply at all—with great respect to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, I want to hear what Her Majesty's Government are to do about seeing that the right developments take lace, not only in the Commonwealth and Colonies, but that the share out at an international level is done on a proper basis to ensure that we do not have frightful waves and slumps which upset the whole economic structure of the world, but that some Minister of the Crown shall be definitely responsible and have his mind focused on the question so that these things can be ironed out and fair shares given to all the nations in order to overcome the Communist menace.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: I am sure the right hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House, but he said that the only raw materials in this country are coal and iron ore. I hope he will not forget tin in Cornwall.
    Mr. Stokes: I must really answer that because I was brought up in Cornwall. The tin miners of Cornwall know my concern about their position. Had it been in order, I would have asked the

    171
    Lord Privy Seal what on earth the Government will do to encourage the tin miners, because they have done nothing yet.
    10.14 p.m.
    Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I hope that I shall have 10 per cent. of the licence which the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has taken on this Order so that I can make one or two remarks. I view this Order with some mixed feelings. I am always glad when action is taken by my right hon. Friends to reduce Government Departments and, however small the gain may be—here, it is small—to reduce the population of the Civil Service.
    I did not like one phrase the Lord Privy Seal used after referring to the small reduction, that the remainder would be going home to the Board of Trade. Some of us would be happier if they were going home to industry instead. I am a little perplexed because, under the Order, the Ministry of Materials is being dissolved and the functions of the Ministry are being transferred to the Board of Trade. The right hon. Member for Ipswich spent a lot of time talking about things which, in addition, he would like transferred to the Board of Trade. I think that opposite to that view from this side of the House is the feeling that some things, such as newsprint—of which we are short and of which the Government are holding up supplies by these regulations—should be transferred and go "into the dustbin" so to speak.
    I gather that I cannot continue very far in that direction. I do notice, however in the Order, in Article 3 (2) it is stated:
    "Anything in process of being done by or in relation to the Minister of Materials at the time of the coming into operation of this Order…may be continued by or in relation to the Board of Trade."
    I do feel, in view of that, that we are entitled to ask, as I do ask, my right hon. Friend or whoever is to reply to the debate, what precisely those functions are. Is there anything in those functions that gives any hope, for instance, that some of the restrictions on newsprint and jute can be reduced? I mention that because those are the two functions to which my right hon. Friend referred when he said
    172
    that the question was to whom the remaining functions were to be passed. I do not wish to pursue that line—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Order covers the lot, whatever they may be.
    Mr. Hirst: Anything in process of being done is transferred to the Board of Trade. Are we not entitled to ask what process is going on, and what is being transferred, and not have to accept the Order without the slightest knowledge of what is being transferred. That is what is honestly and legitimately concerning some of us here tonight.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we can discuss that. It is simply transferred from one Department to another.
    Mr. Hirst: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I only want guidance.
    It seems to me extraordinary that the Government can come to this House and get an affirmative Resolution, as this is, to transfer various functions, etc., from one Ministry to another, and we are not allowed to discuss, or literally to know, what these precise functions are.
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. In Article 2 of this Order the words appear:
    "The Ministry of Materials is hereby dissolved and the functions of the Minister of Materials are hereby transferred to the Board of Trade."
    What my hon. Friend and I are anxious to know is why it is out of order for us to argue against the transfer of those functions.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not say that that was out of order. In fact, I said that the argument that one more straw might break the camel's back was in order.
    Mr. Nabarro: Am I to conclude from what you said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is in order to argue against the transfer of certain specific functions?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No.
    Mr. Hirst: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is clear on that point. I am not, because I should have thought that we could, on what you have just ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, argue that these functions should not be transferred in order to draw attention to the fact that we do not consider that those func-

    173
    tions, particularly in regard to newsprint, should be carried on, that it is about time they were all scrapped. If we can have an indication tonight that it is the intention of the Government to scrap those regulations and functions so far as these forbidden subjects are concerned, I should feel very much happier than I am in supporting the Government tonight.
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On a point of order. Before we go any further, do you not think it would be wise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you defined what is actually in order to discuss on this Order for the benefit of those of us who wish to contribute to the discussion?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I think it sufficient if I tell hon. Members when they are out of order.
    10.20 p.m.
    Mr. Jack Jones: We have here an Order which transfers certain functions from one Ministry to another. I submit that it is a transfer of particularly vital importance to this country. I do not wish to get out of order too soon—I know I shall do so sooner or later—but we have listened to a debate in which the importance of the technical knowledge of this country was stressed. This will entail the provision of the raw materials necessary to further the country's interests. What some of us are anxious to find out is why this Order is necessary and what advantages will be gained if it is carried. All we are told, in effect, by the Lord Privy Seal is that a few civil servants may be dismissed or found other appointments.
    When this Order is put into force will the country's technical interests be safeguarded? I am not concerned about jute, newsprint, carpets, or anything else, but only with the general overall needs of the nation. I could talk in detail—I should be out of order in doing so—about things that were easily accessible to this country before, but, as the international situation develops, will become more difficult to acquire. We should be told what advantages will accrue to us if this Order is carried tonight.
    10.21 p.m.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: I will not keep the House more than a few minutes, but I wish to make one observation and to ask two questions of my right hon.
    174
    Friend. I agree with the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) that the Board of Trade is far too big a Department for one man to control, and it appears to me that we are adding a burden to an already over-burdened Department. I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in that I think the Board of Trade is doing far too many jobs, and that it would be better for that Department and for industry as whole if many of its present functions were removed.
    I think my right hon. Friend said that there will be a reduction in staff of about 10 per cent. as a result of this Order, and that 90 per cent. of the staff would be "going home." Afterwards, my right hon. Friend said that that, of course, did not make much difference, because 80 per cent. were originally from the Board of Trade and would be going back there. I wish to ask why the extra 10 per cent. is required in the Board of Trade to carry on fewer functions than existed before the Ministry of Materials was set up? My right hon. Friend said that there would be a reduction of only 10 per cent. and that 90 per cent. would be going back to the Board of Trade—[HON. MEMBERS: "Immediately."]—I thought my right hon. Friend said on a long-term basis.
    Mr. Crookshank Mr. Crookshank indicated dissent.
    Mr. Osborne: Before this Order can become operative, about £125 million worth of stocks are being sold, so that the functions to be transferred to the Board of Trade may be lightened. It was said earlier that the total losses of the Department had been roughly, £55 million. It was also said earlier that when the right hon. Member for Ipswich was responsible for this Department which is now about to die, it was making considerable profits. I wish to ask, if it is in order, what were the total profits made when prices were rising and the Department was charging industry more than current prices—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think that that point arises. This is only a transfer. Whether there were losses or profits, they have to be transferred.
    Mr. Osborne: All I am asking for is information. I think it important that we should know and all I ask is that before the functions are transferred from one Department to another—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I did not say that it was not important. I said that it did not arise on this Order.
    Mr. Osborne: In considering whether the functions shall be transferred from one Department to another, it is important to know the amount of profits and losses which have been accruing. I should have thought that we were entitled to ask for that information, but if it is out of order I shall resume my seat.
    10.25 p.m.
    Mr. F. P. Bishop: As I happen to represent one of the functions being transferred, namely, newsprint, I wish to say a word—which I hope will not be out of order—of valediction to the Ministry which is about to disappear. We have been in the hands, first, of the Ministry of Supply, then of the Board of Trade, and, for the last three or four years, of the Ministry of Materials —in fact, throughout the whole life of that Ministry.
    I think it would be ungracious if someone did not say a word of thanks for the courtesy with which we have been treated over the many problems with which we have had to grapple in conjunction with the Ministry.
    Mr. Stokes: And the officials.
    Mr. Bishop: Yes.
    We have had discussions with successive Ministers. There is only one with whom I cannot recall having had an official meeting, and that was the first Minister, the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). It was only by an
    176
    unfortunate accident that we did not have the meeting. My chairman and vice-chairman and I went to the new Ministry one day. It was before the vast new building in Horseguards Avenue was fully organised. We were shown into a waiting room upstairs, where we remained for some time, and we might have remained there still if we had not got back to the methods of private enterprise to find out why we were still there and that we were lost and to make our way out. I do not blame the Minister for that happening. However, changes occurred—my hon. Friends and I must regard them as fortunate changes—which deprived us of the opportunity of a return engagement.
    In the difficult problems which we have had to face we have been treated with uniform courtesy and efficiency by the successive Ministers and by the civil servants. Like the civil servants, in the words of my right hon. Friend, we are now going home to the Board of Trade, but not, we hope to spend a long time there. Although it would be out of order for me to say anything on the subject, we hope that our stay with the Board of Trade will be brief and that we shall once again soon be able to set up house for ourselves and manage our own affairs.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Materials) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 15th July.
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

    WHITE FISH SUBSIDY
    10.28 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
    That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1954, dated 13th July, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.
    The Scheme is made under the 1953 White Fish and Herring Industry Act, and is the second Order. The main purpose of the Act was to provide grants and loans for the rebuilding of near and middle water and inshore fleets and also to provide for the payment of subsidies for about five years to help those sections of the fishing industry in their known financial difficulties until they were able to stand on their own feet again.
    The first Order expires at the end of July next year, but we are bringing in the new Scheme now so as to make certain revisions in the first Order, which was made a year ago. The first Order provided the basis for the assistance, which was a voyage insurance scheme, operating to assist fishing vessels in the near and middle waters which have unfortunate trips for one reason or another and are unable to make a sufficient return.
    In addition, the first Order provided a flat rate payment of 4d. per stone for all fish landed except for the inshore vessels for which we provided 10d. per stone flat rate. The total value of the Order as it has been running and will run until the new Scheme supplants it, is about £2¼ million per annum. At the annual review of the industry which takes place in March we found that the 1953 results showed some improvement over those for 1952. The losses made in 1952 were materially reduced. If that was all that we had to consider, we might well have left the Order to run as it was for another year, but we have to take into account that in the current year there have been significant increases in costs, notably in coal and in labour costs for crews.
    The fishing industry has also drawn attention to the fact that it is now using the larger mesh which has been introduced under the Overfishing Convention, which has been very successfully got going; but although we recognise that
    178
    this may be a factor we feel that it is not something which we should take account of in this financial operation. So, in considering what rate of subsidy to provide, we have had regard to the total average annual provision made under the 1953 Act. This is not much more than £2 million per annum.
    It is quite clear that if we are already running at about £2¼ million per annum, any increase now must necessitate a lower rate in the latter part of the period of five years provided in the 1953 Act. Despite this, we feel justified in making an increase this year to help the industry in its present difficulties.
    We are much concerned to see that the industry has sufficient finance in it at the present time to enable it to make full use of the grants for rebuilding and the loans at the same time. We propose, therefore, in the Scheme that there should be a further increase of about £250,000, which will make a total for the coming 12 months of £2½ million and will then bring the total value of the subsidy up to about 14 per cent. of the value of the fish caught.
    This increased amount, we propose, should be added to the voyage insurance scheme to help those vessels which are in the greatest need; they are set out in the Schedule to the Scheme. It will also be noticed that we have made some revision of the structure of the scheme to make it apply more accurately to where it is most needed. We shall continue the subsidy of 4d. per stone flat rate unchanged, as before.
    I should acknowledge that the fishing industry has asked for significantly more than we are granting, but I do not feel that the House would take the view that that would be justified within the provisions of the 1953 Act. Our problem really was to justify the increase of rate at all. Furthermore, if we increase the subsidy rates too much, instead of doing what we want to do to enable the industry to keep going while it is rebuilding, we might encourage rebuilding to an uneconomic level, so that eventually the industry is unable to stand on its own feet without subsidy. The inshore fishing industry has been running satisfactorily and showing better results in 1953, and so we propose to leave that rate of subsidy of 10d. per stone unchanged.

    179
    It may interest the House to know of the rate of rebuilding. For the near and middle water fleets, up to 30th June this year 29 vessels had been approved; a further 11 are under consideration. This can be regarded as fairly satisfactory. We should like to see the figures increased, but that is a satisfactory start in what is admitted to be a difficult position. For the inshore fleet, 81 new vessels and 72 new engines have been approved. I think that that indicates that the subsidy has been doing broadly what we intended it to do in the last year.
    I believe that the provisions we are making in this new Scheme will enable the industry to keep operating. Although it is not quite all they have asked for, I believe it is a fair settlement, which will enable this important part of the nation's food supply to be continued as before, and, not least important, ensure a fair living to the men engaged in this hazardous undertaking. I know how strongly my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite from the fishing ports feel on that aspect. In the bad weather we have to face one loss, or sometimes more, and I assure the House we have given this matter most earnest thought to reach what we think is a fair balance in the interests of the industry on the one hand and of the public on the other.
    10.36 p.m.
    Mr. Thomas Williams: First, I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, or commiserate with him—I do not know which—on his reprieve. Secondly, I ought to say at once that it is not our intention to divide the House against this Scheme. As usual, the hon. Gentleman has explained the Scheme and its objects so clearly that he has left little or no doubt or misunderstanding.
    If the increased costs have been closely examined, and the accountants are well satisfied that there is no sort of exploitation and the subsidy was justified in 1953 it must be justified in 1954. I must say, however, that when this process began we all hoped it would be a temporary expedient, and we looked to the White Fish Authority to organise reorganisations or amalgamations and that kind of thing that would render the subsidies unnecessary. We were all disappointed, but this is hardly the moment to enter
    180
    into the wider question of general fishing industry problems.
    As I understand, this Scheme merely amends the 1953 Order, makes small changes in the conditions for the grants, and slightly increases the rate, subject to the new conditions. The increase, as the Parliamentary Secretary states, amounts to approximately £250,000. The Act provided for a total payment not exceeding £10 million. I gather that for the 11 months they have been £2,064,000. There is no unlimited liability. There is a maximum payment per day: there is a maximum payment per voyage, so the Treasury are limited twice in their liabilities.
    We all know something of the difficulties of the near, middle water and inshore fishermen while we are anxious to enjoy the luxury of the so-called quality white fish. We have all watched with dismay the diminishing returns per voyage since the war, largely due to over-fishing in the North Sea, but we are all glad to know that the White Fish Convention is now operating. I hope that immature fish will now be allowed to develop to a reasonable size, for unless they do, it must mean difficulties on the basis of diminishing returns, and more costly and more uneconomical voyages which near and middle fishermen make. I hope that all the countries associated with this Convention will play the game and observe the rules. On that condition alone will a supply of good white fish be available to us.
    Unless we cease to take from the sea more than the annual increment, results will go down and we shall be back in the doldrums of the 1930s, with diminishing returns for each voyage for both trawler owners and their fishermen, and subsidies will have to go on for ever and ever. Without a subsidy, we shall have to go without the good quality white fish. I do not suppose that anybody would relish that. To maintain the supply at a reasonable price there are only three sources of income: consumers, trawler owners and fishermen, and the Treasury. If the proposed small investment will guarantee a constant supply of good quality white fish it will be well worth while.
    I cannot imagine that the Ministry have given the trawler owners all they asked

    181
    for; neither can I imagine that the trawler owners have done all that the Government would like them to do. The Scheme is strictly limited for one year, but I cannot imagine how it can be discontinued in 1954. I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that on a more appropriate occasion we shall have various searching questions to put on the general scheme of fishing and particularly with regard to the activities of the White Fish Board that I had the privilege of setting up a few years back. We want to know just what its activities have resulted in, and whether or not it has let us down or has served the country well. The Scheme is fairly legitimate and reasonable, and the House ought to pass it.
    10.43 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Duthie: I welcome this Scheme most cordially. It is wanted because we are going through a period of trying to increase the number of fish in the sea. We have introduced new mesh sizes. I hope that the subsidy will give a fillip to fishermen to use a much bigger mesh, so that there will not be wholesale slaughter of immature fish for some considerable time. Thus we may rehabilitate the Dogger and other fishing grounds in the North Sea.
    I would be sorry to see the subsidy higher. There is always the tendency, when money comes in in the form of a subsidy, for some people to take matters more easily and not have that final drag of the day which means taking the value of the catch up to a considerable size.
    This is an extremely good Scheme and should be given a good try out. I hope that it will be welcomed by the mid-water and near-distance men, for whom help is needed at the present time. If the help is not given, we shall see force majeur in the fishing industry to break the law with regard to the size of mesh. I hope that that will be obviated.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Edward Evans: With some diffidence, I welcome the Scheme. As we all know, when the Government we supported introduced the subsidy some years ago, it was thought that the subsidy would be only temporary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) began it over
    182
    the period, when we were suffering from the grave disabilities of overfishing and when we were met with appalling costs, when there was very little rejuvenation of the fleet and when the industry itself was in a very bad way.
    We know that although the Minister of Agriculture, or at any rate the Parliamentary Secretary, is responsible for this, the Scheme is really a Treasury scheme, because we know very well that the British Trawlers Federation, and those catchers who are members of that and responsible for the provision of capital in the industry, wanted a very considerable increase in the subsidy which, from their point of view, was quite reasonable to offset the appalling rise in the cost of running the industry.
    Fuel costs during the last 12 months have risen, costs of labour and appurtenances have risen, as have means of carrying on this great industry, which is the fifth largest industry in the country, one in which a tremendous amount of capital is sunk, and which provides sustenance and has a high strategic value. It is extremely important from the national point of view, apart from the consumers and those who enjoy good fish, that this great industry should be kept at a maximum of efficiency. I submit this can be done only by getting fish of prime quality and variety.
    Nothing did more damage to the fishing industry in reducing consumption in the period of the war, and immediately following the war, than the monotonous diet of cod, fish taken from far waters, because, as we know, the North Sea was prohibited. Fishermen and the fishing industry during those years went through a very trying time.
    The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), whose knowledge of this industry is unsurpassed in this House, knows very well that this industry cannot sustain itself in the future unless we conserve the fish. It is with that object in mind that this subsidy has been made available to the industry. We do not envisage it going on for ever. It was a temporary measure to start with. How proud I am to say that my own port of Lowestoft is in the van of this rejuvenation of the fleet—I think we have at least half, if not more, of the new modern diesel engine vessels.

    183
    It is essential for the industry to survive on its merits. They are having the chance because the industry, and I say this with great regret, is becoming almost a monopoly. Already the Icelandic landings have been cut out. That cannot go on for ever because it is a phase of our economic life that cannot give us any pride or pleasure to see our old friends in Iceland cut out.
    I shall get some nasty looks from my friends in the fishing world when I meet them, but we must not envisage this industry being entirely without competition. I hope that the day is coming when they will be able to raise their standard of production and standard of salesmanship. I hope that the authority, which is doing a creditable job of salesmanship, will be able to put them on the right line.
    Mr. Duthie: I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is as much fish coming to this country from offshore Icelandic waters as came from the inshore.
    Mr. Evans: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that, because it is a terrible criticism of the action of those in the industry who imposed the ban to say that the results of the conservation measures which the Icelanders are taking—measures which we ourselves have done so much to foster in our own waters—are becoming apparent. The quality taken from the waters adjacent to Iceland is better than ever before. I hope that I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point correctly. That is my point of view.
    The disabilities of the industry have to be sympathetically considered by the consuming public. We are always hearing about the high price of fish. We have been hearing a great deal recently about the high price of meat. Fish is in competition with unrationed meat, with large quantities of good vegetables at this time of year, with an influx of eggs, and so on. With the increased cost of the operations of catching I submit that it is wrong to suggest that fish is extraordinarily or unduly dear. It is a hazardous occupation and the costs are enormous.
    The standard of life of the fishermen has been increased—without that we shall
    184
    not get the recruitment that the industry needs. Anything that the Minister does to rehabilitate the industry, to sustain, help and encourage it while not spoiling it—we do not want any industry to be spoiled or pampered—will be welcomed. I believe that this amount, although it disappoints the fishing industry itself, will do a great deal to keep the vessels sailing, to help this great industry to prosper, and to provide, as is intended, sustenance and a safeguard in time of trouble.
    10.52 p.m.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has recognised the rise in costs which the industry has had to bear. I am glad, also, that the hazards and dangers through which those engaged in it have to pass have also been recognised. In following the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) I welcome the reference he has made to the amount of damage that was caused in this country to the industry by there having to be so much boxed cod landed during the war. He might also have mentioned the amount of "painted ladies" that also had to be eaten.
    It is absolutely necessary to keep up the quality of the fish and there are only two points I wish to make to the Minister. The reference in page 4 of the Scheme is to vessels not exceeding 70 feet overall. Between now and the next Scheme I would like him to consider whether or not pollock should be included in the ungutted as well as the gutted section. He will no doubt already know that the cost of including that would be extremely small. If he turns to the fish landings for April, 1954, he will discover their value to be £4,124.
    My other point is with regard to this question of quality and what we hope the White Fish Authority may be able to do to encourage the industry. The last thing we would really want to see is this industry running for ever on a subsidy. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would take into consideration what the fishing industry paper wrote this month. I think it is a matter which he should bear fully in mind, and I would like to read just a paragraph from what it said:
    "But we must add that if this junior Minister is now a fishery man he should be out and about in the future getting to know the

    185
    problems of the industry and speaking at trade functions up and down the country, and generally making himself known and liked, so that the industry have the feeling that their 'champion' is a full-timer. Even junior Ministers are busy. But we would like to see this particular fellow round the markets now and again discussing the industry's troubles and aspirations."
    I sincerely trust that is what we shall see the Parliamentary Secretary doing in the future.
    10.55 p.m.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt the paean of praise and platitude with which this Scheme has been received. It has certain objectionable features to which I think I must draw attention. The Scheme is primarily designed to deal with the case of fishing vessels secretly elongated without notice to the Minister, for the purpose of fraudulently getting a grant. It imputes fraud and dishonesty to the owners of fishing vessels, to the fishermen and to the fishing community. Indeed, Article 10 actually deals with the penalties which may be imposed for the frauds which are contemplated by the Scheme.
    So, without further explanation, the Scheme seems not only quite unnecessary, but undesirable. We have only to look at the last sentence in the Explanatory Note to see that that is so. It puts the matter very succinctly, and more clearly than I can put it:
    "The conditions under which the grants may be paid remain the same as those under the previous Scheme, save for a provision that when a structural alteration is made to any vessel which increases its length grant may be paid at the rate appropriate to the original length of the vessel, unless, previous to the alteration, the appropriate Minister has otherwise agreed."
    Obviously the intention of this Scheme is to deal with owners and fishermen who would fraudulently seek to elongate secretly their boats, and then get grants accordingly. No one had thought fit, not even the former Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, to refer to these very objectionable features and it is my duty, in the interests of the fishing community, to draw attention to them.
    This Scheme seeks to supersede or amend the Scheme of last year, which was entitled the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1953. The purpose of that scheme last year was to implement Section 5 of the White Fish
    186
    and Herring Industry Act, 1953. It did that well and in a workmanlike way, without imputing improper motives of fraud to either owners or fishermen.
    Section 5 follows the principle of the present Tory Government, which is this: when it wants to be constructive it copies the earlier legislation of the Labour Government, but slightly alters the words, and when it wants to be destructive it reverses the process by putting in a "not" here and there, and by changing a positive into a negative, or a negative into a positive, or, as here, by wasting time and energy by putting in a preposterous provision about "without notice, lengthening the size of a registered fishing vessel in respect of which a grant is paid."
    To understand the fantastic folly of what is being done it is necessary to realise that the Act out of which this Scheme flows is one of a series of Acts, some of which were passed by the Labour Government and one of which was passed by the present Government. The series was instituted and developed by earlier Governments, and it worked well in those days. I do not propose to elaborate the series—I see that you are getting restless, Mr. Speaker—and I shall deal with this Scheme.
    The purpose of the Act now in question was to promote the landing of a continuous and plentiful supply of white fish, and to encourage the fishermen by making grants, such as those contemplated by this Scheme, to owners and fishermen of vessels not exceeding 140 feet in length, subject to conditions set out in the scheme. A scheme was made last year, which scheme it is now sought to amend, for the payment of grants in respect of voyages made and fish landed by vessels fishing the near and middle water grounds, and for grants in respect of landings of fish by inshore vessels during the period from 1st August, 1953. to 31st July, 1955.
    That was all clear, open and above board, and no amendment was necessary. In my submission, no amendment is now necessary, unless it is intended to take away some of the rights of owners and fishermen, or to complicate their affairs and reduce their opportunities, or to make their lives more difficult by imputing to them, as this Scheme does,

    187
    dishonesty and fraud. I invite the House to see what is the effect of this Scheme, and how unnecessary it is.
    It provides all the same kinds of things as the previous scheme did—except one. It provides for vessels fishing the near and middle water grounds, as did the previous scheme; it provides for inshore fishing vessels, as did the previous scheme; it provides for the period up to 31st July, 1955, as did the previous scheme; and it provides conditions and grants to promote landings, as did the previous scheme. The one difference is that to which I have referred, that where structural alteration is made to any vessel to increase its length,
    "grants may be paid at the rate appropriate to the length of the vessel before the alteration was carried out, unless the appropriate Minister has previously agreed in writing to pay at the rate appropriate to the length of the vessel after the alteration was carried out."
    That is an imputation, of dishonesty against the owner and the fisherman—an imputation of an attempt to get a grant without giving notice to the Minister that this elastic boat had been elongated.
    I submit that this Scheme is worse than circumlocution; it is designed to enhance the powers of the Minister, to give trouble to the owner and the fisherman, to increase the red tape, to embarrass the fishing industry and thereby to reduce the supplies of fish. Everything remains the same except this suppositious attempt on the part of the dishonest fisherman to elongate his elastic boat. As everything remains the same except for this fantastic idea of elongating an elastic boat, the Scheme is unnecessary.
    Mr. Edward Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that everything is the same. Does he consider an additional grant of a quarter of a million pounds can be ignored by the fishing industry?
    Mr. Hughes: I will put my answer in the succinct words of the Explanatory Note, which, in its last sentence, says:
    "The conditions under which the grants may be made remain the same as those under the previous Scheme…"
    Mr. Speaker: That is the third time that the hon. and learned Member has read that.
    11.5 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) spoke of monotonous diet. It would help to relieve that diet if more people were encouraged to eat shellfish. We are told that
    "This Scheme, which may be cited as the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1954, shall apply to the United Kingdom, and shall come into operation on the 1st day of August, 1954."
    We are also told that
    "'Gross proceeds' means the proceeds from the first-hand sale of all fish (including herring, salmon, migratory trout and shellfish)…"
    As I understand, shellfish do not come into the subsidy. Is it too late to ask that this shall be reconsidered? Something has been said tonight about the cost of gear and the cost of the operations of fishermen. Those same costs apply to those who fish for shellfish. I do not see why they should not get a grant under the Scheme.
    The hon. Member for Lowestoft mentioned the Icelandic fishing dispute. One thing to be remembered so far as inshore fishermen are concerned is that this dispute—apart from the fact that the catches have gone up in the waters around Iceland since the expansion of territorial waters—means that we must take care to produce good quality fish so that we can compete with the frozen fish sent here from Iceland. At the same time, it is unfair that our fishermen should abide by the net rules set by the Over-fishing Convention when Belgians and Frenchmen can come in to our ports having used nets which do not conform to the international Convention, and nothing be done about it. Her Majesty's Government should consult the Governments concerned to ensure that pressure is brought to bear upon the fishermen of those nations to use the proper size of mesh.
    I would emphasise what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) said about the Minister. I hope that as a result of our recent debate the remarks made in the fishing Press about the Minister will be noted.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be answering questions on fisheries at the Dispatch Box. I hope that he will be able to visit the fishing ports and to meet the

    189
    men in the industry. It is important that the fishing industry should know that there is one Minister who will identify himself particularly with the needs of the industry.
    Mr. Edward Evans: If the hon. Member is so keen on having a Minister to show himself to all the fishermen in the fishing ports, why did he and his hon. Friend withdraw the Bill presented to the House to set up a Parliamentary Secretary who would be solely responsible for fisheries? Will he and his hon. Friends now support the Bill, which I have introduced, to establish a Parliamentary Secretary to be responsible for fisheries?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now going very wide of the Scheme.
    Mr. Howard: I would only say—my remarks have been to this end—that we hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will show sufficient interest in the fishing industry to make it apparent that he is doing the job that we all wish done for the fishing industry.
    11.11 p.m.
    Mr. James H. Hoy: I cannot follow the line adopted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) about boats being elongated secretly or otherwise, but I hope that the same procedure is not tried out on the fish. I am, however, worried about the way in which nets are being elongated, which is unfair to our own people.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the new Overfishing Convention. I think I can claim to have played some part in getting the Convention agreed to and in getting Belgium and Iceland to sign it. I am certain that all hon. Members would like to give it a fair trial, but we can only do that if all the countries which have signed the agreement abide by the rules.
    We might as well be frank about the matter. Fishermen all over the country, and certainly those fishing from Granton and Newhaven in my constituency, are complaining about fishermen from other countries using nets in the North Sea which are not of the sizes laid down in the Convention. If our people are to use the proper nets, it is only right that other countries should follow suit.
    190
    Not only do we depend on a good supply of fish, but the livelihood of the fishing communities of all countries is bound up with the preservation of the fish life in the sea. If people over-fish, we shall ultimately reach a stage when we shall put people out of employment altogether and destroy a very valuable food supply for the rest of the world.
    Let us remember that the scheme will give some assistance to the industry. I do not complain about the safeguards which have been provided. Any Government would have to provide certain safeguards if they were to pay out public money. Let us be fair and say that the scheme will provide an extra £250.000.
    That is the reason for the quarrel between the owners and the Minister. The owners feel that they have not got enough out of the scheme. Indeed, in these days of rising costs they are entitled to ask for some measures to be taken to make certain that they can carry on the industry. Trawler owners have told me that if they could get their coal at the price at which many other industries are being supplied they would not want £250,000 from the Ministry. Fuel has gone up tremendously during the last 12 months, as indeed have many other items.
    What the industry asks is that it be given a subsidy sufficient to allow it to carry on until it is reorganised. But I do not think the Minister should think that this is the last of the matter. Let us be frank also about the progress made under the White Fish Authority. We expected something more. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply, or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but, to give one example.
    I led a deputation to the Scottish Office last December about the white fish industry which made some proposals with regard to the disposal of white fish, especially that portion that was not sold for human consumption. The Minister said to the Authority that here were the proposals of this section of the industry, and asked them to get on quickly and let him have a reply. I saw the Joint Under-Secretary in January, and he told me he had not got a reply. I am not blaming him. I only got a final reply on the 15th of this month, seven months after the matter was first raised, and I cannot

    191
    absolve the White Fish Authority from blame.
    If the industry is to be reorganised, we have to have greater attention from the Authority which was created to deal with these very problems—not only fish oil but fish meal, which, indeed, could play a very valuable part in bringing back prosperity to the white fish industry. When one thinks of the tremendous sums of money expended on the purchase of fish meal—in 1952 over £1,250,000—from other countries for our agricultural industry, one would have thought the Authority could have shown greater efficiency and drive in finding a solution.
    We should not be misled by the figures of new boats under construction or being built. The Parliamentary Secretary thought on the whole they were fairly satisfactory. I am certain that on reflection he would like to amend that statement, because while the numbers may be better than they have been, they have to be placed against the out-of-date condition of such a large number of boats in the industry. When we measure this little progress, let us always remember the long road there is still to travel to reorganise and make the industry prosperous.
    Here is an industry which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) said, is the fifth largest in the country. It is an industry which makes a tremendous contribution not only in time of peace but in war-time, because it is from that industry that we draw a great deal of our naval strength. So it is essential in peace or war that this industry, and all who are in it, should have the best attention of this House, and while we may pass this Scheme which may bring a little succour to it, I hope in the not too far distant future we shall have greater proposals for reorganising the industry and putting it on its feet again without having always to induct subsidies merely to keep it alive.
    11.19 p.m.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: It would seem strange to discuss fish and for no one to speak for Grimsby or Humber ports, as about 70 per cent. of the fish landed come to the Humber ports. As
    192
    there is no one else to speak for the southern side of the river, I should like to speak for the trawler owners and men affected by this Scheme who live in my constituency. They are grateful for whatever is done to help them. The Parliamentary Secretary has been invited to go round the various ports, and I hope he will not spend all his time in the smaller ports and overlook the two that matter. At present in the white fish industry there is a great deal in Grimsby that causes people disquiet. There has been a lot of discussion in the local Press recently about the difficulties with which the industry is faced. These proposals will help in a small degree, but they will not touch some of the more basic problems that face this oldest fishing port in the country.
    I extend to my hon. Friend a strong invitation, if he can possibly find time, to come up and see the industry for himself. I undertake that if he comes he will be shown all sides of the industry, and I hope he will give an undertaking that when he comes back he will do his best to see that remedies are applied to what he has learnt.
    11.21 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will have noted the kind invitation extended to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). There is very little that I need say except to answer one or two points. It is good to feel that although this is a moderate measure, by no means giving to the industry anything like all it asked, nevertheless it has, with the single exception of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), won universal approval from the House.
    The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), as did others, raised, naturally enough, the question of Iceland. We are all concerned, and will continue to be concerned, about the unhappy problem there. All I would say about it is that we are ready at any time to discuss conservation measures with Iceland. But we quite understand in the House that the fishing industry finds it rather difficult to agree to measures unilaterally imposed. That is the difficulty, and I am afraid it may continue.

    193
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) asked me about Pollack. We will look at the point he has put to us. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, had prepared his speech without looking at the Scheme. It would not be proper at this time of night to try to enter into a conflict with him. I merely beg the hon. and learned Member, politely but firmly, to go home tonight and, for the first time, read the Scheme, and he will find all his questions answered. If he is still left in any difficulty, particularly about the question of lengthening of vessels, I will give him precise particulars of a case which made it essential that we should introduce this new provision in the Scheme. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member, being a legal luminary and having obtained this information, will be the first to get up on the next occasion and say what splendid fellows we are on the Government Front Bench.
    My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) was, as usual, gallant and loyal to his shellfish, and raised the local problem. The trouble is that shellfish were excluded by the Act, and it is difficult for us, unless we were to alter the Act, to overcome that difficulty. But no doubt my hon. Friend will go on fighting for the shellfish, and perhaps in due course something will happen.
    The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), like other hon. Members, referred to the international Convention, in the making of which we all recognise the very important part which he played abroad. The hon. Member has, therefore, every right to talk to the House upon this matter. Everything depends on how the other countries play the game. If they did not play the game, there would not be much sense in the convention; but each country is obliged to see that its nationals abide by its law, and it is up to each signatory to enforce the convention in that way. But all signatories are obliged to report to the Permanent Commission next year on the measures they have taken to enforce the convention, and it will then be open to any of us to make such representations as we want to make.
    194
    The hon. Gentleman raised a matter with me some months ago when he brought some of his trawler constituents to see me in Edinburgh. The point raised was a reasonable one. It was suggested that there was a surplus of white fish which could not be sold on the fresh market, and which had a depressing effect on the home market, and we were asked whether we could not do something about it. The White Fish Authority examined this matter at my request; so did we. After the most careful consideration, the Government came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to pay the subsidy for fish which was not being used for human consumption. That is the difficulty in which we are placed, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate it.
    The best answer I can give is that we have taken two measures to deal with this surplus, very often of small fish. We have introduced the larger mesh provisions which will have the effect of reducing the amount of small fish caught. We have also introduced the Sea Fish Industry (Immature Fish) Order, which has the effect of increasing the minimum size of whiting to 10 inches. No whiting of less than 10 inches can now be sold. That should have an effect on the splendid men from Granton and that part of the world. I hope that these few remarks have answered the questions put.
    Mr. Howard: Would my hon. Friend say, on the subject of the measures taken about the size of the mesh, whether Fishery Protection vessels have the right to inspect the mesh, and can he give publicity to that so that fishermen will know they can be prosecuted for an offence.
    Mr. Stewart: The Fishery Protection vessels have a function as the hon. Gentleman knows, and they can examine our own vessels and apply measures to them, and likewise other countries can take similar action against their vessels.
    Resolved,
    That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1954, dated 13th July, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.

    REQUISITIONED LAND, PEACEHAVEN
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]
    11.28 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Roberts: Last week we discussed the case of Crichel Down. Tonight I want to deal with the case of Peacehaven, an area of land on the South coast of Sussex. I believe that this case has in it all the principles which apply to the case of Crichel Down and require the justice required in that case, and possibly more so. The constituent of mine, whose land is being threatened, has not the means nor the money that Commander Marten had. She has no other assets than the one-fifteenth of an acre which the Ministry is proposing to take away from her.
    The history of the case briefly is that in 1916 a large area of the South Downs was split up for building purposes, and was sold, or given away as prizes in some cases, for development. It was as a prize that my constituent got her small parcel of land. It was requisitioned during the 1914–18 war, and was not handed back in the state it was taken over. My constituent's land was not developed between the wars, although a large number of plots of lands were developed and are now built on. In 1940, the war agricultural committee requisitioned this land. Miss Walker, my constituent, did not know of this, and only found out some time later when visiting it. She thought she would get it back when the emergency was over.
    Under the Act of 1947, the then Minister of Agriculture in the Socialist Government decided to take away the freehold of this land from my constituent, Miss Walker, together with that of other owners in the area. This decision was in order that this small plot should continue to be farmed and food be produced. Throughout the whole of these proceedings there has been no suggestion that food should not be produced on the land, if that can be done. The objection is that a Minister or the State should take the freehold away in order to do so.
    These matters have been put to the Ministry and to Ministers over a number
    196
    of years. In 1948, 1950, 1951 and 1952 at least 14 hon. Members have, at one time or another, taken the matter up with the Minister and at least two Parliamentary Questions have been asked about it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), in whose constituency this case is, has been most active in pressing the Minister on it. I would quote from a letter which he sent. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, who has been ill, will soon be back again with us here. He wrote:
    "I do feel very strongly indeed that the owners of these plots have been treated in a most high-handed fashion—although, admittedly, within the law "—
    I will query that point later on—
    "I particularly hope that in your review of this case you will bear in mind the large number of plot owners who would be affected if this compulsory purchase order is proceeded with."
    This has been done to a large number of these plot-owners for whom we are speaking.
    I have written to the Parliamentary Secretary on a number of occasions on behalf of my constituent. The latest letter I had from him was dated 13th July this year, in which he decided finally not to go back on the decision which was taken that my constituent must lose her freehold. This is the reason why I am raising the matter before the House tonight. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the words of the Home Secretary in the debate last week. They sum up the point which I am putting to him now. The Home Secretary said:
    "Every citizen of good will sees his land go in time of emergency for Government requirements with as much good will as he can muster; but it is taken for a specific purpose, for a specific need of the State. When that purpose is exhausted, when that need is past, what is wrong, on any consideration of morality or justice, in allowing the person from whom the land was taken to have the chance of getting it back?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1296.]
    That is exactly the point I wish to press upon the Parliamentary Secretary.
    As I understand the matter, the Parliamentary Secretary has produced two arguments. The first is that a tribunal was held in October, 1951 under the Agriculture Act and decided that the Minister should take the land; therefore the Ministry must stand by that decision. The second argument is that under the

    197
    Town and Country Planning Act the land cannot be developed, and therefore the State must take it over. On the first argument, the tribunal was a similar sort of tribunal as was remarked upon by Mr. Justice Stable recently in the case of a Mrs. Woollett. From discussions which I have had recently, I am not satisfied that the tribunal in 1951 was properly set up by the instructions of the Minister. It was at the time of the General Election and it is quite doubtful if the strictures of Mr. Justice Stable would not also apply in this case.
    I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure me tonight, or, if he cannot do that, will look carefully into the matter to see what the facts are in this case, because there is a good deal of disturbance. I would quote to the Parliamentary Secretary a very forcible leading article in the "Daily Express" last week, in which they say:
    Coupled with Crichel Down, the story of Mrs. Woollett's four acres builds up to a shocking picture of official casualness towards a citizen's rights. Muddle, delay, and injustice seem to be general.
    I believe that applies to the case of my constituent.
    I have a growing suspicion about whether the notice was properly given. I understand Saltdean Estates Limited, one of the local estate companies down there, stated that they had the names and addresses of the owners of this land. So far as I know, the officials dealing with the matter did not take up their offer of these names and addresses. I believe that where the freehold rights have been taken away it is the duty of those doing it to take every reasonable step to see these people are notified. I believe that was not done.
    Notices were placed upon the land, and I understand that under the Act notices would have to be placed on every plot. I understand the figure of 4,000 has been mentioned as the number of plots. My information is that notices were not placed on each plot. It may be that a number of these notices themselves were bad. I feel, while the case of this tribunal may be looked at again, my constituent cannot accept it without some degree of qualm.
    The second argument is one of development. As I understand the Minister's letters to me and to other hon.
    198
    Members, his argument is that at the moment the land cannot be developed under the plan for this area under the Town and Country Planning Act. He did not mention in a recent letter, nor say at any time, that under the Town and Country Planning Act there could be a five-year review of these development rights. Whether or not this land could be developed in five years' time, I do not know, and I do not think even the Minister could tell. Therefore, the argument that he must acquire the freehold, because the land cannot be developed, is definitely misleading, because it may be that in five or 10 years the land could be developed.
    The crux of the point is that it seems to be wholly unnecessary for the State to take the freehold of land, whether it can be developed or whether it cannot, in order to produce food. I believe that my constituent and a large number of others on these plots are willing, and have always been willing, for their land to be farmed. I know that food production should be kept to a maximum, and I am not putting forward any suggestion that there is no need for food. What I cannot understand is why our Conservative Government should say that in order to produce food the State should own the property.
    I can quite well understand hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who introduced this general idea in 1947 and 1948, saying that according to their philosophy there should be nationalisation of the land. I cannot believe that that is the true Conservative line. Where do we get to if we follow that line of thought? Here is a case where my constituent's land is admittedly only one-fifteenth of an acre and the war executive agricultural committee say, "It is too small to be farmed by itself. It must be bought out and put into a bigger plot." But sooner or later someone may come and say that two acres is too small—or four, or 10 or 20 acres is too small. Where do we stop with this principle that where, in the opinion of the Ministry, the land is too small it can be bought and added to other farms? Where do we stop? I think this principle that the State can perfectly well arrange for agricultural production without acquiring the freehold of the estate must be stopped.

    199
    I wish finally to quote to the House the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) —the Minister of Agriculture, as I imagine he still is at the moment. I believe that what he said in the closing remarks of his speech last week may very well influence not only my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary but any Minister coming after him. The words used were:
    "…and it is our policy progressively to get rid of emergency powers which permit private interests in land to be overridden. With this freeing of the economy, and the material improvement in the food situation today, it is possible to contemplate taking action in the interests of liberty…"
    I stress that—
    "and free enterprise which the national economic situation would not have permitted two or three years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1187.]
    That I believe to be the most important statement to be made from that Box last week. It gives me hope that in this case a large number of small plot-holders at Peacehaven will have a review of their case, and may find that at some future date it will be possible for them to have their freehold land back again.
    I would ask my hon. Friend three sets of questions. If he can answer them satisfactorily—and I very much hope that he can, because they are not very difficult to answer—I shall be quite satisfied with the way the debate has gone. First, is he satisfied that the tribunal set up in October, 1951, by his Socialist predecessors was properly set up? Is he satisfied that the notices given for that tribunal to be held were properly served upon the owners of the various plots of land? If he is not satisfied, will he look carefully into it, reconsider the whole question and let me have the results of his search?
    Secondly, can he give an undertaking that there will be, so to speak, a standstill order upon the processes which are now going forward for the acquiring of this land until the new Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be, will have had time to consider the matter thoroughly As I understand it, as at the present moment negotiations are going on for the compulsory purchase. So far as I know they may be going on today or tomorrow. I think that it
    200
    would be very sad and most unfortunate if, this week or next, action were taken which might make it difficult for the Minister to reconsider the matter in the future.
    Thirdly, will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary use his best endeavours to impress upon the Minister, when he is appointed, and on the officials who serve him, to accept the two points of principle which I have quoted from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and also of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Richmond? I believe that if those points of principle are accepted by the Ministry and by himself, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the freehold rights of this innumerable number of plot-holders will be preserved. The time has come when the conditions which prompted him and his predecessors have changed; that now we feel that the liberty of the individual is more important, and that the necessity to produce food can be met by some other method.
    My constituent is willing for the land to be farmed, so long as it cannot be developed, and willing to allow what arrangements the Minister thinks necessary to do that. There is no question of the land going derelict as far as she is concerned, but she wants to preserve the right to maintain the freehold if, at some future date, it becomes possible to develop it, so that she can either build a house herself or make arrangements for someone else to do so.
    I believe that I am speaking not only on behalf of my constituent but also for a large number of other people in the same position in this large area at Peace-haven. If my hon. Friend can give a satisfactory answer to this question, I am certain that he will lift a burden of anxiety from those people. He will be showing that the principles of liberty and the rights of property are still of vital importance to hon. Members who sit on this side of the House, whatever may be the views of those who sit on the other side. I believe he will go a long way, if he will give those satisfactory replies, to assuring us and the public generally that we really mean now to protect the rights of the small individual, so far as property is concerned, against those who feel it is in the national interest to nationalise the land and for the State to

    201
    buy up these areas. I hope, therefore, that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me a satisfactory answer, and I assure him that he has, and will have, the goodwill of all these people in that area.
    11.47 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I would briefly confirm the description that my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) has made of the circumstances of this land, that it was in fact acquired in 1916, a small area of about one-fifteenth of an acre, that it was requisitioned in World War I, and farmed by the authorities. It stood idle, derelict and undeveloped between the two wars, and was requisitioned again in World War II, farmed again by the authorities—this time by the Ministry of Agriculture, through their agents, the East Sussex War Agricultural Committee. It is still under requisition by the Ministry of Agriculture and has been farmed more recently by being let to neighbouring farmers who have got it in production. I should say that it is part of a very much larger area. A total of some 2,000 acres was under this requisition, and rather more than half of it has been, or is being, derequisitioned and returned to its previous owners.
    Their remains, however, an area of about 890 acres which it is at present proposed to purchase, if possible by agreement on price, by the exercise of compulsory powers. The difficulty that my right hon. Friend had to face, and, indeed, has to be faced by anyone who is Minister of Agriculture, was to discharge his responsibility of keeping in production land which is productive at the present time and potentially productive for the future, and to find a proper balance between the necessities of full production on the one hand and private ownership on the other.
    There is this point that has to be considered in this particular area, and my hon. Friend has made reference to it, and that is the bearing of the planning authorities in their intentions for this particular land.
    At the present time this land is scheduled to remain as agricultural land. It is true that the county plan is susceptible to review every five years but, in determining whether or not it is likely
    202
    to be amended, we can but consult the planning authorities in the neighbourhood and ask what is their intention for this area. They have informed us that they do not intend that this area shall be developed for building purposes. As is quite clear from the figures, they have allowed development on over a thousand acres of that land which was originally requisitioned, and they evidently consider that that is enough to meet the needs of the neighbourhood. Although I cannot rule out the possibility of this land being developed, I can say that on the best opinion we can get the present view is that it will not be developed.
    If it were to be developed it would be developed for building purposes, and there would be no question about maintaining the requisition, or the Minister of Agriculture wishing to retain control; but when land is not going to be developed for building purposes, there is a clear duty upon the Minister of Agriculture to see that the land is capable of being kept in production.
    My hon. Friend really must face the practical necessities of the position. He talks freely about the land being kept in production without an acquisition of the freehold, but, as I have said, with four large pieces of land fragmented into the ownership of hundreds of different owners—as is the case here—and the individual plots being so small, the problem of keeping the land in production in its individual pieces is overwhelmingly difficult. How is the State or any private individual to hire that land by tenancy from the individual owners, if the land is left with them? At present it is simple; the Government, and the Minister of Agriculture specifically, have requisitioning powers under Defence Regulations, so that there can be compulsory occupation. Those powers expire in a few years' time, at the most, and then there is the problem of keeping the land in production in the future. Some of this land is very good, and is commanding, as bare land, £3 an acre. We really cannot contemplate 800 acres going back into the condition in which it was between the wars. Those are considerations that my right hon. Friend and myself had to bear in mind in coming to the decision to go ahead with the purchase of the land. In the majority of cases purchase has been achieved by agreement as to price.

    203
    With regard to the point made about the tribunal, I should remind my hon. Friend that Miss Walker did not appeal to the tribunal. She decided it would not serve her interests to do so.
    Mr. P. Roberts: Miss Walker states that she has always objected to that allegation. She was inundated with a lot of forms which she did not understand, and she may have omitted to do something, or she may have done something she ought not to have done, but she has always been adamant that she did not want to lose her land.
    Mr. Nugent: I can only give my hon. Friend the facts. While he may perfectly well maintain the view of Miss Walker, the facts are that on 19th June, 1951, she was served with a notice that the Minister proposed to give the certificate, and that she might appeal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. On 11th July, 1951, she replied saying that it would be useless to appeal against the proposal to purchase her land compulsorily, and she requested that compensation should be assessed at the market value of building land. The fact is that she did not appeal to the tribunal. Therefore, the Woollett judgment has no great bearing, and possibly it has no direct bearing at all, on this case. So I can clear my hon. Friend's mind on that point at least.
    With regard to the serving of the notices, it is clear that notices were served on Miss Walker, and that notice was given in the proper fashion. I assure my hon. Friend that, as far as I can make out from the records, the serving of notices in this difficult matter has been done with all the care that humanity could command. More than 800 owners have been contacted, many of them having done nothing with the land for 20 or 30 years. It has been difficult to trace them. The land was in plots which some people had acquired for nothing, or won as a prize, or gained in some other way. An enormous job has been undertaken in contacting these owners. Where they have not been contacted, notices have been posted on the land.
    204
    The third question asked by my hon. Friend was whether the new Minister of Agriculture will accept the principles laid down by the Home Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale). The answer is that they certainly will. At the same time, there is the need to maintain full food production. While I am certain that the new Minister of Agriculture will wish to examine in detail this complicated and difficult case, I cannot commit him on the view he will take. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the general responsibility which the Minister of Agriculture must have. He cannot lightly say that his land can go back to the owners. Obviously, it would be practically impossible to maintain it in production, and the probability is that it would go back to the derelict condition in which it was in for more than 20 years between the wars, with potentially good land producing nothing.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that wherever there is derelict land the State must buy it?
    Mr. Nugent: I do not. I resent my hon. Friend's imputing that motive to me. He knows as well as I do that if land is in one ownership it is possible for that owner to equip and farm it in the proper way; but here we have land in small pieces. He knows, as well as I do, that it is not possible to negotiate 700 or 800 leases. We must look at this practically.
    Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Surely the Ministry has a responsibility in regard to the rights of individuals to deal with their own land. This is a shocking argument. You ought to be ashamed of it.
    Mr. Nugent: I will conclude by asking my hon. Friend to observe the facts. When the future Minister of Agriculture is appointed he will have these facts before him—
    The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Two Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Widows
  Widows
  Limbless Ex-Service Men
  Limbless Ex-Service Men
  ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS
  ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS
  EMPEROR OF ETHIOPIA (VISIT TO UNITED KINGDOM)
  EMPEROR OF ETHIOPIA (VISIT TO UNITED KINGDOM)
  ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL CO. (NEGOTIATIONS)
  ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL CO. (NEGOTIATIONS)
  U.N. TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL (HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS)
  U.N. TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL (HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS)
  BROADCASTING, WALES (V.H.F. STATIONS)
  BROADCASTING, WALES (V.H.F. STATIONS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  Northern Command Tattoo, Leeds
  Northern Command Tattoo, Leeds
  Training (Constructional Work)
  Training (Constructional Work)
TRANSPORT
  Parking, Westminster (Memorandum)
  Parking, Westminster (Memorandum)
  Abnormal Loads
  Abnormal Loads
  Classified Roads, Wales (Expenditure)
  Classified Roads, Wales (Expenditure)
AGRICULTURE
  Land Tribunals (Procedure)
  Land Tribunals (Procedure)
  Myxomatosis
  Myxomatosis
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Betting and Lotteries Legislation
  Betting and Lotteries Legislation
  Cruelty to Animals (Myxomatosis)
  Cruelty to Animals (Myxomatosis)
  HONG KONG (SENTENCED SERVICE MEN)
  HONG KONG (SENTENCED SERVICE MEN)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  House Purchase (Loans)
  House Purchase (Loans)
  Abattoir, Swindon (Complaint)
  Abattoir, Swindon (Complaint)
  New Towns (Ex-Service Men)
  New Towns (Ex-Service Men)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  L.C.C. Restaurants (Discussions)
  L.C.C. Restaurants (Discussions)
  Ministry (Future)
  Ministry (Future)
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE ACT
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE ACT
EDUCATION
  School Building
  School Building
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Viscount Colville of Culross—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments: a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
HARTLEPOOL PORT AND HARBOUR BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MIGRANTS' FUNDS
2.37 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now announce some relaxation in the present retention of funds of migrants from the United Kingdom to Canada.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have this question
2
under review, but I am afraid that I am not in a position to indicate whether they will find it possible to make any relaxation. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that as soon as our balance of payments position permits my right honourable friend will lose no time in relaxing these restrictions.

DUTY-FREE MACHINERY IMPORTS
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is intended to make a statement on the duty-free import of machinery of dollar origin.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the whole question of the duty-free importation of machinery has been examined by an independent committee under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Wilson Smith, whose report was published last Thursday, and Her Majesty's Government propose to make a statement on this subject before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess.

SHOOTING DOWN OF BRITISH AIRLINER
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. The Question is as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, at some convenient time in the course of to-day's proceedings (I have in mind, of course, the necessity to

3
synchronise the statement with that to be made in another place) they will make a statement with regard to the shooting down of a British aircraft over the island of Hainan?
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, I understand that a similar Question is being put to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary by the Leader of the Opposition in another place. In order to preserve the common practice, it is right that I should wait until my right honourable friend makes his statement. With the permission of the House, I will intervene at a convenient time as soon as possible after 3.30.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am sure that that will be greatly to the convenience of the House, and I thank the noble Marquess.

PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT)) CONFIRMATION BILL
House in Committee (according to Order), on re-commitment of the Bill: the Amendments made by the Select Committee agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 21) the Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HIRE-PURCHASE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS (MINIS TRY OF MATERIALS) DRAFT ORDER, 1954
2.43 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON)THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON) rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Materials) Draft Order, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be made in
4
the form of the draft laid before Parliament. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the draft of an Order to dissolve the Ministry of Materials and transfer its remaining functions to the Board of Trade. Your Lordships will not wish me to expound the legal forms of the Order; you will be more interested in the intention to which these forms, I am advised, give proper effect.
As the Prime Minister indicated in another place, the dissolution of the Ministry has been made possible and desirable primarily by the progress made in bringing to an end State trading in raw materials. Within the space of the last eighteen months or so the trade in some dozen diverse raw materials has been restored to private hands, and the formidable task of dismantling these large public trading structures and disposing of the terminal stocks is now far advanced. By the end of the year, nearly 1,400,000 tons of such terminal stocks, excluding cotton, to a sale value of approximately £125 million, will have been disposed of at fair market prices, and so far, I am glad to say, without any serious disturbance of normal and regular trade. Your Lordships will appreciate that this maintenance of a stable market was a matter of prime importance to our economy and to the trades that were concerned. This orderly disposal of stocks alone, I think, if I may again quote the Prime Minister's words,
"fully justifies the time and care required in winding up this Ministry."
The Ministry, however, has in the last year or so also been usefully employed in other ways, besides divesting itself of public trading activities and a good many controls. Let me give one or two examples. It has played a large part in recent months in negotiating the International Tin Agreement which, as your Lordships will be aware, has recently received the signatures necessary to bring it to a stage of ratification. The Ministry has also negotiated with an industrial firm for the production of titanium, which should help to ensure that this country is not left behind in what may be the vital development of the use of titanium metal in aircraft construction, and for other purposes. The Ministry has concerned itself closely with the preparatory investigations of the Volta River Scheme on the Gold Coast, which it is hoped will lead to the development of hydro-electric

5
power and aluminium production, to the significant benefit not only of the peoples of the Gold Coast but of this country. The Ministry has not only added powerfully to our strategic stockpiles of materials, but has recently been active in tightening up its organisation and the arrangements for the management and secure custody of these immensely valuable stocks.
I have mentioned these examples for two reasons. First, because it is right that, as the last Minister of Materials, I who am known (and I am content that it should be so) to have been anxious to wind up the Ministry as a separate entity, should make it abundantly clear that this decision to wind up the Ministry was in no way due to dissatisfaction with the way in which the Ministry has been discharging the duties placed upon it by Parliament. I have, in fact, been greatly impressed by the intimate and detailed knowledge which the civil servants have acquired of the various materials and trades with which they have been concerned, and by the evident confidence which trade organisations have shown in the integrity and helpfulness of those with whom they have come into contact. My predecessors, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Salter, left me with a staff and a basis to work upon which greatly facilitated the task that was entrusted to me by the Prime Minister.
Further, if your Lordships will be good enough to bear with me, I must pay tribute to the business efficiency that has been shown in the disposal of these large stocks. If your Lordships will reflect for a moment what it means to dispose of 1,400,000 tons of material, or to realise stocks valued at £125 million, you will appreciate that it has been a considerable task. Much of the material involved in these disposals had been bought at varying times over the last eight years. Some of it, inevitably, had been bought earlier at prices that were much higher than those which have been prevailing during the last two years; and some of it, again inevitably, was the residue, in which the trades involved had shown very little recent interest. The disposal of such a stock calls for considerable business ability. Loss on cost prices was, of course, inevitable; but we have minimised it. The fact that we have disposed of this £125 million worth of materials at
6
a selling cost of considerably less than one per cent. reflects much credit on those who have been in control of these operations. I must express my gratitude to all the staff of the Ministry from whom I have had every support and complete loyalty in what your Lordships will realise was the somewhat invidious task of dismembering a Ministry and dispersing a staff which had grown very much attached to the work which they were efficiently carrying out.
Secondly, since various statements have appeared in the Press that all that this Ministry was doing was exercising an unwanted control over newsprint and preserving the jute trade of Dundee, I think it right that I should make public the quite formidable commercial enterprise with which the Ministry has been concerned, and which is now within sight of conclusion—to the considerable advantage of the public purse. Furthermore, whilst, for reasons which your Lordships will appreciate, I cannot disclose the extent of the stockpile for which this Ministry has been responsible, I can assure the House that the amount of public money involved fully justifies the size of the staff employed in its supervision. I have made these references to the continuing functions of the Ministry to show that, although the functions to be transferred are not extensive enough to justify any longer a separate Department, the Government by no means underestimate their importance or the need for finding for them a home where they will be assured of adequate supervision and attention of the right kind. I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is well seized of this aspect of the matter, and also of the need, in reorganising the combined Department and dispersing the staff, to preserve satisfactory continuity in relations with the trade and industry that is concerned with materials.
I do not think I need enlarge further on the proposal to dissolve now the Ministry of Materials. It would rather be a matter for explanation if this were not being done. With the easement in world material supplies and the abandonment of so much of public trading and of control, the staff of the Ministry has already shrunk from about 1,850 at the end of 1951 to about 800 now. The

7
volume of work thrown up cannot continue to be sufficient to occupy the undivided attention of the higher management of a separate Department. Separate Finance and Establishment divisions and central services of this kind become an unjustifiable extravagance; the need to continue to co-ordinate the activities of one more Ministry and Department with those of others becomes an unnecessary obstacle to the speedy and efficient discharge of Government business. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is obviously sensible to put an end to these things.
The Government felt that in doing so—and, if I may, I would direct especial attention to this—it would be advantageous to keep Government responsibility in regard to materials together in one place, under one Ministry, rather than to disperse them—as was done before the creation of the Ministry of Materials—between the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade. The choice of the Board of Trade as a home is a natural one. Although it is already a large Department, its size and load have contracted in the last year or two, and the President is satisfied that the Board of Trade can now absorb these additional functions without undue strain on the higher management or loss of higher direction in the material field. The Government's continuing responsibility in regard to materials are more cognate to the existing responsibilities of the work of the Board of Trade than to those of any other Department. Indeed, the connection between the two responsibilities in the textile field is so close (as your Lordships will not have failed to observe in dealing with the Cotton Bill earlier this year, and last week with the Cotton Order), that there is an overlap of responsibility which was sufficient to excite the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to recall the operas of Gilbert and Sullivan. The amalgamation of the two Departments will now remove this.
This is the last occasion upon which I shall speak on behalf of the Ministry, and I should like to conclude with a public expression of thanks to my noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Salter, whom I followed in office, and, if I may, particularly to my Permanent Secretary, Sir Eric Bowyer, to the Deputy and Under-Secretaries with whom I have come most
8
in contact, and to my two personal secretaries. They have throughout been unfailing in capacity and have made the task entrusted to me by the Prime Minister as pleasant as possible. I am deeply in their debt. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Materials) Draft Order, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(Viscount Woolton.)
2.56 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Viscount has read the last rites over himself as the Minister of Materials with characteristic good humour and cheerfulness, and, like all condemned men, appeared to me to make an excellent case as to why he should not go to the scaffold, since the Department over which he has presided has been so efficiently run. I can assure the noble Viscount that we on this side of the House are not going to oppose this Order. In fact, on the whole we welcome it, because in our view the Board of Trade can do the job just as well. With their business experience of the various functions that will be handed over to them, in my view the Government have, strange to say, made a wise choice of the Department which is to carry on those functions.
The noble Viscount has given us some interesting figures, and I am glad he has mentioned one specific thing—that is, the custody of the remaining stocks. I do not want him, and I will not ask him, to give any figure of their value. We can all guess that they are very substantial, and our past experience over many years has always been that these stocks have an unhappy knack of "self-liquidation." I hope that, whatever happens to the rest of the staff, Her Majesty's Government will see that there is sufficient staff to make the custodianship of those stocks as secure as possible. I do not know whether the noble Viscount would like to inform your Lordships what will be the net saving to the taxpayer in civil servants resulting from the demise of this Ministry and the transfer of the functions to the Board of Trade. That is a popular subject of conversation and debate to-day. It may not be possible, but from my knowledge of the Board of Trade and its

9
excellent organisation I should think that they can absorb all the functions of the Ministry of Materials without any addition to the existing staff.
That is all I have to say on this Order, but, if your Lordships will forgive me for doing so, I should like to end on a personal note. Far be it from me to enter into the topical game of reforming the Government. We now see one Minister going. Speaking for my colleagues and myself on this side of the House, I sincerely hope that it will be a long time before we see the Chancellor of the Duchy go, because he has endeared himself to us with his unfailing courtesy, his very good temper, his ever-attentive ear and his constant endeavour to do what he can to meet the wishes and the arguments of the Opposition—and, believe me, that is something which we appreciate very much. We hope that his stay in your Lordships' House will be a long one, so that we may continue to enjoy his speeches.
3.0 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I rise to support the Motion for the Humble Address. I do so as one who has been interested in at least two of the major functions of the Ministry which is about to die. It so happens that after the First World War I was chairman of the Liquidation Committee of the Ministry of Munitions, in, I think it is only fair to say, less favourable circumstances than the post-war situation from the liquidation point of view. Therefore, I know something about the difficulty of liquidating very large stocks which are abnormal in relation to the ordinary economic functions of the country. I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount on having completed that liquidation with so very little disturbance to the price situation in the country as a whole. He has thoroughly justified any claim of credit to those who have administered the Ministry of Materials. In saying that, I of course include his two predecessors, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Salter.
But my more immediate concern is with the one substantial remaining control that is to be transferred, bag and baggage, to the Board of Trade—I refer, of course, to the newsprint control. I am sure that the noble Viscount is as sorry
10
as some of us are that he was not in a position to wind up that control before he handed over to the Board of Trade the remaining control exercised by the Ministry of Materials. But although it has been a convenience to the Press of this country to have so much of the attention of the Minister as we have had in the last three or four years, obviously we could not expect the Ministry of Materials to be kept alive purely for the benefit of the newsprint control. Whether the control of newsprint and of jute, and the looking after of the stocks should go to the Board of Trade, whether that is the right place for them or not, is a matter which it would be interesting to discuss on some other occasion.
For myself, do not feel that the Government have yet discovered the right and correct articulation of all the economic Ministries. It is not quite clear whether the functions should be divided up, so to speak, by vertical divisions or by horizontal divisions. Whether all that appertains to fuel, and so forth, should be in one Ministry and so on, in sections, or whether there should be a horizontal division is a matter for discussion. For my own part, I have long held that the proper division was the horizontal one, between a Ministry of all industry and a Ministry of Commerce. After all, it is a principle which has been adopted by almost every country in the world except our own. However, as I say, now is not the moment to develop that theme. The Board of Trade is over-busy; it has a large staff and an enormous number of functions to perform, but I am quite sure that newsprint control will have no less attention than it has had in the past. To some of us the word "newsprint" is like a red rag to a bull, but I do not propose to charge on this occasion.
I intend to-day to make only three comments. The first is to express the thanks of the Press—and I am sure that here I speak for the whole of the Press—to the Minister who is handing over, as well as to his predecessors, for the understanding they have shown in the difficult conditions in which they have had to exercise that control. Since the Ministry of Materials came into existence, the supply of newsprint available for the Press has risen from a little over 500,000 tons to 700,000 tons this year; and it

11
will be 800,000 tons next year. All of that increase has come in increased imports which the Ministers concerned have persuaded the Treasury to finance and for which they have secured exchange—no mean achievement in the situation of the last few years, and in face of the difficulties of the import programme. The second point I wish to emphasise is that the Press, so far as newsprint is concerned, is not yet free. The present situation of control is quite anomalous. I say that for this reason. The periodical Press is decontrolled; it can buy what it can get; its position is free, with the result that a steadily increasing proportion of the newsprint available is being taken by the perodical Press. The newspapers and those who are in the newspaper section of the publishing business of the country are the only section which is still controlled.
My third comment is that we have a long way to go in increasing the supply of newsprint before it can be said that the condition of scarcity has been overcome. I have just mentioned that the supply of newsprint has risen from 500,000 tons to 800,000 tons a year. That is only two-thirds of what we consumed before the war. Seeing that the circulation of the Press has increased by from 60 to 70 per cent., if we were consuming newsprint on the same basis as before the war, we should be consuming 2 million tons a year, whereas we have crept up from 500,000 tons to 800,000 tons. It is a long way from the position where newsprint will be really free, both for existing newspapers and for those which could possibly be established. There is a very considerable problem still to be solved. I should like to conclude by expressing the hope that the Press will still have in the Cabinet, and in the Ministry generally, the interest of those Ministers who during the past three years have been so helpful and kind to the newspapers of this country.
3.8 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I think that all those members of your Lordships' House who are intimately connected with any of the Ministries, especially those in association with the Ministry of Materials, would, as we do in this House now, wish to express their felicitations and thanks to the noble
12
Viscount who has moved this humble Address. He has brought to bear on this subject talents which have been long associated with him in these commercial matters. It is true, as my noble friend has just explained, that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, handed over to the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, and that the Ministry is the successor of previous controls. But all those concerned with the raw materials that have been controlled by this Ministry would wish also to express what they feel towards the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, and would echo what the noble Lord, Lord Layton, said in his tribute of appreciation for the work done through the period from 1939 to the present moment by the temporary and permanent civil servants who have been associated with the onerous duties which these controls imposed.
With regard to Lord Woolton himself, like the noble Lord, Lord Layton, I cannot help reminiscing. It is now nearly forty years since the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, first came intimately in touch with the responsibility for the control of a raw material. Through that long period, in and out of office, he has had exceptional opportunity of forming sound judgment and, more particularly, of appreciating the talents and virtues of the civil servants, often abused, who have had most difficult tasks to discharge. The wool textile industry, in which I personally am interested, was concerned with a raw material which contributed one of the largest amounts to the operations during the war years; and I think it is natural that anyone who had no responsibility for this control, as was the case with myself, should admire Sir Harry Shackleton and all his assistants for the able way in which they discharged this important task, the more particularly because of its vital and intimate relationship with the Dominions. In particular, Lord Woolton was a happy choice for the conclusion of this work, and to him falls the pride of moving this Order.
I suppose that few Ministers would move an Order for the dissolution of their Ministry with greater thankfulness or happiness than does the noble Viscount. As we all know, there is no desire on his part to hold on to an office. But it is right that we should pay tribute to him at this moment, because had this responsibility been placed in other hands, hands

13
less historically associated with private enterprise, there might have been a less swift conclusion. Fortunately, as I say, the task fell to him. This is a momentous occasion because, while it is true that he hands over to the Board of Trade, the fact that his Ministry is coming to an end shows that it has been decided as high policy that there is no need for the continuance of this control. Although the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said that he is pleased to see this Order, it does not alter the fact that many noble Lords opposite would be in favour of controls in general.
There is one point that I should like to refer to with regard to this Order. It hands over to the Board of Trade control of one industry to which the noble Viscount referred—namely, the jute industry. I mention this matter because I think that the reason why this particular industry has not been included in the winding up is that to do so would be to throw the labour in the jute industry immediately open to the full competition of low-cost wages in the countries that would supply manufactured jute. I believe that that is something in which the Socialist Benches will be intimately interested in the future, because as and when wider evidence of the effect of competition with British labour, let us say from Japanese production, not necessarily in this market but in the markets to which we export, becomes a critical matter, I suspect there will be strong demands from the Socialist Benches for some kind of protective action.
EARL JOWITT: Why not?
LORD BARNBY: I am glad the noble and learned Earl suggests that there should be protection—I believe in it; it is for that reason that I raise this matter now. Let us bear in mind, however, that it has difficult implications from the Commonwealth point of view, because while we think it right to impose duties to protect the British working man against the product of low wages elsewhere, the fact remains that Canada faces competition from exports from the United Kingdom where wages are only one-third of those paid in Canada today. That is one of the problems with which the successors of the present Ministry—that is, the Board of Trade—will have to deal, and I suspect that it will be no easy matter to handle tactfully as
14
and when it arises. In conclusion I wish to repeat my thanks and felicitations to the noble Viscount, and emphatically to support this Motion.
3.16 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, it is not often that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, but in broad outline on this occasion I do—except that he said that the Socialist Party desire controls. If he means that they desire controls for the sake of controls, then I can tell him that that is entirely untrue. If, on the other hand, he means that they are perfectly ready to nave controls to surmount difficulties and so on, then he is perfectly right. As to one particular matter that he mentioned—perhaps I ought to be ashamed of admitting it—I certainly think that we should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent our labour from being subjected to competition from grossly ill-paid labour. I have no doubt at all in saying that. I have always thought that the more serious competition we have to meet is from the highly-skilled labour of Massachusetts rather than from the low-paid labour of certain Oriental countries. I do not believe it is economically sound or sensible to pay your labour the low wages that, unhappily, are paid in some parts of the world. I am perfectly certain that the noble Viscount, about whom I am going to speak in a moment, would be the first to agree with that statement.
I think that the administration of this office shows that so long as you have a small office and a competent Minister in charge you have a fine instrument for doing public service. I am not going to debate the question whether it is right to take these functions away from the Ministry of Materials and transfer them to the huge Board of Trade. I once presided over a large Ministry—the Ministry of National Insurance. Thereafter, speaking in terms of numbers of staff, I presided over a very small Ministry. If I had a choice, I should much rather preside over a small one, because I believe the Minister can exercise his authority and get to know the people concerned very much better. I only hope that the Board of Trade will do the job as efficiently as it has been done in the past. I say no more about that.
This is not an occasion when we are proceeding with the dissolution of a

15
Minister, though it is true that we are proceeding with the dissolution of a Ministry—there is a small, but not un-important, distinction. During the course of the war I worked for many months with the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, in very difficult times. It therefore gives me great happiness to pay this personal tribute. So far as the Opposition are concerned, we have always found that the Minister—the Chancellor of the Duchy, we must call him now—approachable, and he meets our arguments with counter-arguments, always with the utmost courtesy. I should like to tell him from this side of the House how appreciative we are of that fact. Of course, we cannot expect—it would be foolish for an Opposition to expect—that our arguments or our Amendments much necessarily be accepted. When we are trying to be sensible and serious we expect our sensible arguments to be sensibly and seriously met. From the noble Viscount who sits opposite we have always had that response. I should like to express to the noble Viscount, on behalf of this side of the House, our deep appreciation of the way in which he has always, to the best of his ability, met us.
3.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I am indeed grateful. When I started this funeral oration on the Ministry I did not expect I should be met with such words. It would be foolish of me to disguise the fact that I am very grateful and deeply touched by what has been said from different parts of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and I were together in Wool Control in the first World War. We are both getting a little older as a consequence—
A NOBLE LORD: And a little more woolly?
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I subsequently adopted only one part of the wool. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, has referred to a problem which I am sorry to hand over to the Board of Trade. I have had, as the noble Lord said, a large number of conferences with the Press. The figures he has quoted to-day—that we probably will want two million tons of newsprint a year—
LORD LAYTON: May I interpret: that is, if we are to get on to the same basis as pre-war and have papers as large as pre-war papers.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I was assuming that we should, at some time, restore full freedom to the Press. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having told his friends of the Press as well as your Lordships' House the extent to which the demand may run. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, faced as he has been with the difficult problem of the balance of payments, has done his best to meet them; and I am sure that when they have the advocacy of the Board of Trade instead of mine they will continue to meet with the same treatment. I am most grateful to noble Lords for the things they have been good enough to say to me. And now, as the noble and learned Earl opposite has remarked, I have the advantage of going to a Ministry, as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which is very small in the number of its staff. I will try to carry on that Ministry with efficiency.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CLERGY PENSIONS MEASURE, 1954
3.24 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1954, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name which refers to the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1954, recently passed by the Church Assembly. During the past few years much thought and much hard work has been devoted to improving the financial position of the clergy. Thanks to the generosity of the laity and to the wise management of the Church Commissioners' funds, these efforts have met with considerable success. In 1948 many beneficed clergymen received only the then minimum stipend of £350. Now most incumbents are receiving not less than £550, plus a house free of rent, rates

17
and dilapidations. But the scale of pensions has not so far been able to keep pace with these increases in stipends, and the object of this Measure is to do something to remedy this defect.
Under the existing pensions scheme, which came into force in 1927, all clergymen who were then under the age of fifty-five compulsorily contribute to the Clergy Pensions Fund a small percentage of their net incomes, in return for which they receive, on retirement at the age of seventy, provided they have completed forty years' service, a pension of £210 per annum. (Those ordained since 1948 are guaranteed a future pension of £235.) There are also provisions for proportionate payments in cases of earlier retirement on the grounds of ill-health. Separate schemes are provided for those who were too old to join the contributory scheme in 1927, and also for widows and dependants. At the same time, charitable funds have been built up by the Clergy Pensions Board, out of which necessitous cases are assisted. The present scheme is financed by the contributions of the clergy, by a payment of £50,000 per annum by the Church Assembly out of its annual budget, and by a payment of £200,000 per annum by the Church Commissioners out of their General Fund.
This Measure does two things. Fist, it provides a basic pension of £260 payable to all clergymen on retirement after full service; and in cases where the pensioner does not receive the National Insurance pension, an augmentation which will give him a total of £300 per annum. Again, proportionate amounts are payable in the case of early retirement through ill-health. Secondly, it provides that, with effect from next year, the scheme shall be non-contributory in every normal case. This is to be achieved by the transfer of the assets of the present Clergy Pensions Fund to the General Fund of the Church Commissioners. The income from these assets is about £320,000 per annum. To this the Commissioners will add the £200,000 which they are already contributing to the scheme, and a further sum of £330,000 a year of new money which they now find themselves in a position to provide It is estimated that the total of £850,000 so provided will be fully sufficient to cover all the Commissioners' liabilities under the Measure. Although the Com-
18
missioners will be responsible for finance and the exercise of financial control, the Pensions Board will continue to administer the scheme and will remain entirely responsible for widows and dependants and for the charitable funds which will continue to be available for cases of hardship. The position in regard to widows and dependants really remains unaltered by this Measure, and the clergy will continue to contribute towards the cost of providing pensions for them.
The Measure deals with a complicated subject and is, I am afraid, itself rather complicated, because it sets out to achieve its object within the framework of the existing law. The details of it and the past history leading up to it are fully explained in the comments and explanations of the Legislative Committee which are attached to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I hope I have said enough to indicate that the Measure is one of great benefit to the clergy and one which your Lordships can wholeheartedly support. It has been favourably reported upon by the Ecclesiastical Committee and passed through the Church Assembly without a Division at any stage.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1954, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(Lord Burden.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, this is a matter of the utmost importance to the Church. They are to be congratulated in having so powerful an advocate as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, to speak on this Motion. I want to add only this. If we look at the pictures outside dealing with old proceedings of our House, we find the Bench of Bishops full. I know how very busy right reverend Prelates are at the present time. We are very proud to have them as Members of this House, and we owe a great deal to the fact that they are Members of this House. But I think it, is to be regretted that on this occasion, when this most important Measure is being discussed, not one single Member of the Bench of Bishops has been able to attend our deliberations.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

TRANSPORT CHARGES, &c. (MIS CELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, with a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill it is generally not very easy to give a coherent picture of the purposes of the Bill. At the same time I think that it is possible to give certain general considerations which arise under it. The object of this Bill is, on the one hand, to bring within a common system the machinery for the determination of fares in all forms of road transport—that is, buses, trams and trolley buses, and, on the other hand, to bring independent railways under the same general system for determining charges which applies in the case of the British Transport Commission. In order to do this, it is necessary to repeal a very large number of both private and general Statutes, going back over a century. Many of these will be seen in the Schedule.
The Bill will have the further advantage of dispensing with the need for employing Defence Regulations in regard to transport charges which have been extensively used by Ministers of Transport over the last fifteen years. Under the present system, the Minister may be requested to use his powers under Defence Regulations to authorise fares for most undertakings at one time or another mentioned in this Bill. If he had not been able to use these powers, the only alternative would have been Private Acts of Parliament. I think I can add, further, that the general system proposed here not only is much simpler but has the advantage of being known and, so far as road transport is concerned, to have been proved successful in operation over some twenty-five years. And it was recognised as being successful by the recent Report of the Thesiger Committee. Finally, I think I can say that this Bill has a very wide measure of agreement, if not indeed complete agreement, in regard to the objects which it has in mind. Perhaps I might make one general remark. In transport there is always the very real problem of correlating the interests of the general public who travel with those of the transport undertakings, some of which have a monopolistic position, and many of which have built for
20
themselves a position of some advantage. Experience shows, I think, that this applies to some extent even to municipal authorities.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide, where possible, fair competition, and thereby to ensure the best service for the public in the varying circumstances of different localities. I might add that none of the undertakings run directly by the British Transport Commission is concerned in the Bill, but some undertakings run indirectly, perhaps through a majority shareholding, will be affected, but only if such undertaking is a statutory undertaking. Clause 1 deals exclusively with statutory bus operators. In many cases the maximum charges have been fixed by Act of Parliament, and with rising costs the operators have had to make applications to the Minister as necessary to use his powers under Defence Regulation 56. We propose in this clause that these statutory undertakings should be subject to the general control of the licensing authority in respect of fares. The effect of this will be to make statutory and non-statutory undertakings controlled under the same authority. Clause 2 deals with trams and trolley buses which, by their nature, are all statutory vehicles and, accordingly, do not require a road service licence and are not subject in any way to the licensing authority. Here, too, the undertakings, when they have found it necessary to increase their fares above the statutory limit, have had to make repeated applications to the Minister to use his powers under Defence Regulation 56. If they had not been able to do so, an Act of Parliament would have had to be promoted.
In practice, what has happened has been this. Supposing that a statutory authority running buses and trams and trolley buses wanted to raise their fares above the maximum laid down by the Statute controlling them, the following situation might arise. First, they would apply to the local licensing authority to increase the fare for their buses under the road service licence. Secondly, if the licensing authority agreed to a fare exceeding the statutory maximum they would then have to go to the Minister and ask him to use his powers under the Defence Regulation. The Minister, in his turn, would then ask the licensing authority to advise him on what was fair

21
and just. Thirdly, the local authority or the undertaking might simultaneously ask for an increase above the maximum statutory limit for trolley buses and trams. They would make this application to the Minister to use his powers under the Defence Regulation, and he again, in his turn, would ask the advice of the licensing authority. This would mean, in practice, that one person would be performing three functions simultaneously. We think that this is a cumbersome system, and we propose to introduce a much simpler method, and at the same time to get rid of war-time regulations.
So far as fares are concerned, trams, and trolleys will come ender the licensing authority in much the same way as buses. The manner in which licensing authorities will exercise their powers and duties is laid dowel in the First Schedule. The procedure is almost exactly the same as exists for buses, except, of course, for the fact that a trolley or tram undertaking does not require a road service licence. There is, however, one exception to this system which I should mention: it was incorporated at the Committee stage in another place to meet representations made by the Scottish Association of Counties of Cities. The effect of this provision will be that where a local authority had, by Statute, a virtual monopoly within its own local authority area it should be free to determine the actual fares to be charged. Where, however, the route lies partly within the authority's own area and partly outside it, then a right is given to the other local authority, or to any other operator providing a service over the same route, to apply to the licensing authority for a review of the fares over the whole route, including the area within the monopoly itself. I understand that this has met fully the point raised by the authorities concerned.
Clause 3 applies to independent railways and waterways. When a charges scheme is prepared by the British Transport Commission under the procedure laid down in the Transport Acts of 1947 and 1953, it is submitted to the Transport Tribunal, who then hold a public inquiry before settling the terms of the scheme. When they have settled the charges, and the scheme has been approved, it can then be applied to independent railways and inland waterway undertakings,
22
Clause 4 makes it possible for the Minister to make such modifications or alterations of a charges scheme under Clause 3 as may be necessary in the application to the special circumstances of independent railways and inland waterway undertakings. Under Clause 5, independent railways are freed from the provisions relating to equality of charge and undue preference in exactly the same way as the British Transport Commission have been freed from such provisions by the Transport Act, 1953. There also, I should add, the independent railways are freed from these provisions under the same safeguards as have been incorporated in the Act of 1953 in respect of the British Transport Commission.
Clause 6 deals with the revision of charges made by statutory independent undertakers of special kinds, such as harbours, ferries, bridges and so on. The Minister is required to consult those interested, and in certain circumstances he may cause a local inquiry to be held, Thereafter the Minister may by statutory instrument fix the charges which may be made. The general lines of Clause 6 are similar to the model clause which was agreed in 1949 and which has beer applied in a number of Private Acts of Parliament. Clause 7 gives local harbour undertakings power to charge landing fees for seaplanes. Clause 8 revokes Defence Regulation 56 of the Defence (General) Regulations, subject, however, to retaining the validity of all charges in existence at that time which had been authorised by the Minister under these Regulations. Clause 9 gives the Minister power to control the number of seated and standing passengers in buses, trams and trolley buses. It is essentially a welfare and safety regulation. It is here necessary for the Minister to balance safety and welfare with what is fair to the public, to the employees and to the undertaking. These regulations are subject to Negative Resolution of the House. The remaining clauses are, I think, substantially formal. Clause 10 makes for simple accounts and statistics, which I think we shall all welcome. Clause 14 is a general "mopping-up" operation which repeals various Statutes which have got to go to clear the way for the provisions of the present Bill.

23
My Lords, I suggest that this is a sensible way of dealing with the problem and in essence is very simple, though I confess that the drafting is complicated. The reason for this is that transport is a very varied subject, and because, over its whole field, it has been so liberally sown by Parliament with public and private Statutes. Accordingly, clearing up is rather difficult. I say frankly that, while I shall do my best, it will be extremely easy for any noble Lord to ask questions of detail which I shall not be able to answer with complete accuracy without taking advice. But I very much hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

SHOOTING DOWN OF BRITISH AIRLINER
3.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if the House will permit, I shall now intervene to make the statement for which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, asked at an earlier stage. It is as follows. On the morning of July 23 a passenger aircraft of the British company, Cathay Pacific Airways, crashed into the sea near Hainan Island while on a regular scheduled flight from Bangkok to Hong Kong. The aircraft was carrying eighteen persons, including the crew. After a search, in which British and United States aircraft co-operated, nine survivors, including the pilot, were rescued by an amphibious aircraft of the United States Navy and brought to Hong Kong. One of the survivors has since died. The nationalities of all those killed, rescued and missing are being ascertained. The pilot, who was injured, stated that while flying at 9,000 feet about thirty miles from Hainan his copilot drew attention to two low-winged radial-engined fighter aircraft with red markings. These aircraft were on the tail of the passenger aircraft and opened fire, apparently with incendiary bullets, setting two engines on fire. The pilot of the passenger aircraft took evasive action as the fighter aircraft followed him and continued firing. He landed in the sea at 160 miles per hour.
24
Since the fighter aircraft could clearly only have come from Chinese territory. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Peking was instructed to protest most strongly to the Chinese Government against this wanton attack on a clearly marked British civil aircraft flying on a normal international air route. We have now been informed by the Chinese Government that they admit responsibility for this attack, which they say was accidental. They have expressed their sympathy and regret and say that they are willing to give consideration to the payment of appropriate benefit and compensation for the loss of life and damage to property. Her Majesty's Government welcome this prompt offer to make amends for a savage and inexcusable attack upon an unarmed passenger aircraft.
Her Majesty's Government wish to express the deepest sympathy for all those who have suffered tragic loss. We should also like to express our appreciation of the co-operation and assistance in rescue and search operations given by aircraft of the United States Services.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for making this statement, with which, on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to be identified. Here was a British aircraft, plainly marked, as the statement says, flying in full daylight on a normal international route. It was shot down; and the shooting down is said to be accidental. I very much hope that the Government will ask for some further explanation than that. I cannot see how this can have happened at all. This is a matter concerning British lives and, as I see from the papers, American lives as well, and Her Majesty's Government will certainly be acting with the whole country behind them in taking such steps as they possibly can to see that this sort of thing, shall never happen again.
LORD REA: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I associate myself with the words which have just come from the noble and learned Earl, and I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his clear statement. This tragic incident, which we look upon with horror, with sympathy for its victims and with considerable apprehension concerning its future results, seems

25
to have been clear. I would add one reservation to the remarks of the noble and learned Earl. I believe the noble Marquess said that the Chinese Government are willing to give consideration to the payment of appropriate benefit. I hope that this point will be taken up and put strongly to them, so that they may not retract from making full reparation for this attack, about which I will say no more.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am obliged to the two noble Lords who have spoken. Perhaps I may add that we are at this moment taking urgent steps to assess the amount of damage, and a claim will be made immediately a figure can be ascertained. As regards the use of the word "accidental," that, of course, is the word used by the Government of the Chinese People's Republic. If I may make a personal surmise, I should imagine that the use of that word is based on a plea of mistaken identity. But these matters are still under discussion between ourselves and the Government of the Chinese People's Republic, and if we can find more information on the subject we shall certainly do our best to do so.

THE SUMMER RECESS
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have a statement to make. The House will reassemble after the Summer Recess on Tuesday, October 19, unless it is specially recalled before that date.

TRANSPORT CHARGES, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.48 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if any of your Lordships had doubts about acquiescing to the noble Earl's request to give this Bill a Second Reading, I am sure that the lucidity with which he moved it, and the almost naïve way in which he threw up his hands, at the end and said that, of course, it was far too technical a subject upon which to answer any questions, will have dispelled them. Let me assure the noble Earl straight away that we shall support this Bill and give him the Second Reading. If
26
I have any questions to raise, I suppose I had better adopt the procedure of asking them and answering them myself. I am afraid that some of the questions I am going to ask will be of so technical a nature that the noble Earl might justifiably find a little difficulty.
As the noble Earl has said, the roads are strewn with Acts, public and private, and a multitude of regulations and orders. This Bill attempts in a small way to bring some order into a whole volume of chaos. I am tempted to ask: why introduce this Bill at the present moment? I am not going to say that What it does is unimportant, but when one thinks of the chaos in the legislation regarding roads, one sees that it does only a very small thing. Take road taxation—I am not talking about the amount, but the method of taxation—it is almost incomprehensible, a mumbo-jumbo. It is just as complicated as the fixation of fares. Take also the question of loads—a subject with which the Government refuse to deal. Ever since this Government have been in office, noble Lords on all sides of the House have impressed upon them the loss to the national economy caused by the congestion brought about by the outrageous loads which are carried on the roads. In every speech I have made on roads—and I have made so many that I am ashamed to count them—I have stressed this point. I have asked the Minister of Defence to contribute to the solution of this problem, as he is one of the culprits. I have asked the Secretary of State for Air to contribute—he is another culprit. I hope that I shall not raise the heat of the noble Earl by saying that there is just as much a Crichel Down mentality in the Service Departments on this subject as there is in the Department which has had to bear the brunt of that criticism.
Instead of having legislation to amend the Road Traffic Act in its entirety, we have this Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, which does not get anywhere near the, real problem. Of course, this Bill is based upon the Thesiger Report. I can only assume—as I followed most carefully the discussions upon the Transport Bill, 1953—that the Thesiger Committee were appointed to enable Her Majesty's Government at some time to find a method of bringing order out of the chaos in road passenger transport which the 1953 Act brought about. I remember the

27
questions that I asked right the way through the Committee stage on that Bill. Whilst the Thesiger Committee have tackled some of the problems of road passenger transport, when they get to a problem which impinges upon the political position of the Government they shy off like a frightened horse. In the Thesiger Committee Report there are only two recommendations of any substance; one is a positive one, and the other is a negative one. I should think it must be a bitter disappointment to some noble Lords sitting on the Government side of House that the Thesiger Committee did not pull their political chestnuts out of the fire for them. After this Bill has become an Act of Parliament, the mess—the almost chaos—in which the road passenger industry of this country finds itself, as an instrument for the benefit of the country, will remain practically as it is.
This Bill really resolves itself into Clauses 1 and 2. What they do, as the noble Earl has said, is to regularise the position as regards the fare-fixing of buses, trams and trolley buses. That has always been chaotic. The fares of trams and trolley buses were fixed in private Acts before the war; those of buses, however, have always been under the jurisdiction of the licensing authority. During the war, under the Defence Regulations, the Minister of Transport was given power, upon application by the undertaking, to increase the statutory maximum laid down in these private Acts. Now if at any time these undertakings—and this applies to both municipal and statutory undertakings—want to increase their maximum fares, they have to promote an Act of Parliament. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that common sense dictates against that requirement. I support the provisions of the Bill that bring the fixing of all fares—not only the maximum but the intermediate, as well—within the ambit of the licensing authority.
The noble Earl quoted the Thesiger Committee as being laudatory upon the work of the licensing authorities. With that I agree. By and large, I believe that the licensing authorities of this country have done very good work indeed, although they have had to face considerable difficulty. I have only one doubt in my mind: although the Thesiger Com-
28
mittee try to get near this problem, I do not think they really state it. We now have local authorities, statutory undertakers and private enterprise all running road passenger transport. It has always seemed to me difficult to find out whether the objectors to applications for fare increases are able to state properly their case to the tribunal, which is the licensing authority. The Bill before your Lordships to-day does not provide, in this instance of fare-fixing, any appeal—I think that is right.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Does it not?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On licences, yes, but not on fares. I agree with the noble Earl that this Bill is extremely complicated, and if I had not spent some time in the Ministry of Transport, and so know quite a bit about this subject, I could never make head or tail of this Bill. The Minister has to-day authority to sanction an increase above the statutory maximum for trams and trolley buses; the sole arbiter of fares for motor buses is the licensing authority. When I was at the Ministry—I know that noble Lords will forgive a personal reference, but one lives and one learns; and when one is in the Ministry of Transport one learns a lot—these cases on appeal used to come to me. It was always difficult—because the Minister used to appoint the chairman of the licensing authority to carry out an inquiry for him at the same time as he sat as the licensing authority to fix the bus fares—to know whether or not the whole facts were available. An objector has got to know a lot about the inner working of the applicant.
For instance, does a local authority put every fact before the tribunal—in other words, the licensing authority? Does a private company put all the facts before them? Will the licensing authority, now or in the future have the authority to compel a full disclosure? I should like to give the noble Earl an instance. When I was at the Ministry we found that some of these fare increases were sought because of the lack of reserves of many of the applicants. We found, in the case of some local authorities, that great sums had been paid over in the past in relief of rates, with the result that, when replacement equipment was wanted, fares had to be increased because of the diminution of capital resources. That

29
may have been good politics, but it was certainly bad finance. My right honourable friend the Minister had on many occasions to give a qualified approval of fare increases—qualified by a stipulation that similar subventions would not be paid in future. The objector to increased fares is always at a disadvantage.
The Thesiger Committee dealt thoroughly with this matter and considered whether or not a tribunal should be appointed; and, after careful consideration, I, like them, come down in favour of the Bill. I am not in favour of any statutory authority, or anyone else, having the power to fix fares without a public inquiry before an independent tribunal such as provided by the licensing authority. Therefore, I think the Bill is right. I think the Bill is also right in retaining the present procedure for the grant of licences, under which there is an appeal from the licensing authority to an inspector appointed by the Minister, and then, eventually, to the Minister. I will not go into all the arguments. If noble Lords are interested they can read them all in the Thesiger Report. That really is the substance of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill; and Clauses 1 and 2 are the substance of the Bill, apart from Clause 9, with which I will deal later. The rest are, as the title of the Bill so aptly says, "Miscellaneous provisions."
My quarrel with this Bill is not what is in it, but what is not in it. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and the noble Earl, the Paymaster General, should recall as vividly, as I think will the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, the debate when the passenger transport provisions were discussed in your Lordships' House on the Transport. Act, 1953. I then asked incessantly: "As you are going to repeal the powers of the 1947 Act, what are you going to put in their place?"—Nothing. I remember the interesting discussion we had on the unremunerative road passenger services. Do not forget that, in the 1947 Act, the British Transport Commission was charged with the specific responsibility of providing an adequate comprehensive transport service—I am now talking about passenger services. That clause was taken out.
The next thing was that the consultative committees were given jurisdiction—so far as they could be given jurisdiction—over the passenger road services of the
30
British Transport Commission, but the bulk of the remainder were left to their own devices. I remember asking the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow (although I have mentioned his name in his absence, I wrote to him and told him that I proposed to refer to him, as I did the noble Earl, Lord Rothes) who was going to provide these unremunerative services. At that time, the British Transport Commission had a legal obligation to do so, and could be forced by the Minister to do so. But you have taken all this away, and what are you going to put in its place? Who is to provide all these services which are unprofitable, as they must be in the sparsely populated districts? The answer given then was: "Leave it to private enterprise; they will do it. They have a high moral regard for their obligations." I remember the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, almost with tears in his eyes, impressing on me that 75 per cent. of the country services provided by the company in which he was interested, were unremunerative, but that such was their regard for their responsibilities that they would continue to run them. But it has not happened.
At that time, the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, with, if I may say so, commendable foresight, moved an Amendment to strengthen the terms of reference of the Thesiger Committee. He could see that at some future date all this would arise. But the Thesiger Committee's terms of reference were unchanged, and now the noble Earl is left with this Report, with which he cannot be very pleased. The Thesiger Committee had to deal with this question of unremunerative routes, and some of the things they say are really enlightening. I will quote one or two of their observations. I quote first from paragraph 111 and the opening sentence reads like this:
"It was part of the purpose of the licensing system that by introducing order into the industry and giving a substantial measure of protection to the regular operator it would facilitate the provision of unremunerative services."
That was one of the prime objects of the provisions of the 1930 Act which set up the licensing authorities. The Committee go on to say:
"The Licensing Authority have no direct power to force an operator to put on or keep on a service but in practice operators have

31
recognised an obligation to provide as full as possible a network of services for the areas they cover."
The first statement is true, and the second is more or less true. But the Thesiger Committee then go on to say this:
"The demand for unremunerative services has not entirely been satisfied (it is doubtful if it ever could be), and indeed in some ways it has tended to grow; but the provision of them has become increasingly difficult. The unsatisfied demand has been swollen in postwar years by several new factors—the greater expectation that social services and amenities should be universally provided, that wherever possible even isolated areas should have main water supplies or electricity, for example, as well as transport services; the generally accepted policy of stopping—or even reversing—the drift of population from the countryside to the town; and, in particular areas, the closing of railway branch lines."
The Committee's Report continues:
"The profit has tended to disappear from these routes"—
now they are talking about the profitable routes—
"and with it the source of the subsidy for the unremunerative routes."
I do not think the Committee intended to suggest this, but is it really so outrageous for people who live in the countryside to expect electricity, water or a transport service? Would noble Lords agree that, because a postal service has to be provided to the farmer, he should pay four and five times what the city dweller pays, or get no postal service at all? The Committee talk about the profit having disappeared from the remuneratives routes, with the result that there is nothing left to subsidise the unprofitable routes. The Thesiger Committee, unfortunately, produced their Report before the publication the other day of the accounts of the British Electric Traction Company, but I wonder whether the Committee saw the accounts, which showed that that company had made record profits, increased their dividends and had a bonus issue—all, I suppose, out of providing unremunerative routes.
As the Act stands to-day, if a motor bus service or a public transport service operated by the British Transport Commission is inadequate, you can go to the consultative committee and, via the consultative committee, to the Minister; and the Minister can issue directions. If a public authority provides a transport service which falls short of public demand, it is possible to complain via the representatives on the local authority. But
32
when it is the British Electric Traction company—and I mention that name only because it is the biggest combine outside the British Transport Commission—or any body of a like nature, the public have no redress whatsoever. I had better declare an interest, though not a financial interest; I am not a shareholder in British Electric Traction, I am one of its victims. I happen to live now six miles from the centre of Oxford, at a most delightful place called Cothill. My first bus transport service starts at half-past nine in the morning and the last is usually at eight o'clock at night; on only two nights a week have I a bus service after eight o'clock. I cannot catch a train because there is no rail competition. The nearest railway station is three miles away. This is the service provided by the 100 per cent. monopoly of the City of Oxford Motor Services, a member of the British Electric Traction group.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Is the noble Lord aware that neither British Electric Traction nor the company to which he is referring has anything whatsoever to do with the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They have. The noble Earl should not make that interruption, because in a minute I will tell him where it is concerned with the terms of the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Perhaps the noble Lord will do so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Most decidedly. I shall leave the noble Earl under no delusions whatsoever. This is a private enterprise monopoly that has a monopoly of bus transport in the City of Oxford. It "creams" the remunerative routes from the surrounding countryside. As a ratepayer and taxpayer, I have no redress against this situation. To whom do I go to complain? I complained to the City of Oxford Motor Services and they told me the same story: that 75 per cent. of their country routes were unremunerative; and that they were sorry, but they could not provide me with any better services than they are providing now. This is where it affects the Bill. On the Committee stage, I intend to put down an Amendment to increase the powers of the licensing authorities. The licensing authority issue a licence to the City of Oxford Motor Services to run

33
their existing services. That is where my comments have to do with this Bill. This Bill comes to your Lordships' House as a "Miscellaneous Provisions" Bill and, because the miscellany is not big enough, the noble Earl cannot take objection when I say that it should be extended. I want to extend the powers of the licensing authority so that they can compel the City of Oxford Motor Services—I cite them merely as an example—or any other company which provides a bus service, where the licensing authority are satisfied that the service is inadequate for the needs of the area over which that company operates, to run a service and then equalise the fare structure over the whole of the area served.
This is what the Thesiger Report says about this matter:
"For example, since the greater the area over which fares are averaged, the greater becomes the opportunity for providing un-remunerative services, it has been suggested that the Licensing Authority should have power to enforce amalgamations of operators. Alternatively, since the more the remunerative services can be concentrated in the hands of those providing or prepared to provide unremunerative services …"
That was the very essence of the Transport Act, 1947. That was the very thing that the present Government upset. We realised that the only way in which this country could be given a proper, integrated transport service was by having one authority to provide the public services. The Thesiger Committee have come to the same conclusion. The only way in which unremunerative services can be run is by giving protection to the people who are prepared to run them, so that they may run remunerative services as well. There are hundreds of people in the same district as myself who are denied a transport service, for, as I say, there is no transport service before half-past nine in the morning or after eight o'clock at night. I am told by the City of Oxford Motor Services that, because the service is unremunerative, I cannot have more buses. So I am going to suggest to the noble Earl that the Bill should be amended in that respect. I bring that point forward simply as an example of what is happening over much of the country.
There is only one other clause in this Bill that I think needs comment, and that is Clause 9. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that it was chiefly—I think I have copied his words down correctly
34
—a "safety and welfare clause." It gives the Minister power to license buses and to give permission for buses to be built to carry more standing passengers. That is what it does. So, after congesting, or failing, to solve the congestion on, the roads, the Government are now going to subject the passengers to congestion as well. I believe that the popular terra for this bus is a "standee" bus, as it will carry more passengers, because the Government are going to suggest that 50 per cent. of the number of passengers authorised to be carried shall stand up and not sit down. Frankly, I do not see why buses cannot be provided which, except in unusual cases, will ensure that there shall be no standing passengers at all.
The one task that I think is the most onerous in the whole of the passenger transport services is that of the conductor of a bus. He has an impossible job to do. The authorities lose hundreds of thousands of pounds a year because of the physical inability of the conductor to collect the fares. He is supposed to be on his platform for the safety of the passengers alighting from the bus, yet, more often than not, he is jammed up at the front of the bus because of all the people who are standing. If I had much to do with it, I should advocate that there was no standing at all in buses, and that a number of buses should be provided so that everybody had a seat. If the result of that were so many buses that the roads would not take them, it would merely emphasise the old argument that the roads should be made to fit the traffic, and not the traffic to fit the roads. At the moment we are really coming to the stage when we have to curtail the number of buses and increase the number of standing passengers because the roads will not accommodate the greater number of buses required to shift the public.
Other than that, I have no comment about this Bill. I support the Bill. I say that it does not go far enough. I say that there are other more important matters to be dealt with in the conduct of our roads and our traffic than those contained in the Bill. I have mentioned the excessive congestion on our roads. I see that in The Times to-day there are some very good letters. Since the editor of The Times thinks—and I commend him for that thought—that the excessive congestion on our roads

35
is a major problem, and has allowed his columns to be used to ventilate the subject, perhaps Her Majesty's Government will now start taking some notice. I have put down a Motion to-day to ask your Lordships to debate this matter of the unwieldy and abnormal loads that are fast bringing our traffic to a standstill. That is one thing that could have been included in this Bill—a "miscellaneous provision"—but it has not been. However, for what this Bill is we support it. But I give notice that at the Committee stage I shall put down an Amendment to give the traffic commissioners, the licensing authority, power to see that the area covered by any transport undertaking is adequately served, and that the fares are equalised over the whole of the system, exactly the same as are the charges for the postal services, the telephone services and every other service.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, the noble Earl in charge of this Bill introduced it with his usual clarity and brevity, and quite modestly, he said that owing to the complexity of the Bill he was afraid that if questions were shot at him he might have to get advice. Well, we know the noble Earl; I feel sure that he has mastered the Bill, and that his observation indicated only his modesty. I must confess, too, that my approach is somewhat different from that of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. As I listened to him, I reflected how Whitehall can make its imprint even on an individual mind once a person gets into the inner circle of Whitehall. My approach is different because I have spent somewhere about twenty-five years in local government, and I still have a profound belief in its value and virtue. I would say to my noble friend that a mere tidy administration which looks all right from Whitehall is not necessarily the best for the country.
My noble friend somewhat airily waved on one side the fact that local authorities had to promote Private Bills in order to run their tramways and buses; but my noble friend will remember that under the Tramways Act, 1870, on the insistence of the great Radical, John Bright, a clause was inserted in the Bill to the effect that if a local authority built a tramway and it could find someone to take it over and work it, it would
36
have to be worked by private enterprise. The first local authority to break away from that ruling was Huddersfield, in 1882, when they got their own Act to enable them to run their own tramways, and local authorities have had to do that ever since. That is why these local government Acts came into being. If there had been anything in the nature of an enabling Bill on the Statute Book during those years Parliament would not have been troubled with these applications.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I feel certain that my noble friend does not wish to misquote me. In the interests of accuracy, may I say that I have no objection to the promotion by anybody of a Private Bill to run a tramway. I said that under the Traffic Act they would have to promote a Private Bill even to get an increase in the statutory maximum in fares, and that, of course, is a colossal waste of time.
LORD BURDEN: If my noble friend had had the patience with which we listened to his excellent speech, he would have found that I was coming to that point in a moment or two. But while dealing with the subject of tramways, I should like to call attention to the trouble that the London County Council had, before the turn of the century, to establish the L.C.C. system of tramways. I can remember the days of the North Metropolitan Tramway Company, whose drivers were working sixteen hours a day for four shillings a day. I think no one ought to decry the great work which some municipalities have done in building up their own systems of transport.
My Lords, what is the real point between us? It is in Clause 2. The local authorities, as represented by their own association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, take exception to that clause and to the paragraph in the Schedule. I want to submit to your Lordships that we ought not to go on taking away powers from local authorities. There are to-day, I think, forty-two tramway undertakings, of which thirty-eight are owned and worked by the municipalities. The Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1930, deliberately excluded trams and trolley buses from the purview of the Traffic Commissioners. Trams are on the way out, and most people will say "a good thing, too." In saying that one ought not to forget the contribution they made

37
towards solving the transport problem—incidentally, I wonder how the streets in the vicinity of Whitehall or Westminster would look at the rush hours, first, if standing in buses were prohibited, and secondly, if there were enough buses on the roads to deal with all the traffic. The queues would run, I should think, from the top of Whitehall to the bottom, and the time that they would wait there would be pretty grim.
What I want to suggest to the noble Earl is this. Like my noble friend, I had contemplated putting down some Amendments to the Schedule and to Clause 2. At the moment I do not propose to develop the argument for those Amendments, but I do feel that if it were possible to have some further negotiations between now and the Committee stage, we could find a way out of the difficulties and, at the same time, get away from the emergency regulations, as I fully appreciate this stage the Minister wishes to do. If the noble Earl can undertake that there will be negotiations, I shall be happy to initiate them and to try to find a way out.
4.27 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, my interest in this Bill is limited to its bearing on the workings of municipal transport undertakings. myself have no criticism to offer of the Bill itself, because it seems to me, to a large extent, to meet what was wanted by local authorities and by the Ministry. It is, as I think will be generally agreed, not a Party political, contentious Bill. If there is any contention at all it is between local authorities and the central Government. As the noble Earl will be well aware—it is sometimes forgotten that he himself has had considerable experience as a local authority representative—there is strong feeling between local authorities and the central Government whenever the central Government appears to trespass upon the powers of a local authority.
My reason for rising to-day is to say that there appears to be a widespread but erroneous impression that Glasgow has been given a privilege denied to all other municipal transport undertakings in the country. Perhaps it would be putting the matter in a truer perspective if it were made clear, first of all, that the Association of Counties of Cities in
38
Scotland want local authorities not merely to retain the power of fixing fares, which they have had under their own local Acts, but also to include in their powers the power to determine fares for buses also. In their negotiations with the Ministry (and incidentally the Minister has himself paid tribute to the reasonableness of their approaches) the Association realised that there was very little chance whatever of getting the powers they sought. After a good deal of consideration, three of the cities concerned found that there was apparently no purpose in pursuing their objective and they left it to Glasgow to negotiate on its own behalf.
Glasgow did not obtain, through its negotiations, a special privilege. Glasgow always enjoyed a quasi-monopoly which it had obtained in the early days of its undertaking, and it was felt by the Minister, I think rightly, that there should be no interruption of that position which Glasgow had always enjoyed. Indeed it should be added that even in retaining their semi-monopolistic powers they were to some extent restricted, because, as the noble Earl indicated, once the local authority seeks power to increase its fares it leaves itself open to interference with its scale of fares not only from without but also from within its own monopolistic area. So, knowing the possible repercussions, the undertaking would be very wary, indeed, before taking the opportunity to move for an increase. If, however, it were possible for the Association of Counties of Cities to obtain what they really sought, which is a compromise position, they would be content that the licensing authority should determine the charge per mile but should not go further and determine details of scales of charges throughout a route. Could that compromise be granted, I feel sure the Association of Counties of Cities would be content with the whole of the Bill.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank noble Lords for the general welcome which this Bill has received. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that we shall be glad to discuss the points he has in mind, though I would like to point out the distinction between the points of view of Lord Burden and Lord Greenhill and that of

39
Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, gave very proper warning that a mere tidying-up for the sake of a pleasant appearance from Whitehall was not necessarily what a local authority wanted. That is what Lord Lucas of Chilworth wants to do: to sit back in Whitehall and run all passenger transport services in the way he, in Whitehall, thinks wise. That was done by the 1947 Act. We removed the possibility of its happening by the 1953 Act.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I will make allowances for the noble Earl because he is not quite so well versed in this subject, but that is exactly what I did not say. I wanted to give authority to the licensing authorities who have special knowledge of their areas. I did not want it to come from Whitehall.
LORD BURDEN: That is only one remove from Whitehall, seeing that these people are appointed by the Ministry of Transport.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If that is what the noble Lord said, I am sorry, though I am bound to point out that he said we had something to do with that aspect of passenger transport in the 1953 Act. What we did do was to remove vague suggestions in the 1947 Act which was running it from Whitehall. If the noble Lord did not mean that, then we are agreed. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill agrees. If discussions are wanted we will certainly have them, but it is doubtful whether we can go further than the position already suggested, which fully met the points raised earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wandered rather widely from the Bill. When he comes to put down his Amendment he might care to look at the Title to see whether an Amendment of the kind he has in mind can conceivably be included within that Title.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have already looked at it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Then perhaps the noble Lord will look again. The reason why I interposed during his remarks was that this first clause, as will be seen from the second line, deals only with independent statutory undertakings. He was talking of Oxford and other places, where the operators are not independent
40
statutory undertakings. Although this is a "Miscellaneous Provisions" Bill, and, as the noble Lord said, we can do a lot of other things, we do not believe that we should do nothing until we can do everything. We are taking the matter step by step. This is a relatively uncontroversial Bill, and therefore a good measure to bring forward. I entirely disagree with the suggestion that there is complete chaos in the passenger transport world. That is a gross exaggeration to which I think the noble Lord would not have given utterance had he been at the Ministry of Transport. It is putting things far too high.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY (BORROW ING POWERS) BILL
4.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I assume that in considering this Bill your Lordships do not on this occasion want a major review of the gas and electricity industries, but would rather leave that until their Reports are published, as they will be by the time we return from the Recess. I propose, however, to make a few basic remarks to justify the borrowing of this very large sum. Taking electricity, we estimate that by 1960 the maximum call under the most severe conditions will go up from 16·6 million kilowatts to-day to 23·4 million kilowatts—an increase of 6·8 million kilowatts. The planned increase of generating capacity over these years is 9·8 million kilowatts. After allowing for plant becoming obsolete, it is expected this will result in nearly 8 million kilowatts becoming available to meet fresh load. On the other hand, at the end of the year 1953–54 we were 1·6 million kilowatts short on maximum peak load. We should therefore expect by 1960 to reduce this maximum peak load deficit to something under 600,000 kilowatts. The sum to be provided for transmission and generation is slightly less than half of the total. The increase in generating capacity by 1960 is expected to involve the burning of 14 million additional tons of coal, bringing the total consumption of coal up to 50 million tons. We must earnestly hope

41
that the coal will be there; but, in any case, the British Electricity Authority are examining the question of equipping certain power stations, particularly these on estuaries where they car get waterborne oil, with a dual apparatus to burn oil or coal, and there seems a possibility of saving between 10 million and 11 million tons of coal in this way.
Noble Lords may wonder whether all these great capital works will be wasted when atomic power is developed. In the first place, that portion which goes on distribution and transmission would, of course, certainly be required, and theoretically there is no reason why atomic steam-raising plant should not be coupled up to existing generators. In practice, however, it seems that the atomic energy will become available probably at no greater pace than will be necessary to cater for the inevitable further increase in demand and to replace plant which is becoming out of date. Moreover, if one were to assume—and I think it is a fair assumption—that atomic plant would be very expensive in capital cost and would be used to run continuously to provide the base load, there would be plenty of scope for the existing power stations for years ahead to come in on the non-continuous load.
Incidentally, it is interesting to know that roughly one-quarter of the generating capacity, running continuously, can provide roughly half the volume of current used, this being the base load, which is again about one-third of the peak load. The capital cost of the programme over the full twelve years from April, 1948, to March 31, 1960, is estimated to be £2,121 million. Of this £627 million is to be provided from internal resources and £75 million separately for Scotland, leaving £1,419 million. The existing borrowing power is £700 million. It is expected to be exhausted by Christmas. Hence this Bill in which we ask for the borrowing powers to be increased to £1,400 million.
To turn to gas. Gas started as an industry selling illuminating power, though I sometimes wonder whether the naked gas jets by which up to about the year 1916 we were expected to study our books at one of the greatest English public schools were really very illuminating. However, gas has now become an industry for the resolving of coal into its component parts, and for selling it to the
42
best advantage. Out of its total turnover of nearly £300 million, sales of products other than gas account for something between one-quarter and one-third of the whole, while purchases of gas from outside sources, mainly coke ovens, represent about one-eighth of the total gas sales. The various fronts on which the industry has tried to progress are set out in the industry's booklet Fuel for the Nation, which is really rather an exciting pamphlet. The main aims are to get more gas from the traditional gas-making coal, to widen the range of coal uses, to use gas to greater advantage by making it more possible to move it from place to place, with the aid of oil to make more gas from coke for use in emergency, to make gas from oil direct, and finally, if possible, to find sources of natural gas in this island.
The programme envisages the extension of gas sales by 400 million therms or some 15 per cent. by 1960. Of this increase it is expected to produce 260 million therms internally and to buy another 140 million therms. The chief difficulty facing the gas industry is naturally that it requires a special quality coal for which there is a big competitive demand. At the present time it is using some 28 million tons a year, and the programme we envisage will increase that amount by a further 1,500,000 tons or so. Hence the researches which are being actively pursued in the gas industry to see whether further economy can be made in coal. The total capital programme from vesting date, May 1, 1949, to March 31, 1960, amounts to £579 million, of which £129 million is to be provided from internal resources, leaving £450 million to borrow. The existing powers are for £250 million and they will be exhausted very shortly. We now seek further powers for £200 million, making £450 million in all. I must emphasise that both in the case of gas and electricity these borrowing powers are exercisable from time to time only with the permission both of the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Treasury, who review the matter very frequently. My Lords, I have endeavoured to compress into the shortest time the maximum number of basic facts, but I shall be only too pleased, if I receive the permission of the House, to answer any questions that noble Lords

43
may like to put to me. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
4.46 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not rise to make a long speech on the Second Reading of this Bill but rather, in a few words, to express pleasure that two public enterprises are not only proving successful within the resources they have had at their disposal up to now, but are looking forward with great confidence to the future, and are, therefore, wishing to develop much beyond the high marks hitherto reached. I am also glad that the Government which is promoting the Bill on this occasion is not a Socialist Government. I want to see a Socialist Government in power as soon as possible, but it pleases me that in regard to two industries, at any rate, the two Parties can have a common purpose, and that there is no proposal in this Bill that we should go back to private enterprise. That, I think, is a distinct advantage and it is one that we on this side of the House welcome. Then look at the foresight of those backing this Bill in another direction. Not only do gas and electricity undertakings want to make progress within the scope of their old-time raw materials or in the forms in which they have distributed the products of those raw materials; they are now visualising the possibility of atomic power being brought into use, and are making allowance for it not merely to be taken into consideration but to be made active for us when the time comes. With these few words, I would only say that we wish the Bill every success. We want to see it pass through your Lordships' House and we want these industries to be given all the money they require for their purposes. In conclusion, I wish to say that we should like to see private enterprise in this country show the same kind of confident enterprise in capital development that has been shown in these two nationalised industries.
4.50 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, if you will allow me to speak for a few moments on this important Bill I shall try to be as brief as possible. I should like to say first that I support the Bill. Though I fought nationalisation tooth
44
and nail, I have always been an advocate of more power, either electricity or gas, for the nation, especially for our great industries, because in this country, compared with American standards, we are extremely short. Therefore I welcome the Bill. I have a few words that I should like to say—and I hope I shall not detain your Lordships too long—on the financial details of the Bill. I am also glad, like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to see that in the Report, Power and Prosperity, provision is made for setting up a special division of the British Electricity Authority to put atomic energy to useful purposes in the production of electricity, although, of course, they have a long way to go. There are to be two experimental stations, one in Cumberland and the other in the North East of Scotland, which will be small but extremely important pilot schemes.
The Minister comes forward and asks for another £900 million. This is a vast sum, but I think that further borrowing powers are justified. During the last five years the electricity and gas undertakings have gone through the £700 million and £250 million which were the amounts of their original borrowing powers. I have here two books—Power and Prosperity, published by the British Electricity Authority, and Fuel for the Nation, published by the Gas Council—from which I have taken the following figures. From 1921 to 1948, when the electricity industry was nationalised, the industry spent £900 million on capital development; and between 1948 and 1952 it spent another £676 million, making a total of £1,576 million. During the years 1948 to 1952 the industry provided from depreciation, trading profits and capital surpluses, because they sold some of their extraneous assets, a sum of £192 million—including a sum from depreciation alone of £182 million. The rest, £395 million, they had to provide by external borrowing. Thus they provided only 28 per cent. for capital development from internal resources, and had to borrow 72 per cent. from external sources. That is the important point which I want to emphasise. The depreciation they earned was a full depreciation on the amount of the old assets, but to-day in all industries we are faced with assets which are historical assets based on 1939 (and even earlier) prices; and as your Lordships know, if these assets are

45
replaced, they cost about three times those prices.
My criticism is that these undertakings are not putting sufficient into general reserve. If we take a glance at some of the area boards—the figures are given on Table 119 of Power and Prosperity—we see that three of the area boards, the Eastern, South Western and Midlands, have not been able to set aside a proper proportion of reserves. The whole prosperity of the industry during the next five years depends on its being able to plough back not only depreciation reserves but adequate general reserves, otherwise, in my opinion—an opinion which is shared by many of my noble friends on these Benches—the industry may become over-capitalised, with too heavy borrowings and not enough internal reserve. Having spent some years in the industry, I fully realise that, when such an internal general reserve is built up, it affects the price of the product, the unit of electricity or the therm of gas. Nobody wants to put up the price of the product unless absolutely necessary and I think we must attack this problem in a two-fold way. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will be good enough to bring this to the notice of his right honourable friend the Minister.
One means is to try to earn as much as possible, so as to build up these reserves in the next five years; the other is to spend this money in the most economical way. I know that both the B.E.A. and the Gas Council are trying to economise in the construction of power stations and gas plants; that is extremely important. There are many other projects we should like to start. We have been talking in this House recently about the impossibility of having further large expenditure on roads because of the inflationary effect, and because we could not afford the money. Of course we must try to afford this money for the provision of power and fuel for the nation. But there are many other people in the queue. The private sector of industry has to go to the Capital Issues Committee and queue up for its money. It is much easier to get the money than it was, thanks to further savings and the prudent management of our national finances by the Government. The nationalised industries have to get the permission of their Ministries and the Treasury, and I hope that the Ministries and the Treasury will bear that in mind.
46
I turn for a moment to the gas industry which, although nothing like the size of the electrical industry, is of great importance. When the industry was nationalised in 1949 the book value of the assets taken over was £226 million. The total capital expenditure of the gas industry from 1949 to 1952, given in their book, added £212·6 million to these, making a total of £438·6 million. During that period depreciation was about £36·7 million, and the industry placed to reserve in the neighbourhood of £6 million—£4·4 million by the area boards and £1·6 million in the central reserve fund of the Gas Council. The proportion of internal savings out of depreciation and capital trading was about 20 per cent., and the external borrowing was 80 per cent.—not so good a percentage as in the electricity industry. Again, the Gas Report says that seven out of the ten area boards made sufficient sums which they were able to place to reserve, but that the others made insufficient sums and were unable to plough back anything during the last five years. I hope that we shall get stringent economy in these vast undertakings, as they sometimes tend to be extravagant. I am not being critical, but this point needs watching carefully, because other industries, the roads and the private sector of industry, badly want capital for urgent repairs and renewals. With those few words, I should like to support the Bill.
5.0 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I reply to what has been said by the noble Lords who have spoken? I am glad that the Bill has received a general welcome from noble Lords on both sides of the House. I should like to suggest that if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, feels at all anxious about the quantity of investment on private account he might visit Merseyside. There he will see the most immense conglomerations of capital that have been created, particularly by oil companies, in the last few years, but I believe that he might quote figures of more recent date, from which one might conclude that there had been a falling off in the tempo.
My noble friend Lord Wolverton always examines Bills of this nature with great care, and we value his advice, coming from one who was connected with the electricity industry. First of all, he

47
wishes the industry to spend as economically as possible. The power of the Minister in that direction is really exercised through the appointments to the Authority. He appoints men whom he expects to administer the industry in the most economical way possible. Apart from that, he has no concern with the day-to-day administration. The second point of my noble friend is that they should earn as much as possible, in order to build up their replacement funds, so as to be able to do more from their internal funds instead of borrowing. I have here some figures which might interest my noble friend. If the gas and electricity industry went over to depreciating on a replacement basis they would have to raise their tariffs by about 10 per cent. If, on the other hand, they went over to providing their full capital outlay from internal resources, as some oil companies, I believe, have done, they would have to put up their tariffs by something like 60 per cent., in the case of electricity, and something like 40 per cent., in the case of gas. Weighing up the various arguments for and against the basis that they have adopted, which is the historic cost basis, they have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, this is the fairest balance as between present and future consumers. Needless to say, I will bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the point which my noble friend particularly asked me to raise with the Minister, and I may say that, so far as I was able to check his figures en passant, they seemed to me accurate.
On Question, Bill read 2a; committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 21), Bill read 3a, and passed.

CIVIL DEFENCE (ARMED FORCES) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSING REPAIRS AND RENTS BILL
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill (83) as first printed for the House of Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 42 insert the following new Clause—
Date for permitted increases for increases in rates
(".—(1) Subsection (2) of section three of the Act of 1920 (which relates to the time as from which permitted increases of rent are recoverable from a tenant) shall have effect, in relation to increases permitted by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920 (which provides for increases of rent in respect of increases in the amounts payable by the landlord for rates), subject to the following provisions:—

(a) any such permitted increase shall be recoverable from, and in respect of the period beginning with, the day specified in the next following subsection;

(b) where at the time when the notice of increase is served the tenant is a statutory tenant, the amount of any such permitted increase may include an amount in respect of a period immediately preceding that mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph and beginning not earlier than six weeks before the date of service of the notice of increase nor earlier than the beginning of the statutory tenancy, and any amount so included shall be deemed to be rent due on the day specified in the next following subsection.

(2) The day referred to in the last foregoing subsection—

(a) where at the time of service of the notice of increase the tenant is a statutory tenant, is the next day after the service of the notice on which an instalment of rent is payable under the terms of the statutory tenancy;

(b) in any other case, is the day after the date on which by virtue of subsection (1) of section one of the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act, 1923, the notice of increase operates to terminate the tenancy.

(3) Where under any tenancy the amount of any such permitted increase for rates as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is recoverable without a notice to terminate the tenancy being necessary in order to make the increase effective, the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply as they apply where

49
at the time when the notice of increase is served the tenant is a statutory tenant, but with the substitution of references to the tenancy for references to the statutory tenancy.
(4) In this section the expression "notice of increase" means the notice of intention to increase rent served in conformity with subsection (2) of section three of the Act of 1920.
(5) In accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section the said subsection (2) shall be amended as follows:—

(a) after the words "no such increase shall" there shall be inserted the words "save as provided by section (Date for permitted increases for increases in rates) of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954";

(b) the words "or, where such increase is on account of an increase in rates, one clear week" shall cease to have effect.")

The Commons agreed to the above Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment thereto:—
At end, insert—
("(6) Where for any period for which a rate is demanded (hereinafter referred to as "the rating period") the amount of the rate is increased, and by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section the amount of any consequent permitted increase for rates includes an amount in respect of a period preceding that mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection, paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 (which provides that any increase in rates payable by a landlord shall be deemed to be payable by him until the rate is next demanded) shall not so extend the period for which the increase is recoverable as to make it longer than the rating period.")
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have looked at the Amendment which it is proposed in another place should be added to our Amendment after Clause 42 of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill will, I think, appreciate that it is not a very spectacular or comprehensive one. I am happy to assure your Lordships that the point at issue is really a simple one. I During the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House we provided some alleviation to the disadvantages with which a landlord might be faced, in certain circumstances, as a result of a rise in rates. It has been pointed out to us that, in similar circumstances, the tenant might be submitted to the same sort of disadvantages in the event of the rates falling. This Amendment, therefore, provides for that case. It was inserted by Her Majesty's Government in another place to meet a point raised by the Opposition. It is, therefore, really an agreed Amendment, and I can assure your Lordships that it is quite uncontroversial. Therefore, on behalf of my
50
noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, I beg to move that your Lordships' House do agree with the Commons on the said Amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FINANCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
5.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is really an Annual Bill which take the peculiar form it does in order to maintain the independence of the Isle of Man, on the one hand, and to prevent smuggling, on the other. With those few words, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 21) Bill read 3a, and passed.

ADMIRAL SIR DUDLEY NORTH
5.8 p.m.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what were the circumstances in which Admiral Sir Dudley North was ordered to haul down his flag when Admiral Commanding the North Atlantic and the reasons why this officer has been denied the inquiry into his conduct which he has repeatedly requested; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this Motion, it is perhaps right that I should say that I am doing it entirely upon my own initiative and have not been requested to raise this matter by Admiral North himself. I would say also that I feel it is my duty to raise the matter in the most impersonal way possible, and I hope that anything I may say will in no way be regarded as wounding by any-

51
one to whom I have to refer. Admiral North, the subject of this Motion, had a career in the Navy of considerable distinction. He served as Director of the Operations Division at the Admiralty, and also at one time held the appointment of Chief of Staff to the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet.
I have always understood that the appointment of Chief of Staff to a Commander-in-Chief is reserved for an officer of great promise, whom it is expected will go up to the top of the tree. But this officer was ordered to haul down his flag when Admiral Commanding the North Atlantic in 1940. No more grievous fate can befall a flag officer in war time; but it befell Admiral North, in circumstances which I will narrate. He was not employed again until he was given a shore job, after he had been placed on the Retired List. He has consistently been refused a trial or inquiry, the Admiralty, as I understand, taking up the position that they are not bound in law to grant an inquiry. I myself would feel—and I am sure your Lordships will agree—that very wide discretion must be given in war time to the heads of the Defence Services in deciding upon the fitness or unfitness of an officer for his appointment. It may be that their Lordships are not bound in law to grant an inquiry. I feel that circumstances alter cases, and that there should be some limit to the powers of the heads of the Defence Services to wreck an officer's career without giving him an inquiry. Circumstances alter cases, and in this case I feel that the rights and wrongs of it can be settled only by an inquiry, either by a court-martial, which I regard as a completely fair and unbiased tribunal, or some other form of impartial tribunal.
The Board, I understand, assert that they brought no charge against Admiral North which could be made the subject of a court-martial. They may be technically correct, but what the Board said was:
"Their Lordships cannot continue to retain full confidence in an officer who fails to act prudently in an emergency."
I should say that in war time, except for cowardice in face of the enemy, it would be difficult to bring a more serious or wounding charge against a Flag Officer. Certainly failure to act prudently by a Naval officer is very different from
52
the popular idea of how a Naval officer acts when faced with an emergency. I would regard it as a very wounding charge indeed, and it has been accompanied by little or no explanation of what the emergency was or of how imprudence was shown.
I feel that the seeds of this unhappy business were sown, prior to its occurence, at Oran and at Dakar. Admiral North had visited the French Admiral at Oran. He had received an assurance that French ships would not be surrendered either to Germany or to Italy, and he was not alone in being appalled by the decision to attack those French ships at Oran. Admiral Somerville was ordered to carry out the attack, and it is said of that decision:
"All the officers concerned were absolutely horrorstruck."
Admiral Somerville, I am told, intended to protest, but before he could do so he was informed that the decision was an irrevocable decision of the War Cabinet. I know that war is a hard taskmaster, and very disagreeable and shocking things have to be done, but at the same time natural feelings were aroused by this particular affair. The attack was carried out, and 2,000 French officers and men were killed. The Government do not appreciate observations conflicting with a decision, however much that decision may have been criticised at the time and since, and Admiral North became unpopular. It may well be that exasperation with him about his views on that particular business, at a time, no doubt, when nerves were frayed and tension was high, became confused with lack of confidence in him. If lack of confidence was felt in Admiral North about his views on Oran, then confidence should also have been withdrawn from Admiral Somerville and Admiral Wells, who fully shared Admiral North's views.
After this came Dakar, which was, as it was bound to be, an ignominious failure. The Prime Minister had to explain this failure to the House of Commons where, no doubt, feeling ran a little high about it. He used these words to the House:
"The whole situation at Dakar was transformed in a most unfavourable manner by the arrival there of three French cruisers. … Neither the First Sea Lord nor the Cabinet were informed of the approach of these ships to the Straits of Gibraltar until too late to prevent them passing through. The House may

53
rest assured that the mischievous arrival of these ships arose in no way from any infirmity of purpose on the part of the Government."
Anyone listening in the House of Commons to that statement was bound to infer that there had been neglect at Gibraltar. It is not in my recollection that the Prime Minister told the House that the passage of these ships had been notified to us by the French, that information about it had been passed on to us by our Naval Attaché at Madrid, and that the Government had also had warning of the passage of these vessels from our Consul General at Tangier. That being so, I think there was something rather disingenuous in the statement that was made to the House of Commons. The inference that many Members must have drawn from it was that had the movement of these ships been known, their passage would have been prevented. If that were indeed so, it is most extraordinary that no orders were sent to that effect, since the orders in force with Admiral North permitted of their passage.
The Admiralty—and when I say "the Admiralty" I mean, of course, the Naval Staff and the responsible authorities—were informed by Admiral North of these ships in time to get Force "H" to sea and warn the French ships if they desired to do so. Surely, when Dakar was being planned the possibility of such intervention by French naval forces must have come to mind, and the Admiralty must have known that, by their own instructions, if French ships did erdeavour to pass the Straits en route for Dakar, Admiral North was bound to let them pass unless his instructions were amended. But no amending instructions were ever sent to him. There is no evidence to support the Prime Minister's statement that the failure at Dakar was due to the arrival of these ships. In fact, the French Naval Attaché at Madrid formally protested against that statement by the Prime Minister, because on the instruction of his Government he had officially informed our Naval Attaché of their movement.
It was indefensible to send this expedition without artillery, tanks or landing craft, and those were the reasons for the failure, and not the arrival of the French cruisers.
"Churchill's assumption"—
writes a Frenchman in possession of the facts—
54
"that the arrival of the French cruisers at Dakar was a determining factor in the failure was fallacious."
In fact, the Prime Minister really agreed to that, because when he came to write his history and referred to this affair he abandoned that line of defence entirely, but at the same time he failed to make any amends to Admiral North for having—I fear I must use the word—misrepresented him to the House of Commons. As so frequently happens in the history of military failures, the search for a scapegoat began, and Admiral North was elected. A well-known Admiral wrote to me:
"Churchill was responsible for the fiasco and made a scapegoat of North."
I have seen a letter from another officer well acquainted with the facts, who said:
"If Dakar had not been a fiasco, North's actions would never have been reviewed."
That being the background, it brings us up to the facts of the passage of the French cruisers which brought about Admiral North's downfall. Now let us look at his instructions. I ask your Lordships to bear with me in this, because what I am going to say leads up, as I think, to an important point. On July 3, Admiral North informed the Admiralty that, failing other orders, he would attack any French ships trying to pass the Straits. There is no hint of irresolution about that. On the same date, as it happens, the Admiralty gave general instructions regarding the treatment of French ships. It said:
"All French ship; must be regarded as hostile. Be prepared to attack. But do not fire first shot."
The next day, they amplified these instructions, saying:
"We may be at war with France shortly. Contact with equal or superior French naval forces should be avoided."—
That statement is important, as will be seen later. They added:
"We want to get control of as many French ships as possible, but not to incur equivalent loss in so doing. An inferior French force should be stopped, by force if necessary, and told to go to British port."
That was on July 4. On July 7, the Admiralty specifically told Admiral North that those orders applied to French ships trying to pass the Straits. On July 10, the Admiral suggested to the Admiralty that he should tell the French that no attack on French ships at Casablanca was contemplated. On July 12, came another signal to the Admiral:

55
"Further tension between ourselves and French navy very undesirable. It might lead to war. Our policy, therefore, has been reviewed."
I am, of course, paraphrasing in reading this document, but I can assure your Lordships that it is an accurate paraphrase.
"No further action against French ships in French Colonial or North African ports. We reserve right take action against ships proceeding to enemy controlled ports. Inform French authorities of this policy. Be prepared for attack but do not fire first shot."
May I call your Lordships' particular attention to that passage
"We reserve right take action against ships proceeding to enemy-controlled ports,"
which is important. On July 13, Admiral North received permission to inform the French in the sense of that signal.
On September 5, the British Naval Attaché at Madrid received a visit from the French Naval Attaché there who told him that Admiral Darlan had instructed him (the French Attaché) to maintain the closest touch with our Naval Attaché and added that French hopes rested in ourselves. The gist of all these messages and instructions was that the situation vis-à-vis the French was steadily improving and the Admiralty was progressively modifying its orders concerning the French ships. The gist was that it was essential to avoid incidents and to reduce tension; otherwise, there might be war. On September 9, our Consul General at Tangier informed the Foreign Office that French ships were likely to pass the Straits during the next seventy-two hours. At six o'clock in the evening of September 10 the Naval Attaché at Madrid informed the Admiralty and Admiral North of a message from the French Admiralty giving particulars of French ships which would pass the Straits on the 11th. Everything was completely open. There was nothing clandestine about this business.
We were officially informed by the French of what was in the wind. I should be most grateful if the noble Marquess who is going to be kind enough to reply could, in the course of his reply, mention at what time that message from the Naval Attaché was received in the Admiralty. It is not within my knowledge, and I think it is important to this matter. Admiral North received it at midnight on 10th-11th and I presume that the Admiralty had it earlier. Admiral North
56
informed his Straits patrols so that if any Admiralty orders varying the standing instructions had arrived they could have been promptly obeyed. One of his destroyers, the "Hotspur," sighted the French ships at a quarter to five in the morning. They were burning navigation lights—I repeat. there was nothing clandestine about this movement. On receiving this sighting signal, Admiral North, in accordance with his instructions, ordered the "Hotspur" to take no action, and he informed the Admiralty that he had sent that signal to the "Hotspur." He told the Admiralty that he had ordered no action. He also told the Admiralty that he would shadow the ships by air and report their probable destination. Admiral Somerville, in command of Force "H," agreed with this signal, "No action," to the "Hotspur," but Admiral North and Admiral Somerville, in consultation, also agreed that Force "H" should come to one hour's notice for sea, in case the Admiralty sent new orders varying their old instructions. Admiral Somerville could have been at sea at 7.15 in the morning, had the Admiralty ordered him to go to sea. The French ships did not pass until 8.45, and the air reconnaissance which Admiral North had ordered showed that the French ships were going south and not north—that is to say, they were not going towards the enemy-controlled ports regarding which the Admiralty had reserved their rights.
Nothing came from the Admiralty and, again by agreement between the two Admirals, Force "H" reverted to two hours' notice. At 12.39 on the 11th, the Admiralty broke their long silence and ordered Force "H" to raise steam for full speed. Over an hour later, they told Admiral Somerville to go to sea, and after yet another hour Admiral Somerville was told what he was to do. When it was too late for him to do so, he was told to tell the French ships that there was no objection to their going to Casablanca but that they must not go to Dakar or to Bay ports. He was also told that, if it came to the point, the minimum of force was to be used.
It will be seen that it took the Admiralty, at a conservative estimate, at least fourteen and a half hours, after they had been told that French ships were moving, to give Admiral Somerville orders which were at

57
variance with his standing instructions, although apparently the Admiralty wanted some action taken and had been told that "no action" was being taken. One would have thought that in those circumstances they would have moved rather more swiftly. And these Admiralty orders were not sent to Admiral Somerville until one day and sixteen hours—that is forty hours—after the Foreign Office had been warned of the movement by our Consul General in Tangier. At one period in this unhappy story Admiral North was told that he weakly—that was the word used—waited for instructions. Why should he ask for instructions when he already had instructions, and when the Admiralty had been informed of the circumstances of what was in progress? If these instructions were to be varied, as apparently the Admiralty wished them to be varied, why did the Admiralty "weakly" delay, hour after hour, sending amending instructions?
Admiral North is blamed for not giving orders contrary to his instructions to a Force which was not even under his command, orders which the Admiralty had failed to give to their own independently operated squadron. The Admiralty said that the fact that they operated Force "H"—these are the words—"does not affect the issue." What a monstrous statement! To say that the issue was not affected by the fact that they had failed to give new orders to their own Force; while by their silence they were leaving the two Admirals to believe that the old orders stood. Certainly Admiral North did not give orders, but he and Admiral Somerville, acting in concert, as they always did, brought Force "H" to one hour's notice. They had their end of the business ready had the Admiralty functioned.
So far as I know, the Admiralty have never attempted to reply to the simple question whether they consider reserving the right to take action in the case of French ships proceeding towards enemycontrolled ports constituted an executive order to Admiral North to engage the French on September 11 and so, as the Admiralty had said, possibly bring on a war with France—and to do this in the absence of specific orders, to do so contrary to his current instructions. My Lords, to suggest that Admiral North should have taken such a responsibility
58
on his shoulders is simply fantastic. The Admiralty had reserved this right only in the case of ships making for enemy-controlled ports, and these ships were clearly not doing so.
The Admiralty charge was that Admiral North
"failed in an emergency to take all prudent precautions without waiting for Admiralty instructions."
Was there ever such a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Who showed failure in an emergency—Admiral North or the Admiralty; the one acting on precise Admiralty instructions, or the Admiralty failing to give orders to fulfil their apparent wish to vary those instructions? Presumably, the Foreign Office told the Admiralty on September 9 of the impending move; the Admiralty certainly had the Naval Attaché's telegram on the 10th; they were told early on the 11th that Admiral North was taking no action. They had Admiral North's reports from air reconnaissance of the ships' position and course. My Lords, what is it thought that Admiral North should have done that he did not do? That would be a very difficult question to answer; but a very easy question to answer is to say what the Admiralty should have done in those circumstances.
I come now to another important point. Why was no action taken against Admiral Somerville, who, after all, commanded Force "H"? If Admiral Somerville were alive to-day he would fight like a tiger for Admiral North, in whose judgment he had the most implicit confidence. In a letter, Admiral Somerville said that he never remembered a case in which he was so absolutely certain that he, Admiral Somerville, was right. He was not in the habit of asking for instructions in cases where the authorities were in full possession of the facts. He saw no reason for going to sea. Here is an extract from a letter he wrote to the Admiralty:
"I discussed the situation with Admiral North. We were of opinion that in view of the ample warning your Lordships had received of the intended movement of these vessels, it was not desired to interfere or provoke any sort of incident. If the action taken is considered incorrect, I wish to accept full responsibility since I acted in the full belief that responsibility for any action taken by Force 'H' rested with me."
I can only say, what a contrast!—an Admiral shouldering responsibility in the most frank manner possible, and the

59
Admiralty trying to shift their responsibility on to other shoulders. If blame there was, why apportion it solely to Admiral North, who was not in command of Force "H"? One cannot really be surprised if people draw the conclusion that the Admiralty "had it in" for him, and that is why he was singled out in this way.
I must point out another, as it seems to me, important fact. The Admiralty instructions were that, whatever the circumstances, a superior or equal French force was not to be engaged because we could not afford to incur even equivalent losses. Admiral Somerville's flagship, H.M.S. "Renown," had with her three or four old destroyers—and she, too, was an old battlecruiser. The French squadron consisted of three modern, fast cruisers, three modern, large destroyers, supported by large air forces at Casablanca. If the Admiralty, when planning Dakar, foresaw the possible movement of French ships which they might wish to prevent, they should have stationed an adequate force at Gibraltar, because I think it is quite clear that Admiral Somerville could not have engaged that French squadron without grave risk indeed of incurring equivalent losses.
Now let us turn to another side of the matter. The Governor of Gibraltar supported Admiral North and Admiral Somerville. He reported to the War Office as follows:
"I was convinced with the information and instructions the evident policy of His Majesty's Government was to avoid incidents with the French. I was in entire agreement with Admiral North and cannot conceive how, by any stretch of imagination, he can be convicted of failure to take prudent precautions. The impression created here is that Dakar was planned on inaccurate information, ending in fiasco, and Home authorities are endeavouring to pass the blame on to a local commander in no way responsible for that failure."
Well, my Lords, if two Naval officers of recognised high ability, and an Army officer with a record which had placed him in a high appointment, all arrived at a conclusion misinterpreting the Government wishes, it is pretty clear that the Government had failed to issue instructions which made their wishes clear. There is, however, confirmatory evidence of this from headquarters. The Operational Staff of the Admiralty, on receiving news of the movement, considered that
60
it was covered by current Admiralty instructions, so that no action was called for. The Admiralty had failed to make their wishes clear even to their own Operations Division.
Now let us look at the sequel. Dakar ended in failure on September 23. When he came to write his history of that affair, the Prime Minister carefully avoided mentioning that, in his account of the matter to the House of Commons, he blamed the failure, by implication, on Admiral North for letting the French ships pass. In his history he entirely abandons that line of defence, and blames the Director of Operations at the Admiralty and delay at the Foreign Office in deciphering a telegram which, if dealt with properly, would have given the War Cabinet timely notice of the passage of the French ships. No amends were made, however, to Admiral North. If these delays and oversights occurred, they were most unfortunate; but they constituted no reason for dismissing Admiral North. Why should he take the blame for the errors of others? After all, he was an Admiral; he was not a clairvoyant. He could not know what was going on in London.
Then, eighteen days after the news of the French ships had reached London, but only four days after Dakar had failed, and when there was an awkward, difficult explanation to be made to the House of Commons, the Admiralty suddenly asked Admiral North what he had done on receipt of the message from the Naval Attaché at Madrid. This is the comment by a very well-informed officer:
"Investigation had started with an obviously unpleasant intention at the Admiralty"—
in other words, the search for the scapegoat was on. The question was obviously superfluous, because Admiral North had told the Admiralty all he had done. He had ordered no action; Force "H" had gone to one hour's notice. He told them the whole story. On October 2 Admiral North was asked why the "Renown" had not been sent to sea, since the French ships might have turned towards enemy ports. As noble Lords will remember, however, an air reconnaissance had been ordered which showed that they were not proceeding towards enemy ports. Why was Admiral North asked why the "Renown" had not gone to

61
sea? Why was this question not addressed to Admiral Somerville who was in command of Force "H"?
Admiral North might well have asked, in reply, why—if the Admiralty had this in their minds—they had net sent the "Renown" to sea, since they operated her completely independently of him. However, he did reply that all his information showed that the French ships were going south, which was proved right. Tension with the French Navy had eased. The French ships had given notice of their movements. No attempt was made at concealment, and he pointed out that the movements of Force "H" had not been under his orders; that the Naval Attaché's message had been sent to the Admiralty direct and the Admiralty had had time to issue orders, and that the "Renown" had gone to one hour's notice in case such orders came. I should have thought that was a pretty conclusive reply which, even were it not agreed with, at least merited a certain amount of sifting and inquiry. But on October 15 the Admiralty told Admiral North that he would be relieved of his command, and all his requests for an inquiry have been brusquely refused. There were certain things about his interviews at the Admiralty on return home to which I should very much like to refer, but, as I said earlier, I do not wish at this stage to stir up any harsh feelings.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his reply to a Question put here by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, was, in my view, misleading. Let me hasten to add that nobody in his senses would ever accuse the noble Marquess of being intentionally misleading—I most certainly do not. But the fact remains that his reply was misleading—and, indeed, lf am not surprised. If he will accept my sympathy, I sympathise with the noble Marquess because, as I pointed out on that occasion, this is such a complicated matter that, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Elibank, it is utterly impossible to deal with it by Question and Answer. I am therefore not at all surprised that the noble Marquess found some difficulty. However, his replies were misleading.
He said that Admiral North was not relieved for letting the French ships pass but for not acting prudently while they were passing. That really is a distinction with a difference. He said that there
62
was no question of the Admiral being made a scapegoat for Dakar. I have quoted other views on that subject from very high authorities indeed, who have no doubt whatever about Admiral North being made the scapegoat. Why did the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons that the arrival of the French ships was the cause of the failure at Dakar? The noble Marquess said there was no inquiry because, whatever the verdict of an inquiry, it would not have affected the Admiralty's views. I have heard of a prisoner, on being found guilty, feeling that it did not affect his own view that he was innocent. In this claim that, whatever the verdict of an impartial inquiry, it would not have affected the Admiralty's view, the Admiralty was putting itself above the law.
Then the noble Marquess referred to the Official War History which had been quoted to him as largely, if not entirely, vindicating Admiral North; but he waved that aside, saying that the conclusions arrived at were only the conclusions of the author. The author was an officer of high intelligence, known for his impartiality and specially selected for this job. He was given access to all papers, and I imagine that a draft of what he wrote would be seen by the Admiralty. The noble Marquess has provided us with a new definition of history: history is history when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, agrees with it; when he does not agree with it, it is merely an opinion. In other words, when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, does not agree with history, then, as the late Mr. Henry Ford said, "History is hunk."
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): Is the noble Lord arguing that because a thing is in black and white, it is necessarily true or correct or accurate, or represents a true and balanced point? He would find many things in black and white that took a different view.
LORD WINSTER: I have not been in politics for about thirty years without knowing that what appears in black and white (especially in White Papers) is frequently highly misleading. What I am saying is that here is an officer specially selected to write the Official History. He was selected because of his intelligence and known impartiality, and was given

63
access to all relevant papers; and no doubt secret papers were put at his disposal. When the noble Marquess, not agreeing with the Official History, says that it is merely an opinion, that is a new and, to my mind, very interesting definition of history. The noble Marquess also omitted to say that the Naval Attaché's message from Madrid was an official message conveyed from the French Authorities saying that the French ships were going to pass the Straits.
Again, the noble Marquess said that Admiral North took no action to get his ships into a state of readiness. Admiral North alerted his patrols in the Straits. Will the noble Marquess tell us what other ships Admiral North had under his command? We were told that Admiral North did not inform Admiral Somerville. But the two men were completely inseparable in this, as in all other matters affecting affairs at Gibraltar; they conferred and agreed on all that was being done. Why represent Admiral Somerville as the man of action and Admiral North as the laggard who did nothing? What steps was Admiral North to take with ships not under his command? All he could do was confer with Admiral Somerville, who was in command of Force "H"; and he did that. It is far more relevant to ask why the Admiralty were so dilatory in sending orders to the ships which they were operating indpendently.
The noble Marquess asked, is it to be supposed that an inquiry now could produce results not available at that time. My answer unhesitatingly is, Yes. Such an inquiry would review events in the light of later knowledge; and would do so impartially, and not under the shadow of a failure. After all, the Prime Minister altered his views. Presumably because he had later knowledge he altered his views very much between the time he made his statement to the House of Commons and the publication of his statement in his history of the war. The noble Marquess showed a miscomprehension of the relations existing between the two Admirals when he said that Admiral Somerville, wishing to put Force "H" back to two hours' notice, reported to Admiral North. That might indicate that Admiral North commanded Force "H." He did not. What is termed a "report"
64
was only the normal co-operation which existed between the two men.
We were told that, supposing the Admiralty had sent a signal ordering immediate action, Admiral North's forces would not have been prepared for it. But again I must point out that they were not his forces. The forces available were Force "H," under the command of another Admiral, and they were ready at 7.15. If the Admiralty contemplated action, why did they do exactly and precisely nothing until the afternoon? Why did not they find out if all was ready for carrying out new instructions that were at variance with the instructions in force? In confirmation of what I have said about Force "H" not being under the orders of Admiral North. I quote these words from Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cork and Orrery, who was at Gibraltar—the noble Viscount smiles. It is very amusing indeed, this wreck of an officer's career.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Lord has no right to say that. I was making no comment upon it at all.
LORD WINSTER: I do not think this is an occasion for laughter, even about something else. I quote these words from what Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cork and Orrery who was at Gibraltar at the time said in your Lordships' House [OFFICIAL REPORT, V0l. 187 (No. 80), col. 1129]:
"Admiral Somerville considered himself as under the direct orders of the Admiralty and did not acknowledge that Admiral North was responsible for his squadron in any way… It was felt…in the squadron…and I saw a great many of the captains—that the Admiral had been unjustly treated."
Speaking with reference to the deputation of Admirals of the Fleet who went to the Admiralty the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, said:
"there was a feeling in the mind of every one of us that one of our senior officers had not been justly treated. Our object was to obtain an inquiry. We were perfectly impartial as to the result."
In my opinion, it is the Board of Admiralty, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence who are far more "in the dock" over this matter than Admiral North. If they felt that they had been let down by their Director of Operations or by the Foreign Office, they should have dealt with those delinquents and taken the responsibility for the mistake, not shuffled it off on to Admiral North. The Admiralty

65
failed to make clear what it was they wanted. They specifically told Admiral North that his orders were to "lay off" French slips and to create no incident; and that order specifically applied to French ships passing the Straits.
I imagine that one story is good until another story is told. I do not want to come to a conclusion in my own mind until I have heard the reply to what I have stated. But I feel that on the facts I have narrated there is great room for feeling that Admiral North has sustained injustice under which he must have suffered abominably during the past fourteen years. How very bitterly it must have rankled! But he has some consolation to reflect upon; he has been largely vindicated by the Official Historian. I say without hesitation that many naval officers, perhaps a majority, feel that an injustice has been done to him. It is common knowledge that he enjoys the sympathy of some of the most senior officers of the Navy, who support him not as a matter wholly of sympathy but in their professional judgment on a professional matter. Let me quote some extracts from what I have seen written by some of the most senior officers in the Navy:
"No one can have any doubt about the injustice meted out to you."
"Shocked at the injustice of the Admiralty."
"Enraged by your treatment."
"Scandalously treated."
"I am still fuming over your interview with Pound."
Such are some of the comments I have seen.
In addition to Naval opinion, I think that public opinion is very much on the Admiral's side. This is a country famed for its sense of justice, and although I fear that I have detained your Lordships at very great length I am sure you will not blame me for trying to put fully on record the facts on which I and many others—some of them better qualified to judge than myself—feel that a very great injustice has been perpetrated. I hope that those who share my opinion will keep together on this matter, and will keep the matter to the front until Admiral North is vindicated as long after he was broken as General Gough was vindicated. I beg to move for Papers.
5.56 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the arguments of the noble Lord who has just sat down, and I must say that he has not convinced me that Admiral North's case should be reopened. I had the honour to command one of His Majesty's Ships in Force "H." and I remember many of the points which have been raised by the noble Lord to-day. I cannot help feeling that the question of a public inquiry or court martial is a matter of major principle. We all know the difficulties that prevail in time of war and that quick decisions must be made. In fact, Admiral North was not the only senior commander to be relieved of his post during the last war because he had lost the confidence of his superior officers. I entirely agree with the principle that justice not only should be done, but should be seen to be done, but I do suggest that this principle cannot be applied as between the Government and officers of the Services. It may well be that it can and that in fact it should be applied as between the Executive and the private citizen.
I think it is clear that Admiral North took every opportunity, both at the time and since, to put his point of view before the Admiralty. He was asked to explain, and did explain, and his explanation appears to have confirmed the Board of the day in their opinion that he was not the right man for the post he occupied. I suggest that perhaps Admiral North was more fortunate than others in having the reasons for a final loss of confidence explained to him, and I would say that there can be no obligation on the Board of Admiralty to give reasons for such decisions. I cannot help feeling that the Government must maintain its established right, certainly I would say in time of war, to relieve officers in whom they may have lost confidence, without obligation to hold a public inquiry, either at the time or perhaps even later. As we all know, flag officers in war have a very heavy burden of responsibility, and great qualities of judgment are demanded of them. In this particular case, I would say there is no reflection whatever on the honour of the officer concerned but merely that he was not the right man for the post. In view of the fact that two of the principal witnesses are no longer alive, I suggest that it would be a mistake to reopen any inquiry.
6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham who has just sat down has said that in his view an inquiry into the case of Admiral North is not necessary. I propose to endeavour to show your Lordships why an inquiry is not only necessary but most desirable. On June 15 in your Lordships' House I put a Question to Her Majesty's Government in relation to the case of Admiral Sir Dudley North. In the course of an interchange of supplementary questions and answers, I gave notice that I would revive the subject again in order that the main features of the case should be put on record in Hansard. With your Lordships' permission, I propose to review those features to-day.
The Question which I asked the Government was whether in connection with the recently published Official History of the War at Sea they would state the reasons why Admiral North was relieved of his command subsequent to the passage of the French cruiser squadron through the Straits of Gibraltar on September 11, 1940, and was later placed on the Retired List, and why his request for a court martial or court of inquiry to investigate his case was refused. I further asked whether the Government would now afford Admiral North an opportunity of publicly clearing his name of an unjust stigma before a tribunal appointed by the Admiralty. I quote the reply given to me by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on behalf of the Government, because it is necessary to an adequate understanding of the position that confronts us to-day in regard to this matter, and with which I propose to deal this afternoon. The noble Marquess said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 187 (No. 80), col. 1121–2]:
"In view of the wording of the noble Viscount's Question, I should make it clear that Admiral North was not relieved on the grounds that he allowed the French ships to pass through the Straits, nor is there any question of him having been made a scapegoat for Dakar. He was relieved because the Admiralty had lost confidence in him. There is no doubt whatever that he had forfeited the confidence of the First Lord and of the First Sea Lord of the day. The noble Viscount will also be aware that the Official History reveals that the confidence of Ministers in Admiral North had already been shaken at an earlier date.
Admiral North's request for a court-martial or a board of inquiry was refused because, whatever report might have been made by such a tribunal, this could not then have affected the Admiralty's loss of confidence.
68
That remains true. I must also stress very strongly that it would be contrary, to all established practice—a practice which has been especially preserved by Parliament—that the Service Ministers should be unable to relieve senior officers in whom they have lost confidence without setting up an inquiry, either at the time or later."
In connection with this last statement in the noble Marquess's reply, because it also has a bearing on the comments on the statement which I propose to make at a later stage, I will quote certain observations made on June 15 by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. The noble Viscount, when saying that he was the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time and that he fully agreed with the answers given by the noble Marquess, went on [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 187, (No. 80), col. 1124]:
"The Admiralty came at that time to a final conclusion on their jack of confidence in the officer in that particular appointment. There should not be a new precedent established regarding a change of officer in those circumstances; and if an inquiry of this sort were now to be granted I do not know how many more requests of a similar kind the Government might receive."
And at a later stage of the interchange of questions and answers, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked the noble Marquess [Col. 1130]:
"Is the noble Marquess aware that probably the greatest amount of loss of confidence occurred prior to this particular incident, and that those who still live and who shared the responsibility are certainly not afraid of any challenge to the decision then made? But they are very jealous, in the interests of our country, if ever—which God forbid!—it should be at war again, of creating a precedent in this case which would be exceedingly dangerous."
All that I would stress at the moment, in relation to the noble Viscount's statement which I have quoted, is his obvious anxiety, in what he considers to be the country's interests, quite rightly not to create what he calls, a "dangerous precedent." I suggest to the noble Viscount, with great respect, that the precedents are by no means in his favour. But to that subject I will return later.
And now I will come to the reasons given by the Admiralty to Admiral North for relieving him of his command as Admiral Commanding North Atlantic. The reason given in a letter dated October 15, 1940, was:
"Their Lordships cannot retain full confidence in an officer who fails in an emergency to take all prudent precautions without waiting for Admiralty instructions."

69
That was the definite offence with which Admiral North was charged. That was the definite reason, according to the Admiralty—a reason which related to incidents in the early hours of the morning of September 11—why he was relieved of his command. There was nothing in the Admiralty letter which had any bearing on, or was related to, the statement of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that
"the confidence of Ministers in Admiral North had already been shaken at an earlier date,"
or to the statements of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that the Admiralty came at that time to a
"final conclusion on their lack of confidence in Admiral North"
and that
"probably the greatest amount of loss of confidence occurred prior to this particular incident."
I submit that it is prejudicial to the case of Admiral North in the public eye to introduce at this stage into the definite charge against him a charge of prior loss of confidence, without stating the exact nature of that charge, which in any event had nothing whatever to do with the case. It is a vague charge of this nature, shrouded in mystery—but leaving the impression on Parliament and on the public that Admiral North had previously failed in his naval duties—which would be examined and cleared up at the court of inquiry for which I am asking today. It has been suggested in some quarters that this alleged prior loss of confidence was related to the attitude of Admiral North towards the operations at Oran on July 3. If that indeed be so—although I repeat that it had nothing whatever to do with the case—then why, it may be asked, was Admiral North singled out for the displeasure of the First Lord and the Board of Admiralty from amongst other high ranking naval officers whose attitude towards the Oran operations was similar to that of Admiral North?
"In the British Navy,"
writes the Official Historian on this point,
"strong feelings were aroused and all three Flag Officers concerned in carrying out the Cabinet's orders—Admirals Cunningham. Somerville and North—viewed them with horror and incredulity, and did what they could, with so little time allowed, to postpone the issue."
70
Certain questions in this connection would be cleared up if a court of inquiry were held, and I will pose some of the questions which might be put. Was it because Admiral North had expressed "horror and incredulity" at the Oran operations that the alleged prior loss of confidence in him took place? And, if so, did the Board of Admiralty at any time express a loss of confidence in Admirals Cunningham and Somerville? If not, why not? Further, were there reasons unrelated to Oran for the alleged prior loss of confidence in Admiral North? If so, what were they? And on what grounds, and in what circumstances, were these unexplained and unsubstantiated charges of prior loss of confidence brought in to cloud the issue of the definite charge made against Admiral North by the Admiralty—namely, that he failed in an emergency to take all prudent precautions without waiting for Admiralty instructions?
Now I propose to endeavour to prove that in the light of all the circumstances, Admiral North did not fail to take all prudent precautions in the early hours of the morning of September 11, 1940, and to show that an inquiry into the whole subject is necessary and desirable in the interests of justice. In the first place, it is important to remember that on July 10 Admiral North had himself sent a signal to the Admiralty in which he asked for some clarification of the very confused situation vis-á-vis the French Fleet. The French attitude at that time was so uncertain that he felt considerable anxiety regarding the safety of the large and lightly escorted convoys and many unescorted ships which were passing close to Casablanca. On July 12 and 13 he received signals from the Admiralty in reply to his, the general trend of which evinced a strong desire on the part of the Government to avoid any incidents with the French which might lead to open war. These considerations remained unaltered, and were, of course, present to his mind when the crisis arose on September 11.
An important confirmatory testimony to the correctitude of Admiral North's reading of the Admiralty's messages is to be found in a passage in the Memorandum to the First Lord of the Admiralty of five Admirals of the Fleet, who went on a deputation to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, M.P., in

71
May, 1953, to ask him to hold a naval inquiry into the case of Admiral North, which request the First Lord refused. The Admirals of the Fleet were Lord Chatfield, O.M., First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, 1933–38; The Earl of Cork and Orrery, G.C.B., Commander-in-Chief Home Fleet, 1933–35, and Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, 1937–39; Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, O.M., K.T., Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, 1939–42, First Sea Lord, 1943–46; Sir John H.D. Cunningham, G.C.B., Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, 1943–46, First Sea Lord, 1946–48; and Sir Algernon U. Willis, G.C.B., Flag Officer Commanding Force "H," Mediterranean, 1943, Second Sea Lord, 1944–46, and Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, 1948–50, a most impressive and formidable body of naval opinion and experience of the highest rank.
The passage—which has a considerable bearing on the subject—is as follows:
"From the papers we have carefully studied, it appears that Admiral North, A.C.N.A., was given in July, 1940, some indefinite instructions which were bound to place him in a difficult position should the eventuality, for which the instructions were meant to provide, come to pass. He was also definitely told that French ships were not to be interfered with unless proceeding to enemy ports and that they were in inferior strength.
"Although the political situation changed in the next two months. Admiral North's instructions remained unchanged. He was not officially informed of the changes in the Anglo-French political atmosphere; nor was he informed of the Dakar plans, though he probably had some knowledge of them from unofficial sources. As a result, he and his command had a different political mentality from the Admiralty when the crisis arose."
Whose fault was it, I may ask, that when the crisis arose Admiral North had a different political mentality? It was not the fault of Admiral North. He had done his best by his signal of July 10 to elicit from the Admiralty the Government's views on the situation, but after their messages of July 12 and 13 he was left completely in the dark on the subject. Clearly, the fault lay with the Admiralty, a fact which I suggest would be established were a court of inquiry to be held.
I now come, my Lords, to the vital hours in which the affair which I am discussing to-day had its origin—namely, the first seven to eight hours of the morning of September 11, 1940, the
72
hours out of which arose the charge against Admiral North that he did not take all prudent precautions in an emergency. If I tread on ground already trodden by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, I hope that I may be forgiven for doing so, because I desire to submit for your Lordships' consideration the picture, as I see it, of events as a whole, and not in disjointed bits and pieces. In the drama which was enacted that September night on the Rock of Gibraltar, at a time when the battle in the skies over Britain was on the way to its victorious close—a drama of which the aftermath contained tragedy and, in my submission, grave injustice for Admiral North—the central figures were Admiral Sir Dudley North, Admiral Commanding North Atlantic, Vice-Admiral (later Admiral of the Fleet) Sir James Somerville, Flag Officer Commanding Force "H," and the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Gibraltar. General Sir Clive Liddell, Adjutant General to the Forces, 1937–39. Force "H," which comprised the "Renown, "Hood," "Valiant," and other ships, and eleven destroyers, was described by the Admiralty as a "detached squadron" under Admiral Somerville's command, and there was never the slightest doubt in Admiral Somerville's mind that Force "H" was intended to be an independent command, and that he was directly responsible to, and under the orders of, the Admiralty, and not under the orders of Admiral North, the Flag Officer, North Atlantic.
All these three officers, Admirals North, Somerville and the Governor—and I lay particular stress on this point—had all along been, and still were, in close touch with each other, either personally or through their respective staffs. Admiral North, in his official residence, "The Mount," and Admiral Somerville in his flagship, the "Renown," were connected by private telephone to the office of Admiral North's Chief of Staff in "The Tower," and could talk direct to each other, and never hesitated to ring each other up at all hours of the night—and frequently did so—and Admiral North was in constant telephone communication with his Chief of Staff at all hours of the twenty-four, as was his Chief of Staff with Admiral Somerville's staff. Moreover, between Admiral North and the Governor there was also the closest

73
liaison. Hardly twenty-four hours passed at that lime without their meeting or talking on the telephone to each other.
At 12.8 a.m. on September 11 the following signal was received from the Naval Attaché, Madrid:
"French Admiralty's to me begins—Please advise the Naval Authorities Gibraltar departure from Toulon September 9 three cruisers type George Leygues and three French Cruisers La Fantasque Class will pass Straits A.M. September 11th."
In reply to a supplementary question by me on June 15, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. said:
"In spite of this message, Admiral North took no action to get his ships into a state of readiness, although he must have known that the time was short and that he might at any moment receive instructions from the Admiralty which involved immediate action. Nor did he inform Admiral Somerville, in command of Force 'H.,' of the receipt of the signal till 8 a.m. on the 11th—eight hours after he had received it and when the French ships were already entering the Straits. In fact, Admiral Somerville did receive independent information of the approach of the French ships, at 5.10 a.m., and, very properly, put the 'Renown' under one hour's notice for steam. But this was not due to any action taken by Admiral North. These facts were the final cause of the Admiralty's loss of confidence in him."
Those are the happenings as stated by the noble Marquess, the alleged happenings on which Admiral North was found guilty without a trial, dismissed the Service and his career as a full Admiral terminated.
LORD TEYNHAM: If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, I think he is incorrect in saying that Admiral North was dismissed the Service. He was not dismissed in any way, but was given another appointment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I will deal with that point later on. He was given another appointment as a Rear Admiral; subsequently he was placed on half pay. However, as I say, I will deal with that matter later on.
I propose to submit to your Lordships an outline of the happenings as I conceive them to be. The Naval Attaché, Madrid, 12.8 a.m. signal was decoded by about 12.30 a.m., and was shown to Admiral North's Chief of Staff and telephoned direct to Admiral North about the same time. The first thing that Admiral North asked his flag lieutenant was: "Have the Admiralty got that?" "Yes, sir," he
74
replied, "it is directed to them, and they should have got it just as soon as we did or possibly sooner." We now know that the duty captain at the Admiralty failed to appreciate the urgency of the message and dealt with it as one of ordinary everyday business and not urgently, and in consequence it went through in the ordinary way with the First Sea Lord's telegrams. We also know that for his negligence in the matter the duty captain was dismissed from his post. But was this breakdown in the Admiralty machinery at a vital moment—of which, of course, Admirals North and Somerville knew nothing—given any or adequate consideration when the Admiralty arrived at the decision to dismiss Admiral North from the Service? I submit to your Lordships that that is a very pertinent question which would be cleared up in the course of the inquiry for which I am asking today. The next thing that Admiral North did—
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, as someone who is playing no part in the debate, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? He keeps returning to this suggestion that Admiral North was dismissed. Surely he was corrected on that point, and would it not be better to accept the correction?
VISCOUNT ELIANK: What correction does the noble Lord wish to insert?
LORD PAKENHAM: It is not for me to correct the noble Viscount, but simply to suggest that that particular statement should be withdrawn from his future remarks.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Very well. Let us see the difference between being dismissed the Service and placed on the Retired List. What is the difference? I cannot see any difference.
LORD AILWYN: Dismissal from his command.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Relieved of his command.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I will give the noble Marquess anything he likes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: All we are asking for is the facts. The noble Viscount has given the facts wrongly.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If that is the only wrong fact which the noble Marquess can find in the statement which I am

75
submitting to your Lordships to-day, I shall be very pleased. I am quite willing to give it to the noble Marquess that he was dismissed his command and subsequently placed on the Retired List. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I withdraw everything that I said with regard to Admiral North's being dismissed as a result of this. He was dismissed from his command and placed on the Retired List. Perhaps if I had not been a landlubber I should have got it right. The next thing that Admiral North did after receiving the Madrid message was to discuss the situation with his Chief of Staff, and as a result of this discussion he sent a signal, despatched at 2.15 a.m.—as early as the very heavy volume of signal traffic would allow—to all ships on patrol in the area, including the destroyer "Hotspur," which was hunting a submarine, to report the French ships immediately if sighted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What time was this?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: At 2.15 a.m., which was as early as the very heavy volume of signal traffic would allow. The message came in at about 12. At 5.12 a.m. a signal was received from "Hotspur" that she had sighted six unknown ships and at 5.37 a.m.—these signals are on record; the noble Marquess has them—a further signal was received from "Hotspur" that she was shadowing them. At 5.55 a.m. after a talk with his Chief of Staff—their talks with each other had been continuing throughout the night—Admiral North signalled "Hotspur" to cease shadowing. In the meantime, after the receipt of "Hotspur's" sighting signal at 5.12 a.m., Admiral North had a telephone discussion on the whole matter with Admiral Somerville, and it was as a result of that discussion that Admiral Somerville brought his Force "H" to one hour's notice for steam, which gave ample time to proceed to sea and to intercept the French ships if orders to do so had been received from the Admiralty—the Admiralty, be it remembered, who operated "H" Force independently, having, to the best of Admirals North's and Somerville's knowledge, received Naval Attaché Madrid's message as soon as or possibly sooner than it had been received at Gibraltar. Let another vital
76
point be remembered and emphasised in this connection. On June 15 I asked the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the question: "Is it now suggested that Admiral North ought to have gone into action against the French cruiser squadron?" "I never said or suggested such a thing," replied the noble Marquess. So that disposes of any responsibility on the part of Admiral North on that point.
The statement that Admiral Somerville acted on his own in bringing the "Renown" to one hour's notice for steam, implying that Admiral North knew nothing about it, is not in accordance with the facts and it is fantastically absurd to anyone—and there were many—who saw them working together. They were the greatest friends. They worked in the closest liaison, and they discussed anything and everything together, either by personal contact or by telephone, at any hour of the day or night. At 6.17 a.m. Admiral North signalled the Admiralty that "Hotspur" had sighted the lights of six ships, probably warships, steering west at high speed, and that he had directed "Hotspur" to cease shadowing. Immediately after Admiral North's Chief of Staff had ordered the cease shadowing signal to be made, Admiral Somerville rang him up and expressed great satisfaction at what he had done in the matter. The continued silence of the Admiralty, coupled with the knowledge possessed by Admirals North and Somerville that the Consul General at Tangier had telegraphed the Foreign Office on September 9 that a French squadron might pass through the Straits during the following 72 hours, confirmed Admirals North's and Somerville's original conviction that the Admiralty did not intend to place any obstacle in the way of the passage of the French squadron; and as the squadron passed Europa Point at 8.45 a.m. they signalled their names, and—the ships being all personally known to the Royal Navy at Gibraltar—Admiral North signalled "Bon voyage" to them.
Admiral North had kept the Governor informed of all that had transpired, and the Governor agreed with all the Admiral's actions and said that it seemed that the French Navy was at last coming to its senses. This mental attitude of the Governor's was shared by all responsible officers on the Rock, who felt it

77
to be a confirmation of what they had been led to believe by art important message from the British Naval Attaché, Madrid, 6.42 p.m., of September 5 (relative to the improved attitude of the French Naval Attaché and of Admiral Darlan) and who also felt that it was quite possible that these cruisers might be getting away from German influence.
I emphasise as an important feature of the case that nothing at all had come to Admirals North and Somerville and the Governor from the Admiralty which was warranted to place any other complexion on the Naval Attaché, Madrid's, September 5 message, and that nothing at all had been received by them from he Admiralty to inject into the prevailing atmosphere on the Rock any sense of a sudden unexpected happening. It was not until 12.39 p.m. on the 11th that the Admiralty broke its silence and ordered Force "H" to sea in an unsuccessful pursuit of the French. Then the attack on Dakar failed.
On September 27—that is, sixteen days after the passage of the French squadron and four days after the failure of the Dakar expedition—the Admiralty signalled Admiral North asking him what time Naval Attaché Madrid's 18.09 message of September 10 was received and what action was taken on it. To this, Admiral North replied that it was received at 00.08 on the 11th and passed to forces at sea at 02.15; also, that "Hotspur's" sighting report was received at 05.12 and passed to Admiralty in his 06.17 immediate; and that "Hotspur" and ships on patrol had been ordered to take no action beyond reporting. On October 2, the Admiralty called for a report in writing from Admiral North, which he despatched to them on October 6. On October 7, Admiral Sir James Somerville, Commander of "H" Force—or Force "H," whichever the noble Lords prefer to call it—off his own bat wrote to the Admiralty giving his reasons for not intercepting the French squadron. He said that he had discussed the situation fully with Admiral North at the time, and he went on:
"Rightly or wrongly, we were both of the opinion that in view of what appeared to be the ample warning their Lordships had received of the intended movement and notification of the presence of these vessel approaching the Straits, it was not desired to interfere with this movement or to provoke any sort of incident. If, however, the action
78
taken is considered to have been incorrect, I wish to accept full responsibility, since at the time in question I acted in the full belief that responsibility for any action taken by Farce 'H' rested with me."
And in a letter to Admiral North, written shortly before his death a few years ago, Admiral Somerville said:
"I can recall no situation during the war when I had so little doubt that we were doing the right thing. We may be blamed for not requesting instructions, but I personally never do this unless I am in doubt as to what action I should take. In this case I had no doubt at all, and as my views were shared by both you and the Governor. I felt quite positive that we were acting in accordance with the wishes of the Government in allowing these ships to pass."
On October 8, in another place, the Prime Minister said:
"The whole situation at Dakar was transformed in a most unfavourable manner by the arrival there of three French cruisers and three destroyers."
A little later on in his speech, the Prime Minister said:
"By a series of accidents, and some errors which have been made the subject of disciplinary action or are now subject to formal inquiry, neither the First Sea Lord nor the Cabinet was informed of the approach of these ships to the Straits of Gibraltar until it was too late to stop them passing through. Orders were instantly given to stop them at Casablanca or, if that failed, to prevent them entering Dakar."
Further on in his speech, the Prime Minister said:
"The House may rest assured—indeed, it is the only point I am seeking to make to-day—that the mischievous arrival of these ships, and the men they carried, at Dakar arose in no way from any infirmity on the part of the Government; it was one of those mischances which often arise in war, and especially in war at sea."
The broadcast of the Prime Minister's statement came through to Gibraltar, and I shall be surprised to learn that any responsible officer on the Rock ever imagined for a single moment that the responsibility for "one of those mischances which often arise in war" would, or could, in all the circumstances, be laid at Admiral North's door, or that, in connection with the passage of the French ships through the Straits, he would be drawn into the net of responsibility for a political decision outside the confines of naval warfare, and would be charged with a serious professional offence, convicted without any sort of inquiry or trial of a formal nature, and be summarily dismissed the Service or

79
placed on the Retired List—I have altered the words to "placed on the Retired List"—and his career as a full Admiral terminated. But that is what happened.
On October 15 Admiral North was notified by the Admiralty that he would be relieved of his command at the earliest opportunity, on the grounds which I have already stated to the House—namely, that their Lordships could not retain full confidence in an officer who failed in an emergency to take all prudent precautions without waiting for Admiralty instructions. Admiral North made an immediate signal of protest, and followed up the protest on October 27 with a report supplementary to his report to the Admiralty of October 6. On October 28, the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Gibraltar, General Sir Clive Liddell, moved into action, and off his own bat sent a very strongly-worded cable to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, in which he said that he had been in the closest touch with Admiral North both before and during the incident in question, and that there had been a continual interchange of information between them. He then gave his reasons why he was in entire agreement with Admiral North's actions and said—and I ask particular attention to these words—that he could not conceive how, by any stretch of imagination, Admiral North could be convicted of failure to take prudent precautions.
On November 21, Admiral North asked that he might have an opportunity of vindicating himself before whatever board or tribunal the Admiralty saw fit to appoint. This request was refused by the Admiralty on December 4, as were further requests during the same month, and at the end of the year Admiral North was relieved of his command and he returned to England. On several occasions during 1941, in interviews at the Admiralty with the First Lord and the First Sea Lord, and in writing, Admiral North renewed his requests for a court martial or an inquiry into the circumstances in which he had been ordered to haul down his flag as Admiral Commanding North Atlantic, but these requests were all refused. Early in 1942, he was placed on the Retired List, and though, subsequently, in 1943, he accepted employment as Rear-Admiral in charge of
80
the Great Yarmouth Command—and I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Teynham—the Admiralty continued to refuse his requests to be allowed to vindicate before a Court of Inquiry his actions at Gibraltar.
After the war terminated in 1946, Admiral Sir William James, G.C.B., Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, 1939–42, and Chief of Naval Information, 1943–44, in his Portsmouth Letters expressed the opinion that Admiral North had been the victim of a great injustice. In October, 1948, Rear-Admiral H. G. Thursfield, Naval Correspondent of The Times, 1936–52, and Editor of Brassey's Naval Annual, wrote an impressive article in the National- Review in which he related the principal circumstances and happenings at Gibraltar from July to September, 1940, and said that it was now time that the stigma which had lain for eight years on the reputation of Admiral North, a gallant and deserving naval officer, should be removed. Further steps were taken by Admiral North in his efforts to obtain a Court of Inquiry to consider his case and to clear his name, and those steps led in the event to the deputation to the First Lord of the Admiralty in May, 1953, of five Admirals of the Fleet, who submitted to him a considered and very moderately worded memorandum, requesting that an Inquiry should be set up. Notwithstanding, as I have already said, the great weight and experience behind this deputation, the First Lord, Mr. J.P.L. Thomas, M.P., turned down their request. Amongst the reasons given for not granting an Inquiry, one was, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said on June 15, that senior officers at the Admiralty who were in full cognisance of the facts, had unfortunately died—I wonder if I might have the attention of the noble Marquess?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry; my mind wandered for the moment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am not going to say on that what I might say. Amongst the reasons given for not granting an Inquiry, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said on June 15 that one was that senior officers at the Admiralty who were in full cognisance of the facts had unfortunately died, there is no chance of getting their evidence, and he could not therefore feel that an Inquiry would do

81
anything for Admiral North's reputation, one way or another.
I desire to make a few comments on that statement. The first one is that although some senior officers at the Admiralty have unfortunately died, and there is no chance of hearing their evidence, the noble Marquess would appear inadvertently to have overlooked the fact that there is still alive, I am delighted to say, and with us in the House to-day, one of the most important witnesses of all—namely, the Cabinet Minister who authorised the signing of the papers which dismissed Admiral North from the Service and upon which he was placed on retired pay, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. The noble Viscount must assuredly be fully informed of all the principal things that arose in discussion or in writing at the Admiralty in relation to the "North case" during those days in September and October, 1940, when vital decisions affecting the career of the Admiral Commanding North Atlantic, were being considered and taken. Everyone, I imagine, would agree that the noble Viscount's evidence would be of outstanding importance, and as he has told us in this House that he is not afraid of his decision being challenged—a fact which I for one, Lever doubted—he would, I feel sure, welcome the opportunity of giving his evidence if a court-martial or a Court of Inquiry were set up.
The second comment I desire to make is that if the noble Marquess's argument be a sound one, then little advantage could be attached to any inquiry into the past if some of the principal persons originally concerned were no longer in the land of the living, even though some of the persons were still alive and the papers relating to the subject were still in existence—and, further, that the bulk of historical research into events and persons of bygone days(of which I have done a great deal in the past)would be of little value. The third comment I should like to make on the statement of the noble Marquess is that it is my submission—a submission which I am endeavouring to establish on firm ground, to-day, as did the noble Lord, Lord Winster—that not only were the senior officers of the Admiralty to whom the noble Marquess referred not in full cog-
82
nisance of the facts, but that—having regard to the nature of some of the answers given to me by the noble Marquess on June 15—the Government are not even yet in full cognisance of all the facts. That is one of the essential reasons why I, and others, are asking for a Court of Inquiry to be set up, in order that all the features connected with the case may be submitted to independent review and consideration.
Now, my Lords, I come for a few moments to the question of precedents, which has been turned by those who have opposed an inquiry into one of the most important features of this case and which must therefore be examined, if not at undue length, at any rate with reasonable care. The first thing I have to say is that I have never suggested, and no one to my knowledge has ever suggested—and this has reference to one of the answers given to me by the noble Marquess which I quoted at the commencement of my speech—that the Admiralty should not be entitled to relieve an officer of his command. My contention is that, in fairness to that officer and in accordance with Naval tradition and precedent, the Admiralty should be prepared and willing to take the necessary steps, especially in such a weightily disputed case as this one, publicly to justify their reasons for having done so. As the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, so truly said in your Lordships' House on July 15, "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done."
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said on June 15 that to grant an inquiry in this case would be to create an exceedingly dangerous precedent. Is that so? Would it be creating a precedent? I have been refreshing my memory on this subject, and what do I find? I find that, far from creating a precedent, it would be a distinct departure from precedent if an inquiry into Admiral North's case were not granted. A study of Naval history shows clearly that in the eighteenth century—during the first eight decades of which Britain was almost continuously at war at sea—it was the established practice to allow Naval officers who were charged with offences connected with their Naval duties the opportunity to vindicate themselves before a court-martial. No one at that period, in the Royal Navy, at the Admiralty, in Parliament, or amongst the public, would

83
have dreamed for a single moment of suggesting that accused officers should not be granted courts-martial, or that to grant a court-martial would be creating a dangerous precedent and would lead to many more requests of a similar kind. The motto of the Admiralty and of the public of those days, was that, "Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done."
Take, for instance, the celebrated case of Admiral Byng, which revolved round the action which took place on May 20,1755, off Port Mahon, Minorca. Admiral Byng was replaced by Admiral Hawke and sent home, and was automatically accorded a court-martial before which he was able to state his case, a case which excited tremendous interest and controversy in and out of Parliament. Byng himself had previously been a member of the courts-martial on Admirals Richard Lestock and Thomas Mathews which sat in 1746 and 1747 in connection with incidents arising out of the action off Toulon on February 10 to 13,1743. It is highly interesting to remember in this connection that there was some delay in the setting up of the Lestock court-martial, as a consequence of which delay the House of Commons moved into action and passed an Address to the King praying that an official inquiry might be held. In that respect it was performing what Mr. Edward F. Iwi pointed out in The Times of June 24 to be the primary and proper function of Parliament under the Bill of Rights, 1688—namely, to redress grievances created by the Executive, instead of abandoning its obligations to Ministers.
Then, take the famous and very interesting court-martial on Admiral Augustus Keppel, a court-martial which, be it particularly noted, was ordered by the Admiralty itself. It will be observed that so entrenched was the practice in those days of granting courts-martial to Naval officers charged with offences while in performance of their duties that the thought of dismissing Admiral Keppel without a trial—as was done in the case of Admiral North in 1940 by the then Board of Admiralty—never for a moment entered the heads of the Board of Admiralty in Admiral Keppel's day. The court sat for five weeks early in 1779, and after examining and considering a great
84
mass of technical evidence it pronounced the charge preferred against Admiral Keppel by the Admiralty to be
"Malicious and ill-founded; that Admiral Keppel had behaved as became a judicious, brave and experienced officer; and that the court unanimously and honourably acquitted him."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the interesting reading of the noble Viscount. I am in a position of considerable embarrassment because I myself am taking part in this debate, and it falls to me to answer the noble Viscount and others who share his views. But I think there is a very strong feeling all over the House that the noble Viscount has perhaps ranged rather wider than the ordinary practice of the House with regard to read speeches. Perhaps I might remind the noble Viscount of the Resolution of the House which was passed on June 17, 1936, namely:
"It has been declared to be alien to the custom of the House and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates that speeches should be read."
That Resolution has always been very widely interpreted in this House. It is well known, I think, to all of us that there are certain noble Lords who find great difficulty in speaking without extremely copious notes, and a concession is always made in this way. The last thing I wish to do is to prevent the noble Viscount from putting his case as fully and as properly as he feels necessary, but the noble Viscount has now been reading steadily to your Lordships for nearly three-quarters of an hour. I think that is going a little too far.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Naturally I take what the noble Marquess says in the right spirit: but what I was trying to do was to help your Lordships in the delivery of my speech. I desire to put the whole case for Admiral North, as I see it. I was, in fact, following what happens from the two Front Benches every day. The Ministers from the Government Front Bench, and the Leaders and noble Lords from these Benches consistently read their speeches—
EARL JOWITT: May I interrupt for a moment? So far as I am concerned, that is wholly inaccurate—I do not. Having listened to the noble Viscount with great interest, and very largely in sympathy, I would say, most respectfully, that if we

85
have written speeches read it absolutely kills debates. The cut and thrust of debate mast go if speeches are prepared beforehand. I think that is all that the noble Marquess means to say, and if that is so, I respectfully agree.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is true that read speeches are more common from the Box than from other parts of the House, because a special exception has always been made with those who have to make declarations of Government policy and who, therefore, have to be extremely accurate in what they say. I think that is recognised here as a normal concession.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It is not usually my custom to read my speech. I very seldom do—in fact I do not think I have ever before transgressed in this way. It was solely with the object of getting through what I have to say as quickly as possible that I have done so. However, I will proceed with my speech but will not deliver it in the same way that I have been doing, although of course it may take a little longer. As I was saying, in Admiral Keppel's case the court sat for five weeks, and after examining a great mass of technical evidence pronounced the charge preferred against Admiral Keppel by the Admiralty to be "malicious and ill-founded." Admiral Keppel, quite rightly, became the hero of the hour.
The Lords of the Admiralty, on the other hand, were neither regarded nor treated as heroes, which was not astonishing. In those eighteenth century days many unpleasant things, about both the living and the dead, could be openly said or expressed in print. The Board of Admiralty, which had been found guilty in the public eye of preferring "malicious and ill-founded" charges against Admiral Keppel, suffered severely at the hands of the lampooners and pamphleteers. Times have changed, and lampooners, and pamphleteers are no longer with us—some might say unfortunately. They did in those days perform occasionally a very useful part in protecting the liberty of the subject. They are no longer with us, unfortunately, to act as thorns in the flesh of the unrighteous.
In seeking to establish my point I have singled out just a few of the better known cases of courts-martial in the eighteenth
86
century, but the records show numerous others, none of them dissimilar in reasons for their origin to the court-martial or court of inquiry which I submit ought to be held in the case of Admiral North. The practice followed by Hawke, Howe, St. Vincent, Nelson and the Admiralty in the golden age of our Naval supremacy was to give an officer who thought he had been unjustly treated an opportunity of re-establishing himself before a court-martial. What our great sea captains counted as a fair, just and quite usual procedure in the eighteenth century is now, in some quarters, described as exceedingly dangerous in the twentieth century. Dangerous to whom or to what? In the light of the facts which I have just given to your Lord-ships I am completely at a loss to conceive where the alleged danger lies. It is also quite clear and highly significant that this alleged danger has escaped the experienced eyes of the five Admirals of the Fleet who have asked for an inquiry.
There is every reason why it should have escaped their eyes because they were all serving officers in the Royal Navy in the First World War, when the motto of the First Lord of the Admiralty was still—as in the eighteenth century—that "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done." Let us see what transpired only four decades ago—in this century—in the case of Rear-Admiral Sir Ernest Troubridge, in connection with the escape, in August, 1914, of the Germans cruisers, "Goeben" and "Breslau," into the Dardanelles, a German move which, it was suggested, was the decisive factor in causing the Turks to throw in their lot with the Central Powers. Admiral Troubridge commanded the cruiser squadron in the Fleet of which Admiral Sir Berkeley Milne was Commander-in-Chief. Milne gave an explanation of his action to the Admiralty and was exonerated. Admiral Troubridge, however, was summoned home for a court-martial (just as Admiral North might have been summoned home for a court-martial) and appeared before the court charged that:
"from negligence or default, he did on 7 August forbear to chase H.I.G.M.'s 'Goeben.' being an enemy then flying."
The court decided that the charge had not been proved and Troubridge was "fully and honourably acquitted."

87
My Lords, I will leave this question of precedents, and leave it to all fair-minded and impartial persons to decide whether or not, in the light of the precedents I have quoted, Admiral North is entitled to the inquiry for which he has repeatedly asked. In this House on June 15 the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, used the phrase that there has never at any moment been the faintest suggestion against Admiral North's honour. What then is honour? What meaning does the word have? If the professional reputation of an Admiral, who in time of war was relieved of his command, is at stake, and at the same time it is said that he has sustained no reflection on his honour, then I suggest the distinction is one which multitudes of people will utterly fail to grasp or appreciate. If an inquiry is not granted which would give Admiral North an opportunity of clearing his name—or if his name is not cleared to his satisfaction in some other way—then, in its passage down the dusty corridors of history, the noble Marquess's well-intentioned phrase will assuredly be stripped from its context, and in a short space of time will have gone with the wind; and there will be left to the gaze of prosperity that serious charge of professional misconduct of which Admiral North was found guilty without a trial.
In the Memorandum which they presented to the First Lord of the Admiralty in May, 1953, the five Admirals of the Fleet gave their reasons for asking for an inquiry in a case, "where," as they said, "the Admiralty machinery broke down," and ended with these words:
"If we may say so with respect, we believe an inquiry by the present Board would reflect highly and would be greatly valued in the Service."
To this request from these distinguished and high-ranking officers I would again add my plea—namely, that Her Majesty's Government reconsider their attitude and now give to Admiral North the opportunity of publicly vindicating himself before an appropriate tribunal, an action on the part of the Government which, I submit, would be in keeping with Naval tradition and precedent, and with the spirit of fair play and justice which has animated the British people and the Royal Navy for centuries past.
6.50 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I shall be very brief. You have listened to a detailed and comprehensive narrative of events leading up to this debate this afternoon. I shall confine my few remarks to what I conceive to be the broad general principles involved in this unhappy case. It must be a matter of regret to all your Lordships that this affair has entered the arena of political argument and debate. It was with the express intention of avoiding this lamentable situation that the five Admirals of the Fleet, as we know, went to see the First Lord of the Admiralty, last year. And it is profoundly distressing, particularly to some of us who have spent the best years of our lives in the Navy, that the considered opinions and the urgent representations of a deputation of that distinction should have been rejected out of hand by the political head of the Admiralty, with the result that we see to-day, tossed into the arena of Parliamentary controversy, a subject that with good will, vision and imagination could have been handled, and should have been handled, with dignity and restraint—far removed from the popular clamour that has now been aroused. It is difficult to conceive of a case more grossly mishandled. It is a deplorable situation and, I submit, reflects little credit on those in whose hands should have lain the primary duty of ensuring that justice was seen to be done.
Voices have been raised suggesting that the matter should be allowed to drop. That seems to me to be a strange idea of justice. Pusillanimous advice of that sort does little credit to those who give it. We all know how justice can miscarry. The outstanding case in my lifetime that comes easiest to mind is the Dreyfus case. The French General Staff at that time refused to admit that a mistake had been made, and it required a man of the courage and calibre of Emile Zola, and the genius power of his pen in that famous article J'accuse, to get that wretched man back from the horrors of Devil's Island and, at long last, twelve years from the time of his first arrest, to secure his complete rehabilitation. We do not want the North case to degenerate into a cause célébre of that nature. But that is what is in danger of occurring, as a result of Her Majesty's Government's attitude.

89
As a leader in The Times said a week or two ago:
"Nothing said in either House of Parliament by the official apologists has checked the increasingly anxious suspicion of laymen that an individual has been unfairly treated."
The noble Marquess the Leader of the House, in reply to an intervention of mine on June 15, referred to the fact that at the present time—I am sorry, but there is bound to be a little repetition in these matters—nearly all the chief actors in this event are, unhappily, dead. He went on to say:
"Is it really to be supposed that an inquiry now could conceivably produce results which were not attainable at that time?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 187 (No. 80), col. 1125.]
With great respect—yes. I venture to think, it could. But what is infinitely more important than what I think, and what is far more significant, is that the five Admirals of the Fleet clearly thought so, and so expressed themselves in their memorandum. I am inclined to think that an inquiry now, held by unprejudiced and unbiased minds, in a calm and unruffled atmosphere, far removed from the heat and stress of war, not labouring under a feeling of frustration and disappointment caused by an unsuccessful operation of war, and with all the relevant documents before them for calm and dispassionate consideration, might well produce results which were not attainable or, at least let roe say, were not attained, at that former time.
Moreover, not only would a high ranking officer, labouring under a deep grievance and sense of injustice, be given, at long last, the opportunity of stating his case, in accordance with the hitherto accepted custom of the Service, but the holding of such an inquiry would finally put an end to speculations and suspicions and reassure the country at large. The, noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, told your Lordships on June 15 that he and those survivors who shared with him responsibility at the Admiralty at that time are certainly not afraid of any challenge to the decision then made, to which that same Times leader replied:
"then let the challenge be met."
But the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, said something else. He feared that an inquiry in this case would create a precedent which would be "exceedingly dangerous." My Lords, the more I ponder over that statement, the more
90
shocked—and I say this with great respect to a former First Lord of the Admiralty, who was well liked in the Service during his long tenure of office—I feel. "Exceedingly dangerous"—to whom? Not to the country, for the demand for an inquiry is growing day by day. Not to the Navy, for the Admirals of the Fleet say that the refusal to grant a court martial in accordance with Service custom, or another form of inquiry, is not understood in the Service. Dangerous, to whom? Not to Sir Dudley North himself, clearly, for he has not ceased to demand an inquiry all through these fourteen years. There is only one other direction in which an inquiry might be dangerous—and your Lordships will no doubt form your own judgment as to what that direction is.
But let me say to the noble Viscount, and to Her Majesty's Government, that I see a very definite danger in withholding an inquiry. While Admiralty action of removal in a case of loss of confidence is perfectly legitimate, the reasons for that loss of confidence should be capable of public statement—and failure to do so may lead to suspicion that high officers are pawns, whose careers are at the mercy of Ministerial caprice. A well known constitutional lawyer has written contending that it is the proper function of Parliament to redress grievances created by the Executive, and he urges that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons should be constituted to give Admiral North justice. Without being rash enough to enter into the realm of anything so abstruse to the layman as Constitutional Law, it may well be that some such action would be of the essence of democratic government. Unwittingly, I am sure unwillingly, but nevertheless surely, Her Majesty's Government are sowing seeds of distrust and suspicion. I beg them to take heed lest those seeds germinate, and tares spring up and choke those good crops which they have grown and husbanded with such care over the last two or three years.
7.0 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, I know a little bit about this case as I was a member of the Board of Admiralty at the time, though not connected with operations. I should like to say a few words on both sides of this case, as the Admiralty is blamed and

91
Admiral North is blamed. If we take the Admiralty's case first—I will not go into all the details of times and so forth—your Lordships have heard that Admiral North received a signal at midnight, and that day he was content to shadow. Now the Admiralty instructions were that there was to be nothing done to the French fleet at the North African Colonial ports, but they reserved the right not to let it go to the Bay of Biscay. The whole point was that if the French fleet had passed the Straits of Gibraltar, unless the British Fleet had been sent to sea in advance of them and deployed to westward so as to intercept them if they went north, there was nothing to stop the French fleet from going to the north ports in the Bay of Biscay. When Admiral North was asked for a reason, he said he was waiting for Admiralty instructions. The First Sea Lord said to me that any officer who waited for Admiralty instructions before taking the initiative was not fit to be in command of an important place like Gibraltar. Those were his words. The question of the command of Force "H" has nothing whatever to do with the situation, because it is the custom in the Navy for the senior officer present to take charge in an emergency and use any ships which are available to him—that is his job. That is the position from the Admiralty point of view.
Now may I put Admiral North's position, because when one views a situation from the other end it often looks very different, and I have experience of both ends? From Admiral North's point of view, at midnight he knew that the situation against the French fleet had obviously evaporated. There was no possibility of any further action and it seemed clear to him that the French fleet would not leave Toulon and go up to the German-controlled ports at that time when the rest of the French fleet was interned at Alexandria. That seemed most unlikely to him. Secondly, three independent authorities—Admiral North, Admiral Somerville and the Admiralty staff—did not think there was any question of urgency. The third point is that he did not know of the Dakar operation. The fourth point is that the Admiralty subsequently changed their instructions to prevent the French fleet from going to Dakar. On those grounds, I think there
92
was grave room for misunderstanding on Admiral North's part in that particular episode. There is no question about that, when we look at the position as he saw it at that time.
What is the solution of this very difficult problem? I think it is this. In the first place, we must recognise that the Admiralty have the prerogative of relieving an officer of his command wherever and whenever they please. We must have that settled, because the First Sea Lord is responsible for recommending the appointment of officers in command. On the result of his choice the lives of officers and men depend, so he must have just as much freedom to relieve an officer in command if he thinks he has a better qualified officer to take his place. There is no question about that. The classic example was at the beginning of the First World War, when, on one day's notice, Admiral Jellicoe was sent up to relieve Admiral Callaghan in charge of the Home Fleet. Admiral Callaghan had brought it to a great state of efficiency and he was well liked, but the Admiralty thought that Admiral Jellicoe was a younger man and more fitted to command the Fleet in war. There was no inquiry. Admiral Callaghan was very hurt, but he did not make an inquiry of it. In the same way the First Sea Lord can be relieved without inquiry if the Government lose confidence in him. A case of that sort was the case of Prince Louis of Battenberg. He had no inquiry. I think he resigned, but he resigned because the Government had lost confidence in him. That principle must be upheld. That is the position on the side of the Admiralty.
On Admiral North's side, the First Sea Lord was changing him on the whole period of his command and this was one episode. On this question of misunderstanding, about 300 A.D. the Emperor Maurice made a very sound edict, that if a soldier disobeyed the orders of a superior he was to suffer punishment, but if he disobeyed through misunderstanding his instructions, then his superior should be punished. To my mind, in this episode Admiral North had sufficient grounds for misunderstanding. I think the Admiralty's right to relieve Admiral North was absolutely justified, and I think, secondly, that Admiral North should be relieved of personal blame for this particular incident on the ground of

93
misunderstanding. It is interesting to remember that when the British Government went to France to try to persuade the French Government to go to North Africa—they failed, of course—Admiral Darlan's last words to the First Sea Lord were, "The French fleet will never fall into German hands." And he kept his promise.
7.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships all appreciate the short and excellent speech just made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape. Although I do not quite agree with all that he said at the end of his speech, is will save me from saying a good deal of what I should otherwise have had to say. I am glad that, not only as a member of the Board of Admiralty in 1940 but as a distinguished Commander-in-Chief at sea, and afterwards as a very able First Sea Lord, he has addressed your Lordships; and I think that after his speech we shall have no more question about the right of the Admiralty to follow the procedure which he has outlined with such clearness to your Lordships.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, that I have no complaint to make about his speech; his references to me I accept just as he put them. The danger I saw in deviating from the practice of not holding an inquiry into a case in which lack of confidence was expressed in an officer and no specific charge of misdemeanour was made, was not in the sense in which the noble Lord put it, but because of my own personal experience right through the war while in charge of the political administration of the Admiralty. In the difficult and dangerous situations which then arose, it would often have brought great danger to the nation if we had had to take time to hold inquiries, or if we had been prevented from making changes because of the possibility of such inquiries. Therefore, I repeat what I said the other day, that if we had made a precedent of that nature in the case of Admiral North many other officers might have demanded inquiries about other changes in the other Services. I could quote from both the other Services names of men who would have had substantial, if not stronger,
94
cases for inquiries than that asked for by noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
It is true that the decision with regard to Admiral North which was arrived at in October, 1940, was in the nature of a final decision on matters which had occurred throughout his command; and I am bound to say, frankly, that his handling of the matter in relation to the French Fleet at Dakar gave great dissatisfaction to the Board of Admiralty, and great dissatisfaction to the Executive Government. For the Executive Government at that time were up against a situation such as no Government in the history of this country had been faced with. It is well to remember their situation in coming to their decision, which has been criticised by Naval officers of different rank and standing in the past. We had just successfully come through the terrific operation at Dunkirk. Our Fleet had been greatly weakened. The Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, had had to give up a large part of his ship to the operations in the northern territories. It was at a time when France came out of the war, and Italy came in. We had a most dangerous situation to face in the Mediterranean, with every prospect that the French Fleet might fall into enemy hands.
It is sometimes claimed that this, that or the other great leading officer disagreed with the Government's policy at that time with regard to the treatment of the French. But a distinguished member of your Lordships' House, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope, in his book The Sailor's Odyssey, perhaps put it more aptly than anyone else. At the top of chapter 21, he says this:
"At the end of June, 1940, the question of the French squadron at Alexandria had to be settled. Though I had no doubt of the good faith of Vice-Admiral Godfroy, it was impossible for the British fleet in Alexandria to go to sea for operations against the enemy leaving behind in harbour fully efficient units of the French Navy. Immediately we were out of sight they might sail for Beyrout, or even go back to France, where there was no assurance that they would not fall into German or Italian hands and be used against us."
Although thereafter the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope, criticised some of the methods which the Government proposed in order to deal with the

95
situation, there was the danger perfectly expressed. In June, 1940, faced with all these difficulties the Board of Admiralty, so far from wishing to oppress in any way their former friends and colleagues in the French Navy, took every possible action to prevent such a thing arising, so long as we could have a safe arrangement as to the future disposal of the French Fleet. I flew to Bordeaux with the late Sir Dudley Pound and saw Admiral Darlan in June, 1940. I received an assurance from him then as to the situation. But what were the Government to do about it?
I am putting this case, because, after all, Admiral North's attitude over Oran has to be considered in relation to this matter, and we must state what was the view of the Government of the day with regard to the general treatment of the French Fleet. What happened after we had got our promise from Admiral Darlan? Sir Ronald Campbell, the Ambassador, was in the Bordeaux Embassy, in one room of a hotel; and he stayed there, on the instructions of the Government, trying to get information as to the terms of the armistice. Finally, the only information we got was through a wireless leak. The Official Historian, who is so much backed to-day in this House against the expression used by the noble Marquess on the previous occasion, nearly falls over backwards in trying to prove the case for the French, and for those who specially sympathise with the French. Yet it is quite clear that French ships were to be sailed to a Metropolitan French port, there to be disarmed and partly immobilised. The Government had to face the situation that that powerful Fleet might fall into the hands of the enemy at any moment.
We did not stop our efforts there at trying to come to an understanding, because, before we gave Admiral Somerville his instructions, we at the Admiralty got permission from the Government to delay a little longer. I personally sent a signal to Admiral Darlan, and Sir Dudley Pound sent a separate signal as between one sailor and another. We know that it was delivered. It was specially delivered through our Naval Attaché at Bordeaux. We never received an answer. On top of that, we devised five alternatives before the
96
challenge was to be given to the French that they must sink their Fleet. We know now that we were forced into the action taken at Oran because the French Admiral Gensoul had sent only the one alternative to his Government, an ultimatum to sink his ships in six hours. None of the other alternatives was put. In the circumstances, the attitude of the Vichy French Government to such a signal as that is not to be wondered at.
It is always assumed that the Executive Government of 1940 were not taking proper steps to deal with this matter. On the contrary. But what was the attitude of Admiral North? The attitude of Admiral North was that he was absolutely opposed, in any circumstances, to the use of force. I personally saw Admiral Sir James Somerville, who is included in the Admirals described as having been incredulous and horrified at the instructions. His family were old friends of mine, and his revered and respected father had been chairman of the finance committee of the Somerset County Council, of which I was a servant for over twenty years. I saw him before he went out on the mission, after he had discussed the whole situation with the Naval Staff. He understood clearly the position and what had to be done. He said to me in my room at the Admiralty: "I quite recognise that, however repugnant this job may seem, the Government know it has got to be done, in the interests of the safety of the nation."
What happened when he got to Gibraltar? Immediately there was the opinion expressed, which Admiral North reported to us in his own words the day after the Battle of Oran, that he was absolutely opposed to the use of force. There was then a Staff meeting on the ship, and there was again a consensus of voices; and Admiral Sir James Somerville, because of this pressure upon him, sent a separate signal to the Admiralty at that time asking whether he would be allowed to do just what Admiral North had suggested: that after he had offered the alternatives—all the alternatives—to the French Commander-in-Chief, if then they did not ensure that the French Fleet was not likely to be used against us, he should still be allowed to withdraw Force "H" and take no action.
We in the Government had known from the beginning—and every member of the

97
Government who was connected with the defence of the country takes responsibility for it—that, if necessary, we should have to run the risk of a battle. All those risks had been considered. Admiral North's attitude at that time was, therefore, one which gave rise to great dissatisfaction. But, so fair minded was the First Sea Lord of the day, Sir Dudley Pound, that—although the Board of Admiralty sent a very sharp reproof indeed to Admiral North (and I fully approved), in reply to which he sent his apology for his attitude at that time, with an assurance that he would not take that kind of line in future—when the question of relieving him from his appointment was then considered, because we felt we could not have sufficient confidence in him, it was Sir Dudley Pound who said—on the lines put just now by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape—that we ought to see what happened a little later on and decide whether that course was necessary.
So much has been said already by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape with regard to the subsequent happenings, that I will cut my remarks short, although I could make them quite long. The one point upon which the lack of confidence in Admiral North was continued was the fact that in the signal of July 12 there was no ambiguity. In his general reply to us at the Board of Admiralty he did not plead ambiguity. In fact, he said that Force "H" was regarded in some respects as independent. He said "I have never ordered Force 'H' to sea. It has always been ordered to sea either by the Board of Admiralty or Admiral Somerville." "But," he said, "I should not have hesitated to order it to sea if I had thought it desirable." There was no question of ambiguity at all in his reading of the signal. That signal of July 12 had never been altered. The one thing to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, is entitled to draw attention on the other side of it is the confused situation which was created as a result of failure to take the proper action, not only by the Admiral on the spot but by the senior officer of foreign operations at that time at the Admiralty, for which he was relieved of his post.
I have given as much time to this matter as I should. Your Lordships have been so patient, aid I could say a great
98
deal more. I repeat what I said before, that in the interests of the country, and in the light of what we were up against in 1940, to suggest now that we were trying to fix something upon Admiral North because we did not ask him for an explanation about the happenings of September 11 until after September 23 is really too thin to be accepted. As a matter of fact, we had been passing through the Battle of Britain as well as the new attacks of the Focke-Wulfe on the coasts We were "up to our neck" in the new spate of submarine warfare, made more difficult by the addition of the Italian submarine fleet, and, of course, the operation "Menace" itself was on. The Admiralty said at the time, quite rightly, that they did not regard the matter as so urgent, within hours, that they should ask about it until they had got rid of all these much more urgent questions; and I thoroughly concurred with that view at the time.
I am sorry that this matter has been brought into the arena of public and political debate. I have seen a lot of things written about the war that ought not to have been written. I have heard a lot of things said about the war and its operations which ought not to have been said. Ever since 1945, when the war ended, I have refrained from either writing or speaking about the operational derails that I know. I would only say that I am exceedingly sorry that this question of Admiral North has been brought into this arena, and with so little fruitfulness to the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, said that there is a widespread opinion about this matter in the country. Do not believe it. If there had been, believe me, I should have heard about it.
LORD AILWYN: Does the noble Viscount read the newspapers?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes, I read the newspapers; but newspapers do not always contain writings which represent the total of public opinion. When I have been in trouble—and I have been in trouble politically many times in the past—I have had a pretty heavy postbag from a widespread section of the public. But I have had no letters on this subject. I do not think the case can be argued on that ground. I am terribly sorry that this matter has been brought into this arena.

99
Admiral North, whom I liked, and whom I have known in other spheres, being a member of the Brotherhood of Trinity House, has many good qualities; but I stand by the decision taken as to whether we should have maintained confidence in him for this particular position of F.O.C.N.A. as we called it—Flag Officer Commanding North Atlantic. I have no hesitation in saying that the judgment by his peers at the Admiralty was right, and that there was no case for an inquiry. I hope that the Government, who have taken a sound and a sane line upon this matter after all these years, will stick to their position.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: The noble Viscount said that the senior officer of the Staff at the Admiralty was punished for not bringing the signal to the First Sea Lord. My point about that is this. The fact that three separate independent authorities did not think there was a matter of urgency, rather indicates that there was something wrong with the orders at the time. That was my point about it. It is not the fact that he had to be punished, but the fact that three people independently were misled, which rather indicates that the orders were not sufficiently clear.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I quite appreciate the argument put by my noble and gallant friend. At any rate, I think it is quite clear, certainly from my reading of the report that Admiral North made, that he never complained of ambiguity. In fact, inter alia, he made such statements as indicated that they were not ambiguous. After all, he never asked for any clarification of the signal of July 12—which would be the signal operative for his action on the date of September 11—after he received it. It is true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, said, that he had asked for a clarification of the position after the signal of July 7, which he asked for on July 10. But he was so clear about what he thought was his duty that he never asked for clarification.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: He did not go on asking for clarification. He asked on July 10, and he got his reply. He could not go on and on.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: All we required him to do was to act upon that signal when the
100
emergency arose. I entirely support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, which was according to the decision of the Board of Admiralty at the time: that whatever failures took place elsewhere, the senior officer on the spot should have taken the necessary action so to dispose of his forces as to be able to deal with the ships as they came westward.
7.38 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, at the end of this long and interesting debate, it falls to me to say a few words on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. First, I would say that I feel sure that we all appreciate the worthiness of the motives which have led the noble Lord, Lord Winster, to raise this subject again, and the other noble Lords who have supported him to speak on the side which he represents. At the same time, I hope they will understand if I say that I think it in many ways regrettable that they should have brought this matter again into public debate. Not that the Admiralty, for whom I principally speak to-day, have anything to conceal. Indeed, I think that the speeches that were made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, of Hillsborough, with their great authority and knowledge of the facts, have added valuable information which tends to give general support to the action which was taken by the Board of Admiralty in 1940. But personally, I should greatly have preferred—and I think here I speak for others of your Lordships— that this sad episode in past history should not have been raked up and brought again before the public. It seems to me, if I may say so with real deference, that it is not to the interests of either Sir Dudley North himself or anyone else that these matters should be constantly the subject of the sort of discussion which we have had this afternoon. It can only cause pain, and I do not believe it can do much good.
I would remind noble Lords once more of the salient facts of this case. I shall do it briefly and as uncontroversially as possible. As I see it, they are these. As a result of more than one incident, which culminated in certain events connected with the passage of French ships through the Straits of Gibraltar in September, 1940, Admiral North was relieved by the

101
Lords of the Admiralty of his post of Flag Officer Commanding the North Atlantic Station, since he had ceased to command the confidence of their Lordships. Sir Dudley North himself felt, and others who have supported his cause (and I am not criticising them that they should hold this view) have felt, that he was harshly treated. They have at various intervals pressed for an inquiry into his conduct during the events in question.
This demand, as your Lordships know, has lately been renewed by five Admirals of the Fleet. I am sorry that most of them are not here this afternoon; we should have valued their opinions. At any rate, that demand was renewed, and it has been reiterated this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and others. The demand for an inquiry, as we all know, was rejected at the time by the First Lord of the day (who I think was the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough) and it is still rejected by the present First Lord. I do not propose this evening to go into all those details which we have heard so full exposed in this extremely tangled story. I gave your Lordships as full an account as I could only a week or two ago, and most of it has been reviewed to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, criticised me in one respect, I think, for casting doubts upon the omniscience of official historians. In answer to him I will not give views of my own but I should like to quote their own note at the beginning of the History. They say:
"The a authors of the military histories have been given full access to official documents. They and the editor are alone responsible for the statements made and the views expressed."
I would accept that, except that I would add that that does not mean that we need always accept the views which they express. For instance, I have had an oportunity of looking at the facts, which I have done with some care, and I came to a different conclusion. But there are certain aspects which are still, I gather, causing anxiety among some noble Lords and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, said, in wider circles. I understand that there are others who share the same view. Therefore I think I must say something more this evening in view of what has been said on these topics so fully by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and others.
102
I gather that, first, it is suggested that the Admiralty instructions on which Admiral North was expected to act were not clear; that they left open serious doubts as to what, if any, action he should take in the event of an impending clash with the French fleet. This has been dealt with fully by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and there is not much that I can add to what he has said. It is evident that the particular relevant signal—that is to say, the signal which gave a new slant on earlier signals—is that which was sent on July 12. That signal made it clear that, though no action was to be taken against ships in French Colonial ports, the right must be reserved to take action in regard to French warships proceeding to enemy-controlled ports. It is now suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, and by others, that those instructions were ambiguous. I would make only one comment on that. As the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has just said, Admiral North clearly did not think so at the time—that is to say, he asked for no further clarification. Moreover, in the light of the signal of July 12, which I have just read to your Lordships, I think he surely must have appreciated that if ships were going or might have been going to enemy controlled ports, he might be required intervene. And yet, on the night of September 11th-12th, 1940, he himself took no action—and I think that is common ground—to prepare any ships—
VISCOUNT EUBANK: The noble Mar-guess means the night of the 10th-11th.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon—the night of 10th-11th—to prepare any ships when he received the signal from the Naval Attaché at Madrid, although this signal specifically said that the destination of the ships was unknown.
This brings me to the second point which is urged in favour of Sir Dudley North. It is suggested, and I think it has been suggested by several speakers this afternoon, that there was no obligation on him to take any steps to prepare any ships unless he received definite instructions from the Admiralty. The Naval Attaché's signal, it was argued, was sent nor only to Gibraltar but also to the

103
Admiralty, which is perfectly true. If the Admiralty had wished him to act, they should have told him so. That was the main burden of the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, put up. Here, if I may go over this ground yet once again, but as shortly as I can, I suggest that the time factor becomes extremely important.
LORD WINSTER: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The message which was received by Sir Dudley North, the message from the Naval Attacheé at Madrid, was received at eight minutes past midnight—I think that is the exact time—yet he took no action at that time to see that any forces were put in a state of preparation to carry out any instructions which he might receive from the Admiralty—and those might have come at any moment. Whatever were the facts in London, he had no reason to suppose that those instructions might not come. But he did not even tell Admiral Somerville, in charge of Force "H." The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, referred to a message which he said was sent out at 2.15 a.m. alerting ships. What I say about that message is that it is rather an obscure story. I find it difficult to get to the bottom of it. At any rate, no copy was sent to the Admiralty and, what is much more important than that, no copy was sent to Admiral Somerville, who was the one person who should have received it.
The first that Admiral Somerville learned was at 5.10, a report from the "Hotspur" which said that she had sighted some French vessels. That was Admiral Somerville's own information: that is the first he heard and, as we all know, he put "Renown," rightly, at one hour's steaming notice. I would remind the House of this in view of certain things that have been said. Even one hour's notice—I speak as a layman in these matters, but I have consulted those who know much better than I do—is not the same thing in a situation of this kind as a state when a ship is ready to move at once. In this connection I would add this. Admiral Somerville himself, I understand, explained to the Admiralty a week after the event that he felt that at 5.12 a.m., when he received the "Hotspur" signal, it was too late to put "Renown" to the westward without the
104
risk of incident. The Admiralty replied to his letter—that is the letter which I think the noble Lord, Lord Winster, read out in the House. When they replied, they pointed out that he had not had the vital information in time; and Admiral Somerville never at any time contradicted that. Indeed, I understand—this is information which comes at a later date—that he did consider whether to order "Renown" to sea, but, among other reasons, decided against it because he thought that she could not make sufficient ground to the west before the French ships would arrive. So the argument, that because they were put on one hour's notice, that was all that was necessary, is, I think, if I may put it as mildly as I can, a rather doubtful argument.
In any case, whatever Admiral Somerville did, Admiral North, who had received the message as far back as eight minutes after midnight, took no initiative. He could have told Admiral Somerville long before 5.12, but he never did so; indeed, he definitely decided, as he afterwards I believe explained to the Admiralty, that no action should be taken to interfere. That decision, I submit, in the position in which he was placed, should not have been taken. Indeed, what he did was to take the rather odd course of sending a message of "Bon voyage" to the French ships, although at that time he did not know where they were going. At that time nobody could have known where they were going; until they were through the Straits no one could tell whether they were going to turn north or south, and then it would have been too late to intervene in any case.
If I am told by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that Admiral North did not inform Admiral Somerville because he did not regard Admiral Somerville as being under his command, I would reply that when the ships were already through the Straits and the question arose of Force "H" reverting to two hours' notice, Admiral North then approved a request from Admiral Somerville that this should be done. It was not a formal matter; it was definitely an approval that he gave. There, again, I think we must assume that he did regard himself as the senior officer. Of course, this decision not to prepare any ships to take action until it was requested, above all led the Lords

105
of the Admiralty finally to lose confidence in the Admiral's judgment. The fact that in the Admiralty also, as Lord Winster said, there was an unhappy delay, did not, in the view of the Board of Admiralty, excuse Admiral North for his inaction. As the noble Lord said to us this afternoon, it is perfectly true that there were errors also in London—deplorable errors for which the officer in question was immediately punished; but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, admitted in his speech, Admiral North could not have known of those errors, and, so far as he knew, orders might have arrived at any moment; and he had already decided that no action should be taken.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The Chiefs of Staff had been in communication with each other right through the night.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am saying merely that Admiral North had decided to take no action although it was possible, so far as he knew, that at any moment some instructions might come from the Admiralty. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, asked most pertinently why Admiral Somerville was not also relieved of his command—at least, I understood him to ask that. He quoted, I think, some letters which Admiral Somerville had written to the Admiralty, in which he took the full responsibility for Admiral North, and it was greatly to his credit that he should have done so. Of course, the Board of Admiralty had these letters, but—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—they had at that time no other reason to lose confidence in Admiral Somerville, who, as I understand it, had an unblemished record; indeed, it is true to say that, even on this occasion, as I have already pointed out, it was he who put "Renown" on one hour's notice.
On the other hand, in the case of Admiral North, as we have been told just now, this was not the first occasion upon which their Lordships' confidence had been shaken. Further, I think it is clear beyond peradventure to anybody who has studied this question, whatever view they take about the responsibility or non-responsibility of Admiral North, that the Board of the day—that is to say, the First Sea Lord and the noble Viscount, Lord
106
Alexander of Hillsborough, who occupied the position of First Lord—felt they could not endorse the attitude of an officer who took the line that, because there had been time for the Admiralty to give him orders and they did not do so, therefore he had nothing to do. After that, Admiral North's letter clearly gave the impression of an officer awaiting orders instead of wishing to take the initiative.
My Lords, we have had this afternoon the inestimable advantage on this particular point of learning from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, what the First Sea Lord of the day said to him. He was at that time, I think, a member of the Board of Admiralty, and we know now, for certain, exactly what was the view of Sir Dudley Pound. I took down the noble Lord's words rather rapidly, and perhaps he will correct me if I have got them wrong. Sir Dudley Pound took the view that any officer who waited for instructions before taking action was not worthy to occupy the important position of Flag Officer, Gibraltar, in the times which then existed.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: Before taking initiative.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With that amendment. Clearly, that was the view that led to the final loss of confidence by the Board of Admiralty in Admiral North. My Lords, had it been possible I should have preferred not to refer to this. I do not think it can be anything but painful to Admiral North to hear what was being said by his brother admirals at that time. But noble Lords have really left us no option, and it better, now that we have reached this point, that the whole story should come out. If, however, I am asked why, in that case, no action was taken for a fortnight to relieve Admiral North of his command, the answer as I understand it, after reading the papers and listening to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is that the reason for the delay was that the naval staff were so fully preoccupied with the preparations for the Dakar operation that they had no time at the moment for anything else; and though it was clear to them from the day—that is to say the night of September 10–11—that Admiral North had not taken all the prudent precautions he should, his position was regarded by

107
them as not of comparable urgency to the other great matters with which they were concerned. What in fact happened appears to be that, in the view of the Board of Admiralty of the day, Admiral North's explanation disclosed an attitude so passive and a judgment so defective that they felt they could not retain him where he was. It was not that he had been guilty of some appalling dereliction of duty; it was merely that the incident of Oran followed by the incident of September 10–11 gave them the feeling that they could not any longer defer action with regard to him.
I have spoken of the Oran incident. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more about that, after what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough has told us. What I think is clear is that, after the operation was over, the Lords of the Admiralty received a communication from Admiral North in which he spoke very strongly against the steps which had been taken, not on grounds merely of naval policy but of general policy—about the conduct of the war and so on. That, of course, goes rather outside the scope which one would expect to be covered by an ordinary serving officer. It might have been right for him to have made wider comments before the operation, because then it was a question of letting the Board of Admiralty know exactly what the full picture was; but once the operation was over, once the Government's decision had been taken, then it was not a matter properly with which an individual Flag Officer should concern himself. That, at least, as I understand it, was the view of the Admiralty, and his letter was a serious shock to them; but not sufficient, as I understand the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, to say, to justify them in removing him. When, however, it was followed up by the further incident on September 10–11 to which I have already referred, they had no further doubt.
Their decision implied—and I would say this again, in spite of what has been said this afternoon—no personal criticism of Admiral North's courage and patriotism. Of course, that is beyond reproach; it always has been beyond reproach and, so far as I know, no shadow has ever been cast against it. But he no longer had the confidence of the
108
Board in his judgment, and they felt bound not to leave him where he was. Can anyone doubt that, feeling as they did, they had any option but to act as they did? Could they possibly have been justified on any count if they had left a man in whom they had lost confidence—however old and valued a comrade he might be—in a vital key position, at a most desperate moment, in a war in which we were fighting for our lives? Had they done that, and had the Admiral, through some defect of judgment, been guilty of some disastrous result, they would have been heavily and rightly blamed.
The truth is that war is a very brutal business, and in conditions such as those that prevailed in 1940 decisions of this kind, however unpleasant they might be, sometimes have to be taken. That is why I say to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that ever since the days of the Lord High Admiral of England, the Admiralty have always claimed the right—and Parliament has always supported them in it—to take such action as they think proper, without inquiry. Is it really to be suggested now that this age-old rule should be altered and discarded in this particular case, and an inquiry granted after fourteen years, when practically all the main witnesses are dead? Admiral Pound, the First Sea Lord, is dead. Admiral Phillips, the Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, is dead. And Admiral Somerville is dead, too. In the absence of these vital witnesses, what real value can such an inquiry have? In any case, what would he its raison d'être?
I must emphasise most strongly to your Lordships' House that Admiral North was not relieved on the grounds that he had allowed the French ships to pass through the Straits. Nor is there any ground whatever for regarding him as a scapegoat for Dakar. The crux of this matter—and the point which seems still to be overlooked—is that the Admiralty had lost confidence in him. September, 1940, was not, indeed, the first occasion on which confidence in him had been shaken—that is clear from the Official History—but it was the climax by which the confidence of the Admiralty was finally destroyed. It is not, I would remind the House, the confidence of the First Sea Lord and the Board of Admiralty of to-day with which we are concerned this afternoon: that does not

109
come into it at all. It is a matter of the confidence of the Board of Admiralty of 1940. The First Sea Lord of that day, a man whom many noble Lords will remember—a very just and famous man who died a number of years ago—and the First Lord of that day, now the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, both expressed the view that confidence in Admiral North could no longer be retained. Of that there can be no shadow of doubt.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster (I hope that I did not misunderstand him), seemed at one period in his speech to hint that he felt the object of the Admiralty in the whole affair was to shuffle off responsibility from themselves on to Admiral North. I was amazed to hear him, as I understood, say that. I think no noble Lord can make that suggestion about a man such as Admiral Sir Dudley Pound. I, and many noble Lords, knew Sir Dudley, and I should have thought anyone who knew him would know that he was incapable of any such action. I would entirely repudiate any such suggestion. In spite of what the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has said, it is my view that no inquiry of any kind could now affect the confidence of a 1940 Board of Admiralty. That, together with the fact that most of the principal characters involved are now dead, makes it manifestly absurd to suggest that to-day, fourteen years after the event, the whole case should be reopened. Indeed, that would not even fulfil the object of the five Admirals of the Fleet for, ironical though it may seem, their object, as they have said several times, is to avoid publicity; and that object certainly would not be achieved.
Every war, my Lords, has produced situations in which Supreme Commanders have had to judge whether their subordinates deserved their continued confidence. Historians may dispute the wisdom of their decisions, but withdrawal of confidence is a fact about which there can be no dispute. It is not for the present Board of Admiralty either to justify or to condemn the views on confidence held by their predecessors fourteen years ago. It has, of course, fallen to Her Majesty's Government to ascertain the facts. That they have tried to do; but, having established beyond doubt that Admiral North was relieved because he had forfeited the
110
confidence of the Board of his day, I must say firmly and finally that Her Majesty's Government cannot and will not be a party to any further action which would in any way impinge upon the right of those upon whom, after all, our very survival depends, to judge for themselves in a moment of national danger the degree of confidence which they have in individual officers and to relieve, without further explanation, officers in whom that confidence can no longer be retained. That view I submit with confidence to your Lordships' House.
8.7 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, it is an unpopular thing to do to rise at this hour of the night and make a speech—even a short one—but I feel it my duty to say certain things. I have no personal interest whatever in this matter and have taken no part in the controversy. I entered your Lordships' House with no particular interest in it and no intention of taking part. Having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Winister, and much of the speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, I had actually left the Chamber when I began to feel that those noble Lords had made out a case calling for a really effective reply, from the Government. I returned to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, what that case was, because it seemed to me that a prima facie case had been made out by the noble Lords who opened this discussion, that a wrong had been done to Admiral North. Having listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Marquess opposite, I am not at all satisfied that they have made a satisfactory case in answer. The noble Viscount, I thought, made a most unconvincing reply, and the noble Marquess's answer, largely a technical one, has in fact convinced me that there is an absolutely unanswerable case for an inquiry. The noble Marquess can be right only if one assumes that everything done at the Admiralty was correct and that a First Lord can never make a mistake; but that is the whole question in this controversy.
It is most upsetting to see how the exercise of power appears to dim the justice of those who exercise it. I feel that more particularly as the result of this

111
debate. I feel it particularly disturbing that the Prime Minister, whose magnanimity is one of the finest personal traits in that great man's character, should have failed, on this occasion, to show that magnanimity. I recall the magnificent book he wrote in order to prove that his great ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, who had been traduced in history books for two hundred years, was not guilty of the crime which had been fixed upon him, in the betrayal of Tollemache at the attack on Brest. Here, on a rather lower level, but when the honour of a distinguished Admiral is equally at stake, this same magnanimity is not forthcoming. I hope that there may yet be a change of mind.
I think that the noble Marquess has tried to put up a bogy and knock it down, in the sense that he has tried to make out that those taking Admiral North's part are necessarily trying to make a case that the Admiralty must be deprived of their power; that the Executive must be deprived of their power, in the circumstances and stress of a great war, to remove an Admiral or a General, or anyone else from executive command. So far as I have heard after listening to the whole of this debate, that case has not been made by anyone who has spoken this afternoon. Not only must the Executive have the right but it is their duty, if they think it necessary, to deprive an executive commanding officer of his command in the stress of war. But the very fact that that right and duty exist makes it equally necessary, as a matter of justice, that afterwards, when the crisis is over, there should be the possibility of an inquest into what has happened. That, surely, is all that is being asked for on this occasion.
Unless men in this sort of position can feel that although, at a crisis, they may be deprived, and properly deprived, of their commands, afterwards, when the crisis is over, there will be a chance to receive an impartial investigation into the justice of the decision and have an impartial investigation made, and if necessary acknowledgement of mistake equally made, I cannot really see how you can expect people to bear the burden and heat of command in the way they have to do in these terrible times of crisis. Therefore, though I do not expect that there is any chance that the
112
Government will alter their decision—unfortunately, when Governments have once taken up an attitude in respect of anything, however wrong they may prove to be, they never, in my experience, alter their decisions—I still beg that on this occasion they will think again, and provide for the possibility of justice being done in the case of this distinguished Admiral.
8.14 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I know that everyone wishes to end this debate, but since the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has exercised what might be called the right of a juryman to offer opinions on the submissions which have been made, perhaps I also may be allowed to offer my opinion. It is really with no sort of official background in this particular connection that I do so—certainly not as one who has been First Lord of the Admiralty, as I had the honour to be for a few months. All along, in this business I have had a great deal of sympathy with Admiral North. At times I have almost regarded myself as a professional champion of the underdog, which also inclines me to place myself on his side. But I must say that I should not have spoken unless Lord Chorley had spoken. Having sat through the whole debate and not having intended to speak, I feel that I must give my vote, with full conviction, if it is not an impertinence to do so, in favour of the case as stated by the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough.
Of course I have paid very deep attention to the speech of Lord Fraser of North Cape, and I was greatly struck by something which Lord Fraser said on behalf of Admiral North. I understood him to say that he felt that there was no personal failure here. I am bound to say that after hearing what everyone has said I cannot go beyond the argument that the Admiralty had lost confidence in this officer and were entitled to relieve him of his command. I cannot regard that as the equivalent of any sort of conviction of a criminal nature. It must rest with the executive authorities whether they relieve an officer of his command or whether they do not. I cannot see that even if all the officers concerned were alive at this time, fourteen years later, we should arrive at a different opinion—

113
even if it were in the interests of the country to do so—as to whether we thought that that decision was right or was wrong. We must leave it with those concerned. I am very glad that these strong statements have been made on all sides completely exonerating Admiral North of any kind of charge reflecting on his personal honour.
8.16 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I feel that your Lordships were most indulgent, to me, in view of the fact that I made what I fear was a very long speech. I will try to show my gratitude by not speaking at length on this occasion. But I am sure it will be realised that if I do not reply to the many points which have been made it is not that I am letting them go by default. I reserve my right to study the debate and to make my views known in whatever way I can about many things that have been said with which I disagree and which I do not think formed an answer to the arguments which I put forward.
I need say hardly anything, I feel, about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. He dutifully gave a blank cheque to the Admiralty on this occasion. One thing I feel I must say, however, is this. Many statements have been made to the effect that an inquiry would do no good because several of the officers involved in this matter are now dead. I cannot agree with that statement because, having tried to study the matter very carefully, I think this is a case where the papers—the signals, the letters and the papers generally—speak for themselves; it is not a matter of the opinions of the actors in this business. I think that an inquiry could quite well arrive at a decision on the strength of the papers, and when I am told that all the officers at the Admiralty at the time who were fully acquainted with the facts did not think there was a case for inquiry, I am bound to point out—as has been agreed this afternoon—that it was some of those officers themselves who were in default, and they were really giving judgment on a case in which they were themselves to some extent the defendants.
I completely agree with Lord Ailwyn, who thinks it is distressing that this matter has had to be ventilated here this afternoon. My opinion is that Admiral North has exhausted every means open to him of avoiding this matter being
114
raised in public, but that, feeling strongly, as he does, that he has suffered an injustice, he is entitled to have his case stated; and it has been stated today. I repeat that he has done everything in his power—he has really behaved very chivalrously in this matter—to avoid a discussion. I have heard something about "washing dirty linen in public." Of course there are two schools of thought about dirty linen. There are those who say: "Wash it in public," and there are those who say "Wear it in private." I have always belonged to the former school. I think that, in the long run, what matters is getting dirty linen washed clean; and if I pursue this matter it will not be out of personal regard for Admiral North but because I believe that an injustice has been done to an officer which has had a bad effect in Naval circles.
I think, if he will allow me to say so, that the speech of the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fraser of North Cape, has made this debate well worth while. With all respect to others who have taken part, that has been the speech of the debate. Perhaps I may flatter myself a little by saying that, if that speech is analysed, it will be found that the noble and gallant Lord is very much in agreement with myself. I began my speech by saying that I completely agreed that the heads of the Defence Services in war time must be allowed to exercise their responsibility in removing officers in command. I stand by that. My only point was that circumstances do alter cases, and there is so much evidence in this case to show that an injustice was done to Admiral North that I think that there is a case for an inquiry. I understood the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, to bear me out to that extent by saying that the Admiral had got a side, and quite a strong side, to his case and that he had partly suffered because of a failure to give him absolutely clear instructions; that he was the victim of a misunderstanding for which he was not entirely responsible. I hope the noble and gallant Lord will wish to be completely—
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, my real point was that Admiral North is completely unjustified in protesting at being relieved, of his command, because that decision rests

115
with the Admiralty, but that for that particular episode the position was such that we may absolve him from personal blame. There is no question of justice not being done in relieving him of his command. But in that particular episode there was enough misunderstanding to allow us graciously to absolve him from blame.
LORD WINSTER: I think the position is that the noble and gallant Lord and I are much in agreement. I have never contradicted the right of the Admiralty to relieve officers if they feel that they must do so. May I be allowed to say that Admiral North will find great satisfaction and comfort when he reads the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord?
May I say one thing about the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough? I wish at once to apologise to him for having, in a speech in which I was very anxious not to raise the temperature, had a little "brush" with him. I am sure he will appreciate, however, that I was speaking under a little stress in trying to make a complicated and difficult case. I happened to turn round and saw him looking me full in the face and laughing.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I say that it was my fault?
LORD WINSTER: This is a matter between the noble Viscount and myself. I rather hastily jumped to the conclusion that the noble Viscount was laughing at something I said. I know now that that was not the case, and I hope he will accept my apology. There are one or two things in his speech upon which I must touch. He said that there was no time during the war for inquiries. But the Admiralty did hold inquiries. They sent the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrey, out to Gibraltar to hold one inquiry, and if they could find time to hold one inquiry they could have found time for another. In his speech the noble Viscount raised entirely new matter which had been barely referred to in the debate and had not been raised very much in connection with Admiral North. In this matter of Oran, what was it that Admiral North did that aroused the Admiralty and made the Admiralty feel no confidence in him? We are only told that he expressed some doubt about
116
the wisdom of the action taken at Oran; but unless one had all the details of what Admiral North said, it is impossible to pronounce a judgment upon that matter. I should say that an Admiral holding a high command has a perfect right to represent to his superiors the local circumstances and feelings about a proposed action.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I take that point? As a matter of fact, as the noble Marquess has said, it would be perfectly right for a senior naval officer to give his views about a situation before an operation ordered by the Executive had taken place. Admiral North had previously, in fact, sent one short telegram—I am speaking from memory—in which he had given his opinion that, if action were taken, then the French Fleet would fight, and fully in the light of that previous advice the decision of the Government was taken in the matter. But for him then to come back, after the operation was over, with the kind of expression he used as to what had happened and why it had happened, according to his view, we regarded as being a very bad thing indeed for naval officers; and we had to tell him that we thought there was a dangerous lack of appreciation of the spirit in which we intended to fight the war.
LORD WINSTER: I should need to see the papers, of course, before I could express an opinion about that. When the Government had come to what must have been a most painful and difficult decision and were working under a certain amount of tension. I can imagine that the mildest expression of contrary opinion, however properly expressed, might have given rise to great annoyance. My own belief is that that probably represents what occurred. But the noble Viscount went further and devoted much of his speech to justification of the Government's decision in regard to the action at Oran. That is not what is at issue today. In regard to Admiral North, the noble Viscount brought forward matter on which I certainly do not feel competent to reply and which came to me as a surprise. The noble Viscount made a vigorous defence of his own actions and of his own administration. Naturally he felt it necessary to vindicate everything he did; but again I would say that this

117
matter can be decided only by an impartial inquiry and not by the ipse dixit of men who have a great interest in defending the action taken.
I should like to express my thanks to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for his full and most helpful reply. We shall not agree about the History, I can see: the fact is that there is no finality about any history. I think we all have to be on our guard against dismissing as merely the opinion of the author statements in histories with which we do not agree. We should give credit to the author sometimes for having tried very hard to arrive at a just and impartial decision. I did not say that I thought the Admiralty instructions were not clear. On the contrary, I said emphatically that I thought they were so precise that, in the absence of instructions amending them, they left Admiral North no alternative but to proceed on them. I cannot argue that point now, but I must make it. In the whole of my speech I did not charge the Admiralty with giving ambiguous instructions. My charge was that they failed to give instructions to replace very precise instructions which they had already issued.
In regard to Force "H," I cannot accept the view that Admiral North had command of Force "H." I think the noble Marquess does not quite appreciate the way in which Admiral Somerville and Admiral North worked together as one man.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Hear, hear!
LORD WINSTER: The point is that Force "H" was never operated by Admiral North. It was under the command of Admiral Somerville, who received his orders direct from the Admiralty and directed Force "H." I do not think that perhaps the noble Marquess took fully into account the extent to which that fact must have operated in Admiral North's mind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I say this only because the noble Lord has addressed me: it is not really for me to discuss it in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. My impression was that Admiral North was regarded as the senior officer, and although various instructions were received from the Admiralty by
118
Admiral Somerville, at the same time Admiral North would have been broadly regarded as the senior officer. In any case, even if it were an independent command, one would have expected him to pass on the signal received at midnight to Admiral Somerville.
LORD WINSTER: I am not sure how far that point is covered by the fact that the two Admirals worked together. Perhaps a formal signal was not passed, but they were simply "Box and Cox" in these matters, But the fact that remains is this: that here again we come to a fault on the part of the Admiralty, who must have known the way that Admiral North and Admiral Somerville were working together, but who never at any time laid down a chain of command as between the two men. Your sailing orders usually say that you will go somewhere and place yourself under the orders of so and so. This loose arrangement, in which no chain of command was establihsed, was allowed by the Admiralty to continue, and I have no doubt that that contributed to some of the mistakes made.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That does not accord with the statement I made just now: that in the course of his reply Admiral North said that, while he had not sent them to sea previously, he would not have hesitated to do so if he had thought it desirable. In other words, he thought that he had the power to send them to sea.
LORD WINSTER: I think that Admiral North was on such terms with Admiral Somerville that that situation could hardly have arisen. We know what confidence Admiral Somerville had in Admiral North, and how willing he was to take the responsibility in these matters, if he felt the need to exist. I conclude on that remark by saying that I feel full weight must be paid to the views of the noble and gallant Earl, Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Cork and Orrery, who has said quite clearly that Admiral North never regarded himself as empowered to give orders to Admiral Somerville; and so far as I know, he never did so.
I should like to express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I think it has had this result: that at long last, after fourteen

119
years, Admiral North has had his case publicly stated in detail. It is now for the public and all concerned to make up their minds whether or not they think the case that an injustice has been committed and an inquiry should be held is made out. At any rate, that satisfaction does remain to Admiral North: that his case has been fully and clearly stated in public. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
ORPINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

  REQUISITIONED PREMISES
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES