Sitting of 12 July 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read a Second time; to be considered To-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Buckie-Peterhead Scheme
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the President of the Board of Trade what amendments in the light of experience he proposes to make to the Buckie-Peterhead Scheme.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): The scheme is one for building small factories, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I see no reason to amend it.
    Sir R. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend realise that under this Scheme no loans have been made to industrial companies, as a result of which it has been a complete wash-out since it started? Will he consider the possibility of turning this area into a Development Area in view of the fact that nothing has been achieved up to date?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As my hon. Friend is aware, consideration was given, under this and previous Governments, to whether this type of area was suitable for scheduling as a Development Area. The decision was that it was not, and I see no reason to change that decision.

    Furniture Industry (Hire-Purchase Restrictions)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now considered the representations
    1718
    from the furniture industry that hire-purchase restrictions on furniture should be eased; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. John Hallasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now given further consideration to the representations made to him by all sections of the furniture industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the hardship caused to tenants of new municipal houses as a result of the hire-purchase restrictions on furniture, he will now discontinue these restrictions.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have considered these representations carefully, but in present economic conditions it would be, unwise to relax the restrictions.
    Sir R. Boothby: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in fact, there has been any improvement in the conditions of the furniture manufacturing industry during recent weeks?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. The unemployment figure has fallen back from 6,345 to 4,802, which is quite a substantial reduction.
    Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if any restrictions are really effective in respect of hire purchase in this industry? I am advised that it is possible to advertise hire purchase with no deposit and practically no conditions at all.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If they are ineffective, I am surprised at the number of complaints I have heard on the subject.
    Mr. Hall: While I appreciate that this is part of a general financial policy, and while there may or may not be some reason for departing from or amending these restrictions at present, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is some slight inconsistency in a policy which encourages the maximum credit for purchasing houses, but makes it increasingly difficult to turn those houses into homes?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That may be an argument for restrictions on a wider scale, but not for me to depart from them in this instance.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise the great hardship to newly-married couples going into municipal houses, and that they are placed in great difficulty in furnishing their homes? Should not he take that into consideration?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will bear all these matters in mind.

    Hire Purchase
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now completed his plans for compiling hire-purchase statistics.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. Consultations have taken place and are continuing. Retailers and finance houses are to be invited to co-operate in supplying statistics which will show the monthly changes in hire-purchase sales and debts outstanding for the main types of goods sold on hire purchase. It is hoped to start collecting these figures in the autumn.
    Mr. Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the figures will be available? Does it mean that we shall have figures of hire-purchase contracts entered into from September or October onwards?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think rather later than that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.
    Mr. Gowerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to make it obligatory that all persons or firms offering goods for sale on hire-purchase terms should exhibit a notice stating separately the cash price of the goods and their hire-purchase price.
    Mrs. Mannasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that all hire-purchase firms display the cash price, the amount required as deposit, and the number of deposits required to complete the purchase, when goods are offered for sale by hire purchase.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The Hire-Purchase Act, 1938, already requires the owner to state in writing to the hirer the cash price, the hire-purchase price and the amount of each instalment.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the presence of such a notice
    1720
    often conceals an unfair and unjustifiable difference between the cash price and the hire-purchase price? Is he also aware that what my Question asks for is already the practice of reputable firms; and, therefore, would it not be proper to arrange with all firms to carry out the same practice?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Of course, the law requires them so to do under the Hire-Purchase Act, 1938, and my belief is that if they do not do so they are committing an offence.
    Mrs. Mann: If the law requires them so to do, will the right hon. Gentleman have a look at some of the advertisements which say, "No deposit," "Delivery on the first payment"? One advertisement after another says that. They are mostly in the provincial papers—not the national papers—which are read by the people who are purchasing these goods. Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman attended to his business?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the advertisements in fact refer to hire-purchase agreements, perhaps the hon. Lady will let me have them.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Emrys Hughes.
    Mr. Gower: On a point of order is it not a fact that when my right hon. Friend says that the law requires—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Emrys Hughes.

    Weights and Measures Legislation
    Mrs. Butlerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce a Bill to bring up to date the law relating to weights and measures, having regard to the unsatisfactory state of the law at present in many respects.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Not this Session.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that the continued delay in bringing weights and measures legislation up to date, and, in particular, the failure to give that added safeguard to the consumers which was envisaged by the Hodgson Report as long ago as 1951, is adding very considerably to the ordinary household budget? Will not the right hon. Gentleman at least look at the Report again to see whether there is anything

    1721
    he can do to implement its main recommendations in the interest both of traders and the general public?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Lady is quite right to draw attention to the importance of the subject. All I said was that I could not promise legislation this Session.

    Industrial Development Certificates
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage industrialists to establish industries in areas, other than Development Areas, where there is a high incidence of unemployment.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Board use the opportunities arising from applications for the issue of industrial development certificates to interest industrialists in these areas and to encourage them to establish factories there.
    Mr. Hughes: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something more than that? Is he not aware that factories are now being built in areas where there is full employment, such as in Brighton on the South Coast, whereas nothing is being done for areas in South-West Wales, where, in my own constituency, for instance, unemployment is running at between 8 and 10 per cent. of the insured population? Could not something be done to draw the attention of industrialists to the fact that there is an unemployed labour force in Anglesey?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We do, of course, draw these matters to the attention of industrialists, and, in fact, in the conditions of high employment which apply today the existence in an area of unemployed persons is indeed a very considerable inducement.

    Wooden Sewing Thread Reels (Import Duty)
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has recently received to remove the 15 per cent. import duty on wooden reels imported from Finland for use in the cotton trade; and what action he intends to take.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to wooden sewing thread reels, on which the duty is 5 per cent. ad valorem. It is, of course,
    1722
    always open to makers or users to apply for a reduction in duty. I have recently received representations from one firm, which has been informed of the procedures to be followed.
    Mr. Holt: Am Ito understand from the Minister's answer that he will not consider individual applications, and that they must be made through a trade association?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I did not say so. I said that there is a proper procedure for applying in these cases, and this person who has written to me has been informed of that procedure.

    North-East Development Area
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange to visit the North-Eastern Trading Estates in the near future.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I regret that I shall not be able to pay such a visit in the near future, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary hopes to visit the North-East Development Area in the autumn.
    Mr. Williams: While I regret that my right hon. Friend himself cannot visit the North-East, will he take it from me that it will be extremely welcome that someone from his Department is to go to the North-East to see how it is developing?
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to give further information about the opening of new factories on the North-Eastern Trading Estates.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In the year ended 31st May, 1955, thirty-two factory extensions and five new factory buildings, providing a total of 450,000 sq. ft. of space, were completed by North-Eastern Trading Estates Limited. At the end of May, seventeen factory extensions and two new factory buildings, totalling 590,000 sq. ft., were under construction.
    Mr. Williams: Is this increased figure of building under construction not further evidence of the confidence of industrialists in the North-East in the work of the Board of Trade in bringing industry to them?
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the Minister say when we are likely to get a report on the trading estates? I believe that an inquiry is being made into this matter.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.
    Mr. McKay: When the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary visits the North-East, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct him to visit the site of the Tyne tunnel and consult the local authorities as to the advisability of its completion, and how much it would affect the trade of the district?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am sure that my hon. Friend will take all relevant considerations into account, but we will plan his visit a little nearer to the time.

    Motor-Car Exports (Value)
    Mr. Crouchasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of motor cars exported during the past twelve months; and the value of those fitted with flashing indicators.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In the twelve months ended May, 1955, the value of new complete motor cars exported was £ 115 million. Cars fitted with flashing light indicators are not separately distinguished in the trade accounts, but I understand that almost all the cars exported would have been fitted with indicators of that kind.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason given for the fitting of these flashing lights is that the export trade demands them? I should have thought that, in that case, a record would have been kept of those cars which had been exported with these monstrosities and of those fitted with the straightforward indicators.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The exporters sell their customers what they want. It is not for me to instruct them in the matter.

    Cotton Goods (Imports from Hungary)
    Mr. Crouchasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of cotton goods imported from Hungary during the last twelve months.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Forty-one thousand pounds.
    Mr. Crouch: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these goods are taken in exchange for goods which we sell to Hungary, or whether they are brought in to compete with Manchester cotton goods?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Sales both ways of less essential goods are carried out by the two countries under the trade agreement.

    Tinned Salmon (Imports)
    Mr. Hunterasked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of tinned salmon was imported into this country from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the first six months of 1955; and whether he will permit this amount to be increased for the second six months of 1955.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Figures for June are not yet available, but imports in the first five months of this year amounted to 39,000 cwt. valued at £848,000 c.i.f. Negotiations with the Soviet authorities about the level of the quota for the next twelve months are at present in progress.
    Mr. Hunterasked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of tinned salmon was imported into this country from Canada for the first six months of 1955; and whether he will permit this amount to be increased for the second six months of 1955.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Figures for June are not yet available, but imports in the first five months of the year amounted to 24,000 cwt. valued at £633,000 c.i.f. The quota for North American canned salmon for the year from 1st July has not yet been finally decided.

    Monopolies Commission
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer the milk bottle monopoly to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As I told the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) on 23rd June, I have already announced a full programme of work for the Commission.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not think that there is some urgency in this matter in view of the fact that all the milk bottles supplied to school children in Scotland are "cornered" by one monopoly which is represented in this House by a Conservative Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear in mind this problem, but, as I say, I have already announced a full programme of work for the Commission for the rest of the year.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is this not one of the many arguments in favour of a real strengthening of the Monopolies Commision so that it can do more work and get on with the job which is being held up at the moment?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that it may be a more powerful argument for pursuing the investigation of these various types of practice, a matter which we shall be debating on Wednesday.
    Mr. Woodburn: As these bottles are made in my constituency, I should not like to say anything about the price, but I can assure everybody of their quality.

    Hiring Agreements
    Mrs. Mannasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that hire-purchase traders are offering goods under terms advertising no deposit, when the goods are rented only and are not sold; and, as the public are misled into thinking that the goods are being sold by hire purchase, if he will take steps to ensure that agreements to rent only must make it clear that there is no eventual sale.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir, but I have no reason to suppose that the agreements themselves mislead anybody.
    Mrs. Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman really look into this matter, because hire purchase is a very important item in the life of this nation? I could show him hire-purchase advertisements in which it is stated "No deposit," "Delivery on the first payment," "Two years to pay." They are running through the restrictions with a horse and cart while the right hon. Gentleman is flying ahead in a motor car seeing nothing that is going on behind his back.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Lady is in some confusion here between agreements for hiring and agreements for hire purchase. I think that she has some reference in her possession to hiring in which the property never passes.
    Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that what the law requires is some sort of document to pass between the hirer and the person entering into the agreement? Under the existing law there is no need for a notice to be exhibited in the window. That is the point about which I was asking.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged. I thought that my hon. Friend was referring to the actual document which had to be given to the person receiving the goods. We cannot have a greater safeguard than that, and the document has to state the things that I have mentioned.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not perfectly clear, from what my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) read out, that what she is complaining about is advertisements which give a misleading impression? Will the President look into this matter again? There are many reports of customers being deceived in this way, and the whole business needs looking into.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that that may be right. I have asked to see the newspapers. Nothing the Board of Trade can say can compel buyers to read the agreements which they sign. If they will not read the agreements we cannot be responsible for the consequences.

    Traders (Private Courts)
    Mr. Jannerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation for the purpose of stopping private courts from imposing penalties on traders who are not prepared to submit to restricted prices conditions; and if he will make the penal clauses operative from the date of the introduction of the Bill.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: These matters are within the scope of the debate which has been arranged for tomorrow, and I would ask the hon. Member to await that.
    Mr. Janner: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question in this light: that people are being brought before these courts at the present time and are being ruined in consequence? Something should be done about it now. Why will not he do something at once and say what he is doing?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That question seems very relevant to the discussion which we shall have tomorrow.

    Common Price Agreements and Level Tendering
    Mr. Jannerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the recent deputation from

    1727
    the Association of Municipal Corporations with regard to the price rings which are operating in respect of tenders for contracts to local authorities; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the continuance of such practices.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There was a useful discussion of the Report recently prepared by the Association on these matters. As recently announced, I have decided to refer to the Monopolies Commission the general question of common price agreements, level tendering, and similar practices, and the Association will be at liberty to give the Commission any evidence it wishes.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Gold Bullion (Imports)
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the quantity of gold imported from the Soviet Union since 1st January, 1955.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): The figures for the first half of 1955 are now available; in this period about 8·3 million troy oz. of gold bullion with a value of about £104 million was imported from all sources, of which about 1·4 million troy oz. with a value of about £17 million came from the Soviet Union. As the hon. Member will be aware, the amount of gold imported does not necessarily correspond with the amount of gold purchased from overseas countries.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this represents a substantial increase in imports from the Soviet Union as compared with the last six months of last year, and that this must be taken into account in considering our present reserve position?
    Mr. Butler: Naturally it must be taken into account, although it is a little difficult to establish exactly its relative importance to other imports.

    Consumption (Credit Policy)
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the latest available figures indicate that consumption is running in accordance with his Budget estimates.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: There are as yet no estimates of consumers' expenditure beyond the first quarter of this year, so it is too early yet to judge what the trend since the Budget has been.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recollect that he made an important speech to a trade gathering a few weeks ago, in which he seemed clearly to indicate that he was worried about the present level of consumption? Can he give us any indication whether he is contemplating further restrictive measures upon consumption?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot add anything more to what I have said. Of course, there is a degree of internal demand which is very considerable at the present time and which is having its effect, as is obvious, upon our overseas payments, but I do not think that the estimate which I have given and the speech which I made in the House on 16th June can usefully be added to until I get the up-to-date figures. As I said on both the occasions to which I have referred, it is very difficult to give accurate information until one has the final figures.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does the Chancellor feel that the February hire-purchase restrictions, in particular upon the furniture trade, have had the results he expected?
    Mr. Butler: As I have indicated previously in the House and outside, in my view they are not having their effect upon the purchase of motor cars.
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further proposals he has for restricting internal demand.
    Mr. Gaitskellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the Government's monetary policy.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have no reason to depart from the general assessment of the position which I gave to the House on 16th June. But I shall certainly take an opportunity of keeping the House informed from time to time in the usual manner.
    Mr. Jay: Did not the Chancellor say in his speech to the N.P.A.C.I. on 1st July that credit control and other measures of restricting demand would have to be applied with courage? Can

    1729
    we know what these "other measures" are which the Chancellor intends to apply with courage?
    Mr. Butler: I do not see anything but sense in the observations which the right hon. Gentleman has so kindly read to the House. If at any time there is any information to give to the House, I will give it. I am satisfied that our general assessment is correct and I am also satisfied that it takes time for credit policy to work through the economy. We must give that credit policy time, and we must hope that it will have effect, as I have every reason to think that it will.
    Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has other measures in mind which he proposes to apply. Is not the House entitled to know what they are?
    Mr. Butler: One of the other measures to which I was referring was hire purchase, and another measure, not so much a Government measure, but another instance, is the effect of the price mechanism working through the economy in one or two respects which have been recently noticed.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is it the Government's intention that bank advances should be reduced? Did the right hon. Gentleman see the letter in "The Times" from the representatives of clearing banks, asking people to borrow less? Did it have his approval? If he wants bank advances to be reduced, in what way does he think that that should be done—by the banks rationing their customers or by raising the rate of interest still further?
    Mr. Butler: The letter in "The Times" was written by the chairman and deputy-chairman of the clearing banks on their own responsibility. I took the opportunity, shortly afterwards, of welcoming the letter, because I thought that it showed their intention of operating the credit squeeze properly.
    Moreover, in relation to the question of advances by the banks, one of the main difficulties is that the banks have been making advances to certain of the nationalised industries. It will now be seen that one nationalised industry has gone on the market. That will relieve the pressure on bank advances in due course. When the situation has righted itself, I hope that we shall see some adjustment
    1730
    in bank advances, so that eventually the situation will be more as we should like to see it.

    Service and Civil Service Pensioners
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will undertake to introduce within the present Session a new Pensions (Increase) Bill to cover the known needs of Service and Civil Service pensioners.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I can say no more than that this matter is being kept under review.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If my right hon. Friend cannot give this undertaking, will he remember that on 4th May he gave an undertaking that this matter would be kept sympathetically and understandingly under review? When does he expect the review to be completed?
    Mr. Butler: When all our information is available. I do not underestimate the importance of this matter, and that is why I did not give my hon. and gallant Friend a wholly negative answer.
    Mr. Callaghan: As the wages index has gone up steadily, as the cost of living is going up, and as we are still living in a period of creeping inflation, what more evidence is the Chancellor waiting for to deal with these people, to whom we have a special obligation? They are really suffering a squeeze in a period like this.
    Mr. Butler: I appreciate the difficulties of the classes of people to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I do not accept all his statements, but it is not so much a question that the information on this matter is lacking as the fact that I have to be quite sure that in examining it I am fair to all the classes concerned.

    Blocked Sterling
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated amount of security sterling available for the purchase of shares in British companies; and to what groups of nationals in the main it belongs.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Security sterling—or switch sterling—is not an official description but is a market term used to describe sterling of a capital nature held by nonresidents of the sterling area. It is more

    1731
    formally described as blocked sterling. In general it is derived from the proceeds of the sale of sterling securities, usually for reinvestment which is permissible in any quoted sterling security redeemable in not less than ten years. The amount of it thus varies from day to day and no figures for the total or for its distribution between nationals are available.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of how much of this pool has already been invested in British industrial equities?
    Mr. Butler: I was looking into that matter when I was examining the hon. Member's Question, but it is difficult to give him an accurate sum.

    Profit-Sharing and Co-partnership Schemes
    Mr. Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a Departmental inquiry to see in what way present taxation law might be altered to facilitate the growth of schemes of employee shareholding in industry.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will institute an inquiry into the problems of companies and firms which institute profit-sharing and co-partnership schemes and, in particular, into the fiscal measures necessary to facilitate the growth of such schemes.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have kept myself closely informed as to the tax position of such schemes, and I do not think a special inquiry is warranted.
    Mr. Holt: Can the Chancellor assure us that he is continuing to examine the position where taxation law raises barriers to the development of employee-shareholding in industry? Will he, at some time in the future, make a statement of the Government's policy in this respect?
    Mr. Butler: The fiscal difficulties are very small, upon examination. The real difficulty is to frame schemes which fall in with the law. That is why I stated in a previous speech that the services of the Inland Revenue would be available to firms wishing to implement schemes of one or other of the types mentioned by the hon. Member. It is in that way that some of the complexities are avoided at an early stage. If any particular fiscal difficulties come to my notice I shall
    1732
    always be glad to make a statement or, at the right time, to do something about them.
    Mr. Gower: Is it not the fact that the fiscal policies of successive Governments for many years have been admirably designed to encourage the introduction of pension schemes, but have not been designed to encourage co-partnership? Can my right hon. Friend also examine that matter?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The reason why I said that an inquiry was not necessary was that we have in fact made our own inquiry, and are pretty well aware of all the details of this problem. If at any time I can help any hon. Member, however, I shall be only too glad to do so.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Chancellor aware that the Prime Minister announced, in a broadcast, that the Government had some new policy about co-partnership and profit sharing? Has not the Chancellor been consulted? Was not a businesslike arrangement made before such a broadcast was made?
    Mr. Butler: Everything the Prime Minister says, so far as I can say, is the quintessence of wisdom. In this case he was representing the united policy of his colleagues in this matter, and he was also interpreting the general sense of the country, as is evident from the schemes which have recently been published.

    Entertainments Duty (Cricket)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated loss of revenue, to date, consequent on the removal of entertainment tax from cricket.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I cannot make a close estimate of the total loss, but it is probably about £200,000 over the period since the tax was lifted.
    Mr. Hamilton: Since this represents a considerable concession to sportsmen and the sporting public in England, can the Chancellor say what steps he contemplates taking to give a comparable concession to the sporting public in Scotland, where the game of cricket is not widely played?
    Mr. Butler: I know the hon. Member's interest in the Raith Rovers Football Club and other manly sports in

    1733
    Scotland. Unfortunately, they are not on the same level as cricket, which we were able to exempt.
    Mr. B. Taylor: Should not this be an incentive for Scotland to take up cricket?

    National Land Fund
    Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he intends to dispose of the National Land Fund.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) on 23rd June.

    United Kingdom and Bulgaria (Financial Claims)
    35. Mr. Snowasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent pre-war debts are a factor in the present negotiations for a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Bulgaria.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Bulgarian Government agreed that both trade and our financial claims should be discussed during the present talks, and we hope it will be possible to work out satisfactory arrangements under both heads. Pre-war debts form the largest single category of our financial claims against Bulgaria.
    Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States have, through the General Motors Corporation, recently contracted to supply over £1 million of motor vehicles to that country, and is there not a danger that by sticking out too long on the subject of pre-war debts we may in the long run lose a great deal of valuable trade?
    Mr. Butler: It is important that some consideration should be given to the debt position. I will certainly examine what the hon. Gentleman has stated.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. L. M. Leverasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation forthwith to enable postwar credits to be paid in all cases of proven need or hardship.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on 30th June.
    Mr. Lever: Does not the Chancellor realise the very great urgency of dealing with the question of repayment of postwar credits in cases of hardship, sickness and difficulty, and will he give this matter his immediate attention? Does he realise that ten years after the war is sufficiently post-war for these to be paid, and will he make it part of his policy to set the people's post-war credits free?
    Mr. Butler: I wish that the situation were as simple as that. It is almost impossible to use such a criterion as the hon. Gentleman suggests without being unfair to one or other holders of post-war credits. That scheme would involve legislation, and this is certainly not the time for it.
    Mr. Usborne: Does the Chancellor realise how important this matter is? I know of a young man in my own constituency who is suffering—incurably—from tuberculosis, and he is very hard up. He has about £20 or £30 in postwar credits. If only he could get them, he might be able to take a holiday abroad. He feels that the Government are keeping his own money away from him. Does the Chancellor realise that this does not seem to be fair?
    Mr. Butler: I realise the difficulty, but the point is that if I did something for this person who is incapacitated, it would be very difficult to find a rule which is fair to all. Furthermore, the late Government made a definite rule in the direction of the liberation of post-war credits. We shall certainly take every opportunity we can to do so, but I cannot make any statement today.
    Mr. Gaitskell: While recognising the difficulty of repaying post-war credits on the basis of need or hardship, may I ask the right. hon. Gentleman whether he will consider urgently whether he cannot speed up repayment generally, for example, by reducing the age at which the credits may be claimed?
    Mr. Butler: As the right hon Gentleman indicates, there is a difficulty in using need or hardship as a criterion. There are other methods which it would be easier to adopt. I can only say that this is not the time to make such changes, but it is very valuable, in this beautiful weather, to examine these very difficult problems.

    Capital Gains
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of Exchequer whether, in view of the large capital profits made on the Stock Exchange in recent months, and the inflationary consequences of these profits, he will now take steps to introduce a capital gains tax.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income discussed this matter at length in its final Report, to which I am giving close consideration, but I am not prepared to anticipate the outcome of my study.
    Mr. Jay: Does not the Chancellor think that if what people earn by work is subject to taxation, there is a strong case for making capital profits also taxable?
    Mr. Butler: I wish that it were quite as simple as that, so that I might pose as a hero, but the difficulty is that the majority Report of the Commission indicates some of the difficulties and the minority Report indicates some of the advantages. It is because I want time to get a fair picture of this matter in my own mind that I should not like to say anything further about it to the right hon. Gentleman today.
    Mr. Nicholson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that these capital gains are rather the symptom of inflation than the cause of inflation?
    Mr. Osborne: Would my right hon. Friend remember that a Stock Exchange profit is not a profit until it has been taken and the stock sold, and if there were widespread selling to take profits, all share prices would fall, and the profits would not be available?
    Mr. Jay: May we infer from the Chancellor's reply that he has not ruled out this suggestion altogether?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot go further than I have stated, because I do not think that it is wise to pronounce upon a matter which took the Royal Commission so many months and, indeed, years to pronounce upon without having a look both at its recommendations and the operation of the scheme in America.

    Bank Advances
    Mr. S. N. Evansasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what directives have been given to the Bank of England with regard to bank overdrafts.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: When the Bank Rate was raised on 24th February, I told the House of the need to moderate excessive internal demand. In the course of that statement I said that I was asking the Capital Issues Committee and the banks to adopt a more restrictive attitude towards finance for hire purchase. Otherwise I have not made any specific requests to the Bank of England on the subject of advances policy: but the terms of their letter published on 30th June show that the bankers are well aware of the significance of my statement and of the increase in the Bank Rate.
    Mr. Evans: Would it not be helpful for the Chancellor to give a more positive direction, having regard to the balance of payments problem? Is it not important that firms concentrating on exports should have preference over those which are solely concerned with the home market?
    Mr. Butler: I understand the reason for the hon. Member's statement, but I am perfectly well satisfied that the banks are aware of the Government's policy in this respect, of the importance of exports and of preserving the maximum possible degree of investment, and particularly of the importance of having strict monetary control. I do not think that in this country we can operate, as in some other countries, so much by direction as by agreement.
    Mr. Gaitskell: How can the banks be aware of the Government's policy in this matter if the right hon. Gentleman refuses to say anything about that policy, and would it not be better—unless he has made some secret communication to them —for him to say in definite terms, and in public, what kind of borrowing he wishes to discourage and what kind he wishes to leave unchanged?
    Mr. Butler: The banks have observed my statement in this House and have perhaps read it even more carefully than has the right hon. Gentleman. We are in contact with the Bank of England and the other banks, and I am perfectly satisfied that they are well aware of what is in

    1737
    the mind of the Government and of the Government's policy.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend call the attention of the boards of the nationalised industries to his remarks? Is he not aware that they are devouring credit which might be available to other borrowers, and by upsetting the balance they are having an adverse effect on the export industries?
    Mr. Butler: It is important to realise that the public sector, as it is called, has an important responsibility in investment, and it is also important to realise that its claims must be taken pari passu with the rest of the economy.

    Economic Policy (Purchasing Power)
    Mr. Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the spread of automation, he will reconsider his economic policy to ensure that sufficient purchasing power is secured by the people to absorb the increased production.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The economic policy of the Government is constantly reviewed to take account of current developments. At present I see no signs that purchasing power is insufficient for our production.
    Mr. Allaun: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciate that, if unemployment is to be avoided, the second industrial revolution will require more public planning, and not less?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The difficulty at present is that we have more unfilled vacancies than unemployment and there is really a pressure the other way round from that which the hon. Gentleman suggests in his Question.

    Pubic Boards (White Paper)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he expects to lay before the House the White Paper containing the salaries of members of the nationalised industries.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): A White Paper containing a list of members of public boards of a commercial character, together with salaries, allowances and periods of appointment, is laid before the
    1738
    House annually. The current White Paper was presented last December and dealt with the position as at 1st November, 1954. It is intended to present another in December of this year.
    Mr. Rankin: Pending the issue of the White Paper, could the Financial Secretary tell me now what salary is being paid to Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who has recently been appointed a part-time member of British European Airways?
    Mr. Brooke: I could not answer that question without notice. All questions relating to British European Airways ought to be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Last week the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation referred me to the hon. Gentleman. To whom do I go now?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order. Surely it is important for hon. Members to know to which Minister Questions should be directed. I have put two Questions on the same issue to two different Ministers and each Minister has denied responsibility. Who is responsible?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know who is responsible. My concern is that it is not a point of order.

    DISARMAMENT
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will now take steps to appoint a Minister of Cabinet rank whose sole duty will be to study and implement ways and means of bringing about total world disarmament.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): No, Sir. I am satisfied that the present arrangements are those best calculated to achieve the results we all desire.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the declaration and appeal of the world's greatest scientists not impress the Prime Minister with the urgent need for some Minister to give his undivided attention to this grave and terrible problem?
    The Prime Minister: Not only does a Minister give attention to it but the Cabinet gives attention to it. We all have to work according to our own constitutional practice.

    JUNIOR MINISTERS' SALARIES
    Mr. Hurdasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the wide measure of agreement that junior Ministers should no longer be required to make disproportionate financial sacrifices in the public service; and if he will bring forward this Session proposals to raise their emoluments to an adequate level.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing at present to add to the answer I gave on 30th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd).

    PRESS COUNCIL
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to establish a Press Council with statutory powers to deal with complaints about the conduct of the Press in an appropriate manner.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Press Council decided a complaint against the "South London Press," which first knew of the hearing and decision when they were reported in another newspaper? Has not the time come for this rather slipshod Star Chamber to be abolished and replaced by a more judicial body which would at least give the accused some details of the charge and an opportunity of being heard in his defence?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested in his Question a Press Council with statutory powers. He shakes his head, but that is what his Question says, and I am dealing with it. I find it hard to see how statutory powers could be effectively arranged which did not have some effect on the freedom of the Press, a matter about which this country should be very chary.

    ATOMIC INFORMATION (ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENT)
    Mr. Bennasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that Article II of the Draft Anglo-American Agreement on the exchange of Atomic Information for Defence Purposes, Command Paper No. 9508, provides that that agreement shall be subject to future United States legislation without including a similar provision safeguarding the right of Parliament to enact new legislation on atomic energy, if he will take steps to re-negotiate this Agreement on this point.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Although the United States Atomic Energy Act, 1954, considerably relaxed the restrictions previously enforced, during the period of the Agreement there may be further relaxations. The terms of Article 11 make provision for this possibility.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister really satisfied that the Agreement specifically safeguards the right of the United States Congress to alter its terms unilaterally while no such provision is made safeguarding the rights of Parliament in this matter?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not right. This provision allows for further relaxation in United States legislation and I hope, although we had better not say too much about it, that in the course of time there may be such further relaxation. There cannot be any relaxation in our legislation, because there is no such legislation.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is nothing to prevent the United States Congress altering its legislation in the contrary sense?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of that. I have also told the House that all these arrangements are on the basis of reciprocity. I have also given the House a very full account of what the Agreements are. In view of their delicate character and the very great importance of confidential work between the United States and Britain at this time, I hope I may ask the House to be temperate in its Questions on this subject.
    Mr. Bennasked the Prime Minister to what extent the policy of Her Majesty's Government under Article III or any other

    1741
    provision of the Draft Agreement on the exchange of Atomic Information for Defence Purposes, Command Paper No. 9508, between the United States of America and the United Kingdom will now involve the screening of British atomic energy workers by American security officers.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that that categorical assurance will be received very gratefully by all sides of the House?

    ANGLO-MALTESE ASSOCIATION (ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Prime Minister, whether he will consider some form of integration for Malta with those other members of the British Commonwealth which have large Maltese populations and to which migration offers more possibilities than to the United Kingdom; and whether he will, therefore, in consultation with other members of the Commonwealth, invite representatives of some of the Dominions to the coming Round Table Conference on Malta.
    The Prime Minister: The proposal made in my statement on 6th July, which proved generally acceptable to the House, is that the Round Table Conference should consider the constitutional questions arising from the proposals put forward by the Maltese Prime Minister for closer association between Malta and the United Kingdom. I see no need to widen its scope in the way suggested. The Commonwealth Governments will be kept fully informed.
    Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise, as I am sure he does, that there are more than 100,000 Maltese in Australia, whereas there are not more than about 10,000 in this country? If we are to take on considerable responsibility, would it not be a good idea for other Dominions to do so? In view of the fact that there may be Colonies which would like to join up with other Dominions, would it not be a good idea to augment the present Conference to cover all such problems at the start?
    The Prime Minister: The question of migration from Malta is very important.
    1742
    Last year was a record year in Malta's history in that respect. The problem of the Round Table Conference is a constitutional one concerned with this Parliament, and therefore I do not see how I could bring in Commonwealth Governments.
    Mr. Teelingasked the Prime Minister whether, at the coming Conference on Malta, he will follow the precedent of the conferences on Ireland in 1917, and later, in which others than elected Members of Parliament and Peers were present.
    The Prime Minister: The Conference will be composed of representatives of the political parties here at Westminster but, as I said on 6th July, it would consult with representatives of the political parties in the Maltese Legislative Assembly, and it will, of course, be free to call for any other evidence it may wish to have.
    Mr. Teeling: Have there not been three or four general elections in Malta within the last three years, and during the present Maltese Parliament is there not one party which, for the first time, did not get elected? Is it not unfair that that party should not be included? With reference to my mention of Ireland in the Question, does my right hon. Friend realise that at the time I mention there were about 90 people present, and that they included representatives of the Churches, and parties like the Southern Irish Unionists, which was not at that time elected?
    The Prime Minister: General Elections are a habit not exclusively confined to Malta. There have, of course, been changes of Government in many lands where they are freely elected. I have not intended that there should be any exclusion of the various points of view; in fact it is very important that we should have all points of view in Malta made available to us in these discussions.

  HOUSING

    Completions
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the estimated figures, respectively, for 1955 for houses to be built by private enterprise, and local authorities.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): During the first five months of this year local authorities in England and Wales completed about 68,000 houses and private enterprise about 39,000.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that his policy of building houses for sale is taking labour from council estates, and that many local authorities, such as the Buckinghamshire County Council, cannot even get tenders for building council estates? Is it the doctrinaire policy of the Government slowly but surely to kill building by local authorities?
    Mr. Sandys: So far as any action by the Government is concerned, there is no reason why local authorities should not be able to build this year as many houses as they did last year. There has been a certain amount of difficulty owing to the weather in the earlier part of the year, but apart from that there is no reason why the work should not be done.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Minister aware that many councils controlled by Labour majorities have been told by his Department that they may not build as many houses as they wished? If he further aware that, compared with a year ago, there are now some 40,000 fewer houses under construction? Is he prepared to do something about that, and to relax the restrictions which he has imposed on the Labour councils?
    Mr. Sandys: What the right hon. Gentleman has said really does not affect the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to authorisations. The authorisations that have been issued up to date are quite sufficient to allow local authorities to build as many council houses—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then let me repeat it. The number of authorisations which have been issued is quite sufficient to enable local authorities to build as many houses this year as they did last year.
    Mr. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question? Can he confirm or deny that there are local authorities today which cannot get tenders for building the council houses for which he has given them an allocation because the necessary labour has been "stolen" by builders building houses for sale?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not know of any particular cases, but if the hon. Member wishes to draw my attention to any I shall be glad to look into them. But there are other things to build apart from council houses.
    Mr. Jay: Can the Minister give us an assurance now that no single local council this year will be prevented by his Department from building as many dwellings as it did last year?
    Mr. Sandys: That is a quite different Question.
    Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for the last three years the party opposite has accused us of concentrating on houses at the expense of schools and hospitals, and is not this a curious attitude which it now takes up?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is it not rather new for the Government now to take the line that there are other things to do besides building council houses? Is it not the case that in fighting the Election of 1951 they rather implied that there was nothing else to do but to build houses? Why are the Government now getting a more spread-over outlook on building?
    Mr. Sandys: In the Election of 1951 we gave an undertaking that we would raise the level of house building to 300,000 houses a year. We built a lot more than that last year, and this year we shall do the same.
    Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only a short time ago the party opposite was saying that we were taking too much labour and materials from school building to house building and that we should cut down house building in favour of schools?

    Allocation, Chester-le-Street
    Mr. Bartleyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why the application made by Chester-le-Street Rural District Council for an allocation of a hundred houses to deal with slum clearance has been refused by his Department.
    Mr. Sandys: In authorising local authority house-building all relevant facts are taken into account; but no separate allocations are made for particular purposes.
    Mr. Bartley: Is the Minister aware that despite all that this local authority has done in regard to housing, there are still large numbers of people living in houses which have been condemned since 1938, and that, with the present allocation, the people in those houses cannot be given alternative accommodation? In view of that, would he reconsider his decision and grant the hundred houses asked for by the local authority?
    Mr. Sandys: The Question related to slum clearance. The council in question has not yet sent me its proposals for slum clearance. When those proposals are received I shall most certainly look at the position again. Meanwhile, I can assure the hon. Member that the council is not being held up through lack of authorisations.
    Mr. Bartley: Is it not a fact that the local authority has applied for an additional hundred houses and that the Minister has refused that application?
    Mr. Sandys: It is not a question of how many houses are applied for but of what progress is being made in building the houses for which there are already authorisations.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Are we to understand from this and other answers which have been given that the Government are putting the brakes on local authority housing in order to take them off private enterprise housing—or other things which are unrelated to housing? Why are the Government so persistently stopping local authority housing in a whole series of cases?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think that that is correct.

    Local Authorities (Rents)
    Mr. J. T. Hallasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what information is available to his Department regarding the rents fixed for local authority houses; and how such rents compare with rents fixed by corporations for new towns.
    Mr. Sandys: Local authorities do not inform me of the rents they fix.
    Mr. Hall: As there is very much concern in these new towns about the high rents which people are charged, would
    1746
    not the Minister devise some scheme to offset the hardship caused to those in the lower-income groups?
    Mr. Sandys: I am not aware that the houses in the new towns are being let at rents which are in any way unfair.
    Mr. D. Jones: Is the Minister aware that in the two new towns in the County of Durham a large number of people in the lower-income groups are called upon to pay rents of 35s. and £2 a week?

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    New Towns (1953–54 Accounts)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why the 1953–54 accounts of the new towns have not been published until fourteen months after the close of the financial year.
    Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend is misinformed. The accounts were published less than four months after the close of the financial year.
    Mr. Remnant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Report was published only last month, some fourteen months, as I stated, after the close of the year. The figures are completely obsolete and quite useless. What accounts for that, during a period when the Reports for the subsequent years are already coming in?
    Mr. Sandys: The Question related to the accounts. They were published within four months of the end of the financial year. I have no responsibility for the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

    Requisitioned Properties
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made during the past twelve months in the release of properties held under requisition or otherwise by or on behalf of his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sandys: About 10,000 properties were released between 31st May, 1954, and 5th June, 1955. On 6th June, 1955, the remaining 58,000 properties were transferred to local authorities in accordance with the Requisitioned Houses Act.

Development Charge
Mr. McKay60 and 61. Mr. McKay asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he is aware of the hardship caused in cases where when the owner of a piece of land has paid a builder to build a house and supplied the money to pay the development charge, compensation is not paid to the owner; and what steps he will take to remedy this injustice;
(2) how many protests he has received against the action of the Central Land Board in refunding money for development charges to persons who did not originally raise the money to pay the charges but only passed on money provided by the owners of the land.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I understand that the hon. Member is referring to people who paid a price for house and land which was inclusive of development charge, and who do not hold any claim under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for depreciation of land values. I am advised that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, does not authorise any payment to be made in such cases.
Mr. McKay: Has the Minister taken notice of the case which I have sent to his Department in which the man who wanted a house built owned the land and made a contract for the building? Is it not true that in such a case the development charge rests on the man who owns the land? In the case I referred to, the money was handed over to the builder to pay on behalf of the land owner, but the Central Land Board is refusing to allow the charge as compensation for the land owner.
Mr. Deedes: We have received particulars from the hon. Member, and he will receive a very full reply. As there are so many details to this case, it does not lend itself very easily to Question and Answer, but I may say that the situation would have been no different under the 1947 Act.

HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR LUDLOW (SELECT COMMITTEE)
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have to inform the House that it has come to notice that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Holland-Martin) was at the time of his election to the House a local director in London of the Bank of New Zealand. I am advised that this appointment may be an office of profit under the Crown and, consequently, that the hon. Member may have been disqualified from being elected.
In accordance with the precedents, I will as soon as possible move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the position of the hon. Member.
Directly he was informed of the position, the hon. Member took steps to resign his directorship and, pending the consideration of his case, he is not, of course, taking any part in the proceedings of the House. Beyond that, I do not think there is anything I can usefully or properly add at this stage.
Mr. H. Morrison: This would appear to be becoming a regular weekly event. One appreciates, of course, in view of the various private financial interests of hon. Members opposite, that this sort of thing is liable to happen for one reason or another, but as it would appear that we are to be involved in this sort of matter from week to week with a certain degree of regularity, does not the Leader of the House think that there is something to be said for having a standing Select Committee on this matter so that these things can be dealt with more systematically and promptly?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. I do not think anything of the kind. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Order Paper, he will see that notice of the presentation of a Bill dealing with this difficult problem is down for today. That is the right way of dealing with these very difficult points.
As to the hon. Gentleman to whom I made reference in my statement, I think that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were completely uncalled for. I should add that this is a very difficult case which has not arisen before because it is an open question as to whether, under the Statute of Westminster, office held under

1749
the Crown in respect of a Commonwealth country comes within our existing legislation. That is why this matter is going to a Select Committee. I hope that in the future, if the House will accept the Bill and hasten its passage into law, a great many of these most difficult problems will not arise. They are always apt to arise after an Election, whatever Government is in office.
Mr. Morrison: May we take it that it is intended, under the proposed legislation, to deal with the matter in such a way that this problem will be solved and there will be no further difficulty?
Mr. Crookshank: I think that one must wait and see how the Bill emerges on to the Statute Book. The Bill, of which notice of presentation appears on the Order Paper today, will be in the hands of hon. Members shortly, and we hope to proceed with it.
Mr. Lindgren: Would it not assist the House in these difficult problems if remuneration of Members of Parliament were adequate and, therefore, hon. Members were not required to get outside employment?
Mr. Crookshank: That is nothing to do with it. The hon. Gentleman had better await the Report of the Select Committee, which has reported on the two previous cases, to see whether there was, in fact, any remuneration attached.
Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government still have a majority in the House?
Mr. Crookshank: It is a great deal larger than the right hon. Gentleman's party enjoyed in 1950.

BILL PRESENTED
  HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION
  Bill to re-enact with modifications the law relating to the disqualification for membership of the House of Commons of persons holding offices or places under the Crown and other offices or places, and persons contracting with the Crown or having pensions from the Crown; to make corresponding provision in respect of the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Major Lloyd-George; supported by Mr. Crookshank, Mr. J. Stuart, and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

  SUPPLY
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1955–56; NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1955–56.
  CLASS VIII

    VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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. 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; of County Agricultural Executive Committees; of the Agricultural Land Commission; of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and of the White Fish Authority and the Scottish Committee thereof.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we allowed this Vote to be taken formally. I understand that my hon. Friends have some matters in mind which they wish to raise, but I think they would be more conveniently discussed on the next Vote.
    Question put and agreed to.

    VOTE 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,589,010, 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, 1956, for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; and for certain direct subsidy payments and certain trading and other services, including payments and services in implementation of agricultural price guarantees.
    3.36 p.m.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): The Supplementary Estimates which we have just passed, this one which we are now about to discuss and the five others
    1752
    which appear in H.C. 27 have fundamentally a purely technical purpose. These Supplementary Estimates contain some big figures, and at first sight they seem rather confusing, but their purpose is explained in the Memorandum in page 4 of the Civil Estimates. It may be for the convenience of the Committee, however, if I try to put the point in rather less technical language.
    These Estimates really reflect in financial terms the merger effected between the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Food, and they also reflect certain transfers of functions which either have taken place or are in process of being made from the Ministry of Food to the Scottish Departments of Health and Agriculture and the Ministry of Health. While technically they are Supplementary Estimates, they provide to all intents and purposes a series of revised Estimates for the new Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Our intention was to present Parliament with the revised Estimates reflecting the amalgamation and the transfers which I have mentioned, and this certainly would have led to a simpler form of presentation than these Supplementary Estimates that are now before the Committee. But one consequence of the dissolution of Parliament was that this course was no longer open to us. The original Estimates of all the Departments concerned were approved by Parliament rather earlier this year than normally, and the appropriation Act was, in fact, passed on 6th May.
    I think it would not have been proper, in view of these changes, for us to have left the original Estimates unchanged for the rest of the financial year, and we thought it was right, therefore, to bring forward the Supplementary Estimates both for the information of Parliament and to bring ourselves up to date. I have already said that their purpose is mainly technical. It is to appropriate in aid of the Vote of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the greater part of the provision made on the Vote of the Ministry of Food for the current year and to appropriate the balance in aid of services transferred or to be transferred to the Votes of the Scottish Departments and the Ministry of Health.
    That means, in simple language, that we are seeking to make available to the successor Departments the money which,

    1753
    Parliament voted to the Ministry of Food. In passing, I ought to observe that in legal terms this has already been effected by the Orders transferring functions, so that these Supplementary Estimates are merely the financial complement of those Orders.
    It is a curious fact, as explained in the Memorandum, that this operation does not in every case produce merely token Supplementary Estimates. Under the Vote which we are discussing, £8,589,000, the sum now required under Class VIII, Vote 2, Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies, arises through the reallocation of the greater part of Subhead H, trading services (net) of the Vote of the old Ministry of Food, between Vote 2 and Vote 3 of the new Ministry as outlined in House of Commons Paper No. 27.
    In accordance with the reallocation, a number of debit items which were formerly more than covered by receipts for the sale of stock have now been transferred naked, as it were, to Subhead 0 of Vote 2, and this has created the necessity for a substantive provision under that subhead. Hon. Members will find from this document that the receipts have been transferred in their entirety and are under Subhead M of Vote 3, where they operate to increase by the same sum, £8,589,000, the receipts payable to the Exchequer under that Vote. There is no increase in the burden on the Exchequer, the debit entry of one Vote being counterbalanced by the credit entry of the other. Practically the whole of the substantive provision of the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland arises in the same way, being balanced by increases of equal amounts as extra receipts payable to the Exchequer.
    The breakdown of Subhead H of the original Ministry of Food Vote in effect gives rise to the substantive provision mentioned and increases by £11,500,000 to £42,400,000 under that subhead the sum available for payment to the Exchequer. This reallocation of Subhead H of the Ministry of Food Vote between Subhead O and Subhead M is based on the broad principle that the trading deficits incurred in the implementation of the agricultural price guarantees should be treated for the future as subsidies chargeable under Subhead O of Vote 2, while the liquidation
    1754
    of the other food trading operations should be accounted for under Subhead M of Vote 3.
    To complete the picture, I should like to add that the remaining £1 million of the substantive provisions is the total sum now required under Vote 2 as a new provision. That is needed to cover advances to potato growers in Northern Ireland as part of the scheme to guarantee prices in Northern Ireland under the Agriculture Act. The details of that new provision are given under Subhead P of Vote 2, in page 16 of House of Commons Paper No. 27.
    I should be out of order if I referred further to Vote 3 of Class VIII although, through the indulgence of the Chair, it has been possible, and indeed necessary, for me to make some reference to it in dealing with the Estimate which we are discussing. When he moves that Estimate in due course, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with points which arise under it.
    I would repeat that, apart from the provision in respect of advances to Northern Ireland potato growers, no new charge to the Treasury is involved in the Supplementary Estimates. With that exception and the exception of the transfer of responsibility for animal health in Scotland to the Scottish Department of Agriculture, all these changes arise out of the dissolution of the Ministry of Food and the distribution of its functions to the other Departments. Broadly speaking, these Estimates do not take account of any other changes which have occurred since the original Estimates were framed. Effect will be given to any other changes in the Estimates for other causes in Supplementary Estimates later. May I also draw attention to the new analysis of the agricultural and food subsidies and trading deficits prepared on a United Kingdom basis and given in pages 30 and 31 of H.C. 27?
    So much for the form and the reasons for the Estimates. May I now say a word on the contents of this Vote? This Vote deals with a great part of the subsidies and production grants payable to agriculture. Hon. Members will see that the Vote as drawn provides, among other things, for the cost of deficiency payment schemes on cereals, fatstock and the price support arrangements for eggs. There is

    1755
    no need for me to remind the Committee that it is through these schemes, in the main, that the Government, after full consultation with the interests concerned, have given effect since decontrol to the price guarantees under Part I of the Agriculture Act.
    In retrospect, it is clear that this change-over has been a colossal undertaking and has been carried out with far less disruption than was expected at the time. The new system has worked and is working and has confounded the dismal forecasts of certain Jeremiahs at the time it was introduced. Not only has it stood up to the stresses of changing supply and demand, but it has even stood up to the dislocation caused by the recent rail and dock strikes. Those dislocations were absorbed smoothly.
    I do not want to convey the idea that I am in the least complacent about these matters. We must constantly be on the alert for any defects and seek, as appropriate, in consultation with those concerned, for remedies and improvements. Moreover, the return to free markets has been accompanied by progress in the organisation of marketing which is both substantial and encouraging. In the case of milk, we have already most successfully entrusted a lot of the detailed work connected with the guarantee as well as the responsibility of marketing to the Milk Marketing Board.
    We have recently set up the Potato Marketing Board again. I am confident that these developments are bound in the long run to benefit the producer, the consumer and the taxpayer alike. Hon. Members are also aware that a marketing scheme for eggs is under preparation by the National Farmers' Unions. Arrangements have been agreed with us in broad terms for implementing the Agriculture Act guarantee for eggs through the Marketing Board.
    I do not think I need say more at this stage, but whatever questions hon. Members may have to ask on these Supplementary Estimates my hon. Friends the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries or I will do our best to answer later in the debate. I therefore commend these Supplementary Estimates—this one in particular—to the Committee as serving the purpose of bringing before right hon. and hon.
    1756
    Members a revised statement of the position now reached as a result of the redistribution of the functions of the former Ministry of Food.
    3.51 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Champion: We are very grateful to the Minister for his explanation, particularly of the technicalities of the Supplementary Estimate now before us. I admit that I listened very carefully to that part of his speech, but I am still without a clue as to what it was all about. I must carefully study in HANSARD what the right hon. Gentleman said in order to find what these Supplementary Estimates do, apart from the change from the Ministry of Food to the Ministry of Agriculture.
    Mr. Amory: May I sum it all up in non-Technical language? What we are doing is to put the two Estimates together and to split off the bits that go to the Scottish Departments and to the Ministry of Health.
    Mr. Champion: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. If he had said that at first I would have understood.
    I was glad that the Minister went on to explain what was involved in the Estimate before us, particularly the aspect of the whole support subsidy. The very fact that he discussed that enables us to discuss these matters, which are of vital importance. Here a tremendous amount of money is being paid by the taxpayer in support of agriculture and it is right that we should carefully examine it. We should examine it in such a way that no pound is voted without being very carefully looked at previously and considered by Parliament as part of the duty of Parliament to watch the Executive, especially its duty of granting Supply to the Government of the day.
    I want to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary a very simple question. Probably he will supply a very simple answer. Subhead M.1—Cereals—in page 13, shows a revised Estimate of £45,999,000 as the subsidy which is required. I looked at page 30 to see how that figure is divided as between wheat and rye, barley, oats and mixed corn, and saw that wheat and rye take £26 million, barley £10·4 million, oats and mixed corn £12·5 million, making a total of

    1757
    £48·9 million. I wondered where the £3 million, the difference between those figures, is explained in this Estimate. I dare say that there is a quite simple answer, but I have not stumbled on it when looking through the Estimates. I dare say that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can tell me about it when he replies to the debate.
    Not long ago we had a fairly full discussion of the Order relating to the subsidy on cereals. Despite what I thought at the time was a full and fairly adequate reply by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, many of us are still far from satisfied with this way of using taxpayers' money to support agriculture. This is an Estimate for an amount of more than £45 million or £48 million, whichever it happens to be, and it is a tremendous amount over which, as far as I can see, the Treasury has no real control. It is an unlimited liability and there still remains the fear, which was well put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), that much of the taxpayers' money, paid out with the intention of supporting agriculture, is finding its way into hands other than those of the grower of cereals.
    I have re-read the answer which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave, but it seems that he was not able, or did not attempt, to answer the very telling points which were made about the jump in the profits of some of the great milling interests of the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper pointed out that the gross profits of Ranks had risen from £4,850,000 in 1953 to £6,409,000 in 1954. Messrs Spillers showed a similar increase between the years 1953–4–5. One cannot help asking if it is just a coincidence that this rise in profits of those interests should take place at precisely the time when the Government have decided to return this section of the agricultural industry to the so-called free market.
    I do not regard it as the job of the Government to explain the profits of private companies, and so on, but I do regard it as their job to watch what is happening in order to see whether any of the taxpayers' money in a case like this is leaking into their hands when it is intended for an entirely different purpose. Despite the excellence and fullness of the reply of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary
    1758
    on that occasion, I hope that he will return to this matter and give us a further answer upon it.
    Another question I want to put to the hon. Gentleman arises out of his reply on 22nd June when, explaining the workings of the free market, he told us:
    "The fact is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite either will not or cannot understand the working of a free market. These men are in business to make their living. If they fix a price which is unreasonably low farmers will not sell to them. The farmers themselves are in the market. How is it possible for the merchants, 2,000 of them, to get together and fix the price against the farmers? If any particular merchant offers a farmer an unfairly low price, the farmer simply goes to another merchant. It is as simple as that."
    Then followed this interchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) and the hon. Gentleman:
    MR. DYE: Is it?
    MR. NUGENT: It certainly is.
    —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1955; Vol. 542, c. 1457.]
    I am bound to say that I agree with the "Is it" asked by my hon. Friend when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
    "It is as simple as that."
    I find it rather hard to accept as a guarantee that, because there are 2,000 merchants, there cannot be any ganging up by those merchants against the farmer. I find it impossible to accept that. The 2,000 merchants are spread all over the country. I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West has within reasonable distance of his farm one or two corn exchanges to which he has reasonable access to sell his product.
    In the corn exchanges which might be within a reasonable distance of his farm I suggest that there are not too many merchants attending in order to do a little ganging up against the farmers if they so desire. I do not know the figure, so I ask, how many butchers and dealers were attending the markets between the two wars? Was it five times as many, or ten times as many as those 2,000 merchants? I do not know, but certainly the number would be very much greater than the 2,000 merchants mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Many more butchers and dealers were attending the markets in those old days. No one will suggest to me that that figure prevented those butchers and dealers ganging up against

    1759
    the farmers. Of course they did it. It is known to everyone who has any knowledge of agriculture and agricultural marketing.
    Because of my doubts on these points, I discussed the matter with a farming relative of mine over the weekend. He said that in the old days there was this ganging up by a number of butchers and that it was very much greater than the number of merchants who get on to their stands in the great corn exchanges throughout the country. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to go into this point a little deeper before we can feel satisfied that the money which we are today voting in this Supplementary Estimate will, in fact, go to the people for whom it is intended by Parliament.
    There is something to be said for an exceptionally careful review of these subsidies. The sum is a vast one. It goes up from the estimate of under £250 million last year to an estimate now of £252·9 million, and it is, of course, an unlimited guarantee. No limitation is placed upon the guarantee, because we are supporting the so-called free market. The figure might be millions above or millions below that, but it is not very likely to be much below it in the circumstances which we now face.
    It was said—rightly, I think—in another place that if all the subsidies being paid to agriculture were equally divided between all the farmers, each one would get about £1,000 a year in the form of subsidy. That is a tremendous amount of money. It is right that we should pay it if it is the only way we can secure a prosperous agriculture, but let us be careful to examine every farthing of this to ensure that we can justify it to the people; otherwise, the whole structure will come tumbling about our ears.
    Of the £81,800,000 that is estimated for the fatstock section of these subsidies, no less than £76·5 million is support for pigs. Cattle take £1·8 million and sheep £3·5 million. I am wondering whether we can justify such a support for the pig industry in present circumstances. Our pig population has gone up from 4,394,000 in 1939 to 6,913,000 in December last year. Bacon imports are down from a monthly average in 1938 of 31,400 tons to 25,100 tons in 1955. On
    1760
    the surface, that appears to be excellent for our balance of trade, but we are bound to ask how much of that apparent gain is lost on the feeding stuffs that have to be imported to feed our pigs.
    Is it not the case that there is a very heavy adverse balance as between these two figures of the saving on the import of bacon products and the foreign currency that has to be expended to import feeding stuffs for pigs? I have no doubt whatever that the adverse balance is very heavy. Incidentally, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what is being paid to farmers as an average per score as against the amount that we are actually paying for imports from, say, Denmark.
    While there was a severe shortage of meat there was every justification for a large stimulus to pig production, but the position in relation to meat supply has now considerably altered. Painful though it may be, I believe that we ought to, and must, face up to the new situation. That is the kind of remark which may perhaps bring some of my hon. Friends down upon my head when I sit down but it is something that we must consider. After all, the balance of trade is a matter of importance to the life of the country.
    I would have thought that the time has perhaps come when we ought to use some of the £76·5 million which is now paid for support of the pig industry for assistance for those meat productions which we can obtain by our own feeding stuffs —our grass, and so on; perhaps even to increase the sheep subsidy rather than continue to pay this subsidy for the support of a section of the industry which is so largely dependent on imported feeding stuffs.
    These are points which ought to be answered before we pass this Supplementary Estimate. I am sure that my hon. Friends will support some of these points, although some may disagree with me in various respects. Nevertheless, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will answer these questions before we pass the Supplementary Estimate today.
    3.59 p.m.
    Mr. Sidney Dye: The Minister, in introducing the Supplementary Estimate, said that the form

    1761
    which it takes was due in part to the dissolution of the last Parliament. I suppose the fact that I am here is also due to the dissolution of the House. In looking at the figures, I wish to speak from my experience when I was not in the House and to look at them not merely from the point of view of a farmer, but also as one who is concerned with the fairness of the distribution of the money that is involved and the soundness of its effect on agriculture.
    It is stated in page 31 of the Civil Estimates that the total of subsidies and trading deficits now amounts to £337 million. The total cost of agricultural support is £252,900,000. That is a very considerable amount. My first question is to ask whether it is being fairly distributed. Is it being distributed on a basis which people can understand and which they can look at and can say that it is not only right, but that it is going to the right people?
    My first example concerns cattle. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question the other day but his Answer and the explanations I have heard since cause me grave concern. The right hon. Gentleman's Answer does not show that the money is going to the right people. Let me take the example of the fat cattle that went to market in, say, February and March of this year. They attracted no subsidy payments at all. None was received by those who sent their cattle in those months, if my memory serves me aright. When we come to April, when the selling prices of fat cattle had gone up to figures much higher than in February or March, the farmers received, in addition to the price, 5s. per live cwt.
    In May, when the price was still much higher, they received, in addition to the guaranteed price, 3s. 6d. per cwt. The prices ranging in the markets of Norfolk at that time were over £9 per live cwt., but, in the White Paper that was issued, the figure which is there taken as an example was £7 10s. per live cwt. The example there given does not indicate how the money would be paid, either in individual or in collective guarantees, if the amount received on the market was less than the standard price.
    Nowhere in that White Paper does it show how any producer would receive a subsidy when the market price was far in excess of the standard price, and yet in
    1762
    the month of May—I think it was for the four weeks ending 22nd May—66,065 cattle received a subsidy, and in those cases the average market price was far above the guaranteed price.
    If it was right for those farmers to receive that guaranteed price, what had happened previously? Had some of them, who had sent their cattle to market in earlier months, received a market price plus the guaranteed price, and was the total well below the standard price? If so, in twelve months, there were some farmers who were parting with their cattle, not at the guaranteed price, but at something below it, while at another period of the year—in April-May of this year—others were getting far in excess of the guarantee. Does it help those who received well below the standard price to know that others were getting something well above it? Do the Government think that they have a meeting afterwards and go round and share it out?
    The Parliamentary Secretary said he did not think that certain merchants and other people had meetings and decided on the price at the market, and so on, but what is the explanation? Can it be justified that when I, as a farmer, send a bullock to market I receive far more than the guaranteed price in the market and then a subsidy? Am I occupying an office of profit under the Crown?
    Mr. Amory Mr. Amory indicated dissent.
    Mr. Dye: I am not, and the right hon. Gentleman has relieved me in that respect. Whatever I occupy, what is my position, and what is the position of thousands of other farmers who, in these months, received these extra payments from the Ministry? I hesitate to say that it was because there was an Election coming on and the right hon. Gentleman wanted to assure the farmers that this matter about which he speaks so much—this system of subsidising prices—was for the benefit of agriculture.
    We must be assured that, at any time of the year, so long as the Government operate a guaranteed price system and have a system of standard prices, whether it is in November or in April, each farmer sending his cattle to market will be fairly treated; and that the Government will not accumulate an amount of money from failure to pay sufficient on some cattle, and then find that another

    1763
    farmer who happened to be lucky enough to send his cattle to market at another time is receiving far in excess of what others received.
    There must be something wrong with a system like that. What was the first consequence of the Government announcement that they would pay in advance? The announcement was made in March that, in April for a four-week period, the Government would pay over and above the market price. They would pay 5s. per cwt. in addition. What were the consequences? The first was the attraction on to the market of more cattle than otherwise would have gone to the market—not only those which were reasonably fat, but those that are usually described as being in store condition. Many of these 60,000 cattle, in a previous year, instead of coming on the market to be slaughtered, would have been bought by farmers, grazed and fattened and would have come along later. The consequence was that in April and May there was a big rush of cattle on to the market, and of cattle below the normal standard.
    It seems to me, looking back over the past twelve months, that because of the higher range of prices plus the subsidy, we have been consuming eighteen months' supply of cattle in twelve months, which has meant that there has been plenty of meat in the butchers' shops at that period, and must lead to a shortage later. The figures shown in the March returns are somewhat disturbing, since we are eating our cattle at a lower weight—eating them younger—and we are also eating into calves in the form of veal. There has been a very heavy killing of heifer calves, and therefore we are killing off those animals which would otherwise be the breeding stock for later supplies.
    There are two very serious questions here. One relates to the distribution of the subsidy month by month throughout the year. Can it be fair if at one period a farmer receives the additional subsidy if it means that in another period of the year other farmers will not get it? Fat cattle are not a regular weekly supply from each individual farm, as is the supply of milk, and we cannot therefore say that those who received the extra in April and May are the ones who were deprived of a portion of the subsidy in an earlier period or who will be deprived
    1764
    of it in a later period. The right hon. Gentleman should endeavour to answer at some time the question how this is worked out, and should say whether he can possibly justify it on grounds of fairness.
    The second important point is the encouraging, by means of the higher prices plus the subsidy, of greater quantities of cattle coming on to the market and the question whether we are not laying up trouble for ourselves for the future in this respect by encouraging housewives to believe that there is a plentiful supply of home-killed meat, only to find out a little later on that they are disappointed and that prices may be considerably higher.
    This applies with equal importance to pigs, and I take it that in this Supplementary Estimate we are dealing with pork pigs as well as with other types of fatstock. Here, again, an extraordinary thing has happened. When many pigs were being brought to market at the end of last year and in the early part of this year prices were as low as 6d. per 1b. live weight. It did not make much difference to the price at which the pork was sold in the shops, and it made no difference to the price of bacon. Therefore, it was of no advantage to the housewife. But what was happening when these low prices were ruling? Many pig breeders lost confidence in that section of the industry and quite small pigs were brought on to the market and were slaughtered. Thousands of sows and gilts came on to the market and were slaughtered.
    The result has been that there was a heavy fall in the number of gilts recorded in the March returns. In the winter months when pork is generally the favourite meat there is a glut of pigs and a low market price, and yet there is a high selling price for pork. Now, at a time of the year when people normally do not eat so much pork, the selling price of pigs is double what it was a few months ago. It has reached 30s. a score. Not so long ago it was about 15s.
    The Government's policy and system, therefore, have not evened out prices on the market. We have had greater variation in price than ever before. Experienced hon. Members opposite who have been in our markets and taken part in them over many years will have to scratch their heads and search their memories most diligently to find a time other than

    1765
    now when the price of pigs doubled in a few months. That has taken place this year.
    I was talking at lunch time today to an hon. Friend who does a little pig farming. He told me that he sent to market one of his sows which was no longer any good for breeding and that this old sow, who had produced many pigs in the past, had brought him in £42 a week ago. The price of pigs has indeed gone up when an hon. Member is enriched to the extent of £42 in July for an old fat sow. That indicates the variation in price and the instability of the market.
    That which applies to cattle applies equally to pigs—that when there were many coming on the market the subsidy was small and the price was low, but now that the price of pigs has gone up the subsidy is still available. Such a situation requires some explanation. The same applies to sheep and lambs. In fact, the very system of subsidising the breeding of lambs encourages their being brought on to the market earlier and their being killed at an earlier date in their lives and at a lighter weight. The very enthusiasm of the butchers to get their knives into these young animals reduces the amount of meat that is produced at home, and it is not only a question of quality but also one of quantity. The more young lambs and calves that are killed the fewer sheep and cattle there will be for the production of meat later in the year.
    This new system of marketing, or, rather, this return to this old system of marketing together with the new system of subsidising, is doing very grave injury to agriculture itself. A farmer should be primarily engaged on the farm, but not for two consecutive weeks has the price of fat cattle in the market been level. Prices have been up and down. The farmer who can pick up all the "ups," or higher prices, will do very well indeed, but he can only do that if he spends more time in the market and less time on the farm. This encouragement of marketing by the system of free marketing has undermined the confidence of the farmers in their industry and in the subsidy system. Consequently, it is against the farmers' best interests and against the increased production of food at home.
    I do not think that we can separate the fall in agricultural production from the
    1766
    Government's policy. It is a consequence of it. There has been a steady increase in production through the years until this last year, and it was not the rain that washed away the 2 per cent. of farm output which was lost. The rain had its advantages. It brought about an increased amount of grass, more cattle, greater weight, and more milk. The rain had its advantages as well as its disadvantages, but I do not think that the Government can get away with the statement that it was the weather that reduced agricultural production by 2 per cent, last year. I am satisfied that the reduction followed the Government's own policy. These are very important matters, not only because of the amount of subsidy involved but also because of the proportion of our total production which fat-stock represents.
    Again, in the case of cereals, we are confronted with another big problem to which I referred in a debate the other day and about which I did not receive a satisfactory answer. I think it is true to say that I received no answer at all on a point which I made about barley. The amount of subsidy that will be paid for cereals is roughly £46 million, some of which will be apportioned in respect of barley. How is that amount assessed and how is it applied to the individual farmer? We have a standard price and distribution on an acreage basis, but how does the Ministry of Agriculture arrive at the average market price for barley?
    The barley market is a peculiar market. It does not consist only of farmers selling their barley to a merchant or maltster. During the period following the harvest last year the price of barley was very low. It was 75s. per quarter for a long period. It then rose to 85s. per quarter, but after Christmas it rose beyond 120s. I know that the Minister has explained that when the price gets beyond 120s. it is not taken into account in estimating the average market price, but my point is that the greater proportion of the barley that was sold after Christmas was barley sold by one merchant to another and had nothing to do with the first sale of barley by the grower to a merchant.
    If we are taking into consideration barley which was bought at a low price in September and cleaned, dried and stored by merchants and then brought out of store and sold at a higher price in

    1767
    the new year and we are bringing that into the calculation of the average price of barley, that has nothing to do with the farmer as grower. Therefore, if it is brought in it means that those who are growing barley are not getting a fair crack of the whip. They are not getting the difference between their average first sale price of barley and the standard price which has been established by the Ministry. So here is a case which requires examination and proper explanation, too, not merely to the Committee but to the farming community in general.
    It seems that we are entitled not merely to make searching examinations into the vast sums here involved, but we also want to know that the money is being properly and fairly distributed to those who as producers should be entitled to it. I hope that before these Supplementary Estimates are passed we shall get a satisfactory explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary or from others who will endeavour to enlighten us on the Government's policy about these matters.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Victor Collins: My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) has told us how an hon. Friend of his sold a sow for £42. She was an ancient grandmother. I had the opposite experience about two months ago when, at my farm, a sow which was healthy and comely, and not a grandmother, was sold. All that was received for it was £11 15s. There was nothing wrong with the sow, but the market prices happened to be low at the time. Normally, we do not sell pigs on the market. They go to the factory, but that was a complete illustration of what my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) said about the ganging-up by dealers to purchase animals in this way.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West has clearly illustrated, in his remarks about cereals, that there is no longer a guaranteed price. It has been destroyed, because the total price received depends on when the farmers sell their produce. If, because of financial stress or other circumstances, they happen to sell below the average, then, of course, the total of the price they receive plus the support figure is
    1768
    less than the guarantee, so the guarantee no longer exists.
    So far, my hon. Friends have dealt with these Supplementary Estimates almost entirely from the aspect of the farmer. I want to say a few words about them from the aspect of the taxpayer. The Minister pointed out that these Estimates were only technically Supplementary Estimates; that each revised Estimate was, in fact, the entire sum required in support prices for these various commodities. Almost £46 million are needed for cereals, £251 million for eggs, and nearly £82 million for fatstock, which the taxpayer has to provide in subsidies without getting any benefit by reduced prices. The taxpayer has to find over £153 million, for which he gets not a penny benefit in return.
    I well recall how hon. Members opposite, in 1951, pledged themselves to maintain food subsidies and how, within a few months, they had removed all the consumer food subsidies with the exception of milk, welfare schemes and bread. I should therefore like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this is a peculiar attempt and a belated method of implementing the pledge to maintain food subsidies. In this case, the farmer gets no benefit, as my hon. Friend has proved; the consumer gets no benefit; and presumably this colossal sum leaks out in various ways merely for the benefit of people whose functions we were able to dispense with during the war.
    I hope I am not being in any way unfair, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm or deny whether my assumption is correct, that this £153 million is in direct subsidy or in support of prices of those three commodities to the producers, and that no direct benefit accrues to the consumer by way of reduced prices, as accrued to the housewives when we had consumer subsidies which were directly related to the retail price.
    Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm or deny that under this system there is no longer an absolute guaranteed price to the farmer in the way that we provided one under the 1947 Act as interpreted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)? Those are two vital questions which demand an answer.

    1769
    I would ask the Committee to examine in particular the three items of cereals, eggs and fatstock, and I think it is appropriate to compare this year's cost with the cost to the taxpayer when we were under the old system. To get that comparison, I looked up the Estimates for 1953–54. In those Estimates, of course, there are included the results of Government trading. One assumes so because in cereals, including cereals and foodstuffs, there is shown a profit of £1½ million. For the Parliamentary Secretary's benefit, I am referring to page 92 of the Civil Estimates. Class VIII, Vote 9, 1953–54. That is against a loss to the taxpayer now of nearly £46 million.
    Similarly, on eggs, there was a profit of £1½ million against a loss to the taxpayer now of £25,600,000. In 1953–54 the estimate showed a loss on bacon and ham of £4½ million and on meat and livestock of £16,300,000, roughly £21 million compared now with nearly £82 million. The summary of those three items is this. In 1953–54, the taxpayer had to foot a bill of £17,800,000 net to provide the farmers with the guaranteed prices which they knew they were going to get for cereals, eggs and fatstock before they produced the goods. Today, those three commodities cost the taxpayer not £17,800,000 but £153,990,000, which is approximately an extra £136 million cost to the taxpayer for which, as a consumer, he gets no benefit, and the farmer still has not the same guarantee as he had under the previous method.
    I believe that those figures and deductions are incontrovertible. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that it had been a colossal job. As far as the taxpayer is concerned, it is a colossal flop. Yesterday, an hon. Gentleman said that the Minister of Fuel and Power was driving the country to disaster. The right hon. Gentleman has an equally amiable and equally able competitor in the Minister of Agriculture in driving the country to disaster. As was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East, there is another case of the Gadarene swine. I wonder how many people, even hon. Members of the House, realise, when we ask Question, as I did of the Minister a week or two back, about increased prices of bacon, that there have been times this year when the taxpayer has been paying
    1770
    practically half the price which the farmer gets for his pigs.
    We have here a change in a system which was working well. I do not think that there were two farmers out of a hundred anywhere who wanted to change the system of payments instituted by my right hon. Friend. Of course there were grumbles at times. That was natural, because grumbling is endemic to farmers but, over all, the system was not only popular but was working well. Broadly speaking, too, it was appreciated in the towns by the housewives. They understood that they were benefiting, directly or indirectly, from increased production. They understood the necessity for assisting the farmer by means of guaranteed prices. The taxpayer understood that it was necessary to pay taxes to achieve that objective. And, finally, they understood that consumer food subsidies were related directly to the prices they paid and that because of that sum, in all £400 million, they were buying at lower prices in the shops.
    In the debate in the House last December the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary were both pressed to say what would be the total amount of these subsidies, and the Minister expressed doubt that they would even be £200 million. I ventured to suggest that they would be much nearer £300 million than £200 million. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was good enough then to say, in winding up the debate for the Opposition, that he felt that my estimate might be nearer the truth. I think it has proved to be so, because the total is now in excess of £250 million. I ask the Minister, and I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, how long is this folly going on? They have taken something that was sound and good. They have all but destroyed it. And for what? To a large extent, they destroyed the confidence of the farming community and it was saved only at the eleventh hour through pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They have not yet aroused the full wrath of the British public because the people as a whole do not know what is going on; but that is the wrath to come.
    The Minister has produced his figures. I have studied them and I went to considerable trouble to make sure that I was making a fair comparison. I believe that

    1771
    the figures I have given for three comparable items correctly show that the administration of the right hon. Gentleman has cost the taxpayer £136 million more than the administration of his predecessor in 1953 to 1954. I do not think that it is due to any personal failure on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. I think the change is due to a doctrinaire insistence on trying somehow to superimpose on the agricultural system that we brought in a passion for free enterprise at any cost.
    I ask, too, that the Minister will tell us just where this money is going. He must be as interested in this as we are, because it is a colossal amount of the taxpayers' money. Who is getting the benefit, the relative profit? Ranks, Spillers and others who have been quoted, account for some, but not all. Is it going in leakages of the kind indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, where farmers, at some times of the year, are getting extravagant prices plus a subsidy? If that is happening, it is a public scandal.
    I almost hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me that my figures or my deductions are wrong, but if not, I hope that the Committee will get this time not an evasion but a definite reply, and that, subsequently, there will be a real change of policy in this matter, which is of such vital interest to the whole country.
    4.48 p.m.
    Mr. Archer Baldwin: I have not attempted to catch the eye of the Chair until now, because I have been patiently waiting for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) to have his usual opportunity. Apparently the hon. Gentleman is taking note of all that is being said and he may be winding up the debate for the Opposition.
    I have listened to three speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, one from a practical farmer, one from a businessman-cum-farmer and one from a hon. Member who, apparently, claims no farming knowledge since he gave information which he had received from one of his hon. Friends. I am surprised to think that anybody with a practical knowledge of farming could show such a complete lack of knowledge of the working of the deficiency payments scheme.
    1772
    Let me first deal with cereals and the statements about money going into the hands of the millers. That is complete nonsense, because the price of grain and cereals in this country is, as it has always been, entirely dictated by the cost of the imported cereals. To say that Ranks, or anybody else, have any influence on the internal trade in cereals in this country is pure nonsense.
    Mr. Collins: But if the millers refuse to buy, if they will not absorb more than two-fifths of the grain, is not that exercising an influence on the price?
    Mr. Baldwin: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman. The millers are doing this job for their livelihood, and if they can buy more cheaply from abroad obviously they will not give the English farmer more than the foreign price. To say, however, that they are deliberately giving more to the growers from abroad and refusing to give the same to the English farmer, is not true. The idea that 2,000 millers can gang up and depress the market to the farmer is moonshine. How many farmers' co-operatives are there in this country today? Several hundreds. I belong to one of them and do a great deal of business with it, but it does not give me any more for my grain than any of the other merchants, and I sell to the highest bidder. Is it suggested by hon. Gentlemen that the farmers' cooperatives in Britain are ganging up with the other millers?
    Let us consider what has happened to barley. We, as farmers, are not bound to sell barley to a miller. It is all locally consumed. We make our own feeding stuffs. I grow a lot of barley, but I sell none of it; in fact, I buy it as cheaply as I can in order to produce my bacon. In the autumn, when barley was at a low price, I tried to buy some, and it was not very easy to get.
    Mr. Dye: The hon. Gentleman was in the wrong place.
    Mr. Baldwin: We buy barley off the combine, no matter what we are told about the moisture content. We are buying grain with a good deal of moisture in it and we want to buy it at several pounds a ton less off the combine than the price at which we buy it today. That must be taken into account. I will be quite candid. I do not know why we

    1773
    should be receiving any deficiency payment on barley except that we are suffering from the amount sold by farmers off the combines last autumn.
    I would say this to the farmers: put it into store, dry it and put it into silos. After all, we have had to do it before. I have stored it in order to get 6d. per cwt. more than it was worth at harvest time and farmers must do the same now. If they like to throw away their barley at harvest time at a low price, they are had salesmen and deserve all they get.
    The ordinary farmer is not grumbling about the present situation. It is the Piccadilly farmers, as we call them in my district, who are grumbling—some of these business men who thought farming was dead easy and who came into the job thinking they would make piles of money. They are becoming disillusioned, for they have found that they want a lot more business capability to make money out of farming than to make it out of any other industry. They are grumbling more than anybody else and they make the headlines and make the public think that everything is wrong.
    Except for a very short period, oats have never been sold at less than the guaranteed price and they have made as much as £5 per ton more than the guaranteed price. As a farmer, I want nothing better than that. I have my floor price, and if I can make more than the floor price I can take it.
    Mr. Dye: But what is the subsidy?
    Mr. Baldwin: If they like to pay me a subsidy, hurrah, but they will not lose my confidence because they want to pay me a subsidy on top of the guaranteed price.
    Mr. Collins: What about the taxpayer?
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Take all you can get; that seems to be the policy.
    Mr. Baldwin: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman?
    Let me say a word about wheat. I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would not alter the system so as to pay the deficiency payment for wheat per acre rather than per ton. I suggested that for three reasons. First, we should then have no gibes from hon. Members opposite, such as we had in the debate on the
    1774
    deficiency payments last week, that farmers were "fiddling" and getting wheat certified twice. If they were paid on an acreage basis, that accusation could not be made, and that is one important reason for which I ask my right hon. Friend to give this matter further consideration.
    Secondly, many farmers want to consume a great deal of their wheat. I consume and I sell a large quantity of wheat and it seems nonsense to me that, to get a deficiency payment, I have to sell my wheat and send it 15 or 20 miles away to a miller and then buy other wheat back from him at 30s. to £2 a ton more in order to cover the cost of transport and his profit. That is the second reason for which we should have a free sale of wheat as we have a free sale of barley from farmer to farmer. Then we could get rid of these dreadful millers, about whom the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) spoke.
    Thirdly, a deficiency payment per acre would average the return for wheat on the marginal land with the return of the wealthy farmers in South-West Norfolk where they get two tons to the acre. Let us assume that a deficiency payment of £10 per ton is to be paid. If it were paid on an acreage basis it would mean that the man on the marginal land would get £10 per acre just as would the man who produces two tons to the acre.
    Mr. Dye: The suggestion is that the hard-working, skilled farmer who produces an abundant crop of wheat in my area should make up for the marginal farmer—as well as the man on marginal land—who has not done the same amount of work and who gets a much lower crop.
    Mr. Baldwin: I should not have thought, after the passing of the 1947 Act and all that goes with it, that there was such a thing as a marginal farmer left.
    Mr. Dye: There are very many—far too many.
    Mr. Baldwin: One reason which my right hon. Friend gave for not adopting an acreage basis was that we could not make differential payments for different periods of the year. That is up to the farmer. He can hold his grain and get an extra price for holding it. This year the man who held wheat may have been paid a little less than he would have received had he sold before Christmas.

    1775
    Let us have a look at the huge sum which is to be paid as deficiency payments. Why is it to be paid? Largely because wheat has been dumped on our shores. We have been subjected to dumping of French wheat in this country at from £10 to £12 per ton less than the price which the French farmer was paid for it. We cannot stand up against that sort of thing. Unless we have a system of tariffs to protect us, we must have protection in some other way.
    Nevertheless, this is not entirely a loss to the Exchequer. If the French like to send wheat over here at £10 to £12 per ton less than it is worth, then we can have cheap grain and can reduce the claim on the Exchequer for the subsidy on pigs. It is, therefore, not all a loss.
    I want to turn to the fatstock deficiency payments, and here I should be glad if my hon. Friend could give us a little more information about how the subsidy payment on beef and sheep is arranged. I do not understand it. I think it is based on an average which probably has to go back a considerable time to when beef was being sold at a low price, but I should be glad of an explanation. Beef is now selling at £1 per cwt. less than the price at which it was selling six weeks ago, but no deficiency payment is being made.
    Mr. Dye: That is right.
    Mr. Baldwin: I do not understand why there was a deficiency payment, based on an average bringing in previous low prices, at a time when beef was making £9 to £9 10s. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could clear up that point.
    I hope that we have persuaded the consumer to pay the cost price for his food, certainly for his beef and mutton, and I hope the present prices will continue so that there will be no deficiency payments claim on the Exchequer. We have a fair trade in sheep, although there is still a subsidy of about 4d. a 1b. I am not sure whether that is due to the fact that at one time sheep were not reaching the guaranteed figure and we have a backlog to make up.
    The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) said it was wrong that so many cattle should go to the market at one time and he added that we would later have a shortage. We had all those cattle on the market at
    1776
    that time, not because of the deficiency payments, but because the price of cattle had gone sky-high. Prices of £9 to £9 10s. a hundredweight were attracting sales of cattle. I agree that many cattle were sold which could well have been kept until later, but we have more and more beef coming into the markets today and the price of beef has come down by as much as £1 a hundredweight in the last month, so that the fact that there were too many cattle at £9 to £9 10s. has not greatly affected the market. I dare say there are plenty of sheep coming into the market. I hope so, because I have a lot of sheep to sell myself.
    I want now to refer to pigs, with which I am deeply concerned. I should like the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West to put me in touch with the market where his friend sold a big fat sow for £42. I will give him a jolly good commission and find him quite a number of fat sows. I should like to go into a huddle with him and with his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury after this debate to see if we can find whether these people sold their pigs to the Fatstock Corporation or on the open market.
    The trouble with pigs is that when the Government decided some time ago to go into a free market they had obviously to ensure that there were the supplies to meet what might be a shortage. No one could foretell what demand or supply would be. The Government, therefore, quite rightly decided to insure against a very serious rise in price. They went wrong in making too big a contract with Denmark. I do not know whose was the responsibility, but obviously no account had been taken of the 4th June returns which showed that we had nearly one million more pigs in the country than 12 months previously, so that we were suffering from having one million extra pigs on the market in addition to the clearing up of the contract with Denmark. That position is now being levelled and there is now a gradual rise in prices. I understand negotiations are to take place with Denmark, and I am prepared to wager that we will have to make a better contract with Denmark because they cannot provide these pigs at so much less than we can. They say so themselves. I am not getting rid of any of my gilts or sows, because I think that the future for pig breeders is good.

    1777
    There has been much gibing at the butchers. I do not know whether there is a butcher Member, but I should like to hear from him. My information is that butchers are finding it difficult to make profits. When pigs were cheap their price was not reflected to the consumer, because what the butchers lost on the swings they were trying to gain on the roundabouts. As business men, I cannot blame them for doing that. But if the butchers had been doing these terrible things, why did not the Co-operative butchers come in and put things right? Why talk about the margin between the producer and the consumer when the Co-operative shops were there to put things right? They did not do so.
    The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury said that not two farmers in a hundred wanted to change last year. He was probably right. Today I would say there are not two farmers in a hundred who want to change back. They were nervous about a free market, but now they have experienced it they are fairly happy. It is the amateur farmers who are not happy. They were not prepared to take risks. They wanted it cut and dried on a plate. They wanted the Welfare State in agriculture, and I do not want to see that. If the farmers are dissatisfied, they did not say so. There was a bit of swing in the General Election in South-West Norfolk, but I do not know whether it was the farmers, the farm workers, or someone else. My experience—and I was in trouble, because I had condemned subsidies on more than one occasion and attacked compulsory marketing boards and did not therefore get much sympathy—was that I had a fairly substantial majority in my agricultural constituency. I do not think that the idea that farmers are disgruntled is altogether true.
    Mr. George Brown Mr. George Brown (Belper)
    rose—
    Mr. Baldwin: I wonder that the hon. Gentleman did not interfere before.
    Mr. Brown: I was saving it up. Will the hon. Member tell us by exactly how much his majority fell?
    Mr. Baldwin: It fell by 1,300, but it still remains at about two to one, if I am entitled to say so in a debate on agriculture, and I am happy about that.
    Although the farmers did not reflect their dissatisfaction with the present Government
    1778
    at the General Election, the fact that farmers are still nervous about their long-term future must be faced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that I had only to throw out the bait and hon. Gentlemen opposite would jump. I will send them the same challenge as I made in my constituency 12 months ago after being hauled over the coals, I offered £5 for the best essay on a longterm policy for agriculture. My conditions are that this policy must be acceptable to the people, to the farmers, and, more important still, if it is to be a longterm policy, it must be one which future Governments will accept.
    Various Chancellors of the Exchequer for the last 15 years have been troubled with the balance of payments. This and previous Governments have said that exports are the answer. Exporting is becoming more difficult. We are meeting increasing competition and I believe that exports will never solve the balance of payments problem which we are now facing. There is one source from which it can be solved, and that is by more production from the land of this country. We can increase our production by 25 or 50 per cent. The figure of 50 per cent. already achieved seems high and may give a false impression of the capability of the industry, but much of it can be achieved through increasing the production of pigs and poultry, things which can be done overnight, or in the twinkling of an eye.
    If we use 16 million acres of rough grazing and two to three million acres of common land which is now producing nothing at all and if we have that land properly farmed, reaching another 50 per cent. increase will not be difficult. A 50 per cent. increase would be a flea-bite of what we can do. An increase of 50 per cent. in agricultural production would make the Chancellor of the Exchequer much happier.
    My final suggestion is one with which the hon. Member for Wednesbury will agree. It is that there should be set up a Royal Commission to consider the use of our land. It should not be a Commission composed of farmers or anybody interested in the industry. It should be composed of competent business men capable of deciding from evidence submitted to them the right policy for agriculture.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Waste of time.
    Mr. Baldwin: The Commission's report should be debated and a long-term policy could be deduced. It could be done under no other conditions. It is extraordinary that we are to send a Commission to tell the people of Kenya what to do with their land when we do not know what to do with our own. I hope the day will come when we shall take steps to put agriculture where it rightly belongs; to regard it as the most important industry in this country, instead of the lowest form of life.
    I will now say something to please the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West. I want to see the agricultural worker rewarded for his work. But the consumer will have to foot the bill. The consumers of this country are being fed at less than the cost of production by means of subsidies and so forth, and it is time that they devoted more money to paying for their food and less to things that do not matter.
    A rise in the cost of food would not necessarily mean a rise in the cost of living. The huge subsidies being paid come from the funds of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the taxpayer, and are collected from the consumer. I suggest that, instead of collecting money from the consumer by way of taxes and reducing that amount by administrative expense and then paying back the balance in the form of subsidies, it would be better to leave the money in the pockets of the consumers and not to tax them to death as is being done at present. That would reduce the cost of living.
    5.12 p.m.
    Mr. S. N. Evans: I did not propose to intervene in this debate. I have been listening to the discussion with enjoyment, if not with much profit, but I must support the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) in his request for an impartial inquiry into this somewhat backward industry.
    The hon. Member said that we can produce much more food than we are producing today. I wish to know whether we want to produce much more food than we produce today. That is a very important question. Only one-twelfth of the people of this country are supported directly by the land. The other eleven-twelfths are supported by the metal fabricating industries, the textile
    1780
    industries and various other of our national activities. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Leominster that there is far too much "double-talk"—I think I can say "political double-talk"—about this expansion. The hon. Member called for a 60 per cent. expansion, but 60 per cent. of what and at what price?
    Mr. Baldwin: Over pre-war figures.
    Mr. Evans: Yes, I know, but 60 per cent. of what commodities and at what price?
    These Estimates deal with milk. Do we want more milk which we cannot sell in liquid form and cannot afford to turn into butter at 8s. a lb.? Is that what we want? Not in these circumstances. So I agree with the hon. Member that the time has arrived when the frontiers of the British agricultural industry should be set out clearly and without ambiguity.
    I am not opposed to guaranteeing British farmers against losses brought about by savage fluctuations in world prices. I have never been against that.
    Mr. Dye: Or home prices.
    Mr. Evans: I say that the time has arrived when the Government should set up an inquiry to decide just that. To what extent are the pre-war patterns of international trade to be restored? How much agriculture production do we want? What form can it take? Should it be cereals? The hon. Member complained bitterly about the imports of subsidised French wheat. He conveniently forgot to tell the Committee that between July and November last year we exported over 100,000 tons of barley and oats to the Continent at prices up to £6 10s. a ton less than the guaranteed price paid to the British farmer, and that loss was borne by the taxpayer. So we were subsidising the export of British agricultural products to the Continent.
    This illustrates the Alice-in-Wonderland nature of present British farming policy, because within six months of exporting this 100,000 tons—actually it was in excess of 100,000 tons—of oats and barley to Europe at prices up to £6 10s. a ton less than the guaranteed price paid to the British farmer, we increased the price to the British farmer for oats and barley by 35s. and 30s. a ton. Six months earlier we had so much oats and barley

    1781
    that we did not know what to do with it. In order to get rid of it we exported it to the Continent and lost up to £6 10s. a ton on it, and the taxpayer footed the bill. Then, within six months, at the last farm Price Review we gave the farmer another 35s. a ton for barley and 30s. for oats. If that is not an Alice-in-Wonderland farming policy, I do not know what it is.
    Mr. Baldwin: Did the hon. Member also conduct researches to find out how much barley we imported from Iraq and other places for a great deal less than the price at which we sold to the Continent? We imported barley at £14 to £15 a ton.
    Mr. Evans: My point is that it is no use for farmers on the benches opposite to get up and have a moan about these subsidised imports from the Continent when their own products are, in fact, being subsidised in precisely the same way.
    Mr. Baldwin: We are not responsible for that.
    Mr. Evans: That is the only point I wish to make.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster. Let us have this impartial inquiry. I think that it would be a very good thing for the farmers because, by Jove, they must be very worried when they think that without these subsidies they would have no income at all. How worried they must feel when they go to bed at night, and when they think that if they received the same prices for farm products as do the Danish and Dutch farmers, they would again have no income at all. What a volcano they are sitting on!
    So I say, with the hon. Member for Leominster, let us have this inquiry. I want a healthy, stable British agricultural industry as much as anyone in this Committee, and I am not averse to voting sums of money to insure British farmers against losses due to wild fluctuations in world prices. I have always thought that, in its pursuit of a healthy agricultural industry, the House is entitled to take from the taxpayer moneys designed to guarantee the farmers against loss in circumstances such as I have outlined. But it is no part of our duty to guarantee a profit to the farmers. It is their job to earn it. I say that the present farm policy is one in which it is heads
    1782
    the farmer wins and tails the taxpayer loses. That is not acceptable to me.
    Let us please remember the interests of the industrial worker and his wife. Holland and Denmark are taking £200 million worth of goods a year from this country, which helps to provide considerable employment in my constituency.
    Mr. Baldwin: And we subsidise it.
    Mr. Evans: There will, I know, be a time when the National Farmers' Union will demand that there shall be a cut-back in these imports of food in the interests of a fair standard of life for the farmer. This is the same attitude as we deplore in the American manufacturers of hydro-electric equipment and bicycles, who complain about British competition. In the conduct of our economic affairs we had better be careful to observe standards which do not make us look rather stupid when we criticise other countries, such as the United States.
    The hon. Member for Leominster is quite right; we want an impartial inquiry into the industry. The industry is entitled to expect the Government to regard it as in the national interest to lay down the frontiers of British agriculture. It is not unreasonable to say to farmers, "This is the type of production we would like you to give us. We are prepared to give you support prices upon the basis of cost." If the cost of producing potatoes in normal circumstances, on fair quality land, is £8 per ton, I am not averse to guaranteeing a return of £8 per ton, but it is up to the farmer to earn his profit. At the present time it is a case of, "Heads I win; tails you lose." That is no longer acceptable to the taxpayer. Never in history has money been poured out like this.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Two thousand million pounds since 1945.
    Mr. Dye: My hon. Friend does not seem to have observed the fact that whereas there was a decrease of 2 per cent. in British agricultural production last year, there was a decrease of 12 per cent. in the farmers' incomes—a total of £40 million—which is of some importance to the industry. Should not my hon. Friend inquire where that has gone?
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Godfrey Nicholson): This is not a suitable occasion for discussing what underlies our

    1783
    agricultural policy. Speeches and interjections should bear some direct relationship to the Supplementary Estimate before the Committee.
    Mr. Evans: I was referring to farmers' incomes last year.
    The Temporary Chairman: I do not think that the Supplementary Estimate is concerned with farmers' incomes. I must ask the hon. Member to relate his speech as closely as he reasonably can to the Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. Evans: I should have thought that the subsidies which we are now asked to vote are the very things from which the farmer derives his income, and in that case that the question of farmers' incomes was strictly relevant to this discussion. If it were not for these vast subsidies, farmers would have no incomes.
    The Temporary Chairman: It is very difficult to lay down the lines which should confine a debate of this sort. The Chair can only rely upon the good sense of hon. Members. But this is not the occasion for a general debate upon agricultural policy.
    Mr. Evans: If I may, I would just like to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). I could not agree that the average figure over the last four years should be sanctified for all time. I say that it must be strictly related to the efficiency and cost of production. I shall not hinder the Committee any longer, except to reinforce the plea made by the hon. Member for Leominster that we should have an inquiry into the industry; that the frontiers of the industry should now be laid down, and that the industry should afterwards be encouraged to produce effectively and efficiently.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Crouch: I do not intend to delay the Committee for very long, because I know that it has a lot of business to get through. As is usual in an agricultural debate, this one has been of a very friendly nature. We tend to stray outside the scope of these debates in our enthusiasm for the industry.
    Mr. Hobson: That is not true.
    Mr. Crouch: I want to refer to the question of pigs, which was raised at the beginning of the debate. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) wanted to know whether the Government were going in for pigs unlimited. I know that there has been a very considerable increase in the number of pigs since this party came into power. The number was deliberately kept down by the previous Administration, but I have always maintained that it is far better to produce our bacon at home than to rely upon other people to do so. There may be some criticism in regard to the subsidy of £76·5 million for the coming year, but I am quite sure that the housewife is very much happier when she can get the cut and the kind of bacon she wants instead of the small amount to which she was confined before the present Administration came into office. We should continue the expansion of the pig population and, with it, the development of our bacon factories, so that we can reduce the amount of bacon coming in from overseas.
    The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) expressed his concern about the sum which we are now voting, and wanted to know where the money went. It goes to the farmers, under the scheme of guaranteed prices, of course; I am surprised that the hon. Member did not realise that. The prices of these various commodities are guaranteed to the farmers.
    Mr. Collins: I was under no misapprehension as to where these sums go. Of course, they are paid in support prices to the farmers. My point was that the support prices or guarantees in respect of three commodities—cereals, eggs and fatstock—are now costing over £153 million, whereas, under the former system of straight guaranteed prices, they cost only £17,800,000. Where does the extra money go?
    Mr. Crouch: The difference can be accounted for by the very large increase in production. If we increase our production that is bound to happen, and our production has gone up consistently; it has risen by 10 per cent. in the last three years.
    The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) said, quite rightly, that barley was sold at a very low price last harvest. It was wet, and farmers were

    1785
    only too glad to get rid of it before it went bad on their hands. The barley which was sold early this year had been properly dried, either in a rick or silo, and brought to the market in a fit and proper condition. The barleys that were kept until this year were of the better quality. The poor quality barleys had much better be got rid of as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Dye: The hon. Member has referred to what I said, but he is completely wrong if he assumes that the barleys which were sold for 75s. a quarter were undried. That was the top price that could be obtained in Norfolk for properly dried barleys at that time.
    Mr. Crouch: Yes, but the moisture content was very much higher.
    While still referring to cereals, I want to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). He has been talking, not for the first time, about a flat price per acre. I think that would be a retrograde step. It would encourage people to grow wheat on land which was not suitable for it. I believe that the policy which the Government have propounded for agriculture of paying for the weight of produce produced, whether wheat, pig meat or fat cattle, does encourage people to produce the food which is suitable for their land. It would be a mistake to go back to a policy by which we were encouraging, in this year 1955, people to grow crops which were unsuitable for their land when there is ample opportunity on a weight basis of payment to produce crops which are suitable for particular soils.
    Mr. Baldwin: If my hon. Friend's argument with regard to wheat is sound, why does not it apply to barley?
    Mr. Crouch: I should like to see it applied to barley as well. It is only in cereals that we do not get the weight basis. I agree with him about cattle. For so long as I can remember, we have always heard the cry during the spring, "These cattle will make more now, and we are going to sell them as beef." If that process is continued, we shall be terribly short of beef later on.
    On the production side, I should like to mention something which has not yet been touched on, and that is the £12·8
    1786
    million general fertiliser subsidy. I believe that if more farmers used more fertilisers we should be able to increase the production from our soil, and that as a result of that increased production we should be able to compete quite fairly with the price of any agricultural product sent to these shores. The farmers today who are using to the full extent the amount of fertiliser their crops will take—and various crops take varying quantities—are well able to meet any competition that may come to them.
    I maintain, as I always have done, that with the climatic conditions which we have here we should concentrate more on the production of grass. I should like to see considerably more fertilisers used on grass. By so doing, we can produce livestock and crops which would compete in price with any from overseas, and I have no doubt as to the quality of the livestock products which we could produce.
    There is one other matter in the Estimate to which I should like to refer. That is the subsidy given to bread. I see that it is £40·5 million. That is a very large sum of money. What disturbs me is the position of the small country baker. He is not making a fair profit at the present time. I should like to see further assistance given to him. I know that we have plant bakeries growing up and spreading throughout the country. They work 24 hours a day and turn out all the bread that they can during those hours. They also work seven days a week. I am concerned as to what will happen if we have all plant bakeries and we have snow, frost or floods. The plant bakery may be 40 miles away and its bread may not get through. The country baker living in the village always gets through. He may not turn up at four o'clock in the afternoon, but he will turn up at some time and see that we get our bread.
    I have two sets of figures which have been collected quite recently for the Ministry of Food which show that one baker made a profit of 2s. 6d. per sack after drawing his subsidy on the flour, and the other one made a loss of 2s. 10d. I know that they get an additional subsidy for the first 25 sacks of flour, of 4s. a sack. I should like to see that increased to 8s. I do not want to see our small country bakers go out of existence. If they did, it would indeed be a tragedy.

    1787
    I believe that, in spite of what some people have said, there is a future for agriculture. I do not feel concerned about it. I believe that there is a future for British agriculture, and that the people of this country want to see this industry expanded, because they realise that it can make a greater contribution towards the economics of this country today than any other industry. We do not want to spend money outside our shores if we can produce food here all the time. I know that we can produce better food, and I believe that if we make full use of all the available resources of science, research and machinery we can produce food which will compare in price with that produced in any other part of the world.
    5.35 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) said about the small country baker. I recall that on a recent occasion when I raised this matter in the House and said that the small baker had a raw deal from the present Government—
    The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not pursue that matter further. I do not think that a speech on the small country baker should be permitted on this Estimate.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I want to make the strongest possible protest against a limitation being imposed on me which has not been imposed on anyone else in the debate. As you had not ruled the hon. Member for Dorset, North out of order, Mr. Nicholson, I thought that I might be permitted to refer to the point which he raised.
    The Temporary Chairman: I have no wish to be hard on the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I know that I allowed the hon. Member for Dorset, North a little latitude, and I was going to pull him up if he had gone on with his argument much longer. I want to keep this debate within the limits of the Supplementary Estimate.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I quite agree, and all that I am asking for is equality of treatment. I am suggesting that I might have some latitude to be allowed the opportunity of putting this one point.
    Mr. G. Brown: Further to the point, Mr. Nicholson, which my hon. and gallant Friend was making, I wonder whether in fact you feel that you must hold him strictly to that Ruling. I understood that the hon. Member for Dorset, North was making his point because there is included in this Supplementary Estimate, on page 15, a very large figure under the heading N.I.—Bread. There is also a note about the bread subsidy which explains that it includes payments to bakers to enable National bread to be sold at not more than controlled maximum prices. I understood that the argument of the hon. Member for Dorset, North arose out of that. It involves the question of the margins allowed. I should have thought that your original Ruling to allow the hon. Member to make this point is clearly covered by that and that my hon. Friend might be allowed to pursue the point.
    The Temporary Chairman: The confines of the debate are quite clear. Bakers are referred to on page 15, and it is in order to speak about them. It is speeches about the virtues of small bakers as compared with those of large bakers which are out of order.
    Mr. Brown: So that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton may know quite clearly where he is, may I ask whether we are to take it that we are in order in discussing the costs that fall under small bakers and which are taken into account by the Department in arriving at the figures, but that we must not go outside that limit?
    The Temporary Chairman: It is quite a narrow point, and the right hon. Gentleman has stated it correctly.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Perhaps I may be allowed to dispose of the point. I would have finished with it by now if I had been allowed to make it. All I wanted to point out was that we are being asked to approve a payment of £40½ million to bakers
    "to enable National bread to be sold at not more than controlled maximum prices."
    The only comment I make is that, despite that very considerable expenditure, there are many bakers, not only in Dorset but elsewhere, who consider that they are getting a raw deal from the Government, for a variety of reasons into which it is not possible for me to go. In that respect,

    1789
    I suggest that this payment is not fully achieving the purposes for which it was intended.
    That applies to many other payments that we are being asked to approve this afternoon. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) had much to say about cereals. He referred to the fact that wheat is being imported from France at £10 to £12 per ton less than is paid to the French farmers. The argument he advanced in favour of this was that pig producers would benefit and we might be able as a result to produce pig meat more cheaply. On the other hand, speaking from the point of view of the producers of wheat, he thought the thing was iniquitous. The hon. Gentleman blew hot and cold. We did not quite know whether he was satisfied with the present Government or not.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is it not right that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should declare his interest in this matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Everybody knows that I have an interest in this matter. I have put Questions in the House in the past relating to pig production. The hon. and gallant Member has not attended previous agricultural debates or he would know more about my interest.
    The hon. Member for Leominster urged that dumping should be prohibited in the interests of cereal producers in this country. What do he and the Tory Party really want? It would be of very great interest to the farming community to have that question answered, because the farmers still do not know what Government policy is. The hon. Member made fun of the "Piccadilly" farmers, but Government policy has produced the Piccadilly farmers. If it were not for the present Government, we should not have Piccadilly farmers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I will explain why. It is very simple. On the present level of taxation, for which the present Government have been responsible over the past four years, it is possible to lose money in farming and to set off the loss against profit earned in the City. There is the answer in a nutshell. If we want farming to be seriously conducted, we need a Government quite different from the present one.
    1790
    The hon. Member for Leominster also said that the farming community were not discontented with the Government; the results of the General Election showed it. He himself was satisfied with the present Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] He was, in certain parts of his speech. I want to quote what the National Farmers' Union say, as stated in the "British Farmer" for July, 1955. Nothing can be more up-to-date than this. The "British Farmer" says:
    "The great industry of farming has earned a better fate than to be left at the mercy of a vacillating and unplanned policy."
    That is on the front page, in the editorial columns. It is the official policy of the National Farmers' Union. This is not the attitude of a Piccadilly farmer or of some irresponsible body, or even the attitude of the Herefordshire branch of the National Farmers' Union, which passes various resolutions from time to time. It is a considered statement in the editorial columns of the "British Farmer." Let me add one or two sentences about the weather. The National Farmers' Union, in a spirit of magnanimity, says:
    "We accept the weather, but our industry is too vital to the well-being of this country to be allowed to be left swinging helplessly on the end of a crazy economic pendulum."
    Who is responsible for this crazy economic pendulum? Hon. Gentlemen opposite; the present Government; the Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Tory Party. We are not responsible for it. If the Government wish to convince the farming community that they have serious intentions, they must completely change their attitude.
    I shall not say anything to destroy or to strangle at birth the coalition which has been created between the hon. Member for Leominster and my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). It may well be that some further inquiry has to be made into the subject, but let it not be by Royal Commission, for goodness sake. That will take four or five years to report, and in the meantime British agriculture will have gone down the drain. We cannot wait all that time. The Government can say very much more quickly than can a Royal Commission what they expect from British agriculture.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury was quite right when he asked,

    1791
    "What are the targets? What do you want?" For a long time I have been trying to find out from the Minister of Agriculture what he wanted in pig production. All he said a few months ago was "We have too many pigs. They are costing us too much money."
    Right. Even if we accept that, we are entitled to ask, "If we are producing too many pigs, to what extent do you want us to cut down?" Pig producers would then know what to do. Instead of that, we have the crazy fluctuations of the past few months referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), who pointed out the market price had doubled in the last few weeks. I know it is possible for farmers to cash in on the present arrangement, but that is no way of building up a stable agriculture.
    I am not a cereals producer and I do not know much about cereals, but at considerable expense to myself I have learned something about pigs. The hon. Member for Leominster wanted to know where it was possible to get £42 for an old fat sow. I am not going to tell him, because of the system of free enterprise in which he believes. Why should I tell him and destroy the market which I have discovered for myself? Let him find his own market. Let him stop on the end of a telephone all day long, 'phoning to the markets to find out where the price may be suitable and then sending his live-stock into that area.
    Under the present agricultural system which the Government are now encouraging, what the farmer has to do is not so much to go to the pigsties to see whether or not the stock is being properly fed, but to have a lot of telephones and sufficient staff to be able to keep using them. The farmer who wants to make money has to turn his farmhouse into something resembling a stockbroker's office. It may be profitable, but it is not farming.
    Another point which has not yet been answered by any hon. Member opposite is that we have been slaughtering and disposing of the supply of meat for next year and the year after. The hon. Member for Dorset, North has said that, to his knowledge, that has been going on every year and that in the subsequent
    1792
    year the position has righted itself. Let him not think that next year or the year after we shall be able to make up our meat supplies by imports from overseas. According to a statement which has just been issued by Mr. Harold Stassen, Director of the Foreign Operations Administration of the United States of America, the Soviet Union is now buying food supplies in the free world to an extent far greater than ever before.
    In 1953 it bought seven times more meat from the free countries than it did in previous years, and the largest suppliers were New Zealand, Uruguay, Argentina, Denmark and France, in that order. If any hon. Members think that it will be quite so easy in the next year or two to make up our meat deficiencies by imports from overseas, they may have a rude awakening ahead.
    In 1954 the Soviet Union was the world's third largest meat buyer. That is a significant fact which we dare not overlook or ignore. The same thing applies to butter. The Soviet Union was the world's second largest buyer. In those circumstances hon. Members opposite must not think that there will be large supplies available to us in other parts of the world to make up the losses or deficiencies we ourselves may have to face as a result of the Government's crazy agricultural policy.
    The Government said they were going to save money, but they are spending more than ever before and getting a less satisfactory return. We are entitled to a very much fuller explanation from the Government than we have had. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury asked, "What do the Government expect of the agricultural community?" They spend millions on cereals but the tillage area is decreasing—nearly half a million less acres in 1954 than in 1953.
    All the millions which are being spent on cereals have not yet succeeded in arresting that decline. Even if we do not get a satisfactory explanation—and I doubt whether we shall have it from the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon—I hope that the Committee will take a very early opportunity to deal with what threatens to be a disaster for British agriculture unless it is tackled at the earliest possible moment.
    5.55 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I shall endeavour to profit by the advice which the Committee received from the Chair a little while ago. Arising from the Estimates there are a few further points which I want to put to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. This Vote deals also with welfare foods, and we should record our opinion that the economy shown in that respect is very unwelcome. It is a very difficult matter to deal with, and I can only say that I doubt whether it is an economy at all. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give me the information I seek, but I want to know what increase there has been in the prescription of proprietary foods in the national welfare service. I feel that, at the end of the day, the taxpayer will be no better off. The continuing run-down in the amount spent on welfare foods is disturbing.
    We should also express our concern at the reduction in the subsidy on milk. If we are to continue subsidies running at well over £300 million, it is disturbing to find that the subsidy on milk should fall. Ever since this Government have been in office the subsidy on milk has fallen. That is very undesirable and anomalous. Even though we have an attractive girl endeavouring to persuade us to drink more milk we are, in fact, drinking less every month. We would rather that the Government pursued a positive policy in promoting the consumption of fresh milk.
    I want to refer to this very quaint appendix to subhead "O," which deals with the trading services. That shows that on purchases costing the Ministry £15,200,000 the Ministry managed, in reselling those foods, to lose £9,900,000. That really is an achievement for the Ministry of Food. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain, therefore, how, on purchases costing the Ministry just over £15 million, it can manage to lose practically £10 million on resale.
    To the items which have been dealt with I have little more to add except this. Though I doubt whether this is an appropriate occasion to discuss the deficiency payments at large, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary first to tell us how real are these figures in the Estimates. How real is the figure of nearly £82 million for fatstock? I ask because of what happened last year. We began last year
    1794
    with an Estimate of £42 million. In the revised Estimate that became £35 million. In the Supplementary Estimate it was £51 million, and it has ended up—in figures which the Parliamentary Secretary gave me the other day—as a subsidy of about £82 million.
    Does the Ministry really know what is likely to happen during the next twelve months in relation to these deficiency payments? The Minister said something about the colossal job he had undertaken in setting the farmer partially free. How far is he in a position to calculate what the results are likely to be? Can he explain the policy of this subsidy of £77 million for pigs alone? For cereals we have a figure—if we look at the other Estimates too—of £49 million this year. That compares with the figure of about £40 million last year. What is the policy behind that? Is it the Government's policy now to price-support cereals at round about this figure, or is what the figure turns out to be purely haphazard? That is what has happened in each case.
    I want to say something about eggs, and I cannot avoid saying a few words about the history of this subject. Eggs were to be decontrolled and the subsidy eliminated. The subsidy was running at the time at £23 million. But the subsidy has not been eliminated. That is why I am asking the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary what their policy is. They said that the policy was to eliminate the subsidy; yet we now have in these Estimates a subsidy of £29 million. Have they reversed their policy? Is it the present policy of the Government that eggs should carry a subsidy of about £30 million? If that is the policy, let them say so; and if that is not the policy, let them explain how this subsidy arose.
    What applies to eggs applies also to the other commodities: the Government floundered into a partially free economy, and they justified the results by what the result happened to be. It is like someone falling into a ditch and saying that it is a good thing to be permanently in a ditch.
    To return to the subject of eggs, we know that of this £29 million, less than £15 million goes by way of direct subsidy to the producer. Is this fortuitous, or haphazard, or is it designed? I should like to know what proportion of the other deficiency payments goes to the producer.

    1795
    How much is taken in other ways? In the case of eggs we are fortunately sustained by the advice which has been given by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and now by the Public Accounts Committee.
    I am anxious to know how many reports we shall get before the Government do something, and then, when the Government do something, I want them to explain their policy relating to financial support at the taxpayers' expense. This is important in the case of this and all deficiency payments. What certainty has the taxpayer that this money is being properly and solely devoted to the purpose to which it ought to be devoted? In the case of eggs we know, because the Ministry gave evidence, that this was a temporary and unexpected setback.
    The Ministry suffered this temporary setback over two years ago. The Ministry is still in the ditch; it is still floundering. It says that it is desirable to be in a ditch, that it is a good condition of affairs in which to find oneself. At the same time it says that some time very soon it is going to allow the producers, who present us with this scheme, to pull us out.
    I want the Government to tell us what they are going to do about this very heavy element of financial support. We on these benches have made our position quite plain. It has been referred to on several occasions. We are not quarrelling with the support given to British agriculture. What we are quarrelling about is the uncertainty and the haphazard nature of the support which is now being given, the uncertainty whether it has been devoted to its proper purpose, and also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) said, the uncertainty about what is happening to money provided by the taxpayer.
    Again we have the benefit of the Government's advice about this matter. In 1953–54, they reduced the subsidies to £210 million a year. They told us so. They said, "That is the mark of our achievement." They indicated that if they pursued that policy they would reduce the subsidies to a rate of about £100 million a year. All the steps to achieve this have been taken. What has not happened is the reduction of the
    1796
    subsidies to £100 million. The two subsidies on bread and milk—the welfare foods—run at about £100 million. How is it that today subsidies are running at about £330 million and increasing?
    As my hon. Friends have said, that brings no benefit to the consumer, because this operation is now being carried out in a structure, not of low retail prices, but of high retail prices. So the consumer is no better off, and the taxpayer will be no better off. If we increase the subsidies at this rate, before the Government can go to the country again they will be back where they began. The farmer is no better off. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said, the farmers are disturbed about this.
    Mr. Baldwin Mr. Baldwin indicated dissent.
    Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman explained the position to his constituents, and we know that it had a deplorable effect on his constituents, from his point of view.
    Mr. Baldwin Mr. Baldwin rose——
    Mr. Willey: No, I will not give way now. I will state the position of the farmers, as I see it, and then I will willingly give way.
    The farmers are not anxious to be pensioners at the taxpayers' expense. The farmers are anxious to get an adequate return for the work they perform. They are anxious that that fact should be recognised. They do not mind at all the taxpayer being equally anxious that the money should be devoted to that purpose, and to that purpose only. The farmer is as anxious as anyone when, for instance, pork is sold at high prices in the shops and the taxpayer is called upon to pay the farming community nearly £80 million by way of subsidy.
    Mr. Baldwin: What I said was that the farmers are satisfied at the present moment, as was reflected in the Election, but what they are not happy about is the long-term future. They are getting bored of the farming industry being a shuttlecock between the two political parties.
    Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has not only got my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) in agreement with him, but he has me in agreement also. That is

    1797
    what I am asking the Government. I am asking them the purpose behind their action.
    Mr. Frederick Peart: Expediency.
    Mr. Willey: We are discussing a considerable sum of money—£338 million, which is well over £100 million more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer said would be the subsidy two years ago. What we want to know is this. In a country in which we have high retail food prices and in which the farmers, far from being better off, are worse off than they were, where has all the money gone? Repeatedly in this debate we have asked the Government to tell us, and I cannot put it any more simply than that. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a simple answer.
    6.8 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): We have had an interesting debate on these Estimates, and I will do my best to reply to the many diverse points which have been raised in all quarters of the Committee. My right hon. Friend and I regard these Estimates as being of first importance, although the significance of the Supplementary Estimate is purely technical.
    Dealing first with one or two points mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) concerning eggs, he made the surprising statement that a large part of the egg subsidy does not go to the producer. In fact, it all goes to the producer, except the trading loss. The actual amount in the Supplementary Estimate—M.2, £25·6 million—is the amount which is used to cover the difference between the price at which the packer has to buy the eggs from the producer—that is the guaranteed price—and the price at which he can sell, taking into account the margins and allowances.
    May I make a brief reply to the comment of the Public Accounts Committee on eggs? It is true that since last August we have been operating what we believe is an improved system of marketing eggs which to some extent removes the defects to which the Public Accounts Committee referred. In a system under which the producer is individually guaranteed a
    1798
    price per dozen eggs, according to their grade, and the packer must pay that price to him, the packer must be sheltered to some extend from the commercial risk, but the system which we are working today, by which packers declare every day their quantities to the central authority and then buy back what they themselves wish to sell as wholesalers, makes a considerable improvement over the old arrangement.
    They have to take a full commercial risk on whatever they buy and sell as wholesalers. We are continually examining margins. An examination is now going on. I can assure the Committee that the margins and allowances for eggs are very reasonable.
    I will reply generally to a number of points made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, but there is one specific point with which I will deal now. He asked about the level of liquid milk consumption and expressed the anxiety that because the subsidy was falling, consumption was falling too. I am glad to be able to reassure him that the present liquid milk consumption is less than 1 per cent, lower than a year ago, and there seems to be a reasonable prospect that the Milk Marketing Board's strenuous and efficient efforts will maintain consumption. As the Committee knows, the Board is doing everything it can to expand consumption.
    I will deal, next, with one or two points made about cereals at the beginning of the debate by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). He persisted in the view that the cereal deficiency payments are going, not to farmers, but to the benefit of the merchants.
    Mr. Champion: To some extent.
    Mr. Nugent: To some extent.
    That is a very great improvement on what his right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said on the last occasion. I still feel that the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the Committee to use this occasion to substantiate the charges which he then made against the millers. He told us that the millers—and he named them, particularly Messrs. Rank and Messrs. Spillers, who have been mentioned again today—were deliberately manipulating the prices of home-grown grain in order to keep them down, with

    1799
    the result that the subsidies were going to their benefit. At the time I invited right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to give me evidence of that. I said I would gladly go into the matter. I need hardly say that I have received no evidence whatever.
    I regard it as irresponsible for the right hon. Gentleman to make statements of that kind when he has no evidence to sup- port them. Had he wished, he could have consulted his friends in the Co-operative Wholesale Society. They are milling on a scale equal to that of Ranks and Spillers. He did not tell the House that. They could have told him soon enough whether the market was competitive or not and whether they were receiving the subsidies. Perhaps they are not on very good speaking terms after what he said about millers the other night.
    The right hon. Gentleman comes to the House, and in his customary polemical style, lays about him and injures the reputation of people who cannot reply. I feel that he has some responsibility not only to himself but to his own party to substantiate those charges or to with-draw them. He has given a classical example of the occasion
    "…full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."
    I turn to the more serious remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. I assure him that individual merchants cannot gang up together and proceed against farmers in the way that he fears. In the farming papers every week—"Farmer and Stock-Breeder" and "Farmers Weekly," for example—the farmers see what are the current market prices throughout the country, and they will not sell to their merchants under those prices unless there is a very good reason, such as lower quality or higher moisture content. If their own merchant offers lower prices they will search around and find another.
    It does not make sense for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to persist in the suspicion that 2,000 merchants—in fact there are between 2,000 and 3,000—can gang up together to hold down the price against the home grower. The home market is as live a market as any market can be. It is directly related to international cereal markets, and the price paid for grain which our farmers market
    1800
    is the current market price which that grain is worth on the day on which it is sold and at the quality at which it is sold. There is no evidence whatever that the position is any different from that.
    I hope right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will look objectively at this situation. If we are to have a system which is free from allocation and rationing—and I am quite sure they wish it as much as we do—there is no alternative to the free market, and the system of deficiency payments which we are using is operating to ensure a fair return for the individual farmer, while at the same time leaving the market completely free to move. After all, if the merchants had this adverse influence which hon. Members opposite suspect, would the market in barley or oats have risen by £5 to £10 a ton from start to finish? Of course not. It rose because the demand was strong enough against supply to cause it to rise. Such is bound to be the case in any free market.
    The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) asked how the barley deficiency payment is calculated. It is calculated by reference to the average market return for all barley over the twelve months, after that figure has been computed on a weighted basis. All barley sold at more than 1s. less than the average price is then, so to speak, cut out of the calculation, because that barley relates broadly to the malting barley market. In order to give the necessary support for the feeding stuffs barley market, with which we are concerned here, the deficiency payment is calculated from there.
    I can assure the hon. Member that the merchants' sales which take place later in the form which he suggests, merchants having bought barley in September and sold it in the New Year, would not come into the computation. The sales must be farmers' sales to be registered for this purpose. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member that the calculation is done in a proper fashion.
    Mr. Dye: How does the Ministry obtain the farmer-to-farmer sales? The farmer who sells the barley is never consulted and makes no return. In the average market sale of barley many things come into the transaction. How can one calculate the figures for farmer-to-farmer sales?
    Mr. Nugent: Sales made from farmer to farmer cannot come into the calculation. They must be sales made to a merchant. The bulk of sales are made to merchants although there are some from farmer to farmer. The point I wish to make—I hope it reassures the hon. Member—is that merchants' sales do not come into the calculation.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East asked some questions about pig prices which I think he would like me to answer. He asked what was the present price level for home-produced pigs compared with the price of Danish pigs. I think I can give the figures completely. The average price guaranteed for home-produced pigs is at present 51s. 3d. per score to the United Kingdom producer. There is a subsidy of approximately 20s. per score, and the Danish price is very approximately 37s. 6d. That will give the hon. Member the broad basis of comparison.
    In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), who made the point that the Government have imported too much bacon from Denmark and that had caused the difficulty, I would say that in the process of derationing we had to ensure that there was enough meat. It was difficult to estimate exactly where demand would go. If in any respect we over-insured I am certain that that was a mistake on the right side. In any event supplies are now evening out and I think any initial difficulties have been overcome.
    Turning to the general debate on fat-stock marketing, upon which so much has been said, I will give the Committee a few figures of how the scheme has been working in the last twelve months. The new arrangements have now had a complete twelve months' working. My right hon. Friend made the point that it was a very big operation to turn over the meat trade of this country to private hands after it had for nearly fifteen years been entirely in the hands of the State, trading at fixed prices, with allocations and rations. That operation was successfully carried out last summer and has been working successfully in the past twelve months, I believe to the advantage of producers and consumers and with reasonable economy to the Exchequer.
    The total value of the industry is very large—between £400 million and £500
    1802
    million a year. It will give the Committee some idea of the size of the operation when I say that the total number of animals involved in the guarantee arrangements in the last twelve months was approximately 20 million. Our system of price guarantees with a dual guarantee—the normal deficiency payment guarantee and the individual guarantee —means that every one of this 20 million animals had an individual guarantee. I think the Government can claim to have operated that system successfully in the first year and to have ensured that there has been a free flow of meat over the counter to give choice to consumers at the same time as they have given regular payment to farmers. That is an achievement of great credit to all concerned.
    The farmer has had alternative marketing systems either in the livestock auctions, which have been chiefly commented upon today, or in the deadweight sales and by several other methods Generally, the F.M.C. is spoken of, but there are a number of wholesalers, including thirty-four who function in the same fashion as the F.M.C. The farmer has alternatives to the Fatstock Marketing Corporation and to the live-weight auctions if he wants them.
    I shall deal only briefly with the work of the livestock auctions because they have not come in for much criticism. They have worked surprisingly well considering the immense difficulties of working out a satisfactory marketing system for all these animals. The number of cases of deliberate breach of Regulations or fraud, fortunately, has been very few.
    Mr. Champion: How few? I have heard of cases.
    Mr. Nugent: There have been ten prosecutions in all and six convictions. There are three cases before the courts now and three are pending.
    There have been many rumours as to how the markets are working, but we find that our system of market supervisors and livestock inspectors has kept a fairly good supervision working in these markets. There is no doubt that in using livestock markets farmers are taking a very real commercial interest in the marketing of their animals.
    We have to use rather complicated arrangements like the market addition for pigs as normally the price for pigs runs

    1803
    below the individual price guarantee, but they have been effective in giving the farmer an interest in the market price of his animals. Although as a rule farmers do not withdraw their cattle or pigs on the day of the market, if they are dissatisfied they switch next time to another market. In that way the markets are kept in a healthy condition and ensure that real prices are paid. Average weekly payments cover 400,000 animals, and we have managed to keep them running with only ten days delay for liveweight payments and sixteen days delay for deadweight payments. I think I need say no more about the general work of the markets as there has been little criticism of them.
    Now I wish to say a few words about the cost of the subsidy. The general cost of the subsidy, as hon. Members have said, is high. We certainly acknowledge that. For pigs the figure is £76 million, for sheep £3½ million, and for cattle £1·78 million. In reply to the technical point raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West about how this collective payment works, I think I can give him an explanation which will satisfy even his inquiring mind. I agree with him that it seems extraordinary that there should be no collective payment in the period from the end of January to the beginning of February, and that it should suddenly reappear.
    I have looked into the matter and I am grateful to the hon. Member for warning me that he intended to raise it. I am able to explain how it happens. First, there was an award of 1s. 10½d. per cwt. in respect of the Special Review, and that came on in the period 28th February—27th March, to operate for a period of three months. That provided a sufficient sum to recoup the amount due on cattle as a result of the Special Review. After the conclusion of the normal Annual Review there was an award of 5s. 6d. per cwt. additional to the guaranteed standard price for cattle, and that began to operate in the period 28th March—24th April.
    It was then that the deficiency payment went up to 5s. per cwt. From 25th April to 22nd May the deficiency payment was 3s. 6d. It was thus reduced and the following month it disappeared. The reason it tapered off is that we calculate the deficiency payment on what is
    1804
    called a "rolling 12-month" figure. That is to say, the 12-month period rolls forward four weeks every four weeks and we always have a fresh twelve months every month.
    When we started the system of these deficiency payments in the free market last summer we had to estimate a notional year. As the months have gone by we have gradually worked out of that period and, with the higher cattle prices coming into the computation month by month, the figure calculated as the average market realisation has risen, and so gradually eliminated the deficiency payments altogether. Because we had the two increases in the standard price in February and March, for a short time we had a deficiency payment again. Because the market price was still rising we ran out of it in May, and we continue to be out of it now. I apologise to the Committee for the complications of the calculation, but I hope that the hon. Member now understands it clearly.
    Mr. Dye: I am far from satisfied. What the hon. Member has not explained is why a deficiency payment is made—he used the word "deficiency"—when the average market price is much higher than the standard price and why those who send their cattle to market or for slaughter just in those two months, which happened to be April and May, get that in addition, whereas later, when the price has fallen, as it has done now, they simply get a note from the Ministry saying that no deficiency payment can be made.
    Mr. Nugent: I think it would be true to say that in the circumstances they were fortunate.
    Mr. Dye: Oh.
    Mr. Nugent: The deficiency payment system is bound to operate to the industry. It raises the average market price to the guaranteed price level. The people who marketed during that period were certainly fortunate, especially with the incidence of the Special Price Review award, which had to be made over three months; and that was agreed with the representatives of the farmers as the best method of doing it.
    There are, however, great advantages in having a rolling twelve months, because that keeps the deficiency payment system up to date and enables payments

    1805
    to be promptly made every month. If we had to wait until the year was over, the payments would be made so long afterwards that there would be great inconvenience to all farmers.
    Mr. Dye: But it would be fair.
    Mr. Nugent: I hope that that explains the method.
    Something has been said about the position of the consumer, especially by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins), who quoted figures. I congratulate him on his research. I have had the figures checked and the reply is that the Estimate for 1953–54 included these subsidies for home production: bacon, £25 million; eggs, £18 million; meat, £50 million; wheat, £11 million; and coarse grains, £20 million. That makes a total of £123 million, compared with the hon. Member's figure of £150 million. But bearing in mind the increased volume of production, particularly in meat and to some extent in eggs also, those figures are not far out in comparison. I feel that something has gone wrong with the hon. Member's final computation. The figures which I have given are correct.
    Mr. Collins: As I said, the figures I was quoting were from the 1953–54 Estimate, where they were given clearly. For the three items which I picked out, the final net loss was given as only £17,800,000; that was what the Estimate asked for. The comparable figure now, as I have pointed out, is over £153 million. As I see it, that is extra money from the taxpayer without any benefit to the consumer in reduced prices.
    Mr. Nugent: I do not think we are comparing like with like. The Supplementary Estimate before the Committee today is arranged on a different basis from that of 1953–54 but the figures which I have given to the hon. Member are a strict comparison with the figure of some £150 million which he quoted today. The confusion arises through the different construction of the two Estimates.
    Mr. Collins: There were other subsidies which were not included in the Estimates to which I referred?
    Mr. Nugent: I think that that is the answer, and that trading losses were included in subsidies. If we have not
    1806
    completely cleared up the point, I shall be pleased to write to the hon. Member to settle it with him.
    There is one point to be made about consumer interest. It is fair to remind the Committee that the consumer has benefited greatly by this fatstock operation. It is impossible to have free choice to the consumer over the counter in the butcher's shop unless there is a free market in which the retail butcher can buy. This is not the time to develop these arguments at length—we have debated them at length before; but I assure the Committee that the retail butcher must have choice if the consumer is to have choice. What we have managed to do is to restore that choice to the consumer.
    I allow that there has been some rise in meat prices but the rise has been greater in respect of the choicer cuts. I have had some figures obtained. The price of home-killed sirloin today is 4s. to 4s. 6d. per lb—that is, in the week ended 14th June—compared with 3s. 2d. under control. But in the case of the inexpensive cuts, such as imported breast of lamb, the price today is 9d. to 1s. 3d. compared with 1s. under control. Home-killed belly of pork is 1s. 10d. to 2s. 6d. today compared with 2s. 2d. under control.
    Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman is surely aware that on imported meat the Ministry of Food made an appreciable profit.
    Mr. Nugent: That is not really relevant to my argument that there is in the shops today a big range of choice. Although the more expensive meats are dearer than under control, they are there now for people to choose and to buy instead of disappearing altogether. The less expensive meats are quite comparable in price with the prices during control.
    Mr. Ede: This is the old story about the Ritz being free to all who can afford to go in.
    Mr. Nugent: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is farther off the target than usual.
    The service available to the housewife today is incomparably better. She can now go into the shop and choose what she wants. The meat is better hung and better trimmed, the fat is trimmed off

    1807
    and the service is better. The whole aspect of the butchering business has completely changed.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: But look how much a pound meat is.
    Mr. Nugent: The consumption figures are also worth mentioning. The increase in carcase meat consumption since 1951 is approximately half a pound per head of the community per week. That is a valuable half pound, because it has made choice possible for people at last. The picture is one of an increasing total supply of meat, both home produced and to a rather lesser extent imported; that remains at about the same level. The total result has been free choice and an adequate supply.
    I note the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) that the prospects of increasing imports are not good. His interesting comment about Russia being in the market is something of which we are certainly aware and I am sure that the Committee was interested in it. We must rely on increasing production from our own farms. That, indeed, is the whole object of Government policy.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East asked whether it would not have been wise to reduce the amount of money on the pig subsidy and to give greater incentives for cattle and sheep. In a small measure, we followed that very policy at the last Price Review. We made a cut in the guaranteed price for pigs and we increased the guarantees both for cattle and sheep, because that is exactly what we want to do. We want to increase as fast as we can the number of grass-eating animals which will make meat, but at the same time we certainly want to maintain about the present pig production. Not only do we want the bacon supply but we also want a very large supply of fresh pork to supplement what we do not have in the way of carcase meat. We want to maintain production at about its present level.
    To the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) and to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton, with his special interest in pigs, I may say that in the Annual Price Review we really give very close guidance as to how we think production should go in respect of
    1808
    the various guaranteed commodities. The broad picture there is that, in such commodities as carcase meat like beef, we want production to go ahead as far as ever it can—there is no limit. With regard to sheep there must be more regard to price, because New Zealand lamb can come into this country at very competitive prices and in very good quality.
    We obviously cannot have a further expansion in pig production when the present subsidy cost is £76 million; and the whole objective of the pig producer must be to try to reduce his costs while at the same time increasing quality. Indeed, he is doing that. One of the reasons why the pig market in the livestock markets has been stronger in the last few months is because pig producers for the pork market have been selling smaller pigs. Whereas there is a good demand by housewives for small pork joints and a good demand by the butchers for small pork pigs the demand for the large, over-fat pigs for pork is very poor indeed; and that was one of our primary difficulties last autumn.
    Mr. Dye: But the hon. Gentleman has got the big fat sow, as my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Nugent: We should all like to know where this big fat sow was sold for £42. It is a miraculous price, but I think it is the exception. I should add that a sow does not come into the Government's guaranteed price.
    May I conclude, as I fear the debate is running rather late? I think I have dealt with the important points that have been put to me, but there was a point mentioned about exports of barley. Certainly, we have exported about 68,000 tons altogether, but at a price which started at £22 per ton and finished up at over £40 per ton, so that it was not entirely a bad transaction, taken overall, from the point of view of the Exchequer. The whole point is that in a free market, as we now have in all cereals, importers are free to import and exporters are free to export.
    Mr. S. N. Evans: Could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee about the sale of that 100,000 tons of oats and barley between July and November last year? Was it at a profit or a loss? Have we sold it at up to £6 10s. per ton less than we paid the farmers, or not?
    Mr. Nugent: I should need to have a fairly elaborate calculation made to work out just what the profit or loss is for the whole transaction. The sales started in the autumn and finished in the spring, and it would be necessary to do a fairly complicated sum before I could give an answer to the hon. Gentleman. I will have that done, however, and will give him the answer.
    The hon. Gentleman really touched on the germ of this matter, which is that this country imports very large quantities of grain every year in order to live. Our pre-war imports of wheat were over five million tons, and today we import about four and a half million tons, and three million tons of coarse grains as well. It stands to reason, as indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster acknowledged, that it is a very great advantage to us if we can buy this wheat cheaper rather than more expensively, and if we can buy the feeding stuffs cheaper we can produce the eggs and the pigs cheaper.
    So long as we have a system of guaranteed payments which ensures that the farmers get a fair return, the farmers and everyone else are getting the best of both worlds, and that broadly is the policy which my right hon. Friend has been following. I think that the remarks quoted from the "British Farmer" by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton were somewhat out of step with public opinion. After all, we have just tested public opinion in May, and there is no doubt that the country as a whole is very satisfied with what this Government are doing. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may encourage themselves by shouting remarks of that kind, but the results are there for all to see.
    I think I have said enough to show that these subsidies, large though they are, and heavy burden though they are on the taxpayer, have been good value to the community as a whole. They have continued to assure farmers individually and collectively of a fair return, and have given to the consumer—to the housewife at long last—freedom of choice over the counter. As my right hon. Friend said, it has been a large and complex operation. It certainly has, but it has been carried out successfully, and I believe that the country as a whole recognises that, expensive though it is, it is good
    1810
    value, and I therefore ask the Committee to approve the Supplementary Estimates.
    6.47 p.m.
    Mr. George Brown: Nobody would accuse the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of being unduly concerned to get his own Estimates through the Committee. It was not my intention to speak at all. I have sat here listening to the whole debate, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it, but the hon. Gentleman saw fit to begin his contribution with a somewhat violent attack on myself in a personal way, of which he gave me no notice.
    I do not object to that, but when he telephoned me to ask me if I would kindly tell him what points the Opposition would take up in the debate, and I responded, it would have been more in keeping if the hon. Gentleman had told me that one of the points which the Government would take up would be a personal attack on me. The hon. Gentleman was apparently under the erroneous impression that I would not be able to rise after he had spoken, but I am bound to help him to delay his own Estimates a little bit longer.
    I have noticed that the deputy Chief Whip on the other side has been dodging about between the hon. and gallant Members for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) to persuade them not to make speeches, because the Government wanted to get these Estimates approved. It does not look as if the Parliamentary Secretary is keeping up with the strategy laid down on the Front Bench opposite.
    Since I am never loth to answer back for myself, may I now deal with what I said the other day? I withdraw not one single word. I say that, on the question of the cereals guarantee, this Government are laying the British farming industry open to the very kind of attack which my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) made this afternoon, when in fact the featherbedding is being done for the millers and for the merchants. There is nothing whatever to apologise for.
    All that the Parliamentary Secretary said was that I had produced no evidence for it. May I ask him to look again at what I said in that debate? If he will

    1811
    look at column 1439 of HANSARD for the 22nd June, he will see that we were talking about a deficiency payment, which also appears in this Supplementary Estimate in Class 8, Vote 2, on page 13, of almost £46 million. On that occasion, I said, and I repeat it now, that we had spent this money in order allegedly to induce the British farmer, or to enable the British farmer, to grow the cereals we badly need, and, having done that, at the very same time we had allowed the importers of grain—and these are, very largely, the gentlemen of whom I was speaking—to import unrestrictedly the very same grains from overseas.
    I gave the figures, and if the Parliamentary Secretary had wanted to dispute them, he could have done it with rather more point than by making this attack on me. I said:
    "In the first four months of this year we spent £64½ million"—
    of what was in large part scarce currency, much of it in dollars, and the very thing which is causing trouble for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
    "on importations from overseas of cereals and cereal preparations."
    In the same period last year we spent £40 million. Therefore, the importers went out of their way, encouraged by the Government, to push up the expenditure of our scarce currency on cereals by £24,500,000, or as near as could be by 50 per cent.
    Does the Committee regard it as coincidental that that 50 per cent. extra having been spent and just over 50 per cent. extra having come in on this so-called free market in which the millers are allowed to decide for themselves the price they are then prepared to pay for the British farmer's grain, the price to the British farmer fell? The price of the British farmer's grain having thus been artificially depressed, the Government were then called upon to pay out increased sums of some £8 or £9 per ton by way of deficiency payment, which made up the £46 million.
    I said all this on 22nd June last. It is not new, but neither the Joint Parliamentary Secretary nor any other Minister has refuted it yet. Therefore, I repeat that this money was not needed to hold up a good, justified British price for wheat and that the Government deliberately
    1812
    enabled the millers, and the millers deliberately took advantage of the enablement, to go overseas to buy additional quantities partly to depress the price here and partly because they prefer to handle imported stuff—it comes in barges to the silos and is more easily handled with less labour, and so on.
    Therefore, that is my evidence for saying that this feather-bedding of the millers, and not the British farmers, is a jolly stupid thing to do. Either we want home-produced grain because we do not want imported grain, or we prefer to rely upon imported grain because we do not want home grain. Either one or the other makes intelligent policy. One of them was the policy about which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary wrote in the Conservative Party agricultural document called, "An Agricultural Charter" some years ago when the party thought about giving the home producer first place in the home market.
    Either of those would have been an intelligent policy, but I invite the Committee to consider how it can possibly be intelligent to spend nearly £50 million to induce British farmers to grow more grain and spend £64½ million to import it from somewhere else. Can that be intelligent? It makes no sense at all. We are trying to ride two horses, because we are trying to obtain a bit of a controlled market for the home producer and at the same time a wholly free market for the miller and importer.
    On 22nd June, I went on to show what this was doing for the millers, and I chose Messrs. Rank and Messrs. Spiller. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was quite entitled to say, "That is all right. That may be true of Rank and Spiller but let us have a look at the Co-operative." I would not have objected to his doing this, but he has not done so. I said on 22nd June:
    "I found that in 1953 Ranks made £4,850,000 gross profit. In 1954 their gross profit had risen to £6,409,000, an increase of £1½ million in two years."
    That is the very same period as that during which we have been gradually stepping up our deficiency payment and allowing the millers to import and depress our own prices.
    Mr. Nugent: I can help the right hon. Member with a piece of information.

    1813
    The 1954 financial year for Ranks ended on 28th July—before the deficiency payments system had really started.
    Mr. Brown: Yes, I have happened to choose those two years, but the profits of Ranks for the subsequent years went up even more. They are mounting steadily and obviously they will do so. Clearly, if one allows a business man to buy wherever it suits him best and in consequence of that to depress the price which he pays to the home producer, his profits will go up. That is why he does it. That is why our people receive lower prices, not only when the grain contains moisture immediately after harvest but after the grain has been stored and dried, and that is why we had a higher deficiency payment in January and February of this year.
    Messrs. Spiller in 1953 made £3,050,000. In 1954, they made almost £4 million. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary cannot try to answer this case in the same way as he answered the case of Messrs. Rank. Fortunately for me, Messrs. Spiller produced the 1955 figures in time, and by the end of that financial year they had made £½million. Their profits have steadily gone up by the same £1½ million, although it took them longer to do it.
    I added on 22nd June:
    "In dividends, Spillers made provision for £240,000 in 1953, for £321,000 in 1954, and for £428,000 in 1955, an increase of very nearly £200,000 in the three years, in dividends paid out."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 22nd June, 1955; Vol. 542, c. 1439, 1442.]
    I did not give the figures for Messrs. Rank, and as I was not given notice of this attack upon me I did not bring with me a copy of the figures. I did not intend to make the same case twice, but I can assure the Committee that the figures for increase in dividend will be found to be even higher in the case of Messrs. Rank.
    I repeat that, because of the doctrinaire decision of the Government that they must get rid of the guaranteed price system for maintaining British agriculture, because of their rather stupid insistence on allowing the millers and importers to be free to manage things to their own personal profit while maintaining some kind of supported price for the British producer, we have been involved in paying out the very large sum which is covered in the Supplementary Estimate. That large sum has gone not to increase
    1814
    the incomes of British farmers, for they fell by £40 million last year, but to inflate the incomes of Messrs. Rank and Messrs. Spiller and many other millers and merchants whom I could mention, and to increase the personal spendable incomes of their shareholders.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) asked the Minister if he was prepared to swear that, within reason, these figures are likely to turn out to be right. I venture a guess that these are not the figures on which the year will finish and that in fact this provision will cost us more, as last year it cost us considerably more by the end of the year. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not answer my hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman gave a very painstaking answer to the debate. However much we may get involved in battle, we will not complain that he did not attempt to answer the points made. He did not answer my hon. Friend's question because he cannot.
    One of the other stupidities of this set-up is that no Minister knows how much is involved. Only Messrs. Rank and Messrs. Spiller can tell them, because only the importers know how much is going to be brought in from overseas and how much it will depress the home price. So not only is this in their interest but virtually the control of it has passed to them. It has passed right out of the control of the Treasury and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and neither on cereals nor on any other commodity have they any idea how this is going to turn out in the end.
    If I may, I should like to leave that point. I repeat that I would not have brought it up but for the attack which was made on me. But I say that I think the Government have failed dismally to bring forward a defence of this scheme. When from this side of the Committee we pointed out that, leaving the price aside, the thing does not work in detail, as was pointed out today during this debate and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) pointed out at Question Time the other day, we are met with the answer from the Minister, "Well, you suggest a better way of operating the deficiency scheme."
    But we had a better way. The Government in their wisdom, as they are perfectly entitled to do under the party

    1815
    system in operation in this country, decided to get rid of the way we did it, and in its place they chose to put this. Even if our attack is met principally on the ground that, "Anyway, we are the party in power," they are entitled to meet our attack on detail with something more than "You suggest some other method."
    The thing does not work in detail and, apart from the open public purse which is involved, the guarantees are paid at the wrong time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), has shown. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley the other day did the same about sheep. The collective guarantee payment under this system is not paid when the price of the home product is depressed, when we need to pay the guarantee to keep up the farmers' income and to give him an incentive to produce. Under this sloppy, uncontrollable scheme, the guarantee price is paid when the price is high and, as likely as not, nothing is paid when the price is low.
    When this is pointed out to the Minister, all he says is, "Can you think of anything better?" If the Minister cannot control expenditure and cannot arrange to pay deficiency payments to producers when they need them instead of paying them when they are not needed, then we suggest it is time he looked at the whole thing again and returned to the guaranteed prices attached to the Price Review and paid in a way in which the farmer requires them for his advancement. We hear about the guaranteed payments for fat cattle being made all through the period when the prices have been so high that heifers which ought to have been kept for breeding and others which ought to have been kept for fattening have been killed and sold on the market.
    May I repeat the position in regard to sheep? Take the last two six-monthly periods about which my right hon. Friend put questions to the Minister the other day. From October to March the average market realisation price was 2s. 11d. per 1b. The collective guarantee was paid all through that period at 4½d. per 1b. In the second six months' period from April onwards the price became 2s. 6d.; that is to say, it fell by 5d. If we assume that 2s. 11d, was an inadequate price and required a 4½d. a 1b. guarantee on
    1816
    what was paid, then clearly a price of 2s. 6d. a 1b. required a guarantee of 9¼d. a 1b. But does it work out like that? Not on your life. The 2s. 6d. attracts the same guarantee as the 2s. 11d., namely 4¼d. One of two things emerges from this. Either the 2s. 11d. price needs no collective guarantee at all, or the 2s. 6d. requires a much better one.
    But it is clearly an absurd situation in which the guarantee does not get paid when the price falls but does get paid when the price rises. Such a system does not remove fluctuations, and the main evil from which agriculture suffered before the war was wild fluctuations. Ultimately there is going to be fluctuations of this order inside the two six-monthly periods, and we are going to achieve nothing with all this expenditure of public money.
    On this side of the Committee there are some who agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, and there are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who think as he does, too. Today we had the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) forming a coalition with my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury in his demands. I am getting a little alarmed about that, because I had a coalition with my hon. Friend on certain other questions. I hope I may have a discussion with him about which coalition is the more effective.
    The hon. Member for Leominster took up my hon. Friend's view, as do certain right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench, because they will not defend expenditures of this kind that do not produce the results which they should. Ministers have done nothing to answer the criticisms put forward this afternoon. I had to tell the Joint Parliamentary-Secretary somewhere else today that to answer a case is not the same as merely to reassert the view that the present conditions should continue. What we are really getting from both Ministers today is a reassertion of their doctrinaire point of view.
    The Minister himself said that the system has worked well. Those are his words, and he quoted the Milk Marketing Board and the potato scheme, neither of which owes anything at all to this system. He gave no other example, because there is no other example to give. It is patently clear from the figures that over a very

    1817
    wide field this system creates disorganisation in marketing. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Col. Lipton) rather humorously remarked, though in all essence he was accurate in what he said, that what happens under this system is that the farmer has got to turn himself into an office boy and he has to choose his markets over the telephone when he ought to be concentrating on being a farmer with a proper organisation to look after him.
    The Parliamentary Secretary was a little critical of the organ of the National Farmers' Union because certain quotations from that body did not suit his purpose. May I say this, although I am not one who is always in favour of Bedford Square, that had the National Farmers' Union not rushed in very gallantly and courageously with the Fat-stock Marketing Corporation after the Government failed to produce anything, the chaos would have been far worse than it is. Since Sir James Turner had to take the tremendous responsibility of that without any help or encouragement at all from the Government, I think it is stretching things a little far for the Government to claim the credit when Sir James Turner managed to rescue a little security from the chaos.
    May I finish this unwonted speech of mine by referring to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was forced upon me, but on the whole I am now feeling rather at home. May I follow up what I have been saying by remarking on the Parliamentary Secretary's general defence of the scheme, which came very much at the end of his speech? What he said—and this I think is the Conservative Party's apologia for this incredibly costly, wasteful, uncontrollable and uncontrolled system—was that the housewife has benefited because she has had freedom of choice. There is, of course, no reason to assume that freedom of choice in a period of larger supplies needs this kind of milking by the merchants and the importers.
    We are now 10 years after the war. The animals that were being bred for subsequent breeding when my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley was, in office are, of course, inflating the herds which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to call upon to supply meat during this period. Other countries that were not producing such quantities immediately
    1818
    after the war are producing. So quite a large part of his argument is "phoney," but nothing could be more "phoney" than the evidence of the hon. Gentleman. What did he say? He said, "I admit that prices have risen under this greater freedom of choice." It is true that home-killed prime sirloin has gone up to between 4s. and 4s. 6d. a lb.; indeed, I can show him shops in Streatham, Brixton and other parts of South London where recently it has gone up higher than that. "But," he said, "the housewife has freedom of choice. She can buy imported breast of lamb for between 9d. and 1s. 3d. a lb."
    Is this Tory freedom? Is this Tory freedom brought home for the housewife? A choice between home-killed sirloin which the housewife cannot afford and mucky imported breast of lamb that she can? This may distinguish us from most hon. Gentlemen opposite and I can claim no credit for it because it happens to be part of the fortunes of life, but some of us sitting on these benches, of whom I am certainly one, have graduated from imported breast of lamb, which was all that we could afford. Under the free market provided by previous Conservative Governments, when I was a boy in South London we never regarded it as effective freedom of choice that there were in some shops prime cuts of meat that we could never have and in other shops imported breast of lamb which was the one thing we did not want. It looks horrible and very often is, and anyway it is a most expensive buy.
    I happen to know the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's wife; and I am on much better terms with the Parliamentary Secretary outside the House than would sometimes appear possible in the House. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he tell his wife—if he will not tell her, I will—that she should buy imported breast of lamb, cook it and serve it up to him. I would like to be present, not only because I would like to be there to see his face, but because I would like the hon. Gentleman to see just how expensive a purchase it is because of the quantity of bone to meat. I only hope he eats it in a Henry VIII fashion, because otherwise he will find it difficult to get any meat off it at all.
    This is no freedom of choice, and when my right hon. Friend said to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. "Of

    1819
    course, this is the same as saying that the Ritz Hotel is free for all if only people can afford to use it," the hon. Gentleman affected to regard that as an irrelevant comparison; but it was absolutely relevant. We are all free under Tory freedom to do all sorts of lovely things; the only problem is that most of the community under Tory freedom are not able to afford them, and therefore the choice is wholly illusory.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to interrupt? The words "breast of lamb" brought me out of my somnolence. It is a fact that not only the poor eat it but that it is served up to us sometimes in the House of Commons disguised under a French name.
    Mr. Brown: I do not know what to say to that interruption, except that I would never eat it under any name or in any form, and as an example of Tory freedom it is no better for being dignified with a French name than when it goes under its straightforward English name. The same argument applies to belly of pork. What is the use of saying that belly of pork on the one side and home-killed sirloin of beef on the other presents the British housewife with effective freedom of choice? There is no freedom of choice in this for many people. That is what the Government do not realise.
    This system does not work, it is extravagant, it is fantastically costly, it is uncertain in that nobody knows what the end of it will be in terms of money. It does not enable the farmer to plan his production. It does not ensure that the country uses its resources to grow food here instead of buying what it cannot afford to buy abroad. It ends up with a system in which the housewife pays more for the final product in order that the wealthy may then have all the sirloin of beef on the assumption that the poor stick to imported breast of mutton.
    I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary now feels that his exercise in getting me to my feet was worth his while. I hope he feels that it has helped the progress of the debate. I, personally, have been delighted to take part in the debate. Had I known that the hon. Gentleman was so anxious for me to do so, I assure him that I would have done so before
    1820
    he wound up the debate. All he has to do in the future, if he wishes me to speak, is to let me know that he will make an attack on me. I assure him that I will get up early in the debate instead of leaving it until the end.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite won the recent Election and are therefore entitled to be as silly and as misguided as they please. It is just worth remembering, however, that for the most part hon. Gentlemen who sit for agricultural constituencies lost part of their majorities in the Election when, on the whole, Conservative majorities rose. On the whole, then, it is a claim which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary ought to make a little less enthusiastically, since he succeeded in the rather unusual distinction this time of losing some part of his majority, although not so much as did his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster. Since, therefore, they won the Election, and since the Tory Party works that way, they are entitled to go on doing so. All I say is that we take no responsibility for this and we believe that our system of arranging guaranteed prices is much better.
    I see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Isle of Ely has now returned and has been enjoying my last few words. I repeat what I said before he came in, that as I have been deliberately incited by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to make a speech, I thought it was unfair that the deputy Chief Whip should have severely discouraged the hon. and gallant Gentleman from making his speech. As far as I am concerned, and since the Government are not in a hurry, I hope he will make his speech now.
    Major H. Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough by now to realise that nothing a Whip has ever said to me about not talking has made me not do so.
    Mr. Brown: I am sorry, I did the hon. and gallant Gentleman an injustice. I can only say that the appearance of severity on the face of the deputy Chief Whip and the disappearance of the hon. and gallant Gentleman from the Chamber misled me.
    Mr. S. N. Evans: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, may I put a point to him? I have listened to his fierce indictment. Am I to vote against this Motion?
    Mr. Brown: I am delighted to see our coalition re-established. As the Whip of my private coalition, I am delighted to inform my hon. Friend that we regard this matter as entirely the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. Those whom the gods intend to destroy they first drive mad, so we think that tonight we had better let them go on their way.
    Mr. Frederick Peart: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Do I take it that after a decision has been taken on this Motion, you will take Vote III—Agricultural and Food Services—and that we shall have a separate debate on them?
    The Chairman: Yes, that is the next one.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,589,010, 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, 1956, for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; and for certain direct subsidy payments and certain trading and other services, including payments and services in implementation of agricultural price guarantees.

    VOTE 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SERVICES
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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, 1956, for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with agricultural and food services; including land drainage and rehabilitation of land damaged by flood and tempest; purchase, development and management of land, including land settlement and provision of smallholdings; services in connection with livestock, and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and supplementary labour schemes; control of pests; education, research and advisory services; marketing; agricultural credits; certain trading services; subscriptions to international organisations; and sundry other services including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. F. Willey: I wish to raise a few points on this Vote. I am not surprised that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has
    1822
    not first endeavoured to explain it. However, with some difficulty, I appreciate its major purposes.
    There is something here which is unusual in a Vote of this character. There are sales abroad amounting to more than £11 million. What foodstuffs do we intend to sell abroad during this financial year? Why cannot they be sold at home. Is the Minister afraid that their sale at home would reduce the price to the housewife, and is not this a deliberate policy to sell foodstuffs abroad in order to maintain the high-price policy at home?
    The Vote deals in the main with trading services. When we had a reply earlier from one of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, he conspicuously failed to deal with the point that I raised about the trading services part of the Vote. There seems to be a strange reluctance, which is understandable, on the part of the Government to refer to those services at all. I do not want to get out of order, but earlier I called attention to the remarkably high loss by the Ministry on a small trading transaction. I know that part of it was attributable to welfare foods, but, allowing for that, there has been a remarkable incidence of loss even for the Ministry of Food.
    I have said that in this financial year we are selling abroad more than £11 million worth of foodstuffs. What is the subsidy borne on such sales? We know that the average loss of the Ministry on resale now is certainly over 10 per cent. Can it be assumed that we are now subsidising foreign consumers of foodstuffs, bought by the Ministry for our own consumption, to the extent of more than £1 million?
    The Ministry is understandably coy about revealing details of stock losses. However, as we have now got a remanet trading account, perhaps we may be told the stock losses anticipated for the next twelve months. What are the losses on tinned meat borne by this Vote? I appreciate the difficulty about strategic reserves and the commercial transactions of the Ministry. Perhaps it is not so appropriate on this Vote to ask about the loss on welfare milk stocks. What are the storage charges to be borne in the next twelve months? Have we still cheese stored in Belgium and bacon in Denmark, and is sugar still on barges? What

    1823
    is the overall cost of storage in foreign currency?
    There are a few other questions arising out of subhead M on the trading services that I should like to put to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. The Committee will appreciate that this is a cash account; we are now dealing with the cash which will be provided by the transactions of the Ministry during the next twelve months. It has nothing to do with profit and loss. There is a rather extraordinary situation revealed here, and I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to explain how it comes about that in the next twelve months the Ministry anticipates, on a cash account, to show a deficit of £1,400,000 on grain, including cereal feeding stuffs.
    Surely that can happen in only two ways. Either the Ministry is paying somebody to shovel it away so that it is £1,400,000 out of pocket, or its stocks are being increased to the extent of £1,400,000. How is this happening if the Ministry got out of the grain business two years ago? In its revised Estimates last year, the Ministry, in disposing of stocks of cereals, calculated that there would be a balance of £3,900,000. How does it come about that it now shows a deficit of £1,400,000 in disposal of stocks?
    My second point is a similar one, although it is not concerned with precisely the same circumstances. For the first time on the cash account we are showing a loss of £900,000 on oils and fats. I appreciate that the Ministry is still in the oils and fats business, but the revised Estimate last year showed an anticipated cash return of more than £50 million. How is it that, on the cash statement, we are now facing a loss of £900,000?
    I also notice that the Department expects to be able to pay to the Treasury more than £22 million in respect of sugar. That is more than twice what the Department, according to last year's Estimates, anticipated paying to the Treasury. Am I to assume from that that there are to be further sales of sugar abroad, and, if so, may we be told to which countries they are to be made?
    Another query relates to bacon. The Department expects to make a modest credit of £10, unlike the position in previous years. I know the explanation for
    1824
    that; we know what is happening about trading in bacon this year. However, I should like to know the effect of something else which I have previously raised in the House. There was a remarkable occurrence in bacon prices this year. In respect of Danish, Dutch, Irish and Polish bacon being sold by the Ministry, there was a reduction in the wholesale price from 7th April until 8th June. I should like to know how much that cost the Department.
    It was obviously merely fortuitous, but it happened to cover the period of the General Election. In my constituency, and probably in most constituencies, a point was made about the cheaper retail price of bacon. I think it is remarkable that for that specific period the Ministry, which, after all, is wholesaling bacon on Government account, reduced the price. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman says that it was the result of supply and demand. The demand for bacon apparently fell during the General Election period and picked up immediately afterwards.
    Mr. Amory: As I pointed out the other day, the demand for bacon fell considerably before the General Election, and it has only recently picked up.
    Mr. Willey: I presume that the Government took expeditious action. I should not have described 7th April as long before the General Election.
    Mr. Amory: The demand had fallen considerably before that time and the Ministry price had gradually come down.
    Mr. Willey: I concede that the price was also reduced a little earlier. At any rate, it is remarkable that things rectified themselves immediately after the Election.
    Mr. Amory: Correct commercial action was taken and produced satisfactory results. I am not referring to the Election.
    Mr. Willey: I will not pursue the matter, but there seems to be a coincidence in the commercial and political action taken.
    If we turn to the trading losses—I have been dealing with only the cash payment —we get a position to which we had accustomed ourselves with the Ministry of Food, and which is apparently to continue in that Department's new environment. On a turnover of about £50 million, the Department says it will

    1825
    suffer a trading loss—there is no attempt to disguise this as a subsidy—of about £8,800,000. I suppose that is what we can expect. The percentage of loss is rising very steeply. It is now about 16 per cent., which is certainly an achievement. When everyone can make a profit in food, the Ministry can run at a loss of about 16 per cent.
    I ask the Parliamentary Secretary specifically why, in the case of butter and cheese, he should anticipate a loss this year of more than £2½ million; why in the case of oils and fats—on a free market—the Ministry will suffer a loss and anticipate a loss of more than £1 million; why in the case of sugar—again on a free market—the Ministry should, although it is obviously anticipating a considerable turnover, expect any loss at all.
    I wish especially to refer to meat. As we said in the previous debate, the Ministry used to make what it regarded as a modest profit on transactions in the sale of imported meat. That obtained until February this year. On 15th February, when I asked about the Supplementary Estimate, we learned for the first time that the Ministry no longer anticipated making a profit on imported meat and estimated that in the last financial year it would suffer a loss—admittedly a very small loss—of £100,000. In other words, it hoped by the end of the year to strike about even.
    However, when we debated that within a week of the end of the financial year, I hold the House that the Ministry would sustain a substantial loss in disposing of imported meat. The Minister did not correct that, nor did he challenge it. On the other hand he did not say anything to alter the Department's view that it would suffer a loss of £100,000. The Ministry is not 100 per cent. out, it is not hundreds of per cent. out, it is thousands of per cent. out. The financial year ended a week after that debate. The Parliamentary Secretary now tells me that the loss is not £100,000, it is £5,800,000.
    That means that when the right hon. Gentleman was addressing the House a week before the end of the financial year presumably he did not know what was happening. Who runs the Ministry? Who took the decision that a loss of nearly £6 million should be borne on the sale of imported meat? I could hazard
    1826
    a guess in the House that there would be substantial losses, but the Minister, apparently and overtly, was standing by his Supplementary Estimate that the loss on the import of food would be £100,000. How could that happen? Either the Minister did not know, which is the conclusion that I draw, or he did not wish to disclose the figure. I prefer to take the charitable conclusion that he just did not know. That is what I think is happening at the Ministry.
    Bringing the story within the present Supplementary Estimates, this chapter has now been concluded, because all the meat has gone and it has cost the taxpayer, according to this Vote, another £3 million. So within a few months we have had a deficit of £100,000, which was striking a balance, neither profit nor loss, becoming an enormous loss of £9 million. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what that represents per 1b. of meat sold, as that is important.
    A few minutes ago the Parliamentary Secretary made a point of how attractive was the sale of imported meat. That also was sold at the time of the General Election. We had bacon sold cheaply during the General Election and after the Election the price was rectified. We also had the sale of imported meat and the Government saying in the Supplementary Estimate in February that it would be sold at a loss of £100,000, and yet now we are told that stocks have been disposed of at a loss of nearly £9 million.
    That is a proper subject of inquiry, and we are entitled to a full explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. We also know that 11,500 tons of that meat was sold abroad. When was it sold abroad? To whom was it sold? We are told that it was sold to private buyers, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) referred to the interest which the Soviet Union is showing in buying meat. It is believed that most of this meat has gone to the Soviet Union. This is a matter which affects us, because we know that there were times last year when the Soviet Union was buying, for example, as much as half of all the meat coming from Uruguay, although in the past we have regarded ourselves as the sole importers of meat from Uruguay.
    The Russians have become the third largest importers of meat in the world.

    1827
    We do not know whether it is a matter of policy on their part to go to the world food market—they are rather erratic traders—or whether it arises because of temporary difficulties. However, if foodstuffs are being sold to the Soviet Union, it would be better to sell them direct and negotiate direct. If we are likely to face increasing competition for world food supplies, we had better not prejudice our position.
    While I fully realise that the Parliamentary Secretary is new to this Department, and that he does not yet bear responsibility for the matters to which I am calling his attention, I hope that he has applied his mind with diligence to them and is no longer in blissful ignorance. He used to intervene in food debates in blissful ignorance. Now he is thoroughly informed and must be very disturbed and upset. I hope that he will offer some solace to the House now that he is fully cognisant of these matters, and will not run away by saying that the Ministry is getting out of the food business and not caring at what cost.
    7.40 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Peart: As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) mentioned, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) commented about the Soviet Government participating in the world market for food. My hon. and gallant Friend tried to get home the point that there is terrific competition in the world today and that consequently we have to pay particular attention to home production. That is why I wish to concentrate on some aspects of production which are affected by the Supplementary Estimate, and some aspects of policy which affect home production directly and indirectly.
    First, I would refer to research, which has not been mentioned in the debate and which comes under subhead H.8. I have raised this matter of research on a previous occasion. We see from the Estimates that in 1955–56 an additional sum of £16,960 will be required. If one looks at the subhead in detail, on a later page one cannot be certain where that money is going. We see on page 20 that the money covers
    "Scientific research in connection with nutrition, food technology, etc."
    1828
    I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to be precise. Can we have an indication of Government policy on research? Will there be emphasis on research in connection with livestock? These matters affect farming.
    I am rather perturbed about our failure in regard to research. Too often we jibe at the scientists, but the view of those engaged in agriculture is that agricultural science has made a very remarkable contribution. I am asking for information, and am in no way criticising the existing institutions. Government-sponsored institutions are doing remarkably well, but I still feel that we should have an indication of Government policy, and that research should have greater priority.
    The Minister and his Department are responsible for research in connection with the Ordnance Survey. There is a link between that and the Geological Survey, which is vital for agriculture. If we are to develop home food production and marginal land we must know the land, and we can know that only if we have an adequate geological survey.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, raised this matter by Question, and I have pursued it in further Questions. It was rather interesting to know that we have not a complete geological survey yet for this country. Northern Ireland has, and the figure for Scotland is 90 per cent. and for England and Wales 60 per cent.
    The Chairman The Chairman rose—
    Mr. Peart: I know that I am transgressing, Sir Charles, and I will not pursue this matter. I was only using it by way of illustration to show that we lag behind in one important field affecting agriculture, where the Minister has responsibility. If we are to develop home agriculture quickly we must give every assistance to scientific research conducted in our institutions. I should like more details of subhead H.8, and an indication of Government policy.
    Another matter covered by the Supplementary Estimate, quite different from that which I have just raised, concerns agricultural credits, mentioned on page 18. This very important matter affects particularly the small farmer. Many hon. Members have argued that financial policy has not affected the small farmer.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member has referred to page 18. I do not see that this Vote covers agricultural credits.
    Mr. Peart: If you read the eleventh line down, Sir Charles, you will see a reference to the agricultural credits.
    The Chairman: That is only in the general heading. It does not appear in the subheads of the Vote.
    Mr. Peart: I will leave that matter, and present an argument about policy on research, etc., which is mentioned earlier, as affecting land reclamation. We know that research institutions, like that at Aberystwyth, in Wales——
    The Chairman: I am sorry to have to stop the hon. Member again, but this subject is really only in the heading to the Vote in which different matters are reviewed. It does not appear to come under the Vote.
    Mr. Peart: I have already mentioned subhead H.8, which deals with research. In relation to that heading, I was only going to say that our hill farms should be encouraged by more research of the type conducted in Aberystwyth and other places, and that I should like an indication of the policy of the Government, and of whether they would encourage more research of that kind.
    However, I will not proceed with that matter. I will turn to
    "Subscriptions to International Organisations."
    This appears on page 19. I should like to refer to our subscriptions to agricultural and other organisations of the United Nations, under subheads L.1 and L.3, which relate to
    "Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations."
    and
    "Other international organisations."
    I hope I shall be in order, but before I proceed to make my speech under those headings I should like your guidance, Sir Charles. Am I entitled to ask for a statement on Government policy in relation to these organisations?
    The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman should proceed with his speech, and I shall be guided by what he says.
    Mr. Peart: I am much obliged, Sir Charles. I do not wish to depart from
    1830
    the rules of order in discussing international aspects of agriculture, which are extremely important.
    I know there is a reason for a revision of the Estimate corresponding to the additional sum required. It was given by the Minister in his opening speech. I would like to know the policy of the Government in regard to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Is the Estimate sufficient to cover our support? After all, that organisation is financed by the United Nations.
    Many hon. Members may have sympathy for other organisations, but the F.A.O. has done a remarkable job over the years. I should like the Government to give it every support. We have only to look at the statistical details which have been given of world food production and at the technical and personnel assistance that has been given.
    That Organisation has helped us in our own country, as when it set up regional organisations to deal with diseases in livestock in Europe. We remember the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak here in 1952, when there was a direct European contagion. We thought that our own livestock could be protected only by something more than national action, by action on the European level. We gave every support to the F.A.O. in that matter. Indeed, some of our finest people, like Sir Thomas Dalling, our Chief Veterinary Officer, supported the Organisation.
    Do the Government feel that the amount mentioned in the revised Estimate is adequate to support the Organisation, which is working in the sphere of the United Nations? We have here a constructive approach to world problems, and there are many specific instances in which even the barrier of the Iron Curtain has been broken and countries with different ideologies have worked together constructively for agriculture. I hope that the organisation will have continued support from the Government.
    I turn to subhead L.3. I should like to ask a specific question about the new European organisation which has been set up under the O.E.E.C. which, I assume, is covered by this subhead. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, it was decided in Paris in July last year to set up a new international agricultural

    1831
    organisation to take the place of the old "Green Pool" idea sponsored by many European statesmen and politicians. Instead of a form of Schumann Plan for agriculture—a high authority as for coal and steel—we have a new European organisation in which the Government participate. Indeed, at the preliminary conference held in March last year representatives from the Parliamentary Secretary's Department attended.
    I want to know what the policy of the Government really is in relation to this new international organisation to which we have given our blessing. The Paymaster-General attended the initial conference, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food now attends the Ministerial Committee. It is extremely important that this evening we should know the Government's policy, because this organisation can have a tremendous effect on home agriculture.
    At the original conference last July a Resolution was passed in which it was decided
    "to co-ordinate agricultural policies"
    and "to harmonise"—if I may quote from the Resolution,
    "…the conditions of production and of the markets for agricultural commodities with a view to the creation of a common market."
    This new organisation seeks to create a common market for European agriculture. Is it the Government's intention to pursue that objective in the months ahead? The Government's representative at the conference supported the view that we should seek to eliminate trade barriers —and again I quote from the Resolution,
    "…to eliminate the obstacles to a rational expansion of the agricultural production and to increase trade."
    The Resolution then went on to talk about the common market, the need for an opening up of the market, an end to barriers, and a move towards multilateralism.
    We should know what the Government's policy is on this because it directly affects the horticultural industry. Do we really support the principle of the common market, or are we merely paying lip-service to this European conception in order to appease supporters of European unity among hon. Members opposite? Are we just speaking in platitudes? I understand that only last
    1832
    week, at Strasbourg, this matter was raised. European agriculturists expressed concern about this new organisation which the British Government helped to sponsor and supported so strongly, and which, I admit, I supported myself in a speech at Strasbourg last year.
    Are we really sincere in our approach to the organisation? We have a responsibility. The Ministerial Committee now exists, and I understand that the Minister has already represented Britain on that body. Are we going to take it seriously? After all, the main work will not be done by Ministers but by the Committee of Deputies. Who is to be the deputy? It will probably be the Parliamentary Secretary—I hope that it is—but have the Government made a statement about it?
    The work, as I say, will be done by the Committee of Deputies, and we shall also have to make a contribution to the secretariat. We make a contribution of approximately 10 per cent. to the expenses of F.A.O. What will be the British contribution to this new O.E.E.C. organisation? Will the Minister this evening give some indication of what our share will be?
    I have raised the issue of policy, which is important. I have raised the issue of financial policy which again is important because from that we can really judge the intentions of the Government. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to regard this as an important matter, not just because of its relation to horticulture, but because it is important in relation to our good will on the Continent. We may or may not agree with the idea of the common market. I believe, and have stressed, that our home production should come first, but we should also play our part in this new set-up.
    I have never accepted the view that we should have something rigid like a high authority—agriculture is too diversified and one cannot have rigidity when considering such a European link. We have to consider the special interests of our home horticulture. Nevertheless, we are committed to this idea of a common market and a "Green Pool" in Europe. Tonight, when we are considering the Estimates, it is important that we should have from the Minister some detailed explanation of our support, or lack of

    1833
    support, for such organisations. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will try to enlighten me on this issue.
    7.58 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), referred to the time when I sat on the back benches and intervened from time to time. He said that now that I have had some inside knowledge I perhaps realise how little I knew at that time. I must say that when I sat on the back benches I was at times rather impressed with the knowledge the hon. Gentleman appeared to have, but now, after having had this inside knowledge, I find that even he, with his great experience—and I say that in the full meaning of the word—can make some mistakes.
    In his opening words, it struck me that he had forgotten my right hon. Friend's explanation that this was not a new supplementary figure but a merger; that the figures are not new but are a rearrangement of the figures which were set out and presented in February of this year. Having given him a warning that as a consequence of that I shall not perhaps be able to answer all his questions in detail —as I thought I should until I realised the effect of the merger—I shall endeavour to answer many of the important points to which he later referred.
    I should first like to clear up the £11 million figure on sugar. That was for sugar sold abroad. The hon. Gentleman then referred to what he termed a loss on cereals, but the figure to which he referred in his opening words was not a loss but a balancing arrangement under the merger.
    There was some loss on imported meat. We have the hon. Gentleman's figures, which I have no doubt are correctly taken from the Estimates, but the loss on imported meat is due, as has been explained on many occasions, to the public's preference for home-killed rather than for imported meat. We had an example of that from his right hon. Friend not many minutes ago when he said that he had graduated from imported meat and he preferred and expected to get home-killed meat. That appeared to be the view of many people in this country, and apparently they had the income which enabled them to pay for it, despite
    1834
    the strictures which have been expressed earlier this evening. The result is that our stocks of imported meat could not be allowed to deteriorate, and, in order to turn them over rather than allow them to deteriorate, they were sold off at a lower price, which accounts for some of the deficit to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
    I was asked about meat that has been sold abroad. About 11,000 tons of meat was sold on the Continent. It was offloaded in Continental ports owing to the dock strike last autumn. I think we tend to forget cause and effect in some of these matters. When we had the dock strike to contend with last autumn we said that the effects would not be realised at home for many months, and here is an example. There is nobody more experienced than the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, and I bow to him in his assiduity in getting the facts before coming to the Box, but here he had apparently over-looked that this meat was sold abroad because of the effects of the dock strike here.
    This meat was disposed of on the Continent on the advice of the experts who said that from their experience they could scarcely suggest that we should handle this meat two or three times, off-loading it on the Continent, then taking it out of cold store, shipping and off-loading it again to cold stores in this country, later to be sold in the shops here. That accounts for the sales abroad to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Willey: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but can he say when the sales of this meat which was off-loaded abroad were made?
    Mr. Nicholls: I told the hon. Gentleman that it was off-loaded on the Continent in the autumn of last year. I have no information at the moment when the actual sales were contracted, but I should think that a decision to sell would have been taken at the time that the decision was taken to off-load on to the Continent, because the reason we off-loaded on the Continent was that we had been advised by the experts that the meat would not stand double loading which would be involved if we held it back and brought it into the shops here after the strike was ended. I should have thought it a fair assumption that the decision to sell was taken at the time the decision was taken to off-load on the Continent.

    1835
    If the position is different I will let the hon. Gentleman know, because I know that he would like the actual facts on his record and not any assumptions that he or I might make.
    The "jungle service" has come into being, and I can now tell the hon. Gentleman definitely that the meat was sold in April, 1955. So it did not work as I had assumed it did. The decision to off-load it abroad because of the strike was followed later by the decision to sell it on the Continent, and the decision was taken in April, 1955.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the prices of imported bacon. Prices were reduced on the advice of the Imported Bacon Producing Advisory Panel, from November, 1954. The reason for reducing the prices in November, 1954, was that supplies were far in excess of demand at that time—indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to this in his speech—and stocks were piling up. Further reductions from February were made, but when we reduced the second time in February I am afraid that the demand did not respond. Only just recently has the demand perked up again, and as a consequence prices have gone up. That is what will follow in a free market. The demand will settle the prices generally, and that is precisely what happened with bacon.
    The trading loss on butter and cheese to which the hon. Gentleman referred is due to the obligation that the Ministry undertook to buy butter and cheese at fixed prices under the long-term contracts with New Zealand, Australia and Denmark. That was a position that I know had the support of the hon. Gentleman at the time, and I have no doubt it represents a principle that he still supports. These products had to be sold on a free market here, and the price is determined by the supplies available in relation to the demand. That is the effect which we found in meeting the public demand, which in our view should have a high priority. The demand settles whether or not one is to make a profit or a loss when one is committed to the amount of stocks which have to be purchased. I was asked how long these contracts were likely to go on, and I can Tell the hon. Gentleman that the last long-term contract for butter and cheese
    1836
    ends on 30th September, so that we are almost at the end of that road.
    With reference to the trading services deficits, I do not think there is a great deal that I can add to what is set out in the Estimates. Hon. Members will see on page 24 that the total trading deficit is estimated at £8·8 million, and we have broken down that total as follows: Cereals £0·1 million; imported eggs £0·9 million; imported meat £3 million; milk products £2·7 million; oils and fats £1·2 million; sugar £0·6 million; Recommissioned Mills Ltd. £0·3 million.
    The hon. Gentleman made particular reference to one or two of the items in that list. Whilst trading in cereals had terminated in 1954–55, clearing up operations remained to be carried out in the following year 1955–56, and it is estimated that a sum of £1·4 million will be required in 1955–56 to discharge obligations which arose in the previous year. Provision had been made for that in the trading accounts for the year 1954–55. As a result of this, a deficit of only £100,000 is expected to arise in the current year. I think that should answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
    In addition to the tonnages of meat to be delivered in completion of the contract with the Argentine, stocks of imported meat remained to be sold. This meat is estimated to yield proceeds which, after meeting the trading deficits forecast at £3 million—that is forecast at page 24 of the Supplementary Estimate—will provide £18,100,000 for surrender to the Exchequer. While the deficit is shown as £3 million, we have got this £18,100,000 on the cash side which will go to the Exchequer, and it more than balances the deficit.
    On oils and fats, the Ministry will continue to purchase copra and coconut oil under existing long-term contracts which are well-known to the hon. Gentleman, and they are estimated to result in cash needs of £900,000, with a resulting deficit of £1·2 million. All of this is part of the colonial help that I know has the support of both sides of the Committee because of the wider benefits which will flow from it.
    Trading in sugar continues in implementation of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It is expected that the trading will result in a deficit of £0·6 million. On the other side of the picture,

    1837
    we have substantial disposals of Ministry stocks of sugar in the course of the year which will result in receipts sufficient to meet the cost of trading operations and leave a balance of £22·1 million which, again, will be available to the Exchequer.
    The hon. Gentleman asked who was buying the sugar abroad. I think it is mainly India, but there again I should like him to allow me to correct that if my recollection is not right.
    I think that is a sketchy answer to the many questions which he put, but, added to the information which exists in the Supplementary Estimate, I think he will find that it gives a pretty full summary on all the points which he raised.
    Mr. Willey: Could the hon. Gentleman say a little more about cereals? This occurs under the heading of trading services and he described it as a balancing item. It is somewhat difficult to appreciate the significance of some of the figures in the Ministry of Agriculture's Vote and I should be obliged if he would say a little more about that figure.
    Mr. Nicholls: I gave the hon. Gentleman the figure of £100,000, which is the deficit which will be left after the clearing up operation of this year. I think that is the only figure involved in the Estimates, and I think that answers the question which he asked in his opening speech.
    I want to assure the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) at once that he can rely upon the Government to give full and unstinted support to scientific research in all its facets. We recognise, as does the hon. Gentleman, how important it is for us to be at the head of research so that our industry can have the full benefit of all new ideas which flow from it.
    The provision under this subhead is for the expenditure of the Chief Scientific Advisor's Division (Food), which was set up during the war to give advice on the application of scientific knowledge to the problem of war-time feeding. The work of the Division, which started during the war, has continued to expand since then and now covers a very wide field of research into questions related to quick freezing and storage, bacteriological work, quality and wastage of foodstuffs, nutrition and dehydration.
    1838
    The hon. Gentleman asked what we had in mind here, and I can tell him that this expenditure falls under three main headings: food technology, nutrition and food defence. It includes the cost of scientific equipment and consumable apparatus and foodstuffs for use by the staff of the Division while carrying out the research. It also includes payment to Research Associations for work undertaken on behalf of the Ministry.
    Capital expenditure and running costs in connection with the research factory and the laboratory at Aberdeen are provided for under subheads N.1 and N.2.
    As the hon. Member will have noticed, the provision shows a decrease of £4,460 compared with 1954–55, but that is mainly accounted for by a reduced provision to meet the cost of experimental work on meat freezing. This does not mean that experimental work in this direction is not still going on. Many of the private businesses connected with this subject are carrying on research as ardently as it was carried on before.
    The international aspect of this problem is, I know, a matter in which the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested. The efforts he has made on his visits to Strasbourg and his speeches there are probably well known. I can assure him that his interest is shared by the Ministry and the Government. The hon. Gentleman mentioned, in particular, F.A.O. We are satisfied that it is doing valuable work. The United Kingdom is now a member of the Council and of its Committee on Commodity Problems. He asked what interest we were taking, having become a member. Over the past years our representatives have taken an active part in many of the technical meetings. During 1953–54 we supplied 37 experts from this country for technical assistance work under the ægis of F.A.O. and we trained 30 F.A.O. workers in this country. I think that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman that our support is more than a platitude.
    Mr. Peart: I wanted to know the details of the European organisation. The Minister has been to one conference, but at the original conference it was proposed that there should be a Committee of Deputies which would do the main work of the organisation. Who will be the deputy for this country? We know that the Minister of Agriculture is to be the

    1839
    representative. Who will be his deputy? Will it be a junior Minister from his Department or somebody outside the Department? The Paymaster-General, who attended the original conference, was outside the Department.
    Mr. Nicholls: Sad to say, it will not be the Parliamentary Secretary, as the hon. Gentleman was good enough to suggest. The member of the Committee of Deputies will be a senior official of this Ministry with the rank of Under-Secretary. The main Committee of Ministers will be what it says—a Committee of Ministers. It has met twice in recent months. Its function is to determine the general policy of the organisation's agricultural work. It is served by the Committee of Deputies, which has met three times in the last three months, and the member of that Committee from this country will be a senior official with the rank of Under-Secretary.
    Mr. PeartI am sorry to be so persistent about this. Will this country also have a share in the secretariat? Has that been decided? Can the hon. Gentleman give any information about it? If he is unable to do so, I shall well understand it.
    Mr. Nicholls: I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman on that question. I have had conversations with him and I should like to thank him for having given notice of this subject, but I thought his interest in personnel ended with the information about who was to be the deputy for the meeting of deputies. I will give him the information for which he asks.
    Mr. Peart: Thank you.
    Mr. Nicholls: The programme of work which has been approved for the Agricultural Committee of O.E.E.C. is an interesting and formidable programme which will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. On broad lines it is this: first, they set out to study national agricultural policies with a view to practical measures of coordination—and that is the hon. Gentleman's policy. Secondly, study and action relating to increased consumption and improved methods of distribution. That is something for which right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been asking for many months. I think we have perhaps been providing it in this country and now it will be dealt with in the wider area
    1840
    covered by the activities of the new continental Committee.
    The third point was special steps to expand trade between member countries and the fourth was action to raise the level of European productivity in food and agriculture. In its long-term aspect the last item is perhaps most important of all, because unless we can raise the level of productivity in food and agriculture it will be a problem to meet the general increasing consumption which, as we are very delighted to see, is taking place in all countries of the world.
    Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Is all this being done for £10?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. and gallant Friend has many attributes; optimism is undoubtedly one of them. As he knows, the object of putting £10 in the Vote has nothing to do with the actual amount expected to be spent. The idea is that we may have permission from Parliament to go into this question at all. I am afraid the bill arising out of this Vote will come later.
    I am satisfied that the Supplementary Estimate, which in itself is an amazing document full of details which have already given all the answers for which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North asked——
    Mr. Willey: Far from it.
    Mr. Nicholls: —will be supplemented by the extra words I have been able to utter. I recommend that this Vote be accepted.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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, 1956, for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with agricultural and food services; including land drainage and rehabilitation of land damaged by flood and tempest; purchase, development and management of land, including land settlement and provision of smallholdings; services in connection with livestock, and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and supplementary labour schemes; control of pests; education, research and advisory services; marketing; agricultural credits; certain trading services; subscriptions to international organisations; and sundry other services including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

  CLASS V

    VOTE 4. MINISTRY OF HEALTH
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,295,000, 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, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health and the Board of Control; expenditure on the Polish health services; measures for civil defence; port health administration; residential accommodation for the aged, infirm, etc.; purchases on repayment for other Government Departments; expenses in connection with welfare food services and food hygiene; and sundry other services, including a subscription to the World Health Organisation.
    8.23 p.m.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): We turn from considering the affairs of the Ministry of Agriculture to those of the Ministry of Health, but we are still concerned with food because this sum of rather more than £2¼ million on my Vote arises out of the Transfer of Functions Order made by the Privy Council on 30th June and laid before this House a week ago. That Order transfers to me food hygiene functions from the day after the Order was laid-6th July—and welfare foods responsibility from 1st October.
    It is with those two matters, almost entirely with the second, that this Supplementary Estimate is concerned. The financial implications of the transfer of food hygiene functions are very minor and form only part of subhead A.1, which relates to salaries and transfer of staff to my Department. Any other expenditure I may have to meet—for example, expenses of the Food Hygiene Advisory Council—can be met from administrative expenditure already voted. I take it, therefore, that if the Opposition wants to criticise or oppose the Order in Council that has been laid before the House it will take another opportunity of doing so. I propose to concentrate my remarks tonight on the welfare food side of this Vote.
    There is one general remark to make, that the comparatively small sum of £2¼ million is very misleading. It is misleading, in part, because I am only taking these functions from 1st October and, secondly, because very large sums have already been voted by Parliament to the Ministry of Food and can be
    1842
    appropriated against the amounts for which I am asking. In fact in a full year the amount comes to something more than £30 million. It is, therefore, a most formidable addition to the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. It is borne on the Ministry of Health Vote and not on the National Health Service Vote.
    I only intend to say a sentence or two on the food hygiene functions. Our intentions have been indicated to the House by the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister of Agriculture on 28th March. With my right hon. Friend I am jointly responsible for regulations. Therefore, all we are transferring is the primary administrative responsibility. I think it is generally known that regulations under the Food and Drugs Act dealing with hygiene on food premises and with the handling and distribution of food, with the exception of milk, meat and slaughterhouses, will come under my Department. Unless hon. Members wish to develop that side of the question, I shall concentrate my remarks on welfare foods.
    The welfare food scheme for some time has provided milk and various supplements to expectant and nursing mothers and children under five. The scheme was administered by the Ministry of Food and the Government were faced with a problem when, in July last year, with the closing of the local food offices we had to make new arrangements for distribution. There was no problem of distribution of liquid milk—that went on through the dairies. We had the choice of using Government Departments as agencies—no doubt we would have to use the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance or the Ministry of Labour and National Service —or of asking local authorities to undertake this task.
    There were two considerations which particularly influenced the Government in inviting local authorities to take on this work. First, it was giving a most important function back to local authorities and on the whole that is a good thing because we have taken many functions from them in recent years. Secondly, it was because local health authorities are responsible to me for so many aspects of the health of mothers and young children that it seemed appropriate that they should also have the distribution and encouragement of the use of these services.

    1843
    Therefore, I should be concerned with the definition of the beneficiaries, with the fixing of the quantities of welfare foods, with the determination of prices and with enforcement, if that is necessary in the event of offences. It follows that if I am to determine policy I should also be responsible for cost. Under the appropriate subhead of this Supplementary Estimate, I.3, I am using the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, and the Ministry of Labour and National Service as agency Departments. I am using the last two for the issue of documents, which obviously fits in, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for, in certain cases, the procurement of bulk supplies of welfare foods.
    There are two main points to emphasise. First, this transfer of functions make no change whatever from the point of view of beneficiaries. Mothers and children are entitled, and will continue to be entitled, to the same quantities of food, on the same terms and from the same places. The other thing to emphasise is that I regard, and the Government regard welfare foods as a most important part of the country's social services.
    The only other point on which I think the Committee would like to hear from me is what has happened in the year that the functions have been under the charge of local health authorities. Naturally, we do not yet have figures for the full year—it is just only coming to an end—but we can make a reasonably good estimate. I gave some figures to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and to the House, and they will be found in HANSARD for 2nd May.
    Comparing July to December, 1954, with the same period in 1953, the consumption of national milk fell by 8 per cent., cod liver oil by 14 per cent., orange juice by 13 per cent. and vitamin tablets by 20 per cent. We have the figures for the first quarter of this year and to some extent this trend has continued with dried milk and with orange juice, but there has been a rising tendency with cod liver oil and vitamin tablets. I took a few spot checks in different parts of the country and there does not seem to be much significant difference between them. Therefore, we can say that these
    1844
    trends seem to be level throughout the country.
    The important question is what we should read into this, and I suggest that those figures should give cause for considerable thought but not necessarily for concern. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who said that the best investment for the country was putting milk into babies—and that, no doubt, is true; but only a certain amount of milk can be put into any one baby, and we cannot assume from any drop in the figures of national dried milk, for example, that there is any nutritional significance. It may merely mask a turn towards some of the proprietary brands that are very popular indeed. Again, the demand for welfare orange juice is affected by the availability of fresh fruit and there are many other sources of Vitamin D except cod liver oil. All the same, the drop is very substantial and one that we must watch in the, next few months and on which I would wish to report again to the House as soon as we have full figures.
    I think that the local authorities can help. Part of the drop may be because of the difference in the siting of the places where these foods are now available. It may be that distribution through local health authority centres, clinics and so on, has meant a wider choice for the consumer, but it is sometimes unquestionably true that the hours at which those centres are open are not so convenient as before and it is possible that this has some effect. But it gives point to the consideration that was indicated as one of the main reasons for this change to local health authorities.
    What we are really concerned with is to be certain that the diets of those children and mothers which may be deficient are supplemented. That is our main worry. It is precisely because the local health authorities, who know who those mothers, families and children are, play their part, as I am sure they will, that we will get the full benefit of this important part of our social services, going to the people who need it most. Local health authorities, through their staff at clinics and their health visitors and in many other ways are well placed to see that the strongest possible advice to take up the welfare foods is given to those whose diet might otherwise be deficient.

    1845
    Those are the reasons that led to this change and those are the explanations that I thought the Committee might like to hear from me when considering this Supplementary Estimate. It is one of much more importance than the figures show. It amounts to no less than £30 million or more of our money every year but I am sure the Committee will agree that it is money well spent. I ask hon. Members in due course, after we have had a discussion, for their approval of this Estimate.
    8.35 p.m.
    Mr. A Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): We have listened with interest to the Minister explaining the Supplementary Estimate, because of course it is true, as I think we can say on both sides of the Committee, that expenditure in this field is regarded as of the very greatest importance. It is therefore natural that we should be anxious if there should be any sign of any drop at all in the use of the service. It is true that over a period of some years there has been a fairly steady decline in the use of these welfare services, a decline which has been even more marked during the past year, since the transfer to the local authorities.
    I should like to mention first, with regard to the transfer of food hygiene functions—and I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman—that it would be preferable to discuss separately these very important changes which have been made in an Order recently before the House, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity before very long of discussing them in some detail. Therefore, like the right hon. Gentleman, I propose to deal purely with the welfare foods sections.
    Some of the points which I wish to raise with the Minister have already been mentioned. It is satisfactory to us that this change has taken place and that the transfer has been made to the local authorities. We think that broadly it is desirable that the local authorities should have the responsibility for this work. We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a most important part of our social services. If that is so, it is a matter of some anxiety that there should be as great a decline in the use of the services as we have seen from the recently quoted figures.
    1846
    In addition to the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in an Answer to a Question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and the additional figures which the Minister has given today, I have also seen some figures from the London County Council area, which confirm this trend. Although they do not show any improvement in the cod liver oil and vitamin figures, they suggest that a sufficiently adequate period is necessary for a proper test. Taking the average weekly issue in March, 1954, and in March of this year, there has been a very considerable drop, which is shown all through the figures relating to these welfare foods.
    Some figures have also been made available from Liverpool where, by the way, there is a complaint of not having been able to obtain from the Ministry of Food the comparable figures for the period before the change-over to local authority responsibility. Such figures as are available in Liverpool suggest a considerable decline, but they also suggest that there has undoubtedly been some change from National dried milk to proprietary brands of milk, purchased in some cases from the clinics. That is mentioned in the case of Liverpool, and certainly in the case of London, and we must bear it in mind.
    We must also bear in mind the number of children who are able to take advantage of this provision, but I think it would be fair to say that the matter is sufficiently important to warrant a very close check being made by the Ministry on the reasons for the decline. I think it would be well worth while if some special investigation could be made, perhaps of the character of the most valuable survey that has been and is still being made in Newcastle, into the state of health of children and of families. That survey has now been going on for five years, and is turning out some very valuable social information.
    I think it would be most helpful if the Minister could consider setting on foot some special spot investigation in a particular part of the country which he may select in order to find out something more about what is happening, and in particular about the use of milk in families with young children of pre-school age. I think that we are all agreed that

    1847
    some of the greatest advances made in child health during the last few years have been due entirely to the emphasis that has been given to proper nutrition. That has probably been of more value than all the great improvements in medical treatment, valuable as those in turn have been. It is, therefore, a matter of very real concern to all of us when we find that the consumption of fresh milk and of special welfare foods has been declining as noticeably as it has been recently.
    I suggest, therefore, that the Minister should set on foot a careful spot investigation to secure more information about the causes. There is possibly something also in the point which the Minister made that local authority clinics are not open all day. It is suggested that in some places that fact has had some effect. There is certainly need for a considerable publicity drive to make the public conscious of the fact that, unless the fullest advantage is taken of the facilities, we may find in future that some of the high standards in the care of children which we are so proud to have reached may be lost. We could then, of course, experience a very rapid slide downwards.
    There are very few, but unfortunately there are some, cases of rickets in the country. We do not want any at all. The Minister has said that he does not regard the situation as being a matter for anxiety, but I also hope that he will not regard it as a matter of no importance and that he will investigate it very carefully so that we may maintain our high standards in the care and development of our children.
    8.42 p.m.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: I have listened to the Minister with great interest, and I should like to say first that I am sure that the Ministry of Health is the right place for the functioning of the National Health Service with reference to welfare foods. I am glad that that function has been made over to the Ministry and that the local authorities are to be attached to the scheme in the way which has been outlined, for obviously this function is part of preventive medicine and is something which we have not been very good at as yet in the Health Service.
    1848
    We all accept that the Health Service is essentially a curative service and that we have not been able to tackle the prevention of sickness in the way in which we should all like to do. But here, in connection with welfare foods, is a classical method by which we can prevent disease and possibly encourage good health. Therefore, obviously it is a good thing that the Minister should have this function within his Department.
    I speak from memory, but there is an instance of how the condition of young children has been improved in the past years. An investigation was conducted in London into the teeth of five-year-old children. A very large sample was examined by Lady Mellanby. Five-year-old children from the same schools and nursery schools were examined in 1926, in 1935 and just after the war.
    The first examination showed that only 5 per cent. of the children had completely perfect teeth. The second examination, ten years later, of the next generation showed that about 17 per cent. had perfect teeth at the age of five. The third examination showed a percentage of over 30. This is a very real measure of what preventive medicine can do and it is very heartening. We must look with anxious eyes upon any fall in the use of welfare foods and, as the Minister has rightly said, make certain that we do everything we can to see that the consumption of these foods is increased.
    I remember the figures that were given by the Parliamentary Secretary on 2nd May last in answer to a Written Question. I wondered whether she was right in her opinion as to the cause. She said herself in the answer that this trend might be expected to continue and might be due to the fact that there was a rising standard of life and people were going elsewhere to buy these things because they had surplus money and, therefore, could not be bothered to accept them at the reduced rate.
    At that time I thought her answer was suspect, and I hope she will be careful. There may be other causes in addition to the one she gave. She may possibly be correct in part, but there may be other causes, and I wonder, for example, whether there were quite as many nursing and expectant mothers in 1954 as there were in 1953. I wonder if the number of children is falling a little.

    1849
    Then we have the right hon. Gentleman's view of the changes which have rather confused people, and his suggestion that the hours at which they can get these foods might not perhaps be convenient to them.
    I remember during the war that the Ministry of Food spent a great deal of money advertising the need for this service. They booked space in the National Press to tell mothers why they should take advantage of it if they were nursing and expectant, and if the babies needed it. Gradually that amount of money was cut and the Ministry of Food up to two years ago, with very little money left, tried to find other methods to use the Press of the country to give advertisements for this Service.
    Members of Parliament were enrolled to be photographed pointing at chubby children in their constituencies, and these photographs and articles were sent to the local Press, who were pretty good in publishing the photographs and short articles stressing the need for making full use of the service. There are many ways in which we can help in this matter.
    I should like to ask one or two questions. First, has the Minister in mind how he can bring to the notice of the public how important is this service. I personally do not care, nor does any hon. Member in this Committee, whether mothers go to the centres and get the food cheaply, or whether they buy it at a higher price over the counter in the chemist's shop. That is my least concern. I only want to be certain it is available and that they have it. I want to know what the Minister is going to do to insure that the public are told from time to time how important these foods are.
    Secondly, I wonder if he has any information as to whether the decline to which he has been referring—some of it rather staggering; for example, a drop of two million in bottles of orange juice from one year to another—is uniform throughout the country, and whether the local authorities have any responsibility for any of this. Some local authorities may well be, and I am sure are, more than eager to press this service. That will depend upon their size, background and history.
    My own local authority in Stoke-on-Trent, of which both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent,
    1850
    North (Mrs. Slater) are members, is very conscious of the difficulties that faced us in the past when we had long periods of unemployment, when wages were low and when children were not having a very good time.
    When I became a medical man in the area in the first place the death rate of mothers when bearing their children was very high. It was seven, eight and nine per thousand births—a shocking situation. Since then there has been a complete transformation in all these figures and also in the appearance of the children.
    I was puzzled when I first read Chaucer as to how one could make a girl like Griselda of twelve years of age a heroine and a married woman. Later I wondered how anyone could become a passionate heroine at the age of fourteen as Juliet did. In Stoke-on-Trent we have discovered the reason because, since we have had an improvement in our standard of living—it all dates roughly from 1939 to 1940—we see that our children are not only taller and heavier but that they become nubile at the age of 13 or 14. At those ages they are young ladies and they look like women at 15. They look very different from the way they looked when I first went to the area 30 years ago. I also know now why it was possible for Juliet, perhaps living in the country, eating maslin and cheese and drinking lots of milk, to be able to have a passionate love affair when she was fourteen years of age.
    Joking apart, this is indeed an important service and I hope we shall be given an absolute assurance that it will be looked upon as being at least as important as the curative aspects of the medical health service.
    8.51 p.m.
    Mr. Victor Collins: I do not know whether welfare food services were more efficient in Juliet's day than they are now, but I do know that what the Minister said on this subject met not only with my warm approval, which is not so important, but with the warm approval of every hon. Member here. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to dilate on what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    I want to make one or two suggestions arising out of a small investigation which

    1851
    I made in my own constituency into the sales of welfare foods. It arose from a point in my mind about the mention of local authorities handling these foods. The London County Council is not very local where some of the London boroughs are concerned. That is not in any way meant to be criticism of the London County Council, but the County of London is a large place, and when the Minister is investigating this matter he may find that to be one of the reasons.
    For example, my constituency consists of two small boroughs. In one there were seven distribution centres and two Ministry of Food centres. It has a large daytime population of people who come into the borough, and no doubt the husbands found it convenient to go to the food offices, obtain the welfare foods and take them home. So I expect the Minister will find patchy figures in such places.
    The general trend in my constituency, however, is that the percentage drop appears to be much greater than the national figure, and I regard that as serious. It may well be that something has happened which we would rather not see happen, namely, that those homes where one would expect the children and mothers to be most in need of these welfare foods are in the area where the drop is greatest.
    That is no reflection on the Minister or on the local authorities, but it has to be combated. I have figures for the sales of National Dried Milk in the two boroughs of Shoreditch and Finsbury for every quarter since March 1954,. The percentage drop in the sales of National Dried Milk was 15 per cent. in Shoreditch whereas in Finsbury it was 16 per cent. The sales of orange juice in both boroughs fell by only 10 per cent. There was a remarkable drop in the sales of cod liver oil, the figure being 15 per cent. in Shoreditch and 55 per cent. in Finsbury—an extraordinary drop from 259 to 113 bottles a week. I cannot explain it but I know that the figures are accurate. In one borough the drop in respect of vitamins was 25 per cent. and in the other 20 per cent.
    If those figures were the national figures, I am sure they would be the cause of very considerable anxiety. The thought that in my area, a working-class area in which people are still living in
    1852
    very congested conditions and where, unfortunately, there is still a high proportion of slums, there is a bigger drop than the national drop, causes me concern.
    I feel that when the Minister investigates the matter it may be found that it is the old customers who are continuing, and the would-be customers are the young mothers who are not so familiar with the advantages of the foods. It may be that previously mothers went to the food office about other matters and were thus able to have the welfare foods brought to their notice.
    Whatever may be the reason, I feel that a survey, conducted in whatever way the Minister thinks best, is an urgent necessity, so that he may later be able to give the House not only the national picture but a picture of the kind of areas where the drop is greatest and where it is least. Perhaps we can then discuss the matter and make suggestions for improving the situation. This is a vital service in which we are all interested, and it is to be hoped that under the aegis of the Minister it will render an even greater service to mothers and children than it has done.
    8.57 p.m.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Perhaps I might briefly reply to the very important points which have been raised. I am most grateful for the way in which the Supplementary Estimate has been received. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) made two most important suggestions.
    The figures which I have for the London County Council area—that was one of the areas in respect of which I took a check—would seem to bear out what I said, that a comparison between the estimate for the six months now ending and the six months ending at the end of last year shows an increase in the consumption of cod liver oil and vitamin tablets.
    I will take first the two suggestions made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, for they are the two most important suggestions in the whole debate. He suggested that we should have a special inquiry so that we might be fully satisfied about the reasons for the decline. I accept that straight away. I am sure the hon. Member is right. I had intended to do that in any event. Therefore, I will undertake to put in hand such an inquiry.

    1853
    I want, in particular, to find out, if there has been a drop in the consumption of National dried milk, what the effect has been in respect of liquid milk and proprietary brands of feeding mixtures. I will undertake to make that inquiry, and also to pay particular attention to such places as Shoreditch and Finsbury.
    It would be helpful if hon. Members who are particularly interested in the subject would themselves carry out a little investigation and let me know the results. If they had a few minutes' conversation with their medical officers of health and health visitors, I might be given some leads to the true position, for which I should be most grateful.
    I shall not follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) into his literary researches. I do not know whether the local health authority in Verona issued vitamin tablets or cod liver oil. However, in the large cities throughout the country and the one rural county in respect of which I have had time to make a check the decline appears to be uniform.
    The hon. Member asked me about publicity, and with this goes the second point of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East. I will also undertake to bring to the notice of local authorities, in whatever way is most suitable, that they should consider their siting arrangements 10 make certain that they are the most convenient that they can devise for the beneficiaries of these services.
    I think that ordinary publicity is probably now best done locally rather than nationally, considering that local authorities now have the responsibility. But, of course, centrally one can help a considerable amount, I myself, for example, when I meet representatives of local authorities and such bodies as executive councils, can be sure to emphasise these particular points.
    Those were the topics which were raised and I think that we agree that it is right that this work should be transferred to the Ministry of Health and also right that it should go to local health authorities. I will undertake, however, to make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy myself that this decline in consumption is due to what we might call natural causes.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,295,000, 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, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health and the Board of Control; expenditure on the Polish health services; measures for civil defence; port health administration; residential accommodation for the aged, infirm, &c.; purchases on repayment for other Government Departments; expenses in connection with welfare food services and food hygiene; and sundry other services, including a subscription to the World Health Organisation.

    VOTE 5. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,007,000, 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, 1956, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, &c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, the treatment abroad of respiratory tuberculosis, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &c., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I can explain this Supplementary Estimate in a sentence or two. It comes as a natural consequence of the restoration of the 10 per cent. cut in dentists' remuneration which was made as long ago as 1950. The dentists have been pressing for the restoration since 1952. I felt at the time that an immediate increase was not justified, but I suggested to the British Dental Association that we should have a detailed inquiry. That inquiry was completed in July last year, and as a result there has been this increase, a cancellation of the 10 per cent. cut.
    I should make clear that the 10 per cent. increase is an interim measure while I work out the new scale, which is a complicated affair, for the fees of the dental profession. But negotiations for that are going well, and I hope that it will not be long before we have a final decision. The Committee may like to have these figures: under the new arrangement average dentists will receive, including the Exchequer superannuation contribution, about £2,000 net. That compares with the general practitioner's

    1855
    average net income of rather more than £2,200. But it is calculated that single-handed dentists working without assistants, in the class with which the scale is particularly concerned, the 35–54 years' old age-groups, will receive rather more than £2,400 net, so I think that the relativity between dentists and doctors in general practice has been kept well in mind as these arrangements were made.
    I think that the Supplementary Estimate itself is perfectly clear. In a full year the 10 per cent. restoration will cost £3½ million for England and Wales plus, of course, an extra amount for Scotland and as it came into operation on 1st May the gross figure is 11/12ths of that, or £3,200,000, and when we take into account appropriations-in-aid it comes to the amount for which I have asked the Committee, £3,007,000.
    Dr. Stross: Can the Minister say whether the figures which he has given for remuneration are for a net or gross income?
    Mr. Macleod: They are net. Under the new arrangement the average dentist should receive, including the Exchequer superannuation contribution, a net income of about £2,000.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Unlike the previous Supplementary Estimate that we were considering a moment ago, this one asks Parliament for extra money. It is not merely a transfer, as the other was. We are therefore entitled to inquire rather fully into this demand for something like £3½ million a year extra for this section of the National Health Service.
    At the very start, one could say that this is one of the costs made inevitable by the introduction of charges in the Service. That may very well be so. Had the charges not been maintained as they have in the dental service, this revision of remuneration might never have been required. These charges have undoubtedly hit certain sections of the dental profession more severely than others. The Minister talks about the average figures for dentists, but it is more difficult to get a fair average in this field than in other fields in the National Health Service. The position of dentists in industrial areas is often very different from that of dentists in other parts of the country.
    1856
    I am sorry that the opportunity does not seem to have been taken of a much more thoroughgoing review of the position about the payment of dentists. Many of us take the view that the whole basis of payment of dentists, that of payment for individual services rendered, is open to a good deal of objection, and I should have been glad if some investigation had been made to see whether it is possible to get on to a basis of sessional payment or something of that kind for at least the conservative type of treatment which we are all anxious to encourage, "conservative" again, I must stress, with a small "c."
    Even if a major change were not possible, we would like to know something more about the construction of the scale payments which the right hon. Gentleman told us is an essential part of this agreement for the revision of the 10 per cent. cut, and which of course has a very real bearing upon the form of our dental services. We can encourage or discourage conservative dental treatment, according to the weight we put upon it, in working out the actual scales of payment. One can discourage the provision of dentures and can encourage the conservative treatment, which, broadly, has been the effort up till now.
    I would certainly like to know, before we pass this Supplementary Estimate, what view, at any rate in general terms, the right hon. Gentleman is taking on this matter. I do not necessarily expect detailed scales of fees. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman cannot give them at this time, when matters are under discussion; but he could indicate his view of the sort of emphasis he wants to give in the scale of fees to the different types of treatment that are provided.
    I am assuming, too, that the Minister hopes that this restoration of the 10 per cent. cut will do something to arrest the rather alarming decline in the number of dentists in practice and the expectation that we must have of a very much more serious decline in their numbers in the next few years. I am well aware that a committee was set up by the Minister at the end of last year to investigate this. We shall all be very interested to see its report when available and to read the recommendations.
    That it is a really serious matter there is no doubt. The Central Health Services

    1857
    Advisory Council make it quite clear that there is an overall shortage of about 8,000 dentists as against the total who could and ought to be in practice if we are to have the dental service we need. It is more serious even than that, because about 40 per cent. of the practising dentists are 55 years of age or over. I suggest that that indicates that there will be quite a rapid decline in the numbers in the next few years.
    The problem is made much more serious by the fact that if we are to build up a proper dental service we must recruit a large number of new entrants to the dental schools. It has been said that about 900 new dental students are needed each year, but at present we are getting only about 450 new entrants. Does the Minister feel that this restoration of the 10 per cent. cut would improve our prospects of getting new recruits? I am very doubtful whether it will be of very great value in that respect.
    It is important to look not only at actual payments but also at what one might almost call professional prestige. Interesting proposals were made by the hospital boards for the development of specialist dental sections. I should like to hear from the Minister that he thinks it of the very greatest importance that dentists should be given a rather better status in the hospitals. They need to feel that there are avenues of advancement, if they wish to take them, into such specialist work as orthodentics.
    We must regard the present position as very critical, and we cannot wait long for the information from the expert committee which has been set up by the Minister. In fact, unless something is done rapidly we may face a break-down of our dental services simply because there are not nearly enough dentists to provide the services we need—and none of us can imagine for a moment that our standard of dental care is anything to be particularly proud of.
    A very great deal needs to be done, and perhaps the greatest job to be done by the Minister is the encouragement of research and of health education. A great deal can undoubtedly be done by the parent in the home. Were sweets not quite as available as they are, dental health might be a great deal better—although I should certainly get into trouble with my own family were I to
    1858
    suggest any reduction in sweet production and consumption. Nevertheless, I very much hope that the Minister will say that he has in mind the need for a vigorous campaign for dental health education and will do his best, as I am sure he will, to support the dental profession in this work. I am sure, also, that that profession is only too eager to do what it can to help.
    In these circumstances, I do not understand why such valuable work as that done at the Eastman Dental Clinic in training dental oral hygienists has not been supported. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North (Mr. Baird) may take a different view, but, amongst other support for such work, the last Annual Report of the Minister's own Department referred in glowing terms to the work being done by oral hygienists, and I was rather surprised when the training was brought to a sudden stop.
    I hope very much indeed that what I regard as a very serious situation will be attacked with vigour by the Minister and that he will not regard this restoration of the 10 per cent. cut as a major means of meeting the difficulties that lie ahead. I should like him to look again at the whole position of dental payments and not to rule out of his consideration the effect of the charges for dental treatment. I feel that these charges have a serious effect in limiting the demand that is made for treatment, and in addition create difficulties for dentists in the proper practice of their profession. I hope the Minister will be able to say more than he has said in introducing the Supplementary Estimate, because it is a matter that we on this side of the Committee take very seriously.
    9.16 p.m.
    Dr. Stross: I am very glad that this sum of money has been restored to the dentists. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) that, as a result of the charges which were imposed some years ago and which still exist, dentists have found their gross remuneration severely affected, and if the restoration of the 10 per cent. will increase the average remuneration to say £2,000 a year net, I regard that as reasonable.
    I want to take up one point which was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East. I

    1859
    should like to know whether there is any prospect of more recruitment. We hope that within twenty years there will be 20,000 practising dentists. Today the figure is about 9,500. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the number of students is falling year by year. The peak, which was reached in 1947, was 650. Today, my hon. Friend said, the figure is about 450: actually, I think it is about 470.
    Then there is wastage to be considered. If we take the present number of students in the country as about 470, we have to remember that about 10 per cent. come from abroad, and therefore when they qualify they will not practise in this country but will go abroad. Therefore, the situation is desperately serious. I cannot imagine any technique which will render everybody's teeth perfect without the help of the dentist. At least, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) hopes that nothing like that will happen in his lifetime. We have to assume that we need the services of these people.
    Mr. John Baird: Would my hon. Friend tell me whether he is referring to the income from the National Health Service or to the overall income?
    Dr. Stross: What I had in mind was the income after payment of overhead charges. One can say that the average gross income of the family doctor is about £3,250. If £1,000 is allowed for overhead charges, that leaves roughly the £2,200 which the Minister mentioned.
    I want to know what is the difficulty about recruitment. Why cannot we get more young people to go to the dental schools? Obviously there are places available for them now. It is not that we need more schools to accommodate them.
    I want to bring particularly to the Minister's attention the fact that only six women out of a hundred——
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I think the hon. Member is going beyond the Vote, which deals with salaries and not recruitment.
    Dr. Stross: I assume that the Minister will agree that one of the reasons for the increase in salaries is to obtain better recruitment for the sake of the service as
    1860
    a whole, and that he is not so much concerned with the 10 per cent. increase in salary as with the effect on the service. I wish to put only one question to the right hon. Gentleman. Has he noticed the wonderful field for recruitment to the profession among women? Only six dentists out of every hundred are women, both in the schools and in practice. I see no reason for assuming that women cannot be as good dentists as men. For all I know they might even be better. There must be some strange reason why they are not entering the profession, and it may well be financial.
    Has the Minister considered that local authorities vary greatly in respect of the assistance which they offer to young people who are accepted into the dental schools? Some are much more generous than others. Will the Minister therefore consider whether young people who wish to become dentists ought not to have, in addition to any other source of income, opportunities to receive assistance from the Ministry by way of loans to be repaid? There is a similar provision in the medical profession for certain types of assistance. The Minister knows the fund to which I refer. Only a small sum would be needed; £50,000 might easily cover it. They could draw on that fund, and it would be replenished by repayments after they had qualified.
    If the Minister would introduce such a fund I am sure that in the long term we could solve the problem of getting enough dentists to serve our needs. Today we have not enough. I am sure we are all disturbed about that.
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. John Baird: I must disclose my interest because, as a practising dental surgeon, I am one of the two Members of the House who will benefit if this Vote is passed.
    The decline in the number of dental students is very serious and, if it continues, within a short time we shall not have enough dentists in the country even to carry out the ordinary routine dental practice. If I thought the main reason for this was that a dentist's income was too low, I should welcome the Vote with open arms. I am not saying, of course, that we should vote it down, but if I thought it would solve the problem of

    1861
    recruitment I would welcome it with open arms.
    I do not think remuneration is the main reason for the lack of dentists at present. I believe that a net income of £2,000 is an adequate income for a professional man. We are told that the average income of dentists today ranges from £1,800 to £2,200. With this increase the average will be about £2,000. For the dentist in his most virile years the income will be at least £2,400. I do not want to tread on anybody's toes, but in some professions there is some undisclosed income and I do not know whether there is any such undisclosed income in dentistry. If there is, a dentist may be making a little extra on the side.
    In my opinion, the major reason for the lack of recruitment to the dental profession has been the vacillation of both sides in the House. First, there was the chopping and changing of dentists' incomes, and then the imposition of charges, both by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite. Dentists did not know where they were from one day to another until a few years ago.
    The second reason is that dentists are very bad publicists. In order to try to increase their incomes, they tried to tell everyone how hard up they were. It was a lot of baloney, because dentists were never hard up but were doing well all the time. By carrying on that type of propaganda they did the profession very much harm. I believe that openings for young people in the dental profession are very attractive today. It is a profession where a man with ability and agility with his hands and certain academic propensities can make a very attractive income in fairly comfortable surroundings. The sooner we start publicising the attractiveness of dentistry the better it will be for the profession and the country as a whole.
    There is, however, something wrong with our sense of values. A few months ago we agreed to the Danckwerts Award for doctors whereby we gave doctors between £9 million and £10 million a year. Tonight, without any ripple of opposition and with the benches almost empty, we are agreeing to pay another £31 million to 9,500 dentists. As a practising dentist, I can tell the Committee that to a dentist now making £2,000 a year that means an increase of £5 to £8 a week in personal net income, not gross.
    Dr. Stross: Will not my hon. Friend agree that there is a little difference as this is restitution of a cut and the Danckwerts Award was not restitution of a cut?
    Mr. Baird: I am not distinguishing between the Danckwerts Award and the payment to dentists. Let me finish my argument. The doctors have £9 million to £10 million a year and dentists £5 or £6 a week more, yet this Chamber is nearly empty, but when railwaymen or engineers ask for a few bob a week more, we have a discussion in the House and the benches are full, and hon. Members opposite say that they are holding the country to ransom. There is surely something wrong with our sense of values. During the last few years in the House I have seen judges' salaries raised by £5,000 a year, town clerks and various other local government officials have had their salaries raised by £500 a year and doctors and dentists have had increases of many pounds per week, yet a few weeks ago when engine drivers asked for an increase a judge was asked to decide whether they should have it. I suggest that before we grant this increase of £3½ million to dentists it might be a good thing if we set an engine driver to adjudicate and decide whether the dentists deserve it. I believe that would be a much better way of dealing with the matter.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: A job for Archie Manuel?
    Mr. Baird: Someone suggests that the job might be given to our former colleague, Archie Manuel. He would decide as fairly as Lord Justice Morris decided the claim of the engine drivers. I am not arguing against the restoration of this 10 per cent. cut—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have not yet finished my argument. I quite agree that when the cut was introduced it was said that it was a temporary cut until a new scale of fees could be negotiated with the dentists. I want to indict the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, who is laughing, and her right hon. Friend. Why has it taken all this time to negotiate a new scale of fees with the dentists? We have gone on year after year and dentists have been grumbling and complaining. They did not want just the 10 per cent. cut restored but a new scale of fees, and year after

    1863
    year they have been put off. Now we have the 10 per cent. restored on condition that a new scale of fees is negotiated. Why was that not done three or four years ago, as it could have been done? There is hardship in certain parts of the dental profession. Some people are today suffering financial hardship, but I do not believe that the restoration of the 10 per cent. cut will solve the problem. By giving back the 10 per cent. to the dentists, we are giving a 10 per cent. increase to all dentists.
    There is no hardship among all dentists. There is hardship only among dentists in certain pockets of the country. Those pockets are in the industrial areas. This hardship is not due to the imposition of a 10 per cent. cut in the overall income of dentists a few years ago but is because my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough East (Mr. Marquand), and the Minister opposite, have imposed charges in the Health Service. As a result of imposing those charges, a large number of people who were getting free dental service could not afford to pay the £1 or the fee for dentures. That is why today in the industrial and poorer areas the dentists are hard up.
    If we are to make an improvement in the areas where dentists are suffering hardship, the way to go about it is to remove the charges in the Health Service. I do not expect to achieve that result, neither do I expect that the Minister will accept the advice of my hon. Friend, advice which some of us wanted to tender to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) ten years ago, that the only way to tackle the problem was to pay the dentists a salary instead of a scale of fees. I believe that in the long run the only way to get an equitable health service is by a real National Health Service in which dentists do not compete against each other to make a little more but work in a salaried service in health centres. In the long run, the country will be forced to come to that as the only way in which we can build up a really Socialist—in the best sense of the term—health service.
    May I make one or two practical suggestions to the Minister? He is now
    1864
    entering negotiations with the dentists on the scale of fees. Some years ago, he and I crossed swords more than once on the question of the school dental service. At that time, I said that he would never get an efficient school dental service because he wanted two or three thousand dentists to operate it. I still say that. I believe that the future of children's dentistry lies with the general practitioner until we get our health centres. The ordinary general practitioner as a whole will not be encouraged to develop the children's side of his practice until he is paid a decent fee.
    If any hon. Member came to me to have a filling done, I would receive a fee varying from 15s. to £1 2s. 6d. per filling. It would take me perhaps 20 minutes to do the filling. A young child between, say, the ages of five and eight —that is when we need to start treating children's teeth—who comes to me for treatment is nervous. He is afraid of the dentist, of the dental chair and of the engine, as he calls it, and the noises it makes. I have to spend five minutes talking to him, preparing him, and very often I have to spend twice as long in doing the filling, for which I receive 7s. 6d. The average fee for grown-ups varies between 15s. and £1 2s. 6d. We can say that the average is £1 a filling, whereas for filling a child's tooth the fee is 7s. 6d.
    We made a lot of mistakes in our first scale of fees. If the right hon. Gentleman wants the dentist in his practice to treat children's teeth, he must ensure in the negotiations that the fees for children's dentistry are raised even though this means reducing the fees for adult conservations.
    I was one of those people who were on the Committee which discussed the National Health Service Bill ten years ago. At that time, there were far too many dentists in this country extracting teeth en masse and fitting dentures, because at that time under private enterprise it paid. The dentist got about 20 guineas for a full set of teeth; it was done in a very short time and was quick money, whereas we got only 7s. 6d. to 10s. for a filling. We had to stop that, and perhaps under the National Health Service we went too far, inasmuch as we paid fees which were too high for conservative treatment, such as fillings, and we

    1865
    reduced the fees for dentures until we were getting 9 guineas for full dentures.
    The result is that today it does not pay dentists to do denture work, and it is in the industrial areas, where there is much more denture work than in the middleclass areas, that they are really hard up. In the negotiations which will take place, we hope that, now that the National Health Service is on its feet, the Government will look at this again and bring the balance over a little the other way. Those are the two points which the Minister might bear in mind when he goes into negotiations with the dental profession.
    Finally, I want to say again that this 10 per cent. cut was a temporary one, and that the promise was made that it would be restored when the new scale of fees was negotiated. Therefore, I do not propose to oppose these Estimates here tonight. I myself will benefit, I agree, but, at the same time. I would say that this House has a very queer sense of values if it passes this tremendous increase in income to dentists at the same time as there is a terrible hullabaloo when we say that we should increase the income of engine drivers on the railways by 3s. or 4s. a week.
    9.36 p.m.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Perhaps I can reply briefly to the speeches that have been made. It will surprise nobody to hear that I am not going to make any pronouncement on charges or professional payments tonight, and indeed the whole essence of this Supplementary Estimate is that it is regarded, as I told the Committee earlier, as an interim measure pending a settlement of this new scale of fees.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) asked me about the new scale and how it was being worked out. It is very complicated to explain to the Committee, but what we have done is to take the year 1952–53, because that year was used for our detailed investigation, and we have so arranged matters from our investigation that the total fees that would have been paid in that year if the 10 per cent. cut had not been in operation shall be redistributed by the new scale of fees for the amount of work that was actually completed in that year. It requires a very detailed calculation, and if the hon.
    1866
    Gentleman would like me to do so, perhaps I could write to him and give it to him in some detail.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked what was done about weighting the scale with more of a slant towards conservative work. The old scale was intended to be balanced; that is to say, it was based on actual chair-side timing, so that, in theory anyway, dentists did not spend an undue amount of time on one kind of treatment, but it did emerge that perhaps they spent too much time, and therefore too much money, attending to certain parts of their work. We are hoping in the new scale to give greater weight to dealing with children's teeth, and I am sure that we have the co-operation of the profession in working that matter out.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked me if the restoration of the 10 per cent. cut will help. Personally, I believe it will and mainly for this reason. Whether rightly or wrongly, this cut has been regarded by dentists as a five-year breach of faith by Ministers of Health of the parties on both sides of this House. The fact that it has now been restored will remove a very deeply felt grievance, and to that extent it is bound to help.
    Research and education are matters which I have very much at heart, and the Committee will know that very recently I issued a circular which achieved the distinction of a fourth leader in "The Times" for its reference to lollipops. I have had the particular point made in this debate exactly in mind. I should like to join with hon. Members in coalition against their hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) in his views on oral hygienists; and perhaps a certain legal Measure which has pursued a strange career in recent years might in future reappear.
    Mr. Baird: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce a Bill dealing with dentistry in this Session?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise on consideration of this Estimate.
    Mr. Macleod: If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) reads in HANSARD the record of what I have said, I do not think that he will find much difficulty in interpreting it.

    1867
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), and indeed all hon. Members who spoke referred to recruitment. It is very much in our minds, and that is why we set up the very distinguished McNair Committee. It is worth noting that entrants in England, Wales and Scotland last year numbered 478, a figure rather higher than that in previous years. I do not know whether that trend will continue. There were tendencies in the schools after the First World War very similar to the one which we have seen in recent years.
    I will not comment on the suggestions made in the debate about women and the possible help by payments, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned. His were most valuable suggestions. Perhaps the best thing that I can do is to see that they are brought to the notice of the McNair Committee and that its views upon them are invited.
    I thought that I was going to have the extraordinary experience of agreeing with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, but it did not take us long to find points of divergence. I agree with him that there is no easy answer to the question of recruitment, and that recruitment by no means turns entirely on remuneration. The decline started in 1948–49, when the dentists were earning large incomes, and I am sure that it is very closely linked with matters of status.
    The hon. Member was rather illogical in complaining on the one hand of the haphazard and casual way in which we were introducing this new provision while at the same time grumbling that we had taken a very long time to make the necessary investigations. Unlike the Danckwerts award, which was also incidentally made by a judge, or any other arrangement that the hon. Member mentioned, this arrangement in the end came by agreement and not by arbitration or in any other way.
    I agree that the most detailed investigation took a long time, but it had to be carried out because this is a very large sum of public money, and the Public Accounts Committee has expressed itself more than once in very strong terms about the need for full investigation before advances are made. It was after
    1868
    that investigation that I made the double proposal to the profession, as a settlements of its claims at present, of the cancellation of the 10 per cent. cut as an interim measure and the working out of a scale of fees.
    I do not agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East about the school dental service. I think that it is going very well. Last Friday a county dental officer told me that in 1950 he had four dental officers and now he has nineteen. That has made a substantial difference to the dental health of the children.
    Mr. Baird: Would the Minister say that that is typical of the country as a whole?
    Mr. Macleod: No, it is not, but I should have thought we are as near, proportionately, the number of between 2,000 and 3,000 we need in the school dental service as we are to the number of 20,000 that we need in the general dental service: indeed, 40,000 is a figure that I have sometimes seen mentioned.
    So I regard this as essentially an interim measure. I think it is right that we should undertake it. This cut has been in effect for a very long time, and it is right that we should restore it. It is of equal importance that as soon as possible we have a fully adequate scale of fees. That we are engaged in working out. The other point which has been raised tonight on recruitment is covered by the appointment of the McNair Committee, which I am certain will be extremely valuable. I join with hon. Members in hoping that it will look on its work as a matter of urgency, and that we shall have its conclusions as soon as possible.
    Mr. Stan Awbery: In view of the fact that the Minister has now agreed to deal generously with the dentists and restore their 10 per cent. cut, can we express the hope that the dentists will deal generously with their mechanics, because the mechanics suffered equally with the dentists when the reduction took place?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that that does not arise out of this Vote.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,007,000, 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 1956, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, &c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September 1939, the treatment abroad of respiratory tuberculosis, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &c., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

    VOTE 10. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £694,990, 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 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland and the General Board of Control for Scotland; for grants and other expenses in connection with water and sewerage services, town and country planning and the creation of new towns; expenses in connection with welfare food services and food hygiene; and certain expenses in connection with civil defence and other services.
    Mr. William Ross: Are we not going to have an explanation of this from any Scottish Minister?
    9.48 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I would very briefly explain this Vote to the Committee. The local distribution of welfare foods passed from the Ministry of Food to the local authorities in June, 1954, and the central finance of the scheme now passes from the old Ministry of Food to the Department of Health for Scotland as from 7th April, 1955, when the amalgamation of the English Ministries took place.
    Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS II

    VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,350,010, 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, 1956, for sundry grants and services connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service, including subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

  CLASS 1

    VOTE 23. FLOOD AND TEMPEST DISTRESS RELIEF
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £150,000, 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, 1956, for a grant in aid of the Lord Mayor's National Flood and Tempest Distress Fund and other Funds.

    VOTE 24A. REPAYMENTS TO THE CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £63,271, 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, 1956, to repay to the Civil Contingencies Fund certain miscellaneous advances.

  CLASS II

    VOTE 6. COMMONWEALTH SERVICES
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,395,471, 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, 1956, for sundry Commonwealth services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and certain grants in aid; the salaries and expenses of Pensions Appeal Tribunals in the Republic of Ireland; a grant to the Republic of Ireland in respect of compensation to transferred officers; and certain expenditure in connection with former Burma services.

    VOTE 9. COLONIAL SERVICES
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £805,000, 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, 1956, for sundry Colonial Services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and grants in aid; and certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine.

  CLASS IV

    VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,000, 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, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, a subscription to an international organisation, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

    VOTE 15. NATIONAL GALLERIES, SCOTLAND
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,000, 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, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the National Gallery, Scotland, and the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, including certain grants in aid.

  CLASS V

    VOTE 6. MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £82,300, 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, 1956, for a grant in aid of the Medical Research Council, and for a grant to the Council in respect of research schemes under Conditional Aid arrangements.

    VOTE 11. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, SCOTLAND
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £338,500, 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, 1956, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for Scotland and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, &c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, the treatment abroad of respiratory tuberculosis, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &c., necessary for the services, certain expenses in connection with civil defence, and sundry other services.

  CLASS VI

    VOTE 1. BOARD OF TRADE
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £172,000, 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, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments, including the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission.

    VOTE 2. BOARD OF TRADE (ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY AND TRADING SERVICES)
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £404,000, 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, 1956, for the expenditure of the Board of Trade on assistance and subsidies to
    1872
    certain industries, and on trading and other services; including subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

  CLASS VII

    VOTE 3. PUBLIC BUILDINGS, UNITED KINGDOM
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,000, 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, 1956. for expenditure in respect of sundry public buildings in the United Kingdom, including a grant in aid, and sundry other services.

  CLASS IX

    VOTE 6. MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER (SPECIAL SERVICES)
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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, 1956, for the supply, storage and distribution of petroleum products and certain other special services of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, including expenditure on civil defence and payments to recipients agreed with the United States Government of the sterling counterpart of dollars provided for the import of American coal.

  CLASS VIII

    VOTE 10. MINISTRY OF FOOD
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; for the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; for direct subsidy payments, including certain payments under agricultural price guarantees; for subscriptions to certain international organisations; and for sundry other services, including certain expenses in connection with civil defence and payments to certain other Votes.

    VOTE 12. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,563,870, 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, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the Crofters Commission: for grants and subsidies, including certain payments under agricultural price guarantees, to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture: and for grants, grants in aid and

    1873
    expenses in connection with services to agriculture; including land drainage and flood services; purchase, improvement and management of land; land settlement; public works in the congested districts; services in connection with livestock and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and labour schemes; control of pests; agricultural education, research and advisory services; marketing; and agricultural credits.

    NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1955–56
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £80, 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, 1956, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

    Schedule

    Sums not exceeding

    Supply Grants

    Appropriations in Aid

    Vote

    £

    £

    2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

    10

    90

    3. Medical Establishments and Services

    10

    990

    4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services

    10

    206,990

    5. Educational Services

    10

    890

    8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

    Section II—Matériel

    10

    45,990

    Section III—Contract Work

    10

    84,990

    10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

    10

    56,990

    11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

    10

    2,990

    Total, Navy (Supplementary), 1955–56

    80

    399,920

    ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1955–56
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £70, 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, 1956, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.
    1874

    Schedule

    Sums not exceeding

    Supply Grants

    Appropriations in Aid

    Vote

    £

    £

    3. War Office

    10

    19,990

    4. Civilians

    10

    30,689,990

    5. Movements

    10

    5,399,990

    6. Supplies, &c.

    10

    7,959,990

    7. Stores

    10

    1,689,990

    8. Works, Buildings and Lands

    10

    6,909,990

    9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

    10

    2,549,990

    Total, Army (Supplementary), 1955–56

    70

    55,219,930

    AIR SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1955–56
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60, 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, 1956, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year, including a further grant in aid to the Royal Society.

    Schedule

    —

    Sums not exceeding

    Supply Grants

    Appropriations in Aid

    Vote

    £

    £

    4. Civilians at Outstations

    10

    4,390,990

    5. Movements

    10

    29,990

    6. Supplies

    10

    49,990

    7. Aircraft and Stores

    10

    499,990

    8. Works and Lands

    10

    2,499,990

    9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

    10

    8,990

    Total, Air (Supplementary), 1955–56

    60

    7,479,940

    Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair.]
    Resolved,
    That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year

    1875
    ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, the sum of £35,974,672 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Resolution to be reported Tomorrow: Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

    NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1953–54
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]
    I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1954, that the aggregate Expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £6,187,988 5s. 7d. viz.:—

    Schedule

    No. of Vote

    Navy Services, 1953–54 Votes

    Deficits

    Surpluses

    Excesses of Actual over Estimated gross Expenditure

    Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts

    Surpluses of Estimated over Actual gross Expenditure

    Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts

    £

    s.

    d

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1.

    Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

    229,854

    17

    2

    —

    —

    159,106

    15

    9

    2.

    Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

    —

    1,830,344

    11

    9

    3,353,342

    17

    10

    —

    3.

    Medical Establishments and Services

    5,733

    9

    5

    —

    —

    5,543

    2

    3

    4.

    Civilians employed on Fleet Services

    —

    20,654

    8

    8

    163,461

    10

    11

    —

    5.

    Educational Services

    —

    —

    54,834

    16

    8

    20,316

    13

    10

    6.

    Scientific Services

    190,696

    1

    5

    —

    —

    93,029

    13

    5

    7.

    Royal Naval Reserves

    —

    —

    137,430

    5

    8

    1,459

    8

    4

    8.

    Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.—

    Section I.—Personnel

    —

    —

    344,378

    6

    3

    132,664

    13

    1

    Section II.—Matériel

    —

    3,026,427

    14

    4

    3,590,490

    8

    11

    —

    Section III.—Contract Work

    —

    1,315,689

    2

    7

    3,086,927

    7

    10

    —

    9.

    Naval Armaments

    —

    1,607,590

    7

    11

    1,709,733

    18

    10

    —

    10.

    Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

    —

    —

    2,256,969

    6

    8

    23,211

    5

    7

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    —

    —

    175,843

    15

    2

    390,401

    7

    10

    12.

    Admiralty Office

    119,866

    0

    4

    —

    —

    15,678

    16

    11

    13.

    Non-Effective Services

    —

    —

    15,861

    18

    10

    121,411

    13

    8

    14.

    Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair

    —

    —

    3,940

    18

    3

    1,609

    14

    1

    15.

    Additional Married Quarters

    —

    1,473,000

    0

    0

    157,749

    0

    8

    —

    Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned

    7,552

    18

    1

    —

    —

    —

    553,703

    6

    5

    9,273,706

    5

    3

    15,050,964

    12

    6

    964,433

    4

    9

    Total Deficits:

    Total Surpluses:

    £9,827,409 11s. 8d.

    £16,015,397 17s. 3d.

    Net Surplus £6,187,988 5s. 7d.

    And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

    (1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 10 for Navy Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £1,315,250 19s. 4d. on Vote 15 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.

    (2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.

    Resolved,
    That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

    1877
    II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st day of March, 1954, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £42,667,050 2s. 4d., viz.:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Total Surpluses

    …

    49,650,553

    6

    1

    Total Deficits

    …

    6,983,503

    3

    9

    Net Surplus

    …

    £42,667,050

    2

    4

    And Whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

    Schedule

    No. of Vote

    Army Services, 1953–54 Votes

    Deficits

    Surpluses

    Excesses of Actual over Estimated gross Expenditure

    Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts

    Surpluses of Estimated over Actual gross Expenditure

    Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1.

    Pay, &c., of the Army

    —

    593,560

    16

    6

    6,017,889

    7

    3

    —

    2.

    Reserve Forces, Territorial Army, Home Guard and Cadet Forces

    —

    —

    1,100,474

    14

    6

    54,666

    2

    6

    3.

    War Office

    131,376

    5

    8

    2,215

    14

    0

    —

    —

    4.

    Civilians

    —

    —

    4,019,106

    5

    1

    116,176

    12

    10

    5.

    Movements

    —

    —

    593,919

    12

    0

    416,413

    2

    6

    6.

    Supplies, &c.

    —

    —

    3,240,250

    13

    8

    1,938,502

    9

    8

    7.

    Stores

    —

    —

    20,392,414

    0

    0

    1,081,552

    4

    6

    8.

    Works, Buildings and Lands

    —

    —

    6,799,059

    5

    1

    942,819

    6

    9

    9.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    —

    —

    384,432

    9

    6

    1,191,991

    2

    10

    10.

    Non-Effective Services

    582,562

    3

    8

    18,106

    1

    8

    —

    —

    11.

    Additional Married Quarters

    —

    5,500,000

    0

    0

    1,360,885

    17

    5

    —

    —

    Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned

    155,682

    2

    3

    —

    —

    —

    869,620

    11

    7

    6,113,882

    12

    2

    43,908,432

    4

    6

    5,742,121

    1

    7

    Total Deficits:

    Total Surpluses:

    £6,983,503 3s. 9d.

    £49,650,553 6s. 1d.

    Net Surplus £42,667,050 2s. 4d.

    III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1954, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer
    (1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Army Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £4,139,114 2s. 7d. on Vote II that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.
    (2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
    Resolved,
    That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Grants for Air Services over the net expenditure is £79,760,849 16s. 11d., viz.:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Total Surpluses

    …

    85,106,577

    7

    4

    Total Deficits

    …

    5,345,727

    10

    5

    Net Surplus

    …

    £79,760,849

    16

    11

    And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

    Schedule

    No. of Vote

    Air Services, 1953–54 Votes

    Deficits

    Surpluses

    Excesses of Actual over Estimated gross Expenditure

    Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts

    Surpluses of Estimated over Actual gross Expenditure

    Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1.

    Pay, &c., of the Air Force

    36,698

    16

    4

    —

    —

    473,680

    17

    1

    2.

    Reserve and Auxiliary Services

    55,516

    18

    3

    —

    —

    725

    5

    8

    3.

    Air Ministry

    94,969

    19

    8

    6,131

    4

    8

    —

    —

    4.

    Civilians at Outstations

    —

    436,288

    0

    2

    89,929

    6

    10

    —

    5.

    Movements

    —

    —

    495,998

    14

    6

    470,484

    13

    1

    6.

    Supplies

    —

    —

    9,334,454

    1

    2

    483,841

    5

    2

    7.

    Aircraft and Stores

    —

    3,473,743

    15

    4

    45,768,457

    15

    11

    —

    8.

    Works and Lands

    —

    1,127,513

    10

    2

    26,380,752

    2

    5

    —

    9.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    —

    —

    1,441,302

    15

    7

    71,622

    11

    2

    10.

    Non-effective Services

    96,243

    10

    4

    —

    —

    95,327

    18

    9

    —

    Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned

    18,621

    15

    6

    —

    —

    —

    302,051

    0

    1

    5,043,676

    10

    4

    83,510,894

    16

    5

    1,595,682

    10

    11

    Total Deficits:

    Total Surpluses:

    £5,345,727 10s. 5d.

    £85,106,577 7s. 4d.

    Net Surplus £79,760,849 16s. 11d.

    Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.

    MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL
    As amended, considered.

    Clause 5.—(UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS, ETC., ON GOVERNMENT STOCK.)
    9.57 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 43, to leave out from "and" to the end of line 7 on page 5 and insert:
    "any repayment by them to the Bank in respect of redemption moneys under subsection (4) of this section or under paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule to the Finance Act, 1921, shall be made out of the investments for the time being representing sums paid to them under this section or under that paragraph in respect of unclaimed redemption moneys or if those investments are insufficient out of the Commissioners' account of unclaimed dividends.
    Resolved,
    That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    (7) The dividends received by the National Debt Commisioners on those investments shall be placed to the Commissioners' account of unclaimed dividends."
    It would be for the convenience of the House, I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we discussed together all the Amendments on the Order Paper, for they all raise the same point.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that course commends itself to the House, it seems to be the most convenient course to be taken.
    Mr. Ede: The Bill deals with a variety of subjects. The only subject that excited any great interest in Committee was that raised in Clause 5. On Second Reading the Financial Secretary said:
    "… Clause 5, which is the longest Clause, deals with perhaps the simplest matter of all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 668.]

    1881
    However, when we reached the Committee stage we were faced with a number of very complicated Amendments which virtually recast the Clause in respect of one of its most important objectives. That was the way with which certain unclaimed balances that existed in the Dublin branch of the Bank of Ireland should be dealt.
    10.0 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) asked a number of questions about that, and he received from the Financial Secretary a series of answers that were very verbose, but were eminent proof of the old adage that words were given us to conceal our thoughts. At the end of the right hon. Gentleman's explanations no answer had in fact been given to the two questions that my hon. Friend had put to him.
    It would appear that at some time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Bill the Financial Secretary discovered that, as drafted, the Bill would have involved him in giving orders to the Dublin branch of the Bank of Ireland about the way in which it was to keep its accounts in Ireland, where it is under the jurisdiction of the Government of the Irish Republic. He admitted in an explanation that he gave, as shown in c. 1356 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1955, that that would involve problems of extra-territoriality. I think we ought to know at what stage it was discovered that those issues would be raised. Were they known to the right hon. Gentleman on the day of the Second Reading debate? How did they come to his attention?
    The right hon. Gentleman was rather proud of the fact that he had discovered this problem. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that this seemed a very desirable sort of Clause to have and asked why, if it was so sensible and innocuous, it had never been done before, he replied
    "The right hon. Gentleman is asking me about the Clause as a whole. I cannot say why it was not done in the time of the right hon. Gentleman's Government. I can say that it has now come to my notice, and that it seems to me a very desirable action to take…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 1356]
    At what stage did this very desirable action, which the right hon. Gentleman during the Second Reading debate said was so simple, come to his notice as involving
    1882
    this problem of extraterritoriality? When he did discover it, what action did he take? The answer which he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East took a lot of words but, as I have already said, gave no information.
    The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether he had consulted either the Bank of Ireland or the Government of the Irish Republic. He said:
    "In so far as it affected the Dublin Office of the Bank of Ireland, the Clause, as it stood, had extra-territorial effects. As a matter of ordinary courtesy, we have been in touch with the Government of Ireland on this point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 1360.]
    At what stage did the right hon. Gentleman get in touch with the Government of Ireland? Was it before the Bill was drafted in its original form, just before the Second Reading debate, after it had been read the First time, or at some stage after the Second Reading?
    When I repeated the questions, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, the right hon. Gentleman failed to give any specific reply to the definite points that were put. He said:
    "I suggest to the Committee that it would be far better not to go further on this extraterritorial ground in this Bill but rather to withdraw from it, as is the aim of these Amendments, and then, at a later stage, to pursue with the Government of the Irish Republic the much larger question of what should be done about the National Debt Acts which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, date back very many years.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 1361.]
    As the National Debt orginated, I understand, from the activities of William of Orange I cannot imagine that it would be regarded as a subject on which the right hon. Gentleman could have very pleasant conversations with the Government of the Irish Republic, who hold views about William of Orange very different from those which I hold, and which I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself holds.
    Why is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to answer specifically the two questions that were put clearly to him? Can he now tell us what course it is proposed to pursue with the Government of the Irish Republic over future dealings with these balances? That is one of the things one imagines were rather lost sight of at the time of the partition of Ireland.

    1883
    It is desirable that we should know exactly what is proposed, because this is the sort of subject that gives rise to very considerable difficulties from time to time between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. It is desirable that these differences should be kept within the smallest possible limits.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman now therefore please give us an account of what happened in the drafting of the Bill, when this problem was discovered, and what steps were actually taken with both the Bank of Ireland and the Government of Ireland, the Government of Ireland not being consulted but kept in touch with? When one deals with problems of government in Ireland one generally comes across very difficult and amazing methods of trying to get solutions; but how one can keep in touch with a Government, yet avoid consulting them, and, as a result, withdraw from a Bill a transaction which might have involved some breach of that Government's territorial sovereignty, is a matter on which the House should be informed.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to support the Amendment by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and should like, if I may, to pursue the matter by asking one or two further questions. I am sure that you will realise, Mr. Speaker, that now the House has had an opportunity to consider the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, various aspects of this Bill become more puzzling than before. I do not think that anybody who reads what the Financial Secretary said in Committee can fail to be struck by what I would venture to call a lack of candour on this subject.
    We know that the Financial Secretary is a relatively new Minister and, as he says, he has had conversations of a very obscure nature with the Government of Ireland—whether he has been in touch with them or whether they were aware of them is somewhat ambiguous. I hope, however, that he will have learnt by now that, whatever may be his duty in connection with conversations with other Governments, whether Irish or any other, his first duty is to the House, and his first duty when he puts forward complicated Amendments of this kind is to give a full, complete and candid explanation
    1884
    to this House. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree that, contrary to what the Government planned, it is fortunate that we have had this interval between the Committee and the Report stages so that we can perform our duty and probe this matter a little further.
    The group of Amendments which we are discussing and which are similar—though, of course, in a contrariwise sense—to those which the Financial Secretary moved in Committee, and those, indeed, are very striking the more one analyses them. I want to refer to what the right hon. Gentleman said in explanation of his Amendments, as reported in c. 1355 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He then pointed out:
    "The five Amendments can be divided into two groups. The second and the fifth hang together, and also the first, third and fourth. The effect of the second and fifth Amendments will be that unclaimed redemption moneys derived from stock on the Dublin Register will be put in the same position as will apply, pending the making of regulations, to unclaimed redemption moneys on the Post Office Register."
    He continued:
    "The effect of the first, third and fourth Amendments will be to make unnecessary this separate accounting for Post Office Register stock."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 1355.]
    He explained that the object of those Amendments was to effect simplification and to enable the Treasury to introduce certain Regulations. I do not pretend fully to understand how, until we have had a more complete explanation from the Financial Secretary, but, putting the best interpretation we can on his words, they mean, if they mean anything, that the object of his first, third and fourth Amendments was to simplify the procedure as regards Post Office registered stock and that Regulations will in due course be introduced to that effect.
    The other Amendments had a totally different effect. Their object was to preserve the existing situation with regard to unclaimed redemption moneys derived from stock on the Dublin Register, because there was no possibility of any Regulations being made in regard to them. I hope the Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of what he said.
    We are, therefore, faced with the problem that, as the Bill now stands, there

    1885
    is, for some quite unexplained reason, an entirely different arrangement—something different from the ideal, something less than the ideal and contrary to the ideal—with regard to the unclaimed redemption moneys derived from stock on the Dublin Register. It is those words which our Amendments are designed to probe because they are now contained in Clause 5 (11) of the Bill.
    10.15 p.m.
    The first question I want to ask is this. Why should there be a difference with regard to unclaimed redemption moneys derived from stock on the Dublin Register? We find, in this obnoxious subsection (11), introduced in such very mysterious circumstances, that it applies only to entries
    "in the books of the Bank of Ireland kept in the office of their Accountant-General at Dublin or moneys due on any such stock…"
    What about unclaimed redemption moneys entered in the books of the Bank of Ireland kept at other offices? What other branches has the Bank of Ireland? Has it a branch in Belfast or in Cork? Why should this provision be limited to the entries made in the books of the Bank of Ireland in Dublin?
    There is a second question I wish to ask. Is this curious exception intended to apply to all unclaimed redemption moneys derived from stock on the Dublin register, whether they belong to persons of English domicile or domiciled in the Irish Free State? It may be that persons domiciled in this country ought not to have undisclosed assets in Ireland. The Regulations under the Exchange Control Act are very strict. We do know that some people try to evade them. We know that there have been some transactions between people in this country and banks in Ireland which ought to invite the attention of the Government and ought not to be the subject-matter of a mysterious covering up. What do the Government of Ireland say about this?
    I want to put in a more pertinent and direct form some of the questions which my right hon. Friend asked. How did it come about that in the very short interval of only four or five days between the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill, the Financial Secretary suddenly found it necessary to introduce these Amendments in Committee? The procedure which he is now seeking to change
    1886
    has been in operation for several years without any complaint or criticism. Now a Bill is introduced with miscellaneous financial provisions, the first four Clauses of which relate to the retention of an unnecessarily large petty cash item by the Government, and then there comes Clause 5, perhaps the longest Clause, which the Financial Secretary said on Second Reading was the simplest Clause. It has now turned out to be not the simplest but the most complicated and the most obscure.
    I am sure that the one thing that this House cannot sanction is any attempt by the Government to try to put through this House controversial legislation without proper explanation to the House of what it is about. That is why I am so aggrieved with the Financial Secretary. Who was the author of these changes? What went on between the Government and the Government of the Irish Free State? Who first thought that the Bill as presented on Second Reading had tome extra-territorial effect? Did the Government of Ireland object? Were there discussions between the Financial Secretary and the Government of Ireland?
    Mr. Speaker: I am not quite certain of the drift of the hon. Member's argument. We are not discussing the Clause, but the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. It does not seem to me that what the hon. Member was saying was strictly relevant to that Amendment.
    Mr. Fletcher: Our Amendment seeks to delete Clause 5 (11). That subsection is an Amendment introduced at a very late stage in the Bill in order to give effect to some curious arrangement, which, according to the Financial Secretary, has been made with the Government of Ireland. He said the Government of Ireland were not the authors of it but were aware of it. He said that he had been in touch with them but that he took full responsibility for the change. He refused, however, to answer my question about whether there had been any consultations.
    It seems to me that before it passes the subsection the House is entitled to the fullest knowledge and explanation from the Financial Secretary. Our Amendment seeks to omit the subsection. The Financial Secretary told us that looming up in the not-distant future are some very complicated questions

    1887
    relating to the National Debt, the National Debt of Ireland, and what the proportions should be. All that is very interesting, and it may be that some very important negotiations will take place between the Government of Ireland and the Financial Secretary. If so, the House should be informed of them. We do not want legislation brought to the House in this hole-and-corner manner. We want the fullest disclosure.
    The Financial Secretary gave his explanation in Committee, and because it was unsatisfactory my right hon. Friend and I are seeking to delete the subsection. We shall not be content that it should remain in the Bill until the mystery has been cleared up. I therefore hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us what he meant when he answered our direct question on whether there had been consultation. First, he did not answer at all—and I acquit him of any intention of discourtesy because I am bound to say that if a Minister cannot answer a question there is some merit in him remaining silent. He has now had three or four days to consider the question and we want to repeat it.
    Were there any consultations, either with the Government of the Irish Republic or with the Irish Ambassador? Who first detected that there was possibly some question of extra-territoriality involved? If the Government of Ireland do not carry any responsibility for the change, do they approve of it? Do they wish to see it carried further? Have there been any other discussions?
    Without some explanation, there is a prima facie case that the Bill was more reasonable as it stood originally. If there are English depositors with dividends in the Bank of Ireland, whether claimed or unclaimed—and it may perfectly well suit them not to claim the money for a number of years—that is something about which we ought to know. It is the business and duty of the House to see that such matters are properly dealt with.
    Those are some of the reasons for which my right hon. Friend and I feel that before the Report stage is concluded we must have a much more complete explanation from the Financial Secretary of these very mysterious last-minute innovations.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I always want to show complete courtesy and candour to the House. I have been asked to give a full, complete and candid explanation. But we are debating Opposition Amendments, and if any hon. Member who has not studied this Bill deeply could gather from the speeches which so far have been made the effect which these Opposition Amendments now commended to the House would have on the Bill, he must be an extremely clever man. Perhaps I had better see if I can explain the effect of the Amendments. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked me to be perfectly frank with the House, but he did not mention himself that the Amendments would affect stock on the Post Office Register; he only spoke of the Bank of Ireland. But I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that I will endeavour to answer all the questions they have put to me. May I say, in passing, that I have never attempted to mislead the House into thinking that this is a simple Clause. What is simple is the purpose of the Clause, but the wording of it is highly technical.
    When the Bill was presented to the House about a fortnight ago, two points came to my notice. One was that there was going to be an awkward time between the moment when the Bill receives Royal Assent and the moment when regulations are made regarding stocks on the Post Office Register. It was clear in the Bill in its original form that until new regulations were made for the stock on the Post Office Register the National Debt Office would continue to have to deal with unclaimed moneys from there in the old way, whereas it would be dealing with all unclaimed moneys from other sources in the new and much simpler way laid down by the Bill.
    Secondly, there was the point about the Bank of Ireland and the Dublin Branch thereof. In answer to the hon. Member for Islington, East, there are branches of the Bank of Ireland in Belfast and in Dublin. I realised that the Bill as drafted might be deemed to have extra-territorial effect, and that raised a very big question in my mind. The Government of the Irish Republic made no approach to us

    1889
    about it, but we felt the right thing to do, before the Committee stage of the Bill was reached, was to have conversations with the Government of the Irish Republic. We took the initiative and said that on consideration we felt it would be a mistake to ask the Parliament here to pass a Bill which could well have extra-territorial effect as far as the Dublin office of the Bank of Ireland was concerned.
    We were therefore in touch with the Government of the Irish Republic on the proposition that the Bill should be amended—the proposition came from us, not from the other side—so as to leave the procedure of the Bank of Ireland in Dublin unaffected. I have been asked whether this amounted to consultation or not. I will be perfectly frank. The only reason I did not give a plain answer to the original question, last Thursday, of whether we had consulted the Government of the Irish Republic or not, was that the word "consult" can be used with different meanings. If I had said "yes" I might have been criticised, and if I had said "no" I might have been criticised. What we did was to inform the Government of the Irish Republic quite frankly about the effect of the Bill in the original form in which it was presented to this House. We informed them, further, of the Amendments which on consideration we had decided to move in order to ensure that this Bill had no application to the Dublin office of the Bank of Ireland.
    The right hon. Member asked about our intentions for the future. The problem here—it must have been a problem dating from the time when the right hon. Member was himself in office—is that the National Debt Acts need consolidation. They date back to 1870, and indeed beyond. All this National Debt legislation was passed before the separation of the Irish Republic from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Now, therefore, a substantial question remains ahead of us. How we are to consolidate, and in the process of consolidating modernise and bring up to date, the National Debt Acts, when in fact their wording was framed in a time when Dublin itself was part of the United Kingdom?
    10.30 p.m.
    The main reason we felt it right to make sure that no question of extraterritoriality was raised by the Bill was that it seemed to us a mistaken approach to prejudge that larger question in any
    1890
    way by seeking now to put on the statute book something which, over a very small part of the larger field, affected the Bank of Ireland. If the House will reject the Amendments and pass the Bill in the form in which it was amended in Committee last Thursday, that will then clear the way for a much larger enterprise—I could not give any starting or completion date for it, but I think that hon. Members on both sides will agree that it is desirable, in due course—to modernise our National Debt Acts and to clear up the whole position. Then we should no longer have on our statute book Acts which appear to have an extra-territorial effect on an institution which is no longer in the United Kingdom.
    That is the purpose that I have been seeking to achieve. I apologise most willingly if anything that I said last Thursday was obscure, but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will perhaps sympathise with me because I think that those who have supported the Amendment had some difficulty in achieving complete clarity on the subject. I am extremely anxious to be as candid as posible with the House, and I most sincerely trust that I have now put the position beyond doubt.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: I think that we are making progress, but, so that the position may be beyond doubt, may I ask one or two further questions? The Government made an attempt to shuffle through the Report stage before the House really had had time to know what it was doing. Therefore, we are entitled to be absolutely clear.
    Is it now clear that the Bill, as it was originally introduced by the Government, would in fact have had these extraterritorial effects in Dublin? When the Financial Secretary introduced the Bill and made his Second Reading speech, was he then aware, or was he not, that it would have these further extraterritorial effects? Had he in fact had any of these consultations or contacts, or whatever he likes to call them, with the Irish authorities before he introduced the Bill? Might not it be that perhaps if he had had them he would have been a little more aware of what the Bill was doing—before the Second Reading and not after?
    Finally, are we now absolutely clear that if the House rejects the Amendment and gives the Financial Secretary the Bill in the form in which he now wishes to have it, as opposed to the form in which

    1891
    he wanted it on Second Reading, it will not have any of these extra-territorial effects? Also, can we be sure that in that form it will not be in any way repugnant to the Irish Government or to the Bank of Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: I can assure the House that the Bill will have no extra-territorial effects. Everything will go on exactly as before so far as the Bank of Ireland is concerned. We had been in touch with the Government of the Irish Republic before the Second Reading of the Bill, but it would have been inappropriate, I think, to make any statement in the House while discussions were still going on.
    Mr. Jay: But was the right hon. Gentleman aware when he introduced the Bill that in its original form it would have these effects to which he now objects?
    Mr. Ede: In view of the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is not proposed to move the other Amendments, which are consequential.
    Bill read the Third time and passed.

    FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
    [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend and consolidate certain enactments in Scotland relating to food and drugs, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown or Government Department in consequence of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Nixon Browne.]
    Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

    AGED SICK, CLEVELAND (CARE)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
    10.37 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Palmer: The matter which I propose to raise this evening—the care of the aged sick—is not, of course, peculiar to my constituency of Cleveland, but if I raise it in a constituency context it is because my attention has been drawn to the serious situation in this matter of the care of the aged sick by the local authorities in the constituency and their medical advisers.
    The House had a very useful debate on the general situation in March, 1953. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will remember that debate. It was introduced on a Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) and hon. Members on both sides of the House took part in the debate. Much mention was made on that occasion of the serious delays that were occurring in all parts of the country in securing admission to hospital for the elderly sick.
    It would be right to say that on that occasion the hon. Lady, who spoke in the debate, did not deny the general truth of some of the allegations then made. If I may be allowed to quote her words, the hon. Lady said:
    "Today we have had general agreement on one pitfall—the link between the local authority and the hospital side not being sufficiently well forged. But I assure hon. Members that the Government will do everything in their power to see that advantage is taken of experience, whether to press on with improvements of the kind which have already been made or to develop along new lines…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 781.]
    Since that time two years have passed, and, from the evidence which has been sent to me by the local authorities in my constituency, it seems that very little real improvement or progress has been made. In fact, I can say that in Cleveland the situation is just about as depressing as ever. The cases which I propose to quote for the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary are from the case-book of one very hard-working and capable medical officer whose services are shared

    1893
    by three local authorities. I could quote others, because I know that other local authorities and medical officers have had similar experiences, but I feel that there would scarcely be time for me to make the area of my quotation so extensive.
    My informant has been anxious to stress that he is referring not to the aged so-called chronic sick—he thinks that the local authority services here are reasonably adequate; the home nursing service, the domestic help, and various forms of special homes—but to the situation which so often arises when an elderly man or woman requires expert medical attention in hospital at very short notice. As I think this evidence shows, all too often the hospital authorities can accept no responsibility, because of the age of the patient. There is a tendency—conscious or unconscious—to think that, if admitted, the old man or old woman may stay indefinitely, with a consequently heavy and embarrassing pressure upon the scarce bed space.
    I will quote very quickly three cases—although I have particulars of seven here—and I shall be glad to hear the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary in due course. The first case concerns:
    "A lady in the late seventies, who lived by herself in a cottage; she had a sister who lived in the same locality, but the sister was not in much better fettle than she was. Her tired heart began to fail; she got dizzy spells… The visits of the domestic help for a few hours a week and of the home nurse were not enough; what she required was hospital care and nursing"—
    these are the words of the medical officer—
    "which I advised and which she did not receive. Some time after, since she had not been seen about, her house had to be broken into, when she was found helpless and half conscious. She was removed to hospital as an emergency, where she died."
    The second case is somewhat similar.
    "A lady in the eighties who had a failing heart with mental confusion and dizzy spells in which she fell…had been looked after before she got so ill by her nephew and his wife; both were elderly, the latter had a tired heart and the former had his work to do. She had been found one morning lying in the unfurnished front room half naked, and in January too! This case, in my opinion, required admission to hospital at once… After repeated efforts of her doctor and another nephew of hers who is, I believe, a member of the local hospital management committee, she was admitted the following Wednesday or Thursday and died a fortnight later."
    1894
    The third case is as follows:
    "A lady in the seventies with heart disease and mental confusion, living alone, had domestic help for some time but then refused that service; she used to wander about and had several heavy falls. Her own doctor appealed to me to do what I could to get her into hospital, so I wrote to the Geriatric Physician on the matter. The neighbours came to me complaining that it was quite beyond them to look after her.
    Some three or four weeks later she was admitted to hospital."
    I think that it would be agreed by the House that those cases—which I believe to be authentic—show an extremely serious state of affairs, and I should like to ask the hon. Lady just what practical steps are now being taken by her right hon. Friend and by the Department to remedy the situation. I am aware that that which I have described is not special to my constituency; but it does not seem any use for any of us, on either side of this House, to boast of the glories of the Welfare State when this kind of inhumanity—for that is really what it is —exists.
    In Cleveland, however, we have what seems to us to be at least a limited local solution. It is certainly one which is being urged by the local authorities and the trades council, which is also taking an interest in the matter; and it is a solution which could apply if the Minister and the regional hospital board allowed it. At Guisborough, in the heart of my constituency, there stands, open to the sky, the present shell of a hospital building which was started before the war. It is unfinished and attached to a general hospital which was once a Poor Law institution. If the necessary work were done, this completed hospital building could accommodate many old people, especially if made into a special unit for the purpose.
    That is the course being recommended locally, and I put a question to the Minister on the subject in the last Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said at that time that there were no funds available and that, in any case, it was a matter for the regional hospital board. I have here a letter from that board at Newcastle, which states that, although the board would like to do more, nothing can be done at present to complete the unfinished building at Guisborough because of other urgent claims on its capital funds.

    1895
    There is a tremendous stress, we all agree, on the funds of regional boards but I must say that here there seems to be a gigantic irony at work. We are told that we live in a period of unprecedented prosperity; that there is full employment and maximum production; the sun shines, and the wheels revolve, and although taxation is high, so are profits and wages. Yet the people in my constituency are told that the nation is too poor to complete this hospital. That does not sound very convincing to me, ten years after the end of the war.
    I was out in the sunshine today, and happened to be at the end of Kingsway; I cannot remember how long it is since I was last there, but as though it had sprung from nowhere, there is now a great new office block; and in Pall Mall I saw club buildings being taken down, no doubt to be replaced by another edifice. Yet there are no bricks and mortar for this hospital at Guisborough. Of course I realise that kind of illustration cannot be taken too far, but, as I have said, there is a gigantic irony in that, while boasting on the one hand of our great prosperity, on the other we are too poor to complete a hospital for humane and kindly purposes. Something must surely be wrong with our sense of social priorities when that hospital remains unfinished and old people die—and I do not think that that is an improper remark—because nobody apparently is capable of organising help.
    I should be glad if the hon. Lady could tell the House what progress is being made in the proper hospital treatment of the aged sick, and also for some information as to whether it is possible to start work fairly soon on this Guisborough hospital. I assure the hon. Lady that there is tremendous local feeling in my constituency on this matter. I am under great pressure from the local authorities and every section of public opinion. I cannot be convinced that there is not the money available to do the work which is so urgently necessary.
    10.51 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) has raised, particularly in connection with his own local area, a problem which is a difficult one
    1896
    for the whole country. I will deal first with the general progress made nationally and then specifically with local points and particularly the Guisborough hospital.
    There is no doubt that the greatly increased proportion of elderly people in the population, coupled with the fact that people are living longer, makes the care of the chronic sick one of the major problems facing the National Health Service. The Phillips Committee has reported that whereas in 1911 only one person in fifteen was of pensionable age, in 1954 two in every fifteen were of pensionable age and it is estimated that by 1979 the number will approach three in fifteen.
    This problem of the rapidly growing aged group requires, and is receiving, the closest possible attention. The impact of the ageing population on the hospital service is one of the major items in the review which is now being conducted by the Guillebaud Committee. Above all, this problem calls for the closest cooperation between all the authorities who are responsible for the care of the elderly. It involves home helps, health visitors and home nurses, welfare accommodation, old people's annexes, geriatric units, general hospital in-patient and outpatient treatment, and units for the chronic sick.
    If any one section is not pulling its weight in the closest co-operation with the other, the burden on the other services automatically increases. It is, therefore, impossible to emphasise too much the need for the very closest day-to-day cooperation between the hospitals, the local health and welfare authorities, the general practitioners, and the various voluntary organisations, all of whom are concerned with this problem.
    The need for beds for the chronic sick varies from area to area very much in accordance with the efficiency of the other services provided. It is not, therefore, practicable for the Minister to lay down a hard and fast, rigid percentage of beds which shall be so allocated. A Scottish Committee, however, made an assessment that in ideal circumstances there should be one chronic sick bed per thousand of the population. The ratio of beds in England and Wales is 1·2 per 1,000. Therefore, if all these services were operating in co-operation, as we

    1897
    should like to see them operate, we should have an adequate number of beds for the chronic sick. Over-all, it is true to say that the need is less for new beds than for the better use of existing beds, coupled with an increase of domiciliary services and welfare accommodation.
    To this end, since the debate which the hon. Member for Cleveland has mentioned, a nation-wide survey has been conducted to provide the fullest and most accurate assessment of the nature and quality of health and welfare services for the chronic sick and elderly throughout the country and to find out whether there are black spots and whether the cooperation or balance between the various services is as we should like to see it.
    Fundamentally, old people prefer to stay in their own homes, living their own independent lives, as long as possible, and our whole policy is directed towards that end. Those who suffer severe but temporary illness have been tremendously helped by the geriatric units which in a short time have done outstanding work in treating many thousands of people who in the past would have gone into a chronic-sick ward and have stayed there for the rest of their days. There has been a very remarkable extension of the domiliciary services, a very large proportion of which has been devoted to the old people, and the number of home helps has trebled since the inception of the National Health Service. There have been nearly 800 small homes for old people built to provide accommodation under Part III of the National Assistance Act, and we are increasing the number at a rate of between 3,000 and 4,000 beds a year.
    There remains the residue of old people requiring hospital treatment, many of whom are cared for under the general comprehensive services of the Health Service which are available to people of all ages. Over 55,000 of the available hospital beds—11·5 per cent.—are occupied by chronic sick, 1,400 being provided in long-stay annexes. We have in addition 3,032 patients treated under contractual arrangements. Over-all, therefore, the problem is not now a lack of beds but of getting the right patient into the right bed; of seeing that patients who are admitted for a short-term illness can be transferred back to Part III accommodation or to their own homes with
    1898
    domiciliary help when they are able to go.
    The threefold plan upon which we are working is to provide active treatment and rehabilitation in geriatric units for those who will benefit from it and can be restored to normal activity; to provide convalescent annexes for those convalescing after active treatment who no longer need intensive nursing care; and to provide long-stay annexes for patients who can obtain no further benefit from active treatment but who still require nursing and occasional medical care for an indefinite period, and possibly until the end of their lives.
    I want to emphasise that the entry into any of these groups is a medical decision, and I frankly regret that the hon. Gentleman did not let me have the details of the three cases he raised. I hope he will do so, because it is only fair, in the case of what I think he will agree with me when I give the figures for Cleveland is a reflection on the hospital service, that it should be given an opportunity of investigating those cases and of giving reasons either for refusing admission or why it was unable to admit those patients. I shall be happy to investigate the cases which he has raised if he will let me have the details.
    Similarly there has been a vast increase in the out-patient treatment given to old people. So far as the local aspects are concerned, a chronic sick survey was carried out in Tees-side at the end of last year. The records then showed that urgent cases could be admitted immediately and that the delay in the case of non-urgent cases at Guisborough Hospital was one week. The waiting list is a live, though a small one, and is regularly reviewed. That really is the gravamen of the point I made earlier, that at the time of the survey there were three men and three women on the waiting list at Guisborough and sixteen women on the list for Portrack Hospital. But, and this is the real point, there were at that time two women and two men at Guisborough, and fifteen women and thirteen men at Portrack, who were fit for discharge to welfare homes which were under the local authority. So that those figures were almost in balance if the co-operation between the authorities had been fully operative and if it had been possible to make those necessary transfers.
    Mr. Palmer: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady but what I am interested in, and what I think the House is interested in, is what steps the Department is taking to ensure that this co-operation occurs.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: One of the ways in which it could occur is if cases such as the hon. Gentleman feels have failed to be provided for locally are referred to us, and we have the opportunity of seeing where the fault lies, either with the hospital or with the local authorities.
    The group has also a consultant physician who is available to visit patients in their own homes and to assess their need for admission. In the Teesside H.M.C. area there are 115 beds for active geriatric treatment, 20 of which are at Guisborough and 2·0 at Hemlington, and 189 beds for chronic long-stay cases, of which 107 are at Portrack and 44 at Guisborough.
    The total chronic sick provision on Tees-side is therefore 304 beds, and that gives the figure of 0·8 chronic sick beds per thousand of the population against the regional figure of one. A much less well-served area is Gateshead, where only 0·2 beds per thousand of the population are available. It is quite obvious that this area would command a higher priority in any development that the Board is considering in relation to beds for the chronic sick.
    On the question whether or not my right hon. Friend should support particular claims and priorities within the region, it is the duty, laid down by Act, of the regional board to plan development and make its own priorities between the competing demands of various specialties. The funds available to the Health Service, although there has been a substantial increase in capital allocation, are not unlimited. The Regional Board has to decide, in the light of its own knowledge of the area and the circumstances with which it is in much closer touch than we are at the Ministry, whether this project or that project shall receive priority.
    To deal particularly with the Guisborough Hospital, which has 74 beds, I would say that a scheme was started in 1939 to build a 68-bed, two-storey, block intended for chronic sick patients. The
    1900
    scheme was abandoned in 1942, when only the walls, sub-floor and roof had been completed. In 1948 the building passed to the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board, but the Board has not felt able to give any high priority to its completion—not least, I understand, because there are serious structural difficulties. A subterranean spring has been discovered underneath the block which would necessitate pile-driving and would increase the estimated cost of building it to £50,000, which is more than the present capital value of the building.
    It must also be emphasised that it is no true comparison to compare the need when the project was mooted in 1939 with the need today. In those days there were far fewer domiciliary services for old people, far fewer old people's homes, far less geriatric services for the aged, and, therefore, many people who in those days would have had no alternative but to go into a chronic sick ward, and there end their days, are now being helped by domiciliary care or, alternatively, are being rehabilitated through the general hospital service and the geriatric units.
    The question of welfare accommodation is a difficult problem which requires far-sightedness and close cooperation on both sides to get the right patient in the right bed, or the patient home, if the patient is fit to go. Over-all, in the region, there is reasonable provision, though I do not deny that some areas, and Gateshead in particular, are below average. Speaking generally, the need is for greater flexibility in transferring cases which have recovered from the chronic sick stage to the welfare stage.
    There are still some areas to complete before we can give a report for the whole country. We do realise that there are some areas which may fall short of requirements. When we get the full report we shall be able to apply what we believe to be the necessary remedies. Overall, the services have been substantially increased for the old people in that area. The Regional Board must be left with the authority to make its own decisions as to priorities and specialties within its area. On the basis of the very intensive and detailed survey made on Tees-side, I cannot agree that the situation is as grave or as insoluble without an extension to Guisborough Hospital as the hon. Member would suggest.
    Mr. Palmer: No doubt the hon. Lady appreciates that this is the view of the local authority, which is in close touch with the problem every day.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: There are two sides to this problem, since the chronic sick are dealt with by the Hospital Board and by the local authority. If the hon. Gentleman cares to send me the cases which he has raised, I shall be only too happy to investigate them fully and thoroughly. It would be quite wrong for me to pass comment on the allegations that have been made about the failure of
    1902
    the hospital service to admit these people, without fairly hearing the case which the hospital authorites might wish to put. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way in which he put his case, and I agree with him that he has raised a most important point, but I do not accept the view that the facilities in the area fall as gravely short as his speech would imply.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Peterlee (New Industries)
  Peterlee (New Industries)
  Export Trades
  Export Trades
  Umbrellas (Imperial Preference)
  Umbrellas (Imperial Preference)
  Strikes (Trade Losses)
  Strikes (Trade Losses)
MONOPOLIES COMMISSION
  Publication of Evidence
  Publication of Evidence
  Radio Trade
  Radio Trade
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Departments (Cleaning Contractors)
  Government Departments (Cleaning Contractors)
  Nationalised Industries (Bank Loans)
  Nationalised Industries (Bank Loans)
HOUSING
  Ex-Service Men
  Ex-Service Men
  Allocations
  Allocations
  Portsmouth
  Portsmouth
  War-Damaged Cities
  War-Damaged Cities
  Evicted Families (Accommodation)
  Evicted Families (Accommodation)
  Lists (Non-registered Persons)
  Lists (Non-registered Persons)
  Tribunals (Rent Increases)
  Tribunals (Rent Increases)
  Local Authority Houses (Rents)
  Local Authority Houses (Rents)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Peterlee Development Corporation
  Peterlee Development Corporation
  Smoke Abatement (Legislation)
  Smoke Abatement (Legislation)
  Private Street Works, Poole (Loans)
  Private Street Works, Poole (Loans)
  Reform (Agreed Proposals)
  Reform (Agreed Proposals)
EMPLOYMENT
  Older Persons
  Older Persons
SCOTLAND
  Dysentery (Notifications)
  Dysentery (Notifications)
  Herring Fishing Industry
  Herring Fishing Industry
  Teachers' Salaries (Representations)
  Teachers' Salaries (Representations)
  Children, Bridge of Weir (Anti-Tuberculosis Vaccine)
  Children, Bridge of Weir (Anti-Tuberculosis Vaccine)
  Distribution of Industry (Approved Schemes)
  Distribution of Industry (Approved Schemes)
  Housing, Ross and Cromarty
  Housing, Ross and Cromarty
  Spastic Paralysis and Cerebral Palsy
  Spastic Paralysis and Cerebral Palsy
RESEARCH
  Jodrell Bank Experimental Station, Congleton
  Jodrell Bank Experimental Station, Congleton
  Radioactivity (Nuclear Explosions)
  Radioactivity (Nuclear Explosions)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Palace of Westminster (Ministers' Lift)
  Palace of Westminster (Ministers' Lift)
BRITISH ARMY
  Driving Instruction (Schools of Motoring)
  Driving Instruction (Schools of Motoring)
  Married Quarters (Furniture)
  Married Quarters (Furniture)
  Territorial Army Administration (Committee's Report)
  Territorial Army Administration (Committee's Report)
  Radio Station, Malta (Fatigues)
  Radio Station, Malta (Fatigues)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  National Service Men
  National Service Men
  British Troops, Germany (German Laws)
  British Troops, Germany (German Laws)
  Building Works
  Building Works
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (PRIVILEGES)
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (PRIVILEGES)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dutch Strawberry Pulp
  Dutch Strawberry Pulp
  Humane Traps Advisory Committee (Report)
  Humane Traps Advisory Committee (Report)
  ANGLO-FRENCH CO-OPERATION (ATOMIC INFORMATION)
  ANGLO-FRENCH CO-OPERATION (ATOMIC INFORMATION)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  General Election (Air Ministry Orders)
  General Election (Air Ministry Orders)
WALES
  All-Welsh Schools
  All-Welsh Schools
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Widow's Pensions, Wales
  Widow's Pensions, Wales
ROADS
  Signposting, East Kilbride
  Signposting, East Kilbride
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SPEED LIMIT ON HEAVY VEHICLES
2.36 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any steps have been taken to implement the undertaking given by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to the House on 1st March, 1955, in respect of the 20 m.p.h. speed limit imposed upon heavy goods vehicles; and if so when they were taken and with what result.]
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I have no statement to make at present. I can assure the noble Lord that the problem continues to be given very careful consideration.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Lord really think that that is a serious attempt to implement the undertaking given by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to your Lordships' House on March 1 last? I would repeat the undertaking which was given in quite categorical terms. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT for March 1 [Volume 191 (No. 27), col. 628]:
"I give this undertaking to the House: that I will take this matter up most seriously, not only with my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport but also with my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour so soon as he returns to harness, which I hope will be in the near future. We will try to make another effort to solve a problem which has hitherto been intractable."
Furthermore, may I ask, if this problem is so intractable—and I would interpose here my sincere sympathy with the noble and learned Viscount and with Her Majesty's Government—will Her
592
Majesty's Government give this House an assurance that from now on the law will be enforced and will not be allowed to be brought into complete contempt and disregard as it is at the present time?
EARL HOWE: My Lords, following what has fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, may I put this question to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke? If the law is enforced, 94 per cent. of the heavy vehicles on the roads are going to be in trouble. Furthermore, the fact that the speeds of these vehicles will come down, presumably to the legal limit, will lead to an incredible increase of the congestion up and down the principal main arteries of the country, thereby causing still more severe delays and, perhaps, even increases in the numbers of accidents. Can the noble Lord, therefore, give us an assurance that this matter is really going to be treated as a matter of urgency?
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, give us any indication whether the possibility of drivers' schedules being calculated on a tonnage mile basis as opposed to a speed basis has been fully explored? If the element of speed could be taken out of the calculations of the amount of work done, it seems to me that the difficulty regarding the speed limit might then disappear.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, answers, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have come to any decision about calling a conference of outside bodies which are interested in this matter, such as the trade unions and the Road Haulage Association?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the answer to the first supplementary question is that my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has certainly fulfilled every undertaking he gave to this House. He has brought this question with urgency before my right honourable friends, the Ministers of Labour and of Transport, and the fact that no solution has yet been arrived at can be no fault of his but is a measure of the difficulty of this particular question. I can certainly give the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, the assurance that I am bringing his words again to the notice of my right honourable friend.

593
A number of other supplementary questions have been asked, but I would first of all deal with that put by Lord Derwent. I think his question is one which goes rather outside the scope of the original Question by Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I should like, therefore, to have notice of the noble Lord's Question. The same applies to the question put by my noble friend, Lord Stone-haven. The question asked by my noble friend Earl Howe was really more a statement of facts, and I will certainly bring the facts which he has stated to the notice of my right honourable friend the Minister.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am sure that those who know the Lord Chancellor do not need to be reassured that he fully carries out any undertaking that he gives. But I should like to ask the Government this question. Whatever may be the solution, whether a change of the law or the enforcement of the law, it cannot be right to adhere to a policy of allowing the law to continue and to be habitually disregarded. That seems to me to bring the law into contempt. I should like to be assured that Her Majesty's Ministers are in entire accord with that observation.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, as the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition has intervened, I would say that of course this is no new question. It is a question with which his Government and our Government have alike been faced, and, as he knows, it is a question of wide and difficult implications. It would be a mistake for anyone to regard it as a simple decision. The reason why the problem has not been solved up to now is because it is so difficult to solve. I can reiterate the assurance that has been given by my noble friend Lord Hawke, that the views expressed to-day by your Lordships will be brought immediately to the notice of the Ministers concerned. We realise just as much as the noble Lords opposite the undesirability of having a law which is not completely operative. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that himself in answering noble Lords during the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill. The House can be assured that we shall do all we can
594
to find a satisfactory solution to this very difficult problem.

HUMANE TRAPS
2.45 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet received a report from the Humane Traps Advisory Committee.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): Yes, my Lords; the Committee made their First Report on June 15, and copies are available in the Printed Paper Office. Since their first meeting in July, 1954, the Committee have examined prototypes or designs of 102 traps, 17 of which have been selected for field trials. Thirteen of these have undergone preliminary tests, while the other four will be tested as soon as models are available. The Committee regard one or two traps as showing promise of replacing the gin, but they are of the opinion that much further work remains to be done, and they cannot at present recommend any advance in the date, namely, July 31, 1958, appointed by Section 8 of the Pests Act, 1954, for banning the gin. Her Majesty's Government have accepted this recommendation.

BRITISH-BORN WOMEN IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA
2.47 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many British-born women in Czechoslovakia other than Mrs. Sispera desire to return to this country and what measures are being taken to assist them.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, in addition to Mrs. Sispera, there are at present eight other British-born wives who are known

595
to have taken unsuccessful steps, since January, 1953, to obtain permission to emigrate from Czechoslovakia and three who have sought to make short visits to the United Kingdom. A few others may shortly make similar applications. Numerous written and oral representations have been made on behalf of these women—the latest by my right honourable friend Mr. Nutting on July 7—and the Czechoslovak authorities can be in no doubt concerning the strong feeling which their treatment has aroused here. My latest information is that the Czechoslovak authorities have now stated that other cases are being benevolently considered.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, arising out of the reply of the noble Marquess, may I ask a supplementary question? Are there not some 70 or 80 other British wives who might have pressed their claims to return to this country, had it not been for the motive of fear?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it is difficult to know how many there are, because, while a certain number deem it expedient to register with the consuls in the countries concerned, others think that in their particular circumstances it is imprudent to do so. It is therefore difficult to give any definite number. So far as those who are registered go, Her Majesty's representatives in those countries do everything possible to assist them.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, while appreciating the difficulties to which the noble Marquess refers, might it not ease matters a little if the noble Marquess took some opportunity of conveying to the Czechoslovak representative here—or perhaps this notification would be enough—that some of us are in real earnest about this matter and will be suggesting means of pressure if these unfortunate women are not released?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it was the seriousness of the situation and its effect in this country, and consequently its repercussions upon the relations between this country and Czechoslovakia, that was the theme that my right honourable friend Mr. Nutting impressed at length upon the Czechoslovak Ambassador here, only on the 7th of this month.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. To us on this side of the House it seems absolutely inhuman and uncivilised that people should not be allowed to come back to this country to see their parents and friends. I hope that representations will be made in the plainest possible way.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I do not dissent for one moment from what the noble and learned Earl has said—indeed, representations have been forcibly and recently made.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Additional courts of quarter sessions in boroughs]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I rise to move Amendment No. 1 on the Marshalled List. This new subsection is designed to prevent recorders' certificates given under Clause 15 (3) from being liable to stamp duty. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue think that they would be liable in the absence of this provision. I want to assure your Lordships that there is nothing new in the provision. Certificates now given under Section 168 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, are protected by a similar provision in Section 168 (10). There seems no reason for discontinuing the exemption, and I am informed that it would cause a good deal of inconvenience if that contrary course were taken. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 30, at end insert—
("(4) Certificates given under the last foregoing subsection shall not be subject to any stamp duty or other tax.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
EARL JOWITT: There is one point on Clause 15 I should like to have cleared up. Your Lordships will notice that under this clause the recorder is given power to order a second court to be formed, and, indeed, to order additional courts
"up to such number as may be authorised by the resolution of the borough council …"
That is the point I want to be clear about. After all, the person responsible for the administration of justice is the Lord Chancellor. It is for him to see that sufficient courts are sitting to clear the lists, and he is in a much better position than any other body or person to see that that is done. What concerns me a little is that the question of additional courts is here, apparently, left not to the Lord Chancellor, who would know perfectly well whether they ought to be appointed or not, but to a resolution of the borough council. I do not think that altogether satisfactory. I do not want the Lord Chancellor to do anything to-day, but I should like him to consider this point between now and the next stage of the Bill. Suppose (it is an unlikely event, because borough councils are always most cooperative) that the Lord Chancellor came to the conclusion that there was need for an additional court, and the borough council, who might have to pay something by reason of that fact, were unwilling to pass the resolution. What then? Surely, the person who ought to decide this matter is the Lord Chancellor, and he ought not to be deterred from having the right number of courts because the borough council do not pass a resolution. I should like this matter to be considered, and for the Lord Chancellor to tell me now that he will consider it, and deal with it, if it needs dealing with, in the manner that seems to him most suitable.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I willingly give the undertaking sought by the noble and learned Earl, that I will consider the matter. As he knows, these questions that involve those who have to bear the financial strain of any of these provisions are matters that one must always consider, and their point of view must be borne in mind. I agree with him that the sound administration of justice comes first. I will willingly consider the matter and communicate with the noble and learned Earl, before the next stage,
598
if necessary, or we can deal with it on the next stage of the Bill.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Stipendiary magistrates and their deputies]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment makes the Lord Chancellor, instead of the Home Secretary, responsible for questions that may arise concerning the pensions of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of London Sessions. I think your Lordships will agree that this is the proper procedure. The Lord Chancellor has already, under Section 39 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, taken over the duty of recommending their appointments to Her Majesty and of appointing persons to act temporarily if the Chairman or Deputy Chairman is unavoidably absent. The Lord Chancellor has also the duty of giving his approval to any increase in the salaries of these officers. Therefore, I think it is right that he should also be concerned with pensions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 46, after ("State") insert—
("(a) in section twenty-two of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950 (which relates to the pensions of chairmen and deputy chairmen of the court of quarter sessions for the county of London); and
(b).")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the interests of clarity we thought it right to make two clauses to deal with what are really two different points. The result will be that what is now Clause 16 (1) will stand as a clause on its own, dealing with the retirement of metropolitan stipendiary magistrates only. The new clause will then provide for the transfer to the Lord Chancellor of certain of the responsibilities of the Home Secretary. I have already mentioned the question of pensions of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of London Sessions. There are, also, the salaries, retirements and pensions of all stipendiary magistrates and deputy stipendiary magistrates. The law on this matter is set out in the Second Schedule. I should remind your Lordships that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will take over some of the responsibilities of the Home Secretary in relation to the deputy stipendiary magistrates appointed within the County Palatine. I hope your

599
Lordships will agree that this is a clear method of dealing with this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
That Clause 16 be divided into two clauses consisting respectively of subsection (1) and of subsections (2) and (3).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended and divided into two clauses, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Transitional provisions in connection with Part 1]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 23, leave out second ("for") and insert ("in").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
In the Title:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments to the Title are consequential on the Amendments which your Lordships have made to Clause 16 as it stands. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Line 5, leave out ("stipendiary magistrates and their deputies,") and insert ("the retirement of metropolitan stipendiary magistrates,").
Line 10, at end insert ("and to transfer to the Lord Chancellor or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster certain functions of the Secretary of State.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Title of the Bill, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

LICENSING (AIRPORTS) BILL [H.L.]
3.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, to say that a Bill is self-explanatory is obviously giving too many hostages to fortune; but if your Lordships will be good enough to read the Long Title of the Bill to which we
600
are asking you to accord a Second Reading, you will realise that there is little more that I need add this afternoon to explain why we wish this measure to have your approval. The Long Title reads as follows:
"An Act to exempt international airports from the restrictions on the times at which intoxicating liquor may be sold or supplied."
I do not doubt that your Lordships are familiar with this problem, which is by now old and well established. Many influential bodies have been pressing for the alteration in the law which is contained in this measure; notably the two airlines, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and the other smaller airlines, and also the British Travel and Holidays Association. They have put forward the argument time and time again that the licensing laws at present in force in our major airports are a serious disadvantage to us in the highly competitive business of encouraging travellers to use our airlines in preference to all others.
The restrictions on the sale of liquor at airports are frankly not understood by the many thousands of foreigners who use our major airports; and since we ourselves can seldom understand our own licensing laws we can hardly blame them for being confused, and indeed annoyed, at the restrictions which they find placed upon them. This annoyance gives rise to a very bad first impression among people to whom we particularly desire to give a good impression. The odd situation in which the traveller is placed now is that the licensing law which obtains, say, at London Airport is that which obtains in Uxbridge, the nearest licensing authority. That means that the bars are normally open between 11 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. on weekdays—in other words roughly the same hours as one finds all over the country. There are certain exceptions, as your Lordships know. Special dispensations can be granted for special functions, for special trades and for special occasions, as will be familiar to those of your Lordships who know the Tavern at Lord's, or who have ever worked in Covent Garden. It was thought at one time that it might be possible to extend these special facilities to London Airport, but that has not been found possible.
The object of these restrictions in our licensing laws is, of course, to prevent continuous drinking. I think if any

601
attempt were to be made to increase these ordinary licensing hours there would be strong reactions throughout the country. There is no great demand for any extension of the ordinary licensing laws, but it is surely ridiculous that the same laws which obtain in Uxbridge should obtain in a major international airport, where the last thing a traveller wants to do is to indulge in continuous drinking. The first thing he wants to do is to get away from the airport as soon as he can upon his journey. At the present time, these restrictions are marring the improvements which have been recently brought about at London Airport. We are expecting by 1960 that we shall have something like 3½ million passengers a year. All round the clock is now the order of the day for travel—twenty-four hours a day, come wind, cone weather. As your Lordships know, the popularity of the slightly cheaper night flights is rapidly increasing. This means that travellers, quite legitimately, desire a drink at all hours of the day and night; and the fact that they cannot get it is causing them great inconvenience.
I think I can make this point more clearly if I tell your Lordships that in the month of August this year, at the peak of the travel period, there will be 150,000 passengers going through London Airport at times when the bars would otherwise be shut. Half of those passengers will be foreigners. Foreigners now are quite markedly showing a preference to stop off at the other major European airports, rather than London Airport, because of the morn attractive facilities. London Airport and Prestwick are the only two major European airports without such facilities, and in consequence they are frequently, and understandably, criticised by the large number of travellers using the airports. They are at the moment the only two airports to which this Bill will apply—and for this very important reason: they are the only two airports which have a bar within the customs barrier, and it is only to bona fide travellers that these facilities are to be made available. You must have gone through the customs barrier and become isolated from your friends and visitors before you can make use of the facilities which we are proposing to create by this Bill. It applies, therefore, only to bona fide international passengers. It will not
602
even apply to passengers flying from London to Birmingham or Glasgow, because they do not have to go through the customs barrier.
This measure, I know, has met with a little opposition from those who feel strongly about temperance. We respect the sincerity of their views. This matter was discussed during the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Furness, a few days ago on the travel industry. I feel that some of the opponents of this measure have put forward quite a fanciful picture which suggests to me that they have not fully understood the purpose of the Bill. I was shown one letter in the provincial Press only yesterday which conjured up pictures of vanloads of mala fide travellers careering down the Bath Road intent on prolonged drinking orgies at London Airport. This cannot happen under the Bill because, as I have said, the facilities can be enjoyed only by those who have been through the customs barrier. I must admit that certain airport officials can also make use of the bars—people who work there, like the police, the immigration officers and staff from the Home Office; but, I hasten to assure your Lordships, Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State from the same Department are normally excluded from participation. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a reasonable Bill. It will not give rise to the abuse which those who have misunderstood it have feared. It is necessary as an adjunct to the travel facilities we hope to offer to the travellers whom we are attempting to attract into our major airports. I hope that your Lordships will again give the Bill the cordial welcome you extended to its First Reading a few days ago.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.7 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, speaking personally, I welcome this Bill, because I know that what the noble Lord has said is true. I know that there are a large number of travellers who resent not being able to get a drink. I think many of them are rather like I am myself—it is not so much that I want a drink, but r do not like not being able to get one. I If they can get a drink they are quite

603
happy without one, but directly you tell them they cannot have one then they want one. As President of the British Travel and Holidays Association, I know this to be a fact, because we have a large number of complaints, and this is one of the most common.
On the other hand, I should have been entirely opposed to this Bill if it had been a Bill to authorise the establishment of a super public-house which would be open for twenty-four hours in the day, so that when you finished drinking in the ordinary hours, which may or may not be reasonable, you could go round to another place and get your drinks there. I am glad that the noble Lord has made that quite plain. I did not quite realise it when I read the Bill for the first time, but I suppose there is no doubt at all that he is right and that this Bill could apply only to bona fide travellers on the aeroplanes, and does not include friends coming to see them off. I suppose that I have travelled by air as much as most of your Lordships. I confess that I have sometimes found that when people are going on a far distant flight across the sea they are a bit frightened; and I have sometimes found that a little drop of brandy brightens them up and makes them view the prospects of the flight with greater equanimity, particularly in the case of people who normally do not drink anything. I have known them, in these circumstances, desire something of that sort. Therefore, I am in favour of this Bill.
I do not know what the application is to Scotland, because in Scotland—and also in Wales—there are special licensing laws on Sundays. I do not know whether there is one of these airports in Wales—I gather that there is not; therefore the point does not arise there. But I do not know what the position is in Scotland. I can well understand that there are some Scots who will need some reassurance about this matter—as to how far it is going to interfere with their law. But on the understanding that this Bill applies only to bona fide travellers, I think this is a good measure and should be supported.
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, in rising to support, very briefly, the Second Reading of this Bill, I feel that I must declare an interest, even if it is a rather
604
remote one. I am a director of a firm of wine importers in the City of London. I am sorry that, because of inadequate commercial knowledge, I do not know—I ought to know and I ought to be able to tell your Lordships—whether my firm sells wine indirectly (I know that we do not do it directly) to London Airport. I feel that this Bill meets a sincere need. All has been said that can be said in its support by the noble Lord. Lord Man-croft, and by the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition. I certainly hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading and a speedy passage, and that it will not be too long before it is in operation.
3.11 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, this afternoon, listening to what has been said in favour of this Bill, I feel that, instead of what we anticipated would be dealt with—that is, strong drink—we have been having soothing syrup. We have had it in the speeches. They were speeches of explanation which I do not doubt for a moment; I believe they are quite accurate. I am sure that they will give a good deal of relief to those who saw in this measure, as framed, the possibility of very serious consequences. Even so, I do not look upon the speeches that have been made in favour of the Bill as being a very great compliment to air travellers, who apparently are so desperately anxious to have liquor available that they will change over from an air route that includes a "touch-down" in Britain rather than be denied the opportunity of drinking facilities.
The vision that was conjured up by mention of this Bill, however, was much more serious than that. It was that by the Bill we were providing facilities for drinking at the airports that would make it possible for the British resident meeting his friends from abroad to join them in a drink. The first thing that seems to occur to quite a number of people in these islands when they meet friends is to have a drink. That possibility was looked upon with misgiving by those who foresaw a danger that a man meeting his foreign friend at an airport would have a drink and would then drive along the roads contrary to the road code. That, it was felt, would be an increased menace in respect of the possibility of road accidents. Obviously, that is not to be the

605
case. The only point I want to put to the. Minister is that mentioned by my noble and learned Leader, the question of Scotland. Will it be possible at Scottish airports—and Prestwick is the one that most notably comes to mind as an international airport—for the general law of Scotland in this matter (and remember that Scotland has local option in respect of liquor licences) to be overridden by the provision of the opportunity for drinking? Will the local authority in Scotland in whose area an airport comes be required to provide the necessary facilities?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I hope I do not transgress the rule that a member of the board of a public corporation should not speak upon the subject over the field of which the corporation operates; but, as a member now of the Board of British European Airways, I speak not in that capacity but only to say a word on behalf of air travellers in general, and I have in mind particularly the foreign air traveller. I should like to give support to this Bill and say that I am sure it will make a great difference to the total volume of transit traffic that the international airports of Great Britain will enjoy in future years. As the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition said, sometimes a little alcoholic refreshment is a great help before a journey if a passenger is nervous. Also, when someone has landed after a hard and harsh journey across the Atlantic and has been feeling or has been air-sick for many hours, a small dose of alcoholic refreshment is something very welcome and not unreasonable to expect or to receive.
Yesterday, in the course of trying to learn something of my duties as a new member of the Board, I spent the day at London Airport and saw for myself where the proposed bar for international travellers is located. As, no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will do, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition,
606
from my own personal inspection, that the passengers who will enjoy these facilities will be absolutely segregated. They are international travellers. They cannot enter that bar until they have passed Customs, Treasury and Immigration. They have cut themselves off from the rest of the world until they have gone through those formalities and have either come back to the normal form of life in this island or have departed to some other shores. There is no question of the general public's being able to enjoy those facilities. The bar, the "iron curtain," is a very secure one, which I believe no one but the qualified will be able to pass.
3.18 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for giving this Bill such a sympathetic hearing. There is hardly need for me to say anything more because the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has really answered the questions which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, put. There is a reference in the Bill—though I agree that it may not at first be readily apparent—to the fact that the licensed premises should be "within the examination station." It is only the bona-fide traveller who can be within the examination station. With regard to Scotland, I can put the doubts of both noble Lords at rest when I say that Prestwick will be as independent of licensing rules at Ayr as London Airport will be from Uxbridge. The matter has been gone into carefully with the Scottish authorities because the law relating to liquor licensing is slightly different; but the same conditions will apply at Prestwick as prevail at London Airport. I foresee no difficulties about that. As regards Wales, that is rather an academic point at the moment because there is no international Welsh airport to fit into the provisions of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRIMARY EDUCATION
3.20 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to draw attention to the need for fresh consideration of the character of the education provided in primary schools, and to the conditions prevailing in such schools; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is ten years since the Education Act, 1944, came into operation. Children who started school on the appointed day are now, at the age of fifteen, about to leave, and they will have spent the whole of their educational life with the benefits of the 1944 Act. As noble Lords who took part in its passage will remember, this Act was passed with high hopes and in a spirit of idealism. It was passed during the war; it was itself an act of faith, and everyone who participated in it believed that it marked the introduction of a new era in education—it was even described as a revolution in education and one of the great landmarks in the history of education comparable with the Acts of 1870 and 1902. I think, therefore, that the time has come when we might inquire how it has worked out, to what extent the visions and the ideals that were felt at the time have been realised, and what is there still left to do.
To deal with this problem completely is impossible in the course of a debate such as ours, and it was for that reason that, in putting down this Motion, I decided to confine myself, broadly speaking, to primary education. We did, in fact, have a debate some months ago—I think it was a good debate—on higher education. But there is another reason for restricting the debate to primary education: namely, that the ages of five to eleven are, in the opinion of most people, the most important in a child's educational life—they are described as the formative years. It is therefore important in considering primary education to make up our minds as to its purpose. Here I am prepared to accept the language which was used in the White Paper on Educational Reconstruction which was published in 1943 and was a prelude to the Bill itself. This is what it said:
"Our aim should be the fostering of the potentialities of children at an age when their minds are nimble and receptive, their curiosity strong, their imagination fertile and their spirits high."
I think that that is an excellent definition of what should be our purpose. But,
608
greatly daring, I would venture to put this same language in my own words and say that it is to lay the foundations for equipping a child to lead a happy and useful life, both as an individual and as a member of society, bringing out to the fullest extent particular talents, capabilities and personality; and to instil in him the idea of consideration for others, and tolerance. I do not think that the two definitions are very different in substance although they are in form.
I should like to consider what progress we have made towards this ideal under two main headings: first, from the point of view of what I may describe as the ordinary stock-in-trade of education, such as school buildings, teachers, equipment and so on—all the paraphernalia attached to education which seems, unfortunately, to arouse far more controversy than the content of education itself, which I think is a great pity. Then I should like to deal with the more intangible questions, such as the effect of the examination at the age of eleven; the democratisation of our schools; and the relationship of the public primary schools to the independent school. Finally, I should like to discuss how far our children are being prepared to face the kind of world in which they will be living in the next generation and thereafter.
Now let me say a word about school buildings. May I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, who is to reply, that I do not propose to draw any comparison with the number of schools which were built by one Party as against the number built by another; I hope we can keep this debate on a somewhat higher level than that. I am prepared to concede that a great many fine school buildings have been built since the war by both Parties, and I do not know by which in particular. Going round the country and seeing these new primary schools, we find that the majority of them are schools of which we can be really proud. One could hope that some of them would be a little less permanent in character. I remember a school I used to visit for the purpose of distributing prizes. It was, I was told, a show place in the year 1889, to which visitors from abroad were constantly taken in order to show them the progress of education; but to-day it is one of the 500 schools on the black list. I think that is a fate which we ought to try to

609
avoid for some of our modern schools. By and large, I have no criticism to make of the new schools which have been erected since the war; I think we can feel proud of them. But there are still a large number of schools where education cannot properly be carried out. I do not want to exaggerate the importance of buildings as such; I am prepared to concede that good education can be carried on in bad buildings. Some noble Lords who are present this afternoon may say that they were educated in extremely bad buildings and have survived. I would only say that their education might, if possible, have been better if it had been undertaken in better buildings. I do not think that that is an argument for bad buildings.
Recently, in the Daily Express of June 27 and 28, there were articles in which these bad buildings were discussed. In one heading they were called:
"Schools! Call them Scandals."
Then, as a sub-heading, there appeared these words:
"I have seen children in places that were a disgrace even when their fathers were young."
Well, coming from the Daily Express (which is always most accurate), I would say that that is a fair criticism of a great many of the schools that are still in existence to-day. But I realise that there are difficulties about pulling down schools at the present time, one of which is that in the years 1944–48 there was a steep rise in the birth rate, with the result that children are to-day attending primary schools in far greater numbers than could have been contemplated. Those children are gradually passing through those schools. The child born in 1944 is only eleven or eleven-plus, and is about to enter the secondary school, thus creating a problem there; but the children born after 1948 are still going through the primary schools. I do not know the exact number, but on account of the higher birth rate in those years there are some 700,000 to 1 million more children at the schools than we should otherwise have. It is a problem which any Government would have had to face, and I am not criticising this Government for having been unable to face the problem of the "bulge." In five years' time it will be solving itself in the primary schools; but then there will be the further problem of the secondary schools. Nevertheless, I beg of
610
the noble Viscount to notify his right honourable friend that the existence of the schools still on the black list, and many others, is a disgrace to our educational system, and they should, so far as possible, be removed as quickly as possible.
An even greater difficulty is the size of classes. I could put up with a very bad building if classes were sufficiently numerous and of a size to enable small groups to be formed; but half the children attending primary schools in this country are being taught in classes of more than forty. There is nothing sacrosanct about that number, and in my view forty children is too great a number for one class. Yet that is the standard which the Ministry of Education has set for itself as something at which we ought to aim for the time being. In secondary schools the figure is thirty. I should have thought it more appropriate to have smaller numbers in primary schools than in secondary schools; but we have not even reached the objective which the Ministry has set itself, forty children to a class, for half of our children are still being educated in classes of more than fifty.
I believe that there has been an improvement in the number of teachers. I should like to be quite satisfied that there has been an equal improvement in their quality, but I do not know. I cannot think that two years' training is adequate. The education authorities are themselves anxious that the training period should be increased to three years, and, if that were possible, I should certainly think that it would be most desirable. There is a further difficulty of which the noble Viscount may not know although the Minister certainly does: when teachers have been trained there is great reluctance on their part to go to certain parts of the country, particularly areas like the Black Country.
In 1946 the Ministry of Health had to face the problem that doctors were not prepared to go to certain unpopular areas. Every doctor was willing to go to practise in Bournemouth, but few were willing to go to Stepney. The problem of the doctors was solved by virtually licensing them and taking powers not to permit them to practise in certain areas which were already over-provided. Whether such a scheme is possible with

611
teachers I do not know. The teachers' organisations have suggested that there should be special regional grants for teachers who have to teach in these undesirable areas. I am not necessarily advocating that proposal, but we cannot just ignore the problem. Children in the Black Country, or any other area of that kind, are just as much in need of efficient education as children in any other area and they ought not to be penalised twice over, once by having to live in an area which is not desirable, and secondly, by not getting equal educational opportunities with other children.
Turning next to equipment, furniture and books, I do not know whether any noble Lords have ever tried to sit in a classroom at the desks which children have to use. A big child, let alone a big Peer, cannot even get comfortably into the desks, some of which are now fifty, sixty or seventy years old; and we have to remember that the average child of to-day is much bigger, taller and heavier than the child of the time when the desks were first made, and therefore requires more space. Yet in many cases there has been no attempt to cater for the bigger child, with the result that very often children are being taught in conditions of considerable discomfort, as I remember in my own case. This question of furniture is important. Then, every teacher will tell you that they are short of textbooks. It is a question of money; but it is difficult to teach without adequate textbooks, stationery and other things. I hope that we shall not allow considerations of economy to prevent children from getting the necessary supply of textbooks.
Under our educational system I suppose it is inevitable that standards of education should be extremely uneven, for they depend upon the enthusiasm and skill of the local education authority; but they also depend even more on its wealth, and it seems wrong that a child living in an area where the rateable value is low should be penalised as against the child living in a wealthier area. The opportunities that are open to a child living in London, Surrey or Middlesex are incomparably better than those open to children living in some poorer counties. I do not want to mention any particular county, but it is a fact that there is far more variety in the type of schools and
612
better education as between different areas. Under the Burnham Award, teachers are better-paid in London, though, admittedly, the cost of living is higher. Not only is the pay better, but there is higher status for teachers teaching in London and the large towns than in some other places. The result is that we are getting extreme unevenness in the quality of our education.
I do not want to impose uniformity upon our educational system, for that would be quite wrong. A system lives as a result of experiment and variety, which vitalise it. Nevertheless, there ought to be at least a minimum standard of education, and in some cases, I regret to say, that does not exist. I have no ready answer to the problem. It may lie in providing more money for the local education authorities who are poor and have not the necessary money available out of their own resources. It may, perhaps, mean that education should be national, just as health has become national. We would not attempt to penalise our population in the poorer areas by providing them with inferior medical services simply because they are poor. Nobody would dream of going back to those days. A solution to this problem may lie in providing education nationally and of an even standard, making provision, of course, for variety, experiment and all the things which help to keep education going. Or it may be that generally we are not spending enough money. We are to-day spending very little more proportionately, than we were before the war. The share of public expenditure on education is in about the same proportion of the national income as it was before the war. It may be that we ought to afford a little more.
I admit there is a good deal of private expenditure on education, and so there was before the war. One of the things that many of us had hoped for as an outcome of the 1944 Act was that our education would be democratised. We pride ourselves on being a democracy—a model for the whole world—and yet from the very beginning of the education of our children, those children are divided into two classes, a class for the poor and a class for the better off. It is true that to some extent, to a very gradually increasing extent, possibly due to financial stringency, some parents are

613
now sending their children to the public primary schools who formerly used to send them to private schools. But it is, nevertheless, a fact that there are two streams of education one starting at the primary school and going to the secondary modern or even to the grammar school, and the other starting at the private independent school and going up to the public school. Eventually, perhaps, the streams meet at the university. Even so—and I do not want to widen the scope of the discussion—the bulk of the well-to-do tend to go to Oxford and Cambridge, while the other universities are to a much greater degree universities for the less well-off. I do not want to develop that point, but the fact is that we are one of the few countries which has this "two-stream" education. In America it is taken for granted that the child of the millionaire and the child of the ordinary worker will attend the same school, if they are living in the same area. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, shakes his head. I can shake mine.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I have taught in America at a private school.
LORD SILKIN: I do not suggest that there are no private schools. But it is a fact—I am sure if 'the noble Earl has taught in a private school he will know that what I am saying has a good deal of truth in it.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: There is a measure of truth in what the noble Lord says.
LORD SILKIN: Once the noble Earl concedes that, I am content. We will not argue about the exact measure. I do not think that the American child of wealthy parents is any the worse as the result of attending a school with other children who are less well-off. And socially, what a good thing it is that children should have the opportunity of learning to understand one another; that children of all classes should have contact with one another from the earliest possible age! I recognise that this segregation which exists at the present time is, perhaps, understandable. Every parent wants to do his best for his Child, and until we have brought our primary education up to such a level that a parent will fed content to let his child go to a primary
614
school, I suppose we must accept that private education will continue. But I hope that questions of snobbery will be entirely eliminated. It is not a bad thing, it is a good thing, that children of all classes should mix together and get to understand one another. We are having a debate to-morrow on a totally different subject—that of industrial strife. I am not going to take part in that debate, but I believe that a good deal of industrial strife arises because of this segregation of the classes, because people do riot really understand one another and do not appreciate each other's point of view. I think that matters would be helped enormously if children could be induced to go to the same school and get the same kind of education. But the education must be of the best. Until the education given at the primary school is as good as that given at the best independent school we are not likely to achieve this.
One of the evils that flow from segregation is the extreme competition that takes place for children from the primary school to get into the grammar school. So we have the evil of the eleven-plus examination. That is a matter which has been discussed in this House before, and I do riot wish to enlarge upon it to-day. But I think that every noble Lord is conscious of the undesirability of having such an examination. I should like on this question to quote once more from the White Paper of 1943 on Educational Reconstruction. This is what is there stated:
"There is nothing to be said in favour of a system which subjects children at the age of eleven to the strain of a competitive examination on which, not only their future schooling, but their future careers may depend."
That is put in language which we can all accept, and those are the words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and of my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede. Unfortunately, nothing has been done in these tell years to deal with this problem. I am not going to pretend that it is an easy problem with which to deal. When one contemplates the different types of schools, one admits that there must be some method of selection. What I deplore is that a child should be induced to believe that its whole fate, its whole future, depends upon this selection. If a child fails in this examination it is doomed for all time.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): Not quite.
LORD SILKIN: It is, unless it gets another chance at a later age. This is one of the questions which I had put down to ask the noble Viscount. How many children actually switch over at a later stage from one type of school to another? I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether it is two-way traffic or whether it is one-way traffic. That is to say after a child is found unsuitable for grammar school education at the age of thirteen, in how many cases does such a child get a transfer to a secondary modern or technical school? I think the real solution is what was contemplated by the framers of the Bill: that there should be what was called at that time "parity of esteem" between different streams of education. We were not to regard grammar school education as necessarily for all purposes superior to any other. Technical education was to be regarded as equally important; so was the secondary modern school. Unfortunately, we have not created that psychology, and at the present time the grammar school is regarded as the Mecca of all children, and if they fail to get there there is great danger of their regarding themselves as inferior beings who have failed in life. I hope it will be possible to encourage this parity of esteem as between different types of education.
One of the methods of securing this was the comprehensive school. I am not going to develop arguments in favour of the comprehensive school to-day, but it was a genuine attempt to solve this particular problem of the eleven-plus examination. But it is in the experimental stage, and, moreover, it is not suitable for all areas. Furthermore, there are recognised difficulties and objections. I should like to see how the thing works. The comprehensive school is not the only method of solving this problem—for a problem it is. There may be other ways, and I should like the Government and everyone concerned with education to see whether they cannot get over this awful business of the eleven-plus examination. All our efforts, sacrifices and heavy expenditure on education will be largely wasted unless we have a clear vision of our objective. Is it merely to teach children to read and write—and that not very effectively, as we know from the
616
experience of recruits for military service? Is it merely to teach children to take part in the eleven-plus examination? Surely education must be something wider and broader than that. I have given my own general view at the beginning of my remarks. The type of education we provide for our children must be conditioned by the kind of world in which our children and grandchildren will be living. I should like to devote the remainder of my speech to trying to visualise that kind of world and to seeing how we can provide the right kind of education to fit them into that kind of world.
First of all, I assume that we shall be at peace—if not, all my remarks will be, unhappily, irrelevant. But, assuming that, I would ask the House to travel ahead with me. The first thing that stands out is that the normal expectation of life will be longer. I think we can see that before our eyes. All sorts of things have happened to prevent and to arrest disease, and to make life longer. In the field of science we have arrived at what is known as automation, a word which will become more and more commonplace in our vocabulary, and nuclear energy. There have been a great many articles in the Press on these subjects recently, and the developments which are forecast in the very near future are stupendous. In last Sunday's Sunday Times there was an article by Sir George Thomson, the Master of Corpus Christi, Cambridge. Among the things which he regards as reasonably imminent is that we shall be able to travel to America in an hour—about the time one has to allow to get from here to Liverpool Street Station by car at the present time—I gather that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, doubts that. I must leave him to argue that out with Sir George Thomson.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I merely said that I did not want to travel to America in an hour.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Viscount will want to: if he has a choice between a plane to New York that takes four hours and one that takes one hour, he will take the plane that takes one hour; and so will everybody else. It will be some comfort to the noble Viscount that Sir George Thomson does not contemplate that we should be able to travel faster than one hour; he thinks that is

617
about the limit. But that is only an example. We are rapidly entering what I may describe as a new scientific revolution. There will be vast increases in the production of wealth, and consequently higher incomes, which I very much hope will be not for the few but will appear as a higher standard of living generally. There will be much greater facilities for travel. Already people are travelling abroad more and more, but with the inevitable reduction in fares brought about by the development of nuclear energy, there is no doubt that the world as a whole will become the recreation ground of the ordinary people of this country. We shall have more international contacts, and I hope that we shall become more internationally minded.
Above all—and perhaps this is the greatest problem we shall have to face—the world's work will be carried out in far less time. A great many people will become redundant, according to normal standards, and I imagine that a four-day week and a six-hour day will become the accepted thing. In the days before the Industrial Revolution it was just as difficult to visualise a five or a five and a half day week of forty-four hours as the normal thing as it is for us to-day to visualise what will be coming in the new scientific era. There is no doubt that there will be a great saving of time and a greater amount of leisure. Finally, the general public will require a much higher skill, The adoption of automation will necessitate much higher skill than is required for merely minding machines. The question is: how we can prepare our children for the new conditions in which they are going to live? Ought not our education to be directed to this question above all?
I consider that one of the most important things to which we ought to direct ourselves is instilling in our children a greater interest in cultural activities, and a greater desire to take part in them. For over thirty years we have had concerts, given originally by Sir Robert and Lady Mayer, at which young children were taught musical appreciation. They have done an immense amount of good. These concerts, which began in the Central Hall, Westminster (some are now taking place at the Royal Festival Hall, on the South Bank) are being taken up by local authorities all over the coun-
618
try; but, unfortunately, even now there are not enough of them and they are not followed up. I do not know whether your Lordships' House is a musical Chamber, but most people say about music, "I do not understand music, but I know what I like"—by which they mean that they do not know why they like it. The teaching of musical appreciation is essential for the understanding of music. It is the same thing with painting and the arts and literature. In my view, it is most important for our children to appreciate the vast heritage of culture which we possess, not only in this country but all over the world, and which will be open to them. We must not encourage children to use their leisure merely in letting life pass by on the television or in any other place where they can watch other people doing things. We must inspire our children to do things for themselves.
My Lords, I have indulged in a little fancy, but I think it is essential that we should all do this in order to be clear what should be the purpose of our education to-day. We have a great opportunity and a great responsibility. If we fail to rise to that opportunity and responsibility we shall have nobody to blame but ourselves; but if we succeed we shall be the privileged nation to have done more to introduce the Golden Age than any previous generation in the world's history. I beg to move for Papers.
4.1 p.m.
Tint LORD BISHOP or BRISTOL: My Lords, we shall all recognise the immense importance of the matters which the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, has put before the House to-day. It so happens that I have had the good fortune for the last seventeen years or so to spend a good deal of my time in close touch with the teaching profession, with those who train members of the teaching profession, and latterly, in the last few years, with the local education authority. The noble Lord expressed some doubt and anxiety as to whether, in the years that have intervened since the Education Act became law, we have fulfilled all the expectations even as far as we might. I thought it worth while to take a little evidence as to what actually had been done in this sphere of primary education in the area with which I am naturally best acquainted. We are greatly favoured in

619
Bristol with a lively and progressive authority, and certainly with first-rate schools. It is interesting to note in actual fact what has been achieved in these last nine years.
The total number of children of primary school age has advanced from just over 33,000 to well over 44,000, an increase of 33 per cent.; and there has been a large movement of population from old, slum or mixed areas to our new housing estate. In spite of that increase, the authority have succeeded in reducing the size of classes in primary schools, on the average, from 41 to 36. We are not yet down to 30, but we are well below 40. They have introduced over 650 new primary classes, which is an increase of 52 per cent. on the numbers existing in 1946. In the matter of buildings, they have built 31 new primary departments, housing over 10,000 children, and they hope in the next two years to add another 14, housing another 4,400. Alongside that progress there has been considerable development in secondary and further education. I submit that that is a notable record; and it indicates that, where the authorities are really alive to their responsibilities, and to the possibilities of the situation, considerable advance can be made and is being made.
I would now turn for a moment to some of the more general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. On the question of the size of classes, I imagine that all of us who know anything about the internal working of a school would agree with him in saying that the size of classes is almost the most significant point of all. I well remember about ten years ago speaking on the same platform as the then President of the National Union of Teachers. I took my courage in both hands and asked him to say whether, if the teaching profession had been offered on one plate a reduction of classes to 30 and, on the other, all the advantages that were offered them in the 1944 Act, which he thought they would have chosen. I think, for reasons of policy, he felt unable to give a direct reply to the question, but the smile on his face indicated clearly which way his mind was working. There is no shadow of doubt that the noble Lord is right in saying that that is the thing which teachers themselves would most greatly
620
desire; and everything that makes it possible for reform in that direction to proceed, and to proceed quickly, will be welcomed—and, may I say, by no one more cordially than the Church.
On the question of buildings, I suppose that some of us who contemplate the palatial structures which we see arising around us in every new housing estate must wonder a little whether they are sometimes just a shade out of scale with the homes from which the children come and the homes in which they are going to spend the rest of their lives. I confess that some of those being built in our part of the world, mostly apparently of glass or aluminium, do not look like outlasting their time as some of the barracks in South London one used to know have outlasted theirs. But anyone who knows the inside of them must rejoice that children can spend these years in surroundings so delightful and healthy, and so encouraging to an adventurous and active spirit.
Again, on one of the points made by the noble Lord (and I have noticed this particularly in infants' schools, rather than in primary schools), all the old furniture is being swept away, and attractive little chairs and tables, with play space, are being provided. I know full well that on this matter of buildings the Church must stand in a white sheet. Many of the schools on the black list are our schools, and your Lordships know that the task of the Church in meeting this demand for the provision of really new and up-to-date schools is a difficult one. Until recently it was due to one particular problem, which was well-expressed in an editorial in Education of July last year. Here is the situation as described there:
"A new school is included in the Development Plan. The Church authorities have the money and the site, but because they have an old building which still serves as a school they cannot go ahead. In the meantime, the children are expected to live, move and have their being in premises which no civilised nation should tolerate … either good money is spent on bad buildings: or else the schools are allowed to rot and decay … the dilemma of the voluntary schools is easy to understand. Their resources are limited: they are reluctant to follow a blatantly uneconomic policy with their property just because"
there has been a limit fixed to school building. Now that that difficulty has been removed by the Minister's new expansion and development in country schools, the Church finds itself faced with

621
a different problem: that of finding in something like seven years, instead of forty, the sum of £5 million for putting into order all those country schools. We are tackling this problem as well as we can; the Church Commissioners, the Central Board of Finance and the Schools Council are seeing how we can face that. But we from our side would again cordially reinforce what the noble Lord has said: that if we are to give our children the kind of education that they should have, they must be housed in proper quarters.
But there is one further point, if I may detain your Lordships for a moment more, and that is the question of teachers. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did refer to them, but he did not say perhaps quite so much about them as I might have expected. He said he knew that the quantity was increasing, and he hoped that the quality was improving. From my own personal knowledge, as I have been for the last seventeen years in charge of the Council which governs our twenty-four Church training colleges, which send out every year into the schools of the nation some 2,000 men and women, I should say without hesitation that I think the quality of the recruits is improving. I well recall a story told by a friend who was lecturing at a course for youth leaders, to which a number of young people had come from various sources. During an interval after one of his lectures, he turned:o a girl and said, "What are you doing?" "Well," she said, "as a matter of fact I am a teacher, but I am so glad you did not notice it." When members of an ancient and honourable profession are glad not to be recognised as what they are, there is something radically wrong with the esteem in which public opinion holds that profession. Nothing is more needed than is, I think, happening—the steadily increasing recognition of what we owe to the teaching profession and to the quality of people whom we must seek to recruit.
Again, if I may speak for a moment for the Church, here we have really tried to tackle our responsibility. I suppose that by the end of another two years we shall have found, with the help of the State, of course, £:3 million for putting our twenty-four Church training colleges into order. I think anyone who knows them—and I see sitting near me some-
622
one who knows them well—will feel that they now rank worthily alongside any institutions for the training of teachers. We realise that it is not simply a question of the buildings in which the teachers-to-be are housed, but the spirit in which they are being trained.
I should like to add one comment about the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as to the kind of world into which our children are going, and the kind of training which they must have if they are to be able to face that world. He painted what is, to those of us who are rapidly reaching the age of senility, a terrifying picture of reaching America in an hour, and all the other wonders of civilisation which will then threaten us. Surely, what children need, if they are to keep their feet and their heads in the kind of world in which we shall have to live, or they will have to live, is some kind of stabilising influence which will give them a real grasp of moral principle, some real interior reasons, and something to set against this world of speed. It is because I believe that an increasing number of our teachers are themselves becoming much more conscious of that aspect of their responsibility in the training of children that I, so far as my limited experience goes, look forward with a good deal of optimism and faith to the next stage of development of our educational system.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, may I try to earn a good mark from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, by telling him that every one of my own four children attended village schools for a term or two, at any rate, and that I should have been delighted to keep them there longer had those schools been of a better quality and higher educational standard. I do not think that the most democratic man in the world would blame me for giving my children the best education I could afford, even at the expense of a truly democratic educational system. With regard to America, I think the noble Lord has chosen the wrong example. There was an old tradition that all American citizens went to the little red school-house. I think it does apply in the Middle West, but on the eastern coast of America there is a tendency for private schools to increase and for the richer children to be sent to them. If the

623
noble Lord wants to give an example, may I provide him with a better—one that of Switzerland. There, children, I believe with very few exceptions, go to the cantonal schools, which are very good indeed; and there they have a really democratic educational system which the noble Lord might do well to study.
I am glad that the noble Lord has made such an interesting contribution and has dealt not merely with the finance of education, which is a rather wearying subject, but with its content. There is certainly little reason for complacency, as the noble Lord has said. As I came up in the train, I read in The Times an account of how the Army is now teaching simple addition and subtraction to its recruits by means of drill. I have no doubt that it is a good idea and that it is necessary. I sometimes wonder whether the Secretary of State for War has rung up the Minister of Education and asked how much longer he is going to do the Minister of Education's work for him. There is something seriously wrong when we find young men, who have had all the advantages of the 1944 Act, still coming into the Army unable to add and subtract. As for their literacy, while I do not want to go into any statistics about that, I know how difficult it was in the Army to find men who could read and write fast enough to make a signaller. A good many of them could read and write, but very slowly.
Then there is another subject—moral education and formation of character. I also read this in the Daily Mail in the train:
"A sixteen-year old girl told Brentford Juvenile Court yesterday that she was often drunk, came home in the early hours of the morning and that most of her friends were in prison."
I think the Home Secretary might perhaps ring up the Minister of Education and ask him whether this girl, with her friends who have spent so long under the influence of our educational system, did not represent something of a failure of that system.
As regards the material conditions in primary schools, let me say at once that I am very conscious that the Catholic schools are among the worst of the blacklisted ones. Unlike the right reverend Prelate, I stand in no sort of white sheet about it. Those schools were built with
624
the pennies of the poor in the slums, at a time when a penny meant a very big sacrifice indeed. I realise that they have to come down. When the rubble and the dust flies, I think anybody who knows anything about the building of those schools will take off his hat as a gesture of respect to those who built them. Come down they must. We are most anxious, and could not be more anxious, to rebuild them and rebuild the best schools that we can. We are longing for the opportunities to do so. Until recently, even minor school building projects were restricted to the sum of £7,500. Now we are allowed to build what are called minor projects up to the value of £10,000. That has been a help.
The 1953 Act, though it did not give us what we thought we were entitled to, has nevertheless been a substantial help. I am anxious to pay tribute to the cordial way in which the Ministry of Education have worked with Catholics so far as the Act allows. We are now very anxious for some local education authorities to show a little more liberality in making room for us in their programmes, especially in new housing estates. We have a great need to build our schools there and we hope for a more liberal treatment in that respect from some local education authorities. Many are still inclined to think in terms of "our schools" and "their schools." Those are not terms really applicable to the situation. There is great pressure on Catholic schools at the moment, as a result of the immigration into this country of something like 750,000 Irish men and women since the end of the war. There has also been the Polish community whom we have taken into this country.
When I told a friend that I was going to mention that immigration as one of the factors affecting our educational position relevant to this debate, I was told: "Their Lordships will not see any reason for educating Irish immigrants." I believe that to be untrue. This country needed more labour than our own people could provide. Our full employment, to which we owe our comparatively good economic position to-day, demanded more labour. Where should we get that labour from, if not from Ireland? Who have staffed our hospitals but Irish girls, who have been the most devoted nurses? Naturally that has increased the pressure

625
on Catholic schools and will continue increasing that pressure more and more in future. It is, therefore, getting more urgent that we should rebuild better and bigger schools for the larger number of children for whom we are bound to cater and for whom we alone can cater. Let us remember that if these children, who have not got hereditary roots in this country, are to be made into good citizens, then we, who have a common background of faith, should have the best chance of success. Therefore we ask for sympathetic consideration by your Lordships of the problems with which we are faced. I am quite sure that we shall receive it.
Also I ask for some consideration to be given to our financial achievement since the war. We are not a rich community and we ate not a numerous community. In the last ten years we have spent £11 million on schools. That is something in which we can take a modest pride, but it is nothing to the task that faces us. We have to find something like £66 million, not reckoning the interest on the money which we shall have to borrow for our schools programme. Taking interest into consideration, my community is thinking in terms of making itself responsible in the long run for £100 million, How we are going to do it I do not know. I should have felt rather more comfortable a few years ago about the fulfilment of that programme, but there have been certain restrictions on one of our sources of income. I hardly dare mention it, but we did run football pools, and most unfortunately these pools have met with the disapproval of our separated brethren and we are not allowed to run them on quite such a large scale as we did. Consequently we find ourselves in greater difficulties than ever; but we face that problem and we face it with courage, if not with full confidence. We believe that by struggling on as we are at present we shall at least receive that degree of sympathy which the British public have never withheld from a courageous, and I might say a sporting, effort to play our part in the community's affairs.
As regards both the buildings and the content of education, I believe that we shall come in time to play our part, a great and important part, in the national system of education of which we are very proud indeed. We believe that our
626
teachers, who are as well trained in our training colleges as is any body of teachers, will not be behind others in improving their methods of approach. Therefore I regard the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin with the greatest sympathy on every ground, and I am grateful to him for having introduced it.
4.28 p.m.
LORD KENSWOOD: My Lords, I very much hope that your Lordships' House will riot think me too tiresome if I again raise the matter about which I spoke at the last debate on February 9. Since then, I have been trying to elucidate certain facts. I have had a correspondence wit h the noble Viscount, Lord Wool-ton, and with the Minister of Education. All through this correspondence I have not been able to have the points that I had in mind, and which I think I clearly designated, elucidated. This correspondence has gone on from February 9 until my final letter, in which I said that I was not satisfied and should have to raise the matter again, on May 3—that is, nearly three months later. If the noble Viscount or the Minister had done as I had asked, I. should not have been compelled to make this speech this afternoon. I very much regret it.
The point that I raised on February 9 was the fact that, according to the Report on Education, there were a number of educable, physically handicapped children who apparently were riot provided for in the educational system. I con-lined myself to the blind mainly because I did not want any confusion in these figures. I know that the Ministry are often quite capable of lumping together the blind children and the partially blind children, two categories which have to be treated entirely differently. I had that admission from the noble Viscount some time later—I think it was on February 21, that is to say, nearly a fortnight after the debate. I had the assurance from the noble Viscount that the Minister of Education was in full harmony with my own views on that subject. What has bedevilled this whole correspondence is that I could not get the Ministry to discriminate between these two categories. I know very well that the noble Viscount, the Minister and the officials at the Ministry are all most anxious that no doubt should remain in the minds of the public as to what is happening. I know that

627
there is no complacency. They assure me that they are not complacent, and I believe them. But the ordinary person looking through this correspondence would inevitably, if he did not know the men behind this matter, come to the conclusion that they are deliberately throwing sand in my eyes and drawing red herrings across my path. I much regret having to say that, because I know that it would be unjust to make those assumptions.
The only figure given by the noble Viscount on February 9 which he said was specifically in relation to the blind was that a new building was going up to house 168 blind children—that this was new work. But in the end, after some correspondence upon the matter, I got the admission from the Ministry that this is not a new provision but that it is, in fact, a replacement of a building, at the Royal Normal College, at which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, holds an honoured position. It is a replacement, and there are no new places provided for the blind. After exhaustive inquiries on my part, I have failed to find any project, any item in the 1954–55 programme, which will supply new places for blind children. There is a need for those children. I need mention only one instance, as I want to be as brief as possible. Condover Hall, which is a school provided by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, for blind children with multiple defects, made provision originally for four children who are not only blind but deaf, but now has provision for five children. On going through the files, I find that there are at least fifteen more children who are both deaf and blind. I will not say that room will have to be provided for all of them, because some of them are, I believe, mentally subnormal and ineducable; but anyway a number of these blind-deaf children are not provided for; they are awaiting admission.
I do not want to work on the feelings of this House; I want to work on the idea of social justice, of fairness and, if your Lordships like to put it down to the lowest level, of good business. It is good business to train blind children to become useful and independent citizens, and therefore happy citizens. Speakers have pointed out with regard to
628
normal people that it is most important not only to teach them the three R's, but also to give them an appreciation of the graces of life—things such as art—and to encourage them to be active themselves, instead of being passive listeners and viewers. That applies still more to the blind. I hope very much that the Ministry will pull themselves together and do something about the children referred to in the 1953 Report under discussion as not being provided for. I did not get a reply until April 27 to my first approach on February 9. The figures must have been in the office of the Ministry, so that they could have given me an answer easily within a couple of days. However, when I went into this matter with the Minister and with the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, the upshot was that the figures given in the Report are not accurate. Why on earth does the Report not say so? Why does the Report mislead us? The Minister himself wrote to me and admitted that the figures as given are, or might be, misleading. They definitely are misleading. The excuse is made that local education authorities have been known to inflate these figures, possibly in order to make sure that they can get a child into one or other school. Well, the Ministry must know that, and must know the circumstances. If they do not know, then they are not doing their job properly. They could find out from the local aducation authorities exactly what they have in mind.
The point that I want to make here is this. I know very well that the education of the physically handicapped is very expensive: I know that public money has to be spent. But I also maintain, as I have already said, that this money will be well spent. If you train children to grow into men who are independent and can provide their own livelihood, the whole community will profit financially. The other point I want to make on this matter is that if there are fewer children requiring education than is stated in the Report, surely it makes it all the more easy to make provision for them. I agree that it may be difficult to send blind children from the south up to schools in the north where there are free places. I know that parents may not like to be parted from their children. We have to make up our minds which is the lesser of the two evils. We must make up

629
our minds about alternative methods of education which are quite obvious but which may, perhaps, be a little more expensive, although efficacious for these children.
Again, I make an appeal to the noble Viscount. I have given him ample warning of what I was going to say to-day, and I hope that he has come armed with the information that I require about the true state of affairs. If the figures given in the Report are incorrect, what are the correct figures? If the statement that the Ministry, or somebody, is putting up a new school to make new provision for these children, is erroneous—as is admitted by the Minister—what is the true state of affairs? Are any new schools going up, or will the Minister take second-best methods which, though certainly not satisfactory, are better than no education at all? I appeal to the noble Viscount, who I know is a most sympathetic person, to give us an answer After all, we who are dealing with these problems outside the Ministry are doing the Ministry's work for them, and they s could be grateful to us and should not hesitate to give us the information we require.
4.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT SOULBURY: My Lords, of all the social services, the service of education is probably the most tempting and possibly the most easy to criticise. Everybody has been to school and therefore has had some experience of education, and there are many with children now at school who can regain that experience at second hand. Moreover, as the late Lord Crewe wrote, I think in his life of Lord Rosebery:
"There are no such gladiators as the educational theorists."
But the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who moved this Motion, has displayed, with his gladiatorial prowess, such charming tolerance and humanity that it is a positive pleasure to meet him in the same arena.
In his Motion, the noble Lord drew attention to two aspects of primary education: the character of education and the conditions prevailing in the schools. Like the noble Lord, I will first say a word about the second aspect. I entirely agree with him in his tribute to the character of many of the modern schools which are now being built. They are an asset to this country and naturally a tremendous
630
benefit to teachers and children. I think that he is also probably correct in deprecating here and there certain somewhat more permanent buildings, for things change so rapidly that we may later on have the experience we have had of Victorian schools which were, in many cases, absolutely frightful and equally indestructible. The noble Lord has rightly drawn attention to the great problem presented to educationists by the very large classes. That has been the bugbear of education for years. I remember nearly a quarter of a century ago, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the then Board of Education, how much perturbed we were by that problem. It was complicated then by financial difficulties and subsequently by drifts of population from the North to the South consequent upon industrial schemes and industrial progress developing in the South of England.
But somewhere about 1934 we could see daylight, because we calculated that by 1944 or 1945 the number of children to be catered for would drop by 1 million. But we did not foresee the war, and the same problem arose again and, as the noble Lord has said, in the years immediately succeeding upon the war an extra 1 million children have had to be provided with places. That has caused for local authorities and Ministries of both political complexions a grave problem which is now gradually being overcome. As the noble Lord pointed out, the peak years will be passed in about three years' time. Having passed the infants, the peak at present falls upon the 7 to 8 age group and will, let us hope, fade out in another three years. I think that the Government and the teachers have grappled most manfully with what has been an extremely difficult and awkward problem. The noble Lord said that something like 50 per cent. of the children at present at primary schools are in classes of over 40. I believe that that figure is a little high. My own information is that it is nearer 40 per cent. than 50 per cent., but I entirely agree that it is far too large. If I were a teacher, no class could be small enough for me, and it is certainly a problem to consider how even a class of 40 children can be taught. But if the size of classes goes as is expected when the peak has passed, I understand that there is a reasonable chance of eventually getting classes down to about 30 pupils

631
by 1960. That would be a much more manageable proposition.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also referred, quite rightly, to the question of teachers, for, as I believe he said, teachers are more important than buildings. I think most of us would sooner be taught in a barn by a good teacher than in a palace by a bad one; but, whether in a palace or a barn, a class of 50 or 60 will neutralise the efforts of the best teacher. I was rather disquieted to hear (I do not know how far the situation can be verified), that the noble Lord was struck by the unevenness of standards prevailing in various schools, which means that the standard of teachers is uneven. That is naturally to be expected, for there are uneven standards in every profession—in medicine, law, science, mechanics and others; but I hope that the unevenness is not so widespread as to affect anything like an appreciable quantity of teachers and children, because, if that is so, it is serious. From the little I know, however, I do not think that the Ministry of Education are unduly perturbed on that score; and, of course, the Ministry of Education, through its 500 or more inspectors, keep in close touch with progress made by various schools. If the unevenness of standards was on any appreciable scale I think it is highly probable that the Ministry of Education would take action to bring about a better level.
The supply of teachers now looks like being very satisfactory. Without an adequate supply of teachers the buildings might as well not exist, but I understand that this year recruitment is about 6,000, which is quite adequate. The total may be more, because there were something over 7,000 last year, which means that the pupil teacher ratio will fairly soon be considerably reduced. The prospects for keeping this number of teachers up are equally good. In the training colleges last June there were 10,700 applications for 7,200 places in the women's colleges and something like a similar proportion of surplus for the 2,500 places in men's colleges, and both are full in the coming session, opening in September. That is very satisfactory and seems to indicate that the profession is attractive. The surplus of applications will provide competition and should enable us, every year, to get a higher standard of attainment in
632
the young men and women who take up that occupation. The profession has certainly become more attractive. The equal pay for women, by various instalments since last May, the substantial increases given by local authorities to trainees at training colleges and the grant of £10,000 per school to which the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, referred, will certainly enable more to be done for teachers' quarters, staff rooms and other amenities in order to make their life more attractive.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, may be right in his view that teachers prefer to live in towns rather than in the country. I think that this has always been the case, but I am by no means certain that it is due to financial reasons. Life in the towns is more attractive; there is more social friendship and meetings; and I regret to say that certainly my own experience some time ago was the same as that which the noble Lord indicated. What the remedy is I do not know. The country school can and should offer a great field for a good teacher. He becomes not only the school teacher but a leader of the community, and such an opportunity for doing good—in many cases in much nicer surroundings—may lead teachers to gravitate more rapidly and easily to the country than they appear to have done. With regard to the Black Country, there again it is up to the local authorities, with the help now given, to make conditions as attractive as possible for teachers. I believe that local authorities have been requested by the Minister to take steps, if they can, to secure better homes for teachers and to approach housing authorities for that purpose if necessary.
The noble Lord referred to the question of democratising education. I will not follow him very far into that, because he has no remedy (or I did not discover it), and neither have I. If the preference, to which he referred, of certain sections of the populace is for public schools (that is for children over eleven), one of the reasons may well be that they are boarding schools, and, of course, it is very difficult for the State to provide boarding accommodation on such a scale. Parents rightly or wrongly think that the education given at a boarding school has certain merits; not for the reason that Dr. Johnson gave—namely, that they were "designed for the conjugal quiet

633
of the parents"—but because of the discipline, responsibility and, perhaps, the better supervision which it is possible to exercise.
As regards the problem of the private school as compared with the primary school, I do not know what the remedy is. I have no authority for anything I say now, but I should be surprised to learn that a large percentage of the preparatory schools are as good as good council schools. I do not know whether the Minister of Education has power—I think not—to inspect on request all preparatory private schools in this country, but I should be interested to know what the result of such an inspection would be. I hope that parents in due course may come to the conclusion that children will be better educated in the council school than in the preparatory school. How to induce them to take that view, the noble Lord was unable to say. Nor am I able to say.
Then the question arose as regarded the eleven-plus examination—the difficulty of selecting children for the three streams of secondary schools. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, rightly drew attention to the strain inevitably placed upon the child, a strain which all examinations place on children, but eleven-plus is an early age at which to undergo that strain. He said that a child is led to believe that his fate depends upon the result of the examination. That may be so, but who leads the child to believe that? Not the teacher, unless he is a very indifferent teacher. It must be the parent or some prospective employer. Again, how to correct that I do not know. I can remember at school hearing various addresses on Speech Days from successful and prosperous gentlemen. I cannot remember a word they said except that the theme of their remarks was very often that they had never won a prize when at school, or passed an examination. That may or may not have been their qualification for making the addresses, but it certainly would indicate beyond all doubt that the passing of an examination did not settle one's fate, because in this case the gentlemen's fate would have been very different if examination had settled it.
Whether the Minister of Education will think it worth while to send round a few propagandists of that kind to the schools
634
in order to convince children that passing examinations has nothing to do with success later in life, I do not know, but something of the sort might, I think, be done to try to impress upon the children that to pass the eleven-plus examination is not the be-all and end-all of their existence. Indeed, examinations, in themselves, though in many ways inevitable to prevent favouritism and provide some sort of a yardstick, are very unreliable guides. We all remember the well-known dictum of T. H. Huxley, referring to the examinees for a Science degree. He said that the entrants
"work to pass and not to know, and outraged Science has her revenge, for they do pass and they do not know."
The problem of the examination is a complicated and difficult one. I do not profess to give any solution, nor does the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The latter part of his speech dealt with the question of the purpose of education and he gave us some attractive definitions, one of which was his own. We have all heard a great many definitions of the purpose of education, varying from:
"To make the child fit to live and fit to live with",
to one which a teacher gave me and which I thought rather attractive:
"To prevent the child being humbugged by the newspapers."
But whatever the purpose of education is, I am certain that teachers are manfully striving to turn out the best type of boy and girl they possibly can. We owe an enormous debt to the teachers for what they have done during the last ten very difficult years. Their self-sacrifice and hard work is beyond praise. I like to think that in the course of a few years they will find their task considerably simplified, and see a reduction in the size of classes, with better buildings, and, I hope, better amenities available for themselves.
4.57 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, we have had an interesting discussion on education. I do not propose to touch on the various points that have arisen during the course of the debate but shall confine myself almost entirely to country education. I am concerned with rural schools, rural children and rural education. The noble Viscount who has just sat down rightly said that of course we can criticise education in various ways. I do not propose

635
to do that, nor to paint too dismal a picture of what happens in the countryside. At the same time, I am afraid that I cannot hold out a very pretty picture. There are a great many difficulties which we have not so far been able to overcome.
I want to make a plea to the Government that they will seriously consider the position of education as we find it at present in our country districts. Rightly or wrongly, I hold the view—perhaps some people may object to it, but it was clearly understood by the noble Lord who opened this discussion—that there should be parity of treatment and conditions as between the town child and the country child. In present circumstances, there is not that parity of treatment. In my view, children, whether born in the country, cities or towns, are of the same importance in the State; and they are all, I hope, in later life able to take a position of importance in one way or another within the State. It therefore behoves us, whether we come from the country or from the town, to encourage so far as possible the intelligence and the mental activity of all children. Education presents a very fine field in which we can carry out what we often talk about—the ensuring of equal opportunity to every child. In present conditions that is not available.
The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Bristol spoke of the magnificent schools which have been erected in his particular city. They made my mouth water, because of an experience which I had during the General Election. It was in a county adjoining my own. I addressed a meeting in a new secondary school, the finest of its sort that I have ever entered. After that meeting I went to another village of the same size and importance and addressed a meeting in the original primary school. The difference between these two schools was tremendous. I understand that many school buildings in rural areas have already been condemned or put on the black list. Perhaps in his reply the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, will be able to give me some indication of how many primary schools in rural areas have been closed during the last three years, and how many of these were in Norfolk and Suffolk, in which I am particularly interested; and how many new primary
636
schools have been built or are in course of erection in rural areas.
We are anxious that our rural schools should have not only improved buildings but also improved equipment. We want the conditions under which rural children learn and teachers teach to march with the times and not to remain the same as they were in our fathers' generation, as has been said. I would go further than that, and say that some of the desks used in our country schools at the present time might have been occupied by the grandfathers of the children now sitting there. I think that the education of children in country areas has a great bearing on the drift of the menfolk from the land. Apart from the higher wages that the menfolk may earn in town, parents have to consider the education of the children.
I think that our primary schools are the finest stepping-stone for children into the conditions of life. I would go further than the noble Viscount who has just spoken, and than my noble friend Lord Silkin, in regard to the mixing of children. I hold the view that, so far as rural communities are concerned, every boy and girl in the village, whatever the position of his or her parents, should go for a period to the village school. It is the finest training these children can have. When they go into life, they are good mixers and are not concerned simply with what benefits their own section of society. My four children went to the village school—I am not ashamed of it—and they are no worse citizens because of that. I am certain that the same would have applied to scores of our younger people, now growing up, if in their early life they had mixed with the boys and girls of their own villages.
It has been suggested that primary schools might introduce subjects which would fit children for taking positions later on. In my view, however, it is important to remember that the basis of all education in early life should be a thorough groundwork in the elementary subjects which children are likely to need. We talk of educating technicians and scientists, but unless we give our children a thorough groundwork in the early stages of life we may find that the technicians and scientists are not forthcoming in the numbers required. We are spending a great deal of money on technical education, but I prefer to look at the matter from the opposite end: we want

637
to build up from the bottom, rather than build at the top and leave the framework below insecure and unsteady.
There are one or two practical difficulties to which I want to refer, and one or two questions which I want to put to the noble Viscount. The last speaker mentioned the question of teaching staff in rural areas as against teaching staff in cities and towns. Conditions in the country are very different from those which prevail in the larger schools. The pay is less, and there are many drawbacks in regard to buildings, sanitation and equipment. In country schools we are suffering from the fact that children are being taught by unqualified teachers. I think it is important that we should do whatever we can to improve the conditions of the men and women who are responsible for starting a child in life. I understand that there are special salary rewards for teachers of technical and higher subjects in the towns and in secondary schools, but these rewards cannot be obtained by teachers in primary schools. I think that that is a matter which should be locked into.
On the question of equipment, I understand that for the provision of books, stationery and materials for handicrafts the amount allowed per head in the secondary schools is nearly double the amount allowed per child in the primary schools. If that is so, there cannot be any justification for keeping primary schools short of money, which they can well use in fostering the education of the younger members of society within their ranks. I hope, too, that greater facilities for sports will be provided for our country schools. Generally there is simply a playground round the school; and there may be nowhere else in the village where the children can have physical instruction or play games. I hope that the Government will make a review of the conditions of education in the rural areas in order that we may be certain that the country schools are having fair treatment as compared with town schools.
I want to deal for a moment with the question of transport. It is well within the knowledge of your Lordships that many of our country children have to walk many miles a day to and from school. I understand that any child who is now within three miles of his or her
638
school cannot be transported by public conveyance. I thought the distance originally was two miles; if it has now been extended that has only made matters worse. In times when roads are unsafe for the children, I hope that the question of transport in country areas will be reconsidered, and that any child living over one mile from school will be conveyed to that school at the expense of the authorities.
Another matter that disturbs me is that, in going round the countryside, I see children travelling in what are obviously private vehicles which have been hired by the education authority—quite apart from buses—to take them to and from school. These vehicles are generally full up with children. I wonder, if an accident should happen, where the liability would lie. Is there any inspection by the education authorities of the vehicles in which the children travel? Does the liability, in case of accident, rest with the authority or with the owner of the, vehicle? I have in mind a case where a child was hurt in travelling in a private vehicle hired by the education authority. Liability was not admitted by anyone, although there was a police prosecution against the owner of the vehicle for having defective brakes. But the child was seriously hurt. I think it is important that that matter should be looked into, in order that the children and their parents may be protected.
I now come to a point which is to some extent exercising our minds in the Eastern counties—namely the question of the education of American children in this country. We have heard of the education of Irishmen and Polish nationals, but the Americans are on a different footing altogether. So far as I can gather, a great many of their children are educated in our country schools. They are given the benefit of milk, meals and all our other social services; they have the use of our equipment and our transport and are eligible for our scholarships. For the benefit of those who are perhaps thinking in terms of paying taxes or rates, or perhaps both, in regard to the education of American children, who may be here for many years, I hope the Government will be able to announce that there is an arrangement between the two countries whereby if we educate these children the Americans will provide us with dollars to pay for the cost of that education. It

639
is a problem, because these children do increase the already high numbers in some of our classes. In conclusion, I would just repeat what I have said: the education of our children is vitally important, and it is vital in the education system of this country that our primary schools should be fostered and improved. I want the best in education for all children, whatever their station in life may be and whether they live in town or country.
5.16 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, there are just two matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in this debate on which I should like to comment. In the first place, he was quite right in confining the subject of his Motion largely to primary schools. The primary school is the foundation of all our national system of education. The emphasis in recent years has been rather on the secondary schools, the county colleges and other departments of education; but if there is something wrong with our primary schools, then the whole system of education in the country is in danger. The observations made this afternoon in this debate by several speakers about the size of the classes have met with the general approval of your Lordships. That is an important point. I would remind your Lordships that in rural schools, to which we have been referred by a noble Lord opposite, generally speaking it is true that the classes are below the national average; classes in the village or rural schools are smaller.
That leads me to put in a plea for the retention of the village school. Rural schools are faced with great difficulties, but the solution of those difficulties is not the closure of village schools: they play far too great a part in the life of this nation for us to wish for their closure. I am not sure that the nation as a whole realises that about forty of such schools have been closed each year for the last few years. We may transport children from villages to some convenient centre to give them education, but if that leads to the abandonment of our village schools the English countryside will be the worse in the days to come. The village school plays an important part in the social structure of our national life, and the picture of an English village, with its
640
parish church and school next door, is something which most of us would not like to see disappear. That does not mean that the problem of the village school is not a pressing and urgent one; it is. But let us deal with the village schools and try and retain them. From what I have seen, there has been a change of policy by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the closure of village schools in the last year or so, and I am hoping that that will continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said quite rightly that he was going to concentrate more on the content of education than on the buildings—the structure and the equipment of the schools. There is a danger that we may fall into the fallacy of imagining that if we put all our buildings right and equip them, we shall have put education right. That is by no means the case. By that I do not claim for one moment that we ought to tolerate unworthy and unsatisfactory conditions in our schools. We in the Church of England are facing great difficulties in regard to our buildings. The Church schools were the pioneer schools, many of them built before the first Education Act, 1870. All of them are now waiting to be rebuilt or reconditioned, and this is presenting the Church with a very big problem indeed. It is our intention to see that all that can be done shall be done for our schools, and we will not for one moment agree to continuing schools that are not of adequate size and properly heated and ventilated.
Having said that, I say again that the provision of good buildings and of excellent equipment does not of itself ensure good education. We must pay far more attention to what goes on inside those buildings if we are to ensure good education. Of course, we must prepare our children for the great advance that will come in scientific knowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has reminded us; but our immediate concern and a pressing concern is to see that there is far more co-operation between our schools, the homes of the people and the community in which those schools exist. It is important that the children in our schools should become good citizens in their own community, whether it is a village or an industrial area; and in this matter it is the teachers who are all important. In this matter the Church has been paying

641
considerable attention to and spending a great deal of money upon providing Church training colleges for the provision of good teachers, people who are not only professionally trained but given a Christian view of their vocation. That is what is most necessary if the children are to be given a good education.
The Church seeks to educate all children, and not only children who belong to that particular Church. In the Church training colleges we seek to train teachers who will be prepared to go not only into Church schools but into all schools, wherever they may exist. This matter of education is of tremendous importance for the future of our nation. It is vital and urgent, and we in the Church are anxious to take our part in the national system of education. There is much to be thankful for in what has happened since 1944. There is a great deal more still to be done. That can be done in the best way, and the cause of education served in the best way, if those who have education at heart give their wisdom and their service, not to any sectional claim or Party spirit but far the cause of the education of our children, for the good of the nation and the glory of God.
5.24 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords. I speak in the debate to-day with particular interest, because I have spent a large part of my life as a school doctor inspecting schools. I am so interested in it that a short time ago—within the last twelve months—I persuaded the London County Council to appoint me as inspector of schools in the London area and carried out inspections in order to bring myself up to date with modern school medical methods. I found that they did not vary greatly from those of the past, and though the children are, on the whole, somewhat better in physique than they used to be, the improvement was not so great as I had hoped. It is some time ago that I ceased doing that work as my normal occupation. At that time they were well looked after. I thought they were reasonably well taught, and they were active and vivacious.
During the course of this debate allegations have been made about the rural schools which I find rather disconcerting. I wonder whether the schools in the rural areas are really efficient in making chil-
642
dren reasonably literate. In the last two or three years there has been such a vast change in the social conditions of this country, including the rural areas, that the conditions of the children will no doubt benefit. In the part of Essex I know well, immediately before the war agricultural labourers were paid a full rate of 30s. a week; and they are now paid something over £7. In one home I happen to know, near to a place where I frequently go in the country, the two children of a man who was earning 30s. a week before the war are now earning as much as he is, so that a very large income, comparatively speaking, is coming into that home every week. I presume that that standard of values will continue for a considerable time.
I wonder what effect that is having on the schools in the rural areas. I imagine that the illiteracy which has been spoken of to-day comes largely from the rural areas. If that is not so, I hope the Minister will contradict me and tell me where it does come from. Some children, of course, have difficulty in learning, and if the teacher is not particularly energetic those children tend to be shelved. I am not making any general accusation against teachers. I am speaking only- from what I know must be the case when any kind of work is heir g done by people and obstacles are put in the way: they tend to shelve the difficulties. Doctors, I regret to say, sometimes do the same. The importance of the village school is very great, and I hope that it will be maintained; but only on the understanding that it is efficient and gives a good education. I wonder whether the teachers are willing to go to these small schools and undertake the work. I was interested in what the right reverend Prelate was saying just now about schools in rural areas. Anything that can be done to improve those schools, and to give the children a better education and a better understanding of life, as well as a better equipment foil life, is of the greatest possible value.
Another problem about which we have been talking this afternoon is that of the eleven-plus examination. Is the eleven-plus examination one of the sacraments that cannot possibly be changed at any time? Is it not a matter which could be looked at again to see how it could be altered? I am quite sure, from my own knowledge of children. that they vary very

643
much in their capacities and in their response to teachers: some children may have a teacher to whom they do not respond. I believe that we might look at that question again (I hope the Minister will agree with me), in the hope of improving the eleven-plus examination. I agree that it is essential to have some kind of test, because, under present conditions, it is impossible to make the better form of education available to all children without any test at all.
I feel strongly that one thing we should try to do is to reduce the size of classes. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to teach a very large class. I believe that one of the first things we should aim at is a reduction in the size of classes. I understand that in the London area—which is the area in which I used to function as a school doctor—many more teachers are now required, and that the authority, the London County Council, is finding the greatest difficulty in getting them. These teachers are required because of what one might call the birth-rate "bulge" caused by the war. Without extra teachers, it is not possible to reduce the size of classes, either in the primary or in the secondary schools. Also, in the London area more new schools are required. I would put the reduction of classes first, but more new schools are certainly required to provide for the extra children.
Lastly, there is the question of the remodelling of the old schools in the London area, in order to make them fit for modern conditions. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that something along these lines can be done to help education at this present time. When I look back to the time, long ago, when I began to be a school doctor and compare it with the present conditions, I have to admit that the change is a big one, and greatly to the advantage of the children concerned. But we cannot take the measure of the past as a standard for application to the present. We must be sure that we can give the children of this country, in the towns and in the rural areas, an education that will fit them for any occupation in the land.
5.32 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend, Lord Silkin, for initiating this debate. I
644
listened with some pleasure to my noble friend Lord Wise referring to education in village schools. It was my good fortune for a year or so when I was very young to attend a village school, but, so far as I can remember, all that I learned there was how to knit, an accomplishment which I regret to say I have since forgotten. Primary education has long been, and to some extent still is, the Cinderella in our education system. It was hoped that the 1944 Act would open a new era, particularly for the primary schools in their three categories—nursery schools, infant schools and junior schools. I do not for one moment want to underrate or underestimate the advances which have been made since 1944 in the face of many difficulties, but I think that anyone looking at our primary school education in an unbiased and open-minded manner. would agree that unfortunately the position is still far from satisfactory. Unsuitable buildings and black-listed schools are still in use. The overcrowding of classes seems to be getting worse. There is in some areas the ever-constant problem of securing an adequate supply of teachers. It would be wrong to specify the different areas and I believe there is some sort of rationing system in operation so far as the Ministry is concerned.
The 1944 Act aimed at making education a continuous process from the nursery right through life. It stipulated that
"It shall be the duty of the local education authority for every area, so far as their powers extend, to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of the community by securing that efficient education throughout these stages shall be available to meet the needs of the population of their area."
One has only to state those broad objectives to realise how much there is still to be done before anything approaching that ideal is attained in our educational system. We all remember the generous provisions of the Fisher Act of 1918 and how they were not put into operation. They were frustrated by the slump which followed. If, as some people say—I hope they may prove to be wrong—a slump is on the way in this country, we must see to it that the children in our schools do not suffer, because I have no doubt that there are plenty of people to-day who would be prepared to play the part that Sir Eric Geddes played after the First World War and slash our social services.

645
I am rather surprised that we have not had any contribution from the Liberal Benches in this debate.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I should like to say that I intend to detain your Lordships for a short while soon.
LORD BURDEN: We are glad to hear that, because I was going to refresh the minds of noble Lords on the Liberal Benches with the efforts which were made by the noted economist and broadcaster, Hubert Phillips, to galvanise the Liberal Party into some sort of activity on the problem of education. He was lecturing at a Liberal summer school and he told his audience that Britain ought to spend a tenth of her net income on education. He listed as the penalties of our not doing so our lack of manners, much below those of the Scandinavian people and the Swiss; our tolerance of unnecessary squalor, unnecessary noise and unnecessary ugliness; our filthy habits in the sale and service of food; and the slaughter on our roads of 6,000 people a year. He said that a large number of these were due to stupidity, callousness and selfishness—all bad qualities which education could do much to eradicate. I will leave out his references to newspapers because I am always polite to newspapers, but he goes on to say that we did not teach our children to speak their own language. He declared:
"We do not want a nation of B.B.C. announcers, but we do want a nation of people who have some respect for their own tongue and who realise that to speak English properly is part of the business of gracious living."
That Hubert Phillips, thirty years after the publication of that Report on the teaching of English in England, in its way a classic, should be able to say such a thing as that, is, I think, a reflection on our educational system.
I want to say a word or two on the problem of medical inspection in our schools, a subject which I do not think has been mentioned very much in the course of this debate. Fortunately, have been able to refresh my mind with a Report of the Central Advisory Cornrnittee for Education in England dealing with this problem. This is what it says:
"The aim should be to secure a high standard throughout the school service, and in particular to ensure:
646

(i) more comprehensive supervision of children in the schools,

(ii) more and better facilities for treatment in hospitals and clinics,

(iii) the universal maintenance of adequate and continuous child health records,

(iv) an extension of health supervision on similar lines over the early years of employment,

(v) sound and effective teaching of Health in. and through the schools,

(vi) suitable provision for all handicapped children,

(vii) instruction for teachers of a kind that will enable them to co-operate satisfactorily with the School Health Service.

To sum up, the tendency in the coming years is likely to put the emphasis on 'positive health' rather than on routine inspection and a limited amount of remedial treatment, as in the past."
That was written before the coming into operation of the National. Health Service.
Attempts have been made at various times to secure closer co-operation between the schools, the local authorities and the National Health Service. Someone has said that the general practitioner is, so to speak, the foundation of a proper Health Service, This is what is said in the Report for 1952–53 of the medical officer for the Ministry of Education:
"The free provision of a general practitioner service for every child has had little effect, so far at any rate, on the School Health Service."
I omit a number of sentences. The passage goes on:
"There is no doubt, however, that there could be still closer co-operation in many areas. The best way to secure good co-operation is for school doctors and the general practitioners to know each other: they are all workers in the same health service."
I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the words in that Report, because if the arrangements are not satisfactory, surely something should be done to ensure that full advantage is taken of the services by those attending our schools.
Two years or so ago there was an alteration in connection with the inspection of school children. Normally the children were medically inspected three times during their school life, but in some regulations issued in August, 1953, the Minister authorised local authorities to waive those three general medical inspections during the period of compulsory school age. Those inspections, however, could only be waived if a scheme providing for experimenting by perhaps

647
closer and perhaps more continuous inspection were submitted to and approved by the Minister. I suggest that that elbow room, so to speak, has to be carefully watched, to see that in view of the shortage in the school medical service the regulations are not made an excuse for breaking down the three examinations. In fact the chief medical officer in his final sentences seems to me to utter a note of warning. He says:
"It now remains to be seen how the development of the school health service will be affected by these regulations. Changes are characteristic in all living things, and if there is vitality in the school health service it will adapt itself to changing circumstances. The changes in the pattern may be great or small. What is of greater importance is that the ideals of the service should not change in the years to come."
It seems to me that there is a note of warning, put in a very guarded and official manner, that the school medical inspection should not break down because of more elasticity in the arrangements.
My noble friend Lord Silkin, in opening this debate, made some references to national standards in education. Of course, I may have completely misunderstood what my noble friend has in mind, but I remember reading or being told of a French Minister of Education who remarked to an English visitor that he knew precisely what lessons were being given at that moment to every child in every State school in France. That seems to me to be an appalling state of affairs and I hope that we shall never get to narrow standards of that kind. Secondly, it seems to me that there is a far better way than the imposing of a cast-iron system of that kind. As I understand the position, the Minister has authority to withhold grants from any local education authority if it does not come up to a standard which should be attainable so far as any particular service is concerned. It seems to me that that is a far better way to ensure that we have a continuous rise in the content of education, rather than an attempt to impose something from the top.
My final word flows rather from what my noble friend has said. One hears in certain quarters suggestions that in view of the success of the new method of administration so far as the hospitals are concerned, with their regional hospital boards and so on, education should be
648
taken out of the hands of local authorities and administered by some similar regional board administration. I think it would be a sorry day for education in this country if anything of that sort happened so far as our education system is concerned. I know that local authorities suffered very much indeed through the loss of hospitals from their service; and if education, with all the opportunities it provides for the development of local patriotism and local service, were taken from the local authorities, I think we should be sounding the death knell of local government in this country. In view of the many rumours that persist in various quarters I hope that nothing like that is in the mind of Her Majesty's Government at the present time. May I again thank my noble friend Lord Silkin for initiating this most interesting debate.
5.49 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate. Like Lord Woolton, I have listened to every speech. It is nothing to boast about, but I suppose that I am the only Member of this House who went to no other school than what is called a primary or elementary school—and that for only a very short period. That is why I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Silkin for bringing before the House this Motion on primary schools. During certain interjections and speeches this afternoon I have been sorely tempted to mention the fact that many years ago I served an apprenticeship as a member of an authority which had the advantage of having been created by the late W. E. Foster.
I believe that the new Minister of Education has over-emphasised the danger to grammar schools. I have no doubt that he will read some of these speeches yin Hansard, and I should like him to know that, when I started my apprenticeship, we had a flying start with eleven grammar schools, not counting one instituted by King Charles Il of pious and sacred memory. We also instituted two grammar schools, one for boys and one for girls—the latter the first of its kind in this country. We were rather proud of the fact that the first headmaster of the boys' school was Father Hinsley, who afterwards became Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster.

649
My noble friend Lord Burden, who I see has left the Chamber, mentioned schools for the mentally deficient. The old school board in my area inaugurated all these institutions. We had the privilege of having Miss Margaret Macmillan as a member of our old school board, and I had the unexpected privilege of being chairman of the committee responsible for drawing up the plans for a primary school. I am delighted that we are to have one of the greatest colleges in this country opened in the course of a few months, backed by so gracious a lady as Nancy Viscountess Astor and other similar public-spirited people, again in the interests of primary education. I was responsible for the maintenance in good repair of every provided and non-provided school in my county borough area, and though I could put a coat of whitewash on the toilets outside the schools, I could do nothing to make the toilets more hygienic. I am now repeating a speech which I made in 1929 in another place, so in the few minutes given to me I should now like to speak on county schools, such as those administered by an authority like the West Riding County Council who have 179,000 children attending their primary schools. Those figures were given to me last Friday. In 1948 they had some 22,000 fewer pupils.
We have passed the days of wrangling over religious matters, and one of the great blessings of getting round a table on an education committee is to find a readiness to co-operate so far as is possible. Living now in the area of the West Riding County Council I realise the great job of work that members of all Parties have done, and are doing, in implementing that great collaborative effort of Mr. Butler and Mr. Ede, the Act of 1944. Unlike the Fisher Act of the Lloyd George Government, that Act is being implemented, so far as possible. I think of the West Riding as a place of rural villages, mining townships and urban districts. All are brought within the ambit in trying to bring education—not simply reading, writing and arithmetic—to 179,000 children from the age of three, in the nursery schools, to the age of eleven-plus. Though some continue in the primary schools we now have the county schools at fifteen-plus, and we shall have an even bigger "bulge."
650
Nevertheless, I do not look upon the position in any feeling of depression. The West Riding County Council, like the Lancashire County Council—which is equally good—have had altogether new areas brought into being in the south of Yorkshire through the policy of the National Coal Board; and I have found out that, since 1948, seventy temporary buildings have been erected to educate the floating population which has come into the villages. I do not know why, but they call these temporary schools the Hengist Schools—a rather nice name. I think that people with such imagination arid idealism are entitled to our congratulations, rather than any suggestion that they should don sackcloth and ashes. I find that they have erected fifty-seven permanent schools and seventy-eight of these temporary schools, which look so nice that some people want them to be permanent.
If I thought that your Lordships would be interested, I would have shown you photographs of some of what are called "non-council" schools. I could have given details of the deplorable position they were in before, and shown how, since 1945, they have been utterly transformed into lovely little village schools. Again, I think the authorities are entitled to be congratulated. They are concerned, as we all are, at the fact that some of the classes have greater numbers of scholars than they should have. But, again, there has been an increase of teachers to a considerable degree. I am not going to weary your Lordships with many figures, but since 1948 there has been an increase of over 2,000 in the number of teachers. And those teachers to-day are better trained than teachers under the old régime. In saying this, I am well aware that some of the uncertificated teachers I met were imbued with a sense of dedicated devotion that was much better than that of some of the certificated teachers who had all the tools in the bag—and degrees as well—but did not know how to use them.
I wish to thank Lord Silkin for introducing his Motion, and to pay my tribute to the former Minister of Education, Miss Florence Horsbrugh. She inherited from the late Ellen Wilkinson and the late George Tomlinson a great task, the magnitude of which your Lordships will realise if you look at the number of

651
schools opened, and consider the difficulties associated with the whole subject. I should also like to give a warning to Sir David Eccles, the present Minister, that he has yet to win his spurs, though I tender to him my congratulations on what he is trying to do. The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, mentioned the certificate business and the question of examinations. I believe that if we go into the Printed Paper Office, we shall find there a White Paper showing that, at any rate, Sir David (as I always knew he would do) has kept an open mind. He has never banged the door on the idea of reconsidering a problem. I hope that he will continue that attitude in this particular case. Some of us, certainly, could not pass an examination for the love of Mike—or, should I say, at any cost. The only prize I ever won—if this is of interest to your Lordships, and I am afraid it is not—was when I was under the age of six. One of your Lordships has mentioned that he never won a prize and that he, like others, goes off to speak at school speech days, and to tell the children stories to which they do not want to listen. I myself went to such an event last Thursday, and had to do some talking.
To sum up, I can only say that I am not too complacent; and I do not want self-complacency. There was one little passage in a report sent to me last Friday with reference to education in the West Riding which I should like to quote to your Lordships. It runs:
"The problem has … been to keep this fresh breeze in educational ideas blowing through the primary schools in spite of the fact that very large numbers of additional children of statutory age have been working their way through these schools."
The "fresh breeze" referred to is, of course, the fresh breeze which was started under the Butler Act. We hope that it will blow and keep on blowing beneficently, in nursery, primary and through schools alike. We hope that it will not simply blow over a progressive area like the North of England abut will also reach institutions in London and the South generally. Indeed, we trust that it will not be always a mere breeze, but that it will become a mighty tornado which will help these people of whom I have spoken to rise up to the standards of the great North of England.
6.7 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to say a few words, but at this late hour I shall not detain your Lordships for long. Certain references have been made in most speeches to the very overcrowded conditions in the primary schools. The Liberal solution to that problem is to raise the school age of entry from five to six as a temporary measure until the whole question can be satisfactorily settled. We believe it is better for a child to postpone his initial education until he is able to be in a class where he can really profit by it.
My second point is a personal one, and I should like to say that I am not necessarily speaking for my noble friends on these Benches. I had not originally intended to speak this afternoon, but I felt I wanted to do so as both the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Soulbury, have raised the question of making education more democratic. If I understood both noble Lords aright, they both said that they had no solution to offer. I have long thought of a possible future for the public schools and a way of bringing them into our system of State education, and it is this to which I wish to refer. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, spoke of there being still two nations in this country. I think that is very true. It is brought home to one particularly if one goes to a country like France, where they have a really good system of State education and there is much more equality and understanding between the classes than there is in this country.
I was much interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said about the Swiss system. I think we all admire the Swiss for having evolved a really democratic form of society, So far as this country is concerned, I think it is no exaggeration to say that education is still for the most part ruled by the purse. If a boy is the son of wealthy parents he has far more chance than if his parents belong to what we call the lower income groups. In the old days, Radical opinion believed that the public schools should be abolished. But that has evolved, and I think most people now believe that they provide a fine, in fact the highest, form of education, except for perhaps one or two of the grammar schools, and that in some way they should be brought into the general State system so that more

653
young people may obtain their great advantages—that their great advantages should be retained but used for the benefit of the community as a whole and not for boys of a certain class.
I think it would be an exaggeration to say that all public schools are good: some are excellent, some are good and some are bad. I would go so far as to say that even the good ones have certain defects. The other day I was reading a hook by Professor Pear about English social differences, in which he describes very well how public schools set out to train character and how they provide excellent administrators, but by their methods of segregating boys of a certain class in a monastic form of life they somehow fail to ensure that they have an understanding not only of other classes in their own country but also of the people of other nations. I think that has been very evident in the past with some of our administrators who have failed to understand the people over whose countries we have been privileged to govern, and this has done a good deal to cause resentment. It was particularly the case in India.
With regard to the future of public schools, eventually, when the State system of education has been improved and classes have been reduced, I should like to see the public schools taken over by the State. The bad ones should be closed down and their buildings used for grammar or primary schools, whichever is most convenient. The good ones should be retained exactly as they are, but they should be kept as residential schools for the cream of the grammar and comprehensive schools. I should like to see the best public schools used for the fifth and sixth forms from the State schools, who will spend their last year or two there before passing to the universities. In this way they would get the advantage of the best education the country can offer amongst boys drawn from all classes and not only from one rather narrow class, as is the case to-day. This would also ensure that the cleverest boys of the country—the cream, the elite, the aristocracy of brains—would really have the best chance the country had to offer. I believe strongly that it is only by making our educational system truly democratic that: our own way of life can survive. If we can do this, I think
654
we may be one step nearer to the bright dawn of a classless society.
6.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, at this late hour, as we so often say, but particularly late on this very hot evening, I do not propose to endeavour to hold your Lordships' attention much longer than courtesy demands. On this occasion, as we were last February, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having introduced this Motion and for the way he has done it. Although he was speaking from the opposite Bench, and I presume, and hope, for his Party (I noticed a slight divergence of view at one stage, but that is very healthy), the noble Lord made it clear that there is no Party feeling in this House on the subject of education. We are all equally anxious for the same end.
Nothing is easier than to condemn, and perhaps those who do not know much about education who listened to this debate might have come to the conclusion that education was in a much more parlous condition than in fact it is. Of course, there are all sorts of things that need to be improved, and in introducing his Motion, the noble Lord was generous and quick to indicate the explanations of many of our present troubles. When one talks of education there is always the danger of running to the police court in order to find terrible illustrations of the way in which the educational system has failed. One might just as well run to the divorce court and come to the con-elusion that marriage is a failure. There is no news in a good marriage, but there is news in a divorce case. I beg noble Lords who have made reference to the failures in education to consider the successes of education. If two of the noble Lords opposite will forgive me, what better testimony could we have for the British system of education than that they should have said that they received their education in a primary school? The noble Lord, Lord Burden, said that that education was principally concerned with knitting; but if one can do as well as he has done in life, and achieve such distinction as he has achieved, by being taught knitting in a primary school, I think it might be worth while to direct the attention of the Present Minister of Education to this, in the hope that more people are taught knitting. The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, was generous—

655
not to the Government but to the people concerned—in speaking of the considerable advances that he has seen in the standards that have been attained during his intimate concern with education; and I am glad that he said this.
The essence of our present difficulties, and the major cause of our problem, is what the Americans, in that lurid and rather attractive language they have, call the "baby bulge." As my noble friend Lord Soulbury said, we were going along very well until the war came; now we have this problem of one million extra children. We are doing our best to educate them, not all in the best conditions, it is true, and no-one is satisfied with either buildings or the size of classes. I have a rather long speech, which I am not going to deliver, because I believe your Lordships already know most of the figures, and the facts are simply these: that the number of schools, the number of places, the extension of powers of local authorities to secure improvements in rural areas to the extent of £10,000 (and even in these days one can do quite a lot to improve a small school for £10,000)—all these show that we are actively concerned to secure such improvements as we can.
There is one point on which I am diametrically opposed to one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—though he did not so much say it as indicate it. I believe that the local authorities in this country have done an extremely good job, and I would rather see education in their hands, with all the diversity that the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, indicated is obtained from such an administration, than see it centralised in Whitehall—though I appreciate that the noble Lord was endeavouring to get a better standard throughout the country, which I hope we shall be able to get through the existing arrangements. Buildings and teachers are the two problems. It is gratifying to hear from the right reverend Prelate who spoke of the considerable advance in the standard of education that we are now getting among the teachers. I know a little about this matter, because I was making inquiries on the subject in the University at Manchester only last week. Fortunately, the teachers are coming along at a greater rate than we expected, and this is most encouraging. I am not going to burden your Lordships
656
with the figures of places we have provided.
There has been general interest to-day—almost a prevalent interest—in rural schools. My right honourable friend the Minister of Education is starting a five-year programme for rural areas which should bring benefit to younger children who will stay in the village primary schools. In these schools there will be more room for the children; their teachers will be relieved of the task of coping with large classes of all ages, which must be an extremely difficult thing to do; and I hope that there will be better conditions generally for the teachers. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, has put a series of questions to me: he has, if I may use a vulgarism, rather "put me through it." I have all the answers to his questions, and I hope your Lordships will have patience with me while I go through them, because they were specific and good questions, and they require an answer. I must give the answers in full, as I am advised, and I hope that they will satisfy the noble Lord.
He mentioned the children of American Service men in East Anglia. My right honourable friend is advised that the duty laid upon education authorities generally by the 1944 Act does extend to these children. Facilities in maintained schools are there for any Americans to take advantage of for their children. No fees are chargeable, either to the parents or to the military authorities, except that there is this alteration: that, as for the children of British Service men, the part of the cost falling on the rates is spread over all the education authorities, and not just those where the bases are located—I believe they call it a pool of expenditure, particularly attributable to the military bases. I understand that for various reasons the parents of many of the younger of these children prefer to send them to private schools, and that for the older ones a number of the larger American bases provide schools on American lines. Where any of these children go into independent or direct grant schools, then the parents pay the fees.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Wise, wanted to know the number of rural primary schools closed during the three years 1952–54 in England and Wales, and also the number applicable to Norfolk and Suffolk. The total for England and

657
Wales is 138, of which 14 were in Norfolk and Suffolk. Then there is the contrary position, of the number of primary schools in rural areas which have been completed, and those which, although not completed, were put under construction during the same period. For England and Wales the figure is 118, and for Norfolk and Suffolk it is 7. I hope my figures are clear to your Lordships, but I am sure they will be clearer in Hansard than they sound.
The noble Lord then asked me how the allowances for equipment compare in primary and in secondary schools. The cost of the initial provision of furniture and equipment of new schools is about £15 a place in primary schools, and about £26 in secondary schools. I know the noble Lord did not quite like the idea that there should be this divergence, but surely in secondary schools, with laboratory equipment and the rest, it must cost a good deal more. I have also some figures as to the average expenditure on books, stationery, materials and other equipment. My right honourable friend the Minister is most anxious to encourage the use of books in schools. Perhaps the noble Lord will not mind if I send him these figures in correspondence, because they are rather detailed and I do not want to occupy the time of the House with them. The next question the noble Lord asked was about transport. The 1944 Act compels local authorities to provide transport for children under eight years of age who have more than two miles to go to school, and for those over eight years of age who have three miles to go. In practice, many authorities are more generous and provide transport beyond one and a half miles for the under-eights, and beyond two miles for those between eight and eleven. I have no more information on this subject than I have given to your Lordships, and I make no comment on it.
Lastly, the noble Lord asked me to deal with the question of liability for injuries to children taken to school in vehicles hired by the authorities. The reply is that the owner of the vehicle has a duty to take all due care and to carry safely, so far as reasonable care and foresight can attain that end. Failure in this duty means liability for any injury to the child passenger. If there is an accident because of some third party's negligence, he is the person responsible. In
658
general, there has been no liability upon the education authorities for accidents to children taken to schools in hired vehicles. I hope the noble Lord feels that that is a satisfactory answer.
I am afraid that I cannot help but regret what the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, said. I went to a considerable amount of trouble myself to endeavour to satisfy him because, as he said, I am indeed in the greatest possible sympathy with the position that he put forward. I wrote to him—I have a copy of the letter here—almost immediately after the last debate.
LORD KENSWOOD: I think the noble Viscount will find it is February 21.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: The letter is dated February 18, but we will not quarrel over the date. I came to the conclusion that there was no great advantage in my endeavouring, in correspondence, to deal with problems that concern Ministries for which I am not personally responsible, and that it would be better if the whole of this correspondence were transferred to the Minister. The noble Lord feels that he has been treated with some discourtesy. I assure him that if he feels like that my right honourable friend, to whom I have spoken this afternoon on the subject, greatly regrets it. There is no desire on his part to be evasive. Why should there be? My right honourable friend asks me to convey to the noble Lord his invitation that they should meet, and he will then do his best verbally to deal with the problems that he has raised this afternoon. I think that would be a much more satisfactory arrangement.
LORD KENSWOOD: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for giving me this invitation. I shall certainly avail myself of it. But I feel it is just a little hard that I should be reproached for carrying on a correspondence with the noble Viscount, when the noble Viscount himself first wrote to me. May I say that I have no sense of being badly treated. I cannot understand why it was, for example, that I wrote a letter to the noble Viscount on March 12, and I had to write to him again on April 4 reminding him that I had had no reply, and then I received a letter on April 7 from the Minister. Surely, I am entitled to a little mystification, shall I say? I do not feel

659
hurt about it, because I do know how difficult it is for Ministers of the Crown to attend to so many matters.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I only regret that the noble Lord wrote to me at all on the subject, when quite obviously the proper person to write to was the Minister of Education to whom I had sent the correspondence.
LORD KENSWOOD: But surely if I get a letter—
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: May I finish? I had already indicated to the noble Lord that that would be the best way of satisfying him. I make no reproaches to him At all, and nothing that I have said to-day indicates reproach. I only said that I regret he felt he had been treated with discourtesy, and I do feel that regret.
I am sure your Lordships will not take it amiss if I now move to the general and major issue which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised in his Motion. I am suspicious of amateur advice on technical subjects, and the teaching of children is in the hands of teachers who are specifically trained for the purpose. It is interesting how many people are always willing to advise on the subject of education. Nobody dreams of giving advice to other technicians. I cannot remember an occasion, for instance, when your Lordships thought it would be a good thing to advise the medical profession how they should do their job, even a part of their job which deals with human problems, such as mental sickness. Of course, it would be grossly improper for us at any time to give advice to the Bishops and the clergy upon how they ought to educate their flock, although this problem, I think, is one of vast importance to the nation and is not unconnected with what one might call the raw material of the teaching profession.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, when he proceeded to the wider aspects of his Motion, raised some most interesting problems. He talked of the new scientific age. I am sure it is coming; perhaps it has already arrived. The problems of that time are going to be extremely difficult, and one of them will be the problem of teaching people how to use leisure. The last time I addressed your Lordships I ventured to say that the prosperity under which we are now living is a very brittle thing. It might easily, at any time, as
660
prosperity has in previous Empires, break away and all our dreams fade. There, I think, is the problem of education. We shall have to teach people how to live in a world of abundance, and I believe it is a difficult thing to do.
The noble Lord spoke of the dangers of the eleven-plus examination. I do not want to deal with that today. It is a big problem, and I do not know that any of us know a great deal about it, if the truth be told. The truth is that we are rather frightened of it because of its classification. But I wonder whether the fears that the noble Lord indicated are justified. Your Lordships remember—I wish I could get the precise words, because they were so good—that when speaking, of the grammar school, the modern school and the technical school, he was anxious lest, as a result of this eleven-plus examination, we should be giving greater social status to the people who went to the grammar school than to the people who went to the technical school at the other end. I think the danger is this: we are moving so rapidly into the age of the technologist that I am not at all sure that the weight of status, and certainly the financial rewards, will not come to the people who have been educated in the technical schools rather than the people who have taken the laborious tasks that some of us have had in learning the classics in the grammar schools.
I should like to finish on this note. People note what we say in this House. The teachers in this country are, I am sure, considering what your Lordships' views are on the subject of education. I think the teachers in the public schools would be horrified at the views that have come from the Liberal Benches this afternoon. But let us think about the teachers in the primary schools, because it is about them that we have been talking. They have had a hard task. They are constantly the subject of criticism. For twenty months I was a teacher. I taught mathematics, and I began in that time to have some vague glimmering of the infinite variety of the problems involved in being a teacher. But they were not the problems of mathematics. Those were not the difficult things. They were the problems of knowing how to understand and how to guide young minds in the very small classes that, fortunately, I had.

661
I left the profession with a great admiration for the people who stay in it doing this work of tremendous national importance, for which I believe that, if one is going to succeed, one must have a vocation.
I think the best thing that this House can do is to try to give teachers encouragement to regard teaching as a vocation. I was delighted to see that in the last Honours List Her Majesty had knighted the Secretary of the National Union of Teachers. Sir Ronald Gould. The character of the education provided in our primary schools is indeed an attempt to carry out the aspirations that were nobly expressed in the 1944 Act, to which noble Lords have referred—
"to educate each child according to his age, aptitude and ability."
That is the job that they have undertaken, and we should give them praise and encouragement in it. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised this very good debate in your Lordships' House.
LORD WISE: My Lords, before the noble Viscount concludes, may I. thank him for the replies which he gave to my questions. With his approval, I should like to ask him one more on what he said during the course of his remarks.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I do not think the noble Lord can.
LORD WISE: The noble Viscount mentioned in his opening remarks the sum of £10,000 for improvements on schools. Is he able to tell me whether that is a top ceiling of the amount or whether there is any latitude? Can an authority spend more on a certain improvement? I have in mind a sanitary improvement which was curtailed by the fact that the limit of £10,000 was imposed.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I think I must interrupt the noble Lord because he is really quite out of order, I am afraid.
LORD WISE: I am sorry.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: If I may also be out of order, may I say that £10,000 is the limit for any one school.
LORD WISE: Thank you.
6.43 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, when sometimes the future of this House is considered, it is sought to justify its continued
662
existence by the high level of the debates we sometimes have. I would say that, if anyone tried to make out a case, he could well cite to-day's debate as a good example. I think that every speaker, with the possible exception of the first, has treated this as a proper debate, and we have had as much of a cut-and-thrust debate as it is possible to have in a discussion of this kind. Naturally, there has been no complete agreement, except possibly on the undesirability of teaching in classes of over forty, but I think that that is all to the good. It is no good raising a debate where everybody agrees with every thesis that is put forward. If I have succeeded in stimulating thought, and to a slight degree in stimulating discussion, on educational matters, I feel that the debate will have been well worth while. I did not quite understand the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, when he thought that the job of teaching was for the teachers and that other people should not dictate to them how their job should be done. I do not know whether the noble Viscount was directing his attention to me; I presume he was.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: No, I was not.
LORD SILKIN: I think we are entitled to consider what we want to achieve in our education. It is for the educationist to consider the methods of achieving that result. In the same way, when we talk about doctors by analogy, what we want from the doctors is that they should keep us in good health. We more or less leave it to them to decide on their methods. Nobody would deem it right to tell a doctor what he should do, but we do want him to keep us in good health.
There were one or two major questions of policy and principle which arose. I would refer to two of them. One was the question of the democratisation of our education. I do not think any the less of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for having thrown out the idea of nationalising the public schools. I believe that that is something which might well be considered. I do not think that anything ought to be rejected out of hand. Speaking quite impromptu, however, I hardly think that that is necessarily the best solution. The public schools have a great deal to be said in their favour. After all, the best of them are an advance guard of what we want the ordinary

663
grammar school and the modern secondary school to be. Let them take the lead and let them show the way. I should be quite content that they should go on doing so. What I want to achieve—and here we may be in some controversy—is that admission to those schools should be on the basis of those who would most benefit; but I do not want to carry this point any further.
The noble Viscount, Lord Soulbury, and I were brought up in a very strict school, where we always had to keep one eye on Mr. Speaker in the Chair, and we found Mr. Speaker getting a little fidgety if we strayed a little beyond the exact terms of the Motion. I must confess that, even after five years, I still have that feeling occasionally, although I know that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is kindness itself and would be the last to interfere if one did stray from the strict Rules of
664
Order. It is rather beyond the terms of the Motion itself to discuss what happens to children after their primary school life, but I feel that the future of the public schools, or the democratisation of our educational system, for which I was glad to find a considerable degree of sympathy, is a subject which your Lordships might well discuss by itself. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, for having spoken in such (I took them to be) sympathetic terms about the ideal that we want to achieve. I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate, and I think the greatest service I can now render to the House is not to press for the Papers that are included in the terms of my Motion, but to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.