Sitting of 1 November 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MOTOR VEHICLES (OFFENCES)
Address for Return showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, the results of the proceedings in magistrates' courts, and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during 1954.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Industrial Relations
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement regarding talks held with a view to decreasing the number of strikes.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): Following the informal exploratory talks which the Prime Minister had this summer with the representatives of the British Employers' Confederation, the Trades Union Congress and the nationalised industries, my right hon. and learned Friend has had further discussions on industrial relations on the National Joint Advisory Council and the Joint Consultative Committee, which is a rather smaller body. The talks are to continue. There is agreement that the right approach to these matters does not lie in new legislation of a general nature. It would be a misconception to expect these talks to produce a general solution of problems which by their nature must be the particular care and constant
    814
    responsibility of individual industries and establishments, but my right hon. and learned Friend hopes that the talks will result in giving valuable guidance on principles and methods for establishing and maintaining sound industrial relations.
    Captain Pilkington: Whilst much appreciating what is being done by the Ministry of Labour, by employers and by employees, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that, because we depend so much on export markets in this country, our people are injured so much more by strikes than are most countries?
    Mr. Watkinson: Certainly I agree that our economy is more vulnerable than that of most other countries, and that is the reason the members of the Joint Consultative Committee are giving this problem such serious attention.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Does the Minister realise that the new increases in Purchase Tax and rents are likely to lead to industrial unrest?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is quite another matter and not a subject which the Committee is discussing.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In order that we should keep this problem in its right perspective, would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that our record for industrial disputes over the last few years compares very favourably with our record in pre-war years, and also very favourably with those of most industrial countries in a comparable period?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right; we have nothing to fear in comparison with other countries, but it still remains true that our economy is very vulnerable and that in the national interest we cannot afford the kind of stoppages that we have had on the railways and in the docks this year.

    Industrial Health Advisory Committee (Recommendations)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made towards the establishment of an industrial health service.
    Mr. Watkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend has established an Industrial Health Advisory Committee to advise him on measures to further the

    815
    development of industrial health services in work places covered by the Factories Acts. Four meetings of this Committee have been held. Priorities for action recommended by the Committee include the stimulation of voluntary medical supervision in a number of industries with serious health hazards; the substitution by industry of harmless or less harmful materials for those that are harmful; the protection of workers from ionising radiations; a campaign against dermatitis; and the intensification of investigation and research into industrial health problems. On the advice of the Committee, a pilot local industrial health survey is being carried out at Halifax, and a second pilot health survey is now being planned.
    Dr. Stross: Whilst thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, may I ask whether he can state what it is envisaged will be done to bring in the general medical practitioner in the areas so that he can play his part?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman knows the composition of this Committee, which is a wide one. In these pilot surveys we hope to explore the kind of thing which he has suggested, and that will probably be done in Halifax and in the other centres.
    Mr. Gibson: May I ask the Minister whether in these pilot surveys special attention is being given to the dangers of dermatitis in the wood machinery industry, where at the moment it seems to be prevalent.
    Mr. Watkinson: I said that dermatitis is one of the special problems which the Committee is looking at, and I will make a note to ensure that we do not miss it in these pilot surveys.

    Cotton Industry
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Minister of Labour the net number by which employment in the cotton industry has fallen over the last year and the last four years, taking the latest month for which figures are available.
    Mr. Watkinson: In the 12 months to the end of September, 1955, there was a fall of 29,000 and in the four years to the same date a fall of 60,000.
    Mr. Wilson: In view of these alarming figures, has the hon. Gentleman made
    816
    any calculation as to how many more years of this Government will be needed for the cotton industry to die out altogether in this country?
    Mr. Watkinson: If I may say so, that is the kind of supplementary question which does not help anybody, much less the cotton industry. I am trying to give the facts. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is right that the industry and the country should know them, but another fact, which is at least of some consolation, is that my Ministry has found a job in some other industry for practically every man and woman who has been displaced from the cotton industry.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that any fall in employment in the cotton industry has been more than counterbalanced by increased employment in those industries making man-made fibres? In addition, is it not a fact that any unemployment in the cotton industry has been immediately absorbed in other industries in Lancashire?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Watkinson: The fact with which I am concerned is the employment position. As I have said, we are very glad, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is, that so far every man and woman displaced from the cotton industry who wants another job we have been able to place in some other industry in Lancashire.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any idea of the number of native Lancashire workers who have been forced to emigrate to other industries in the Midlands and other parts of the country? Is he aware that in such migration the position of middle-aged people in their fifties and sixties, whose lives have been invested in the native industry of Lancashire, is not an easy one to solve and cannot be dealt with purely as a matter of statistics?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree. I cannot answer that question without notice, however, and if the hon. Member puts it down I will do my best to answer it.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Do the Parliamentary Secretary's two supplementary answers and the question by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) mean that the only policy that the Government now

    817
    have for the cotton industry is to stand aside and see it decline so long as they can find work for the displaced workers in other industries?
    Mr. Watkinson: The question of policy for the cotton industry is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I have given the information asked for by the right hon. Member as to the present unemployment position.

    Engineering Apprentices, Merseyside
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Minister of Labour how many school-leavers registering at Merseyside employment exchanges for work as apprentices in the engineering industry have been unable to be placed by his Department.
    Mr. Watkinson: Seventy, Sir, of whom forty-five are doing other work while waiting for vacancies. Sixteen out of the total are under submission for suitable vacancies.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Merseyside, where there is a growing shortage of skilled labour of various kinds, his own Department has had to confirm that not enough vacancies are being created by employers for these apprentices? The unions in the area are extremely concerned. Will the Parliamentary Secretary do his best with the employers to bring to their attention that it is an extremely shortsighted policy not to be taking on more apprentices at this time?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I did not realise that so many boys could not get placed in craft apprenticeship, and I will certainly look into the matter.

    Coal Mining Industry (Foreign Workers)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to allow foreign miners to help solve the problems of the coal industry.
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of labour what arrangements exist for recruiting Europeans in order to produce more coal from British mines.
    Mr. Watkinson: My Department has standing arrangements for bulk recruitment of foreign workers which could be
    818
    applied to the coal mining industry. I regret, however, that the National Coal Board has not been able to take advantage of these arrangements in the absence of agreement of the National Union of Mineworkers.
    Mr. Iremonger: Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave widespread public dismay at what appears to the public, rightly or wrongly, to be a dog-in-the-manger attitude on the part of certain sections of the coal industry; and will he do his best to see that the considerations that weigh with the National Coal Board are given wide publicity? Will he, further, try to bring home to those concerned their share of responsibility for the national economy?
    Mr. Watkinson: The position is, as I think my hon. Friend knows, that the Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers has deferred a decision on the recruitment of foreign workers until a detailed examination has been made into the labour force in the pits. Until that examination has been completed and a decision reached between the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, I am afraid that my Ministry's services, although available, cannot be made use of.
    Captain Pilkington: Does my hon. Friend not think that when it is understood by the miners that the importation of some of this Continental labour will help the country as a whole, they will surely agree to it?
    Mr. Watkinson: I hope that that will result from the inquiry that is now taking place.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to invite the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) to do a bit of advertising for miners in his Ilford Parliamentary constituency?

    Automation and Technological Developments
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a Joint Congressional Committee in the United States of America has been directed to study the effects of automation and technological developments on the financial structure of industry and labour requirements; and if he will consider directing

    819
    a similar study by an appropriate body in this country.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am aware of the inquiry referred to in the first part of the Question. As to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on 7th July last.
    Mr. Beswick: Since I did not have the opportunity of seeing that reply, would the hon. Gentleman say whether he is of opinion that sufficient inquiry is being made into this matter?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. Perhaps I may add that what was then said was that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is carrying out a special study into the problems of automation; that is, on the technical side. On the side of the general attitude of employers and trade unions towards it, it seems to us at the moment that through the normal action in industry the question is solving itself quite satisfactorily.
    Mr. Beswick: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that those inquiries are directed into too narrow a field, dealing more with the effect on the individual worker and with the technical matters involved? These studies concern more the whole aspect of the financial structure of the country. Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that that aspect of affairs is being inquired into?
    Mr. Watkinson: A very proper place to discuss that, if any interested party wants to raise it, is in the National Joint Advisory Council.

    Radioactive Substances (Health Precautions)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour what regulations are in force, designed to protect workers in factories and workshops against danger arising from the use of radioactive materials.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Factories (Luminising) Special Regulations, 1947, prescribe the health precautions to be taken in factories using luminous materials containing a radioactive substance. Draft special Regulations for factories using radioactive substances for other purposes are in course of preparation.
    Dr. Stross: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that both at the
    820
    point of manufacture and in their distribution a very special technique has been evolved in handling these materials? Will he assure us that the Inspectorate will be made completely conversant with all these matters so that the Regulations will take note of them?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not know whether the hon. Member has read our latest booklet on precautions in the use of ionising radiations. If not, I will send him a copy.

    COST OF LIVING
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that in September the price of eggs, bacon, coal, coke, cheese, sugar, sausages, tinned meats, lettuces and runner beans rose, but that the decrease in the price of potatoes and cooking apples still resulted in a fall in the cost-of-living index figure by one point to 149; and whether he will reconstruct the cost-of-living index in order to take the increased prices more fully into account.
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member's Question mentions September but it presumably relates to the fall of one point in the Retail Prices Index for August. In addition to substantial reductions in the prices of potatoes and cooking apples, there were also reductions in the prices of tomatoes, cabbage, other green vegetables and butter, and these reductions outweighed the price increases referred to by the hon. Member, causing the Index to fall one point. In September, on the other hand, the price increases reported outweighed the price decreases and the Index rose by one point. I am satisfied that the increased prices have been taken fully into account in computing the Index figures.
    Mr. Dodds: In view of what lies ahead as the result of the disgraceful Budget, I apologise to the Minister for bothering him about a mere one-point difference in the cost of living.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Personal Case
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour if he can yet make a statement explaining why Mr. Roy Robert Houghton

    821
    was detailed to the Army despite an accident in which he sustained three fractures of the right ankle, necessitating the fixture of a screw to hold the ankle bone together, causing a permanent disability with pain and swelling from undue pressure on his right foot.
    Mr. Watkinson: The medical assessment of this young man took into account the physical condition and functional capacity of his right ankle. Because of the fractures he was placed in medical grade II (a) feet. He first expressed a preference for the Royal Navy and later volunteered for Regular engagement in the Army. Perhaps for this reason he did not exercise is right of appeal against the decision of the medical board and he was then correctly called up for restricted service. I understand that at the request of the hon. Member the Army is looking into the case of this man again, and I note that the hon. Member has put a Question down to the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not surprised to know that this young man, who was sent into the Army by the Parliamentary Secretary's Department, has been excused almost every duty expected of a soldier, wears canvas shoes and at present is home on sick leave? When will the hon. Gentleman stop defending this farce of sending into the Forces young men who ought never to be in the Forces?
    Mr. Watkinson: What I hope that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) and, indeed, any other hon. Member will do, is to remind more young men who go for National Service that if they are not satisfied with the decision of the medical board, they are clearly informed in writing that they have a constitutional right to appeal to my Ministry against the gradings. If more young men would do that, these cases would not arise.
    Mr. Woodburn: I have sent a case to the Parliamentary Secretary. Does he not agree that if it is Government policy to reduce the Armed Forces, a beginning might be made by not taking into the Army people of obviously inferior qualifications and partly-crippled people? Is it not a waste of Government money to take them into the Army?
    Mr. Watkinson: That does not arise from this case.
    Mr. Dodds: Owing to the very unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  SCOTLAND

    Herring Industry Board's Report
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now received a Report from the Herring Industry Board on the working of the present share system in the herring fishing industry, the question of prices, and the financial structure of the industry as a whole, with particular reference to the burden of debt; what specific recommendations it contains; and what action he proposes to take.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend has received a Report from the Board of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. Further copies are available in the Vote Office. The Report concludes that the share system is sufficiently flexible to meet changing conditions, that there is no reason to suppose that the catcher is not getting his fair share of the price the consumer is willing to pay and that the general burden of debt is not unduly severe. It contains no specific recommendations but the Board will, with the co-operation of Government Departments, continue its efforts to promote the prosperity of the industry.
    Sir R. Boothby: Will copies of the Report be available in the Vote Office tonight?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes Sir.
    Sir R. Boothby: I thank my hon. Friend very much.

    Highlands and Islands (Special Authority)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received, and from whom, proposing that he should establish one or more Scottish regional authorities operating with Government funds to co-ordinate development plans for Scotland and to seek a solution for unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend has received representations from Sutherland County Council, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the local authorities' Hydro-Electric General Committee in favour of setting up a special authority with powers to plan the rehabilitation of the Highlands and Islands. This proposal was considered and rejected by the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Joint Under-Secretary realise the importance of coordinating and publicising such plans? Has the Secretary of State any such plans of his own? Will he publish a White Paper on the present situation, having regard to its importance to industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: As the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) knows, there is now a large measure of co-ordination and there have been one or two White Papers on the matter. However, if he would like me to write to him more fully, I shall be happy so to do.

    Fireworks (Period of Sale)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will promote legislation to prohibit the sale of explosive fireworks in Scotland except on a restricted number of days immediately preceding 5th November.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend do not consider, having regard to the powers already available for controlling the use of fireworks, that new legislation of the kind suggested would be justified.
    Mr. Thomson: Has the Under-Secretary ever tried nursing a baby to sleep amid all the thunderflashes that have been going off during the whole of the last six weeks? Will he at least have a word with the police about restricting these things, without spoiling anybody's fun?
    Mr. Stewart: Under the present law steps can be taken when people are being obstreperous and a bit of a nuisance in the street, and, that being so, we do not feel that further steps are necessary.

    Land Acquisition and Disposal
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the basis of compensation for compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities is the existing use value plus so much of any unexpended balance of established development value as is appropriate to the interest being acquired whereas disposals of land by local authorities to private persons are on the basis of current market value; and, in view of the unfairness of this, what steps he will take to amend the law on this subject.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): The basis of compensation to which the hon. Member refers was laid down in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland)Act, 1954, which came into operation as recently as 1st January, 1955, and it is too early to consider any change. Local authorities in Scotland do not normally use their compulsory purchase powers to buy more land than they need. When exceptionally they dispose of surplus land which may well have changed its character during their ownership they are required to get the best price they can. I see nothing unfair in this requirement.
    Captain Duncan: Is my hon. Friend not aware that as a result of inquiries under the development plans of local towns, this real grievance has come to light? Will he not now set up a committee to collect evidence so that legislation, if necessary, may be introduced at a later date?
    Mr. Browne: I am not fully aware of the point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has in mind, but if he will send me any particulars, I shall be very glad to look into them.
    Captain Duncan: As my hon. Friend is not fully aware of the circumstances, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Surgical Beds, West Fife
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the increase in the provision of surgical beds in the Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital since 1948.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: There are ninety-one surgical beds. There has been

    825
    no change in this number since 1948, but a casualty block of twenty beds is in the course of construction.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that the general hospital accommodation position in West Fife is thoroughly unsatisfactory? Is he aware that a simple hernia case in West Fife has, on occasion, to wait as long as three years, and that in the meantime further complications may well develop? Would he have a look at the whole position in West Fife with a view to giving us much more capital expenditure on hospital accommodation in what is, after all, one of the developing mining areas in which hon. Members opposite are so impatient to see progress made?
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) will appreciate that the surgical facilities in the area have been considerably extended, with the greater use of the Bridge of Farn hospital for West Fife patients, that a considerable number of patients from Dunfermline are treated in the Edinburgh hospitals and the position will get better when the new block, which should be ready for use before the end of 1957, is completed.

    Town Development (Legislation)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish local authorities in favour of the introduction of a Town Development Act in Scotland.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: None, Sir. But my right hon. Friend has suggested to Glasgow Corporation and the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee that such legislation is essential to assist in solving the city's overspill problem. Discussions are proceeding with the local authorities who might be willing to take overspill; and the Committee has undertaken to furnish its views on the lines the legislation might take.
    Mr. McInnes: As Glasgow is the only town in Scotland with an overspill problem, does the Under-Secretary consider it necessary to introduce legislation for one town? If he does consider it necessary, will he give us an assurance that subventions under the Town Development Act will not be drastically reduced or abolished, as in the case of housing subsidies?
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) will understand that even for Glasgow town development is not possible without legislation. Without it no grant can be made to an importing local authority for sewerage; local authorities cannot make contributions one to another and one local authority cannot act as agent for another. So legislation in some form is essential. In reply to the second part of the hon. Member's question, in the forthcoming subsidy review the special needs of overspill and transferred industrial population, like those in England, will be taken into account.
    Mrs. Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration that although Glasgow is only one local authority, it is the one exporting authority, and that the receiving authorities will require a "sweetener" in order to receive? Will he see that adequate compensation is made? No matter what the name of the Act or Bill, will he see that they are adequately compensated?
    Mr. Browne: That is one point which will be taken into account.

    Cumbernauld (Industrial Development)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) since the proposed new town at Cumbernauld is in the Development Area, how far arrangements are being made for the Scottish Industrial Estates Company to build factories concurrent with the building of houses by the development corporation;
    (2) what proposals he has for the setting up of new industries at the proposed new town of Cumbernauld and also for the transference of existing industries from Glasgow to the new town.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: The question of industrial development at Cumbernauld cannot be considered until my right hon. Friend reaches a final decision on the draft Designation Order for the proposed new town. This Order was the subject of a public local inquiry on 10th October, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to announce his decision soon.
    I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the memorandum which was published

    827
    along with the draft Order and which deals, in paragraph 22, with the industrial prospects of the proposed new town.
    Mr. McInnes: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is aware how essential it is that industries should be established current with the building of houses in the new towns?
    Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend take into account the great concern in Scotland that there has been almost a cessation of "prior factory building" before occupation? In London, where during the period of office of the Labour Government there was a prohibition on industrial expansion under the town and country planning provisions, we find the position now reversed. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we see industrial planning and development going on in London, which is already over-populated, and a cessation of such development in Scotland, and that we are concerned about this trend?
    Mr. Browne: The answer, and it is a very important point, is that Cumbernauld is in the Development Area, and it would be possible for the Board of Trade, under the Distribution of Industry Act, to arrange for the Scottish Industrial Estates Company to build factories for approved industrial projects. The Board's New Town Development Corporation, as and when set up, will, it is hoped, assist in securing the transfer of industry from Glasgow. The point about this question is that such action must await the approval of the plan for the development of the new town.

    Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what local authorities have protested to him against the rises in interest rates on money borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: During this year protests have been received from twenty-eight local authorities, whose names I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. A protest was also received from the Ayrshire Burghs Association.
    Mr. Hoy: May we have an assurance that these protests will be given real
    828
    attention, and that the Secretary of State will not be bound by the decisions announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Housing and Local Government in England?
    Mr. Browne: These protests are from 28 out of about 430 local authorities, but the Secretary of State will give full weight to them.
    Following are the names:

    County councils—

    Ayr.

    Midlothian

    Fife.

    Town councils—

    Ardrossan.

    Kilwinning

    Auchtermuchty

    Kirkcaldy.

    Ayr.

    Leslie.

    Buckie.

    Lochgelly.

    Burntisland.

    Montrose.

    Cowdenheath.

    Musselburgh.

    Dunfermline.

    Newmilns.

    Galston.

    Pittenweem.

    Glasgow.

    Renfrew.

    Greenock.

    St. Monance.

    Inverkeithing

    Saltcoats.

    Kilsyth.

    Stevenston.

    District councils—

    Fifth District Council of Ayr.

    Local Government Finance (Review)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will undertake a full review of all aspects of local government finance as part of the problem of local government reform and reorganisation similar to the review which is to be undertaken in England and Wales.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: The review of local government finance which the Government have decided to undertake will cover Scotland as well as England and Wales.
    Mr. Hannan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, when the Minister of Housing and Local Government made this statement on 30th June, it was then intended to cover Scotland? If so, why was there not a separate statement for Scotland; or could the hon. Gentleman give the date subsequent to 30th June when Scotland was informed of such a review?
    Mr. Browne: The statement made by the Minister covered Scotland. The Secretary of State's Department is taking

    829
    part in the preliminary study of the problems involved. Talks will take place in due course with the local authorities' associations. These discussions will extend to the Scottish associations. The review of local government finance is not associated in Scotland with the reform of local government organisation.

    Electricity Boards (Reduction of Expenditure)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what contribution is to be made, respectively, by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board, to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in economising inessential expenditure and reducing capital investment programmes in the nationalised industries.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: This matter is still under discussion with the two boards.
    Mr. Nabarro: Yes, Sir, but it is three months ago that I first asked about this matter. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that these Scottish nationalised boards are not going to be sancrosanct in the matter of conforming with the Government's revised economic and financial policy?
    Mr. Stewart: I have no doubt that the Scottish boards will play their proper part in this national emergency.
    Mr. Nabarro: But how soon can we have a statement?
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind the very important factor that in many areas in Scotland where the Hydro-Electric Board is working there is no alternative employment, and that it is not true economy to stop work there and throw thousands of people on to the unemployment registers?
    Mr. Stewart: That is one of the many peculiar considerations that we have to bear in mind.
    Mr. Nabarro: How soon can we have a statement?
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question to me next week or the week after, or even the week after that, I shall be very pleased to answer it.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what economies he has arranged in the promotional advertising expenditure of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board consonant with the policy of Her Majesty's Government in reducing expenditure of an inessential character by nationalised industries, and the reduction of £500,000 per annum in the promotional expenditure of the gas and electricity boards south of the Border.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: For the current financial year the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board are reducing their expenditure on advertising by about 33⅓ per cent.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that his reply is totally inadequate, and that there is no alternative source of electricity supply in the area of the North of Scotland Board? Why should a State monopoly—
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Guinness.
    Mr. Nabarro: Guinness is not a State monopoly—find it necessary to spend the consumers' money on promotional advertising?
    Sir R. Boothby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Hydro-Electric Board has brought immense benefits to the people of this area, and that, as against Kidderminster, nothing but admiration and gratitude is felt for the expedition and efficiency with which the board has discharged its duties?
    Dr. Stross: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind—and perhaps remind his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) of this—that hydro-electric boards generate electricity without atmospheric pollution, and should therefore be given the highest priority?
    Mr. Nabarro: May I have an answer to my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I have not seen any signs of an answer to that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman may have better luck with Question No. 28.

    Tummel Valley Scheme (Cost)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the cost, per kilowatt installed, £/kwI., of the Constructional

    831
    Scheme No. 31, Tummel Valley (Additions Project), as set out in Statutory Instrument, 1955, No. 1469; and how such a scheme compares in capital cost with standard oil-fired generators of equivalent capacity at today's average price of approximately £60 per kilowatt installed.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: This scheme provides for 3,900 kilowatts of new plant and will enable 8,000 kilowatts of existing plant, at present idle, to be used. The estimated cost of the 11,900 kilowatts is £113 per kilowatt.
    The estimated cost per unit of the 32·7 million units to be produced from the scheme is 0·53d., which is less than the cost of producing the electricity by any other means and about one-third of the average cost of generating from oil in the North of Scotland district.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that this scheme was produced and put on to paper before the Government's plans for the amendment of capital investment were announced? As the capital investment cost of this scheme is markedly higher than that of alternative methods, cannot the scheme be reviewed before it is commenced?

    Cancer Cases (Hospital Statistics)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the system of hospital statistics in each of the regions for which he is responsible now provide complete information of the incidents of cases of cancer which come under their care, and that the follow-up of the results, for research purposes, is becoming more effective.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: The completeness of the regional records is steadily improving, as also is the effectiveness of follow-up. In two of the regions the information is already sufficiently complete to enable some preliminary findings to be drawn from them, and I am sending to the hon. Member a copy of an article that has been published showing the kind of information that is becoming available.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the information he has given today differs in no degree whatever from that given in the 1953 Report of the Department of Health? In view of the importance of this matter, will he impress
    832
    on all those concerned with this business the necessity to see that all regions are covered in this respect?
    Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir.

    Crofters' Holdings, Balmartin
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to draw the attention of the Crofters Commission to the request of the crofters at Balmartin, Isle of North Uist, to have their holdings extended; and whether he will press for a speedy decision in view of the fact that several years have passed since their request was first submitted to him.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): My right hon. Friend will draw the attention of the Crofters Commission to this request but he feels he must leave it to the Commission to judge in what order it should tackle the many problems which are before it.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—I do not blame him personally—that for the last four years the Secretary of State has completely ignored the situation here while one after another of the crofters are leaving? One has emigrated this week, and another has died leaving a widow and seven children to manage an unproductive patch of ground, while the Secretary of State stands up for absentee landlords without any consideration for the people and their feelings?
    Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend told the hon. Gentleman three years ago that he was awaiting the appointment of the Crofters Commission. The Commission has now been set up.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State has full power to tackle this problem by legislation already on the Statute Book, and has done nothing at all about it? Will he please reconsider pressing this matter with the Crofters Commission as one of real urgency?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am aware that my right hon. Friend has full powers, but the Taylor Commission recommended that those powers should be used in accordance with the advice of the Crofters Commission.

    Guided Missile Range Scheme, Outer Hebrides
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland from whom, apart from the hon. Member for the Western Isles, he has received representations regarding the proposal to establish a guided missile range and ancillary installations in the Outer Hebrides; and which of those representations have been in favour of the project.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend has received in all some thirty-five communications mainly from private individuals. Broadly these consist either of representations against the proposal to establish the range or of requests for further information.
    Mr. MacMillan: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend that the two main considerations that are worrying the local people—as distinct from all the people who speak from outside without much authority—are, first, the fear that there may be a large influx of people, which may cause a serious alteration in the whole social and cultural life of the island, and, secondly, that there may be a disturbance of crofters in respect of their land and their homes; and, further, that other considerations are relatively unimportant compared with these two?
    Mr. Browne: As soon as the Government are able to formulate specific proposals there will be full consultation with all the interests concerned and the fullest opportunity for the lodging and consideration of objections.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend, there has been a great deal of correspondence and agitation in Scotland on this matter which seems to have arisen from the fact that no proper explanation has been given of the circumstances and the need for this range? Will the hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the War Office that there ought to be given to the public proper information on the subject which, if it proves that the range is absolutely necessary, might remove a great deal of opposition to it?
    Mr. Browne: That will be done as soon as specific proposals are formulated.

    Road, Barra (Construction)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when work on the construction of the Eoligarry Strand Road in the Isle of Barra is to begin.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I am unable to say when the construction of this road will begin. It involves an existing classified road and has therefore been under consideration by the Ministry of Transport. I understand that it is unlikely that the Ministry will be able to authorise this work during the current year.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that this road is the first major reconstruction priority of the Inverness County Council? Is he further aware that it has been ready to start for goodness knows how many years, and that very recently only a question of a small technical adjustment between the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Agriculture was involved? Why has the work been set back now?
    Mr. Macpherson: I cannot add to what I have already answered. This matter will come up for consideration again when my right hon. Friend takes over control of roads in Scotland next April.

    Roads and Piers Programme, Crofting Counties
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that the programme of roads and piers in the crofting counties will be maintained in full.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: As regards the programme of roads in the crofting counties, I would refer the hon. Member to the reference to the roads programme made by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement on 26th October.
    As regards piers, works in progress will continue, and new schemes which are urgently necessary to meet the needs of the area will be considered as they arise in the light of my right hon. Friend's statement.
    Mr. Grimond: I hope that when these new schemes are considered the great need for piers will be kept very much in mind. As to roads, may I ask the Minister categorically to confirm not only

    835
    that the schemes already approved will go forward, but that the amounts of money announced by the previous Government and by this Government as being available for Highland development are still available, and will be expended upon roads within the period already suggested?
    Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Member knows, what the Chancellor said was this:
    "My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is going ahead with the roads programme which has been announced. …"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 26th October, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 218.]
    As I understand it, the hon. Member was talking about what had been announced in one form or another. Therefore, I think he can take it that there will be no change.

  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

    Teachers (Equal Pay)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Scotland his plans to deal with the conflicting demands of the teachers, male and female, in respect of equal pay in the profession.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I have no evidence that there is any conflict between women teachers and the great majority of men teachers on the subject of equal pay in the teaching profession, but I hope to be able to refer to this matter in the course of the debate today.
    Sir T. Moore: While thanking my hon. Friend for his conciliatory reply, may I ask whether he will appreciate that it is rather disturbing for Scottish Members to receive constant demands from the female teachers for equality and constant demands from the male teachers for inequality? In his speech later today, will he refer to how we are to answer these somewhat conflicting groups?
    Mr. Stewart: I shall try to do my best.

    Superannuated Teachers (Earnings)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in order to help in overcoming the shortage of teachers, he will consider the advisability of allowing those retired teachers who are prepared
    836
    to return to teaching to draw the pension they have earned in addition to the salary to which they would be entitled.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: This is one of a number of proposals made by the Educational Institute of Scotland which are being discussed with the Institute in connection with the proposed revision of the teachers' superannuation scheme.
    Mr. Rankin: Cannot the Minister do something? Would not he agree that this practice is a complete anomaly, and that if a person has earned a right to a pension, he should be allowed to enjoy it irrrespective of the employment in which he is engaged?
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of that argument, the strength of which I recognise. I am hoping to meet the Educational Institute of Scotland, and no doubt that side of the argument will be presented.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it the case that the Treasury are the real opponent of this really necessary reform, and what is the hon. Gentleman doing to try to convert them?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member cannot expect me to answer for the Treasury.
    Mr. Rankin: What is the hon. Member there for?

    Teachers' Superannuation Account (Credit Balance)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated credit balance in the Teachers' Superannuation Account (Scotland) at 31st March for each of the years 1954 and 1955.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The estimated credit balances are £37,120,000 and £39,260,000.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this credit balance is now 50 per cent. greater than that stated in the Actuary's Report for 1948, and in view of the consternation in the ranks of teachers that although there is a balance here there is yet a deficiency in the fund, will the hon. Gentleman take steps at an early date—even today—to give an explanation of why these contrary terms are used?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, I will do that as soon as I get an opportunity.

  HOUSING, SCOTLAND

    Local Authority Houses (Interest Rates)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Government's action in raising the loan charges on local authority houses from 3¾ per cent. to 5 per cent, has increased the ultimate cost of each £1,500 house by £963; and what action he proposes taking to relieve councils and tenants of this debt burden.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon. Friend made to the House on 27th October, when he said that he proposed to put in hand a comprehensive review of the housing subsidies in consultation with the local authority associations. This will take account of all relevant factors.
    Mr. Hoy: It will be noticed that the Minister does not deny the facts given in these Questions; and as these terrific increases in the debt burden are the outcome of the Government's action in increasing the interest rate, what hope can he offer to local authorities and tenants of relief from this appalling debt burden which the Government have placed on their shoulders?
    Mr. Browne: When the present subsidies were fixed in 1952 the rate of interest was 4¼ per cent. When it subsequently fell to 3¾ per cent. no change was made in Scottish subsidies. The local authorities cannot always hope to have it both ways. Subsidies have necessarily to be fixed on a long-term basis and cannot be altered with every change in the rate of interest.
    Mr. Hoy: On the other hand, the Minister is bound to realise that no Government, except this one, has increased the rates four times in eight months, and how can any local authority carry on a housing programme when the Government have changed the interest rates in an upward direction so frequently as this Government have done?
    Mr. Browne: The answer is that the investigations referred to by my right hon. Friend will take into account all the relevant factors, and I am sure that the associations will not fail to draw to his notice the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: But when the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend meets the local authorities, will he be open to be influenced or persuaded by them, or will he lay down the law to them?
    Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend never meets the authorities without listening to them with great care and taking note of everything that they say.
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that interest charges on each house built by the new town development corporations costing £1,650 have been increased by £17 13s. per annum, equal to an increase in rent of 7s. 6d. per week, as a result of the Government's action in raising the interest charges from 3¾ per cent. to 5 per cent.; and what action he intends taking to reduce this increase in the cost of living to the tenants.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes." As regards the second part of the Question, the levels of subsidies for houses in new towns in Scotland will be dealt with in the forthcoming review of Scottish housing subsidies.
    Mr. Hoy: In the meantime, does the Minister think that the new town authorities have to go on increasing their debt burden, because of the changes in the interest rates, or must they pass on the total increase to the tenants? Is the Minister aware that if the rents are increased in this fashion, he will have great difficulty in attracting tenants to the new towns?
    Mr. Browne: I have had no proposals from the corporations about increasing the rents, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that at the forthcoming subsidy review the new towns in Scotland, like those in England, will benefit by any higher subsidies provided for overspill and the transfer of the industrial population.

    Repairs (Rent Increases)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases in Glasgow increases in rents in accordance with recent legislation have been refused.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: Up to 30th June, 1955, thirteen applications by landlords in Glasgow for certificates of repair to

    839
    enable them to claim repairs increases in rents under the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, had been refused.
    In addition, repairs increases in respect of 435 houses in Glasgow were suspended by the issue of certificates of disrepair. In 191 of these cases, however, the certificates were subsequently revoked on the landlord carrying out the necessary repairs.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that these figures are no indication of the vast number of cases in which the landlords have not even attempted to put into operation the provisions of the Act, and does he realise that, at least in Glasgow, the Act is failing completely in its purpose?
    Mr. Browne: The Act is only in its first year of operation, and, as yet, it is too early to say how effective it will be. There are many properties in Glasgow in regard to which the Act has been and can be effective, but I appreciate that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there are many bad properties where these provisions of the Act can never apply, and for which the only solution is to pull them down.

    Subsidies
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the need for local authorities to plan their long-term housing programme, he will consider stating the approximate date when he proposes to revise the housing subsidies.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend proposes to open negotiations with the associations of local authorities shortly, but, as he indicated in the statement which he made to the House on 27th October, the legislation necessary to give effect to the revision of the subsidies will have to be deferred until after the Sorn legislation.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the great alarm and despondency which exists among local authorities in Scotland about the various announcements of Government housing policy? If there are to be negotiations, will they really be negotiations in which the local authorities' demand for a continuation of the subsidy and no halt in housing progress in Scotland will be listened to?
    Mr. Browne: Of course my right hon. Friend will listen to the representations made by local authorities.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Admiralty Citadel
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Works what plans he has in hand to improve the look of the Admiralty Citadel for those passing along the Mall or Horse Guards Parade.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary announced in the debate on the Adjournment on 27th October, more Virginia creepers are to be planted, and the old gun emplacements will be removed.
    Mr. Tilney: Everybody will be grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but will he consider a little more variety in plants than just Virginia creeper? As an experiment—so that the sides can be covered more quickly—will he endeavour to plant a few creepers on the roof?
    Mr. Birch: It is a hideous building, but whether it would be improved very much by trying to make it like an old-world tea garden, I rather doubt.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that the kind of bomb which is likely to hit the building is entirely different from the kind of bomb which it was designed to resist, will not the right hon. Gentleman look into the whole matter and perhaps chip bits off the structure so as to make it less unsightly?

    Merchiston Castle, Edinburgh
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Works if he will take steps to ensure the preservation and repair of Merchiston Castle, Edinburgh.
    Mr. Birch: Responsibility for the preservation of this castle rests with Edinburgh Corporation, who are the owners. I am ready to consider any request for financial assistance or advice, and the corporation has been so informed.
    Mr. Grimond: I agree that the initial responsibility rests upon the corporation, but is it not the case that the Government also have certain powers in regard to

    841
    buildings of national importance, and should be prepared to exercise them, if necessary, in this case?
    Mr. Birch: I think that an application will be made for assistance from historic buildings funds. I should not like to anticipate what will happen as a result.

    Hyde Park (Road Entrances and Exits)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Works to make a statement regarding improvements to the road entrances and exits of Hyde Park.
    Mr. Birch: I have agreed to an experimental roundabout inside the Park near the Victoria Gate. There are proposals for the Albert Gate and for a re-arrangement of roads at Alexandra Gate which I am considering. The Park Lane scheme is still under examination.
    Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply is satisfactory so far as it goes, because the present waste of time, petrol and temper in Hyde Park is really intolerable?
    Mr. Birch: I realise that there are traffic difficulties. On the other hand, it is important to remember that the parks are things of beauty and not only potential traffic roundabouts.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of what the Minister has just said about the parks being things of beauty—with which I entirely agree—will he give an assurance that before any messing around in Park Lane is done he will consider the alternative scheme which has been put forward, so that the alternative double carriageway up Park Lane can be constructed without any serious interruption of the internal park carriageway, which can be maintained immune?
    Mr. Birch: The scheme and all the possible alternatives to it are receiving very careful consideration.

    The Mall (Trees)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Works when a start is to be made on the necessary thinning of trees in The Mall and Birdcage Walk.
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Minister of Works if he will make a statement about his proposals for the treatment of trees in St. James's Park.
    Mr. Birch: It is generally agreed that our object should be to get fine avenues of well-grown trees in The Mall. This is impossible with planes planted only 20 ft. apart. The trees will suffer permanent damage if they are cut back much longer. I propose, therefore, in accordance with the recommendations of my Advisory Committee on Forestry, to remove alternate trees from the inner row on each side of the road during the coming winter.
    Wing Commander Bullus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Londoners are very anxious to preserve as many of the trees as possible in their parks? Will he give an undertaking that he will not cut down any trees unless it is absolutely necessary, and then see if we can have others planted in their place?
    Mr. Birch: We are in fact carrying out a big planting programme in the parks. The point about The Mall was that the trees were originally planted close together because they were small and, like any other avenue or wood, they have to be thinned in due course.

    Hotels, London (Departmental Occupation)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Works how many buildings in London originally built as hotels are occupied by Government Departments; and the total number of rooms involved.
    Mr. Birch: So far as I can ascertain there are twelve buildings in London formerly used as hotels which are now held wholly or partly by Government Departments. Of these, six are used as hostels or nurses homes. There are about 2,000 rooms.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the summer tourist season this year revealed a very serious shortage of rooms in London hotels—especially in the West End? Would it not be a more rapid and economic solution to this problem if he were to give up some of the buildings which he is occupying, rather than cause delay by building new hotels?
    Mr. Birch: I believe that I should congratulate the hon. Member upon an auspicious family event. Apart from that, practically none of these buildings is on requisition. Many of the buildings

    843
    have been held for 25 years, and if I gave them up I should have to put up new buildings, which I am not very willing to do at the moment.

    Orangery, Kensington Gardens
    Mr. Royleasked the Minister of Works if he will cause the Orangery, Kensington Palace, to be put to better use than at present for the benefit of visitors to Kensington Gardens.
    Mr. Birch: I am considering this.
    Mr. Royle: Does the Minister agree that it is unfortunate that this fine building is not being put to some use? Will he consider approaching the Arts Council to see whether it would be prepared to hold exhibitions of contemporary art there? I am sure that that would be appreciated at that end of the gardens.
    Mr. Birch: I quite agree that better use can be made of this building. I am advised that it is not very suitable for picture exhibitions, owing to the shape of the panels and the absence of proper heating, but I have some ideas for its use which I should like to discuss with the hon. Member.

    Atomic Energy (Civil Use)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Works whether he will make arrangements to publish the fullest possible figures indicating the economic basis upon which the Government's plan for building atomic power stations has been drawn up; and whether he will include in that information an estimate of the value of the plutonium which will be produced in the atomic reactors.
    Mr. Birch: The hon. Member will find the information for which he asks in the White Paper "A Programme of Nuclear Power" (Cmd. 9389). Information on the value of plutonium from atomic reactors is contained in a paper read to the recent Geneva Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy on behalf of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. I have had a copy put in the Library.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the British Association, Sir Robert Robinson said that the value of the plutonium to be produced
    844
    would be nil and that, therefore, the production of atomic energy would not be economic? Would my right hon. Friend refute that idea?
    Mr. Birch: I think my hon. Friend will find that the paper to which I have drawn his attention is very interesting. In this paper it is concluded that the minimum price of plutonium over the next 20 or 25 years will not sink below several thousand £s per kilogramme.
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Works the policy of Her Majesty's Government for the development of atomic energy for civil purposes in this country; and whether he will make a statement setting out precisely what scope there is and will be for private industry to participate in this field, and how far the development will be retained as a Government monopoly.
    Mr. Birch: Research is the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Authority, under the general control of the Lord President. The Authority is not responsible, however, for the development of atomic energy for civil purposes beyond the stage of the design and trial of new forms of plant and equipment. Commercial development will therefore provide scope for the participation of private industry, or, in the case of the generation of electricity from nuclear power stations, for the electricity authorities and private industry working together.

    PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (BROADCAST DISCUSSIONS)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that information regarding projected Parliamentary business will be withheld by Her Majesty's Government from the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Independent Television Authority until it is announced to the House of Commons.
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Prime Minister what arrangement exists to inform the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority of the nature of Government business to be transacted in the House 14 days in advance in order that they may be

    845
    enabled to comply with the direction to refrain from canvassing such business in their broadcasts.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): As my predecessor in office told the House in February this year, in order that broadcast discussions and ex parte statements may be avoided immediately before a debate in Parliament, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give what information they can if inquiries are made about the likelihood of a debate within a fortnight on any particular subject.
    Sir R. Boothby: Does the Prime Minister's answer mean that he is prepared to give to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. information which he is not prepared to give to the House?
    The Prime Minister: It has long been the practice, and it is now open to any hon. Member, of course, to seek information about future debates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, it is open to every one in this House, through the usual channels, to seek information, if he can get it, about future debates. It is equally in the power of those authorities, if they wish for information, to ask for it. In point of fact, from time to time they do so. There has been no case of information being volunteered to them.
    Mr. Edelman: Would not the Prime Minister agree that all censorship is bad and that an unworkable censorship is the worst of all, since it brings the law into disrepute? In view of the fact that this direction was made behind the back of Parliament, and further that this is the first formal act of political censorship for more than a hundred years, will the Prime Minister not now annul this iniquitous direction?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think I could accept the hon. Gentleman's somewhat extravagant statement in regard to this matter. If it is desired to have this matter discussed in the House, approaches can be made through the usual channels. It seems to me that we do not deal with the matter helpfully by using the language of hyperbole.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is it not a fact that a hundred years ago there were no such things as the B.B.C. or television?

    ROYAL MARRIAGES ACT, 1772
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    LIEUT.-COLONEL LIPTON: TO ask the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to repeal or amend the Royal Marriages Act, 1772.
    Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. I wish to seek your guidance and help, Mr. Speaker. On the Order Paper is Question No. 52, in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), who has deferred the Question on a couple of occasions. In view of the circumstances, could you not, in your capacity as Speaker, appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend to have the decency to withdraw this Question?
    Mr. Speaker: My only real concern is whether the Question is in order or not. It is in order to put a Question down which asks for action, so the hon. and gallant Member's Question is down on the Order Paper.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Do I understand you to say now, Mr. Speaker, that the Question is definitely in order?
    The Prime Minister: I will, with permission, answer this Question.
    I have had this possibility very much in mind. I should, however, warn the House that this Act is of concern, not to the United Kingdom alone, but to all the Commonwealth countries of which Her Majesty is Queen; and amending legislation could not be undertaken here without their concurrence.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Have Her Majesty's Government therefore decided, after considering this Act of 1772 in the light of 1955, that it still provides a useful and necessary weapon of control which Her Majesty's Government at the moment are reluctant to abandon, no matter what personal ordeal is involved for anyone?
    The Prime Minister: In view of the hon. and gallant Member's imputations—which I think they really are—about the Act, I ought to add that the advice of Her Majesty's Government has neither been sought nor given to the Queen during recent events.
    Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. Irrespective of the merits of the Question

    847
    which the Prime Minister has just answered, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, on what grounds the Prime Minister decided to answer Question No. 52 and to by-pass the rest?
    Mr. Speaker: It is entirely a matter for the Prime Minister. I suppose he thought the Question was of sufficient public interest, and he asked my permission to answer it before he did so.
    The Prime Minister: It was a difficult decision to take. This Question has been on the Order Paper for a long time, and as there has been a good deal of speculation about it, and as it has not been withdrawn, I thought it better that it should be answered.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have finished with that Question now. There seems to be no Ministerial responsibility in that matter at all.

  BILL PRESENTED
    HOUSING SUBSIDIES
    Bill to make provision with respect to contributions in connection with housing accommodation, presented by Mr. Sandys; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Deedes; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)—[The Prime Minister]:—
The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 175.

Division No. 33.]

AYES

[3.35 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Howard, John (Test)

Aitken, W. T.

Deedes, W. F.

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

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

Digby, S. Wingfield

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Alport, C. J. M.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Anstruther-Gray, Major W.J.

Duthie, W. S.

Hurd, A. R.

Armstrong, C. W.

Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick & L'm'tn)

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

Ashton, H.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Hyde, Montgomery

Atkins, H. E.

Errington, Sir Eric

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Baldwin, A. E.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Iremonger, T. L.

Balniel, Lord

Fell, A.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Banks, Col. C.

Fisher, Nigel

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Barber, Anthony

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Barlow, Sir John

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Barter, John

Fraser, Sir lan(M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Freeth, D. K.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Bevlns, J. R. (Toxteth)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Bldgood, J. C.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Kaberry, D.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Glover, D.

Keegan, D.

Bishop, F. P.

Godber, J. B.

Kerr, H. W.

Black, C. W.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Kershaw, J. A.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Gough, C. F. H.

Kirk, P. M.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Gower, H. R.

Lagden, G. W.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Braine, B. R.

Green, A.

Leather, E. H. C.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gresham Cooke, R.

Leavey, J. A.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Grimond, J.

Leburn, W. G.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

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

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

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Gurden, Harold

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

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Campbell, Sir David

Hare, Hon. J. H.

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

Carr, Robert

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

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

Cary, Sir Robert

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Longden, Gilbert

Channon, H.

Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfd)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Chichester-Clarke, R.

Heath, Edward

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Cole, Norman

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

MoKibbin, A. J.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Crouch, R. F.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Dance, J. C. G.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Maddan, Martin

Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

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

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

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

Marlowe A. A. H.

Profumo, J. D.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Marshall, Douglas

Ralkes, Sir Victor

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Mathew, R.

Ramsden, J. E.

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

Maude, Angus

Redmayne, M.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Mawby, R. L.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

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

Remnant, Hon. P.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Renton, D. L. M.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Molson, A. H. E.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Moore, Sir Thomas

Robertson, Sir David

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Roper, Sir Harold

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Vosper, D. F.

Neave, Airey

Russell, R. S.

Wade, D. W.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Wall, Major Patrick

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Sharples, Maj. R. C.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Shepherd, William

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

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

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)

Osborne, C.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Page, R. G.

Soames, Capt. C.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Speir, R. M.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Partridge, E.

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'g'tn, s.)

Wood, Hon. R.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Woollam, John Victor

Peyton, J. W. W.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Storey, S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Pott, H. P.

Stuart, R. Hon. James (Moray)

Mr. Oaksbott and

Powell, J. Enoch

Studholme, H. G.

Colonel J. H. Harrison

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Grey, C. F.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mahon, S.

Awbery, S. S.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hamilton, W. W.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Baird, J.

Hannan, W.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Balfour, A.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Mason, Roy

Bartley, P.

Hastings, S.

Mellish, R. J.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Hayman, F. H.

Mitchison, G. R.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Monslow, W,

Beswick, F.

Herbison, Miss M.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Blackburn, F.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Hobson, C. R.

Mort, D. L.

Blyton, W. R.

Holman, P.

Moss, R.

Boardman, H.

Holmes, Horace

Moyle, A.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

Hoy, J. H.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Bowles, F. G.

Hubbard, T. F.

Oliver, G. H.

Boyd, T. C.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Oram, A. E.

Brock way, A. F.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Oswald, T.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Owen, W. J.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hunter, A. E.

Padley, W. E.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Paget, R. T.

Carmichael, J.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Champion, A. J.

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Clunie, J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Parker, J.

Coldrick, W.

Janner, B.

Paton, J.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Peart, T. F.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Popplewell, E.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Pryde, D. J.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Reeves, J.

Deer, G.

Kenyon, C.

Reid, William

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Dodds, N. N.

King, Dr. H. M.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Donnelly, D. L.

Lawson, G. M.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Edelman, M.

Ledger, R. J.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Ross, William

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Royle, C.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Fernynough, E.

Lewis, Arthur

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Fienburgh, W.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Logan, D. G.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Freeman, Peter

McGhee, H. G.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

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

McGovern, J.

Skeffington, A. M.

Gibson, C. W.

Mclnnes, J.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

McLeavy, Frank

Sorensen, R. W.

850

851

Steele, T.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Williams Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Warbey, W. N.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Stross, Dr.Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

Watkins, T. E.

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Winterbottom, Richard

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield))

West, D. G.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Thornton, E.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Short.

Timmons, J.

Willey, Frederick

EDUCATION SCOTLAND
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
3.46 p.m.
Mr. A. Woodburn: We meet today under the shadow of a great loss to Scotland. Hector McNeil, whose presence we miss on these benches, was one of the most popular Members of the House. He was a hard hitter in debate, but his gift of warm friendliness made him a favourite on all sides. I know of nobody else who was on first-name terms with so many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. The House has been deprived of one of its most valued and able colleagues. Our greatest loss is that of a friend who always evidenced glowing sympathy for those in distress, and a kindliness to friend and foe alike. I am quite sure that we all mourn his death. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Today, we are to discuss the question of education in Scotland, which, compared with the heat of the debates of the last two or three days, seems to be a passing into the cool waters of reason. The transition from Budget discussion to education debate will, I hope, bring forth more light and less heat. An electric bulb, I believe, produces light in inverse ratio to the amount of heat it gives out; if the heat is reduced there is more light. Perhaps we may be able to do that in discussing education.
It may be thought that education is much less important than Budgets, but so far as our future prosperity is concerned education is perhaps the most important element in our planning for the next generation. The Government, of course, have always taken the view, politically, that they do not believe in planning. It would be a most extraordinary thing if education was not planned; that what a child was to learn, and what was to be
852
done with the child after it left school, was left just to chance. The Government are, however, proposing very important changes, and I hope that most hon. and right hon. Members have studied the circular of 23rd July, which is closely concerned with the problems arising from the relationship of education to our economic conditions.
In this debate we are considering how the generations coming after us are to be educated so as to fit in with this new electronic and atomic age. As far as I can see, what has been lacking so far is any comprehensive purpose or comprehensive scheme that gives us, and the teachers, a clue to what we are eventually seeking. Scotland, unfortunately, has no raw materials to sell to the world. She has only brains, skill, service, enterprise and the enjoyment of beauty. Complacency in facing our problems will certainly lead to decay. They must be tackled with a purpose. But if the purpose of education and its connection with life is clear, I am satisfied that it can inspire both the pupils and the teachers. Any patchwork arrangement is sure to breed confusion.
There are a great many physical requirements in connection with education, and many of these will be discussed during this debate. Buildings and equipment are, of course, of tremendous importance. The hygienic arrangements for schools may not at first appear to have much to do with education, but when we read in the Press that in one school there is only one wash-hand basin for about 450 children, it does not make it very easy to provide comfort and cleanliness.
These are troubles that we have inherited. With the tremendous problems which have faced us since the war, and still face us, it may not be easy to deal with these troubles promptly, but I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland is keeping in mind this question of cleanliness and such problems as that of

853
children on a cold frosty day trying to dry their hands on a wet towel. That sort of thing has a disheartening effect generally, and if something could be done to help I am sure that it would promote better relations in the schools. It may be that, as in the nursery schools, parents could supply their children with towels if proper arrangements were made for them to be looked after. These are small things but cumulatively they are of great significance in the general make-up of a school.
For years we have debated the subject of smaller classes. I am especially interested in the use of school feeding for the teaching of good manners. During the Recess I have been watching some of the television programmes, including one which brings the Armed Forces abroad to our firesides, "Requests from the Forces" it is called. What struck me on hearing some of our Scots lads speaking on the television is the great difficulty they have in finding words to express themselves. I think there is in our schools a lack of this kind of intercourse, and an inability to deal with other people and speak with them.
While we may not be deficient in this respect in the Scottish Grand Committee, many of our Scots lads and girls seem to be handicapped in finding words to express themselves. This might have been a great tragedy if it had not been for Robert Burns. Half the Scots would never have been able to make love, because they have only got Robert Burns' words to say what they could not otherwise say themselves. We are lacking in the ability of emotional expression. True, we have managed and we have pushed on. We have succeeded in some way.
I read in "The Bulletin" that when school children go to Turriff and Ardmiddle to do their mothers' shopping, there is a special smile for them from the shopkeepers because evidently the school cleaner and meal server at their school, Mrs. Elizabeth Mitchell, puts the children on their best behaviour and makes them observe and practise good manners in the school. I have always believed that it is a mistake to treat school feeding merely as a matter of stuffing children with more food. It is one of the most important elements in
854
teaching good manners, friendliness and hygiene, and it ought to be so utilised.
I must admit that one of the difficulties of education is its dual purpose. We are trying, on the one hand, to educate and train the children to play their part in the industrial life of the nation. On the other hand, there is the other aspect of education, where we try to develop the cultural capacity and ability of the individual. These things come into conflict, and I think that most parents' first desire is to see that children leave school with the chance of getting the best job. That means that the teachers have to concentrate on preparing children to jump through the hoops of certain examinations because if they fail they will be handicapped in their careers. When teachers are pressed to concentrate on this aspect of education, obviously to some extent the other type of education—the development of good manners, culture and the love of knowledge—will suffer.
We must train people for industry, offices and the technical professions. These branches of training seem to fall into different classes of schools, and at once we find class distinction between one school and another. It is to be regretted that we cannot get rid of these class distinctions in our time, so that children will learn at school that when they go into normal life they will all be part of a great community and that whatever part they play, every person will be giving valuable service to his community, whether as a leader of industry or a worker on the grimy soil of the land.
The individual must try to speak and write correctly. I have tried to impress upon the education authorities the necessity for giving children more opportunity of expression. For years I have insisted that there is far too much suppression in the ordinary schools and too little expression. I think that children learn far better by doing things than by having things thumped at them. The more that education can be combined with activity the more the education becomes interesting and the more will the co-operation of the children be ensured. However, these are questions rather of the higher flights of education.
We are faced today with the fundamental problem of prosperity and the necessity to provide education to make it possible for Britain to enjoy prosperity.

855
The Minister of Education put the matter very clearly recently when he said:
"We have to shape our education system so that we can meet the call for a very large number of trained men and women who will support the top flight scientists and make possible the application of their discoveries to commercial and useful purposes. We cannot afford to waste a single boy or girl who may by ability and hard work, acquire technical skill, whether of a humble or a high nature."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 600.]
Those are the dimensions of the urgency of this problem.
The circular issued by the Secretary of State in July, which I recommend to every hon. Member, may have a similar purpose, but I have a feeling that it is not linked up with that purpose and that the connection between it and the great problem which we have to face is not brought closely enough to the attention of the teachers. I hope that there is some method by which the teachers and education authorities can be persuaded to read that circular and give effect to it.
I hope that the Secretary of State with his great authority, will consider giving a lead to Scotland to step boldly into this new atomic, chemical and electronic age, and show how Scottish education is to be geared to provide our youngsters with the opportunity of playing their part. There are great opportunities in this age not only for working but for leadership. Our population has certain attributes and a love of education which is traditional and which could be drawn upon with great advantage.
The Appleton Committee has reported its concern about the shortage of science and mathematics teachers but in his own report the Secretary of State devotes most of the first 23 pages to what seems to be the weakest rung in our educational ladder, the primary schools. I am very glad that he has arranged for panels of teachers to study the booklet on "The Primary School in Scotland." Some of the work which the Educational Advisory Committee of Scotland did was very fine indeed, and the reports which it has published could take us a long way towards improved education in general. The report on the primary school is of great importance, and I believe that if teachers realised that this is what is wanted of them great progress could be made.
856
It was urged upon me when I was Secretary of State that I should abolish home lessons altogether. From the point of view of the kind of home lessons which have been the custom in the past, there was certainly an argument for abolishing them. Those lessons kept a child to his desk after he went home and kept him doing lessons. I have seen a child weeping over the table because he did not know what the problem was about.
But I emphasised that home lessons need not be of that character at all. The idea of a project in which the child is sent out to do a job, with a sense of adventure, enlists the co-operation of the child. If teachers would use their imagination to give children that kind of task, which has to be educative and interesting, the children would, for instance, investigate their own town or its environs and do work which would automatically provide them with both interest and education and would stimulate their personal initiative and responsibility.
If there is one advantage which the public schools have over the ordinary school in Scotland it is that they train boys and girls to undertake personal responsibility for doing things on their own. If we could do more of that in our ordinary schools, then the standards of the primary school would increase considerably. I recognise that when we come to the Higher School Leaving Certificates pupils must get down to hard study. There is no getting away from that. The Secretary of State's own conclusion is very serious. He says:
"A more definite break with traditional class teaching is imperative if both the ablest and least able pupils are to have full justice done to them."
The word "class" is used in the sense of the classroom. A few moments ago I was talking about the other sort of class.
I wish the Secretary of State every success. If he can get that point of view brought into the educational system he will have done a good deal. It is a pity that circumstances prevent us from developing the nursery schools far more. Anyone who has been in nursery schools and seen the effect on the children when they come under the influence of education at a very early age will regret that this system cannot be extended to more children. It not only educates the children but has a powerful effect on educating the mothers. Some of the results of

857
nursery school teaching have been remarkable. I wish hon. Members could visit some of the schools in Edinburgh, where they have been developed perhaps to a greater extent than almost anywhere else.
Sometimes children learn wrong things before they go to school, and it takes a long time at school before they "unlearn" them. It would be better if they did not learn such things in the first place. It would save time afterwards. Unless we nurse the early roots of education with care we cannot expect to have the glorious blooms we want.
It is obvious that much teaching is wasted because the children's ability to read is insufficiently developed. Research on educability was carried out by Professor MacLellan in the Dundee Research Organisation and his report was published while I was Secretary of State. In the study of arithmetic, for example, it was discovered that many children failed in arithmetic not because they could not count but because they could not understand the terms put to them. They did not grasp the meaning of such terms as "subtract" and "divide." The use of simple and clear terms is essential to understanding other problems. Unless children understand the words, and they are simple, many children may fail to realise to the full their innate capacity.
It is the fact that children do not understand which makes them want to leave education. I have had long experience in adult education. At the beginning it was a problem to persuade adults to accept more education. Their idea of education was what had been stuffed into them at school and wild horses would not drag them back for more. That is an awful reflection on what happened in the schools in the old days. Children leaving school were glad to be rid of it.
Our problem is to make them interested in education, and if we are to succeed and to get the best from our children and to have children wanting the best education, we must capture their enthusiasm and imagination. That is not an easy job. People are paid very high salaries, and others are now to spend millions on commercial television, in order to capture the interest and imagination of the public. That kind of public appeal is no less necessary, in some ways, for the children.
858
We must advertise efficiently to get the children to buy our education.
Of course, we cannot do that unless we get the teachers. If teachers are to be harassed and to work against the collar all the time they will not have the time, the energy or the heart to inspire the children. I have seen great variations in teachers. I visited a potato-lifting area. There, I found, on a wet day, teachers in one hostel standing about smoking while the children miserably tried to pass the time. On the same day I saw another hostel where a teacher—a science teacher, born and bred in Bridgeton—had the children all busy working out scientific experiments and making all sorts of gadgets. He had introduced a spirit of adventure. These children would have been willing to make spacemen's suits, without the slightest difficulty, if he had asked them. His pupils did not want to leave the potato lifting to go back to Glasgow because they were so interested. This teacher had not forgotten his boyhood. He could still think as a boy and get the interest of the children.
That capacity is needed, and not every teacher has it. I think that some of the people who are appointed as psychological advisers—in the case of ladies, so that the children can sob on their bosoms—might do a useful job in seeking out the children who are not interested in education and seeing whether they can discover the reason. Personal interviews of that kind might possibly do more good than allowing children to concentrate on their adolescent emotions. It may be diverting these people a little to something more important.
The great problem among teachers, of course, is in the higher ranks in mathematics and science. I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether he has any report to make on the negotiations which are taking place with the teachers about the problems of the science and mathematics staff. I understand that there is a possibility of discussing higher salaries, which may make some contribution, but in the long run it is not a solution, because more people want graduates today than there are graduates leaving the universities. A mere auction sale which will send them backwards and forwards between industry and the schools will not add one graduate to the number available. As far as we know the reservoir is

859
not equal to the demand. I think that is generally agreed.
There are, perhaps, one or two solutions. One is to get more children to continue at school. The circular which the Secretary of State issued is very accurate in its summing up. I cannot remark on the conclusions it gives but there is one conclusion which I must note. There are still 100 per cent. of the children being trained for the universities, whereas 95 per cent. of them will never go there. I think the time has come when the universities should co-operate with, and not just dictate to, education authorities about the curriculum. The universities must take into account that industry is not run by graduates alone and that unless the other workers are equally intelligent to carry out what the scientists are deciding or planning we shall never succeed as a country.
It ought to be possible to harmonise those educational requirements with the work that has to be done in industry and in the country. I am afraid that there is still a little too much of the Latin-Greek complex preventing full co-operation between industry and university. I am not against "culture," but I am opposed to its domination preventing a proper relationship between university curricula and the curricula of our schools.
There are other proposals, such as those which the Appleton Committee recommend. Are we to stop tightening the test or to slacken the test? So far as we can see standards required of the entrants to universities and for graduates has been getting tighter and tighter. If we accept the fact that people have a certain innate capacity and there are all sorts of levels of that capacity, as the restriction is tightened fewer and fewer will get through. We ourselves are automatically restricting the number of graduates we require by continually tightening the requirements.
Unless it is to be argued that tightening the requirements improves people's brain capacity and that in the next generation we shall get more people of that type of brain, I cannot see any hope in this at all. It is Darwinism turned upside down, because the number of years it takes to improve the species that way is about one million and that will not solve our problem. The Appleton Report says:
860
"It is our view that, while each profession should attract entrants of the highest ability, many professions should enlarge their lower ranks with persons of less ability than those they seek to recruit at present."
A tremendously important part of the problem is that we are not making the right use of the graduates we have. Many graduates are doing jobs which call for less than their capacity. There should be a survey of graduates and of their use. At one time I had requests that probation officers should be made graduates. I suggested that it was probably the graduates' salary they wanted, not the qualification. Naturally, that is the case, but where there is a scarcity of graduates it is wrong when they are capable of doing the higher jobs that they should be doing the lower jobs.
I agree with the Appleton Report. We are losing a fair number of teachers because there is not enough flexibility. Recently, I came across a young lady who took every subject but French for her degree. The professor advised her to go to France and study. She did so and came back, but failed again when she had another go at it. I am satisfied that that girl, with her experiences in France, has probably more facility with French than 70 per cent. of the others who got through the examination merely by swotting, and that she would have made a good teacher because she is qualified in the other subjects. But she has gone into a big department store at a considerable salary.
I wonder whether we are losing many people by being too wide in our demands that they must be expert in so many subjects. Is it possible that some people are good mathematicians and not necessarily good linguists and that people can be good scientists but cannot master German or French? These are matters which should be very carefully analysed. Have the Government examined the problem and come to any conclusion? Are they to enlarge the reservoir and bring in more of those capable of higher learning and going to university? In Scotland, we have complaints from the students that the allowances at university are insufficient. We had one from the university in Glasgow this morning. These allowances are now a deterrent to young men and women carrying out their university course. What are the plans of the Government; what are they doing about it? Are they taking steps to ensure that

861
graduates are properly used and that good use is made of their various abilities?
Our main failure is to use the interests of the pupils. Here, I believe, television has great possibilities. By its use it is easier to understand facts and figures and a month's concentration of study in an intricate problem can be brought to a person's mind by these wonderful visual aids in a matter of a few minutes. Mathematics is a difficult subject, but it can be taught much better by means of television than by wireless. It is easier for people to concentrate with their eyes than with their ears. People grasp things immediately when they see them, whereas it may take a long time to understand by hearing about them. A great deal more use should be made of television.
The Secretary of State should urge on the B.B.C. and I.T.A. not to waste a lot of time on more frivolous stuff during the day, but to use this medium for some hours in getting across some of the more difficult problems. Teachers trying to teach mathematics and science in lonely outposts in Scotland cannot get the necessary apparatus for the kind of teaching which would be possible by T.V. This is a proper use for T.V. and ought to be brought into the problem of spreading an interest in mathematics and science.
Most children are reading spacemen thrillers. It does not matter where one goes one sees them with spacemen uniforms. Why not get some of the spacemen thriller writers to recruit some of the children for science? The easiest way to understand science is to become really interested. Once that is achieved a teacher can encourage children to take up teaching.
The main problem, in the long run, is to interest the children. We are concerned, of course, about the conditions and status of teachers, but the real material of education is children. We are dealing there with the finest of nature's material—the human brain. People who work on that material are privileged. Those who educate a child are doing a greater work than those who work on any other material that exists. Therefore, it is a privilege to be a teacher and those in the profession who love their work enjoy their life. They have seen products which have brought great credit and honour to them.
862
We require teachers to come into teaching not merely for the salary, but also for the honour. We do not want to deprive them of the salary because we give them the honour, but teachers have suffered a loss in prestige in recent times. Too many people want to become doctors. We want to restore the honour which teachers used to have when the teacher was the man who got the "lad of pairts" and that made him a great man who could look hack to his teacher as the man who helped him on his way, put him in the way of knowledge and helped to develop his capacity. I hope that recruiting by the Secretary of State will have success in what he does, but unless there is inspiration and purpose behind it I am afraid that it may fail.
4.20 p.m.
Major Sir Guy Lloyd: We have listened with rapt attention to an admirable and informative speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), delivered in his very best vein, and with which none of us on this side of the House could, in my judgment, possibly disagree. I am happy to find myself in such general agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the rest of the debate will show this general common agreement between us, which is rather rare in other directions and in other places.
I have no doubt that we shall have the pleasure of hearing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reply in due course. It falls to my lot—and I rarely attempt to catch your eye, Sir, in debate—to say a few words on something about which I am particularly keen and to which, in his closing remarks, the right hon. Gentleman opposite paid some attention himself. I ask him to excuse me if, in my rôle as a back bencher, I do not attempt to follow him in some of the other directions in which he informed us so satisfactorily this afternoon.
I want to speak with a deep feeling of sincerity about what I believe, at any rate, is the apparent effect on the morale, as it will certainly be the effect on the recruitment, of male teachers which, I feel, is almost certainly bound to follow the implementation of the recent draft regulations on teachers' salaries. Already, we have seen that there has been formed a Scottish Schoolmasters' Association,

863
which has broken away from the Educational Institute of Scotland, which has been hitherto the spokesman for teachers throughout Scotland, male and female.
The unity of that organisation, which had been respected by all who were interested in education, which had for long been listened to with respect by Governments of all parties, is now quite definitely, and I think seriously, broken, and, from the point of view of the teaching profession being represented by an association which could represent all and speak with one voice, that is, I think we must all agree, unfortunate. It shows that there is a very grave disgruntlement among male teachers in Scotland at the situation which they feel is developing, or which they fear is developing.
They consider, and I think it would be difficult to deny it, that the E.I.S. is at present overwhelmingly dominated by women. Whether that is a good thing or not I would not argue here; I merely state it as a fact. If it is, it is perhaps not unnatural that some of the male teachers, as they look ahead and see the writing on the wall, are somewhat worried by the fact. Indeed, I think it would be difficult to disagree with those who are in close touch with the position, as I claim to be, that male teachers, rightly or wrongly, are disgruntled at the present time.
To some extent, all the teaching profession is rather disgruntled, but by and large this disgruntlement and discontent is concentrated at present among the male teachers and schoolmasters rather than the women, who are very satisfied and pleased—and I would not blame the women for being satisfied and pleased—at the fact that equal pay for equal work is to be implemented, even though they doubtless feel that it could have been implemented quicker than the Government propose to do.
The male teachers and schoolmasters, as I understand the matter, feel that the logical corollary of the principle of the Goschen formula is likely seriously to affect their prospects of increased salaries and advancement and promotion in the future. They feel also that their prospects and living standards are seriously retarded at a time when their average salaries have increased since 1951 by only about 5 per cent., and we all know
864
that the cost of living has increased very substantially. Even though the figure is not 5 per cent., the cost of living has gone up a good deal more than their salaries have gone up, as I understand, while industrial wages, salaries and earnings of those in other categories have gone up very considerably more than theirs.
They now feel that women are to receive all the advantages of increased salaries in future, and that there is little prospect that they will get any at all, especially with regard to the Goschen formula, which limits the amount of money which can be spent on education in any case. They fear that there will be far fewer male teachers recruited into the profession. The women may feel that that is a good thing, but there must be many in Scotland who feel that, on the whole, it would be most unfortunate if, in future, our boys have to be taught almost entirely by women.
There are at least some of us who believe that, while women do a magnificent job of work in very difficult circumstances in the schools, none the less there are many boys, of whom, frankly, I was one, who are better for having been taught by men rather than women. Admittedly, it is a matter of opinion, and we can leave those who prefer it so to be taught by women. I am one of those who think that I would rather have a boy of mine taught by a man.
If there are some here who would agree with me about that, there is something in the schoolmasters' contention that the recruitment of male teachers will fall as a result of the development of the Government's plans, and that, I believe, will not be advantageous for the education of our boys in Scotland. I think that we need more men teachers, not fewer. I am fairly sure that schoolmasters are right in their fears that the plans which are being developed will mean fewer male teachers in Scotland. Indeed, there is not much incentive for male teachers to come forward at present into the profession when much higher salaries are being paid for similarly qualified men and men of similar abilities in other activities, in the Civil Service and especially in industry. I cannot but help feeling that it is unfortunate that we have to look forward to that almost inevitable fact.

865
Perhaps my right hon. Friend, or one of his Joint Under-Secretaries, may be able to assure me that my fears are groundless, and that the schoolmasters have no right to think that the recruiting of male teachers will fall in numbers. If so, I shall be delighted, but I am at present very sceptical on the matter.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire has been referring to the Appleton Report, which we have all studied with deep concern and interest. I do not think there would be any difference of opinion on either side of the House about either the importance or the significance of that Report. Those who framed it, Government spokesmen from time to time, as we recall, many trusted leaders of industry, including, I know, two or three leading trade unionists, have all concurred that there is and is likely to be an increasing shortage in the higher grades throughout industry—throughout the nation for that matter—in skill and in technical and scientific knowledge.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite is perfectly right. It is a matter of grave concern for the whole country, but if we are not to be able to get the necessary skill and technique into the teaching profession, mainly among the men, and if we are still likely to be very short—and we are—and if there is little prospect that we shall increase the numbers in that direction, then I fear that all the misgivings of the Appleton Report about the numbers of skilled and technical men in industry and elsewhere are likely to be justified, for these men have to be taught.
If we are to get men to go into industry with the higher skills and techniques, and with scientific and mathematical knowledge, they will all have to be taught. They cannot all be taught in industry; many of them will, in the first instance, have to be taught in the schools. Most of the brighter boys will make their start there and learn to be fascinated with the subjects which they will develop later. I fear very much that we shall find a great shortage in those directions.
I want to turn for a moment to another development which I fear in relation to the draft regulations, and that is that the most important question of being able to get technical teachers in our technical schools and on technical subjects in the
866
schools is likely to be seriously affected by the regulations. I notice that there is to be a reduction in salary for all new teachers in technical schools and on technical subjects in schools, which seems to me to be rather unfortunate and derogatory to this very important branch of the teaching profession.
We need more technical teachers and more technical students. How are we to get them if one of the first things we do is deliberately to lower the salaries of the technical teachers who are coming into the technical profession from now onwards? It is true that those at present there are not having their salaries altered, but I cannot see any justification for deliberately insulting this branch of the profession by lowering the salaries of those entering it in future.
This is presumably in order to make them equal with the women and to satisfy the women in that respect. I have no doubt that there are many women who do fine work in technical education, but I am sure that there is more scope for men in technical education. It seems to me that our need is more men rather than more women in that direction.
I do not wish to be misinterpreted. I do not decry in any way the value of the work which the women are doing. However, I am told authoritatively that a woman teacher of Gaelic, for instance, will get more pay now than many who will in future be teachers on the technical side of the teaching profession. If that is so, I cannot believe that it is something of which the people of Scotland would approve.
I want for a moment to turn to another matter in which for many years I have been deeply interested.
Miss Margaret Herbison: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is turning to another subject, might I put a question to him? In the main, he has deprecated the regulations, and he has referred to the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association, which, I can assure him, was in being many years before the regulations were made.
Mr. Cyril Bence: At least twenty years.
Miss Herbison: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not in favour of the partial rate for the job which the regulations,

867
which I criticise in other ways, will bring about in Scotland, for that is what the tenor of his speech suggested?
Sir G. Lloyd: That is wrong. I thought I had made myself clear. I have nothing whatever against the principle of equal pay for equal work, which has been accepted by both parties in the country and has passed through at least two General Elections without serious dispute. I have always admitted the principle, and in no word that I have had to say have I disputed it. All I was wishing to discuss was its effect as represented by the fears and anxieties of the male teaching profession in Scotland, at any rate a great many of them.
Although it may well be that the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association has existed for a long time, it has succeeded in winning away a great many people from the E.I.S. as a result of their fears about recent developments. I trust that I satisfy the hon. Lady. I am in no way against equal pay, nor do I wish in the slightest degree to put the clock back in that respect. It is only in relation to the consequence upon the male teachers that I am considering it.
To turn to the subject of administration, I am one of those who took part in our proceedings on the last Scottish Education Act, when Mr. Tom Johnston was Secretary of State and chief architect of the Measure which passed with remarkable unanimity among all hon. Members. It is within my recollection, and must be within the recollection of many others who were in the House at the time, that owing to certain circumstances—a General Election was impending, and the war was ending—it was not possible for us to include in the Act many measures relating to the administrative side of education which Mr. Tom Johnston had in mind and which some of us had been discussing as part of the Act.
A long time has elapsed since then, but nothing has been done. It was a lack in the Act. I never doubted that something would be done some day before very long. It was generally admitted at the time that there was no opportunity to go into it then. The subject was a little controversial, and we had a Coalition Government, and it was felt that it would be better to leave it to the future; but
868
surely it was the near future that we had in mind. Now long years have passed, and nobody has said a word.
Are we satisfied with the present administration of our educational system in Scotland? Must it continue as it is for ever when, only a comparatively a few years ago, we were seriously considering its reform and only abandoned the attempt because of the purely exceptional circumstances of the day? If the Government could find time within the next two or three years to grasp that nettle—I do not think it is much of a nettle—they would find a considerable measure of unity between both parties in the House and in Scotland on the matter.
I am sure that the morale of the teaching profession will never be as satisfactory as I should like it to be until we give teachers a greater share and a greater say in education itself on the administrative side. We have the medical profession represented at every stage of the administration in the National Health Service. The teachers are, to all intents and purposes, not represented at all on the administrative side of their profession except for consultative purposes. This is a slur which they have felt for many years. We ought to do something about it and encourage them, for, after all, they are just as expert in their own profession and in their own way as members of other professions are. We should give them an opportunity to share in the administrative side and to be represented by those whom they choose on the administrative side of this great profession.
I hope I have not kept the House too long. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will feel able at least to say why nothing has been done or hinted at and why it is not proposed to do anything about the revision of the administrative side of education in Scotland in the near future.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): Will my hon. and gallant Friend tell me what he means? I do not quite follow him when he talks about changing the administrative system. Does he mean in the detail of the Department's work, or does he mean something more than that?
Sir G. Lloyd: My hon. Friend was in the House when we discussed the composition of education committees and

869
whether or not there was to be co-option, and if so, how much and who was to be co-opted, and all that kind of thing. We discussed the composition of the committees which were to administer education and to what extent local authorities were to be given powers to co-opt and so on.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I should like to be included among those for whom the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) spoke when he expressed the general regret of Scottish Members at the very sad death of Mr. Hector McNeil.
The hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, East (Sir G. Lloyd) has said that he is in favour of equal pay in principle, but he is more doubtful about it in practice. I do not think that having equal pay in principle will satisfy the women. They want to see it at some time put into practice. It is obvious that whenever it is put into practice it will lead to difficulty. The main difficulty that we meet in putting it into practice in education is that women are so much under-paid in various other professions.
I see no reason, merely because men are so much better at doing some things, such as cookery and dress designing, why women should not be granted equal pay for equal work, but I concede that certain safeguards must be introduced. Everyone will agree that women must not become cheap labour, that is to say, an excuse for lowering the pay which either men or women teachers can obtain. If there is any substance in the fears which the hon. and gallant Member expressed, particularly about science and technical teachers, like him I very much hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that those fears are unjustified.
Secondly, I fully appreciate that there are teachers who have responsibilities for families, and so on, and who are in a peculiarly difficult position today. But women as well as men may have family responsibilities, and if there is a case for making it up to those people who have these special responsibilities it would seem to me to apply to both sexes.
I want to speak chiefly about the content and purpose of education in junior secondary schools, but before doing so I should like to say a few words about school building. The tendency lately has been to spend very large sums on new
870
schools and very little, if any, on old schools. There are in my constituency some old school buildings which will not be replaced for many years. Indeed, many do not need to be replaced.
They are essentially sound buildings and will probably last a good deal longer than some of the new prefabricated buildings which have been put up recently, but they require repair and additions, and playgrounds added to them. Above all, some of the school lavatories are an absolute disgrace. I urge the Government to consider whether it would not be worth spending a few hundreds of pounds on some of these old schools, which will be there for some years, and especially to look at the question of the condition of the lavatories in some of the rural schools.
As to the junior secondary schools, first of all, I do not like the name. I think that the name is condemned by the first and second paragraphs of this excellent Report on Junior Secondary Education. The junior secondary school is not a kind of inferior copy of some senior secondary school and we ought to have a new name. The junior secondary school is the final stage of education for a great many children and, therefore, must give a balanced education for life. That is a rather tall order and the first thing that the House should bear in mind is the burden that is placed on school teachers today.
It must have been bad enough to teach in the old days of the three "Rs," but if teachers have to teach everything that is contained in this Report they are wonderful people. Home craft, science, agriculture, fishing, music—there is nothing almost that the secondary school teacher must not be prepared to take up and know something about—
"And still they gazed and still the wonder grew,
That one small head could carry all he knew."
Let us look after these teachers and see that they are reasonably paid. I wonder, too, what chance they have of refreshing themselves and bringing themselves up to date. Suppose a teacher wants to go abroad, which is a perfectly reasonable thing but a very expensive business, or go to a university for six months in a year, has he any means of doing so? I wonder whether the Carnegie Fund foundation might turn its attention to helping teachers

871
in this way as an addition to the other wonderful work it has already done for Scottish education.
Education in the junior secondary schools today differs from the old ideas of Scottish education primarily in two ways. First. it is very much broader: it sets out to be attractive rather than menacing. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire has stressed the efforts that are made to interest children and to draw out their abilities rather than to frighten them into doing work. Secondly, modern education, of course, does much more for the stupid child. In the old days the dominie had to concentrate a great deal on the children whom he thought the cleverest. It is absolutely right that we should offer all children a broad education for life, and it is quite right that we should try to interest them and draw the best out of them and not try to frighten them.
But two deficiencies emerge, not so much from anything wrong with the schools themselves as possibly from the whole system of bringing up children today. Throughout the Report the tendency is to stress the importance of not putting too much on the children. I agree that we are talking about fairly young children but, on the other hand, this is the last stage in their education. I suggest that they should be encouraged to stretch their minds and reach out, to use their abilities to the maximum and possibly indeed to grasp at things which are slightly beyond what their capabilities might seem to warrant. I have come to the conclusion that an external examination would be no bad thing. Everybody dislikes examinations and I confess to changing my mind on this point. I do not want examinations to weed out the cleverest children from the less clever. But as Dr. Johnson said of hanging, an examination wonderfully concentrates the mind.
Mr. Walter Elliot: Dr. Johnson said nothing of the sort. He was speaking of "the prospect" of hanging.
Mr. Grimond: I agree. I should have said "the prospect" of examination.
I read and learned many things because I knew I had to face an examination, things which I never would have learned
872
otherwise. An external examination and some reward for the successful saying "Well done" is no bad thing. I notice today a reluctance in young people to undertake responsibility. I know that I see very small samples and I may be quite wrong, but I think that there is a reluctance to lead and to be singled out from one's fellows. That may be a defect of their virtues. Many people do not want to push themselves forward. I do not want to exaggerate the advantage of so doing, but in the North this is serious.
Today, we find it difficult to get people to take responsibility, to lead and to put themselves forward in new enterprise or to come forward in local government. Voluntary organisations do something to cure this. There are the Boy Scouts and movements of that kind and schools like the Outward Bound Trust, and a great many schoolmasters out of school work very hard in giving voluntary training and encouragement. This is a general difficulty in bringing up children and I do not necessarily blame the secondary schools, but I should like the junior secondary schools to see whether they can rectify this shortcoming to some extent and encourage their pupils to take more responsibility.
Mr. William Ross: Can the hon. Member tell us how he reconciles this desire for an external examination with an equally well phrased desire for brighter curricula, new adventure and experiment, because the one thing that damps experiment is the existence of external examinations?
Mr. Grimond: I am not convinced that that is necessarily so and many schoolmasters agree with me. I agree that if an examination is hung over children like a guillotine it can have a bad effect, but I do not agree, for example, that all university examinations necessarily cramp university education. I bring the matter forward as something which I think now needs some consideration.
There is another defect in the junior secondary system which I want to mention. The system—I do not say the junior secondary schools but the whole system of which they are a part—has, in my area, failed to instil into young pupils a desire to stay in their own districts. And I am afraid that it does not really fit

873
them to do so. There again, many schoolmasters do their best in a private capacity to encourage them and to teach the sort of things which are needed in country districts and in the islands. But the prevailing wind, so to speak, is inclined to blow young pupils away. The magnet is the office desk in the big town.
I do not want to prevent a child from going who really wants to go; but equally, I do not want to see a child who is prepared to stay unable to carry on with a good sound education in his own district. That, I take it, is the object of the junior secondary school. I would suggest that the clue to this is technical education, but not in the very advanced things taught in the general sense. We all know, and have read the Appleton Report on this, that, in general, we are behind in technical education.
I want to say a word about the sort of education needed in the constituency that I represent. I believe that the junior secondary school when it deals with things such as agriculture and fishing has to deal with them in conjunction with a scheme of further education, and, of course, if possible, with apprenticeship schemes. The Shetland County Council is trying to establish a sea school in the country in Shetland and not in the town of Lerwick. That is most important. I hope that it will receive every encouragement. I hope, also, that every encouragement will be given to teaching knitting and weaving. These must be linked to our local industries, I think it is true to say that weaving is taught in only one junior secondary school in the whole of Shetland. There is only one apprentice-weaver and only two further educational courses in agriculture. That is not nearly good enough in a crofting county.
Our further education, at the moment, is a failure. A great many devoted schoolmasters make a success of a particular course, and many people get amusement and some instruction out of these further educational courses, but it is not really on a professional basis, as, I think, the Report shows. I do not think, for instance, that gardening need be taught in a junior secondary school. What I should like to see is professional agriculture, weaving, knitting—so far as my constituency is concerned—navigation, and so on, taught on a really professional
874
basis by fully qualified travelling teachers, so that people can make a living when they leave school.
Mr. Woodburn: In Ross-shire and Aberdeenshire there are agricultural schools which seem to comply with the specifications which the hon. Member is laying down. Is it not a matter for his county council to consider what other people have done?
Mr. Grimond: I know the Ross-shire school very well. I am not sure how successful it is and I do not believe that we can leave this entirely to the local authority. My local authorities are very small ones. To get this on a really professional basis requires a great deal of help and money from the central Government. The whole burden of my point is that it must be on a professional basis. We have to give these people the education which will help them to make a good living in the areas in which they have to live. That can only be done by an integrated system of secondary education, further education and apprenticeship up to a high standard.
I believe that the junior secondary school, apart from its name, has the germs in it of a good education, but I am not certain that it is linked up sufficiently with a well-thought-out scheme of technical education, designed to meet local needs. If all these difficulties were met, I think that it could be developed into a most valuable part of the educational system of this country.
4.54 p.m.
Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) touched on a problem which concerns and worries a large part of Scotland, and I have no doubt that what worries the constituency the hon. Member represents is the roving spirit and the difficulty in persuading young people to continue in contentment the life to which their parents were accustomed. I am not against the spirit of enterprise—far from it. It was the Scots who went abroad and set up industries and enterprises all over the world which have done much good to the progress of the world. At the same time, it is a great problem in the Highlands and Islands, and one which I can understand the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about.

875
In this matter, opinion has changed to a considerable extent. The older generation was content to sit in its islands and find a living there. It thought its home the finest place in the world. That is now tending to change. The older generation's point of view is illustrated by what was said to a friend of mine who went to see an old friend who lived on an island. I think it was the island of Skye. She was the mother of a considerable family and he was asking after the sons. "Where is Angus?" he asked, and the mother replied, "Angus has gone off to some other island, maybe it is Britain." That was the sort of standard she attached to the island of Skye compared with the mainland of Great Britain. I respect that point of view.
It is curious that out of this considerable report so much that has been said already, and so well said by my hon. Friend, should touch on the point, also made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, of this rather vexed and troubled question of equal pay. My hon. Friend has very adequately developed a case which is worrying a number of people quite a bit and, consequently, it will curtail what I was gong to say to a considerable extent.
I should, however, like to add to what he has said. The Schoolmasters' Association, in the views which they represented to the Educational Institute of Scotland, pleaded, or made a case, for some system of family and dependants' allowances where these were applicable. I do not think that they would object, nor, indeed, would I, to these family and dependants' allowances being paid to either a male or female teacher where it was clearly shown that the female teacher was equally entitled. But the final regulations, as I understand them, make no such provision. As my hon. Friend said, there is a general shortage of teachers throughout Scotland, and as he developed his argument it seemed to me to be clear that, as things stand just now, unless some sort of further provision is made, we shall aggravate that shortage of teachers, certainly of the male sex.
I should like to say a little on this question of equal pay in general. The law of the country, so far as I can see it, still recognises the man to be the breadwinner. It imposes on his shoulders
876
responsibilities for the family such as have not yet reached, at any rate in the majority of cases, the shoulders of women. There is a bias in the direction of saying that in family life the man is the leader and has greater responsibilities. An example of that is the very rare number of cases where a woman is called upon to pay alimony; and who has heard of a man either bringing or succeeding in a breach of promise case? That is an unfortunate and unhappy piece of legislation which many of us would like to see taken away.
There is still inherent in British law that conception of things. If that responsibility, leadership, and "breadwinner-ship," if I may coin a word, is still regarded as being the man's, then surely the salary should take that into account. If the equal salary, with no provision for dependants and family, is in fact to be fixed on a basis for a woman, it will then be too little, if we add in those responsibilities, to attract the men. If, on the other hand, it is fixed for both sexes on the basis of a man, it will be more than need to be paid to a woman who has not got those responsibilities.
I think that this agitation for equal pay is very dangerous to women. I am going a little outside the field of education for a moment, because I would like them to realise where this may lead. In industry, if the demand goes as far as that, I think that ultimately they may work themselves completely out of jobs. Because—and it is no criticism of women; indeed, it is something which one must admire and be proud of—the average woman intends, after she has spent some time in her job or in industry, to get married and have a family.
However, any industrialist will say that both with men and with women the first year or so is really unprofitable. The man and the woman are learning their jobs. He will add, however, that where he employs a man there is a greater probability, once he has lost some money in allowing him to learn his job in the first two years, of getting that value back in the subsequent years, whereas in the case of a woman that employment may well be, and generally is, rather short-lived. So that if this demand for equal pay goes on and spreads to industry, women may easily find themselves, in a time when there is less full employment than there is now,

877
prejudicing their own chances of getting employment.
I wanted to say this because, apart from what I have been saying about industry, these are broadly the views which are held by the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association. They complain bitterly that the views which they wanted to represent have not been taken into account. Rightly or wrongly, they say that this is due to the fact that in the teaching profession only 34 per cent. of the members are men and 66 per cent. are women.
As I close, I do not want it to be thought that I am not an advocate of equal pay, but I am only an advocate of it when all the responsibilities of each sex, and indeed as between the members of each sex, are taken into account, and when the true value of their continuing employment has been calculated, and when the law recognises in all its forms equality before that law.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison) will forgive me if I confess that I did not fully understand his argument, any more than I understood the argument of his predecessor, the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, East (Sir G. Lloyd). As far as I could make out, both are enthusiastically in favour of the principle of equal pay and both take the strongest objection to advancing towards it.
Mr. Hutchison: May I put the hon. Gentleman right? I said I was in favour of equal pay with a calculation for equal responsibilities; that is to say, something like family or dependants' allowances added to the statutory pay.
Mr. James Carmichael: That is the case of the Educational Institute of Scotland.
Mr. Thomson: As my hon. Friend points out, this is the case of the Educational Institute of Scotland. I have no doubt that the problems of applying equal pay are many and complicated. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) mentioned some of them, but if we draw differences of responsibility between one sex and another, we must also begin to draw differences of responsibility within the
878
sexes, and we normally take account of those by the Income Tax mechanisms rather than by the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman.
In any case, surely the point is that the principle of equal pay is important, and therefore it is important to make the best possible progress towards it. The attitude that has been expressed from the benches opposite tonight is not one that is likely to encourage very much progress towards applying the principle of equal pay. However, I think that the speeches made by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and gallant Friend underline two important aspects of education.
We had from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) one of his characteristically able and characteristically passionate speeches on the content of education. There is a great deal of educational work and of educational theory which is common ground between parties in this House. We may have our differences about various ideas but they are not differences that coincide with party lines, and that is a good thing.
But of course there are also attitudes towards education in which there are different outlooks on the two sides of this House, and that is also, as it should be, because education is closely linked with the kind of society that we are trying to build, and naturally there should be differences in outlook between the Conservative side of the House and the Socialist side of the House on that question, differences that are bound to reflect themselves in the kind of educational structure that we want in the country.
In the short time at my disposal I want to draw attention to the long way we still have to go in creating real equality of opportunity in this country for our children. We all of us, everywhere in the House, agree with the general principle of equality of opportunity, but we often forget just how long a distance there is to go, even though we have made progress of which we can be rightly proud.
The case for real equality of opportunity rests on two premises, one the individual and the other one the community interest. In the first case we want to give all children an equal opportunity of developing their own personalities and potentialities. We do not believe, of

879
course, that children are all of equal capacity and ability, but we believe profoundly that all children are of equal worth. This sounds a platitude, but when we come to execute it in educational policy, we begin quickly to get differences of approach. As soon as we begin to argue about raising the school leaving age, many people will say, "It is not worth while for so-and-so to be kept at school an extra year," but, by and large, we do not find well-to-do parents in the community discussing whether it is worth while to keep a child at school for a year or two or three years beyond the statutory school leaving age. It is taken as normal that those with a reasonable level of income provide their children with that extended education. That is what I mean when I say that we should not regard it simply as a platitude that children ought to be looked at as being of equal worth.
The other case for equality of opportunity is the case which my right hon. Friend was advancing in his opening speech. It is tremendously important—indeed, it may be vital to our survival as a nation—that we give the community access to the potential ability of all of its children. The greatest wealth in this country today is the potential skill of our children, whether it be skill lying in their brains or in their hands. We must do all we can to develop that skill and to make it available to the community but, as we all know, there is still far too great a degree of wastage of that skill.
It has been calculated by most of the expert committees who have considered this matter that, for instance, we could double the number of children in Scotland who pass the higher leaving certificate each year. We could get a substantial increase in the educated manpower of the community if we could avoid some of this wastage. I submit that some of the wastage is still due to the class barriers remaining in education. They still stultify and strangle the educational opportunity of our children.
Let me give one example. In Scotland we are proud of our educational tradition. We are proud of the fact that our desire for equality of opportunity in Scotland goes back a long time before it began to exist in England in the same way. It goes back to the time of John Knox.
880
In passing, I must confess that I felt that an appropriate title for the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen opposite might be that of John Knox's famous pamphlet "A Trumpet Blast against the Monstrous Regiment of Women." But that is by the way. The point I am making is that our educational tradition is a very old one.
But alas, in some respects, nowadays we are lagging behind England. I do not think it is generally appreciated in Scotland that in the Education Acts of 1944 and 1945, whereas England completely abolished fees for all State education, we in Scotland did not do so. We left this to the discretion of the local authorities. The Secretary of State has argued with me across the Table at Question Time that this is admirable, that this is the kind of discretion that we should leave to the local authorities.
I submit that the question of whether there is an entrance fee into schools, the question of whether entry into a school shall be decided on the income of the parent rather than on the ability of the child, is not a matter that can be left to the discretion of the local authorities. It is a matter of national principle in education, just as much as the setting of the age at which one enters or leaves school. It promotes rather stupid, petty and rather senseless snobberies. So many parents feel that they are buying their children's education. But of course they are not buying it; they are only paying an entrance fee into the school. It is only a small percentage of the cost of the education.
I have looked up the figures for Dundee High School, a school of great distinction, in my constituency. The parents, who make great sacrifices to send their children there, pay only two-fifths of the cost of the education of their children. It would be a notable advance if in Scotland we were to take the step of abolishing fees for State education. I do not expect this proposition to be sympathetically received by the Front Bench opposite, because there is a difference of outlook here between the two sides of the House, but it is important to recognise that if we are to seek real equality of opportunity, we shall not have it until that kind of barrier is removed.
I am not suggesting that its removal by itself would make any great advance towards real equality; it is very easy to

881
overstate its importance. The difficulties that lie in the way are greater and more fundamental than that. The Registrar-General, in his various censuses, provides a social scale by which we can measure the status of people in the community. In 1947 a Scottish mental survey was taken and has been widely quoted in educational circles outside Scotland.
The Scottish mental survey measured the intelligence of children in relation to their place on the Registrar-General's social scale and it discovered that of the most intelligent children, two-thirds came from working-class families. But when looking at the universities today, despite the very great progress we have made in opening their doors and making our universities more accessible to ability, we still find that only about one-fifth of the children come from working class homes. This is a measure of the kind of discrepancy that we must work to correct. It is a long-term aim but it is important to recognise the extent of the gap which still exists.
Much of the discrepancy is due to inherent obstacles in the social conditions of our own community. The problems of society cannot be solved in the schools—the two interact upon each other; but especially when the Government are deciding, as they are at present, economic policy issues it is important to recognise this interaction between the general social conditions and the chance for children to have real equality of opportunity.
I do not think that what is needed today is another Education Act. It would be much more to the point if, for instance, we could provide more equal housing conditions. As we all know, the child from a fairly comfortable home, with books around him and whose family is familiar with habits of learning, finds it much easier to get on in school, especially as the years go by, than the child who comes from a room and kitchen and has to do homework in an overcrowded slum.
Therefore, I warn the Government that their policy of raising council rents, for instance, is an act of educational policy that may well prevent many working class children who have the necessary ability from getting on to the fifth or sixth year at the secondary school. Many parents who live in a room and kitchen may be offered council houses, but when
882
the subsidy is slashed the rent will be too high for them and they must decide that they cannot afford the decent living conditions. Consequently, they remain where they are and the children leave school at the age of 15 or 16 instead of going on. It is important to recognise this close relationship which exists between general social policy and our chances of really making available to the community the potential ability of its children.
In passing, and going from the general to the particular, I hope that one piece of alleviation of the problem of housing conditions in relation to children of ability will be the provision of homework facilities for children by opening the schools and persuading some of the teachers to come back after school hours. This would provide preparation facilities for children whose home conditions do not permit of their doing homework.
I have been speaking mainly of the need to allow working class children of ability to get on to university level. In this connection, I wish to make one point about university facilities in Scotland. Recently, the House dealt with a Bill reorganising St. Andrews University, a matter which interests me because part of the university lies within my constituency. I am very keen indeed to see university education flourish in the city of Dundee, but the problem of St. Andrews University is more than anything else a problem of an adequate supply of students.
Both Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities are crowded, whereas St. Andrews University, in both St. Andrews and Dundee, lacks sufficient students. The lectures in Glasgow University are practically public meetings. One gets the situation where, in the words of the old phrase, the lectures pass from the notebook of the lecturer to the notebooks of the students without going through the mind of either. That is the situation in a mass university like Glasgow or Edinburgh. It would be much more sensible in the Scottish national interest if there was an attempt at planning the distribution of university students. This necessitates enrolling the co-operation of local education authorities and persuading them to give grants to send children to universities other than those on their doorsteps. We all understand the

883
motives of local patriotism which are involved and also the financial considerations, because sometimes more money would be needed to send a child away from home. I think, however, it is worth spending the money to make the fullest use of our university facilities; and it is also a good thing in university education for young people to be away from home a bit and to enjoy the corporate life of a university away from their own homes. I commend that suggestion to the Secretary of State.
I have dealt mainly with the problem of allowing working class children to reach university or professional level when their abilities entitle them to that kind of education. But that is only a small part of the educational problem that faces us and it is only a small part of the problem of allowing children to develop their own potentialities and of allowing the community to use their services.
It is also very important that we should expand the kind of educational work that I was most interested to hear described by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It is desirable more and more to link education for the non-academic child with the kind of work that the child will do, in order to afford a real interest and impact between the two. I am keenly interested in the Dundee Trades College and am glad that the Secretary of State recently announced that a new building would be provided.
I remember visiting the college and being told by one of the teachers that what impressed him about teaching was that the boys who came, often after a final year at school, where they had been bored and fed up, were reluctant to come back into a classroom, but that once they got there they found that the kind of work they did was exciting; as they discovered the work of learning was adventurous, they became very keen. With some children, I was told, there are only two occasions in their educational life when they are really happy at school; this was an exaggeration, but it makes my point. The first occasion is when they are in the nursery school, and the second is when they go into the pre-apprentice school. Certainly, there is a tremendous field for experiment in the pre-apprenticeship trade schools, and I hope that we will extend them as fully as we can.
884
If we attempted to establish an educational system in which children could develop their own potentialities, we would be faced acutely with the problem of the framework of that education. If children are to get an education according to their capabilities, there is a real danger of the children becoming segregated according to their capabilities. In place of the problems of class structure which I have been pointing out, there would be the equal dangers of intellectual segregation, intellectual snobbery and that sort of thing. It is for that reason that on this side of the House we are especially interested in experimenting with comprehensive schools.
There are, of course, already a number of comprehensive schools in Scotland. I myself attended one during my own school days. But in the kind of social democratic society which we want to build, and on the basis of which exists Britain's only chance of survival, we have to have a school system which provides a common school life for our children. It will be a system in which according to their different abilities they can mix together and get to know each other and respect different qualities, so that they may no longer feel that someone who works with his jacket off and in his braces is inferior to a person who sits at a desk and answers a telephone. That is the basic problem which we have to face. It is long-term, but it is a problem that will never be worked out except within the terms of Government educational policies.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. Douglas L. S. Nairn: I shall be briefer than I might have been, because a great deal of what I want to say has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Sir G. Lloyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Mr. G. R. H. Hutchison). The problem which faces us is so important that too much emphasis cannot be laid upon it. That problem can be expressed in one sentence: School teaching today is not attracting into its ranks either sufficient men or men with the necessary qualifications and character as it did in the past, and those men of high qualifications and character who entered it in past years today are disturbed and fearful of what the future may hold for them.

885
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be able to produce statistics which would show, or tend to show, that that is not correct. But statistics can give a very false impression, especially when they are drawn from figures which must be a year old and when related to the future. All of us who have gone into this question will know that my statement of the problem which faces us is in no way exaggerated.
As has been said already, this does not apply to women. To them teaching is as attractive a profession as ever and is getting in its ranks women of the highest quality and qualifications. And the implementation of the principle of equal pay has done a great deal to encourage them. But we would be shutting our eyes to the true situation if we failed to note that the implementation of equal pay has greatly disturbed many of the male teachers. That is not because they are jealous of their women partners in education. They fully appreciate the great part that women teachers play. It is because they fear that the implementation of that principle has pushed almost beyond the horizon any possibility of their getting an increase in their salary which would enable them not only to take their rightful place in the community, but would ensure the constant flow of the right men into the profession.
I have said that in present conditions teaching is an attractive proposition for women, but I ask them, if the implementation of equal pay should in the future lead to fewer schoolmasters, or less efficient schoolmasters, would they then like to contemplate the task of keeping order and discipline in a school which had amongst its pupils—as it always must—unruly and sometimes truculent and always high-spirited boys, if beside them they did not have good men to command discipline and respect among the male pupils?
Miss Herbison: I wonder from where the hon. Member is getting his information. Is it not well known that many women are teaching in Scotland who would have no more difficulty, indeed sometimes less difficulty, in keeping discipline, even among boys of 17, than have some of the men?
Mr. Nairn: That is a question which I should like the hon. Member to put to the parents of Scotland. It is a
886
psychological question. How many fathers or mothers would like to feel that their sons were being brought up entirely under the direction of women? During a boy's life there conies a time when it is bad for him to remain too long under too much feminine influence. There comes a time when his life must be dominated, at least for a period, by men rather than by women.
Mr. Bence: Does the hon. Member seriously suggest to family men that if their children go to school and are taught for six hours a day by school teachers that teaching will dominate even over the influence of the parent at home? If that is not being afraid of parenthood and an abnegation of parenthood, I do not know what is. I do not care how many teachers teach my kiddy, they will not influence him.
Mr. Nairn: The hon. Member should ask the parents of Scotland whether or not they would mind having their sons taught entirely by women.
I am not prepared tonight to put forward a reasoned solution to the problem, but it is a problem we have to solve. At present a male honours graduate after ten years' service will be getting £800 a year and a non-graduate £665. Had he gone into industry after ten years he could well expect to be getting between £1,000 and £1,800. That has been very forcibly expressed in the Appleton Report. We all know of men whose desire and ambition has been to enter school teaching but who have been unable to resist the attraction of tempting offers in other walks of life. The difference in remuneration between schoolmastering and industry is just too great and the prospects for marriage with all its responsibilities is just to meagre.
I should like to make one suggestion. At present schoolmasters have their teaching certificates withdrawn when they are 60. In this House we realise that, while once upon a time it may have been wise to withdraw certificates at the age of 60, today most men are only at their best at the age of 60. I suggest that the Secretary of State consider whether withdrawal of teaching certificates at the age of 60 could not immediately be revoked. There are also strong arguments—and here I refer to school teachers of both sexes—for allowing school teachers, when

887
re-employed in their own profession, to earn full salaries for the job, without any deduction from pension.
There was a very encouraging announcement in the papers today. It is that various firms have formed a trust and have already got a guarantee of £1,500,000 for technical education. "The Times" today, after congratulating them on initiative, says in its leading article:
"It is made clear that the fund is for building and equipping science departments.…"
Later in the article it goes on to say:
"Good teachers have always been more important than good buildings.…"
These private firms have given us this great inspiration and encouragement by doing their part in providing buildings. I hope that we in Scotland will now do our part by making sure that we provide the good schoolmasters to carry on the work in these buildings they provide.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. James Carmichael: Three hon. Members who have spoken from the Government benches argued about male teachers against women teachers. I do not propose to enter into that controversy. In my view, the question in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, East (Sir G. Lloyd), the idea of getting some administrative alteration, could easily solve this aspect of teaching.
The point I wish to debate is that of children going to school. From the reports I have read, including the one issued by the Scottish Office, apart altogether from the salaries of teachers, there is a crisis among the children. It is admitted in the Report on Education in a paragraph associated with junior elementary schools:
"In some schools the general level of attainment has been high, in others disappointingly low, in many reasonably satisfactory."
Those are very vague words—"in many reasonably satisfactory."
"On the whole standards may be said to be slowly improving."
I come to the most important point, which was dealt with even in the Budget speech:
"Among material factors which affect progress in varying degrees, accommodation and equipment both suffer from serious deficiencies
888
which call for remedy. Staffing constitutes a still more serious problem."
I wish to deal especially with the primary schools and the junior secondary schools. I represent an area where there must be at least twelve schools that are almost a hundred years old—they are slum schools.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.32 p.m.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and, having returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Sudan (Special Payments) Act, 1955,

2. Validation of Elections (No. 2) Act, 1955.

EDUCATION, SCOTLAND
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
5.44 p.m.
Mr. Carmichael: When the House was interrupted by Black Rod, I was dealing with slum schools in Glasgow. Many of them are almost 100 years old. That is admitted by the education authority of Glasgow. I would like to reinforce the claim made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) by reading something that was said by the Director of Education of Glasgow in his progress report. He said:
"There are few schools in the built-up parts of the city that do not require attention in some important respect; many are urgently in need of major reconstruction and a substantial number are completely obsolete and quite unsuited to meet present-day requirements. Many of these schools are situated in congested areas on very restricted sites with limited or no playground space, inadequate and unsatisfactory cloakroom, washing and lavatory facilities, poor ventilation and heating, no place where children can assemble as a school, and staff-room conditions quite unworthy of the teaching profession. There is great need for a progressive and systematic scheme of reconstruction of the older schools in the city."
Having read the report issued a few days ago by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State, I see no possibility of any change in the condition of those schools. Conditions are much more severe for the children, because they are living in overcrowded slum dwellings and have to go

889
to schools where there is no possibility of their getting decent facilities because the schools are also overcrowded. In many of the primary schools of Glasgow classes range from 40 to 54 pupils. It is obvious that a teacher must be very painstaking in those circumstances.
Many of these schools have sound exteriors, although the classrooms are the same as they were more than 60 years ago. The school to which I went in Bridgeton has a very sound exterior, but the classrooms are just as they were when I was a boy. It should be possible for the Education Department of Scotland to make a study of the schools which are being built in the new towns, and try to reconstruct classrooms in the congested areas on similar lines. The desks in the old schools are just the same as they were when I was a boy. In the new town of East Kilbride one will find a perfect school. If a little effort were made there could he some reconstruction of the schools in these slum areas.
I admire the teachers in these slum schools, who, although they do their work with great enthusiasm, are bound to be dissatisfied with their lives because of the depressing conditions in which they have to work. The problem of their salaries could easily be adjusted if the Government adopted a more generous attitude, in view of the job which these teachers do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. Thomson) referred to the problem of the fee-paying schools. In political warfare it is often said that hon. Members on this side are the people who are associated with class antagonism. Take it from me—the fee-paying school is a school of snobbery. In 1941 Glasgow Corporation decided to abolish fee-paying schools. It went to the then Secretary of State for Scotland—I do not require to mention his name—and he refused to agree to the corporation's proposal. Many of the people who go to fee-paying schools in Glasgow come from outwith the city. The amount of money they pay in fees meets less than three months of their education.
It is strange that an ordinary child in Bridgeton has no chance of getting into Kelvinside Academy while the child of a person who happens to be in a profession,
890
although he is outside the city, can be taken there to be educated. I have been at Kelvinside Academy, Glasgow High School and the Glasgow Academy when the pupils have been going in. I have watched the fathers coming up with their cars, taking their sons to school. I never yet saw a miner taking his child to Kelvinside Academy or a shipbuilding labourer taking his child there in a motor car, or a street sweeper in Glasgow taking his child to the Glasgow Academy. Despite all the legislation we have had upon education, there seems no possibility even today or for generations to come for the miner, shipbuilding worker or street sweeper to send their sons to those fee-paying schools.
If we want a properly educated community, every child born in this land is entitled to the same opportunity, but the people of the East End of Glasgow, in Gorbals or Maryhill, are denied that opportunity from the day they are born. Hillhead High School has to advertise for pupils although some of the primary schools in the East End of Glasgow are on short time because of overcrowding. Sound education gives a child a good background. He must become a member of the community and play his part whatever his profession. Likewise, he must be an individual with his own characteristics. Therefore, I say that the whole system of education has a class bias because people without wealth are denied the right to give their children a decent education.
Who built the engineering shops, and even the schools? I do not mind professional people like lawyers, doctors and technicians giving their children the best education they can get. They are entitled to it, but they have no right to close the door to the children of the shipyard workers and the miners. Hopes are a bit blighted in this direction because of the tone of the recent Budget, and the possibilities are somewhat remote. I hope that in some Parliament and some local authority the opportunity will arise so that a child born in the East End of Glasgow or any other East End will have the same opportunity of education and of making his talents suitable to the community while retaining his own individuality.
5.55 p.m.
Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Following the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Dundee East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), I can safely say that every hon. Member agrees that the widening of educational opportunity for children of all classes is an aim and object worthy of the highest effort, The methods will be disputed, but the principle is accepted by us all.
I heard a rumour and saw it mentioned in a newspaper—I forget which newspaper—that it is proposed to raise the compulsory school-leaving age to 16. Without qualification, that would be a disaster. This does not mean that I think there are not children in our schools well worth keeping at school until they are 16. There are, and they should have the opportunity. When we raised the school-leaving age to 15 the principle was sound, but the way in which it was done was deplorable and has led to many troubles since in the educational world.
I do not profess to be an expert in this matter, but I think we must find a method whereby those for whom it will be worth while contributing the country's money on education for a further year should have the opportunity and should be given every possible chance, while those who cannot benefit from further education of that type should not clutter up our schools and increase the size of classes, and so on.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am most interested in what the hon. and gallant Member is saying. Would he apply the same principle to the great independent public schools of the country?
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Having been removed from public school at 15 because I was considered to be not making any progress, I can say "Yes."
Mr. E. G. Willis: Removed by the Government?
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I was removed by my governor, and that was much more terrifying. Fathers in those days were fathers, believe me. I do not want it to be thought that I am against the widening of educational opportunity, but a cut-and-dried order that everybody is to stay at school is not the best way to do it. without careful preparation
892
beforehand. I will not go further than that.
I want to mention what I still believe to be an unhappy feature in education, and that is the bias against agriculture. Many children, many parents and many teachers think that there is something superior about being in a garage, or having something to do with electricity, to working on the land. That is a great pity, and is a tendency that ought to be countered and discouraged whenever possible. The agricultural worker can be as great an expert as any shipbuilder; what is more, the shipyard worker depends upon him for livelihood. Anything which tends to make children and their parents think there is something derogatory about going on the land must be countered by any means in our power. I hope that people in all walks of life, particularly in towns, will recognise this as a very dangerous trend which ought to be stopped.
I am not at all satisfied with the teaching of Scottish history. I was talking to an educated woman the other day—she is supposed to be educated, but it is always rather doubtful what that term means—and she said, "Oh, but English history is so much longer than Scottish history." That struck me as being at about the bottom level of stupidity, but it was an attitude of mind not, I suppose, confined to that particular woman. I am not satisfied that in Scottish schools Scottish history is being sufficiently gone into. We have a great and wonderful history and, up to the time of the Act of Union, the two histories should be taught separately. We have, of course, the person who says, "When I talk about England I include Scotland," but one does not get very far with that in history.
I hope that Scottish history will, quite automatically, be made an item of the curriculum in Scottish schools. No Scottish child should be brought up without a grounding in the history of his or her country. It is, after all, a very creditable one, with a few discreditable incidents.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I have a few points which have been brought to my notice by constituents. First, there is a group of pensioners who left the teaching profession before 1945, and these people are suffering badly now from the decline in

893
the value of money. The ten years of fairly steady inflation since the war have put them in an extremely difficult position, and I would ask the Government to pay some attention to them as an individual class. They do need a little more help.
I have also had a number of representations on equal pay. All the arguments that have been advanced against equal pay by the men's side of the profession seem to be predicated on the assumption that teachers' salaries will, in any case, remain extremely low. If teachers' salaries were all not at their present level, but at that of their contemporaries at the universities who are now in other callings, I do not think that that argument would have any validity at all. It starts from the assumption that teachers' salaries will remain extremely small, so the real substance of the case is a hidden plea for better salaries all round. There is no doubt that if those salaries were made comparable to those paid in other professions, a good deal of the complaint would be removed from the minds of men teachers.
I have had a number of letters about the new scale of salaries in further education. I welcome the establishment of a scale—it is an extremely good thing—but there have proved to be a number of anomalies in the scale suggested. As every one of my correspondents say "I have sent this statement to the Secretary of State giving all the details," the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of them and I shall not, therefore, pursue it further.
Had there been less pressure on the time at our disposal—and had I, myself, not felt that I should repay the brevity which has been shown by more brevity on my own part—I should have liked to have commented more fully on the Appleton Report. One of the recommendations of that Report was the deferment of the National Service of scientists who were willing to teach in the schools. I am sorry that the Secretary of State took so long to make up his mind on that, but I am glad that he did make the decision eventually.
There is, however, one thing that shakes me to the core—and it is something to lay not at the door of the Joint Under-Secretary but at that of some of his colleagues. The high-powered Appleton Committee
894
made this recommendation without thinking it even necessary to call representatives of the Service Ministries before it to ask what these men were doing while in the Services. In itself, that is an extraordinary reflection on the attitude which an intelligent section of the public adopts to what is happening to people going into the Forces.
Furthermore, since the recommendation was made, and accepted, no evidence whatever has been produced, and no attempt made to produce it, that so far the Services have been using those men well and will miss them. I do not think that they have been using the men well, and it will be good if, as a result of that recommendation and the policy following it, they go into the schools. That is, perhaps, a side-issue, but it is the sort of issue one cannot evade when discussing education. So much of educational policy depends on the availability of the kind of manpower we want.
Even if the new policy, based on the recommendations of the Appleton Committee, brings more scientists into the schools there will be a good deal still to do. In particular, we need to adopt the policy outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson)—it has, of course, been put forward in earlier debates—of increasing the number of students who stay on at school. But this point arises there. People assume that because, to use my hon. Friend's phrase, we are to double the number of people having school-leaving certificates we will double the pool from which we can draw staff for the schools. By hypothesis, those who will stay on at school after 15 years of age are the intelligent people who, when nowadays they go into industry, are promoted to the executive positions and, in time, run industry.
I hope that we shall not assume that industry, losing these recruits at 15, will simply say "Goodbye" to them. Of course it will not. That increased pool of those of higher intelligence will be increasingly raided by industry at a later stage; otherwise, industry would not have the intelligence in its ranks to run its own show. While I am all in favour of the policy—and one good thing will be that it will increase the supply of teachers—it must be realised that nothing like all of those going on to higher education will be recruits for the schools.

895
Judging by the lines on which industry is now running we shall indeed be lucky if we get from the new pool as many as we did from the old.
One hon. Member opposite mentioned this morning's news about an industrial fund being raised for the teaching of science. I welcome that. I think it is a very good thing. But I notice, also, one or two other points about it. For a long time some of the larger and more progressive industrial firms have shown a great interest in this question of the maintenance of a continuing supply of science teachers. In many cases they have taken a greater and more intelligent interest in this question than have the teachers' organisations themselves. I am very glad that they are doing something practical in the matter.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East, and for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) have referred to the different types of schools which cater for different sections of the population. The fund to which I have referred is restricted entirely to public schools and direct grant schools. It is fortunate that we have this fund and that science teaching should be encouraged, but it is to be noted that of the small proportion of science graduates who now decide to teach the great majority are attracted to the public schools and to the direct grant schools.
This will merely increase the attraction of this type of school for these people and, unless modifying influences set in, will therefore tend to increase the difference, educationally more than socially perhaps, between these different types of schools. A profession of this sort evidently has its disadvantages as well as its advantages. The advantage is obvious—£1,500,000 to improve science teaching. But there are difficulties as well.
I am sorry that what I have said has been so scrappy. I should have preferred to have prepared a lengthy oration with a massive train of thought running through it and reaching a final conclusion, but I was not in a position to do that, and I hope I have not detained the House too long.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: Before I come to my main theme, may I, as one representing
896
a rural area in Angus and the Mearns, say how much we have appreciated again the availability of the schoolchildren in gathering the potato harvest. I say that because we really do appreciate it and because it is clear that without the help of children we could not possibly have got in the potato harvest. It is obvious that we shall need them again until we can find the kind of machine which will gather in the potatoes and reject the stones. I hope that we shall find that machine soon.
I was talking to several schoolmasters on this subject during the Recess. I was on the land with the potato gatherers, and I met one schoolmaster who said to me, "It is no good denying that the potato holidays upset our educational programme, but as against that I like to set this factor: after the potato holidays are over, the children come back with new wellington boots and mackintoshes, better shod and better clad to face the inclement weather of the winter than they would have done if there had not been that additional money going into the homes." Those were the words of a schoolmaster of a large school. He said that in nearly every case, in the decent homes, the money that goes to the families is spent upon the children. I was very glad to hear that.
In the old days before we were so centralised, we used to arrange with the local schools when they should close. There was a complete local option about it. Now we have centralised everything and we have to have the same holidays over the whole of Scotland. This year the potato holidays were arranged for a certain date and then, because of the weather, they had to be put forward by a week. That leads to considerable losses and great difficulty, no doubt for the schools but also for the farmers.
I cannot see why we should not get back to a certain degree of local option by counties. It cannot be expected that the potatoes will be ready to be gathered in Midlothian at the same time as they are in Kincardine or Angus. I cannot see why we should not allow the county education committees, in consultation with the local farmers, through their organised channels, to decide by counties when the holidays should be. I believe that a committee has been set up to look into all the aspects of this question of

897
school labour for the potato harvest, and I hope that this committee will give attention to this matter of potato holidays.
Miss Herbison: Since the hon. Gentleman is so loud in his praise of potato gathering and the fine influences that come from it, may I ask whether he has tried to use his influence in any way so that pupils in the great public schools and in our select secondary schools may have the benefits which he evidently thinks flow from potato gathering?
Mr. Ross: Including wellington boots.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Yes, perhaps that subject will be considered by the Appleton Committee.
My time is limited and I wish to deal with one aspect of the shortage of teachers which is of so much concern to us all. The staff position in Scotland is better than it was before the war. Comparing 1954 with 1939, and despite the increase in the school-leaving age, the number of pupils in our Scottish schools has increased by 8 per cent. while the number of teachers has increased by 11 per cent. Moreover, there are more teachers entering the training colleges—25 per cent. to 30 per cent. more than there were before the war—which is the more remarkable since the age groups from which the teachers are drawn are lower than they were between the wars. Nevertheless, in spite of these facts, not sufficient teachers are coming forward to teach in our Scottish schools.
This is especially the case with the specialist teachers of mathematics and science in our secondary schools where, we are told, the shortage is likely to reach about 600 by 1961, and where by 1957 recruitment, if it goes on at the present rate, will total only 30 per annum as against an annual wastage of 50. This is a very serious situation, because in the scientific revolution in which we in these islands are playing a leading part it is essential that if we are to stay in the forefront we should have the teachers and the facilities to train the engineers and the scientists to handle the new machines in the electronic factories of the future.
Many references have been made, as one would expect, to the findings of the Appleton Committee. The Report of the Committee analysed the causes of those shortages, and one of the reasons it gave
898
was the competing demands for mathematicians and scientists in industry. In conditions of full employment the young graduates seem to prefer research to teaching.
The Report makes certain recommendations. Some of them require Government action and, together with the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson), although perhaps with more enthusiasm than he showed, I welcome the answer given on the last day before the Recess to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot), who was told by the Minister of Labour and National Service that favourable consideration would be given to the indefinite deferment from National Service of first and second class honours graduates in science and mathematics who intended to take up teaching. Other recommendations of the Committee require action and study by the universities, and I want to ask my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary whether he has any information to give the House about those aspects of the Report.
In the old days we used to speak about the three R's of education—reading, writing and arithmetic. I am sure that we shall have done much to solve the problem of the shortage of teachers, not only among specialist teachers of mathematics and science, when we have given proper attention to the three S's—salaries, superannuation and status.
Many of my hon. Friends have spoken about salaries this afternoon, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Sir G. Lloyd), my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn), and I do not want to add to what they have said. There is much which could be said on superannuation, but perhaps we are wiser to defer our comments until we have seen the Government's proposals in the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, which we all await with interest and which some of us await with anxiety.
There is one comment about superannuation which I want to make before passing to the question of status. I want to urge that in that legislation, or administratively as soon as possible, arrangements should be made to pay the superannuation of retired teachers by monthly instead of

899
quarterly instalments. I have been trying for years to get this done and I am getting rather tired of the excuses which are always made. It is said that it would require a large increase in the Paymaster-General's staff and that there would be an additional charge in the year of the change-over. I find it difficult to believe that a Government Department cannot devise methods for making monthly instead of quarterly payments of pensions without having a large increase in staff.
Dealing with the other excuse, it is true that more will have to be paid to teachers in the twelve months of the change-over. I am told that in Scotland it is no more than £1½ million. Of course, it is only an accounting matter which would be made up in due course. In my view it cannot be a valid reason for rejecting a humanitarian plea. In many cases the gap of three months is causing distress, and I know from my own personal contacts that there are real difficulties. For my part, I shall not cease to urge that the administrative change should be made as soon as possible, for it means so much to many who deserve so greatly of all of us.
On the question of status, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) spoke wisely about the great honour it is to be a teacher. We all remember examples of the Scottish dominie who was so greatly respected as a leader of the local community. We can think of women teachers in the Sunday schools, leaders of the W.R.I. and of the girl guides. When this sort of leadership happens, it happens because these men and women have attained positions of respect and leadership through their wide range of interests and because they are willing to take a lead in public and local affairs.
This may be regarded as a small point, but I think it is important: I should like to see more of the honours for public service going to school teachers—such honours as the B.E.M. and the M.B.E. I should like to see men and women school teachers named in every honours list. It would do something to let them see that their status is important and that they are respected throughout the land.
I join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Renfrew, East in saying that teachers ought to have more say in the formation of policy. I know it is a
900
difficult question and that they would have to have locally elected representatives beside them, but I should like to see arrangements made whereby the local education authority could co-opt to its education committees advisers from the teaching profession who would sit in as assessors and advisers without having voting rights.
As one of the long-term remedies for making good the shortage of school teachers, the Appleton Committee noted with satisfaction the increase in the number of bursaries made possible by the education authorities under the Bursaries Regulations of 1953. Many of us, on both sides of the House, were privileged during the summer to meet representatives of the Scottish Union of Students who discussed with us the final form of Amendment No. 1, 1955, to those Regulations, which is about to be promulgated.
When we consider students' grants, two questions come to mind: first of all, are the grants themselves sufficient to prevent individual cases of hardship—and the students told us that they were not sufficient in all cases and, secondly, are the grants fair when compared with those in England and Wales—and the students say that they are not. We were informed that Scottish students who are entirely dependent upon grants will each receive £65 a year less than their English counterparts if they live at home and £90 less if they live away from home. I want to ask my hon. Friend whether that is so and, if it is, why it should be so.
The Regulations, which many of us have studied, are a great improvement upon the original draft. They are an improvement, for example, because the level of parents' incomes above which contributions are required from parents has been raised. Moreover, I am informed that the Scottish Education Department, in its Circular 313, urges local education authorities to give individual consideration in deciding upon allowances for books and materials and deciding upon vacational allowances. I believe that few in this House would disagree with the Circular, which says
"It is highly desirable that students should be free to devote to reading and study a reasonable proportion of the vacation…and that they should also have time for relaxation."
There has been, some would think advisedly, a great deal of discretion allowed to local authorities in these

901
matters, but that local discretion has given rise to a considerable lack of uniformity. I think we must watch the application of discretion very closely indeed. It may be necessary to press for an advisory committee to advise upon the distribution of these student grants. That may not be necessary but, on the other hand, unless we can get something like uniformity and fair dealing as between one authority and another, it may be advisable for us to press for an advisory committee of that kind. We have to consider this item, this one facet of the problem, in its relation to the paramount need for an adequate supply of graduates both for industry and, as is our particular concern today, for the teaching profession.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: We are discussing today the Scottish Education Report. I think it would be rather a waste of time for me to use the very short time at my disposal to go into questions of salary, students' grants and other things which are still to come before the House in the form of regulations. I think it is symptomatic of the state of affairs in the teaching profession that we have this controversy over salaries and division of opinion regarding the merits of equal pay coming particularly from hon. Members opposite. The Government had better face the fact that there never was a time when there was more disgruntlement and frustration in the teaching profession than at present.
What we should be concerned about is the effect that that will have on education and on the recruitment of teachers. We all know how short we are of teachers. There is the question of shortage of teachers and conditions of employment. Not only are the children affected by overcrowded classes, but the effect on the teacher trying to do his best under those conditions is such that it leads to frustration. There is the question of salaries and status. May I say to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) that if he offered the teacher today, in recognition of the status of his profession, an increase of salary or an M.B.E. the teacher would take the increase in salary. That would certainly be much more of an incentive to recruitment than the M.B.E.
902
There is the question of technical education. We are short of teachers everywhere for technical education, not only of men teachers but women teachers. The only thing on which we could agree with the hon. Member is that he was the only hon. Member opposite who had a good word to say about women teachers. What women teachers will think about the remarks of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) I do not know, but I can see his majority of 167 already melting because of the speech he made today.
When teachers see what happens to retired members of the profession who want an increase in superannuation they are not given any confidence in the Government. The crux of the matter is that if the salaries to which women are being raised by equal pay were adequate and in keeping with those paid in other professions there would be no controversy over equal pay. I regret very much, considering the effect that has on recruitment and also on the state of mind of existing male teachers, that the Government dealt so quickly with the suggestions put forward by the E.I.S. on salaries.
What is to be the effect of the recent White Paper on buildings? We have been told that education authorities are to keep their capital estimates down to what they were last year and even new works already authorised cannot begin unless there is special need and urgency.
Take the position of Kilmarnock. I asked a Question some time ago and the Joint Under Secretary of State told me that he had had no complaints about Kilmarnock. If I were given to unparliamentary language, there is one short word I could use in response. The fact is that the education committee for Ayrshire saw the Department in the summer and set up a special working committee to speed up what was required in Ayrshire. In the county we require 33 new schools and seven extensions. On the basis of the progress of last year it will take fifteen to twenty years to get that development. The people concerned in administration have no idea of what will be the outcome of that programme—not the ultimate completion, but what is to happen next year to that programme—in view of the recent announcements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State.

903
In Kilmarnock, we have a new housing area and children have to travel right across to the other side of the town to be educated. The Government have failed properly to plan educational development with housing development. In Shortlees, Kilmarnock, we built a school but in five years there has been no educational development and that school is already overcrowded. There is continuing discontent among the people of Kilmarnock and elsewhere at the inadequacy of school buildings, while in another part of Ayrshire there is the frustration of having a new school with 14 teachers only five of whom are qualified. Is that not a shocking position? There is nothing to be proud of in that.
I am certain that the Scottish Education Department knows the problem and is willing, as far as it can, to get on with it and to get on with the greater problem—the whole question of educational progress and development in Scotland. It cannot do so because it is bogged down with the shortage of teachers, the controversy over salaries, the question of qualification, the over-sized classes, and so on. There are fewer in the secondary schools this year because there are more in the primary schools. The Department cannot get on to the actual question which should be concerning Scottish education at present.
This is high-lighted by the fact that of 72,860 leavers from the secondary schools—50,281 on the three-year course—only 43 per cent. completed their three-year course. That educational potential is being wasted. If we take the five-year course we find that of 22,579 who left last year only 6,174 embarked on the course offered. This is the course for which there is so much competition and dividing up and segregation of pupils, and in which 73 per cent. of the people who started to get into this competition for places wasted their opportunity.
I am not going into the reasons for that, because I have not got the time, but these are the things we should properly be discussing, and half a day s not nearly enough time in which to discuss them. On the basis of what is happening and of the schooling that we need, we ought to be developing our educational system today.
904
The administration is so beset with physical and material problems that it never gets down to relating education as such to the changing world—to the world of nuclear and scientific advance and of automation. Obviously, given the right type of administration here and the right kind of leadership throughout the world, we shall have far more leisure. I do not believe that schools and education exist merely for turning out either skilled or unskilled craftsmen. We need to judge schools not by the number of teachers that are turned out, not by the number of geniuses or the number of dunces. I would rather say that they should be judged more by the number of social misfits and the number of "Teddy boys" than anything else.
To my mind, there is no dual purpose in education. The soul and centre of education is the child itself, and its future life in the sense of its work in the community, not just as an individual making a living, but also in the greatly extended sense of living in leisure in its own time and with the ability to use it. I think we should be developing and making the best of our junior secondary schools. I have not the time to go into all the difficulties there, but this is still the Cinderella, though it is still the main hope of Scottish education. The development of the junior secondary schools, since we have got the chance, is the main hope of getting a really comprehensive secondary school system.
Scotland has a great tradition for education, a tradition which is not entirely justified. It was a tradition of the 5 per cent. of scholastic achievement possible, but of the 95 per cent. who were forgotten, who left school in the old days at the ages of 12 and 13 and now leave at 15, we should not be quite so proud. We are in danger today of getting into an educational backwater, and I urge the Government to awake to the fact and to put forward proposals which will make us lead once again in the world of education.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. William Hannan: It is indicative of the importance that we in Scotland attach to the subject of education that, in every year since 1945, in the Estimates debates, we have chosen, either as the Government or as the Opposition, to include the topic of

905
education. As has already been pointed out, the difficulty has been to find time for a debate because of the inability of the Government to make up their minds in the earlier part of the year whether or not a crisis was prevailing in the country.
Since this is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege and the honour of trying to take up the main points of criticism made from this side of the House, I hope that, as is usual, I shall have some sympathy and consideration from the House itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) mentioned earlier today that, while attitudes to education differ, education itself is related to economic conditions and to the society in which we live. I am afraid that many of our good friends in the teaching profession itself are inclined to forget, as so many other people are inclined to forget, that the social services, of which education is one, will either progress, be static or regress according to the progress which we make in the economic field and the eagerness with which the Government of the day take up the main problems.
It has been evident since last December that the Scottish Education Department itself has been a victim of the blowing hot and cold economic policy, the acceleration and braking policy, pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There has been a lack of continued progress in this matter of the development of education, whether it be in the schools, in the enlistment of teachers or in any other of the main problems. In the circular of 4th December, 1954, the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that at that time additional economic resources were being made available for unsatisfactory schools. He made it clear that this was in addition to the allocation, and that while priority had to be given to the new building, the schools of which my hon. Friend who was then the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) spoke two years ago could then be tackled.
In February we had the increase in the Bank Rate, and the action of the Chancellor in using the Bank Rate, which is indiscriminate in its effect, which again threw up the problems and, indeed, had an effect on projects irrespective of
906
whether they were desirable or not. Then, six weeks later, the Chancellor again indicated that by this time we could speak of the liberation of the human spirit, but in the circulars issued subsequently, the most recent of which is the most damaging, local authorities were, in fact, discouraged from going ahead with the building of schools.
We on this side of the House urge the Secretary of State for Scotland not to follow the words of the popular song and say, "Anything you can do we can do better." There is a growing volume of opinion in Scotland which believes that Scottish education is now in a crisis, and we think it would be apposite if the Joint Under-Secretary would indicate that there is an overall plan which will provide for what we think are the priorities.
First, not in the sense of importance, there are new buildings and the demolition of old ones; secondly, the enlistment of more qualified teachers and a reduction in the size of classes. Reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) today to the comprehensive school, and that means a re-examination of the 11-plus examination, which separates children after seven years of comprehensive education.
If I may now deal with some of these headings, I would point out that the Educational Institute of Scotland, which is a very important body, made this statement during the last Election:
"A greater proportion of the national expenditure should be allocated to the needs of education. The nation is devoting a smaller proportion of the national expenditure to education than it did before the war."
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will examine this matter and endeavour to assure us that, if this is so—a responsible body of this character would not make such a statement without a real grievance —the Government will take action about it at the earliest possible moment and ensure that Scotland gets her fair proportion of the total capital investment in new buildings.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) referred to schools. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to make a plain, categorical statement so that out of this order, counter-order and disorder local authorities may be able to plan for some time

907
ahead and, in that way, use their resources to the best possible advantage. I am encouraged to ask the Joint Under-Secretary to do this because the speech of the Prime Minister at the Conservative Party Conference recently indicated that he had received an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if there was one thing which would not suffer, come what might, it would be education designed to increase our available scientific manpower. If the Joint Under-Secretary can say that there will be no interference with the momentum of school building, that will be one of the best things that will have been done for Scottish education.
Answers have been given by the Secretary of State to Questions by hon. Friends of mine which have indicated that whereas in 1951—it was the present Government which cut the capital allocations in 1951, and that has had a most serious consequence for Scottish education since that time—the value of what was put in hand was about £7 million, it fell the following year to £3¾ million, and it was only in 1954 that we got back to the figure which obtained in 1951.
One of the most pressing problems is the provision of new places. I know that part of the Government's case is that they have provided more school places than was previously done. Indeed, in replying to an inspired Question by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White), the Joint Under-Secretary gave information to that effect. However, what he did not say was that about 19,800 of the 34,000 places were included in projects begun before 31st October, 1951. That information was supplied in an Answer given by the Secretary of State on 3rd May, 1955.
If I may turn to the shortage of teachers, which is a most complex question and certainly the most important one in the educational world, neither I nor any of my right hon. and hon. Friends pretend that there is an easy answer. The truth is, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, that the whole future of Scottish education turns on this question. It is not merely the future supply of teachers; it is also a matter of the increasing and cumulative effect of ineffective and unqualified teachers. If we are to accept unqualified and inefficient
908
teachers to take classes, we can surely only expect that what they produce will deteriorate and continue to do so until the standard crashes.
In the past, Scotland has been an economically poor country, and education has been looked upon by many families as a means of escaping from hard, cramping conditions. To be a doctor or teacher or a member of one of the other professions had its attractions. The Joint Under-Secretary has made his contribution in Advisory Council Reports. He made a speech in 1950 which I will not quote in full because of the pressure of time, but I should like to make a brief reference to it.
When he was leading the huge number of National Liberals in the House—all six of them—he made an astounding attack on the Government of that day because of their lack of action with regard to teachers. He said:
"It is the kind of strain that can be borne for a time, and cheerfully—as I know it is—but which, if it is allowed to continue indefinitely or for too long, may bring down the whole edifice of education in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2489.]
He went on to say that the pride and glory of Scottish education in the old days was based mainly on the high attainments of the senior teachers, that our duty was fearlessly to inquire into the status, amenities and emoluments of the profession. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman still holds those opinions. He has now been in office in this Government for four years, and it is high time that education had some results from the policy which he advocated then, but it has not been implemented since he took office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock was right. There can have been few occasions in the past when the teaching profession was so disgruntled and—we must add another word—cynical about its conditions and about the efforts which are being made by the Government.
One thing about which I am profoundly sorry—I am sure the whole House will agree with me—is that the teachers themselves are the worst propagandists for their profession. A word of caution must be uttered about this, because pupils are reading and listening to the comments which the teachers are

909
making about their profession. If we can enlist the aid of the teachers—we must provide proper conditions for them—they can make the greatest contribution towards increasing their own strength.
One of the anomalies about the recruitment of teachers is that, whereas every other profession is raising its standard of entry, only the teaching profession has had its lowered, and that has been done by the Joint Under-Secretary and the present Government. One change which has come about in the profession is that the children of teachers are not now following their parents' profession to the same degree as in the past. If the Government can do something to increase the number of teachers and will retract the aggravating Amendment No. 7 made to the Regulations, they will have done one of the best things that can be done to help to assuage the feelings of teachers throughout Scotland.
The qualifications of the teachers have been lowered, the teachers are insufficient in number, they have become disaffected, and it appears to them that their once highly-qualified profession has been reduced to going cap in hand to the Government and asking for something which they believe to be their due. Scotland needs 3,000 certificated teachers now and by 1957 she will need 3,300 and this, it should be remembered, on the basis of 45 pupils to a class in the primary schools whereas in England the basis is 40. On that basis a huge number of classes are already overcrowded in Scotland.
It was said from this side of the House that we have 900 teachers who are without any teaching certificates whatsoever, but only today I was informed that that number has increased and that there are now over 1,000 teachers in Scotland who have no certificates at all. I wonder whether the Joint Under-Secretary knows that men who are without certificates and who have not completed their educational studies in other professions are being accepted to teach temporarily in our schools. We should be very grateful indeed for some information on that subject from the hon. Gentleman.
I do not know whether the House knows how near the educational system came to complete breakdown during last winter, which was severe. There were so many illnesses among teachers, both male
910
and female, and the pool of part-time teachers was not functioning as it had done hitherto because some teachers felt that they had not the same responsibility to turn out in the severe weather. Classes were bedevilled and class rooms were hung round with wet clothes and boots—a background which is not helpful in trying to increase the numbers in the teaching profession.
How are we to deal with the whole problem? My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) made a very valuable contribution to the debate, although he was so modest about it, when he spoke of the effect of industry in attracting possible recruits to the teaching profession away from teaching into industrial posts. Is it proposed to have consultations with industrial leaders to ask them to restrain the rapacity with which they go to the universities and use their talent scouts to attract possible recruits away from teaching?
I call in aid a report in the "Glasgow Herald" of 12th October of a meeting of the Convocation of the University of London at which
"Dr. A. J. Richmond, chairman of a subcommittee which reported on the shortage of science teachers, referring to the increasing practice of industrial firms of sending talent scouts into universities offering employment to prospective graduates in science and engineering, said, 'The implication is not that we are opposed to proper guidance being given to undergraduates on future careers, but are merely disturbed at certain practices which appear to have certain undesirable consequences. The attractions of a teaching career are not usually put forward with the same vigour'."
The Appleton Committee also refers to this matter. We ask the Joint Under-Secretary to tell us what steps the Department is taking to deal with the problem at that stage.
Another matter which we must ask the Joint Under-Secretary to look at is the question of bursaries for pupils at senior secondary schools who are in their fourth and fifth year. All of us are aware that it is at this stage, when the child is 15, that the attractions of an outside job at £4 a week, which is not an unusual offer, make their appeal. I regret very much to say that many parents stand in the way of further education while the child is quite willing to remain in school. If bursaries of £40 for a child in its fourth year and £50 in the fifth year were

911
offered, subject, of course, to the parents' income, it might help to blunt the avidity with which children or parents look upon the attractive wages which await school children.
Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the question of the wastage of pupils in senior secondary schools. I agree that we can make too much of it, but the 1953 Report of the Education Department indicated that 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of those who were leaving senior secondary schools were capable of qualifying for many of the professions. In that year about 15,000 pupils left school, and 25 per cent. of that would have meant about 3,000 to 4,000 extra coming into the professional pool.
I want to refer to the size of classes in emphasis of the need for teachers. The Scottish maximum is 45 for a primary school, 40 for a junior secondary school and 30 for a senior secondary school. In England, the figures are respectively 40, 30 and 30. On the basis of that standard, 27 per cent. of all our primary schools and 41 per cent. of our junior secondary schools are over-crowded. In Glasgow alone 550 classes are over-sized which, I am informed, means that 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. of the total school population are in over-crowded classes.
I should also like to say something about the promotion tests which decide whether, having completed the primary stage, a child goes to a junior secondary school or to a senior secondary school.
The "Report on Education in Scotland in 1954" states:
"A disturbing feature in some areas is the excessive and unnecessary pre-occupation both of teachers and of pupils with the promotion tests: there is evidence that pupils in classes PVI and PVII are being specially prepared for these tests and that this practice is leading to neglect of such subjects as history, geography and nature study, which are not covered by the tests"
I believe this to be one of the most wicked things that is going on in the sphere of education.
One of the main difficulties of the junior secondary schools is the meagre provision to meet the needs of those who have no pronounced academic ability. Yet those cover 80 per cent. of the school population. I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and some of my hon. Friends in stressing
912
that far too much emphasis is placed on intellectual needs and requirements instead of trying to relate education in the junior secondary schools to the pursuits which our young people intend to follow in the future.
I am not minimising the very valuable work which many junior secondary schools do. The education provided there is both wide and liberalising, but I think that the effect on children of this calibration test—this promotion test—at 11-plus, segregating them after seven years of comprehensive education—because that is what it is—is indefensible on educational, social or any other grounds. It is creating great harm in some families during the children's most informative and impressionable years.
If education were a matter of the mind alone, there might be a cogent case for segregation, but if we really believe that education is concerned with the physical, emotional, social and spiritual development of the child, it is wrong to segregate children on the single criterion of their ability to pass a test confined to English and arithmetic. These aspects of personality are not always related to ability; the capacities and needs of children are as wide as life itself.
This examination is leaving many of them quite resentful, concluding that they are inferior to their own brothers and sisters, and making others objectionably superior. I think that we must reexamine this, and consider the effect, not only on the children, but on those parents who consider it a slur on their social prestige that their child should go to a junior secondary school rather than to a senior secondary school.
The real answer to this is comprehensive schools. I think that the Joint Under-Secretary will find that there is a growing volume of opinion, if it is not already the majority opinion in Scotland, that that is so.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will say something about improved conditions for teachers and their superannuation. I asked him a Question today. I think he knows the point, and I hope he will explain tonight how it comes about that although there is a growing credit surplus, which is now 50 per cent. greater than it was in 1948, there is, nevertheless, a deficiency in the fund, and that teachers are being asked

913
to pay increased contributions. It would also go a long way in allaying their fears if the Joint Under-Secretary would say what are the Government's views on including a provision in the superannuation scheme for a widows' and dependants' fund.
To sum up, I want to say that we accept the Report and express our appreciation to those engaged in the administration of education and in the schoolroom. We believe that in the light of changing world conditions, education, in its widest sense, must play a more positive part in a national plan for Scotland's future, that it should not be a by-product of our activities, that it should be planned and linked up with our intellectual, industrial and commercial interests and help us to achieve, in the technical sense, higher material standards in the future.
We think that three principles should govern whatever plan which we hope the Government will produce. First, there should be equal opportunity for all children, irrespective of their social status; secondly, provision of basic education for all children, so that they may grow up into responsible citizens, able and willing to take their part in the general community life; and, thirdly—a point stressed so forcibly today—provision of skilled scientists, technicians, administrators and craftsmen on whom our economic well-being depends.
7.16 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): I should like on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) in the tribute he paid to the memory of our late colleague, Hector McNeil, whose death we all greatly regret.
I am in a little difficulty, because I understand the arrangement was that this debate should finish at 7.30.
Mr. Woodburn: I think it should be put on record that there have been two interruptions to that arrangement by the Division which took a quarter of an hour and the intimation from Black Rod. Therefore, it would be a fair division of time if a quarter of an hour were taken by each side for the debate.
Mr. Stewart: I do not mind. I would be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would
914
advise me whether I should stop exactly at 7.30 or whether you feel, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, that we should go on to 7.45. We have not had a Government speaker at all so far.
Mr. Speaker: The Question is, "That this House do now adjourn," and the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak as long as he feels disposed to. It is a matter for the convenience of the House, but he should not, I think, scamp his speech unduly.
Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have had, of course, as usual, a very interesting debate, covering a great variety of topics, and even if I were to speak the whole half-hour—I hope to be able to make it less—I could not possibly cover all that ground. Therefore, I must try to pick out the main topics of our discussion rather than deal with each Member's speech, as one sometimes does.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire mentioned one or two matters on which I may perhaps say just a word. I agree with him about the necessity for improving what he called the "hygiene" of the schools. In answering him, I can also answer the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) and one or two others.
Hon. Members will recall that last December we announced to the local authorities that further moneys would be made available to them for the purpose of improvement in the hygiene of these schools—for example, the lavatories. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised the matter of staff rooms for teachers and that kind of thing, and I very much hope that we shall be able to make progress along those lines. We are entirely with the right hon. Gentleman in that.
He also referred to good manners. Here, again, he was talking language which we would all wish to talk. We should like our Scottish children to be the best mannered possible. We should like them to be a little more fluent in their talking. It is true that they are sometimes too restricted. All that is set out in the Report of the inspectors who deal with junior education. I may have time to deal with it a little more fully. It is also very much in our minds.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to see nursery schools established,

915
but, in the present circumstances, which everyone understands, I do not think that it would be right to divert the limited resources which we have in the way of building and all the rest of it to the problem of nursery schools until we have other schools built, or at any rate well on the way to being built.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) spoke about potato-lifting. I must remind him that we have set up a committee to examine this rather difficult problem. We have always been confronted with the dilemma that there are the potatoes to be gathered and there seems no other way of getting them up except by the employment of children; and in so doing we interrupt their school course. It is a dilemma which all Governments have had to face, and we hope that the expert committee we have set up may be able to guide us.
I am moving rapidly from one topic to another. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) asked about bursaries. They affect two sets of people the children still at school and the boys and girls leaving school to go to a university. The hon. Member pleaded for a higher bursary for the boys and girls in the senior school so that they may be persuaded to stay on. Everyone agrees that one of the biggest tasks we have in Scottish education is to keep the clever children at school and prevent them from going out to dead-end jobs.
That proposal was examined by the headmasters whom we consulted about this problem of what we called wastage. It was the view of most of those headmasters, and their number was very representative, that money was not the main attraction. It was one attraction, but merely to increase this grant to senior schoolchildren would not solve the problem. As hon. Members know, we have twice increased the grant in the last year or two. The senior school grant in Scotland is higher than in England and, to that extent, we are ahead of England. We give our senior schoolchildren more and higher grants than those in the South receive, and I do not think that we should be wise to go any further at this stage. As to bursaries for the universities—
Mr. Woodburn: There is a point I did not put to the hon. Gentleman which
916
is rather important. The Government have made several announcements that they propose to make family allowances available for children remaining at school until they are eighteen. I am not clear about the position. There was nothing in the Budget last week. Has the hon. Gentleman any information about what is the intention of the Government in this matter?
Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; I had forgotten that point myself. Last night the Prime Minister said in the most emphatic terms that this proposal as contained in the Gracious Speech is going through.
Mr. Speaker: If the proposal involves legislation it would be out of order to discuss it on the Motion before the House.
Mr. Stewart: At all events, the news for the right hon. Gentleman is good.
Regarding bursaries for students at universities, it is true that the bursaries we give are somewhat less than those given in England for a similar purpose. We have had this out before and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) took the same view as I take, that it is not right to compare the two figures or to say that we must have exactly the same in Scotland as in England. I think that the hon. Lady shares my view that on the whole our bursaries are not very far wrong in size. They are based on careful inquiries at the universities about what the students have to pay for lodgings, fees, books and so on. The figures on the latest Regulations, the House will notice, again indicate a rise, and I think we have twice increased those bursaries. Those figures are not unreasonable, in my opinion, and I do not think we should be wise to go further.
Not many months ago I met the students and we had a very friendly discussion. They put certain suggestions to me regarding the administration of bursaries, for which I was grateful. Hon. Members may have observed that one or two of the proposals in the new regulations are administrative, and they are the result of the talk which I had with the students. We shall be glad if the students will keep in touch with us, and we shall always be most sympathetic and ready to do what we can.
Miss Herbison: On the question of bursaries for senior pupils at school, may we take it that the hon. Gentleman's answer means that, from the information received from headmasters and from other sources, the Government are not considering any increase; because it does not seem to me good enough to say in these circumstances that ours are better than those in England and that therefore we should keep them as they are? The bursaries in England are pitifully small, and I believe that we should examine this matter from the point of view of the needs of our own people. I urge the Minister to give further consideration to this serious matter.
Mr. Stewart: We are always ready to look at it again, but at present our intention is to make no further advance.
I believe I am right in saying that the new regulations for students' bursaries are so new that they may still be prayed against. They make an increase, and, I think that we have gone far enough at present.
I was asked about superannuation by the hon. Member for Maryhill. I think that his was the only one reference to it, although I was expecting many more. The difficulty of the hon. Member, or rather the difficulty of those who correspond with him, is that there is in Scotland today a credit balance to the teachers' superannuation scheme of about £38 million or £39 million. On the other hand, the actuary has pointed out that there is a substantial deficit on the fund, and correspondents of both the hon. Member and myself cannot understand that.
Actually, it is quite easy to understand. This is a long-term pension scheme. It happens that at the moment the amount of money paid in is in excess of the amount to be paid out and there is a credit balance of £39 million. But looking to the years ahead, and to the time when the teachers now in service will have to be paid their pensions, the actuary has certified, and the Scottish working party of teachers and employers accepted his advice, that the scheme is in fact in deficit as an insurance scheme. I do not think that there should be any difficulty about understanding that. The House will know that we have been in close touch with the teachers and the local authorities on this superannuation scheme, and it may well be that further opportunities to discuss it will arise.
918
Some of my hon. Friends raised the question of equal pay—I am sorry if I appear to be rushing, but the House will understand why. We must face the fact that, rightly or wrongly, this House and both parties in it, and this Government, have accepted the principle of equal pay. There has been no vote against it or objection to it. It is now applied to the Civil Service. It is now applied to the English teachers and, by the action of my right hon. Friend, it is now applied to the Scottish teachers. There has been no vote against that and, so far as I know, there has been no criticism. My hon. Friends have been approached by a group of teachers in Scotland whose purpose in life—perfectly legitimately—is to fight for the men in opposition to what they think is the advance of the women.
There are a small number of them, the figure is very small indeed in comparison. I can assure my hon. Friends that there are many times more teachers in the E.I.S. than in the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association. I met the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association and had a talk about this topic. They presented their case which was largely an expression of anxiety about the future, and they did so with great force. There is no doubt that there is something in their case, and it was fully considered by my right hon. Friend and myself, but we came to the conclusion, taking everything into account, that we had to go forward with this equal pay arrangement.
It is not for me to look into the future. I have not sufficient authority to answer my hon. Friends and say that they have no need to fear. I cannot say that, but from all the information which I have, I do not believe that there are grounds for the extreme anxiety which is now expressed by these men teachers. I think that most of the higher posts in teaching in the senior schools will ultimately, as indeed they are now, be held by men. However, that is for the future to decide. I really do not think that I can go back upon this, and I hope that my hon. Friends, whose anxieties I fully understand, will not feel over concerned about the matter.
Miss Herbison: The Minister has just said that he met the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association. Is that the first time that any Scottish Minister has met any teaching body apart from the Educational Institute of Scotland?
Mr. Stewart: We are on a rather technical matter of procedure now, but the hon. Lady will know that the equivalent body in England to that of the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association is consulted by the English Ministry of Education on such matters. I am only stating the facts as they were in the hon. Lady's time and as they still are. Nothing has been altered in the matter since this Government came to power. The English Ministry of Education has always consulted the equivalent body in England on this kind of matter. It was consulted in this case. We thought it only right, since the S.S.A. is now associated and officially linked with the English body, that, as one half of it was consulted in England, we had to consult the other half in Scotland. That is why we did it.
Mr. Ross: Does that mean that in any future salary negotiations, and in everything else, this principle will be followed? It will certainly be advocated.
Mr. Stewart: There is no difficulty about that. I should be very pleased to write to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members concerned, or to meet them and to give a full explanation of that. However, I must ask the House not to expect me to use up my time on this point when there are more important matters to discuss.
Mr. Woodburn: It has always been and still is the principle of the Government in the bigger trade union field only to meet in negotiation bodies which represent a substantial proportion of the people who wish to discuss wages. My understanding of the body in question is that it represents only a small minority, not only of the profession, but of the men themselves. Up till now the general principle of Government negotiation has been only to negotiate with those bodies which represent a very substantial proportion of a profession or trade. The Minister has now altered that principle. I hope that he has consulted his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, because this is going to introduce great difficulties into the National Joint Council and other bodies from which certain trade unions are excluded because they cannot qualify under that principle.
Mr. Stewart: It is a great pity that hon. Members have raised this matter now, because I would ask them to believe
920
that it is a very tricky matter. I should be only too glad to give a complete account of our actions in this matter on another occasion. It has given both my right hon. Friend and myself a great deal of anxiety. I repeat that only in this restricted matter have we thought it right to accord to the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association a right of interview in the same way as that right has all along been accorded to its opposite number in England by the English Minister of Education. As I have said, I will gladly give a full account of our actions on another occasion when, I have no doubt, the right hon. Member for East Stirling-shire will think that we have done the right thing.
I have been asked a number of questions about the Appleton recommendations. The Appleton Committee made three recommendations. The first was that teachers with first and second class honours in mathematics, physics and chemistry should be deferred from National Service. The House now knows that action along those lines has been taken. The second recommendation was that retired mathematics and science teachers might remain in or return to service if given full pay and full pensions. That question was asked today by an hon. Member opposite. The answer is that we are now in the process of examining that proposal. The third recommendation was that student teachers of mathematics and science should receive generous allowances, without the imposition of a means test, during their training college year. That also is being examined at the present time.
The Appleton Committee made a number of long-term proposals, connected largely with salaries, and on that matter I am glad to be able to make the following announcement to the House. The Appleton Committee's proposals on salary changes were passed to the National Joint Council on 31st March, the date of publication of the Appleton Report. The Council discussed these proposals fully and carefully, and it has now informed us that at its meeting on Friday last, 28th October, the two sides of the Council reached broad agreement, though the details have still to be worked out.
Under the agreement, certain salary increases will be recommended for the teachers in secondary schools, but they

921
will not be confined to teachers of mathematics and science. The Council hopes to submit its detailed recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the end of November. I can, of course, assure the House that we shall act upon these recommendations as quickly as possible.
The Appleton Committee, as I say, made a number of long-term recommendations. It wanted the better deployment of teachers among schools. We are taking action on that matter. It wanted to encourage more pupils to stay on at school, and we are taking steps in that direction. I remember that in one of our recent debates, the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North urged me to take further steps by way of propaganda—posters, lectures, broadcasts, and so on—to encourage people to become teachers. All that we are planning to do. We have already sent pamphlets round to the schools and universities, and, more recently, we have got the assent of the universities to our sending one or two teachers to the universities to meet the students and to talk to them. So that we, too, like industrial leaders, will send our representatives there. I am glad to see that I have the support of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North on that matter.
I had wanted to say a lot about junior and senior secondary schools, because, after all, it is the schools and the children about whom we are concerned, and I should very much have liked to tell the House of the improvements and developments that we have in mind for junior and senior secondary schools. As the House knows, the report by the inspectors, which is a very interesting document, has had a very wide circulation for a document of its kind. Indeed, I am told that it has had almost an exceptionally wide circulation. It has been followed by the production of a film, which I shall be glad to arrange to have shown in the House of Commons if hon. Members would like to see it. It is a fascinating film, and we are taking steps to make it known throughout the country. Our inspectors will meet the teachers, and we shall do everything we can to follow the broad liberal ideas set out in this film.
We are not satisfied with the junior secondary school as it is today. It has got to be developed in many directions, as
922
was said by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I have time only to say that that is our firm intention. The terms of development in which we are thinking in regard to senior secondary schools will include the introduction of a new kind of examination. Again, I would have liked to have time to develop that point. There may be a future opportunity to do so.
By those and similar means we are trying to take away from our Scottish schools the old academic bias that on many occasions has kept us from advancing as the schools of other countries have advanced. There is a place for the academic subject—I had academic training myself—but in these modern times it is not everything, and we have plans to go much further ahead.
I now turn to the subject of building. It is quite clear that all the future work which we would like to do cannot be advanced with any hope of success unless and until we increase the supply of teachers, and until the already great and steadily growing building programme is carried through to completion. These two tasks—the finding of an adequate number of teachers, and the building of enough schools—together form the crucial problem facing local education authorities now and in the years immediately ahead.
With regard to the former, I have been asked about uncertificated teachers. I have not the latest figures in my mind, but there are too many of these teachers in our schools. The House knows that we are doing everything humanly possible to recruit more teachers. We are trying to get children to remain longer at school, so that more will be able to go to the universities. I think that in the matter of education we are getting a very fair crack of the whip. The House will have noticed that the P.E.P. report issued the other day mentioned that 23·4 per cent. of university graduates go into teaching and the same percentage into industry. That is a great deal better than I had expected, but we must try to improve upon it, by making teaching more attractive, and improving the staff rooms and the rest of the conditions.
I agree that we should regard teachers as members of a very high profession, and I also agree that teachers are not always their own best friends in this matter. We should like to increase their

923
salaries. Indeed, they have been increased in recent years. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Sir G. Lloyd) said that there had been only a 5 per cent. increase since 1951. That was a slip of the tongue; there has been a 40 per cent. increase since January, 1951, in the salaries of teachers. I have here the list, year by year, of these salary increases.
The matter in which I take a little satisfaction—I will say pride—is that in the last two changes upwards special emphasis has been laid upon increased responsibility payments. I took the view, as did my right hon. Friend, that even if we have not vast sums to play with we should at least try to compensate, as much as possible, those men and women who are holding positions of high responsibility. We are doing all we can at present, and we shall do more in the future, to increase the numbers of teachers. My right hon. Friend and I will be grateful for any help which is given to us in this matter.
As hon. Members will recall, there is also the problem of building. Last night the Prime Minister said, in simple, plain words, that the educational building programme stands—I am now answering the hon. Member for Maryhill—and there appeared in the Press this morning a statement in the same sense by the Minister of Education as regards England and Wales. My right hon. Friend has not issued such a statement, and does not intend to do so. The reason is that the statement issued by the Minister of Education refers to the educational programme, "as announced" by him during the summer. As I understand it, it covered practically all the projects which education authorities in England and Wales intend to carry out between now and March, 1957, and—I would like to ask the House to note this—the projects and programmes to which the Minister had, by the summer of this year, given formal approval. Those programmes amounted to no less than £80 million for 1956–57 in England and Wales.
Our conditions, and the drill about the submission of programmes and projects, are somewhat different. My right hon. Friend has been able to approve a considerable number of projects submitted to him by authorities for work to be done
924
over the next two years, but the greater part of their programmes—although it is well known to us and is in accordance with our wishes—has not yet been submitted to him for formal approval. In Scotland, therefore, we are unable to say, as the English Minister of Education has said, that "the educational building programme, as announced, is being maintained." I wish to make it abundantly plain, however—and I hope that this is a completely clear answer to the hon. Member's question—that our intention in this matter is no less firm than that of the Minister of Education for England and Wales.
My right hon. Friend desires that education authorities in Scotland shall, subject to the observance of strict economy in all their projects, proceed with approved projects with all speed, expedite the submission of other projects ripe for approval, and push forward as quickly as possible in all the planning stages of whatever further projects they regard as essential for the performance of their statutory duties. In the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech:
"…we have to do all we can to meet imperative needs—in the case of education of the rising school population."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 211.]
Do not let the House ever forget that the figures for the rising school population in Scotland are, in many ways, terrifying, as they are in England. In the case of primary schools the bulge is going down, but in secondary and senior schools the rise in the next 4, 5 and 6 years is going to be as much as we can possibly meet. It is a most serious matter, and that is why we must do all we can to meet the imperative needs of a rising school population.
It is for this reason that the Government are according special treatment for education, but I wish to emphasise again that in present financial circumstances this special treatment lays upon the authorities a special responsibility to practise strict economy in the carrying out of their programmes. That the Government are ready to support all essential work in this field is proved by the fact that we have already provided for a total educational building programme—including technical building—of at least £11 million in 1956–57, compared with £6 million last year.

925
I should like to develop this point further, but I trust that I have said enough to indicate that we mean to go ahead in all the many fields with a forward, progressive policy of education. My hope is that by the end of this Parliament we shall all be proud to say that Scotland has stepped briskly forward to this great object.
Mr. Martin Redmayne (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  AGRICULTURE (IMPROVEMENT OF ROADS) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  AGRICULTURE (IMPROVEMENT OF ROADS) BILL

    Clause 1.—(PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ROADS.)
    7.51 p.m.
    Mr. Tudor Watkins: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end to insert:
    "on such terms as the Council with the approval of the Minister, may approve."
    During the Committee stage the Minister was good enough to invite the Committee to consider certain Amendments, one of which I am now moving. This Amendment concerns unadopted roads. We are not anxious that the liabilities of owners should be lifted by the new subsection which has been brought into the Bill. We do not like the extinguishing of the liabilities. The Minister gave the Committee the objections he saw against accepting our Amendment, in particular the difficulty of finding out the responsible persons. We agree that that may be difficult, but there may be persons who, upon the grant of Crown land many years ago, might have an obligation to maintain highways which may become unadopted roads under the Bill.
    We do not want the Bill to extinguish the liabilities of large landowners for making a contribution to the construction of unadopted roads. If the responsible people cannot be found, that is no argument against saying that they must make a contribution, and for extinguishing their liabilities altogether.
    The Minister pointed out that in some cases obligations had lapsed because of disuse of the roads, but we cannot understand that. We believe that once a very good road has been constructed by the highway authorities owners will pop up once again, to take advantage of the better roads that have been made. I would not altogether agree that the obligations have lapsed and that there is no liability left.
    The Minister referred to the task of getting co-ordination in the crofting counties. As a Member for a Welsh constituency, I am not familiar with what

    927
    happens in the crofting counties. The Minister said he would look at that matter between the Committee stage and the present stage of the Bill.
    People who had liabilities in connection with these highways still have them in many cases. I put to the Minister a point which some of my hon. Friends may not have put during the Committee. What is to happen under our drainage Acts? Are the rights and liabilities of people to be done away with in future legislation? There should be liabilities on landowners when erosion or drainage takes place. The same applies in connection with river boards. I know of cases where local authorities are trying to interest river boards because of the erosion of banks, but the river boards say that they have no responsibility at all and they put it back upon the owners of the land.
    The new subsection relieves all these people of their liabilities for maintenance of highways and of any responsibility for unadopted roads. What has been the result of the consultations since the meeting of the Committee? I hope that the Minister is now able to bring forward practical proposals to meet our arguments, which were very earnestly considered and supported in the Committee. If large estates have passed to the Forestry Commission what is to happen about construction of highways there? Is the Commission to be relieved of the responsibility of making a contribution?
    In Committee I mentioned the very good example of people who want cattle grids. There has been no great difficulty about it and in the districts I know best there has been a great deal of voluntary co-operation. I hope that the Minister has been able to consider the Amendment and that he will accept it.
    Mr. Sidney Dye: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Naturally, we are disappointed that the Minister has not put down an Amendment for the Report stage, after considering the matter which was most clearly stated in the Committee. We tried to state the case fairly from the point of view of those whose duty it would be, under the Bill, to prepare a scheme. We wanted to see the matter from the point of view of the county councils, who are the highway authorities and will have the duty of preparing schemes. Being
    928
    responsible to the electors the county councils should do everything fairly. Nobody should get an abnormal advantage out of a scheme to make or reconstruct a road in an area where somebody else previously had an obligation to maintain a road. All previous obligations are to be wiped out by the Bill.
    Conditions should be laid down, and known not merely to the people concerned but to the electors, to whom the county councils are under an obligation. It is important, where it is known that an obligation to repair or keep open a road exists, that some means should be found during the negotiations, either by a capital contribution that would wipe out future maintenance costs or in some other way, to come to a private arrangement. It should not just be that the county council prepares a scheme and, with assistance from the Ministry, carries out the repair or reconstruction of the road, while the persons who previously had the obligation to do it get off scot-free.
    We want to strengthen the hands of the county councils in this respect in preparing a scheme. We want to give them power in the Bill by which they can make terms on which an owner whose obligation is being liquidated does something towards the maintenance of a road. It is, therefore, important. Had an Amendment which we moved in Committee been carried—that wherever a road is improved under this Bill it should become a classified highway and that the State should then make its contribution to the annual maintenance afterwards—our case would not be so strong.
    8.0 p.m.
    Under the Bill as it stands, the entire cost of maintenance of the road in the future is placed upon the highway authority. We want to ensure, therefore, that that authority can, while formulating the scheme, arrange that any such owner such as we envisage in this Amendment—and there are numbers of them—shall meet the cost either by a capital grant or by a future annual contribution. It is one or the other—or any other alternative which may occur. Account would be taken of the financial circumstances of a particular owner, who might be in a position to make an annual contribution in the future but not to make a considerable grant towards the reconstruction of the highway concerned.

    929
    We regard this as important to the county councils in that we ought not to use this Bill as a means of bringing an improvement to the value of a property—such as occurs when a highway is reconstructed as we envisage here—without that obligation on the part of an owner. As we were disappointed that the Minister had not himself thought of a method of solving this, we are putting forward the Amendment that was debated in Committee, on which the arguments for and against seemed very equally balanced and on which it seemed to us that there was a case for an Amendment of that nature to be accepted.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I, too, am disappointed that I have not been able to bring forward an Amendment on the lines of that which has been moved by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). I should like to repeat what I said at an earlier stage, which is that I go a very long way with the hon. Member in his views on this matter. It would not be unfair, in principle, that those who have been previously liable for the repair of the road should make some contribution. At that time I said that, from a study I had made the practical objections outweighed the advantages of making the proposed change in the Bill. Although I promised to reconsider the matter, I said that I might have to come back to the House to say that I still felt as I did then.
    I went away with a distinct bias towards finding a solution on those lines if it were possible. We have looked at this very thoroughly and have taken a good deal of trouble over it. We have considered a number of possible draft Amendments, and I must say that I was, myself, astonished to find that every one of those draft Amendments brought us up against quite a surprising number of technical difficulties. For instance, there was the effect of the application of the capital moneys under the Settled Land Act and the Law of Property Act. As I say, it seemed astonishing that it should be necessary to make such heavy weather—as I am advised it is—in a simple transfer of money from the person liable for the upkeep of the road to the county council.
    In spite of those difficulties we went ahead, as I said we would, and consulted the organisations concerned. We consulted
    930
    the County Councils' Association, the Council for Wales—again, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association. In the first place, I daresay that the House will not be surprised to know the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association were opposed to the change proposed—but not on grounds of principle. They felt that this change would make those at present responsible for the roads less anxious that the roads should be taken over by the county council. As we know, these roads have been allowed to run down, and it is possible, in some cases, that the liability for the upkeep which has not been carried out would be quite a heavy one. One reason why the roads have run down and why upkeep has not been carried on is that, in any case, the owners responsible have not been able to afford to do it. That was the attitude of those bodies.
    The Council of Wales agreed, as I do, that there is something in the principle of the suggested change, but it expressed itself as definitely against compulsory contributions. It thought that there would be some inconsistency if compulsory contributions were imposed under Clause 1 but not under Clause 3. The County Councils' Association was most unenthusiastic about the change. That organisation, again, had no objection to the principle—I do not think anyone can have—but, like myself, it had serious doubt as to whether this proposed change would, in fact, be workable or worth while, The impression it gave us was that it felt that the change would be more trouble than it was worth.
    Those are the results. I want to give them quite frankly, because I think that in our discussions before and today the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have dealt with this matter most moderately. The bodies most concerned, and, I think, best qualified to judge, have agreed that as a practical proposition this change is not worth while including in this legislation. There were, of course, other objections which I mentioned at an earlier stage, and to which the hon. Member has referred—the liabilities for upkeep attaching at present to all sorts of people, and, astonishing as it seems, not always to the existing owners and occupiers of the land adjoining the roads. There are, therefore, real difficulties; not only practical

    931
    administrative difficulties but certain difficulties of justice in discovering the person who really should carry forward this liability. I repeat that there is not any real analogy between these roads, and private streets where the owners and beneficiaries are easily identifiable and well known.
    In conclusion, I should like to say that all these objections, and particularly the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the highway authorities, who might be expected to benefit most from this change, have led me to conclude that it would be a mistake to include this Amendment in the Bill. With reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, I would point out that provision is made in the Bill for voluntary contributions, and I hope that in some cases those will be effected.
    I am very sorry that I have been unable to meet the wishes of hon. Members, which I think are essentially reasonable, and I would like to have met them, but I am sure that in this case, in view of the practical considerations that I have mentioned, the conclusion that I have reached is right.
    Mr. George Brown: I know of no man who can do the wrong thing more regretfully, more sympathetically and more kindly than the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture.
    Let us be quite clear what he is doing here. He is making a naked and unashamed surrender to landlordism, and the fact that the Minister thinks that this Amendment is right and fair and he regrets that he cannot accept it makes his surrender none the less complete.
    I am astonished at the content of the right hon. Gentleman's answer. What is proposed by this Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) in so cogent a speech and seconded similarly by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye)? To none of their arguments has the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself. The Amendment makes nonsense of his reply. The Amendment says that the obligation of the landlord or the occupier to contribute to the upkeep shall be extinguished
    "on such terms as the Council with the approval of the Minister, may approve."
    932
    "Such terms" includes anything. If the people cannot be found, then there are no terms at all because there is no one to whom they can be applied. If it is not worth the trouble, there is nothing to do. The council can say to the Minister, "We recommend that in this case it is not worth the trouble going after the people," or "The people are too small to go after," and so on and so forth. But in a case where the landlords are available and have substance, it leaves the council in a position to take a contribution from them.
    I know there is nobody like a draftsman for discovering why no set of words ever means anything at all. I have been through all this and I know the position. But there are some occasions when Ministers have to say to draftsmen, "This is what I want to do. I want the landlords, where they are available and where they have substance, only to get out of their obligation on condition that they contribute something."
    Mr. Roderic Bowen: I should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would indicate whether, when he uses the expression "landlord," he includes the Forestry Commission, and, if so, what terms he would suggest a council should make when the Forestry Commission are in the position of landlords.
    Mr. Brown: I am not one of the men in Whitehall who know best. The terms are terms for the council to negotiate with the people whose interests they are extinguishing. I certainly think it should apply to the Forestry Commission.
    One of the extraordinary things about this attitude of the Minister is that bodies who can well afford to make their contribution are being let off so that the whole burden falls on the ratepayers of very poor counties. That is inevitably so. Montgomeryshire, Merionethshire—in fact, all the Welsh counties—are, by comparison, relatively poor counties. It is bad enough when an ordinary landlord is relieved of his obligations and they are put on the ratepayers. It is even worse when a public authority which can get money for the purpose is also let off and the burden is put on the ratepayers.
    What are the Minister's objections? As I was saying, there is the objection about

    933
    the technical difficulties of drafting anything. This is the sort of thing that a Minister who is not in command of his Department will always find himself hampered with. But there comes a time for every Minister to say, "I am sorry, but this is what I want to achieve. I will spell it out for you as simply as I can. All you have to do is to find the right form of words." My experience is that when a Minister says that, the draftsmen can always produce the form of words.
    I do not see what is wrong with our form of words. This matter has nothing to do with the ancient Acts about the transfer of money from a private occupier to a public authority. Although the Private Street Works Act may not be completely analogous in other respects, it is analogous in this respect. Money is transferred without all these difficulties where private street works are concerned.
    The Minister then produced a second difficulty. I thought it was fantastic. He referred to the objections of the National Farmers' Union and the C.L.A.—what, I think, used to be called the Country Gentlemen's Association.
    8.15 p.m.
    Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: They are quite different.
    Mr. Brown: What they say, as I understand, is that it would make the landlords less anxious to have their obligations taken over. Has anyone ever heard anything like it? The landlords, who, at the moment, are not fulfilling their obligations—that is why the roads have fallen into such a bad state and that is why it will cost £3,000 a mile to improve them—would be less anxious to have their roads taken over and improved so that they or their tenants could farm their land better, if they knew that there was a chance that the council would make them contribute something towards the operation.
    What do they prefer to do—to do it themselves? No, they prefer to continue not doing it at all. That is always likely to be the attitude of anybody if he can get away without doing it, which is what is being done at the moment. Obviously, in those circumstances, a man will not be keen to have it taken over by somebody else if he has got to contribute something towards it.
    934
    What is the point of the Report of the Council for Wales? The point of the Report is that agriculture and the economy of those rural areas which depend on that industry are suffering as the result of this situation. We are told by this Administration that it has so much more tender regard for the susceptibilities of landlords than it has for other people, that the fact that they have not done their job for many years shall not be a black mark against them and shall not involve any action against them. In fact, their whole obligation is to be taken over by the State, by the ratepayers and the taxpayers, and in case any of these gentlemen who have not done their job should get sufficiently awkward to prevent the ratepayers and the taxpayers doing it for them in the future, they are to be let off contributing at all to the job.
    That is not an answer which ought to commend itself to the House. I do not think it is an answer that any Minister ought to accept. The fact that the County Councils' Association put it forward does not surprise me either, because these very gentlemen are not without a somewhat disproportionate representation in most of our rural county councils. I should think that it is very likely that the people whom we should see from the Country Landowners' Association would be the same people whom we should see from the County Councils' Association. We should not get two sets of opinion from them. We should get the same opinion from all these people under two different names.
    The Council for Wales and the Minister support the Amendment in principle. We support it in principle and in every other way. We want this work to be done. We do not want to say that everybody must contribute, because we recognise that there would be some places where it would be difficult to enforce and other places where we would not want to enforce it—for instance, where estates have been broken up and people have been induced to buy small parts of the estate, probably at high prices. It would be wrong to visit the sins of their predecessors in title upon them.
    We have, therefore, framed a form of words which permits the local authority, which, after all, will not use these powers vigorously but will use them with a great deal of restraint, to use them where it

    935
    is the right thing to do and where it can be done. We reserve the right of approval to the Minister so that in any case where a council is acting awkwardly or arbitrarily he will be able to disapprove the arrangements.
    If the Minister feels as he has said about this, he has every reason to have his arm strengthened. He is by no means the most powerful Minister who has ever occupied that office. My regard for the Ministry is very high, despite all that has happened in recent months—and I say the "Ministry" and not the "Minister". My regard for the Minister and for the Ministry are not interchangeable terms by any means.
    My regard for the Ministry and for its administration is such that I am not prepared to see that excellent Department trodden down in this way. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will decide that this is a principle of some importance
    —the duty of a landlord to do his job; if he does not do it, the right of the State to do it for him; and the overriding obligation on his part to make some contribution to his fellow ratepayers when they take over for him, especially as many of them are poorer than he is.
    We let this go in Committee without a Division because the Minister came there with his tears and his friendly approach and told us how much he wanted to do it. We relied on him to stand up to the Country Landowners' Association and to the pressure groups of the county councils of rural England. He has not done so. I have no doubt his Ministry wish he had. In that spirit I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will see this issue through the Division Lobby.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 167.

    Division No. 34.]

    AYES

    [8.24 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Oswald, T.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hannan, W.

    Padley, W. E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Balfour, A.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pearson, A.

    Bartley, P.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Popplewell, E.

    Blackburn, F.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Boardman, H.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Ross, William

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Royle, C.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Short, E. W.

    Brookway, A. F.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Snow, J. W.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Champion, A. J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Steele, T.

    Coldrick, W.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lee, Frederlek (Newton)

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    McInnes, J.

    Tomney, F.

    Deer, G.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Dye, S.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Wade, D. W.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Flenburgh, W.

    Mason, Roy

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Monslow, W.

    Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Moody, A. S.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Grenfell, R. Hon. D. R.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mort, D. L.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Moss, R.

    Hale, Leslie

    Moyle, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Holmes.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Mawby, R. L.

    Altken, W. T.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

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

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

    Green, A.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Neave, Airey

    Ashton, H.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Barber, Anthony

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Page, R. G.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Barter, John

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Hope, Lord John

    Pott, H. P.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Hornsby-Smith, Mist M. P.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Bishop, F. P.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Braine, B. R.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Bryan, P.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Redmayne, M.

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

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hurd, A. R.

    Robertson, Sir David

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

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Carr, Robert

    Hutchison, James (Sectstoun)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Russell, R. S.

    Channon, H.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Sharples, Maj. R. C.

    Cole, Norman

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

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

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne).

    Keegan, D.

    Storey, S.

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

    Kerr, H. W.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Studholme H. G.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Lagden, G. W.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

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

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

    Doughty, C J. A.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick & L'm'tn)

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

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Elliot, R. Hon. W. E.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Farey-Jones F. W.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)

    Finlay, Graeme

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Freeth, D. K.

    Maddan, Martin

    Woollam, John Victor

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Marples, A. E.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Comma-Duncan, Col. A.

    Mathew, R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gower, H. R.

    Maude, Angus

    Mr. E. Wakefield and Mr. Godber.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 3.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS EXPENDITURE ON IMPROVING ROADS.)
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Watkins: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, at the end to insert:
    (4) (a) Where a council are willing to enter into an agreement under this section and a two-thirds majority (in terms of acreage owned) of the owners of land which would be benefited by the proposed agreement are likewise willing and so inform the council in writing, the council may subject as hereinafter provided thereupon carry out the improvement to which the proposed agreement relates and shall be entitled on completion of the necessary works to recover the expenses incurred by them in so doing summarily as a civil debt from the owners of the land benefiting from the said works;
    938
    (b) before proceeding to carry out any improvement under the foregoing subsection the council shall first serve on every owner of land which in their opinion would benefit from such improvement a notice of their intention to carry out the works and of their provisional apportionment of the cost thereof and in the event of any such owner serving within one month of the date of such notice written objection to the proposed works or to the provisional apportionment of cost the council shall not proceed with the said works until such objection has been determined either by agreement or by reference to a court of summary jurisdiction.
    This is another Amendment which we discussed in the proceedings in Committee. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary promised further consideration and consultation, particularly with the Council

    939
    for Wales, but again no Amendment has been put down by him or by the Minister, and I take it that we are not to get anything from the Government. Therefore, I suggest that the House should give consideration to what is put forward in this Amendment.
    We do not want a minority of owners to hold up a scheme on which there has been a voluntary agreement. The words of the Amendment only mean that if two-thirds of the owners are willing to make a contribution but a minority does not want to give anything the minority shall come in. The Ministry of Agriculture has had experience of a minority of people not coming into schemes when the country was in need of food production. Because one owner held out against a scheme on common land the Ministry was not able to proceed with that scheme. This Bill is very necessary for food production in the livestock rearing areas, and we do not want that sort of thing to happen.
    It is a question of the frustration by a minority. I would emphasise that the Amendment does not mean that hon. Members on this side of the House are in favour of a compulsory contribution. All these contributions are voluntary, but, in a situation in which two-thirds of those concerned are in favour, we cannot see that it is right that the minority should hold up a very important proposed road scheme. The Amendment has been put down in order that we may have the views of the Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary after consultations have taken place.
    Mr. Dye: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Here again, I think we should try to see this Bill operating from the point of view of the elected representatives in the area. They are the people on whom the obligation is placed to propose schemes for road improvements, and in nearly every case there will be more than one landowner concerned. Inevitably, the question will arise how much these people are prepared to contribute towards the capital cost of a particular scheme. We may have six different landowners involved, and five of them may be very enthusiastic in desiring the scheme to go forward, while the sixth may be just an awkward kind of cuss. We might find them in Wales. I feel perfectly certain of that, and, if not,
    940
    maybe we can export one or two from Norfolk or somewhere else, but there they are.
    We cannot always get all the people who are to benefit to agree to make a contribution towards the cost of the scheme. What is the county council to do? Is it to go forward on the basis that five will contribute and one will not, or will it put forward a scheme in which none of the six will contribute, but in which the amount they should have contributed will have to be borne by the ratepayers in the locality? We do not think that that would be a fair solution.
    If, after the fullest possible consideration, there is one person—or more—standing out against a scheme which is designed for their particular benefit, and almost for their benefit alone, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the local ratepayers are making contributions towards the cost, should the scheme be dropped and the five honest and upright farmers be prevented from having the advantage of a road improvement scheme?
    To me, that situation does not seem to be met by the provisions of this Bill, and we want to assist and guide county councils in their work in this respect. We hoped that the Minister, in his further study over the very long vacation which the House has had, now that he has been to the uttermost parts of the earth—maybe from Russia, where the Parliamentary Secretary has been, or from other parts of the world—would have gathered the inspiration necessary to meet this particular point, but we are disappointed.
    Mr. G. Brown: What warmth was m him was frozen out.
    Mr. Dye: He leaves us where we left the matter in Committee upstairs without any guidance on this matter, and we fear that, because of this weakness, the difficulties of the local authorities which propose these schemes will be made greater. They will have no power to deal with the unwilling or unfaithful type of people in these areas who might improve their own financial position and increase the productivity of their holdings to the benefit of the nation.
    That is the purpose behind this Amendment—to enable the people who are now hindered from making the fullest and best use of their land, because of the lack of

    941
    an adequate highway to it in order to bring in the supplies necessary for the farm and to get the products away, to benefit. It is because of the conditions of these highways that we wish to strengthen the arm of the local authority.
    We do not want this for the sake of forcing anybody to do something against his will. We want to be able to deal with the awkward person who will not try to meet the needs of his neighbours by assisting in the preparation of a scheme. We want authority for the county council to deal with that type of person, and the Amendment would give the county council such authority. If the Amendment is not accepted and the Minister has nothing else to suggest, there will be a flagrant flaw in this small Bill which is designed to assist in the improvement of roads in parts of the country which have suffered long without the amenity of a modern highway.
    8.41 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I am glad to be able to tell the House that we consulted the Council for Wales, as I undertook to do in Committee, and the Council confirmed the view, which it had expressed in a general way previously, that compulsory contributions of any kind would be inadvisable. I recollect that the right hon. Gentleman specifically asked me whether the Council had advised on this aspect, and I was unable to say that it had because the matter had not then been put to it. However, we have specifically put the matter to the Council, and the Council strongly advises us not to impose compulsory contributions of any kind.
    The fact is that the practical difficulties would be considerable. I feel that I ought not to keep the House long in enumerating them again, but perhaps I might just mention them in order to put them on the record and to explain and justify the course I am now recommending to the House.
    First of all, there is the very real difficulty of determining who are the benefiting owners. Some owners could easily be defined, but others would be much more difficult to define. Indeed, there would be the difficulty of those who had obligations in respect of unadopted roads which were to be extinguished by adoption under these schemes and who perhaps were not going to benefit at all from
    942
    the schemes. There would immediately be difficulty in determining who were the benefiting owners.
    The next difficulty, which I think would be more formidable still, would be that of assessing contributions. I am certain that the acreage basis would be unacceptable because it would be altogether too inequitable. The land concerned might vary, as it does in the Welsh uplands, from rough moorland worth nothing to good farmland worth perhaps as much as £2 per acre per year.
    There would, thus, be real difficulty in finding a satisfactory basis for assessment of contributions. Probably one would be driven to an independent valuation as the only fair method of doing it, and that would be an expensive thing to do and it would require some time. There would also arise the difficulty of an appeal, as provided for in the Amendment. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have rightly foreseen that there would be objections from these people, and, consequently, they have provided for an appeal to the magistrates' court.
    8.45 p.m.
    Undoubtedly the unwilling owners would wish to appeal, first of all on the ground that they were not the benefiting owners and should not come into the scheme at all. Secondly, they would wish to appeal against the basis of assessment. Those appeals would be contentious affairs. They would be considerably time-consuming and undoubtedly would have a disturbing effect on local sentiment. If an appellant succeeded in his appeal, what would the county council do, supposing there was a contributory scheme of this kind? Possibly it would have to drop the whole scheme.
    It is for that kind of reason that we feel that the practical problem here is pretty considerable. Bearing in mind that in the upland areas the majority of owners and occupiers are people of very limited financial resources and that, more often than not, the unwilling minority would be people of limited financial resources, I have very considerable doubt whether it would be wise to coerce them—and that is what it would mean.
    I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) declare himself not in favour of the principle of compulsory contribution. The rights of the minority are important to all

    943
    of us. There are occasions when minorities must bow their heads and agree with the majorities, but if that obligation can be spared we are very glad. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) asked me if I did not find inspiration in Russia. I certainly found plenty of inspiration for ignoring the rights of minorities in Russia, but that is not the kind of inspiration that I have brought to inspire my work here. I believe that, wherever we can, we should not override and coerce minorities, unless there is an overwhelming case for so doing.
    Mr. Dye: Would the position then be that, if one person holds out against the scheme, the scheme must be or can be dropped and the others who might benefit would not receive the benefit? What is the answer to that point?
    Mr. Nugent: The answer to the point is quite clearly in the Bill. Indeed, we have discussed it at length in Committee. The answer is that the Bill as drafted will provide that county councils or highway authorities can promote schemes on the basis that they undertake their part of the cost after having received the grant that we give. They can then receive voluntary contributions from the affected landowners in the neighbourhood. But it is undoubtedly within the discretion of the county councils to proceed without any contributions at all. Indeed, if in a poor area the county council thought that nothing would be forthcoming, it would be very wise to do so. I suspect that in some areas where the people had deeper pockets the landowners very likely would go to the county council and say, "We should be glad to make a contribution if you go ahead with the scheme."
    The Bill, as drafted, is completely flexible on that point. Because one person is unwilling to contribute there is no need for the scheme to fail, but if the Bill were drafted in the way which is suggested by hon. Members opposite, the scheme might very well fail in the event of an appellant in a magistrates' court appealing successfully against the proposal, because the county council would have made its proposition on the basis that all the benefiting owners came in. Be that as it may, we feel that here is a case where, in the nature of things, we
    944
    are dealing with people who are in limited circumstances. Therefore, it would be most unwise to compel the unwilling minority to come in and contribute. It might make for very hard cases.
    It is for these reasons that I strongly advise the House to accept the Clause as drafted. It really takes account of the practical nature of the problem. By leaving it open for highway authorities to accept contributions where they can be made but otherwise to bear part of the cost themselves, and bearing in mind that we shall make a pretty substantial grant, which, in many cases, will be 75 per cent., or even more for unadopted roads, we think that here is a proposition sufficiently attractive for many highway authorities in these parts to take advantage of it. In these circumstances, I hope that the House will accept the Clause as striking a sensible, practical balance and will not ask that the minority should be coerced.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Dye: On a point of order. Is it not your intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call the last Amendment on the Order Paper—Clause 5, to leave out lines 1 to 5—standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and other hon. Members? It is a matter in which we wanted to bring the definition of an area to benefit into harmony with the Title of the Bill. The Clause, as it now stands, relates predominantly to mountains, hills or heath. That seems to be quite out of harmony with the Title of the Bill, which was prescribed as being for agricultural purposes—and mountains, heaths and hills are not agriculture. During the Committee stage, I addressed arguments at considerable length to this definition, and on that occasion the answer was, in my view, very unsatisfactory. I should have thought that those were sufficient grounds for this Amendment to be debated on the Report stage.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): That argument might have been in order in Committee, but at this stage, the Bill having left Committee, the effect of the Amendment would be, possibly, to extend the charge, and the test is the form of the Bill as it left the Committee. Therefore, it is out of order.
    8.51 p.m.
    Mr. Amory: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Bill comes before the House for Third Reading very much in the same form as it was originally introduced. At the same time, I feel that we are indebted to hon. Members opposite for two Amendments, particularly the one which requires that schemes for road construction improvements be submitted to Ministers, and approved by them, within seven years.
    Looking at the Bill now, I think that that is a useful Amendment, entirely in line with the broad intentions of the Bill, and that it should help to ensure that proposals are put in hand without loss of time. We have been unable, as we have explained to the House, to accept other Amendments, notably those providing for payments to persons liable for the upkeep of unadopted roads taken over by the highway authorities, and for compulsory contributions for improvements from the owners in certain circumstances.
    Apart from the other difficulties which we have mentioned, we find that, however justified these changes may be in principle, we have definite evidence from those whom we think best qualified to judge the effects, that they do not feel that these particular changes would, in practice, help to further general aims of the Bill. That, after all, is the important thing.
    Throughout the debates which we have had, I think that there has been general agreement that, so far as it goes, the Bill has been sound and useful. The criticisms which have been made have taken the form of expressions of disappointment that the scope has not been wider. I should like, in a few sentences, briefly to recapitulate the Government's view on that point.
    The primary reason for assisting in the reconstruction of unclassified and unadopted roads in upland areas is to complete the work which was begun or could be begun under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. In a number of cases a quite heavy expenditure under these Acts is in danger of failing in its purpose because of inadequate access on the half derelict roads serving farms which have been assisted under the hill farming schemes. In other cases useful schemes are not worthy of putting
    946
    in hand unless the roads are improved. The poverty of these upland area farms, which is, in part, the case for these grants, is also reflected in the limited resources of the highway authorities. They have not the resources in terms of rateable value to be able to carry out the improvements without some assistance from the Exchequer; and I think it is agreed that in Wales and other comparable upland areas in England and Scotland the effects of this poor access are particularly serious.
    In its Reports for 1950 and 1953 the Council for Wales stressed the difficulty that was created for Welsh upland farmers by poor access. It has prevented them from using to the full the capacities of their land, and in many cases it has not been worth while for a farmer to take advantage of Government assistance for development. In these circumstances there has been a steady drift of population from these areas, with the danger that, if nothing is done, a good deal of land will gradually go derelict.
    For these reasons these uplands areas, in our opinion, constitute a special case, and we are proposing to provide this special assistance for road reconstruction in the belief that it is one of the things particularly required to set these farmers on their feet, enable them to pay their way and attain new prosperity. My hon. Friend and I have stressed throughout our debates that this scheme is really a new departure and very much of an experiment. If it proves a success, as I hope it will, it may have many lessons which will be relevant to conditions in other areas. I feel that we must go ahead and see. For that reason—because of the experimental nature of this project—and also because the needs of the upland areas seem to us most pressing, we feel it wise to concentrate our limited resources in the way proposed in the Bill.
    Hon. Members may ask, "Is not the object of this Bill, and the spending of £4 million in Exchequer grants, contrary to the wishes expressed by the Chancellor to local authorities to restrain their expenditure? I do not think that it is.
    Mr. G. Brown: Could not we have something more certain?
    Mr. Amory: I do not believe that it is; in my opinion it is not. I do not know

    947
    what the right hon. Gentleman would like me to say. Perhaps he will suggest something.
    Mr. Brown: Last night the Prime Minister told us that a lot of things were not to be cut, but that priorities in all these things were now subject to reexamination. The Minister cannot say that he thinks this will be in the first rank of priorities. He is the Minister, and a member of the Cabinet, and we are asking him to say whether the priority in this case is as strong now as when the Bill was introduced.
    Mr. Amory: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would curb his impatience and let me proceed to my next sentence, because I shall be covering that point.
    I have said that in my opinion this is not contrary to the expressed wish of the Chancellor. Provision is made for expenditure over seven years following the passing of the Act. The actual expenditure in the first year is bound to be light. It will take some time for local authorities to put forward their projects. We hope that they will begin doing so as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has put on the brake in order to curb excessive current expenditure and immediate projects. The developments and improvements will continue to go forward, though they may do so at a more moderate pace.
    Secondly, this Bill gives local authorities new facilities, but it is the local authorities that are to be free to settle for themselves the priority of their expenditure within their total resources. The third point I want to make is that the primary object of this expenditure on roads is to increase agricultural production in these areas.
    The passage of the Bill and the putting in hand of the work that will result from it will not necessarily mean that the overall expenditure of local authorities will be increased. Therefore, there is nothing contradictory between the provisions of the Bill and the existing economic and financial policies of the Government, as explained by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. If, as I confidently hope, this Bill becomes law, I trust that local authorities will put forward some projects as soon as possible. I wish to assure the House that I shall play my part in making
    948
    it effective with as much skill as I have. I hope that the House will give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading.
    9.2 p.m.
    Mr. G. Brown: To the extraordinary things of which the Minister has just delivered himself concerning how this Bill fits into the announcement made in the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, I will return in a moment. Of course, we on this side of the House will give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading in the same spirit as we gave it an unopposed Second Reading and have tried, despite every obstruction by the Ministers, to improve it on the way through.
    We think that the Bill is in many ways inadequate and that it is wrongly and even badly drawn. But, in so far as it is an attempt, albeit a very poor one, to deal with a very serious problem, we on this side, who care so much for the rural parts of our Kingdom and who realise rather more importantly than do Ministers the part that agriculture could play—were it allowed to do so—in overcoming the country's real economic difficulties at the moment, would certainly not wish to impede it, however inadequate we feel it to be.
    As the Minister says, we now own a very considerable degree of parentage of the Bill. As a matter of fact, one of the best commentaries on the extent to which we have improved it is the fact that the Minister now comes down and deals with it. All through the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman was the most absentee Minister we have ever seen. He was obviously ashamed of the Bill. We had to talk at great length and resort to all sorts of devices to keep the Committee stage going until the right hon. Gentleman could pay us a visit. Even when he did come, he left again as quickly as he could. But now he comes along and speaks to the Amendments on the Report stage and says how much better the Bill now is than it was then, and how less ashamed of it he is. Of course, we had the assistance of the Secretary of State for Scotland, but his trouble was that he could not do his sums. Therefore, his attendance was not all that use, although we were glad to see him.
    Another thing that shows how good the Bill has now become is that we have the presence not only of the "Third Man" referred to last night but of the 43rd man.

    949
    We now have with us the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) who, as far as I could see, was the forgotten man. We never heard from him before. The Bill has now assumed such proportions in the mind of the Ministry that it has now disinterred this unfortunate Parliamentary Secretary who was last seen in the basement where people who have nothing to do foregather. The hon. Gentleman has now come to the top storey and joined with us in the obsequies over the Bill, for the improvement of which Measure my hon. Friends and I must take some credit. I see that the forgotten man now wishes to be verbal as well as apparent. We are delighted to facilitate him.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): I merely wanted to remind the right hon. Member that upon this side of the House there are no first, second or third men; we work as a team, as one man. I can understand that that is confusing to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are dealing with the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. Brown: The only point I am making is that the hon. Gentleman has appeared during the Third Reading debate, whereas he has not been with us in the other stages. I thought I ought to draw attention to that fact.
    Hard as we have worked to improve the Bill, I thought it a little unfortunate that the Minister began with the remark —I was not clear whether it was intended to be a boast or an apology—that he had not let us do even more good; that he had refused so many of our Amendments. All I can say is that he has been kind enough to observe that the Amendments to which he did agree have improved the Bill. The very great pity was that he, or his Joint Parliamentary Secretary on his instructions, so obstinately refused to accept the rest.
    My hon. Friends will have something to say about the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will listen to them. I hope the Government will not be in too much of a hurry to get rid of it. There are other opportunities to think about this matter. It does not follow that because we are getting rid of it here it is impossible for the Government to have second thoughts.
    950
    In letting it go myself, I want to make one or two observations. First of all, I repeat that it is silly to delude ourselves that the Bill is other than totally inadequate. It provides for public grants of £4 million to be made available to assist in this important work. I give the Government full credit for bringing it forward, even though it is obviously open to me to claim that during the six years when the Labour Government were in power we did so many good things that we were bound to leave some undone. The fact that the Government have done something which we left undone, however, clearly entitles them to take a bow, and I am not one to refuse it. When I say that £4 million is inadequate, I am not without recognition of the fact that, anyhow, they are providing that sum.
    Even so, if one starts to do a job it seems to me that a vital part of the business is involved in calculating how much the job really requires if it is to be done properly. During the Committee stage we had a lot of fun trying to see what this £4 million would achieve. Apart from the calculations of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who could not do his sums, a variety of different figures was put forward by the Minister. During the Second Reading debate he said that he guessed there were between 2,000 and 3,000 miles of roads, and that he thought the cost would be about £2,000 or £3,000 a mile. That amounts to a cost, at the minimum, of £4 million, and at the maximum, of £9 million, and a guess of £6 million or £7 million would seem to be about right. That worried us a little, because the bulk of that cost—where it is not met by the Government—is clearly going to fall upon the very county councils who, by definition, are least able to find extra money.
    The Minister just now said—I took his words down—that he did not think it at all necessary that local authorities' expenditure would increase. I do not understand what the words he used are supposed to mean. Even upon his first figures—I shall refer later to some subsequent ones which he used—here is a job which will cost well over £4 million; it may even cost £9 million, which is £5 million more than the Government are voting. If the expenditure of local authorities is not to be increased, who is to find the other £5 million? It must obviously come from the local authorities.

    951
    It cannot come from anywhere else. It must come from the Merioneth County Council, the Montgomery County Council, the Scottish county councils and the English county councils.
    It may be that £5 million—several millions of pounds anyway—will be unloaded on to the ratepayers of what are inevitably poor county councils with a penny rate bringing in only a few hundred pounds. In some cases a penny rate produces only £500. One hon. Member mentioned £600 in the Committee. Where a penny only brings in £600, and we are talking about an extra expenditure of £5 million, it is no use—let us face it—the Minister trying to slide away. This will be an enormous addition to the money which these counties have to find.
    In Scotland we find that the extra is more extravagant even than the figure quoted. One county council, with about 24 miles of road which may qualify for this grant, can bring in with a penny rate only about £60 with which to do the work. Obviously its expenditure must go up. We have felt from the very beginning that the Minister, on his own figures, was asking county councils that were already hard pressed to take a very large share, a much bigger share than they were likely to be able to afford, of this scheme.
    Now the Minister comes down here and says that he does not think it will be so. He is very good at not thinking, and many of the things he does in this House give evidence of that. He had told us that the £5 million would not put up the expenditure of local authorities, but he now says that he did not say it. I do not want to be unfair, and I do not want to make this point at any length, but I took down the words as he said them. He said, when he was talking about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Local authority expenditure may not necessarily be increased." Then where is the £5 million to come from? He cannot find it, because his grant is not big enough.
    Mr. Amory: It is within the option of local authorities, when considering their expenditure on the highways, to decide how much they allot to one type of road and how much to another.
    Mr. Brown: Now we get a very different song cycle. I look a kindly fellow, but I am not without guile, and I suspected this. We are now told on the Third Reading that this is not a new job to be done on top of the others, that this is not £4 million extra to be provided by the Government, but that the Government expect that this grant will take the place of some other grant.
    Mr. Amory: No.
    Mr. Brown: Well, have another shot.
    Mr. Amory: I repeat that it is at the option of the local authorities, who are free under the Bill to decide these things for themselves. We cannot say what decision a particular local authority will reach.
    Mr. Brown: Except that the Minister has to approve the scheme—
    Mr. Amory: Yes.
    Mr. Brown:—and that the Minister has to say in the end whether it is to be done or not.
    Mr. Amory: Certainly.
    Mr. Brown: So that a local authority which says, "We want to do this job and we want this grant," may be told, "I am sorry, but you must knock something else out or we cannot approve." The Minister, having been voted this money, says, "I do not think that it clashes with what the Chancellor told us. It may not necessarily mean the expenditure of local authorities going up." When he is challenged he says, "I mean that if they don't do the job, or some other job, their expenditure will not go up." We knew that all along, and it does not get us anywhere if they do this job at the expense of some other job.
    What other jobs are they not to do? It means they will make unclassified roads under the Bill, by disregarding the needs of classified roads in the county. What a contribution to the improvement of agriculture.
    This really will not do. All along we thought that it was inadequate, and when the Parliamentary Secretary just now said that of course in the case of many authorities it means grants of 75 per cent. or even more, he does not tell the whole story. On the Minister's own

    953
    figures, the money being provided can only mean something less than 50 per cent. overall. If some authorities are to have 75 per cent. or even more, others will get a good deal less than 50 per cent. and be down among the 10, 15 and 20 per cent. grants. That must be so. Four million pounds out of £9 million leaves £5 million. Therefore a 50 per cent. grant in aid on the average cannot be granted.
    If someone gets 75 per cent. or more, someone else has to have 50 per cent. or less to even things up. In this wicked world one cannot have things both ways. One of the harsh economic facts of life which the Minister has to learn is that in this world there is no way in which one can have all of this and all of that also. There has to be something of this and something of that—and something in the middle turns out to be your lot. Sums have the most awkward way of having to be done in the end so that the figures in the margin all add up to the total at the bottom.
    I think that this is inadequate, that the Government all along have known it to be inadequate and that it has been "sold" at the very top of its appeal. Always the references have been to the very lucky people, without really saying, quite frankly, that a lot of them are not to get it. At one stage we were told that Wales was to get half of the money. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in the passages with which he entertained us, told us that there were 1,000 to 1,500 miles of roads involved in Scotland. If we go on with this essay in figures, which the Ministers find so difficult to follow, the Ministers say that there are between 2,000 and 3,000 miles of these roads in the whole Kingdom. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland says there are between 1,000 and 1,500 miles in Scotland—that is a half. Half the money is to go to Wales and half to Scotland—yet it applies to England as well. It really is the most incredible performance.
    As I said before, the Bill really has not been thought out on this basis at all. There has been tossed in £4 million—and it will do some good; I give credit there. But it is silly to "sell" it on this very high note, when the slightest examination of any of the figures shows how ridiculously inadequate it is. Every time the Minister makes an essay in this
    954
    direction his figures change. In Committee, he did not talk about 2,000 to 3,000 but about 4,500. In column 153 of the Committee Report, he says:
    "The total mileage of roads that we think might be in need of improvement in this category is about 4,500 miles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 19th July. 1955; c. 153.]
    For some reason, he assumes that 1,500, or one-third, are not to be put in at all. When the Bill was "sold" to us it was on the basis, not that a lot were to be ruled out, but that this was a genuine attempt to deal with a very great need in the upland areas—and all these figures relate to upland areas.
    I therefore say that it is inadequate, and Ministers ought to accept that it is inadequate and ought not to mislead in this way. After all, there is no Election in front of us next month—we have had that. There is no need to defraud, to cheat and distort now. They have some time before the next Election, so they really ought to tell the truth now; and as we are past the Election no doubt they will—as the Minister just now did— "come a little cleaner" about it.
    Another point I want to raise is this. Even suppose that the Government say, as I think they should, "That is all we can find, but it is £4 million more than you provided, and there it is," quite clearly we have established our case for the moment that it is inadequate. I want to ask the Minister what I proposed to ask him anyway, but I am all the more bound to ask him now in the light of what he said: where does this stand in the light of the Budget?
    I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will be replying to what I have said so far. What I am now going to say —and this implies no personal unfriendliness to the Parliamentary Secretary—is that I think the Minister ought to ask the leave of the House to speak again, simply because the Minister is a member of the Cabinet and the Parliamentary Secretary is not. The Minister knows what the discussions have been on this matter and he alone can commit the Government, whereas the Parliamentary Secretary cannot. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will intervene again by our leave, which I am sure we shall be glad to grant, to clear up the ambiguity which he has introduced.

    955
    We have been told by the Chancellor, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Prime Minister that local authority expenditure is to be drastically reduced. There is no equivocation about that. Everyone understands that to be the case. Last night the Prime Minister gave a long list of things already announced that were not to be cut, and among them, he said, was the road programme already announced. He said that would be proceeded with. Then he introduced ambiguity by saying that the priorities would be looked at again. In other words, "We will not cut them but shall put some of them back." Of course, if they are not done, that is tantamount to a cut, but it is a rather nicer way of saying so.
    I hoped that this paltry little provision was covered by the assurance that the road programme that had been announced stood. I cannot understand how the Minister would not know that if it was true. But the Minister did not say tonight, "I assure you that this is one of the things that will stand because it was announced before the cuts." He said, "I think it will be all right." What Ministers think may be evidence but it is not conclusive. He thought I was unduly impetuous in asking him to clear this up. But, after all, he must know. The Cabinet has settled this. I asked him to tell us, and he said, "In my opinion, this does not clash with what the Chancellor has said." What we want to know is, what is the Chancellor's opinion about this?
    The Minister says, "If it is passed unopposed, the House can be assured that will do all in my power." That sounded to me like a Minister warning us that the rest of his colleagues were not going to let it through but that he was a good chap. Otherwise, why the words, "I will do all in my power to get it through; in my opinion, it is all right," unless the Minister is indicating some difference?
    I ask the Minister to clear this up with an authoritative statement. Is this exempted from the announcement about the ban on local government expenditure? Is this exempted from the cut, or is it not? The Minister called it a brake. Perhaps the Minister would like to interrupt me and reply. Is this exempted from the brake on local authority expenditure? Has the Minister no comment?
    956
    The Minister does not say that I am wrong. The Minister has no comment, and that is the position. The Minister does not know whether it will be possible to put the Act into operation when it has been passed. I see the Minister has a comment to make.
    Mr. Amory: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said refers to current expenditure and projects which are on hand or proposed. We are talking about a Bill which has not yet been passed, and there are no projects on hand.
    Mr. Brown: The Minister is going along with me. The Chancellor said that current projects can continue but that projects not yet started will be subject to the brake. This is a project which has not yet started and, presumably, it is subject to the brake. Therefore, Merioneth, Anglesey, Brecon and Radnor, Montgomery, Cardiganshire and the Scottish county councils had better be told that this may be just so much window dressing which will never start. The Minister of Agriculture tells us that he cannot give an assurance that it will come into operation because it is a project not yet started and he is not clear about it.
    What about the increased cost to local authorities? We have already been told that up to £5 million will fall on the local authorities as increased expenditure, but that was at the rate of interest then prevailing. Now the Chancellor has said that local authorities are to be forced into the market to borrow money instead of borrowing it from the Public Works Loan Board. We have heard a lot about the credit-worthiness of local authorities, but when it comes to going to the market I wonder how credit-worthy a local authority will be counted in which a ld. rate brings in £600 and which has a rate already of well over 20s. in the £.
    The rate of interest of some of them will rise considerably and the cost to local authorities of carrying out this scheme, by the time the Bill becomes an Act, will be very much more than seemed likely when the Bill started on its journey. Should I be wrong if I guessed that the total cost for the local authority section alone may be inflated by up to £2 million simply through the increase in interest rates on money which they will have to borrow in order to do the job.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: They need not borrow at all.
    Mr. Brown: They will not get this out of rates when a penny rate brings in only £600. They would be saving up for years, and the Government are against the never-never principle. The authorities will have to borrow. That is the only way local authorities carry out schemes of this kind.
    The position is that, even if the scheme starts at all, it will cost local authorities a great deal more than Ministers have yet been frank and honest enough to say. We have said that if the Bill is carried the £4 million will do a limited and meagre job—if it ever gets started. The Minister is unable or unwilling to give a specific assurance that the Bill will become an Act and that the Act will be implemented and not subject to a brake by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has not told us what he intends to do about the increased costs to local authorities. In those circumstances, this may become just one more in the long list of frauds and deceits about which we have been talking this week.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Before we part with this Measure, I think the House should consider briefly its origins, because the intention of the Bill as it stands has much to do with those origins. The original intention of the Government was to introduce a Measure to deal with the position in the Welsh uplands.
    The Council for Wales, a Government-established body, reported in 1953 on the serious decline of economy and population in the Welsh rural areas and made a number of recommendations. Of those recommendations, the only one the Government accepted was that a special Measure should be brought forward to remedy the state of the access roads to Welsh hill farms. Even that recommendation has gone by default in the event, and, instead of a Welsh Bill specifically attending to a special Welsh need we have this portmanteau Measure, which tries to cover the needs of three countries—England and Scotland as well as Wales.
    The result, I fear, is that the Bill as it stands may well not meet to any considerable extent the needs of any one of those countries as it is a comparatively
    958
    small sum of money which will have to be spread over a very long mileage. How much that mileage is we really do not know. It is substantial enough in Wales, I should say, to dispose of the £4 million in the Principality. In my constituency of Caernarvon, there are one or two quagmires into which the whole of this sum could disappear without trace. The sum of £4 million spread over seven years, allowing for the fact that in the initial year very little will be spent, will not yield more than £600,000 per year to deal with 3,000 miles of rural roads, many of which are in a terrible state. That is the problem.
    Welsh Members are bound to ask whether the Bill as it stands can possibly touch the fringe of the very real social and economic problem in rural Wales. Nothing that has been said by the promoters of the Bill, either on Second Reading or in Committee, has really enlightened us as to the extent to which the Principality, which originally was to be the sole beneficiary of such a Measure, will in fact benefit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has dealt with a point I raised in Committee about the statistical peculiarities which attend this Bill and the fact that the Minister on Second Reading undertook that one-half of the sum would be devoted to the needs of Wales. In fact, the Minister said:
    "about half, or perhaps a little more than half, of the money will be devoted to the Principality."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd June, 1955: Vol. 542, c. 1326.]
    If we add "a little more than half" for Wales to the half for Scotland, the plight of England will be even worse than as described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper. In Committee the Scottish statistics were even more peculiar.
    This is the central weakness of the Bill. The Minister has tried to squeeze everybody into the Bill knowing, I suspect, that those who will have to implement the Measure will have to squeeze somebody out of it. There is the main criticism of this Bill, that in the event when it is administered it will not achieve its object. Somebody will have to be thrown overboard, and I am afraid it is not difficult to imagine who that somebody will be. It will be the poorer authorities, the very counties which most need the assistance which a Measure of this sort could give. The Bill cannot help the upland

    959
    counties of Wales unless the grant approaches almost complete parity. We know we cannot get more than 85 per cent. or 75 per cent. according to the kind of road involved. To find the remainder of 25 or even 15 per cent. will tax to the uttermost the resources of most of the Welsh counties for which this Bill appeared in the first place.
    The product of a penny rate in the neighbouring county to my ownMerioneth—is barely £500, and, unless the grant is very high indeed, that county 41 find it impossible to provide its share of the money, unless it does what my right hon. Friend has suggested it might have to do, that is to say, economise on other expenditure on other roads in its care.
    I am afraid that the Minister, in intervening to reply to my right hon. Friend, seemed to indicate that he rather thought that is how these counties would work; that, in order to make use of this Bill, they would dip into the monies which, notionally, they would be setting aside for other roads for which they are responsible.
    Then there is the problem of maintenance. The poorer the authority, the more inhibited it will be from availing itself of the provisions of this Bill, even though the initial grant may be very high indeed, and these are precisely the authorities and exactly the counties where the problem of access roads is most urgent.
    I suppose we must hope for the best. We are dealing with a section of the population which enjoys very few amenities indeed, as compared with the people who dwell in our towns. The vast majority of these hill farmers, at least in Wales, know nothing of the blessings of electricity or of a piped water supply. They live and work in remote, lonely and often stormy places. They and their children have to walk miles to church or school. The onset of a sudden illness means that they are trapped there, very often without hope of medical assistance, and, in many cases supplies of coal, fodder or other necessities have to be dumped at great distances from the homesteads and carried by hand over ditches and quagmires.
    We really ought to be doing something more for this class of people. This is rather a mean little Bill. It cannot help
    960
    a most deserving section of the population to any great extent. I would end by making this appeal to the Minister. Let him not wait for seven years to see how this Bill works out. If, within a year of two, he finds that the intentions of this Bill are not being achieved under its provisions, let him come back to this House and ask for more powers and new finance, and hon. Members from rural areas on both sides of the House will unite to see that he gets them.
    9.38 p.m.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: This Bill is designed for the improvement of certain roads situated in or affording access to livestock rearing areas, and a livestock rearing area is described in page 4 of the Bill as
    "an area consisting predominantly of mountains, hills or heath, being an area in which the principal industry, or one of the principal industries, is the breeding, rearing and maintenance of sheep or cattle;".
    I begin to wonder just where Cornwall comes in here. We have heard a lot about Wales and Scotland and about some parts of England, but I am wondering whether Bodmin Moor, in Cornwall, would qualify under this definition of a livestock rearing area. If it does, and if, as the Minister has said this evening, the money which may be set aside by the county council for the purposes of this Bill may have to be taken from the vote for highways expenditure, I would remind him that, a fortnight ago, I met representatives of the Wendron Parish Council at the very spot where he, when he took up his position as Minister about 14 months ago, met the representatives of Cornish agriculture.
    At the very spot where his car was parked, there are crossroads, and the parish council has been petitioning the county council for years to improve the vision at these crossroads and at others close by. The Cornwall County Council tells me that the Minister of Transport cut its estimate for this year from £100,000 to £45,000 for all the roads in Cornwall. What hope is there for the improvement of the crossroads? Further, there is no provision, even in the Bill, for the hundreds of miles of unadopted farm roads in Cornwall, let alone the thousands of miles of unadopted roads in the rest of England; and these are a problem already because of heavy transport to and from farms, and they will become a greater problem as time goes on.

    961
    We cannot help remembering the debates of the past few days, and that heavier burdens are being placed upon local authorities because of the great increases in interest rates and on other accounts as well. Although we give the Bill a blessing, we hope the time is not far distant when there will be a realistic approach to the whole problem of farm roads.
    9.42 p.m.
    Mr. Dye: I rise to speak on the Third Reading of the Bill in order to express the very great disappointment which the farmers and others in Norfolk will experience at the failure of the Government to allow amendments to the Measure which will enable them to benefit.
    At the time of the General Election the Norfolk Branch of the National Farmers' Union called together the candidates of all political parties in the county and asked them, among other questions, what effort would be made, in view of the need for some special contribution for farm approach roads and fen roads, to induce the Government to extend the provisions of this Bill to include them.
    It appears that the Bill has no enthusiastic support from hon. and right hon. Members opposite. I suppose they feel that it is too timid a Measure to take its place in the group of things which county councils will have to consider in making their future estimates. It looks as if we have failed to broaden the basis of the Bill, and as if those who come within its narrow ambit will find it difficult during the next few years to get any benefit whatever from it. After all, the county councils are now engaged upon their estimates for the year 1956–57. Therefore, they will not be in a position to include any schemes under the Bill in their estimates for next year. Consequently, I find it difficult to see how the Bill is to bring very early relief to the areas which really need it. That is its first weakness.
    It was, of course, conceived last March and even then there were indications that there might be difficulties later on, but when the Bill was reintroduced in the new Parliament there was the prospect that something might come of it for the benefit of people in the hill and stock-rearing districts. As one who fought in the Election, and as one who has done his best
    962
    in Committee to improve the Bill and to extend its provisions, I must say, on behalf of my constituents and the farmers of Norfolk, that we are not satisfied.
    We do not believe that we ought to be asked to wait and see how the Bill goes in Wales and Scotland and to assume that if it goes well we shall be considering, in seven years' time, doing something for England. I should have thought that in present circumstances, when we ought to be increasing production from the land so as to enable us to cut down imports, there should have been a greater sense of urgency about a Bill of this kind.
    The Minister of Agriculture in moving the Third Reading, was very limited in what he had to say and did not hold out many prospects of improvement. I cannot help thinking that we must now look at the Bill as it stands against the background of the national economic position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring to subsidies for agriculture, said the other day that economy with efficiency
    "…will have to be applied at the right time to the range of subsidies which fall within the field of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 212.]
    Grants made under the provisions of this Bill, coming, as they will be, from the Ministry of Agriculture, will obviously fall under the searching eye of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Bill becomes law.
    I notice that the Minister said that, in considering schemes, county councils, even if they did not increase their total expenditure on highways, might be able to do something under the Bill by reducing their estimates in relation to other roads. That, of course, will depend very much upon the percentage grant that they will receive. They are not likely to transfer money from roads which at present carry a 75 per cent. grant if the Minister is to give only 50 per cent. grants under these schemes, for the reason that then they would be at a disadvantage not only in the percentage of grants received but because, for each mile of road dealt with under the Bill, they would increase their annual maintenance charges for the future since they would have to maintain the roads without receiving any grants whatsoever from the Exchequer.
    It may very well be, therefore, that when these hard-headed Welshmen and

    963
    Scotsmen get together on the county councils to decide whether they will put forward schemes on the basis of turning down work on classified roads, they will not make very much headway.
    I think that we have to look at the Bill, now that it has nearly completed its course, against the background of other subsidies for the hill farmers. In the light of the statement recently made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may well be that this Bill will prove to be a stillborn child, and that the Chancellor will say that the calf subsidies, the cattle subsidies and all the other subsidies which are now going to the hill farmers, will either have to be cut to make room for this one, or that, those subsidies having proved successful, there is no point in offering additional subsidies.
    Are we coming towards the period when the subsidies to assist agriculture are to be cut? If so, then this Bill does not look like having a very healthy future. I think, too, that we must look at it against the background of declining agricultural output, because the purpose of such a Bill as this must be to assist increased agricultural production. In the light of more recent circumstances, it certainly looks as if that is not taking place.
    As this is described as an experimental Measure, which cannot come into operation before 1957–58, we do not look like learning in this Parliament very much about how the Bill will operate before another Election comes along. Therefore, we shall be without that experience, and I think that the people in these areas of the Welsh hills, the Scottish hills, and the English hills will feel just as disappointed as those in other parts of agricultural England which are not getting any benefit from this Measure.
    9.52 p.m.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: As the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) said, this Bill was first mentioned in the White Paper on Rural Wales, which was adopted in this House as far back as 8th December, 1953. It has, therefore, already taken two years for the Bill to materialise. I hope that when it eventually becomes law the rural areas of Wales, England and Scotland will derive some substantial benefit from it.
    964
    We should remember that the Bill is the only concession which the Government have made to the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire. It will be recalled that the Council made many excellent recommendations in its second memorandum, in which it dealt with the manifold problems of rural areas in the Principality, and during which it called expert evidence. I am afraid that when the memorandum came before the House, the Government paid it very scant respect.
    I was glad when the Minister said that the Bill would not fall a victim to the Chancellor's axe, although I was not particularly impressed with the emphasis with which he spoke. He did not seem to be quite certain what the effect of the Chancellor's message to local authorities would be. We have been told that their capital expenditure in 1956–57 must be the same as their expenditure in 1954–55. I think that the Minister should tell us quite clearly what the effect of this message will be. Can he, this evening, give us a categorical assurance that this message will not affect the provisions of the Bill and not affect expenditure under Clause 2?
    I am particularly anxious about this, because, as hon. Members will see, in Clause 2 (1) there is a stipulation that the Minister may only make grants
    "with the approval of the Treasury."
    Exactly what does this mean? In the light of the Chancellor's present attitude, these words may have a very sinister significance. How quickly, if at all, will this approval from the Treasury be forthcoming? Will there be delays and postponements? For example, say the highway authority of Caernarvonshire puts forward a scheme next February, a modest scheme, involving an expenditure of about £5,000. How long would it take for the Minister to approve that scheme?
    He will have to pass it to the Treasury. How long will the scheme lie in the pigeon-holes of the Treasury before being passed back to the Minister? And, after that, how long will it take for the Minister to pass it back to the highway authority? It is now, in this debate, that the House should be told exactly what is the position. I hope that there will be expeditious action and that the administrative machinery under the Bill will be smooth and efficient. We may as well face the position that if the Chancellor's message

    965
    to local authorities affects expenditure under this Bill, or if there be undue delays and postponements, this Bill will be a dead letter.
    As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), the Chancellor's message is also important for this reason, that under Clause 1 (5) all unadopted roads which are improved under this Measure will become unclassified roads and the responsibility of the local authority. The expenditure will fall on the council and that will be in addition to the existing mileage which it is already their responsibility to repair and maintain. This being so, their responsibility obviously will be proportionately greater than in 1954–55. It will be greater in 1956–57 by the mileage which they have adopted than it was two years previously. That is the year fixed by the Chancellor in his message.
    Surely, therefore, it is clear that there will be no incentive for highway authorities to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill if they know that they will have to cut down their estimate. The Minister should consider that aspect most carefully.
    Subject to these reservations, I think the Bill is a good Measure so far as it goes. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), it leaves out important rural areas which could do with a great deal of assistance, important counties like Anglesey, which has 281 miles of unclassified roads against 366 miles of classified roads. That is about the highest percentage in Wales, and probably about the highest percentage in the whole of the United Kingdom. We spend about 29 per cent. of our highway rates on unclassified roads. In other words, we could do with a great deal of assistance if we are to repair and maintain these highways.
    When the Council for Wales published its memorandum, it envisaged that such assistance should be forthcoming to counties like Anglesey which, because they are not covered by the Hill Farming Act and the Livestock Rearing Act do not come within the provisions of this Bill. That is a great misfortune for us. I hope that the Minister will tell the House quite clearly what the position is, because, if he does not clarify the position, the highway authorities will be in great bewilderment. I trust that we shall have a
    966
    straightforward explanation from him that will make the position quite clear to all interested parties.
    10.2 p.m.
    Mr. T. W. Jones: Against the background of the events of the last few days in this House, I am prepared to say that this Bill "shines like a good deed in a naughty world." Tonight, the Government are giving something instead of taking, and I only wish they could give more. Indeed, I wish that when we were upstairs we could have persuaded the Minister to increase the amount that he hopes to spend from £4 million to £10 million. However, speaking as I am within 24 hours of the Chancellor's speech last night, I suppose that I must feel thankful even for small mercies.
    We cannot but be glad for the advantages given to the farming community by the two famous Acts of Parliament passed by the Labour Government, the Hill Farming Act and the Livestock Rearing Act. This Bill has been framed to assist the same people, those hardworking and hardy individuals on the mountains of North Wales who eke out a living from the reluctant acres of our hill land. Furthermore, the Bill will no doubt assist our hard pressed county councils who are seeking with very inadequate resources to repair and maintain our rural roads. They are not the main arteries of the country, but, without them, our national economy would fail and falter, so dependent is our agricultural industry upon them.
    I am rather concerned about the administrative details of the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will assure us tonight that its application is not to be stifled in red tape. I sincerely hope that we shall receive that assurance. I trust that when the highway authorities forward their schemes and applications they will be promptly and sympathetically dealt with so that they can get on with a long overdue job.
    I would remind the House once again that in my county a penny rate does not produce even £600. Therefore, it is not idle talk, or even cloudy special pleading, to say that this is a vital matter for a constituency like the one which I have the honour to represent.
    I believe that the Government have brought forward the Bill in a sincere desire to help such counties as Merioneth,

    967
    and I am prepared to give them full credit for that. It is a great pity that the Minister could not see his way clear to increase the grant to the full 100 per cent., because it is obvious that these county councils will have to maintain the roads after they have been taken over. At least the poor counties could have been given the full 100 per cent. grant. As the Minister could not see his way clear to do that, I am pleading with him to ensure that when applications are received from the poor counties they will not take more than five minutes to be considered. The very fact that an application has been made from a county whose penny rate does not produce £600 means that it should be considered seriously. Such applications should receive the full grant promised, namely, up to 85 per cent. for one type of road and up to 75 per cent. for the other.
    I should like to be assured that the number of applications will have no bearing upon the amount of grant given. I am hoping that no county council will be told, "Look here, we have assisted you before on one, two or three occasions. Take it easy." I hope that the principle will be "the more the merrier." If the Government act upon that principle, I shall be satisfied. It is a sound principle. Every county council, and especially those in North Wales, should be encouraged to submit all the schemes they can think of in the interests of the farming community and, incidentally, in other interests as well.
    I would remind the Minister that Merioneth's scheme relates entirely to Snowdonia. It is the ramblers who come to see our park and spend some days there who will receive the benefit of these roads, providing the Minister is as generous as I believe he intends to be. I hope that he will not disappoint me. If he is as generous as I hope and expect, I am prepared to congratulate him in having brought the Bill through to the Third Reading stage so quickly.
    10.8 p.m.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) pointed out that this was a very ill-thought-out Bill. That is certainly true as far as it applies to Scotland. The Bill arose from a report from the Council of Wales, and it was not
    968
    until late in the proceedings that it was decided to include Scotland; in fact, during the Second Reading debate we could get hardly any information from the Joint Under-Secretary as to how it affected Scotland. It was not until half way through the Committee stage that we really began to receive any such information.
    From the speeches made by the English Ministers, and also by the Joint Under-Secretary, during the Committee stage, it would appear that very few, if any, Scottish organisations were consulted about the Bill. That is all I can assume from the speeches which were made. We have heard much about the Council of Wales, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and the rest, but nothing about any consultations with Scottish organisations. Yet the Joint Under-Secretary tells us that under the Bill he expects 1,400 or 1,500 miles of roads in Scotland to be dealt with, which is one-third of the total mentioned by the Minister—if the Minister's figure includes Scotland. I do not know whether it did or not, because it was difficult to obtain that information in Committee. I assume that the Minister increased his figure from 3,000 miles on the Second Reading to 4,500 miles to include Scotland.
    Mr. Amory Mr. Amory indicated assent.
    Mr. Willis: So that is included and the one-third total provided under the Bill is for roads in Scotland. The matter has been given little consideration. That is not good enough. It is very cavalier treatment for the Scottish rural districts that are supposed to benefit by the Bill.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper spoke of the finances of the Bill, under which £4 million is set aside for the purposes of the Bill. If 1,500 miles of road are to be dealt with in Scotland, the sum represented will be £3 million, and if the local authorities in Scotland are to receive an average of 66 per cent. more than half the grant will have to be for Scotland. That will still leave a burden of £1 million to be found by Scottish local authorities, some of them very poor.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) indicated how low rateable values were and showed that more than £1 million would have to be borne by Scottish local authorities, plus

    969
    £20,000 a year in interest charges—if they are able to borrow at 5 per cent.—while my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper pointed out the difficulties in regard to credit of some of the poorer local authorities.
    What is the financial standing in the City of London of a local authority whose ld. rate produces only £65? Will it obtain its money at 5 per cent? I very much doubt it. If my right hon. Friend was right, the figure I have given is an underestimate. Therefore, the local authorities in Scotland, including the poorest of them, will be burdened by £1 million in capital charges, and by £50,000 at the very least—and probably much more—in interest charges each year. The Joint Under-Secretary knows what that will mean on the rates of the local authorities, plus charges in connection with raising the rates.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken of a circular being sent to local authorities. Suppose a county council is considering one of these roads. There may be some doubt about the importance which the county council places upon a particular road because it serves five or six farmers out of a county population of 30,000. The county council now receives a circular from the Government telling it not to increase its capital expenditure and, in fact, to cut it down. It has to decide the priority to be accorded to the respective schemes of capital development it might undertake.
    We are entitled to know what advice the Government will give to the local authorities concerned. The local authorities are entitled to know whether the Government think it is important work and should be accorded a priority. A local authority has to make its decision in accordance with the Government's instructions. As I have already pointed out, its inclination, by the very nature of the work, will be to decide that it is not of very great importance and that there are schemes of greater importance.
    We are entitled to know the degree of importance which the Government attaches to these proposals. We are also entitled to know—although the right hon. Gentleman tried to shirk this when my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper was speaking—what priority the Government accord to these proposals when they
    970
    come up for Government sanction. Suppose the county councils act as my right hon. Friend hoped they would, and send in a lot of schemes. Will the Minister approve them? Is he intending to use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain that right hon. Gentleman's approval? If the Government are serious about this Bill that should be done. If they are not then, in fairness to the local authorities, they should say so.
    As the Bill stands, and in the light of the circulars issued, we should be foolish to expect a great deal from this Measure. I think that we shall get very little from it at all. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk South-West (Mr. Dye) was right in saying that we are not likely to see anything for two or three years. This is a Bill with good intent, but it is not capable of carrying out what it seeks to do. It is a miserable Bill. The intention is good, but the instrument is a very poor one indeed.
    10.18 p.m.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I intervene only because I do not wish it to be thought that the Bill is not thoroughly welcome among back benchers on this side. I cannot claim that the area of my constituency can, by any stretch of imagination be brought within the definition, except, possibly, in the very narrow, electoral sense of being predominantly "hilly." I welcome the Bill because it enshrines a very valuable new principle in the Statute Book. The principle, once it is on the Statute Book can be put into effective action—not necessarily this year, but over the years—as the local authorities design their priorities to bring these schemes forward. We can then, if it has worked well, press for its extension to other parts of England where the need is great though not, in my view, as urgent as in these predominantly hill farming and mountain areas which are defined.
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. Watkins: We are very grateful for the lone song from the opposite back Benches. It was short and to the point, but not really critical of what the Minister will do about the grants. We would have welcomed a really forceful voice on that. We regret that in this and our earlier

    971
    debates the back benchers opposite have taken no great part, particularly when a greater proportion of them on that side than on this represent rural parts. I cannot say that for Wales because all the Members representing constituencies in rural Wales have already spoken. I am very glad that they have done so. I congratulate my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate. Their contributions have been forceful. They have asked the Minister for categorical replies on certain matters which are of great importance to the Bill itself.
    In Committee, many of us were disappointed that the Amendments which we put forward were not accepted, but, at the same time, we are grateful for two Amendments which the Minister himself moved—one which allowed a period of seven years instead of ten years in which the £4 million should be spent, and the other with regard to the highway Clause interpretation.
    There is an important paragraph in the White Paper on Rural Wales which was published last week. I refer to paragraph 97 under "Agriculture." This is the first attempt that has been made by the Ministry of Agriculture to deal with roads and make grants for roads in rural districts. I am glad that the Ministry has experimented first in the livestock rearing areas, and I hope that this experiment will be extended elsewhere.
    Paragraph 97 says that the Bill embodies certain principles relating to the making of grants towards classified roads and unadopted roads. I hope that the contents of the White Paper will be put into effect. However, it is left to the Minister to decide. One cannot deny the Government credit for introducing this Bill, although, as has already been said, the Council for Wales has played a very important part in bringing these matters to the notice of the Government. Although I am a member of the County Councils' Association, I must say that they have done very little in connection with this Bill, apart from turning down any recommendations which have been made. I make that observation in spite of the fact that I may be scolded next time I attend a meeting of this association.
    I suggest that when considering making grants to highway authorities for improving
    972
    classified and unadopted roads the Parliamentary Secretary should bear in mind the contents of the message which has been sent to local authorities by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Housing and Local Government in connection with local authority expenditure. Hon. Members ought to recollect that the fifth paragraph states:
    "The aims of your review should be to ensure first, that your authority's total capital expenditure in the year 1956–57 does not exceed that of 1954–55, and, secondly, that no new works, even those already authorised, are undertaken unless your authority are satisfied that those works are urgently necessary to meet the needs of the area."
    I understand that the Minister is to send a circular to all the highway authorities. I should like to know whether he is going to suggest in that circular that these works under this Bill are an urgent necessity. This is important. In reply to a Written Question on 23rd March, information was given on the amount to be allocated for expenditure on classified roads and trunk roads in all the counties of England and Wales and in Scotland.
    We find that there is an increased allocation for expenditure on classified roads for 1955–56 compared with 1954–55 in the counties to which this Bill will apply. I will give the names of the Welsh counties. In Breconshire the sum is £2,000 more in 1955–56 than in 1954–55, the year under review by local authorities. In Cardiganshire it is £2,500 more, in Montgomeryshire £3,000 more, in Pembrokeshire £3,000 more and in Radnorshire £2,000 more. How can local authorities respond to the Minister's advice to try to work in extra expenditure for this new Bill when they are already overspent on the 1954–55 figures?
    May we have an indication from the Parliamentary Secretary of what he will say in the circular? Will he say, "Let us have the schemes irrespective of what is to happen"? Or will he take the point of view that this is the first time the Minister of Agriculture is giving grants towards roads and, therefore, whatever the Ministry of Transport is giving, this can be counted as an extra allocation towards roads? Will he say that?
    Is he prepared to say that if they cannot go to the Public Works Loan Board for loans, they can go to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and

    973
    that he will give every support to any loan from them? Can they go there instead of to the Public Works Loan Board? I hope we may be told when the circular will be issued, because it is a long time since we were told it was in course of preparation. There has been a Summer Recess of nearly three months. Surely the circular is ready for signature.
    There may be some reactionary authorities—I will not say in Wales, but in some places—who will say, "There is a credit squeeze and we do not want to proceed with work under this Bill." Is the Minister prepared to send another circular, saying to such authorities, "We have not heard from you. Why have you not submitted schemes under this Bill, which are so important?"
    In fairness to the Minister, I must say that the Bill has been welcomed throughout the country by those authorities and people who are really interested in this matter. I am interested in it and I am glad that the Bill has been brought forward. The only criticism I have seen is that the Bill will tremendously increase the value of the land to the private owner, all as a result of public money being spent on schemes of this kind. But does not that happen with all kinds of development work? I am certain that this type of improvement will be of great benefit to the countryside.
    What does the Bill do? It will help to increase meat production in livestock rearing areas which provide large numbers of stock to be fattened or in the hill feeding districts. That is very important. I will give an illustration of a district in my constituency, Llanafan in Brecon-shire, where I travelled to seven farms which are receiving assistance under the Livestock Rearing Act. Not one of those farms in that area had a road to it. Children were going to school from all of those farms except one. Yet how difficult for them to go to school. How can the fertilisers be taken to the farms? How can the farms take part in the agricultural expansion programmes if there are no roads to them? If this Bill is passed and implemented it will bring such places into the first priority schemes in Breconshire.
    I can think of another very important part of Breconshire. I recently visited a farm there and I was asked whether the Bill would apply to them. Naturally I
    974
    said, as a layman, it was bound to apply, because I wanted it to apply. That farm produced seed potatoes which are so urgently required. They are produced on a hill farm and are required in other parts of the country. For them these improvements would be of great importance.
    We are not able to export those seed potatoes because there is no road there. This Bill will apply to this farm and will be of great assistance. It will certainly assist in the completion of schemes under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. As I said on Second Reading, 19 per cent. of the schemes for the mid-Wales counties cannot be proceeded with because access roads to certain farms are not good enough to enable the contractors to undertake the work.
    I hope it is realised that this Bill can even be a dollar saver for our great nation. Access roads are not only vital for agricultural improvement and afforestation, but they can be of great advantage to general amenities, which are urgently required, not only for the farmer but for the farmworkers. That applies particularly to the Forestry Commission which is establishing new afforestation communities; new villages are being born and they require roads, which will assist in the work of afforestation. As the White Paper on Rural Wales says, this Measure may also assist to solve the problem of rural depopulation.
    While this is of special interest to Wales, I am sure it is of equal interest to some counties in Scotland, apart from the crofting counties, and to some in England. In Wales, however, it has great significance, because, there, sheep farming is so widespread, and the mileage of road per farm unit is proportionately higher than in other parts of either Scotland or England. The climate in the mountainous areas is abnormally wet, so that because of the demand on the roads the rate burden on unclassified roads is heavy. I hope that at least half the £4 million will be applied immediately to the Welsh counties.
    We all welcome this Bill, despite all the forceful and vigorous arguments put forward in an attempt to improve it. We want the Bill, and I am certain it will add much to the Acts we on this side put through. We want this to be not only a good Bill but a good and successful

    975
    experiment, which will show that the Ministry of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture can, if they put their minds to it, be equally forthcoming in doing a good job of work in improving our roads. I wish it a speedy passage in another place, with the hope that immediate consideration will be given by the highway authorities to its application, with the good wishes of the Minister of Agriculture and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who will see that the good work is continued.
    10.34 p.m.
    Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend and I much appreciate the words of welcome that have been given to this Bill by hon. Members opposite in giving it its Third Reading and speeding it on its way to another place. Although there were strictures here and there about what some hon. and right hon. Members felt it should contain and did not, or did contain and should not, on the whole it has received a welcome. I much appreciated the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) in his welcome, too.
    There is no doubt that this Bill will do good, and do it in places where it is much needed. The farms described by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) are just the sorts of farms we want to help, where we know help is most needed. It is because we know that in these livestock rearing areas there is a special need, which is already defined and understood nationally, that we have felt it right to commit this large sum of public money to making a start on solving this very difficult problem.
    I have been asked to go into greater detail on a number of these points, but I feel that I can deal with only a few tonight. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor asked about publication of the circular. That cannot come out until the Bill becomes law, when we shall send it out and I shall be very glad to have a copy put in the Library. I trust that it will meet with the approval of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    I can certainly give the assurance that when my right hon. Friend receives proposals the administrative machine will be made to work as quickly as possible, with the minimum of red tape. We will
    976
    do all we can to help county councils and highways authorities, both at county level and at headquarters level, in the preparation of schemes and do all we can to expedite them. I am most anxious to see these schemes started. In Committee, we have discussed the rate of grant which my right hon. Friend and I maintain is a generous rate which will be sufficient to help county councils to deal with very difficult cases.
    May I say how much I appreciate the words of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) who spoke of the Bill as "shining like a good deed in a naughty world." I think that a rather nice thought and I welcome his feelings in reception of the Bill. We do intend to make it work and we do believe that it will help both sociologically and commercially in industry to facilitate transport to and from the farm.
    We have purposely kept the general arrangements for grant flexible because here we are doing a pioneering job. No one can tell for sure how the Bill will work, but we have indicated that in a great many cases there will be a rate of grant of 75 per cent. and 10 per cent. higher for unadopted roads. That is a very general indication of the sort of help which county councils can get.
    To clear once again doubts and confusions about the amount of money to be made available, I should say that my right hon. Friend made it clear that the total mileage we estimate which could come within the scope of the Bill is about 4,500 miles in England, Wales and Scotland and to that we expect that between 2,500 and 3,000 will probably be proposed. That is only an estimate. It is impossible to be more precise, but it is obvious that county councils will not make propositions for all kinds of roads, both classified and unadopted. I am sorry that Anglesey does not come within this at all. Anglesey has a great problem, but does not come in a livestock rearing area and we must draw the line somewhere. We may be able to help Anglesey sometime in the future.
    On the basis of £2,000 per mile, which we think will be the average cost, on a 75 per cent. grant hon. Members will find that the sum for 2,500 to 3,000 miles works out at about £4 million. Therefore, I think it is adequate provision for making a start on this big and difficult job

    977
    of assisting unclassified and unadopted roads in livestock rearing areas.
    I conclude by thanking the House for the reception given the Bill and hope that it may be speeded on its way by the House giving it its Third Reading.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has omitted to answer the biggest question asked during the Third Reading debate, that put to his right hon. Friend as to whether the message which went out to the local authorities dated 26th October, some time after the Bill was introduced into the House, had any bearing whatever on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), in his excellent winding-up speech immediately before the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied, actually read out the relevant passage in the letter sent to authorities in England and Wales. There was an exactly similar paragraph in the communication sent by the Secretary of State and the Chancellor to local authorities in Scotland.
    There it is made abundantly clear that the total capital expenditure to be incurred by those authorities for the year 1956–57 ought not to exceed the expenditure for last year, 1954–55. There have been many increases in costs since then. Therefore, it is clear that less work of a capital nature is to be done in 1956–57 than was done in 1954–55.
    Since this is completely new work which local authorities could not know was coming along, we are entitled to know whether a further exception is to be made to the letter sent out only a few days ago. If there is to be no exception and the letter is not to be superseded by another communication to state that this does not apply to schemes under the Bill, we have been wasting our time and might just as well not pass the Bill.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not reply to that question, which was repeated by all my hon. Friends who spoke after my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who put it directly to the Minister after his speech moving the Third Reading. It may be a little inconvenient for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister to reply to the question at this moment. However, there is another Minister on the
    978
    Government Front Bench who has an interest in the Bill. I have never known a Scottish Minister to play so small a part in an agricultural Bill having application to Scotland.
    Mr. G. Brown: The Joint Under-Secretary did not even answer Scottish hon. Members.
    Mr. Fraser: I have never known a Minister get off so lightly. I will now give him an opportunity to say a last word and tell us, for Scotland at least if he cannot also speak for England and Wales, whether the letter of 26th October sent out by his right hon. Friend means what it says or not. If it means what it says, then the Scottish county councils are being told "No schemes under the Bill."
    If they are expected to submit schemes—let the Joint Under-Secretary say tonight whether they are—they must be new schemes additional to any existing works which they have had in mind. It should be borne in mind that the circular says that they have to cut back existing work because the total capital expenditure for next year has to be no more than that for 1954–55, and that for 1955–56 exceeds that for 1954–55. We ought to get these matters cleared up.
    While the Joint Under-Secretary is collecting his thoughts to reply to the most important point raised in the debate, perhaps I might say that it has been clear from the outset that the Bill was intended originally to apply only to Wales. That is not denied. Welsh local authorities have had a right for the last two years to expect that the Bill would come along and that there would be provision in it for Government assistance to the county councils and other local authorities in Wales for the improvement of agricultural roads in the hill areas.
    The Minister, however, has made it clear that he, as the Minister responsible for Welsh agriculture, could not very well do this for Wales alone without doing it for the hill areas in England. Therefore, we had it done for England and, for some strange reason that cannot be explained, the Secretary of State for Scotland decided to tag on to the Bill too. But the Government forgot to increase the sum of money available. In any case, we in Scotland hope that

    979
    hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies will do well under the Bill. We hope that they will have the first share of the money and that when they have dealt with the problem in Wales there will be no money left for any other part of the country. The Bill does not apply to the crofting counties, because we have this kind of assistance there already.
    Mr. William Ross: And those counties have not got the roads.
    Mr. Fraser: They have not got the roads because the county councils in those counties say that it is not good enough to give 75 per cent. grant only towards the improvement of roads.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Are we not discussing something that is not in the Bill?
    Mr. Fraser: There is provision in the Bill to exclude the crofting counties, and there must be a reason for that.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There may be a reason, but they are not in the Bill.
    Mr. Fraser: The provision to exclude them is in the Bill, but I do not want to get out of order. In any case, I tell my hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies that a provision similar to that contained in the Bill has applied over a large part of Scotland for many years, but it has not been greatly used or widely welcomed there because it is not supported by a grant for maintenance.
    I attended a conference of the association which represents district councils in Scotland in the constituency of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), during the Recess. The hon. Gentleman had an invitation to attend that conference, but apparently he was employed elsewhere. I listened to councillors from all parts of rural Scotland dealing with this problem. I told them that this Bill was before Parliament. They said it was of no use whatever to them. They wanted a Bill which would enable the Government to contribute towards the maintenance of the roads. That has not been granted.
    I say, therefore, to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that many of us think that when the Bill
    980
    becomes an Act it will be of little or no consequence in Scotland. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that. I should like him to tell us whether he disagrees with that proposition. The Bill might help a little in the initial stages in Wales, and then, of course, the problem of road maintenance will become larger than ever and the Welsh will have to ask for more money. Good luck to them. By that time there may be a change of Government and they will receive more generous treatment than they are receiving from the present Government.
    The Bill does not face the problem of the real needs of Scotland. If the Joint Under-Secretary's right hon. Friend had not been so foolish as to attach his name to the Bill, we might have had a Bill dealing with rural roads in Scotland which would be of some use to the rural areas. We have not got it. It is a poor way to treat Scotland. We have got accustomed to giving a lead to our friends south of the Border in these matters. We took the initiative in bringing forward the Hill Farming Bill, which the hon. Gentleman's predecessor told me across the Floor of the House would be a failure. Now his right hon. Friend has come with this Bill and says that it is necessary because of the success of the Hill Farming Act.
    I say to him that there is not much reason to believe that this Bill will have any success in Scotland. I make way for him now, and invite him to tell us whether this circular, or at least the one sent out to the Scottish local authorities, means what it says, and whether there is any expectation at St. Andrew's House that this Bill will have any practical effect in Scotland.
    10.51 p.m.
    Mr. Amory: If I may have the permission of the House to speak again, I would say, in answer to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), that if we did not consider this Bill still important in its objects, we should not be asking the House to put it on the Statute Book. If we thought it would be a dead letter we should certainly not be going forward with it. I wish to repeat what I said earlier, that the decision about the priority which a local authority gives to the maintenance of its roads is a matter for the local authority. If and when proposals are put forward, I can assure the House

    981
    that they will be considered on their merits, and if a proposal is found to be within the objects of this Bill, and stands as a sound scheme, it will be approved.
    Mr. G. Brown: May we get this clear, because I think that the Minister is now trying to help? The paragraph which has been read out by several of my hon. Friends and is directed to the local authorities states:
    "The aims of your review should be to ensure first, that your authority's total capital expenditure in the year 1956–57 does not exceed that of 1954–55."
    and that no new works are undertaken unless they are urgent. The right hon. Gentleman says that priority is in the hands of the local authority. Suppose a local authority includes a scheme, but can do so only by allowing its total expenditure to rise above that of 1954–55. Will it still be allowed to go on with the scheme?
    Mr. Amory: That is an hypothetical case and we shall have to consider [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On the Contrary. I cannot add now to what I have said, that priority is a matter for the decision of the local authority. Each proposal will be considered by the Government on its merits.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland some questions, and I wonder if he would be good enough to reply. It is customary for a Scottish Minister to speak.
    10.54 p.m.
    Mr. William Ross: I have been anxiously waiting to know how the Scottish Office regards this Bill. We have heard two English Ministers but, with respect to the Minister of Agriculture his rule does not run in Scotland. His Department has no power to interfere with the Scottish county councils. I do not wish to make a speech, but I want to listen to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland telling us how he interprets this Bill in the light of the message of his right hon Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland which was sent to the Scottish local authorities. In that message they said categorically that no new works, even those authorised, would be started, except those of exceptional urgency.
    982
    How does he interpret anything that might be done under the Bill in the light of this recent circular? What will be the position? The Minister of Agriculture said that the Government felt that the Bill was important. It certainly is; that is why we supported it—but we want to know now when the work is to be done. My Welsh colleagues are anxious to tell the people who are vitally concerned whether anything is to be done this year, next year, or at some time in the distant future. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary a simple question. How are the people who are dependent upon the improvement of these rural roads to be affected next year by the Bill, in the light of the message to local authorities? Could we have an answer to that question?
    10.56 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): It is rather unusual to have three Government Front Bench speeches on a Third Reading debate, but I certainly do not wish to be in any way discourteous to the House or to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who has put some questions to me.
    I associate myself of course with my right hon. Friend in what he said about the way in which this Bill will work. It must be a matter for the local authorities to judge. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) has made it quite clear that there is urgent necessity in Wales, and I have no doubt that local authorities in Scotland will judge where the urgent necessity lies there and will make applications accordingly.
    Mr. Ross: But will the authorisations be automatic?
    Mr. Macpherson: I think it is fair to say that there is competition in well-doing between the Department of Agriture on the one hand and my right hon. Friend's Ministry on the other. I am quite certain that the arrangements for Scotland will not in any way be behind those which my right hon. Friend is going to make for England and Wales. I am sure that they will be dealt with as expeditiously as those my right hon. Friend has in mind, and we will certainly do the same as he is doing, if any hon. Members wish it, and lay in the Library of the House a copy of the circular that will be sent out.

    983
    I am asked whether the Bill will succeed in Scotland. I would just make the point that the origin of the Bill lies in the experience which has been obtained from the crofting counties of Scotland. I think the hon. Member for Hamilton will agree that it is the procedure devised for the crofting counties which is now being applied elsewhere. The hon. Member has said that no use is being made of this in the crofting counties, but he knows that £100,000 a year is being spent in that part of the world upon the improvement of roads. I believe that good use is being made of the facilities afforded, and I see no reason whatsoever why the same use should not be made of them in other parts of Scotland.
    I cannot foresee just how much use will be made of the Bill in Scotland, but I say that we are sensible people. I welcome the Bill, and very much regret that it has not been more welcomed by Scottish Members opposite. I believe that it will be good for Scotland, as it will be for Wales, and for that reason I would say that the House—from the Scottish as well as the Welsh point of view—should give it an unopposed Third Reading and a thorough welcome.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Thomas Steele: I agree with one remark of the Joint Under-Secretary, and that was when he said that we are sensible people in Scotland. We can all agree on that but it is because we are sensible that we are making these inquiries tonight. The Under-Secretary added nothing further to the information we have had from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. The question put was clear and concise, and there is no point in the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary saying that this matter will be judged by the local authorities—that they, in effect, will decide. During the whole course of recent debates it has been made plain that the Government have been turning to some method whereby they can escape responsibility.
    The answers we have had tonight make clear that the Government are trying to escape responsibility. That is an indication of the difficulty into which the Government are getting. The Bill was brought forward in good faith after a
    984
    Budget in which everything was well and good, when we were given to understand that we could look forward to years of prosperity. Wonderful things were going to happen in Wales, and in England and Scotland, too, in connection with the taking over of these roads. During the passage of the Bill we had another statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then the White Paper was issued. The terms of the White Paper were a direct opposite to the speeches made by the Minister. The White Paper is clear. It says:
    "The aims of your review should be to ensure first, that your authority's total capital expenditure in the year 1956–57 does not exceed that of 1954–55 …"
    As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) pointed out, the 1954–55 figure was less than that of the present year. How are we going to say to the local authorities, "You have to prune the work you are doing, and at the same time you have to take advantage of this Bill and increase your expenditure, and also decide what is to have priority"? This is a clear indication of the difficulty into which the Government are getting. Frankly, we ought to have another speech from the Minister. I am sure we would permit him to make another speech, if he is prepared to say categorically that he will go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say that the purpose of this Bill is going to be carried out.
    It may be, of course, that the saving in subsidies for farmers will provide the money for this to be carried out. I appreciate, however, that that is not a matter we are discussing at present, but farmers are interested in this Bill, as they are in what is going to happen in February. It is understandable that they will probably have less money with which to pay the rates necessary to find the money for their contribution. We ought to have another speech at least to make clear that the Government have decided to go ahead. There is another Under-Secretary and even a representative from the Ministry of Food present, and the latter must have some interest in this Measure and might be able to enlighten us.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time.

  NURSES (TRAINING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Snow: I desire to raise tonight the question of pre-nurse training education. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health hurrying forward, and, Heaven knows, we have waited long enough.
  This subject was brought to my urgent attention during the summer when I happened to attend a hospital fête in my constituency. I got into conversation with a regional nursing officer who took time off to describe to me her anxieties about nursing and student-nurse recruitment.
  During the Summer Recess I collected a certain number of opinions on this urgent problem, and, to fortify myself for tonight's Adjournment debate, I yesterday, as the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary knows, put down some exploratory Questions and sought to obtain information as to the exact statistical aspect of the nursing recruitment problem.
  It was yesterday disclosed that, according to the latest information at the disposal of the Government, there are no less than 17,043 hospital beds which are not at present occupied because of the shortage of nursing staff. To put the problem in another way, the number of nurses needed to operate all available hospital beds in England and Wales amounts to 31,000. That is a fantastic figure, which can be split up into 21,000 nurses who are needed for general nursing duties and 10,000 for mental nursing.
  In the context of this Adjournment Motion, I want to restrict myself to general nursing and to the question of the recruitment of female nurses. But I am considerably concerned at the apparent difference of opinion which exists among people who are at the top of the nursing profession. I am not at all sure that there is clear thinking in the Ministry itself on this matter, because one of the Questions I put to the Minister of Health, and which was replied to by the hon. Lady, concerned
  986
  the matter of the sort of policy which the Government would wish to encourage regarding the pre-nurse training education.
  I asked whether it was left to local discretion to decide whether an adequate supply of nurses was best produced by pre-nursing training in schools or by nursing cadet schemes. In her reply, the hon. Lady restricted herself to a comment about cadet schemes. I am rather puzzled at that reply, because I should have thought that my Question was quite clear and that I was differentiating between cadet schemes and courses run at schools for girls who have reached a somewhat later age than the age at which girls can go into these cadet schemes.
  In the time at my disposal it is very difficult to cover the whole problem, but it seems to me that there is a pretty strong case for giving further encouragement to the running of these school courses for girls who are at least 17 years of age. My only doubt about the matter is that while it is true to say that there has been a big increase in these cadet schemes which permit girls to start at a younger age, nevertheless we cannot go on as we are. We simply are not finding enough girls who eventually get to the age of 18 and start off on their student-nurse training.
  I am not sure that a big case has not been made out by the people who are enthusiastic about school courses. As a result of an investigation carried out in 1952 by the King Edward's Hospital Fund for London, when it analysed where the girls came from who started student-nurse training, it was found that nearly 53 per cent. came from other employment, nearly 5 per cent. from children's nurseries, 27 per cent. from schools, and just over 5 per cent. from cadet schemes. The significant figure is that 53 per cent., more than half, came from other employment.
  If we examine those figures further we find that no less than 86 per cent. were aged between 18 and 25. The conclusion drawn was that a large number of girls can be attracted who are already in some form of employment and will be prepared to come into student-nurse training. That is a very strong argument indeed.
  In the other type of scheme, the cadet scheme, the significant fact is that a very dangerous policy is advocated by the

  987
  Government. I rely for my information upon Ministry of Health Circular No. 69 of 1954, which I assume is still current, with special reference to paragraph 5. There is a very pernicious doctrine at the beginning of that paragraph. Discussing the conditions of employment of the cadet nurses, it says:
  "Moreover, where the young persons are, in fact, effectively employed, their rate of remuneration should be commensurate with the amount of service they render."
  Are these schemes to provide labour which can be used usefully in hospitals, or to provide a pool of girls who, at the end of their cadet training, will be fit to start their student-nurse training at the age of 18? To use the yardstick of the amount of service they can render is quite wrong.
  Another thing concerns me. In paragraph 8 of that circular is a scale of payments to these cadets, starting with £150 per annum at the age of 15. I will talk about the special requirements of highly industrialised and prosperous areas in a moment; I want the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to compare that sort of salary with the declared policy of the Government as stated in the same circular, of trying to encourage girls to stay on at school and get a more advanced education.
  What happens to a girl whose parents are encouraged to keep her at school up to 17? She is able, in a local education area, to obtain, after a means test, a maintenance grant, which I am informed may amount on the average to £25 a year. There is a financial inducement right away to a girl not to carry on at school but to enter a cadet scheme. I will not elaborate on the statistics, which I think are available to the hon. Lady, regarding wastage in cadet schemes, but I would draw attention to the fact that it seems a funny way to try to encourage girls to stay at school if the maintenance grants do not compare with the salaries available to the girls.
  In the Midlands area in which my constituency is, and where there is a nursing shortage, the nursing authorities have to cope with the extremely high industrial wages available to the young girls. So I am prepared to accept that there is a special problem there. But there is also a further difficulty, and this refers to the
  988
  cadets. Under the cadet system, the girls are allowed to attend, free as it were, a local education class once a week; but if it is the opinion of the authorities running the scheme that a girl should attend more than one day a week, her pay is cut. The result is that straight away there is what one might term an inhibition against further education.
  I am anxious to use this Adjournment debate as a method of exploration. I am not an authority on this problem, but I know that there is an acute shortage of nurses and that the Government's present policy does not seem to be achieving much success. I am most anxious to help in any way that I can, and, to me, there appear to be three possibilities. First, so far as the school courses are concerned—that is, for the 17-plus category—there should be an improvement in the maintenance grants offered by the local education authority. That, I know, is not the responsibility of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, but perhaps she would accept it as something worth discussing with her governmental colleagues, at the same time drawing attention to the disparity which exists with the cadet scales.
  To put that in another way; there should be further education—that is, more than one day a week—without penalising whatever salary scales are agreed for the cadet scheme. I certainly have no desire to create prejudice against this cadet scheme, but I must say that I was astonished and appalled to read in the circular of 1954, from which I have quoted, of bad cases of mis-employment of young girls. An example is such as the case quoted in the circular of two girls under 18 years of age who had to attend a post-mortem examination. There are other cases quoted which I will not go into here tonight.
  I have suggested two improvements. The third is to combine things on a national plan basis, because I think it is true that we are losing the battle to some extent by not having a national plan; there is too much variation in local practice. In parenthesis, I might here say that the House would probably like to know of the York and Tadcaster scheme which is for girls in other employment and is for training by means of evening classes. Hon. Members might also draw a moral from the high percentage of successes

  989
  from that scheme, and I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has said that so much is left to the local authorities. This is such a vital problem that some lead should be given by the local authorities. The Government, as hon. Members know, is in financial difficulties, and those on both sides of the House who want to see the National Health Service a success will be disquieted by the answer which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to my question yesterday.
  We know that the Government have to cut expenditure, but I cannot help thinking that in the case of the nursing service in the hospitals a real start should be made in tackling this serious deficiency which, if not tackled, is going to affect the whole course of the hospital service. In conclusion, I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to say tonight how far the Government are prepared to go against their declared policy of cutting back expenditure in this direction so that we shall have a sufficient staff of nurses in our hospitals.
  11.20 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) for initiating this debate, on a subject which we in the Ministry regard as of very great importance, and for the reasoned manner in which he has put his case. First, I think it is fair to point out that there has been a substantial improvement in the recruitment of nurses, and if I may I should like to give the figures for 1949 and 1954, which show that on the general nursing side, in which the hon. Member has been most interested this evening, the number of full-time registered nurses has risen from 28,000 to 36,000, student nurses from 40,000 to 44,000, all full-time nursing staff from 93,000 to 110,000 and part-time from 14,000 to 20,000. I do not deny that the picture on the mental nursing side is nowhere near as favourable, and had I the time I would willingly give those figures, but the hon. Gentleman has deliberately dealt with the general nursing side this evening and I propose to reply on that basis.
  The annual intake of student nurses is averaging at the moment about 18,000, and with the increasing demands from other and, in many
  990
  respects, new professions for women, it is unlikely that we shall be able to get much variation in the average intake. A really vital problem is, not so much the hope that we might greatly increase the annual intake, but that we shall be able to cut down on the wastage; and, bearing in mind the age groups that will come in the 18 years and 19 years class within the next few years, the cutting down of wastage offers the best opportunity for increasing our total complement of nurses. I confess that the largest single component of wastage is matrimony, which is the biggest headache of our nursing problem, and is something beyond our control, about which we can do nothing. The hon. Gentleman is aware, of course, of the Nuffield job analysis and the efforts and pioneer schemes being operated in order to see that nurse's skill is used on skilled jobs, and that, where possible, less skilled staff are used where medical skills and nursing skills are not required.
  Before dealing with the various sections to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, I should like to emphasise a point he himself made, that a not inconsiderable number of men and women are taking up nursing at a later age, and there has been a marked increase in the number of over 20's who have entered the nursing profession. Many of them have tried other jobs and found they did not satisfy their sense of vocation, and, having had this outside experience and changed from their own choice, they tend to make absolutely first-class nurses.
  Now may I deal with the problem of the under 18's. First I want to emphasise that this problem involves the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, who are vitally concerned so long as the training of nurses is under educational auspices, and also the Ministry of Labour and National Service. We do not take a rigid view, saying that there should be a rigid national formula laid down as to the best method in all areas, because circumstances vary from the highly industrialised areas—where there is the opportunity for young people to go into light engineering, or work of that nature, at a comparatively young age—to rural areas. They vary too amongst large hospitals and small.
  Cadet schemes can be a success in large hospitals, but they are often not a great success in small hospitals. They vary, too,

  991
  where the co-operation between hospital and educational authorities is on a very high and satisfactory basis. We believe that there must be some elasticity, and there must be a very full consideration of local knowledge, of their hospitals and their education facilities, and of the possibility of attracting young people under any one of these three methods.
  First there are those who continue full-time education until they are 18. I say quite emphatically—we have made our opinion well known—that we regard this as the best preparation for the boy or girl wishing to become a nurse. It can be by a special pre-nursing course at school or at a further education establishment. These pre-nursing courses are approved by the General Nursing Council and recommended by the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Labour have published an excellent pamphlet on the subject, which I am sure the hon. Member would be interested to see. A girl who takes one of these courses can sit for Part I of the preliminary examination before she starts training in hospital.
  In addition, the General Nursing Council made a new rule in 1953, that those who take a specified subject such as anatomy and physiology with hygiene in the General Certificate of Education may be exempted from Part I of the preliminary examination.
  For those who cannot continue in full-time education, the further education establishments run part-time day and evening courses, again approved by the General Nursing Council. There are also courses run preparatory to pre-nursing courses and other preliminary nursing courses of general education with a bias towards nursing subjects. So there is a wide field offered in the educational facilities in consultation with the General Nursing Council to give girls an opportunity of taking pre-nursing training.
  It is true that there are no special financial arrangements for the special pre-nursing courses whether part-time or full-time run by further education establishments. Whether they will qualify for ordinary educational grants is, as the hon. Member admitted, a matter for the Minister of Education, but I think it fair to ask where we are to end if we start paying, however small it is, a wage level to girls or boys doing education courses?
  992
  How many professions now have a shortage and can ask why they should not be given an opportunity and why not give them the same increased grants, if for example they are going in for teaching or any of the many professions and skilled jobs where there is an acute shortage? It is a very vast problem and it would be a very major step to suggest that what is tantamount to wages should be paid to people when in fact they are receiving education under the State.
  Expenditure by local authorities on further education, including pre-nursing, is something which comes under the normal Exchequer grants. I do not think it unreasonable to maintain the principle that one pupil should be on the same footing as another and that education should rank for normal education grants and not anything akin to a wage.
  Mr. Snow: Would the hon. Lady address herself to the question of the balance between cadet salary scales and maintenance grants for older girls continuing their education?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: That surely applies not merely to nursing. If a girl leaves at 15 or 16 and goes into some form of employment she is paid, and if she stays at school until she is 18 she possibly receives an education grant but does not qualify in any form for a wage. I frankly do not think it practicable to discriminate between one student and another. If, on the other hand, a girl leaves school at 15 or 16 and goes into a cadet scheme—some of which, as the hon. Member says, have been highly successful and some not quite so successful—she is providing a service within the hospital.
  May I clear up a point raised by the hon. Member about paragraph 5 of the circular? Here again there is a very real difficulty between the person on the pre-nursing course and the person on a cadet course. They are allowed one day a week from their cadet training to go to pre-nursing educational training without any reduction—it is now £160 in the first year having gone up by £10 since the circular was issued. On the other hand, when they are away for two or three days their salary is accordingly deducted. Otherwise, the disparity would be greater and the encouragement would be for people not to go for pre-nursing courses

  993
  but go into cadet schemes where they were available. That I appreciate, and we have endeavoured to meet the point where cadets are going into pre-nursing courses and not rendering service in the hospitals.
  The hon. Member will be aware of the volume of complaints which there would be if cadets in the hospitals were rendering such services as they do—non-nursing services as laid down under the regulations—and were not given any form of remuneration for so doing. This is a problem, I accept, but I do not think the solution lies in discriminating between pupil and pupil in an educational scheme.
  There is a very strong body of opinion which feels that it is in the best interests of people going in for nursing that they should have spent two years outside the hospital in some other vocation before going into nursing. That view is sincerely held by many people.
  On the other hand, there have been areas faced with an acute shortage of nursing staff and the keenest competition from industry to take young people at an early age, where it has been felt that the only solution was an adequate and properly controlled cadet scheme. In that respect, Manchester has conducted an admirable scheme with considerable success.
  The hospitals are free to recruit school leavers into the cadet schemes. They are a way of attracting to nursing those who for some reason or another feel that they have to leave school at 16 and want to go into nursing rather than to take up an alternative job until they are 18.
  As I emphasised, the conditions are clearly defined and laid down, and they have been more strongly enforced since the Report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I accept that there were some unsatisfactory schemes, but we have taken strong action in concert with the General Nursing Council, and he will now find that on the whole they are very satisfactorily conducted.
  Mr. Snow: I did not make heavy weather of that.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, but in case it should be thought to be otherwise outside, I should like it to be known that the Regulations are very strict.
  994
  There is yet another way in which girls interested in nursing can get some pre-nursing training, either in nursery nursing or in the voluntary aid societies.
  I should like to say a word about the York and Tadcaster scheme. As I said yesterday, the area is to be congratulated upon its success. This is a case where it is a matter of local pride and very real additional voluntary service as against anything laid down by the Ministry. The scheme has been run with the close co-operation of the hospital management committee and the local education authority, and two parallel courses are run at two hospitals in winter sessions for those who leave school, are perhaps in other jobs and are inclined to take up nursing.
  It takes up a great deal of the free time of the staff. It has arisen out of the voluntary desire of the staff to do its utmost for its local hospital, and that is probably one of the reasons for the success of the scheme, whereas if we were to try to impose a scheme nationally which depended on such effort, it might not be as readily forthcoming or as applicable from area to area as has the Tadcaster scheme in its area. We hope that the publicity given to it and the knowledge of its success will lead to its being copied in other areas where similar conditions apply.
  I would say that, generally speaking, we have been steadily increasing the number of nurses. We are engaged in wide local publicity because we have found from experience that the best publicity is that centred round the needy spots. We have many good spots which have made up their complement. We are fully alive to the difficulties of highly industrial areas such as Birmingham. I assure the hon. Member that we believe that by our three-fold policy, by elasticity and by the co-operation which the Ministry can give to individual schemes seeking to solve local problems we shall obtain the best results.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  INDUSTRIAL HEALTH SERVICE
  INDUSTRIAL HEALTH SERVICE
  GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL AUTHORITY CONTRACTS (TENDERS)
  GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL AUTHORITY CONTRACTS (TENDERS)
  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (BROADCAST DISCUSSIONS)
  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (BROADCAST DISCUSSIONS)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Palace of Westminster Paintings (Report)
  Palace of Westminster Paintings (Report)
  Slate Quarries, North Wales (Minister's Visit)
  Slate Quarries, North Wales (Minister's Visit)
  Westminster Hospital Site (Use)
  Westminster Hospital Site (Use)
  European Atomic Community
  European Atomic Community
RESEARCH
  Atomic Energy Conference, Geneva
  Atomic Energy Conference, Geneva
  Nuclear Radiation
  Nuclear Radiation
  Scientific Libraries (Report)
  Scientific Libraries (Report)
  Medical Research Council (Expenditure)
  Medical Research Council (Expenditure)
  Radiology (Ionizing Radiation)
  Radiology (Ionizing Radiation)
BRITISH ARMY
  Vehicle Storage Depot, Donnington Park
  Vehicle Storage Depot, Donnington Park
  Building and Reconstruction Programme
  Building and Reconstruction Programme
  Casualties, Cyprus (National Service Men)
  Casualties, Cyprus (National Service Men)
  Territorial Associations (Report)
  Territorial Associations (Report)
  Boys' Units (Report)
  Boys' Units (Report)
  Overseas Personnel
  Overseas Personnel
  Recruiting Centre, Morden (Enlistments)
  Recruiting Centre, Morden (Enlistments)
  Territorial Army (Future)
  Territorial Army (Future)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Western European Films
  Western European Films
  Employment, North-West Wales
  Employment, North-West Wales
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Crash Helmets (Purchase Tax)
  Crash Helmets (Purchase Tax)
  Atomic Energy Conference, Geneva (Report)
  Atomic Energy Conference, Geneva (Report)
  Customs Clearance (Delays)
  Customs Clearance (Delays)
  Export of Works of Art (Report)
  Export of Works of Art (Report)
  American Apples
  American Apples
  Credit Restrictions (Agriculture)
  Credit Restrictions (Agriculture)
  Service Officers (Retired Pay)
  Service Officers (Retired Pay)
  Mrs. Maclean (Foreign Currency Allowance)
  Mrs. Maclean (Foreign Currency Allowance)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Mining Subsidence
  Mining Subsidence
  Coast Protection Scheme, Smallburgh
  Coast Protection Scheme, Smallburgh
  Development Charge Claims
  Development Charge Claims
  Porth River Dam (Public Inquiry)
  Porth River Dam (Public Inquiry)
  Middlesex Development Plan
  Middlesex Development Plan
  Middlesex Boroughs (Overspill Populations)
  Middlesex Boroughs (Overspill Populations)
  Rateable Values
  Rateable Values
HOUSING
  Newcastle-under-Lyme and Bristol
  Newcastle-under-Lyme and Bristol
  Loan Charges
  Loan Charges
  Rent-controlled Properties
  Rent-controlled Properties
SHIPPING
  Overseas Orders
  Overseas Orders
ROADS
  Mechanical Building Aids
  Mechanical Building Aids
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Australian Meat Producers (Price Guarantees)
  Australian Meat Producers (Price Guarantees)
  Home-produced Meat
  Home-produced Meat
  Potatoes (Supplies Shortage)
  Potatoes (Supplies Shortage)
  Slaughterhouses (Government Inspection)
  Slaughterhouses (Government Inspection)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  United States Bases (Cost)
  United States Bases (Cost)
ROYAL NAVY
  Athletic Meetings (Leave)
  Athletic Meetings (Leave)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Service Pay, Allowances and Pensions
  Service Pay, Allowances and Pensions
EDUCATION
  Advanced Science Teaching (Facilities)
  Advanced Science Teaching (Facilities)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Coroners' Courts (Juries)
  Coroners' Courts (Juries)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Agricultural Workers (Deferment)
  Agricultural Workers (Deferment)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl of Minto—Took the Oath.
SWANSEA CORPORATION (FAIRWOOD COMMON) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RUNCORN—WIDNES BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
React 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INTERFERENCE WITH REFUGEES
2.37 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 whether a Pole, Josef Malicki, was recently deported from this country; whether he was a member of the Polish Social and Cultural Association in Britain; whether his deportation was in any way due to interference with refugees in this country; and if so, whether power will be taken to close institutions which so abuse their position.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, Josef Malicki, who is understood to have been employed as Secretary of the Polish Social and Cultural Association in Britain, was deported
110
on October 8. My right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, made the deportation order because he was satisfied, on considering all the circumstances, that this step was conducive to the public good. With regard to the last part of the Question, as has been made clear in the past, Her Majesty's Government will not tolerate any attempts at intimidation of, or interference with, refugees who enjoy the protection of this country, and will have no hesitation in taking appropriate action against those concerne.1 in such attempts.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, thank the noble Lord for his Answer, which is entirely satisfactory, and I hope that it will have an effect in checking what is a growing abuse, as I think he knows as well as I do.

NUMBER OF NATIONAL SERVICE MEN
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I beg to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total number of National Service men at present in Her Majesty's Forces.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, there were 280,206 National Service men in the Forces on October 1, 1955—the latest date for which figures are available.

RIGHTS TO A BRITISH PASSPORT
2.40 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: 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 for what reason and on what authority a cautionary note was introduced and printed on British passports and for what reason and on what authority the caution first printed, which read as follows:— "This passport remains the property of Her Majesty's Government and may be withdraw at any time if

111
the holder ceases to be entitled to the protection of Her Majesty's Government," has now been amended on new passports to read—"This passport remains the property of Her Majesty's Government and may be withdrawn at any time."]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the cautionary note was first inserted in United Kingdom passports in 1948, in order to remove possible doubts about the holder's right to retain his passport. The present wording is not new. The change was made as long ago as 1951, since it was felt that the original wording might in certain circumstances be open to misinterpretation. I assure the noble Lord that the insertion of these notes had no sinister significance and did not indicate any change of policy as regards the issue of passports. The grant of United Kingdom passports is a Royal prerogative exercised through Her Majesty's Ministers and in particular the Foreign Secretary. No United Kingdom citizen has a legal right to a passport and in theory the Foreign Secretary has the power to withhold or withdraw a passport at his discretion, although in practice such power is exercised only in exceptional cases.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. This is a great departure from pre-war practice—even pre-1946 practice. On the application for a passport there is no mention of these conditions, and £1 is paid for the passport.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, if we are going to construe something technically, would it not be more appropriate if the note said: "This passport is the property of Her Majesty" rather than of Her Majesty's Government? Can Her Majesty's Government own any property at all? And what is the Government?
THE MARQUESS or READING: My Lords, I should take up a good deal of your Lordships' time if I were to answer the last remark of the noble and learned Earl, but my general appreciation of it would be highly laudatory. At the same time I will consider the point raised by the noble and learned Earl.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Might I ask the noble Marquess this question: on whose advice does the Foreign Secretary exercise the Royal prerogative in this matter?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The responsibility is that of the Foreign Secretary. Whose advice it is, is not for this purpose material.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Would the noble Marquess be prepared to state in how many cases a passport has been refused to a British subject?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Over what period of time?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Perhaps I could put down a Question. I could not expect a reply offhand.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I can tell the noble Viscount this, that a passport has been withdrawn only once or twice in the course of a year over the past years, whereas the number of applications for passports has been in the neighbourhood of half a million; so that the number of cases is not very large.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is the noble Marquess aware that during the war passports were issued without any words appearing on them about their being withdrawn? They were said to be "the property of His Majesty" or of "His Majesty's Government," but they contained nothing about their being withdrawn. Then in Mr. Bevin's time there appeared something about the holder ceasing to enjoy the protection, and subsequently, in Mr. Morrison's time, came the words saying that they may be taken away. What was the reason for tightening up these notes? Was it not an attempt of the Foreign Office to secure a control which before that time was doubtful?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not think it was an attempt to secure any new control: it was merely an attempt—and I suggest a successful attempt—to make the position indubitably clear.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But what is the position of a foreign subject abroad who desires this personal paper for his own protection? The noble Marquess must know that the withholding of personal papers is one of the well-known methods for dictatorial government.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am not concerned, in dealing with British passports, about the position of a foreign subject abroad. I do not follow the noble Viscount's question.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am sorry I did not make it clear. Suppose that a British subject resident abroad—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That is not what the noble Viscount said.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Supposing such a person applies for a passport and it is refused, he is damnified. His position is made very difficult. Does the noble Marquess not realise that?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: There may be cases in which a passport is withheld, and it may be rightly withheld. If the noble Viscount has any particular case in mind—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Or if the noble Viscount likes to put down a question in general terms I am prepared to answer it; but I think we are getting rather wide of the mark of the present Question.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consult with other Governments to see whether passports could not be abolished altogether between certain countries?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That question, again, does not seem to arise even faintly out of the present Question, but for the gratification of the noble Lord that is a matter which we always have in mind and in which we have made some progress in recent: years; and we shall continue to endeavour to do so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Marquess the Lord President of the Council I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Sudan (Special Payments) Bill through its remaining stages.—(Earl Fortescue.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUDAN (SPECIAL PAYMENTS) BILL
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I, am sorry to have to interpose this Bill before your Lordships plunge into the economic situation, but this is a Bill which has considerable economic consequences for a perhaps small but extremely deserving body of people in this country. It has already passed through another place and, as a result of the Motion which has just been accepted by the House, I shall, in turn, ask your Lordships to pass it through all its stages to-day. Fortunately, it is a short Bill with two objects, both of which will, I believe, thoroughly commend themselves to the general opinion of your Lordships' House. The first of these two purposes is to provide for certain ex gratia payments to former pensionable officials of the Sudan Service; and to those who are described as pensionable officials there has to be added a category which is rather bleakly described, in the language used in connection with this Bill, as "female annuitants," who are a group of competent and devoted ladies who in the past have done most valuable work in the Sudan.
The second object of the Bill is to increase the pension and allowance which Sir Robert Howe, the former Governor-General, who retired at the beginning of this year, would be entitled to receive under the Superannuation Act operative in this country. The House will recall that it is now something over two and a half years since an Agreement was arrived at with Egypt which provided for self-government and, eventually, self-determination by the Sudan. The change contemplated by that Agreement raised the whole question of the future of the not inconsiderable number of British officials who at that time were employed in various branches of the governmental machine in the Sudan. I think your Lordships will unanimously agree that the men and women who occupied their lives in that Service did a most admirable piece of work in the interests of the peoples of the Sudan.
The Anglo-Egyptian Agreement to which I have referred provided for (I will

115
try to avoid a word which I greatly dislike, by saying "provided for"—thereby, I hope, dodging the word "Sudanisation") the replacement of British personnel by Sudan personnel. But it provided that no British or Egyptian official was to retain a post in the Sudan Service which, in the opinion of (and this word is officially used in this connection) the Sudanisation Committee established under the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement, might be prejudicial to the free and neutral atmosphere which is essential to the proper consideration of all the problems arising at the time of self-determination. That time of self-determination is now obviously rapidly approaching. The posts to be considered, formerly occupied by British men and women, include all appointments in the Sudan Defence Force, in the police and in the Administration.
In considering the contents of this Bill it must be borne in mind that the Agreement between the Government of this country and the Government of Egypt was not an Agreement to which the Sudan Government was a party; but the Governor-General at that time, Sir Robert Howe, had laid upon him by certain articles, 87 and 88 (i) of the Sudan Statute, discretionary powers to ensure proper maintenance of public service, and he was, further, under the direct and express obligation to see that all officials received fair and equitable treatment. And it was clearly right that that safeguard for officials should have found a place in the relevant document. On the strength of that provision, Sir Robert Howe, quite rightly, started negotiations with the new Sudan Government. The situation in the Sudan in March, 1954, was, if I may use a neutral term, very uncertain, and the officials were under grave anxieties as to their own future. In those circumstances, Sir Robert Howe gave the British officials an assurance that they would receive fait and equitable compensation for loss of career. These men, after all, had left their own country and established themselves in the Sudan with the prospect and the purpose of contributing to the good government and prosperity of the Sudan, but also of earning their own livelihood in the process of so doing. The provisions in regard to compensation which this Bill contains have—and I think it is important to bear this in mind—nothing to do with pensions. Pensions are paid by the Sudan
116
Government to those who are qualified to receive them, and this Bill is concerned not with pensions but with an additional gratuity by way of compensation for loss of career.
On the representations and approaches of Sir Robert Howe to the new Sudan Government, that Government agreed to make provision for the British men and women in their service who might be replaced by Sudanese. They accepted it as a proper burden upon their own exchequer, and in so doing, I think, took a fair and creditable view of the position. But the scale which the Governor-General agreed with them—a scale which is set out in the Sudan Expatria Officials Compensation Ordinance, which came into force in July, 1954—while not ungenerous in the circumstances, at the same time, in Sir Robert Howe's opinion, did not amount to an entire fulfilment of the assurances which he had given. He felt that there was still a gap between the sum agreed with the Sudan Government and what he regarded as fair and equitable compensation, and the question was how that gap was to be bridged.
In order to bridge that gap Her Majesty's Government—I think the House will accept, quite rightly—felt in honour bound to step in to back the Governor's stand and to make up the difference between the two sums. The sum of £160,000 was set aside which would be divided up between some 270 officials, being those amongst a larger number—something over 1,000—who were serving towards a pension and who would, in other circumstances, have expected to complete their full period of service. The balance between the 270 and the larger figure is made up either of officials who were serving there on short-term contracts and not on a pensionable basis or of officials who on entering into their contracts had included a term which entitled them to receive adequate compensation in the event of Sudanisation taking place during the period or the currency of the contract. The increase which is contemplated represents a maximum increase at its highest point from £ Egyptian 8,000 to Egyptian 8,500.
Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill set out the conditions and circumstances which have to be fulfilled before a former employee of the Sudan Government can

117
establish a claim to this additional gratuity. If those conditions are fulfilled and the individual is entitled to compensation from the Sudan Government, then, automatically, the additional gratuity contemplated by this Bill follows in its train. The exact calculations involved are extremely intricate, and I do not propose to enter into details of them to-day but rather to ask your Lordships to confirm the principle of the Bill. The basis of the method of calculation is laid down in the Sudan Expatria Officials Compensation Ordinance, to which I have already referred.
So much for the officials now for the second part of the Bill, which I can deal with very briefly, and which relates to the position of the Governor-General. Sir Robert Howe, the then Governor-General, was in a very special position. He was a Foreign Service officer who, at the time of his resignation for purely personal reasons early in January of this year, had held the position of Governor-General for the unaccustomedly lengthy period of eight years. The fact that he had held the post for so unusually long a time meant, obviously, this: that by permitting himself to be retained in the position of Governor-General of the Sudan, and not at the end of three or four years being promoted to a more lucrative if not more responsible appointment, he had forfeited the opportunity to retire at the age of sixty, not with the pension to which he would be entitled as Governor-General of the Sudan but with the higher rate of pension to which he would have been entitled had he been promoted—as he had every right to expect that he would be—to a more highly-paid office. When he did retire he was just on the verge of sixty and therefore of reaching what is, in the Foreign Service, pensionable age.
It will be in the recollection of the House that Sir Robert Howe during the arduous period of his Governor-General-ship rendered most admirable service in extremely difficult circumstances. The fact that that is so is best evidenced by the general confidence which was extended to him by those in the Sudan, and in particular perhaps by the real depths of affection and trust which were exhibited at the time of his farewell. What is proposed is not a very sensational increase it is merely that he shall receive an additional pension of £250 a year and
118
an additional lump sum of £750. I cannot think that your Lordships will regard those as excessive recommendations and I trust that they will receive general assent.
I have only one more word to say. In London, there is a Sudan Agency which, as its none describes, looks after the affairs of Sudan in this country. There are those in the employ of that agency who have made, at some length and perhaps not always with complete accuracy, complaints about their exclusion from this Bill. By the terms of the Bill, its provisions are limited to those whose last post of service was in Sudan or in Cairo. It must be borne in mind that the conditions of service between London and Cairo vary infinitely. A man is not called upon to make the same sacrifices, or undergo the same difficulties and personal hardships, if he serves in London as he would be if serving in the Sudan. In any case, Sir Robert Howe went fully into the position and came to the conclusion that he was satisfied that these persons have not been unfairly treated, and he told them in precise terms, I think, that his assurance to the Sudan Service did not include them. They receive separate scales of pension under the Sudan Ordinance to which I have referred. Indeed, in London there has been no case of a person on pensionable service being replaced by a Sudanese. I thought it right that I should mention that matter, but I do so only to point out that the grievances, if grievances there be, have been fully considered, that there has been an advance under the Sudanese Ordinance upon what was originally contemplated, and that in the view of Her Majesty's Government these people have in no way been unfairly treated. With that, I hope not excessively lengthy, explanation, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for the exposition of this simple but important Bill to which we have just listened. Let me say right away that we on these Benches view with favour the Bill which is now before the House. I think it is right to say that the reasons for the Bill are part of the consequences of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. to

119
which the noble Marquess referred, which provided for Sudan self-government, leading up to Sudan self-determination. We on these Benches approved that Agreement and we welcome the progress that is being made towards Sudanese self-determination. We hope that the final stage which lies ahead will be reached in the quite near future, and passed successfully, and that the aspirations of the Sudanese people, which we have done a great deal to further, will be fully and smoothly realised.
British policy, British guidance and British officials serving the Sudan have played a notable part in these important developments. I do not believe that any country has been better or more devotedly served by British officials than has the Sudan during a long period of years. We owe a debt of gratitude to those officials, and so do the Sudanese. It is our duty, therefore, to see that these officials affected (and here I will use the word which the noble Marquess eschewed) by the Sudanisation of the Administration have fair and equitable compensation. I am sure that Sir Robert Howe, in fulfilment of the pledge to which the noble Marquess referred, did his best to get an agreement for compensation at levels which he considered fair and equitable, but this Bill seems to indicate that he was only about 94 per cent. successful. I regret that the Sudan Government could not be persuaded to go just a little further in the provision of compensation.
In the circumstances, we on these Benches welcome the decision of the Government to provide, as additional compensation, payments up to the maximum of £500 for officials at the top level of £8,000. If I understand the position rightly, all officials who come within the scope of the Sudan Expatria Officials Compensation Ordinance, and women officers who come within the scope of the Sudan Government's financial circular, and who meet the appropriate conditions set out in Clause 1 (2), come within the scope of this Bill. The noble Marquess has stated that the number of people affected is 207. It has been stated in another place that those who come within the provisions of the Bill are satisfied with the provision that is being made, and we are very glad to hear that that is so.
As was indicated by the noble Marquess, there are also another 700 to
120
800 officials, most of whom were on short-term contracts which included a clause that, in the event of the Sudanisation of their posts, they would be paid a gratuity.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I try to help the noble Lord? There are two classes: those who are on short contract which does not carry pension and others in whose contract there appears a clause giving them compensation in the event of Sudanisation. They are not all in one class.
LORD HENDERSON: That I understand. I am not quite clear on one point and I should like to ask the noble Marquess this question. I understand the position in respect of the Sudan Agency in London, but are there any other expatriate Sudan officials not covered by the various provisions to which I have made reference and about whom representations have been made to the Government, or is it the case that, generally speaking, the whole position will be reasonably satisfactory when this Bill becomes law and is implemented?
Finally, we on these Benches also welcome the proposals which relate to Sir Robert Howe. The late Governor-General served through a long and delicate period with great distinction, and we are all indebted to him for his devoted service. I think we must all agree that it would be wrong if he were to be prejudiced, both in respect of his pension and of his additional allowance, because of his absence from the country and because of the fact that during those difficult years he was representing two Governments. I feel that this must be a unique case; certainly it is exceptional, and it is hardly likely to arise again. We therefore support the provisions which relate to Sir Robert Howe, and we welcome the proposals of the Government in respect of both parts of the Bill. Having said that, I would only add that, as we have indicated, we shall facilitate the Government in getting this Bill through all its stages to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I might answer the point the noble Lord made. As I understand the position, those who are affected by this Bill have accepted the provisions contained in it as satisfactory to their requirements. The second point is that those who have

121
accepted the provisions of this Bill are all the persons likely to be affected by the Sudanisation arrangements in the Sudan.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords: I beg to move that this Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill, be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

VALIDATION OF ELECTIONS (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
3.13 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE rose to call attention to the Economic Situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: When I last addresed your Lordships on economic and financial matters in the spring of this year I expressed my view that the functions of the two Houses of Parliament on such questions were widely different. Constitutionally, the other place is, by prerogative and by Statute, the sole arbiter of supply and taxation. Its Members sit there by virtue of their representative character and, as such, are charged with the duty of guarding the interests of their constituents; and they would be failing in that duty if they did not thresh out, and even wrangle over, the conflicting merits and demerits of the financial proposals as seen from the angle of those for whom they speak. Our position in this House is, of course, quite different: we do not, in that sense,
122
represent anyone but ourselves, and we should be ill-advised indeed if we were to place what the Prayer calls "private interests, prejudices and partial affections" before the wellbeing of the realm as a whole. It is in this spirit that I propose to examine the present economic situation, including, of course, the proposals put forward in the other place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The major historical facts are, I submit, matters of common agreement. We all remember that after the First World War there were in this country rapidly falling prices, a slump and widespread unemployment; and no-one,. I imagine, would deny to-day that those were the consequences of a deflation deliberately engineered by the Bank of England, with the approval, or at any rate the connivance, of the Government of the day. This deflation culminated in the restoration of the gold standard at its old parity. The situation continued to get worse under both Governments in the 'twenties of this country, until finally sterling was again devalued and cut adrift from any fixed relationship to gold or the dollar. The miseries of those days hit deep into the souls of the people of this country, and when, at the end of the Second World War, the Labour Government decided to pursue an entirely different policy they had almost universal support for this action. But times were very difficult. The United States, abruptly and, as President Truman himself afterwards admitted, ungenerously, cut off Lease-Lend; demobilisation of millions of men and women had to be organised; there was a world shortage of food and raw materials; and British industry had to be entirely reconstituted D n a peace basis. In those circumstances, the Labour Government, of which I was a member, realised that, while their main objective must be to restore the nation to the maximum employment of its resources, they must retain a firm grip over the whole economy so as to avoid the twin evils of inflation and deflation.
I remember well how, in the Cabinet, careful reviews were regularly presented to us of the work to be done and of the materials and manpower available for its execution. It was, as your Lordships will remember, a hard battle. Sir Stafford Cripps was dubbed "Austerity Cripps" for the part he took in winning it. He was not wholly successful. In 1949

123
sterling was devalued, and later, when the Korean war sent world prices rocketing upwards, our gold and dollar reserve suffered a serious depletion. While the storm was gathering ahead, there was a General Election in this country and a Conservative Government were returned to office. After a time, things improved —whether that improvement was due mainly to the action the Chancellor of the Exchequer took or whether it was due almost entirely or mainly to extraneous causes is a question with which I am not dealing at this moment, because I want to confine myself to facts which are incontrovertible. I shall return to that point a little later on in my speech.
About the end of 1954 the situation again began to show signs of getting worse, and in the spring of this year Mr. Butler, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, took two actions. In the first place he raised the bank rate, in two stages, to 4½ per cent., and in the second place he introduced a Budget in which he remitted taxation, mostly by reducing the rate of income tax, by some £150 million a year. The deterioration continued and was not helped by several prolonged strikes. That brings me to the present day, and to a state of affairs which no-one who understands the facts and is concerned for the welfare of this country can view without alarm. Our gold and dollar reserves covering the whole sterling area are now steadily going down; the balance of trade of the United Kingdom is considerably against us, and imports are increasing far more rapidly than exports. In the first nine months of this year, whereas the exports increased as against the previous year by 6 per cent., the imports have increased by 15 per cent. Not only so, but while world trade in the first six months of this year rose by some 13 per cent., British exports rose only by some 4 per cent. While this was going on, wages and prices seemed to be chasing one another in an upward spiral; profits have been reaching record heights and, taking the year as a whole, equities have made startling gains on the Stock Exchange. All those are the recognised symptoms of inflation.
During the Recess I have been in touch with a number of people who do not profess to be versed in economic and financial matters, and they have said to me something of this sort: "Why bother
124
about it? We are all doing quite well. The factories are humming; the workers are getting good wages; the shareholders are getting good dividends and there is no unemployment, so why cannot Mr. Butler leave us alone to get on with it? "For my part, I certainly do not share that view. All my life I have been an active exponent of stable money, and the fact that I was a violent opponent of deflation in the 'twenties has never disguised from me the fact that inflation is an equally dangerous evil. Both are forms of robbery. Every contract running over a period of years presupposes something approximating to the steady purchasing power of money, and when this is not maintained one or other of the parties is cheated of his right. Inflation and deflation are like Scylla and Charybdis, and it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to navigate the Ship of State successfully between them. If that is true of countries in general, I think your Lordships will agree that there is no country of which it is more true than this island country of ours. We cannot feed ourselves or feed our mills except by trading with the outside world, and woe betide any Chancellor or Government who fails to recognise this fact!
But how is inflation to be stopped? Let me enumerate some of the remedies. The first which will occur to all of us is by increasing production. I suppose we are all agreed upon this, on whichever side of the House we sit, at any rate as a general principle. That is why the main decision of the Labour Government in 1945 was sound; and that is why full employment of every man and woman able and willing to work is essential, and why the few "croakers" who call the present employment "too full," and who want to reduce it and seek to have a larger number of unemployed, cut no ice with the majority of the people of this country. That is why it is a good thing to have a queue of people eager to use the materials and the labour, and not the other way.
The second method of trying to meet inflation is by monetary means—that is to say, by raising the bank rate. There is no doubt whatever that that method, coupled as it was with what is called open market transactions, worked during the nineteenth century. It was a somewhat blunt and brutal weapon, but it worked. It involved bankruptcies, and generally involved disastrous unemploy-

125
ment. Again in 1919, it was the method successfully employed to bring about wholesale reduction of prices and the miseries of the 'twenties to which I have already referred. This was the weapon employed by Mr. Butler in 1952, shortly after he became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Many of his supporters—maybe some on the Benches that I see opposite me, but certainly large masses of them in the country—think that the bulk of the improvement which took place in 1952 was due to that policy of making money dear which the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted at that time. I do not think Mr. Butler has ever said that himself, and I believe that he and his advisers know far too much about it ever to have made such a claim. The real fact, of course, was that the terrific rise of prices brought about by the Korean war had come to an end. They fell sharply, with the result that there was an immense change in the terms of trade. Astounding as it may seem, that change amounted to a figure of somewhere about £500 million a year.
I have never denied that raising the bank rate is one way, even if an expensive, indiscriminating and somewhat brutal way, of producing an anti-inflationary tendency. All the same, there is very little evidence that raising the bank rate in the early months of this year, 1955, had much effect. 'The joint stock banks countered it by selling securities, and, with the proceeds, continued to make advances. It was not until the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a directive to them to contract their advances that they acted in the way he wanted. In the meantime, he had opened the floodgates further by his largesse to the income tax payers in the April Budget. The result of all that was that there has been to this day very little improvement in the situation.
The third way which is put forward is to reduce the amount of money in the hands of consumers by direct taxation. Mr. Butler did the exact reverse of that in April. But in any case it is now clear, even if it was not then, that the main overspending—and this is very important —has not been done so much by the consumer in his personal capacity as by corporate bodies seeking to get new capital equipment. It may he that some noble Lords do not agree with me in that state-
126
ment. Let me just remind them of the present Budget position, taking into account not merely the figures above the line but the figures below the line. They will realise, if they do that, that at the moment there is the almost unprecedented figure of over £600 million deficit in the accounts. I am quite aware that, as the year goes through, part of that will be corrected by the inflow of the proceeds of taxation, but that is one sign.
Another sign is the large number of people in the business world who are pressing for capital in order to float their enterprises. Though it is a good thing in the main, as I said just now, that there should be a queue of people waiting to do things, if, in the aggregate, they succeed in doing more than the economy can provide for in the way of raw materials and labour, they are merely creating inflation. If noble Lords are still not satisfied, I should just like to read an extract—and this is the only extract I propose to read—from The Times leading article of yesterday, in the course of which the writer speaks of
"the unexpectedly great expansion of industrial and, to a lesser extent, municipal capital expenditure. It is this, lot any upsurge in public current expenditure or any great upsurge in private consumption, that has caused the temporary increase of the overload on the economy."
The fourth method that is sometimes adopted is by extensive control over the whole economy. When I first entered another place, the orthodox view of the function of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that he was concerned almost exclusively with the purse of the Exchequer—that is to say, with the receipts and payments of the State Budget—and that he left the Bank of England and the City to deal with the rest of the economy, which was in that day mostly in private hands. I always opposed that view and, little by little, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken to himself a wider sphere of activity, which is illustrated by the form in which the Financial Statement is to-day exhibited.. In Mr. Butler's autumn Budget, he, recognises this to the extent, of issuing directives to the public sector regarding their capital policy. That is a perfectly sound thing to do, in principle. The fact that: they are public authorities, whether they are municipal or public enterprises, is the means by which he is enabled to do it most easily.

127
Whether he has done what he has done wisely or fairly, I am not prepared to say. In particular, this drive on the municipalities seems to me to be conducted rather in a mean manner, by trying to force the smaller municipalities to enter the hurly-burly of the money market if they want to raise a loan and, if they come back to the Treasury, by taking a "rake-off"—that is what it amounts to —on every loan that they secure.
With regard to the private sector of industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think it adequate to confine his attention to the indiscriminating bludgeon of an increased bank rate. Personally, I think the time will come when he and parties on both sides will come to realise, as some of us do to-day, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to exercise and enforce priorities in the interests not only of the individual but also of the nation itself. In the meanwhile, by not doing that, it seems to me that he has taken a very unfair attitude towards the wound-be smaller borrowers, people like farmers, small firms and others, who in some cases are at the present time being forced into bankruptcy.
The final method that I can see—there may be others I have not thought of—of attempting to restrain inflation is by putting up the price of consumer goods and by imposing a tax on them. To the ordinary man in the street, that seems a little like Alice Through The Looking Glass. To the ordinary man in the street, at any rate, to put up prices for the purpose of keeping prices down and keeping wages down as well, seems like a contradiction in terms. Of course, I understand the theory of it. The theory of it is that you put up the prices of a large number of things by tax. That will induce some people to go without them, even though some of them are really necessary; and even if they do not go without them, they will have less money to spend on other things. That is all right in theory, but I have an uncomfortable feeling that it is not the way it will work in practice. Let us just see how it does work.
Mrs. Brown goes to the shops. She must buy a great many of these necessaries which are affected by additional purchase tax in this autumn Budget; she is absolutely in need of them for the house-
128
hold and she has to pay more for them. She comes home and says, "Bill, I cannot make do on the money that you give me every week. I must have more." He goes to his employer and says. "I must have more money because my wife cannot make do on the money I have been giving her up to now." Therefore it seems to me much more likely that this increase in tax on household articles of everyday use which the common people buy, instead of acting in a deflationary manner will act in an inflationary manner. It puts up the price of certain articles which must be bought, the housewife wants more money, the husband asks for, and in many cases will get, more wages. The wage increases will mean cost increases; cost increases will mean price increases, and the whole vicious spiral will go on.
I am quite prepared to agree that perhaps that might not happen if the ordinary citizen were convinced that Mr. Butler's Budget was a fair one—if they said, "We may not understand inflation, but we are told that it is a most terrible thing and that we are going to suffer from it. We must all take our fair share of the difficulty, and in our opinion Mr. Butler has made a fair deal." If they felt it was quite fair, I think the large bulk of the people would accept his Budget scheme. But it is difficult to imagine that that will be so. I find it difficult to understand how even Mr. Butler thinks it is a fair Budget. In his Budget broadcast on the Wednesday night, following his speech in the House, he himself said that he thought the bulk of the people would think it fair; therefore one must suppose that he is hoping that they will. But I find it difficult to take that view.
Let me put the most charitable interpretation on Mr. Butler's actions. I assume that in April he optimistically believed that his monetary squeeze would restrain inflation and that he could even afford to aggravate the inflation by giving away some £150 million by remissions in taxation. In September he realised that the squeeze was not doing the work that he anticipated it would do, so he clamped an approximately equal amount on different articles and on an entirely different set of people. Let us look at it in this way, which seems to me to be one which we are entitled to use. Put the two Budgets into one—after all, they are the combined financial provisions that the

129
Chancellor of the Exchequer has made for the year 1955–56. Putting the two together, from the point of view of the Exchequer there is no loss and no gain. From the point of view of the public, the Chancellor has made certain remissions to one set of people and he is taking taxes to make up for those remissions out of an entirely different set of people. I do not want to press it too hard, but, broadly speaking, the people to whom Mr. Butter gave the largest share of the remissions were, as I showed five months ago, the well-to-do people, and many of the people from whom he is taking taxes are the less-well-off people. I will just put this question to your Lordships and leave the matter there. In view of those facts, do your Lordships, whether sitting on this side of the House, on the Liberal Benches, or on the Benches opposite, really consider it likely, that the ordinary man and woman in this country will think it is a fair Budget? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I confess frankly that I have been looking forward keenly to listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, had to say on the Budget statement of last Wednesday. I think it is a real privilege to hear in this House an objective critic speaking without partiality. From what the noble Lord has said, I think that is a fair statement to make. If perhaps a cloud of Socialist dogma occasionally descends on his words it is only momentarily, and in a very short time his own personality shines forth with his personal judgment, I think it is of great value to-day to have the noble Lord's view, because there is probably no subject that is more difficult to diagnose than inflationary pressure of one character or another. I say, frankly, that there is no subject more difficult to expound; certainly there is no subject more easy to misrepresent—the noble Lord has not done that at all. There is another point—namely, that however unfair inflation may be (the noble Lord called it "robbery"), any action which is taken to check inflation is necessarily unpopular. It is doubtful whether any action could be taken which would have that effect unless it were in some measure unpopular. That is the reason why inflation is to-day the Achilles' heel of democratic government. And that is true
130
not only of this country but of many countries in different parts of the world.
Perhaps I should say a word about the reason why this Budget is necessary. The noble Lord opposite has run over the points and I shall just underline substantially what he has already said. I think it is about twelve months since anxiety began to be felt in regard to the pressure on the economy, but the position became clear when the figures for the second half of last year came to be analysed. It is fair to say that immediate steps were taken, first in January, and again in February, by raising the bank rate and later by restricting credit through hire purchase. I think I can claim that those efforts were not entirely unsuccessful, because in any case by April of this year the strength of sterling had improved; the drain on the reserves appeared to have stopped, and the trade figures had improved. It was largely for the purpose of strengthening the economy that some reductions in direct taxation were made. We may have a perfectly honest difference of opinion as to how important in the economy is the element of incentive. The noble Lord opposite has argued that taken together, the two Budgets do not present in all fairness the picture which he thinks they should. All I have to say is, that they take into account different circumstances and have different objectives in view. My right honourable friend said yesterday, that if he was guilty of an error it was, after all, an error on the right side, and I believe that is a fair statement. Of course, the noble Lord does not like the bank rate: he has never liked it. There is a lack of logic in what he says, for in 1919 he said that the effect of the bank rate was too great; yet his present complaint about the bank rate is that it is not having enough effect. It is not the bank rate but the manner in which it is being used; and it is upon that that judgment must be formed.
I will run over the general lines of what has happened since that time. As the noble Lord has said, it is quite clear that our economy has become overloaded. Efforts have been made to obtain more than the economy can provide, both in materials and in labour. The first half-year showed that the current account surplus was down to £17 million, which is about £150 million less than in the corresponding period of the year before.

131
Frankly, this surplus is too small for our overseas capital equipment. Demands on labour were getting very heavy, and at the present time the number of vacancies notified is roughly twice the total number of unemployed. There is a shortage of steel, which became increasingly marked in the course of this year. The cost of living rose three points in June, and, as the noble Lord quite correctly said, there has been a very considerable rise in industrial investment in capital equipment. This can 'be shown by the amount of factory building which is taking place and by orders for machine tools, which have grown very rapidly this year. In itself, of course, this was excellent, but it must not become too heavy for the country as a whole. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that one of the recent criticisms heard was that capital investment had not been going ahead quite fast enough. It is now taking a considerable surge forward.
The trade gap for June and July was about twice that for April and May, accentuated, of course, by strikes. The gold and dollar reserves fell by about £40 million for the months of July, August and September. To meet this situation the Chancellor of the Exchequer took his third action of the year at the end of July, impressing upon the banks the necessity to strengthen the higher bank rates by curtailing their own advances. This step was not ineffectual, but to-day we do not think it is enough by itself. But, as the Governor of the Bank of England said last month, to some extent the effect of this action was limited by the fact that much of the economy in the public sector was relatively isolated from that particular form of restriction.
What, then, was the Chancellor to do? Of course, we could have slipped along somehow until April without any major calamity—that was one possible course. Alternatively, we could have imposed Draconian measures, which would have left it beyond doubt that some form of inflation had set in. We have sought to take the path which the noble Lord has described as narrow, between Scylla and Charybdis, in this fourth action which Her Majesty's Government have taken this year in keeping on the narrow path which this country requires. I should like to emphasise how narrow that path is. We have an overseas
132
trade, visible and invisible, of something in the order of £8,000 million. The balance we have in mind is perhaps 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. A very slight movement one way or the other would rectify the position altogether, but the situation is made much more acute by the relative shortage of reserves which we have in this country at the present time.
It is not only a question of our long-term balance of payments; it is a question of whether our currency is stable, for we could go on increasing our exports as we are at the present time. But I believe that as long as inflationary pressure is there our imports would tend to increase even faster. It is therefore essential to our overseas trade and for this country that we should succeed in achieving internal stability; and, of course, we are the bankers and trustees of the sterling area. On the whole this has been a favourable year in regard to terms of trade, and we have to bear that in mind. It does not mean that our overseas markets have become easier, because in the last twelve months German and Japanese competition has been growing rapidly and in this last year fairly heavy imports of both coal and steel have been necessary—of the order of £100 million. I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord shares the view that action is necessary—indeed, I am glad that there is, on all sides, no doubt that some action should be taken.
Turning to what action should be taken, there are roughly two views. On the one hand there are those who say that direct Government control should be imposed with, probably, some sharp increase in taxation. The other camp believes that the only practical action is a very large reduction in Government expenditure. So, broadly speaking, those are the two schools of thought: reduction of Government expenditure on the one side, and increased Government controls on the other. Controls are cumbersome instruments which necessarily involve, in nearly every case, some form of allocation or rationing. We believe that the choice of the man who buys or uses is more efficient than the choice by an official on his behalf. Let me quote the building industry as an example. It has been very striking to note that, since building licences have been withdrawn, efficiency in the building industry—that is, output per man—has very considerably increased. After six

133
years of planned economy it still required the assistance of a Government Department for a boy to buy a bar of chocolate. Apart front other considerations, I can only fed that that is very inefficient. The second point is one brought out some time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Brand: that controls are infectious. If you put on one you have to put on others in order to balance; and so controls spread, bit by bit, through the whale community. My third objection to controls is that, fundamentally, they treat the symptoms of the disease without treating the cause. They give the appearance of a balance without necessarily obtaining a fundamental balance. They do not take inflationary pressure, as such, out of the economy.
May I now turn to the school of thought which says that our present problems can be resolved by much heavier cuts in Government expenditure. To some extent, we are following that line, and have been following it. I should like to quote what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. To-day, the Government are taking only 26 per cent. of the gross national product, against the 29 per cent. which was being taken when this Government came to power; and we are doing that despite a very considerable increase in defence expenditure and after strengthening—and I can emphasise strengthening—the social services in this country. If anyone advances that policy of reducing Govern-merit expenditure then he must say which section it is that he wants to cut—whether it is defence, the Welfare State, agriculture or food subsidies or atomic development, because those are the major issues which as a matter of policy will require to be changed if any really considerable cut has to he made. At the present time we do not think it is either wise or necessary to take any such step.
What do we propose to do? Our policy falls into two parts; first, to reduce the claims of investment on materials and labour, but to do so without damaging the growth of capital and equipment; secondly, in some way to reduce consumer purchasing power in this country as a whole—in other words, to change this country, at least in some degree, from a sellers' market to something more closely resembling a buyers' market at home. Under the first head, that of investment expenditure, come the existing restrictions on credit, to which we add reduction in Government expenditure on certain capital
134
works, a careful review of the future capital programme of the nationalised industries and the reduction of capital expenditure of local authorities. Under the second heading—that is to say, the reduction of consumer expenditure—we have the hire-purchase restrictions which already exist and the increase in purchase tax. Thirdly, there is the increase of certain Post Office charges to bring the Post Office services more fully on a self-accounting basis—I understand that the purpose of the Post Office is always to be on a self-balancing basis. Fourthly, there is the increase in companies profits tax. These broad categories, of course, interact on each other and they cannot be so sharply distinguished as I have indicated.
I should like to say one further word on the question of loans to local authorities—a subject which has been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in his speech. We shall encourage local authorities to go to the market, but if they are unable to borrow from other sources they can, of course, approach the Local 1oans Board. But the rates which the Board will set will not be the credit of the Government but the credit generally of the local authorities who are making the approach. The noble Lord says that that is a "rake-off." May I explain why we are pursuing that policy? We are punning it because it will be a policy to discourage local authorities, on the whole, from going to the Board if they can get money elsewhere. One reason for this is that if the local authorities go to the Local Loans Board, the Board have to raise their money for loans to local authorities by means of Treasury Bilk Treasury Bills, in the hands of bankers, of course, rank as liquid assets, so the effect of that is in some way to enable the banks to increase the amounts of money they have to lend. We do not want that. We think it is wrong in the present: circumstances that the number and amount of Treasury Bills should be increased by means of extra loans to the Local Loans Board.
I would say this about local authorities. There are two ways in which we can curb any extension of Treasury Bills arising from the pressure of loans for local authorities. One is by direct Government control—that is to say, to make the expenditure al the local authorities subject to detailed approval by the Central Government. We think that is wrong, not

135
only because it involves delay but also because it undermines the responsibility of local authorities themselves. We have taken the opposite view—namely, that local authorities are the best judges of local priorities and that it is for them to seek their own economies. This enhances their responsibility, and I think it is the right way to give effect to that which we have in mind. I think we all of us know of instances of local projects which may be desirable but which are not strictly necessary in present circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence has said that the increased purchase tax will have a very adverse effect. We suggest that the actual effect on the cost of living will be very small. I think it is worth considering what is happening with regard to personal incomes at the present time. The figures for 1954 suggest that personal incomes increased in that year by about £800 million, or possibly a little more, while real production has not risen so fast. Perhaps I may give an example of the purchasing power which comes from these personal incomes. If we add together what is to-day spent on alcohol, tobacco and gambling we get a figure which I believe is somewhere in the order of £2,000 million a year, so it does seem that these increases are playing a considerable part in inflationary pressure in the country, and it is not unfair that this purchasing power should be marginally reduced. It may be argued that what we are taking by increase in purchase tax is such a small amount compared with the rises in personal incomes that it is hardly worth doing. To that I would say that if only a few people are discouraged from buying motor cars or television sets, electric cookers, or what you will, in the way of metal commodities, it will by that much reduce the pressure on the resources and labour and materials of the metal industries immediately concerned. If, on the other hand, people do buy in spite of taxes, they will have marginally so much less to spend on other things. I do not, of course, suggest that, taken by itself, the increase in purchase tax will be anything like enough—indeed, probably none of these measures will be enough taken in isolation. Nevertheless, I believe that, collectively, they will be sufficient to bring about the relatively small improvement in the balance of payments at which we aim.
Now I would say a word about the "D" scheme. I think the abolition of
136
this scheme will be warmly welcomed by most manufacturers of textiles and furniture because the existing scheme, though undoubtedly an improvement on what went before, has so many anomalies that it tends to drive people out of making better-class textiles, which are the very class most used in export. That is of course, typical of the difficulty which faces all those who wish to pursue a policy of austerity, because it is primarily quality goods which we are exporting and we cannot force a foreigner to buy austerity goods if he does not want to do so. Very much the same considerations affect the cut glass industry and the silverware industry on the products of which duties have been slightly reduced. Both are craft industries which show signs of dying out unless help is given to assist their sales by giving them a slightly better home market.
And now a word on the companies tax. The tax on companies is part of the Chancellor's policy to make some inroads into purchasing power over the whole field of our economy. I suppose it is true to say that profits are slightly easier to make in times of inflation than at other times. I would add this with regard to the recent recommendations of the Royal Commission on this matter and the reluctance which has been shown to accept a separate rate of tax for distributed and non-distributed profits. The adoption of one rate for both classes of profit would not be acceptable in present circumstances, because those who distribute heavily would gain by such an alignment of the profits tax, while those who distribute with less restraint would lose by it. We feel that it would be wrong to suggest any encouragement to increase the distribution of profits. It is for that reason that we are unable to accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, may suggest that the proposals which we put forward do not contain any clear policy. I suggest that the policy is perfectly clear. We do not propose to go back to an economy of siege, and for this reason. We can never have a prosperous island in isolation from the rest of the world, however accurately and dictatorially the economy may be planned on a national basis. The policy we have

137
here outlined will leave the wheels of productive industry free to turn faster and faster, within the limits of the manpower and materials available, and it should give the maximum encouragement to exports. It leaves the structure of the Welfare State completely untouched. Further, it leaves the consumer with a free choice in spending his own income.
Moreover, in maintaining economic discipline in the community we have a duty not only to ourselves but to very large populations outside this country. We have to remember that about one quarter of the world uses sterling, or currency allied with sterling, as a medium of trade, and about one half of international trade is either conducted in, or facilitated in its conduct by, sterling. Its strength is not entirely dependent on this country, but there is no doubt that we in this country can entirely ruin confidence in sterling. What we do about sterling profoundly affects ten times as many people as live in this country. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer once said, one of the strongest links among British people, after the Crown, is sterling. Therefore if to-day we are unwilling to take some trouble about it, if now or in a future time we are unwilling to make some sacrifice in order to maintain the stability of sterling, we shall be running away from the leadership and responsibility which this country is carrying at the present time.
4.11 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I think your Lordships must have been astonished, as I was, to hear some of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. We all agree about the necessity of defending sterling and of checking inflation, but we have to take account not only of what we desire to happen, but of what is likely to happen as a result of the proposals that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made. The main certain and immediate effect of these proposals is to raise the prices of many household goods and the cheaper forms of textiles, and also rents, for the mass of the population. The manner in which these proposals have been presented has been received with astonishment and hostility by most of the Press and by nearly everybody to whom f have talked in all sorts of places. The effect certainly will be to lose the good will of the public in trying to solve a national
138
difficulty. I think that that is a grievous thing, because without the conscious cooperation of the public at large this matter cannot be put right.
The noble Earl described the problem briefly and correctly. It is basically a matter of excess of imports over exports—a gap in the balance of payments. With what happens inside our economy, we can deal; with what happens outside we have to take extraordinary measures. And there is nothing in these proposals which is going to effect this at all. They have no direct effect upon imports from hard currency areas, or anywhere else. They are merely an attempt to stern the purchase of imported materials in the domestic market by raising prices,—but not in any obvious way. If there had been a direct cut in the permitted import of some important foreign commodity, the purpose might have been seen, but the range of goods affected by the purchase tax increases is so unrelated to imported goods that nobody can see the connection. If one looks at the White Paper to see the effect of the first proposal, one sees on page:3 "Dustbins, mops, buckets, pot scourers, shopping baskets and shopping bags." What have these to do with the import of raw materials? They may have some trivial and indirect connection, but the purchasers do not see it. If the Chancellor had cut in half the import of American tobacco (though I am not proposing this) and there had been a shortage of American cigarettes, people would have understood what was going on: that we could not afford to spend so many dollars on tobacco. That: is an example of clearly identifiable cause and effect, but there is nothing identifiable in the Chancellor's proposals.
The noble Earl spoke about abolition of the "D" scheme. The "D" scheme may seem relatively unimportant to us, but to working class purchasers it is of great importance, because what is now proposed means a rise the price of all the most necessary things to the poorest people in the corn munity—children's clothes—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: They are out.
LORD WILMOT or SELMESTON: Thank you, I am corrected—cheap adult clothing. Household goods of every kind are raised in price by the abolition of the "D" scheme, and, to make the pill even

139
more difficult to swallow, at the same time expensive clothing is reduced in price by the effect of the Budget proposals. This has been commented upon widely in the popular Press of all shades of political opinion. There is not a single family in the country which does not see that Mr. Butler has reduced the price of expensive goods and increased the price of goods consumed exclusively by the working class. That is a serious thing to have done.
I do not follow the noble Earl at all when he talked about the disadvantages of the "D" scheme. How can it be wrong to encourage people to buy the sort of commodities which have only a domestic market and make it more difficult for them to buy the sort of commodities which primarily have an export market? I happen to be concerned in the production of very expensive silk fabrics by a large exporter of this class of goods. It is not going to help that firm in any way because it is the quality of their goods that sells them more than the price. There is a foreign demand for high-class British craftsmanship. These proposals do nothing at all to help the export trade; if anything, they work the other way by creating a demand for higher wages. The purchase tax increases are comparatively trivial in relation to the problem, but they are having a psychological effect out of all measure to any advantage the Chancellor of the Exchequer can possibly derive from them. I say it is a most serious thing to lose the good will and public spirit of practically the entire working-class population and it has been followed by immediate demands, clamant demands, for an increase in wages on the ground that this is the last straw and present wage levels do not meet properly the cost of living.
The noble Earl said that the main objective of Government policy in these difficult circumstances is to convert the sellers' market into a buyers' market. But this would do the exact opposite. The rise in wages over the whole country, due to the wage demands set in motion by these proposals, will far more than offset any advantages which the Chancellor may get. We have to face the fact that in a few months' time, when these effects begin to load in upon us, we shall find, that not only has this Budget done nothing to meet the difficulties it set out
140
to meet, but that we have a new situation of still greater rising inflation, for which we have no remedy. I suggest that that is the inevitable consequence of the Budget proposals. I apologise for dealing so long with this matter, but it is because of its wide implications. The noble Earl said that alcohol, tobacco and gambling absorbed a large part of public purchasing power, which was evidence that there is a large margin of available purchasing power to attack. But the Chancellor has not attacked these particular forms of spending. Had he gone straight at alcohol, tobacco and gambling, in a period of national difficulty, there would have been some reasonable understanding of it and I am sure much co-operation. But he has done nothing of the kind: he has gone right plumb at the basic necessities of the poorest working class house.
Now as to the pressure of investment: surely, it is the most clumsy way of trying to canalise your overfull investment programme into the most desirable channels merely to proceed in this haphazard way. Would not a wiser course be not to impose a whole range of controls on a wartime scale, but to take selective forms of investment and endeavour to canalise them into particular important channels? But what have the Government done? It is not so long since that they were forcing through Parliament a Television Bill designed to secure vast investment in a duplicate television system. The whole of this enormous effort, which makes great demands on one of the key industries, that of electronics, has to be financed by every kind of skilled exhortation to people to spend more upon consumable goods. Can the public be expected to make sense of a policy like that: diverting investment from the atomic power industry, the machine tool industry and the wide range of British specialities in scientific achievement into commercial television in order that there may be higher consumption of face creams, beer and every other thing which makes demands upon our industrial capacity?
Frankly, I do not understand upon what business principles, fiscal theory or any other logical and consistent form of thinking the Chancellor of the Exchequer has based this Budget. It seems to me that it is bound to confuse, to irritate and

141
to create hostility in the maximum number of people. The opinions of the effects of the Budget are not different in the minds of people of very different circumstances. The view of the bus driver, which was expressed to me forcibly the day before yesterday, is precisely the view of the Stock Exchange: that this Budget is inflationary; that it will not curb inflation, but will increase it. Whereas before the Budget equity prices were being marked down, particularly in those sections of the equity market where inflation has the most effect, and gilt-edged were being marked up, the moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals were made known the tape showed War Loan fell by seven-eighths, and immediately equities, relying on increased purchases and increased spending, were marked up. That is the view of people who have great experience in evaluating the commercial effects of fiscal policy.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord knows that equity prices were marked up immediately after the Budget of April, so that by his definition that would be a deflationary Budget.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Not at all. That, too, was inflationary. The reason why equities were marked up in April was that the reduction of income tax put more purchasing power in the pockets of certain people, and therefore it was inflationary too. It marked up equities. This Budget will eventually put more purchasing power in the pockets of certain people also, because the wage demands, which will be irresistible, will more than offset the purchase taxes. It is an inflationary l3uclget, as I have sought to show, because the secondary effects will far more than offset the primary effects; and stock market prices do not look only to to-morrow but to next year as well. I am sure that anybody in the City listening to me will agree that that is the reason for the movement.
The noble Earl asks what we can do. If we cannot proceed in this loose way, what are we to do about it? Surely, the first thing to do is to take direct action to limit, if possible, excess importation of unnecessary things; and the other thing to do is to stimalate by every means production and export. There is no stimulation of production in this Budget. You have sickened the heart of every workman who has tried to do his best
142
by making it more difficult for him to live and by forcing him, at a time when he is told there is great difficulty in the country, to support demands for rising wages. I do not think there is a single industrial leader who has ventured to speak since the Budget proposals were known who has made any kind of claim that it has eased his problems or done anything to increase his output. It will help to price him out of the export market. I suggest that not only is the Budget a complete failure to deal with the situation, but that its effects upon the life of the community will be disruptive, highly disagreeable and highly regrettable in present circumstances, and that within a short time we shall be faced with the necessity once again of dealing with a rising inflationary spiral which the Chancellor will have put into a higher gear.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
4.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with leave of the House I should like to make a statement concerning the inquiry into the practice and procedure of administrative tribunals which it was announced in the gracious Speech of June last that the. Government intended to set up. I wish to inform the House that I have to-day appointed a Committee with the following terms of reference—
"To consider and make recommendations on:

(a) The constitution and working of tribunals other than the ordinary courts of law, constituted under any Act of Parliament by a Minister of the Crown or for the purposes of a Minister's functions.

(b) The working of such administrative procedures as include the holding of an inquiry or hearing by or on behalf of a Minister on an appeal or as the result of objections or representations, and in particular the procedure for the compulsory purchase of land."

Your Lordships will be glad to hear that Sir Oliver Franks has agreed to be Chairman of the Committee and that three Members of your Lordships' House are members of it—the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the noble Marquess, the Marquess of Linlithgow, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. 'The names of the other members of the Committee are Mr. Roderic Bowen, Member of Parliament for Cardigan, Mr. J. C. Burman,

143
Dame Florence Hancock, Mr. Douglas Johnston, Member of Parliament for Paisley, Sir Geoffrey Stuart King, Major John Morrison, Member of Parliament for Salisbury, Miss K. M. Oswald, Lord Justice Parker, Mr. H. Wentworth Pritchard, the Honourable Charles Russell, Mr. Alan Symons and Professor Kenneth Wheare. The Secretary of the Committee is Mr. J. Littlewood of Her Majesty's Treasury.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
Debate resumed.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I am sure it is obvious to all of us that this debate will go on for some considerable time. Arrangements have therefore been made so that noble Lords can get dinner here at any time they like after seven o'clock. We shall sit right on and there will be no break for dinner. It would be convenient if noble Lords would inform the restaurant when they would like to have their dinner.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would it not be more convenient if we did have a break for dinner? I speak on behalf of those noble Lords who are speaking in the debate and who would otherwise have to go without dinner if there were no break. Is there any point in not having a break?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it is always a difficult point whether to interrupt a debate for dinner or to carry right through. I am in exactly the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, except that I have to speak after him and will have to wait even longer for my dinner. My impression is that there are a large number of noble Lords here, some of whom are elderly and others who do not live in the centre of London, who are really glad to get a long debate over, if they can, as early as possible. In the interests of those noble Lords, I think the balance of consideration is in favour of going right through. Perhaps I ought to have consulted the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, before, but it did not occur to me that there was likely to be much difference of opinion about it. No doubt there are certain Peers who would rather have the break and certain
144
Peers who would not, but I would put it to your Lordships that on balance the convenience of the House would be served by getting our debate completed as soon as possible.
LORD SILKIN: Would it not depend upon, how long we are going to sit? Nobody is going to object to sitting an hour or an hour and a half later, but if this debate should go on until nine or ten o'clock, is it reasonable to expect either the noble Marquess or myself to sit without the opportunity of having had a meal?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I share his anxieties. I would remind noble Lords that although in many ways we are perhaps more sensible in our conduct than is another place, in another place there is never any question of stopping. I agree that the whole thing depends to a certain extent upon how long the debate is going to last. We cannot anticipate that, because we do not know how long noble Lords' contributions will be. I am, of course, in the hands of the House, but I have made these arrangements which I thought would suit the convenience of noble Lords, and I should be reluctant to change them if that was the general view.
LORD REA: My Lords, I suggest that there is a further element in the House, and that is those who are not going to speak. I think they would probably prefer that the debate should proceed and take their pick of which speeches they should listen to. I suggest that those who are going to speak could follow the same example.
4.33 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, in an analysis of the economic situation, particularly in a time when there is little objective clarity of thought, it is well to go back to fundamentals as did the noble Lord who opened this debate. It is clearly recognised, I think, by noble Lords in all parts of this House that there are two methods by which the economy may be regulated. One is by central planning, in its advanced form leading to the control by Government of all the means of production, distribution and exchange. The other is by the operation of the market. We on these Benches believe in a market economy because this

145
is democracy working in the economic field, the market economy being determined by the choice of the whole body of consumers.
In a market economy, the call of the consumer for goods determines not only production but the level of production. Demand conies from the consumer and the consumer, being selective, can withdraw his demand or transfer his demand to an alternative choice according to his judgment of competitive value. For example, a housewife may desire to provide bacon for a meal, but if the price of bacon rises beyond a certain point, she will transfer her choice to tinned fish or sausages. So the demand for bacon will fall and the production of her new choice will be increased. That is why we do not believe in priorities or in such regulation as the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, suggested, for we believe that the consumer, for good or evil, if he is to remain a free man, is the person who should decide.
Under a directed economy, the consumer is denied the right of choice, and if, as is likely, the official makes a miscalculation, waste results and the Government Department trading will be saddled with a loss. In peace time, we believe that such regulation is totally undesirable and undemocratic. With this contention, as noble Lords opposite will confirm, the Conservative Party professed to agree, and they represented themselves as a far more efficient organisation to safeguard the principle of the market economy than the Party to which we belong. We are therefore entitled to expect from the Government a less vacillating exposition to the people of this country in practical terms. We should not expect the Governrnent to overstrain and overburden, by their own action, the delicate mechanism of the market or to flout the recommendations of a Royal Commission on taxation in a matter affecting one of the safeguards of a free economy. That is a point to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, did not refer.
The conclusion of the Royal Commission was that retained profits are not in themselves good for the economy and, therefore, that the choice of the investor should not be arbitrarily determined for him. It is hardly necessary for me to say here that there is only one test in a market economy which can be applied
146
to determine whether or not a particular industry is serving the public need and meeting popular demand, and that is whether it succeeds in making a working profit. If there is not sufficient popular demand to secure a profit, then, clearly, the industry must change its methods or go out of business. Any intelligently managed industry will not only endeavour to make a profit, but will endeavour to make the maximum profit—that is to say, it will adjust its prices to secure maximum profit. Nor must it be overlooked that a return has to be earned to-day upon the greatly increased replacement value of assets if any company is to survive. If a company can make a greater profit by reducing prices and increasing its sales, it will do so; but it is surely quite out of place for the Minister of Labour to lecture industry on the desirability of reducing profits by making lower charges. What will reduce prices, where too high a price is charged, is a competitive article offered at a lower price. It may even be an imported article at a lower price, and that is why we cannot agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, further to restrict imports.
I shall seek to show that the action of Her Majesty's Government in one direction, and the hesitation of Her Majesty's Government in another direction, have the effect of keeping up prices and profits rather than of reducing them. May i say that I have nothing against profits? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the greatest beneficiary, and the whole structure of welfare is dependent upon the profit-earning capacity of industry. But we on these Benches must point out that prices are, in our view, artificially high for two reasons: first, because, by the action of Her Majesty's Government, most industries are enjoying an over-protected home market. Some who export seem to worry little about what price they obtain or what profit they make in markets overseas. All they are concerned to do is to secure by their exports a spreading of overheads, so increasing their profits in the highly protected home market. The way to secure a reduction in prices is to reduce the level of the protection that they are given; in fact, to minimise special privilege. Secondly, prices are artificially high because of the hesitation of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the

147
monopolistic structure in many industries. Let Her Majesty's Government draw out the kingpin of the structure—private collective enforcement by private courts and other undesirable methods.
The other factor in a market economy, and one about which a great deal is being said, is the question of wages. We believe that a man is entitled to the best reward he can get for his labour. The limiting factor, of course, comes into play when the demand is so great as to bring the industry in which he is working into jeopardy as a profit-making concern. I do not believe, as some would have us believe, that it is, in general, pressure by the trade unions that has been the determining factor in attaining the present level. Rather is it the very keen demand that there has been in a free market for labour. I think this contention is proved by the fact that there is a very wide margin between the standard rate of wages and earnings which are swollen by overtime and double employment at rates higher than the standard rate. I think the earnings exceed the standard wages by something like one-third. This shows how greatly in a time of prosperity the market economy operates in favour of the workers in industry.
We are told that, as a result of these increased earnings, the consumer has "gone on the spree" and must be restricted. Let us look at the facts. Consumer expenditure has increased by not more than 10 per cent., in terms of real income, over the pre-1938 figure. To condemn this increase is surely to hit, as more than one noble Lord has said, in a most regrettable way at the whole conception of incentives. For what do Her Majesty's Government consider any man works? What is to be the reward for higher productivity but freedom to acquire what can be procured as the result of the effort that he is making? Deliberately to restrict further this reward for labour seems to me to be stupidity. A comfortable home and, after a comfortable home, an artistic setting, decorative embellishment and personal adornment are surely the legitimate expectations of every woman whose husband works hard enough.
I have one reservation. I believe that every woman is happier if not every penny earned is spent, and if she can
148
see a little saved and those savings continually growing. There is no finer form of building up a sense of security in the family. The Government's encouragement to increase saving is paltry. Why do they not call off their tax collectors who spend so much time chasing the tax on the interest of small savings accounts? I agree with the noble Lord that high purchase tax rates are an irritant rather than a deterrent. Their main effect is to create animosity—I deplore them for that reason—and to make people feel that Government is its enemy rather than its protector. The truth is that honourable Members in another place are no longer the watchdogs against extravagant expenditure, against extravagant administration and against the overspending of the people's earnings taken in taxation. Let us look again at the position. Whereas, as I have said, consumer expenditure has increased by some 10 per cent. in real values over 1938, on the same basis Government expenditure is up over 100 per cent. In actual figures it is five times the 1938 figure. Perhaps your Lordships' House could take up this task of watching the citizens' interests so ignobly dropped by Government and Opposition alike in another place.
I am aware—and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said as much—that in criticising expenditure I shall be challenged as to what ought to be cut. I am going to answer this challenge by saying simply that the Government are taking from the people too big a slice of the national income: they should cut their total expenditure, for a start, by at least 10 per cent. They should apply the same sound principles of housekeeping as they are advocating and preaching to every citizen —namely, that they must cut their coat according to the cloth that can reasonably be provided. This will give an overall limit to the expenditure in which Her Majesty's Government can indulge. This is the "squeeze" which is essential. It is senseless by over-expenditure to bring about economic collapse even by instalments over a period of years, by over-expenditure even on armaments. This is no real defence policy, for the economy needs defending also if we are to survive. There is also such a thing as going too quickly with certain developments.
I suggest, too, that no country can afford to go further in assisting the less fortunate members of the community than

149
the economy can stand. Every section of the community has come to look upon the Exchequer as a source from which they can get something. We have a right to expect that the Party which has provided the present Government will call a halt to any abuses. It is not possible to provide something for everyone because, in the long run, the same people will have to pay; and, in addition, they will have to bear the great cost of administering the distribution of the benefits. What we can hope to do and what we should strive to do is to meet real need. Therefore, I welcome the moves that Her Majesty's Government are making in this direction.
I will conclude with one final suggestion. The present system of call-up is economically wasteful and, I believe, frustrating and ineffective from the point of view of defence. The whole conception of strategy, as Her Majesty's Government have pointed out more than once, has changed. Let Her Majesty's Government cease fiddling with the arrangements for call-up and make, up their minds to abolish conscription altogether at an early date. Let them make service in the Regular Forces a really attractive career for a highly trained, specialised body of men. Let them rely for any supplementary training upon a Territorial force, starting in the schools. This would ease the shortage of labour. But may I once again repeat that the overriding necessity must be emphasised, of cutting the overall figure of expenditure for which Her Majesty's Government alone are responsible. We must ask for the utmost vigour in so doing.
4.51 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in addressing the House for the first time I hope I shall not be guilty of any breach of its traditions; but if inadvertently I am, I hope that noble Lords in all parts will, with their characteristic generosity, attribute it to my inexperience—4 shall try to do better next time. I believe that this subject is necessarily controversial and I hope I shall not be needlessly controversial; but it is the fine tradition of this House that every noble Lord who rises to speak shall say what he really' thinks, and with that tradition I shall endeavour to comply.
The fact that we do not to-day face a crisis does not mean that the position that
150
we face is not serious. A crisis is a turning point or a moment of danger. If I may take the parallel of disease, in connection with which the word "crisis" is most usually used, one speaks of a crisis or a climax which will be familiar to every mother who has nursed a sick child, meaning the point at which a patient succumbs, or, if he survives that point, recovery is almost automatic or easy. There is nothing like that in the position which this country faces in the matter of inflation. There the danger is persistent and continuous; it needs long-term plans to combat it, and determination and persistence. In my opinion, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely right to tackle the danger now, and to tackle it courageously and promptly. No member of the Government that took office after the 1951 General Election, in however humble a capacity, will ever forget the general position that we found facing us. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was a principal architect of our recovery. Those who now see fit to attack his honour will find, perhaps quickly, that it is not his reputation that they have injured.
The nature of the present inflation is not that the activities straining our economy are themselves undesirable; it is that we are trying to do too much all at once. Broadly, there are two schools of thought about the nature of the remedy. One proposed way of tackling the inflation is by the method of innumerable Government controls, the restriction of imports, licensing and various forms of rationing and the rest. The other method, which is the method of Her Majesty's Government, is the use of the powerful instrument of credit, in which the Government regard it as their duty to maintain the value of the pound but do not regard themselves as the only wise planners in the community. If the value of the currency is maintained, many other controls become unnecessary; if the value of the currency is allowed to slide, no amount of controls will avert the evil consequences. It is not those who fight inflation who are attacking the social services; on the contrary, it is inflation that cuts the social services, by lowering the value of all the statutory weekly payments. We had some experience of that cutting of the social services before the Conservative Government took office.

151
My Lords, I believe that all the main proposals of the Government at this juncture on the finance of local authorities and on the housing subsidies are on the right lines. If I do not discuss them now, it is because, clearly, there will be other opportunities at a later date to do so. I want to come at once to my points of criticism of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. My first point is quite general. I do not believe that the right remedy for our present inflation is increased taxation. May I quote, to express my agreement with them, a few sentences of a leading article in the Manchester Guardian immediately following the Budget? They are as follows:
"In fact, it is not at all certain that increased taxation is the right way to deal with inflation. No doubt it is the Treasury's way of making the national accounts balance—on paper. But when the tax burden is already oppressive, any further addition is apt to produce human reactions that are not easily foreseen."
And, a little lower down—
"Mr. Butler rightly pointed to the fact that many other countries have run into similar difficulties of excess demand; but he did not try to explain why several of them, including West Germany, Sweden, Holland, Canada and New Zealand, are trying to restrain inflation by making taxes lower, not higher. Are we not being rather old-fashioned in looking to increased taxes as a remedy for inflation?"
I come from that general criticism, that increased taxation is not the most appropriate or even necessarily an effective method of dealing with our present inflation, to my criticism of the particular taxes chosen for increase by my right honourable friend. In my opinion, both the purchase tax and the differential profits tax are bad taxes. I submit with some confidence to your Lordships that you do not make a bad tax better by making it bigger. To take the purchase tax first: apart altogether from its unpopularity, it suffers from certain inevitable defects. The first, with which I necessarily became very familiar at the Board of Trade, is that it is constantly having distorting effects on trade and commerce, effects not in the least intended by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer who impose or alter these taxes.
May I give an example? The "D" Scheme, which, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, quite rightly, was a great improvement on the scheme which preceded
152
it, must now go in the interests of the textile trade. I agree that it is being replaced by something much better. No Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whatever Party he belonged, had the least intention of injuring the art of the silversmith, but that did not prevent his doing so. So long as we maintain purchase tax in anything like its present form, although each year we may correct some of the worst distorting effects of the previous year, we shall always produce new distortions. The second of the great objections to purchase tax is that it would be difficult to find any tax more maddening to the business community. How on earth can a manufacturer plan the production of a product without having the least idea of the differential purchase tax to which, within a short time, it may be subject? It would be far better to scrap the whole of the present scheme and to substitute a flat rate sales tax. It would be better for trade and commerce and would be no more oppressive to the consumer.
I come now to the differential tax against distributed profits which seems to have the gravest possible disadvantages both in theory and in practice. Let me make my own position clear. I believe that if we are successful in ending inflation, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends, and as I hope, we shall certainly make profits harder to win. That is entirely right. I also believe that profits are a perfectly proper subject for taxation. Indeed, that is the basis of our income tax. I also believe that the credit "squeeze" and other methods will have the result of compelling boards of directors, of their own volition, not to distribute as high dividends as otherwise they would; but this differential tax is not justified by any of those considerations. This differential tax on the distribution of profits discourages a company from distributing funds which it does not itself need to the equity shareholders entitled to them. I wonder why anybody, whatever his political convictions, believes that that is a good thing, for it seems to me to be both unjust and foolish.
To mention a few of the obvious consequences: it will encourage corporate bodies to borrow the money they need on loans or debentures, rather than to obtain fresh money from equities. That is not necessarily a good thing in the national

153
interest. It will deprive boards of companies of their main, defence against takeover bids which may be injurious to the public interest. It will retain, in the coffers of companies, money which they do not need, to the detriment of growing industries that need it. The point was admirably expressed by that excellent daily commentator, Sir Oscar Hobson, when he said, on the morrow of the Budget, that it puts a premium on ploughing back profits into the business in which they were made though the national interest may say they would be far better employed in other businesses.
I hope that I may be allowed to pray in aid one passage of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. Noble Lords will find the sentences that I am about to read in paragraph 536 of the Report:
"The mere retention of profits cannot be rated as an economic advantage; on the contrary, it would better serve the public interest that the company should be encouraged to distribute those profits which it cannot put to fruitful use, in order that there may be a chance that they may be invested effectively elsewhere. Nor is it advantageous for the economy that the level of dividends should be kept down. Whatever other considerations bear upon the problem, the market value of shares in industrial and commercial enterprises is artificially depressed and an obstacle placed in the way of raising new capital."
I have heard it suggested that this tax is not proposed because anybody can justify it in logic, but it is hoped that it will please somebody who does not understand it. I venture to prophesy that, just as the excess profits levy which was introduced with a similar idea was eventually withdrawn, with the approval of every political Party in this country, so it will he with the differential profits tax. It will eventually be withdrawn with universal acclamation. I hope that it will not have done too much damage in the interval. I am a little shocked by the fact that Government spokesmen in both Houses have assumed that this most distinguished Royal Commission, sitting first under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, and then under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Radcliffe, when they produced this Report, were really ignorant of most obvious facts, facts which must be obvious to any child. They made a most well-considered recommendation and I am puzzled to know what is the point of
154
appointing a Royal Commission if their conclusions are treated with such contempt.
Finally, dealing with this particular tax, it seems to conflict with an idea that many thoughtful men in all Parties desire to further. There are certainly in the Conservative Party and in the Liberal Party, at any rate, many who believe that it would be a great gain to the State if more workers, snore trade unionists, and, indeed, more trade unions, owned ordinary shares. I share that view, and may I express, in a brief proposition, what puzzles me very much? I can, I think, understand the view—in fact I hold it—that profits are good and should be widely distributed. I can, I think, also understand the view—though I disagree with it —that profits are bad and that their distribution should be discouraged. But I confess that I have the greatest difficulty in following the logic of those who hold those two views simultaneously. Philosophers, both before and since Aristotle, have held that two contradictory propositions cannot both be true. I must confess, however reactionary it may appear, that I agree with the philosophers.
There is one hope that I would express in conclusion. I hope that in the lifetime of the present Parliament the taxation of the enterprising and hard-working professional man and the middle classes may be lightened, and that they may share in some of the increased prosperity —which I think they do not yet share. After four years of Conservative government, as after six years of Socialist government, it is still roughly true that the only lawful method by which a poor man can become rich -is by sending in a winning entry to the football pools. I think there should be the alternative of a lifetime of hard work and beneficent enterprise.
5.12 p.m.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to congratulate the House on the new acquisition, Lord Conesford, to whose remarks we have just listened, I am sure, with the greatest appreciation. Lord Conesford will obviously be a tremendous support to this House—I do not say to these Benches but to all Parties—in putting forward arguments of the brilliance and force that we have heard to-day. I hope that we shall hear him often in the future. I may

155
add that, so far as I am concerned, there was hardly anything in his remarks from which I differed. I do not intend to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. I had it in mind to make rather a different kind of speech, but I decided, on hearing the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, to limit myself to some few comments in answer to what he said. I will not deal in detail with any of the taxes which the Government are to impose. Generally speaking, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in his view that taxes are not the best way of dealing with inflation. They may be necessary—I do not know, if it is impossible to reduce expenditure, it may be necessary to support the monetary policy by other measures. But for this, taxes obviously have not nearly the same virtue as a reduction in expenditure.
I was most interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and I agreed with a good deal of what he said. His main point, however, was the advocacy of renewed controls. He suggested that as private capital expenditure appeared to be, so to speak, the "nigger in the woodpile," even more than consumption in causing inflation, he would propose again to exercise over private capital expenditure the control that was exercised under the Socialist Government. Further, as I gathered, he held that this control should replace monetary policy altogether. May I remind him, first of all, that there is in existence a Capital Issues Committee which considers all capital issues and which, presumably, therefore still exercises a certain discretion, though of recent months, no doubt, it has looked with a much more lenient eye than hitherto on new capital expenditure. I imagine that the noble Lord wants to go further than this and would have control definitely exercised in the Treasury over all such expenditure.
Now I think it is important to bear in mind that the way inflation occurs is that the total expenditure of a country in all its different aspects becomes too great. The noble Lord may have read a letter written by Professor Pigou which appeared the other day in The Times. The professor pointed out that the income of a country is merely the reflex of the country's expenditure, and that if you are
156
to control the evil of too much in the way of income you must control expenditure. At present, our expenditure in this country can be divided, broadly, under the following heads: expenditure on defence, ordinary central and local government expenditure (including expenditure on the social services subsidies), capital expenditure by the Central Government and local government (the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the latter amounts to 25 per cent. of the whole), capital expenditure by the nationalised industries, current consumption by the population at large, and, finally, capital expenditure by private industry. Under all those headings, it appears that no Government at present can, find means of making direct reductions. There is no proposal—perhaps it will come in the April Budget—for a direct reduction of Government expenditure or of local expenditure, except through the effect of higher rates of interest. And all these items, put together, are so large that at present we find that when we come to the thing that probably we count on more than anything in the world for our future prosperity—namely, new private capital expenditure—a little increase in that overthrows our balance altogether and we are told it is that which is the main cause of inflation.
I take the view that the right method is not a return to controlling private capital expenditure but to rely in the main on monetary policy, which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, does not appear to rely on at all. The object of monetary policy is to reduce the general level of expenditure and activity below inflationary level. It has been the experience of many countries that that has been the successful outcome of the use of monetary policy, and I believe that that will be the result here. We are now seeing bank balances reduced, the control of the quantity of money severely exercised and a high bank rate. I believe that the interest rate, particularly, will exercise considerable control over private capital expenditure. In a few months' time it may be that we shall find that these influences have done their work. Certainly this policy has proved effective in other countries, and to my mind it is vastly superior to attempting again to control directly our incredibly complicated financial machine by civil servants in Whitehall.

157
The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, proposed, I gather, as a remedy for inflation merely the control of imports—whether of dollar imports only or of imports as a whole, I do not know. While that might have some definite effect on our balance of payments, in my opinion it would not effect the main cause of inflation, which arises from the amount of credit and money available in the country. So long as that remains as it is, and incomes remain as they are, no control of imports alone will do away with the tendencies to inflation. I am much inclined to agree with Lord Conesford about the demerits of taxation as a means of producing stabilisation, but I would not say that in present circumstances I feel certain that the Government are wrong in depending only on other sides of their policy and in not taking measures to absorb a small additional part of total consumers' incomes by taxation.
I should be astonished if the noble Lord. Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, were right and that the great mass of the British people are going to revolt, so to speak, because a slight additional burden is placed on them. I read to-day in Hansard of the small effect of purchase tax on the ordinary family, not in any way commensurate with the large increases in wages they have recently had; yet the noble Lord suggests that there is going to be a sort of revolution against any effort of this kind, even if its object is to control inflation, which would be far more ruinous to them. Taking the class to which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has already referred—the professional man—that class has taken a beating without a murmur, and is taking a beating now. I believe better of the British people than to think that they will condemn a Government trying to carry through certain measures to control a situation which otherwise may be disastrous to them.
I do not think the British public understand what inflation means. An experienced German told me recently that the Germans, having gone through two great inflationary periods, would react violently if they believed that inflation was coming again in Germany. Every German would stop working, he said, and would get rid of all the money he had by immediately buying anything real that he could get hold of and which he thought would maintain its value. The British public do not realise the enormous disadvantages of
158
inflation nor, may I say, do a great many economists. They talk glibly about the stimulating effects or a little inflation. That seems to me comparable to saying that a temperature of 100 degrees is a stimulating and desirable thing, though it may be only a prelude to its going up to 103 degrees or 104 degrees. I hope that the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, do not represent the real feeling of the British public.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.30 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Sudan (Special Payments)

Validation of Elections (No. 2).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
Debate resumed.
5.43 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords. I should like at the outset of my remarks to associate myself with the congratulations which were given by Lord Brand to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, on his maiden speech. Unfortunately, he is not at the moment in your Lordships' Chamber, but that does not in any way detract from the warmth and sincerity of the congratulations that I convey to him. I am sure that in all parts of your Lordships' House we shall look forward to the contributions that the noble Lord will make to our debates. What has been a loss to another place is undoubtedly a gain to your Lordships' House. In speaking after the authoritative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, to whom I feel we are indebted for initiating the debate, and the speech of the Paymaster General, I am not at all sure, in racing parlance, that I am not running in a class beyond myself. However, I am bold enough to take part in the debate for two reasons: first, because I believe that noble Lords should

159
say what they feel about the present situation; and secondly, because never since the war have so many economic experts proved so wise before the event and shown themselves to be so wrong after it.
Since 1946 successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have been consistently confounded in their forecasts and remedies for our national economy. At varying periods since 1947 we have lurched from one balance of payments danger position needing emergency measures to another. Each time successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, of both the main Parties, have had confidence in the effectiveness of their emergency steps; and each time their confident assurances have been destroyed by subsequent events. I wonder how many times your Lordships have listened in this House, and have heard in another place, perorations from Chancellors of the Exchequer, from Financial Secretaries to the Treasury and from other Ministers exhorting us to work harder, to export more, to have restraint at home, to save more, to sacrifice, and to have confidence in the future, followed, usually, by another emergency a few months later. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have tried to defeat the symptoms of our internal conditions, but they have never overcome the basic causes in a world of economic disequilibrium. I only wish that I had complete confidence that Mr. Butler was not repeating this process of not getting to the root causes in his Autumn Budget.
On the internal position, reduction of Government expenditure on a large scale was virtually rejected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I understood the Paymaster General to-day to say that it was neither wise nor necessary—indeed, he challenged those who advocated large reductions in Government expenditure to say where such reductions could be made. The main heads are the National Debt Service, Defence, Law and Order. Social Services, Foreign Affairs and Colonial Administration and, last but not least, subsidies amounting to some £400 million a year. I believe that the noble Earl's challenge is perfectly justified. I believe that we have now, for better or worse, got past the position where we can look for any large major reductions in Government expenditure without changes of Government policy—changes
160
which would be impossible for any political Party in this country to contemplate if it wished to survive. Maybe thirty years ago we could have checked the automatic growth of cost, and we might have scrutinised and controlled more wisely the expenditures upon which we embarked in those years. But that time has gone by, and the Welfare State is here to stay and is admitted by all Parties. No great economy is possible unless we take a major policy decision which, I repeat, would be unacceptable to any political Party.
Nevertheless, there is one direction where I feel that there could be major reductions in Government expenditure. I think the Government have had great courage and are to be congratulated—though I know that here noble Lords opposite will not agree—on their new financial provisions for housing subsidies; and I hope that the same courage will be shown in the direction of other subsidies. I believe that it is wrong that all of us—members of your Lordships' House and many others should still enjoy the benefit of food subsidies to something around, I think, 10s. to 12s. a week. I am puzzled to know why purchase tax should be increased on a number of everyday articles, a step which is bound to stimulate wage claims. Whether or not such stimulation is right and moral is beside the point. The increase in the purchase tax is stimulating wage claims and although it discourages consumption it does so only by increased taxation towards a revenue surplus which is already bubbling. Why not discourage consumption, not by taxation but by bringing us back to reality by a reduction of food subsidies?
In this connection, let me say at once that on political platforms it has been said that there was some pledge given by the Conservative Party that we would not touch food subsidies. It is quite true that a pledge was given that we would not reduce food subsidies without compensating those who would be adversely affected by such reduction. I should like to see those who can carry the true cost of our food carrying it, as most of us in your Lordships' House can. I should like to see the Government compensate fully and generously, so as to restore the position as it is now, all State recipients of covenanted and uncovenanted pensions, benefits, allowances and salaries, so that such reduction in food subsidies, bringing those

161
who can afford it back to reality, should not press upon those who are the poorest and lowest paid in the community.
I should like to say one word about the profits tax increase. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, regretted—and I regret it—that its effect is comparatively small. It is true that since 1946 wages have risen by some £2,900 million and dividends by some £280 million. It is true that the adjustment we have seen of the dividend level over the last two years is really economically fair and is still incomplete. Having said that, we must realise that psychologically dividend increases are made an issue and a cause of fresh wage demands. I regret it. I do not praise those who make these increases of dividends a spearhead for political action and agitation for higher wages, because, economically, it is not justified. Nevertheless, we have to accept the world as it is and not the world as we should like it to be. If wage demands are not to be pressed upon the Government, then the Government have to carry the responsible trade union leaders with them. That is why I am glad, as I am sure others are, to read today that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are about to meet the leaders of the trade unions. I should have liked to see no increase in profits tax but a Government appeal for a holiday for one year from dividend increases and wage increases—not imposed, in respect of dividends, by legislation but by Government appeal and Government pressure, as Sir Stafford Cripps did in 1947. Then we might have had more time to look round and think and at the same time have avoided the rather pernicious effects of increased purchase tax that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, dealt with so ably.
But we have to go deeper than the immediate treatment of symptoms. The root cause is that we are not paying our way in a competitive world. I believe the Government will, sooner or later, have to review our world trading position and prospects in the light of our present trade policy. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that internal stability was essential, that is true; but the balance of payments rectification is, I would submit, just as important as rectification of the internal position. We can take little real comfort from the trade figures. It is true that industrial production is running 5
162
to 6 per cent. above what it was at this time last year, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place, that is only part of the picture. Against this, our rate of expansion is lower than that of our Continental competitors, particularly Germany. We are all going up a moving staircase but others are overtaking us on the escalator. The gap between exports and imports in terms of money values has doubled in two years, and meanwhile imports have risen some 15 per cent. for the first nine months of 1955.
There is small comfort to be found in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that exports to the United States are doing better. The facts are these. Between 1950 and 1954 inclusive, the United Kingdom exports to America have averaged £140·6 million a year. Imports from America have averaged £288·4 million. Our dollar imports for the first three months of 1955 are no less than 63 per cent. above those for the corresponding quarter last year, largely because of the liberalising of a large portion of our dollar imports. If it were not for the United States defence aid and offshore purchases, we should have to consider forthwith cutting dollar purchases to a greater degree than we control them at the present time. If Congress chose to cut dollar aid, we should immediately have to take those steps, for we cannot rely upon the myth of liberalised United States trade. When we consider bicycles or watches and the speeches of those in authority in America, it gives us no hope, now or for the future. Really, we are "kidding" ourselves if we think that America is going to become an easy importing country for our goods. It is not pleasant to reflect, and perhaps it is not widely enough realised, that when one smokes, visits the cinema or eats, several puffs of the cigarette, some portion of the seat on which one sits and some portion of the meal one eats are taken on the back of the American taxpayer. Such is our position after eight years of economic policy based on the final aim of indiscriminate liberalising of international multilateral trade, a policy based on ever freer entry into our markets and acceptance of any and every form of competition in our export markets. It is a grave policy, but is: it one that we can really sustain in the world of to-day when we have willingly and deliberately

163
loaded our production costs with the overheads of high wages and Welfare State taxation, plus a defence bill on an enormous scale? I believe that the difficulties of this policy are already being increasingly thrown up. Take Lancashire and the textile trade. The President of the Board of Trade has said: "You must look at Lancashire as a whole." There are new industries taking the place of the old. In other words, part of Lancashire must be regarded as expendable. Some fifty mills have closed down this year. Where this breaks down is that a free trade economy requires to assume that labour is mobile. Generally, and in Lancashire, labour is not, for a variety of reasons, social and economic, mobile. Hence, the increasing short-time working and distress. This free trade policy runs into trouble when our costs of production are higher than those of our competitors. Importers of goods from foreign countries without obligation of reciprocal favourable treatment will buy as cheaply as they can, wherever they can. We are increasingly in many directions pricing ourselves out of some of the markets of the world because of our costs. Talking about British quality and skill does not really offset higher costs and late deliveries.
I would ask the Government this question. If we wish in some directions to sustain a preferential standard of living for labour in relation to labour of competitive bidders, must we not take steps to sustain a preferential market position, where we shall sell at an advantage because we offer the buyer some economic advantage worth while to him? This is not a revival of the old Tariff Reform policy; it is not a revival of the old Free Trade versus Tariffs controversy. It is the application of common sense in the economic world of to-day. The old tariff reformer is certainly outdated, but I find the economic rigidity of the advocates of absolute non-discrimination in any form far more severe in their outlook than any adherent to the Amery school. They are the ones who are the real doctrinaires when they stick with absolute fervour to non-discrimination and the rejection of preferential bargains when desirable and obtainable. Their horror at condoning the slightest breach is something to be seen. Yet I believe the march of events is increasingly and slowly showing the impracticability of adhering to the various
164
doctrines of free trade. I am not advocating tariffs or controls; I am advocating ad hoc remedies (I do not mind what they are) for particular economic situations. I would conclude by saying that the Government are tackling the symptoms of our economic sickness with great courage, but I fear with some inadequacy, for the root causes remain with us yet, and sooner or later they will have to be faced. I pray that the Government will face them soon, and not too late.
6.1 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships to forgive me if I do not follow very closely the main trend of the debate. There are only two points that I wish to make—the first very general and the other, I believe, intensely important, and one worth making again and again until something is done about it. The economists can talk, and Chancellors of the Exchequer can do what they like, about taxes or bank rates or cutting expenditure and investments. All those things can doubtless be fitted into an economic policy, but I remain convinced that the surest hope of meeting this present problem of inflation is that of developing an expanding economy with expanding production. If only everyone in this country were producing all he could, without any restrictions, whether by employer or employed—restrictions all too often based on controversies and disagreements of the past, on class war and on short-sighted fears—then I believe there would be more goods than we have to-day, far more than enough to absorb the surplus purchasing power that to-day we are calling the cause of our inflation.
On this point I was particularly impressed by what I saw lately during a visit to America, where there seems to be an entirely different industrial psychology, an entirely different attitude on the part of the American workers, who seem to feel that the more profits their employers make, the more chance there is of their having higher wages. Whether it is a matter of good will or common sense, I do not know. We should like both, but I am prepared to settle only for common sense, if that is all we can have. One thing is quite clear. The American trade unionist is just as tough as the trade unionist here in making sure that he gets a fair share of a profit. High production

165
and high profit are the joint objectives of employer and employed. The sort of thing that we are reading of to-day, the strike in the Rolls-Royce works over a man who is accused of doing too much work, would be something utterly fantastic in America: there he would be the hero of the factory. Cannot we get this attitude here? Ought we not to ask ourselves why we have not got it?
I believe that the Government can help a great deal. Naturally we must all welcome what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of inchrye, on the coming conference with the T.U.C. I think that for the same reason we must regret certain speeches that have been made in another place during the last few days. I cannot help believing, however, that, much as the Government may be able to help, the problem is essentially and primarily one for industry itself—indeed, for each industrial firm. It is not just a matter of discussions and conferences with certain chosen responsible trade union leaders. There must be a great national—I have in my notes "propaganda," but I strike out that word and say "educational" drive, particularly through the national Press, partly, of course, through ministerial speeches, but so far as possible primarily within each and every factory, between those who know each other and who know the condition of each other. What we have to get away from is this attitude of the "boss" being the enemy. We have to get on to the plane where the "boss" who makes good profits is the source of good wages and is the best friend of the working man. Given that changed attitude in industry, I believe that we shall hear no more talk of autumn Budgets. We are not asking for the moon, because this attitude already exists in the United States, and I cannot see why, given the necessary effort, we cannot reproduce that psychological condition in this country.
My Lords, I now move on to my second point—a very different one. In another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the question of the overhaul of agricultural subsidies, and I think the noble Earl, Lord. Selkirk, just touched on them here to-day. No one could possibly dissent from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, but I think there is cause for some disquiet. I do not know how your Lordships behave when you go to see the dentist,
166
but I believe that there is a great deal to be said for starting to make a fuss and for even a slight noise before the drill actually gets into the most sensitive part of your nerves. I think this is the moment to say something, before anything has been done. At the present moment there are two popular, but I believe dangerous, illusions—dangerous not only to the agricultural industry but to the country because of the importance of agriculture as a dollar sale.
The first illusion is that all farmers are tremendously prosperous, especially after the last harvest. It is perfectly true to say of a number of well-capitalised farmers, probably with fairly good land, that they are doing quite well; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with them through his taxation department. The other day the Minister of Agriculture told us that he had "a song in his heart." Well, he can sing as loud and as long as he likes about that type of farmer; but he knows as well as I do that the bulk of the land in this country is in the hands of the smaller farmers, and that the bulk of the food produced in this country must come from those farmers who are not so well off. To begin with, they did not get a great deal from the wonderful weather. Many of them did not have a large harvest, and a great many of them convert grass and fodder crops into milk. Although some fields carried a good harvest, in fact others gave a great deal less grass. I took the precaution yesterday of speaking to the Milk Marketing Board and asking what information they had on the position of the dairy industry in this country. They informed me that 14 million gallons of milk less were sold this summer than last summer. That figure, with bonus payments and so on, would he worth something like £2 million, taking no account of the supplementary feeding which was necessary. Therefore, some small farmers are not better off; certainly, many of them are no better off than the workers. especially when we take into account the fact that wages are a certainty and profits are not.
There is one other illusion, and that is that the amount of assistance agriculture is receiving to-day is something unique in the economy of this country. The amount that it is receiving is not unique. The form in which it is being compelled to receive it is unique; and it is unique in that it is much mere obvious to the

167
nation than, for instance, the assistance received by industry through tariffs. What are the facts? The subsidies to agriculture amount to a little over £200 million—some people put it at £250 million and others at just under £200 million, according to whether they say it is a subsidy to the consumer or the farmer, so let us put it at just over £200 million. The value of agricultural production is about £1,200 million—I am deducting from the total figure horticulture, which we know is assisted by tariffs. That means that the assistance received by the farmers is something between 15 and 20 per cent. of the total value of their total production.
The other day I was sitting between a manufacturer of motor cars and a manufacturer of bicycle tyres, and when they, knowing that I was a farmer, asked me about the "feather-bedding" of my industry, I asked them what they thought of comparing this 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. assistance that we were getting with the 33⅓ per cent. tariff that they were enjoying. Being fair-minded men they admitted that I had a point. But the fact is that there are far too many people who have not been made aware of that point. I know that it is easy to overdo the analogy. There are considerable differences between the assistance given by a subsidy and the assistance given by a tariff. and therefore I do not want to spoil the point by over-stressing it. But it is a point, especially if Ministers mean what they say—as I know they do—when they say that agriculture is one of our greatest dollar savers.
Last year the increased volume—that is volume in value—of food produced by agriculture, as compared with pre-war agricultural production, was something over £400 million. Much of it actually represents a saving in what would have had to be spent in dollars. If that rate of increase is to continue, or even if the present position is to be maintained, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be careful in any reconsideration of these subsidies. We have every confidence in him, and we have every confidence in the Minister of Agriculture, but it seemed to me that it was worth intervening now, before any harm is done, because we all know that it is much easier to maintain
168
confidence in an industry than to restore it.
6.13 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for many minutes, partly because I intended in any case to speak very briefly and partly because the noble Earl who has just sat down has in his second point covered part of the ground with which I wanted to deal. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, whether there was not a slight discrepancy between his reference to-day to agriculture and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place last week. The Chancellor, after referring to economy in the carrying out of our defence commitments, went on to say:
"This same criterion of economy and efficiency will have to be applied at the right time to the range of subsidies which fall within the field of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food."
As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has just said, that is quite unexceptional if it means only that the subsidies are to be applied with due economy in their administration; but that I think is not what it implies, because economies in administration could be effective at once; there would be no question of doing it at the right time. If, therefore, the sentence has any substantial meaning it must mean that there are going to be cuts in the subsidies at the right time: that is to say, at the February Price Review. The outcome of that we shall not know until possibly March or April.
Now the evil of the present situation, to my mind, is the element of doubt which is in it—the element of uncertainty, the lack of clarity. Very little attention has been paid to this matter either in the other House or until the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, spoke here this afternoon; but it has not escaped the attention of farmers and farm workers. I have been approached already by a number of farmers who have wanted to know how I interpret the statement. I was bound to say that I did not know any more than they did, but that on the face of it it indicated that there was going to be a cut in the subsidies in the Spring next year. Now I suggest to you that it is quite unfair to any industry to leave it in a state of suspense for so long a period.

169
May I ask noble Lords to consider what the reaction would be in any other industry if they were told that there was a threat hanging over them for four or five months? Suppose, for example, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say, "We cannot consider the maintenance indefinitely of the 33⅓ per cent. protective tariff on the motor car industry, but we will deal with that at the right time in four or five months." How would the motor car industry react? It would have visions obviously of a lower tariff, because it could only mean that, and of a flood of Volkswagons, Fiats, Peugeots, Citroens and so on coming into the market. Would it expand production in the face of that threat? Would it go ahead with new schemes in those four or five months while it was waiting to know how heavily the axe was going to fall? You will say, "But nobody would treat the motor car industry like that. It is a dollar earning industry." Then why treat agriculture like that? Agriculture is a dollar saving and other foreign currency saving industry. I suggest that this is really something very serious and we are entitled to ask that there should be a clarification of the position.
What is the reaction among farmers? Of course they are considering not expansion of production but how they can safeguard themselves. That extra bit of liming they meant to do—that can be postponed; the extra fertiliser for that field that did not do so well—that can be done without; and that other field can go down to grass. I have already heard that big farmers have been discussing how they can change over to a system of a stockless, five-and-a-half-day week farming with less effort to themselves and with a smaller investment, and therefore less insecurity for them than they have in their present mixed farming economy. But make no mistake, that sort of changeover means not an expansion but a contraction in agricultural output. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, added to the credit squeeze (and I am not saying that the banks have acted harshly or unfairly with the farmers), I think can only in the outcome produce a reduction in agricultural output. As agriculture is a dollar saver it is obvious that a reduction in agricultural production in this country must of necessity have a bad effect, an adverse effect, on our balance of payments situation. In this I think
170
I can claim I am not putting any Party point of view.
To reinforce that, may I draw the attention of noble Lords to a very temperate statement in The Times yesterday by The Times agricultural correspondent. At the end of his article he says:
"Still more important a t the moment, when there is so much general talk about subsidies, is a clear statement from the Chancellor affirming that Agriculture can continue to rely on the deficiency payments system to provide price stability."
That is just what we asked for, a clear statement. The Times correspondent also says:
"In the past few days there has been so much talk about abolishing or reducing subsidies of all kinds that farmers (and farm workers are as much concerned) wonder how this may affect them."
That is entirely in line with my own experience of talking with farmers and farm workers. Farmers to-day are finding that the price of practically everything they use is going up. They are faced with the possibility of a wage increase. There is an application coming before the Agricultural Wages Board. I am hound to say that personally I hope that farmers will be faced with a higher wages bill, because I believe that the discrepancy between agricultural and industrial wages in this country has come very near to a scandal. But if farmers are going to pay higher wages, as I think they should, they must be in a position to do so. In a situation where costs, including wages, are rising and they have the prospect of lower prices for their products, they must, in that double squeeze, play for safety and therefore for lower production. Frankly I do not expect the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to reply to this point to-night, for I gave no notice that I was raising it; but I am asking that there should be from Her Majesty's Government at an early date a clear and unequivocal statement as to what is intended with regard to the carrying out of the Agriculture Act, 1947.
6.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech said that the restriction of credit had applied less rapidly than he had expected or intended. I believe there are two main reasons for this happening, although I also believe that, if it had been left to itself, that restriction would in the end have achieved what it set out to do.

171
We have already heard one of the reasons given by several noble Lords—namely, that the area of expenditure sponsored by the Government is, or has been to date, very little affected by the credit restriction. The latest move in regard to housing is, however, most important and most wise. The second reason has also been touched upon—namely, the surge of spending for the re-equipment of industry that has taken place. This surge of spending has taken everybody by surprise and I believe it was largely due to the fact that last year, before the Election, industry, while drawing up plans for re-equipment, did not dare to put them into force. Then, when the Election results were known and political stability lay ahead for four years, companies, large and small, started on their plans for modernisation and re-equipment.
In itself that is a very good thing, for re-equipment of industry is vital to this country which depends so much on production and competitive prices for export. But at the same time, and hand in hand with this re-equipment move, have gone increased wages, increased incomes and increased spending. Clearly there is not room for all these things at the same time without serious inflation. It is trying to get a quart out of a pint pot. Again and again Her Majesty's Government, recognising this position, have appealed to people to restrain their spending and for restraint in wage claims and dividend distributions. But such is human nature that very little attention has been paid to these appeals. I wonder how many of us here can conscientiously say that as a result of these appeals we have not spent money on something on which we should have liked to spend some money. Again, I wonder how many people throughout this country have put something extra aside. If only every wage-earner would increase his savings by five shillings per week I believe that we should have had no problem and no need of a Budget; but we have not done so, so we have had the Budget.
I believe that, in a large measure, the Budget has been designed as a psychological attempt to bring home to people the need to go carefully. Most unhappily, it does not seem at this moment that it will achieve that purpose, and it would indeed be tragic if, as a result of it, we found new demands for wages and
172
generally increased spending. Surely the last years have shown that these regular annual demands for increased wages benefit nobody. The immediate result is increased spending, higher prices, and all that goes with them. It is an upward spiral and a vicious circle, though perhaps that is a mixture of metaphors. I am wondering whether there is not perhaps some way of breaking this spiral: and here is my first concrete suggestion, to which I hope trade union leaders will pay great attention. In some way or other a part of any increased wages should be in the form of a deferred spending.
I have in mind a practice similar to one adopted in the United States. There, a short while ago, the big unions who deal with the automobile companies asked for a new type of wage increase which was called a "guaranteed annual wage." In effect that was something of a misnomer but the result was that a part of the wage increase was not immediately available to the worker for spending in the ordinary way; the benefit came through a fund which was to be accumulated for a purpose which might arise in the event of unemployment or distress. I wonder whether something along those lines could not be followed here if there are, or have to be, increased wage demands. I do not know exactly what form that fund might take; that would be for the unions to work out in conjunction with the employers. I suggest that something along those lines, particularly at this time, might be of real benefit. Following the same line of thought, I wonder whether something of the same kind could not be done in regard to increased dividend distribution. Although there are appeals to "go slow," increases are sometimes right and proper. In such cases could not the increased part of dividend distribution be in the form of a Government security encashable only at the end of two or three years? I know that such an arrangement might be somewhat complicated to operate, but for a Government Department which can think up anything like P.A.Y.E. and make it work, nothing should be too difficult.
Lastly, on this question of trying to hold back spending, I come again to the question of savings. I believe that is the real weapon which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, did not mention in giving the ways to defeat inflation. Would

173
it not be possible, at this moment, for Her Majesty's Government to think up some new medium of saving which was frankly and deliberately attractive and which might be limited to those who are wage-earners? It need not be of very long duration, but, for the time, it might serve to mop up some of the surplus spending power. In general, it seems to me that the problem at the moment is very largely one of timing. There must be restraint of personal spending. I have tried to indicate one or two ways which have occurred to me of achieving that end. It would be much better and easier if the individuals themselves shower such restraint and agreed to defer spending in the ways I have outlined. Then, before too long, the whole country should have its reward. In the meantime we should have constant prices and there would then be increased production of goods and a higher standard of living for one and all.
6.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have just returned from a short visit to Canada and the United States of America. Wherever you go in those two great countries you see the most tremendous expansion taking place, and everyone to whom you talk tells you of plans for yet further expansion. I arrived back here the day before yesterday to find a mental attitude of contraction and people talking of cutting back this or cutting back that. I know that our circumstances here are different from those of the two countries I have mentioned, but, nevertheless, the contrast is very disturbing. Earlier this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reported to have said in a speech that it might well be possible for us in this country to double our standard of living by 1980. Are we at this point to lose our nerve, when the whole of the rest of the world is going ahead around us?
Our problem, as we know only too well—we have been told about it to-day at considerable length—is inflation. It seems to me that we are all agreed on the longterm solution of this problem, which is to produce more goods. However, the various palliatives which we have been offered in the post-war years, and the further dose which was administered last week, are no cure for our complaint. As for the credit squeeze which is intended to reduce bank loans by somewhere about £200 million, what use is that when wage
174
increases already granted this year up to July amounted to £218 million? Even these figures, vast though they are, are small in comparison with the total current expenditure of the Government, amounting to some £4,500 million. It seems to me that the basic fact is that too large a proportion of our national effort is going into non-productive services of one sort or another, and insufficient into production.
In order to survive we have to export into highly competitive world markets which do not enjoy welfare schemes such as we have here. If we want these welfare schemes, it means that we have to work for them, as the rest of the world certainly does not owe us a living nor has it learned to expect soft living. We have, therefore, the alternative of working hard enough to maintain our present welfare services and, if fortunate, gradually to increase them, or continuing as we are doing at the present time, in which event they will become nugatory, because so far as the balance of payments situation is concerned, never have so many people had so few visible mean; of support. One of the encouraging signs I see is the figure; of new factory buildings and machine tool deliveries, both of which are running at record rates. Whatever else is cut, stimulation must be given to every form of capital investment which will increase our output, as it is only in the newer factories that full advantage can be taken of modern technological advances. I was, therefore, somewhat horrified to hear the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, suggest that this is a sector of the economy which might be cut.
The unfortunate thing is that British industry is more heavily burdened, both individually and collectively, by taxation than industry in any other country in this highly competitive world. There is no doubt in my mind that the greatest single cause of inflation in this country is the high rate of income tax which makes possible the high rate of Government spending which, in itself, it basically inflationary. The Blue Book of National Income and Expenditure for 1955 shows that the Government, out of their vast income, managed not to spend on current account—though they find other ways of using it —only 41d. in the £ out of every £ collected, whereas companies and corporations managed to save, after paying tax, no less than 7s. 9d. in the£out of

175
their profits, and whereas even the unfortunate individual, again after paying his tax, managed to save 1s. 2d. in the £ out of income. From these figures it is not difficult to see who are the savers and who is the spendthrift. But, apart from the fact that the Government spend practically every penny they receive on current account, the National Debt in the last two years has increased by no less than £882 million. There is inflation for you.
It is all very well to say that the cost of central Government is now only 26 per cent. of gross national production against 29 per cent. four years ago. I should like to ask what proportion of that change is due to the increase in the gross national production rather than to any decrease in Government expenditure. Furthermore, it really cannot be accepted that there is not room for considerable economies in Government administration. There is not one of us who in our day-to-day lives does not see, at one time or another, examples of Government waste and extravagance. At the end of July there were 1,315,000 people, not counting the Armed Forces, in central and local government service—that is, one in sixteen of the working population of the country. The productive segment of the economy just cannot bear this load.
Of course, major reductions in expenditure must come from policy changes, but I do not agree with the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that people who criticise Government expenditure should say where the cut is to come. It is surely up to the Government to give a lead and not to wait until they have changes forced upon them by a deteriorating economic situation. High taxation is undoubtedly responsible for a considerable amount of extravagance in private business as a whole, as the knowledge that the proprietors will in any event receive less than half of any profits earned leads managements into undertaking all sorts of projects which may be highly desirable in themselves but which certainly are not essential and which increase the demand for goods. High tax rates also stimulate speculation at the expense of investment. Even a capital gains tax, which I understand some people would like to see, would only conceal the symptoms without in any way curing the malady. People have also mentioned bank rate. The bank rate is perhaps not
176
so effective as it used to be and surely the reason for this is clear, in that the incidence of tax renders bank rate about half as effective.
Lastly on this matter, but certainly not least, is the point which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made—namely, that taxation is the greatest single deterrent there is to saving, and it is absolutely essential to reduce our current consumption of goods and to encourage saving in every way. I would suggest that to do that we need an unearned income tax allowance just as much as an earned income tax allowance. It is absurd for small savers to be taxed on the interest they receive from the Post Office Savings Bank and like institutions. We all want to see this country prosperous on a sound basis and this can come only from increasing industrial investment, which will result in the creation of new wealth. This new wealth should be spread as widely as possible throughout the community. But the redistribution of existing wealth does not improve our position in the world by one iota. We need a new expansionist outlook so that we can look to the future with confidence, without looking over our shoulder to the past the whole time to see what is going to catch up on us. We need to have the firm belief that we are building soundly for the future. I believe that at this time in history and in technological progress the Government has the greatest opportunity which has existed in years to show real leadership.
6.41 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, may I first of all congratulate my noble friend Lord Conesford on the interesting and witty speech which he made earlier this afternoon. I was glad to find that his journey along the passage to this House has in no way dimmed or diminished the wit with which another place had often been regaled. In fairness, I must also congratulate him on his speech because I agree wholeheartedly with so much of what he said. The hour is late and I do not wish to detain your Lordships for longer time than it will take to make and develop one single point, the point which was made by my noble friend Lord Cromer.
I am not so much concerned with the actual Budget proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as with the solid, unassailable and disagreeable fact that, ten

177
years after the end of the war, we are still in the grip of a dangerous and debilitating inflation, and in the autumn of 1955 our economic situation is still as precarious as it was in the autumn of 1947, the autumn of 1949 and the autumn of 1951. In these ten years we have had, for six of them, a Government which believed in physical controls and in the central planning of the economy, and, for rather more than four years, a Government which believes in the use of the monetary mechanism and in the relatively free play of economic forces. Yet these two Governments, basing themselves on diametrically opposite policies, seem to have arrived at precisely the same result. The result is continuing inflation and chronic instability in our balance of payments. It seems to me that there is only one deduction to be drawn from this situation. If physical controls and economic planning lead to inflation and instability in our balance of payments, and if control by use of the monetary mechanism leads to precisely the same result, it must be that there is some other element in our economic situation, some element which is common to the policies of the?resent Government and their predecessors, which is producing these disturbing results. That seems to me to be the inescapable conclusion.
There is a missing link in the argument, to which nobody pays sufficient attention. Just what that missing link is, is no doubt more debatable, but I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, that the element which has been common to the policy of this Government and that of their predecessors has been this vast public expenditure—a public expenditure which should think is unparalleled in any other country in the world outside the Soviet Union—coupled with an enormous burden of taxation. I am not an economist and it may well be that I over-simplify the argument, but I have no doubt whatever that the main cause of our unending difficulties is excessive public expenditure—by Government, by local authorities and by nationalised industries. This public expenditure first of all intensifies the problem of inflation and then, because of its consequent effects, makes in far more difficult to solve the problems of inflation.
Of course, there is a sense in which public expenditure and private expenditure alike contribute to an inflationary
178
position. In one sense, it does not matter who disposes of the excessive purchasing power, so long as that purchasing power is disposed of. But I think that that is only half the story. In my judgment, public expenditure is far more dangerous than private expenditure, for the reason that public expenditure is far more difficult to control. If a private firm wants new plant to improve productivity, it has to consider its resources, how these can be augmented by help from the bank and so on; but when a public authority considers its programme of expenditure, it has to consider only what it wants. Payment will come through an adjustment in the rates of taxation or by raising the price of its monopoly. What is called the public sector of finance is overshadowed by this fatal motto, "Only the best is good enough." Time and again one hears, in this House and in another place, in debates on public expenditure and on public needs, that only the best is good enough for the public. Therefore only the best is ordered. For this reason, I think that public expenditure contributes enormously to the general inflationary position. In my judgment it also makes it far more difficult to check inflation. At any rate it makes it impossible permanently to get rid of the inflationary situation.
We cannot really 'dispose of an inflationary situation by restriction—more than one noble Lord has made that point already; all we can do is to damp down the symptoms. Then, once we have stopped treating symptoms, as we are bound to do sooner or later, we find the disease making itself apparent once again. I feel strongly that we cannot hope to get rid of inflation by restriction. We can get rid of it only by expansion, and we cannot hope to get expansion when industry is labouring under the burden of taxation which, I believe, largely cripples it to-day. But it is not only industry that is under this burden; so is the individual himself. I agreed with a great deal that my noble friend Lord Conesford said about purchase tax. Surely it is an illogical position for us to say, as we all do, that the only real cure for inflation is expansion, and then All the time, when there is a crisis, to try to get expansion by restricting consumption.
I do not deny that there are moments of crisis when that is necessary, but the point I am seeking to make is that those

179
moments will continue to recur, as they have recurred all through the past ten years, unless the fundamental policy is to expand production. If a man is overweight there are two ways he can get his weight down: there is the young man's way, of taking exercise, and there is the old man's way, of putting himself on a diet. I do not want to take away from the great achievements of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in freeing economy, but it seems to me to be a legitimate criticism of his policy the whole way through that he has relied far too much on diet; and, though he has talked about the need for exercise, he has not really created the conditions in which exercise is possible. Those conditions I believe fundamentally to be a real cut in Government expenditure and what is called the public sector of the economy.
It may be said that I am pushing at an open door—and, indeed, I hope that I am. Certainly it is true that the measures which have already been announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the Minister of Housing and so on, foreshadowing some restriction in expenditure in the housing field, some prospect of a rational adjustment of rents, and some control of local authority spending, are the most helpful things that have come from any Government since the end of the war. It really does look as though Her Majesty's present advisers mean, for the first time, to go to the root of the problem. At the same time, I must confess to some feeling of scepticism. I can think of no Government since the war that has not said that public expenditure would be cut; yet it has continued to mount. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking yesterday, said, unless I misunderstood him, that in the measures he was taking to check the expenditure of local authorities, or the extravagance of local authorities, he was making certain that no local authority would he embarrassed. It seems to me that unless local authorities are embarrassed to some extent there can be no conceivable worthwhile check on local authority expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has continually said, too—and I think he said it again in his Budget speech—that it is impossible to get any worthwhile economy without a major change of social policy; and that was something he was not prepared to contemplate. If our policy is such that it is
180
landing us in these continual crises, in this unending inflation which, to quote my noble friend Lord Conesford again, is gradually wiping out the middle and professional classes in this country, then surely it must be called in question. It is rash to an unbelievable degree to pretend in those circumstances that there is nothing questionable about it.
In this House we are not directly concerned with the electoral process, though many of us in our day have had some experience of that process. I have the feeling that Governments since the war, whichever political Party they represented, have been unduly nervous of the electorate. I feel strongly, both from my reading of history and from my own experience, such as it is, that when you tell the electorate the truth, and put it before them candidly and honestly they accept it; but if all you offer them is just the easier of two easy options, then I think they accept that. In another place in the last few days there have been some not very friendly exchanges across the floor about who deceived the electorate more or less, or who did not deceive the electorate at all. I believe that under our electoral system there must inevitably be some deceit, inasmuch as one must always put the best complexion one can on one's own case. But if there is one thing that is worse than deceiving the electorate, it is treating the electorate as children; and that is something of which I believe all Governments have been guilty, to some extent. since the war. I hope that the present Government are going to make a departure from that, and that the extra-budgetary measures which are foreshadowed will be put forward boldly and candidly before the people of this country. When that is done, I believe that the Government need have no fear.
6.59 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the concluding passages of the speech of the noble Lord, but let me return to the central point of our discussion. It is agreed that the troubles from which the country is suffering at the present moment are due to inflation. That is the thesis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer: it is accepted, I understand, by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not gather that it has been contradicted by anybody who has spoken to-day. But if

181
that is true—and I personally agree—then surely the autumn Budget is quite irrelevant to the situation. Inflation is not a budgetary phenomenon; it is a monetary trouble. It is true that it may be connected in some ways with budgetary problems. It can arise if a Government, instead of raising the taxation which is necessary in order to meet its expenditure, expands the note issue or the circulation of credit. Conversely, if inflation has taken place it can happen that the amount of revenue which is being obtained out of the Budget is no longer sufficient to meet expenditure upon a higher price level. In those ways, it is true that inflation is connected with budgetary policy. But it is quite untrue to say that it can be put an end to by fiscal measures, because it does not arise out of them and is not directly connected with them.
Here is the curious position in which we stand at the present moment. It is not suggested that Ehere is any great difficulty in balancing the Budget. The amount of extra revenue which will be obtained in the remainder of this fiscal year is a relatively small amount and, therefore, these measures are not required for purely fiscal reasons. We are told that purchase tax is being increased in order to prevent people from spending— or rather that what it will do is to prevent them from getting as much for the money which they do spend. It will not prevent them from spending, but it will divert part of what they spend into the Exchequer. What is the result of that? It is an addition to the cost of living. It is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that increases in taxation should not be made the basis of claims for increases in wages. In principle, that doctrine is absolutely true but every one of us knows that when pi-ices are raised as a result of indirect taxation of this kind, the ordinary man and woman is quite unable to know how much of the increased price which he or she is paying is due to extra taxation and how much is due to other causes. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that in the compilation of the cost of living index indirect taxation, such as the purchase tax, is taken into account as part of the prices by which the cost of living index is determined—one of those things which, in all wage negotiations, is most frequently referred to. So the result of
182
this increase can quite easily be to encourage more demands for wages and to nullify the policy which is embodied in the Budget, even so far as it goes.
Far better would it have been to pursue a totally different policy: to reduce expenditure and the taxation which falls upon commodities in this way. After all, in an economy in which production is increasing year after year, the natural consequence ought to be that the price of commodities should gradually but steadily fall, and if that happened a great many difficulties would be mitigated. It would no longer happen that the level of pensions, of fixed incomes and so on, would be pressing against a rapidly increasing cost of living, causing demands for higher sickness, pension and other benefits. If it is the fact, as it is, that in our economy, which is expanding and in which production is increasing from year to year, instead of the general level of prices falling it is rising year after year, there can be no clearer evidence that inflation is at work. It will not be remedied by the proposals which are made by the Government, whether budgetary or extra budgetary. It may or may not be right to look at the subsidies which are being paid out of the Exchequer for housing. I, personally, would not deny that it is quite a mistaken policy to subsidise the rents of people who are perfectly well able to pay a fair economic rent. It is true, on the other hand, that this system has been in existence for a long lime, and it will require great skill and care to readjust it without inflicting hardship upon people whose lives have been adjusted to it and some of whom are in a condition in which it might bear hardly upon them. But, in principle, no doubt it is something That ought to be looked at.
If that is looked at, there should also be equal consideration given to the subsidies which are paid out of the Exchequer, to a much larger figure, to agriculture, in which exactly the same kind of needless expenditure occurs. Everyone knows that when you guarantee prices for farmers you are guaranteeing prices both for the marginal producer and for the producer who can carry on perfectly well without them. If the one problem is going to be dealt with, the other ought to he dealt with, too. If a substantial saving could be made in the amount Of money which

183
is paid out of national taxation in unnecessary and useless subsidies, it might be all the more easy to reduce that taxation which falls indiscriminately and with the greatest hardship upon the poorest people—indirect taxation which is levied through purchase tax.
Therefore, on every ground I say that these proposals are mistaken and are not directed to dealing with the real problem. Inflation is a monetary problem. It arises because either the circulation of notes or the circulation of credit is increased. The Government possess ample powers to deal with these matters. They control the note issue. They control the Bank of England. They are able to regulate the monetary and credit circulation of this country without an autumn Budget and without fresh legislation of any kind. Therefore, these proposals are quite irrelevant and quite unnecessary for dealing with the problem as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has stated it, the problem of inflation. This is being made an excuse for doing a number of things which are not related in any direct fashion whatever. It may be right, or it may deserve consideration; but all this is resulting, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said, in giving the people of this country a false perspective of what the real problem is, and rendering them all the more unwilling to accept the measures which are necessary in order to deal with it.
7.10 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it would be remarkable if the fourteenth speaker in a debate of this kind, with so many exceedingly well-informed and thoughtful speeches, had anything original or new to say. I am not going to pretend that I have anything new that I can offer to this House, but I feel it is worth while reviewing the debate so far as it has gone, to see what is the measure of agreement that exists in this House and the points upon which there is complete or partial disagreement. We owe a great deal to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for the objective way in which he opened out the debate and thereby set the tone for the subsequent discussion. I hope the House will forgive me if I say that, in the years that I have been in this House —not a great many—I do not remember a single debate which has been conducted in co objective a manner as the
184
present one. The Government themselves can take cold comfort from that fact because noble Lords on both sides have felt themselves free to say exactly what they liked. I do not think there has been a single speech in this House on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals which has been wholly commendatory, except that of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, which of course we anticipated; and I imagine that we shall have another speech which is wholly commendatory from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. But even Lord Selkirk was not quite in his usual form. I thought he was very subdued in supporting the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We shall listen with great interest to the tone in which the noble Marquess will be supporting them.
There is a great measure of agreement in this House on the proposals that have been put forward. Every speaker recognised that inflation was in existence and that it had to be dealt with. There was some difference of opinion as to whether it was necessary to deal with it by means of a Budget, but I think the general consensus of opinion was that there could be no legitimate criticism against the Government for having introduced an Autumn Budget. I myself take that view. The questions that we have to answer are: Are the proposals that have been put forward calculated, in the short run and in the long run, to deal effectively with the question of inflation? Are the proposals fair and equitable; are they going to be fair? Those are the main questions that we have to consider. The debate, on the whole, has centred round those two questions. Other matters have been raised. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, raised the question of Government—and I imagine that in Government he meant to include local government—expenditure. I make no complaint at all about that. His view is that a policy which necessitates public expenditure should not be regarded as sacrosanct, but should be open to consideration. And, while he recognised that it was impossible to get substantial reductions in expenditure without alteration in policy, he took the view that we should not necessarily assume that policy cannot be altered. That is the view which a good many people in the other place have taken, and it is the policy which one or two noble Lords have taken here. The

185
trouble is that no-one is prepared to say categorically what changes in policy should be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, quite rightly felt that one of the defects of our democratic system was that people were afraid at Election time to say clearly and frankly what their policy was; that there was always a gloss over it. In this House we need have no gloss of that kind. Would the noble Lord and others who take his view say exactly what are their views as to the kind of changes in policy that we ought to make which would result in reduction in public expenditure? That is a difficulty which all of us who have been concerned with public expenditure have to face, in the long run. I know that one noble Lord—I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Cromer—said that we all know examples of cases where there is extravagance in public expenditure. I suppose we do, just as there is in private enterprise; but those things, when one totals them all up, will not amount to any significant sum. It remains true that, if you want to cut down public expenditure, you have to alter policy. I invite any noble Lord who takes that view to say in what direction he would alter it. It is necessary to be specific.
Coming to the Budget proposals, those of us who have spoken from this side of the House take the view that they are inequitable. I also find them inconsistent. It is difficult to reconcile the Budget of last April, where there was relief from taxation to the extent of £150 million, with the Budget of a few days ago, where taxation was imposed to roughly the same amount. It may well be—and other noble Lords who have spoken have taken the same view—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mistaken last April in the policy which resulted in his reducing taxation. I think he himself has suggested that he might have taken too optimistic a view. That, of course, does not give one complete confidence that he is necessarily right on this occasion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with inflation, is relying upon a variety of methods. One is monetary control. Noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who have chided us on this side of the House with wanting to reimpose control on the child's piece of chocolate (which, of course, he knows is
186
not what we are seeking to do) will remember that even the present Government have not entirely got rid of controls. Monetary control is, after all, by definition a form of control. There is a variety of controls: there is the capital investment control; there is even a money control. So that the present Government have not got rid of controls; there is not complete freedom, anyway. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is relying to a large extent on monetary control. Monetary control, by increasing rates of interest and by exhorting the banks to lend less money, must of course have the effect of reducing the total amount of expenditure; but is it operating fairly as between one individual and another, or one concern and another, and is it going to operate in the most effective, efficient manner from the point of view of the interests of the country as a whole?
Many deserving and important small concerns are being harassed by their hankers to pay an overdraft which they had every reason to believe they would not be harassed about—concerns which are doing really good work in the public interest but are, nevertheless, being forced to restrict their activities by means of this control. There are other concerns who, fortunately for them, may not be under the necessity of depending upon the bank at all, who are therefore free to spend and expand as much as they like, even though their expansion is not necessarily in the public interest. I feel that this financial control is indiscriminate in its effect and is not calculated to produce the most efficient results. Furthermore, it is intended to operate much more harshly on the activities of public undertakings than those of private ones. Government control over the activities of the nationalised undertakings is, of course, far more effective than their control over private undertakings, and where a private undertaking under no necessity to seek financial assistance from its bankers it is free to expand as much as it likes, whether or not its activities are in the public interest.
Let us take a simple example. I am not directing my remarks to any individual or concern in particular, but there is nothing to prevent an undertaking which concerns itself with football pools from enlarging its business, and its premises, and taking away an increasing

187
amount of the labour reserves of the country if it can finance its activities without going to a bank. To undertakings of that kind, an extra 1 or 2 per cent. in the cost of money is not very important; their profits are such that they can take 1 or 2 per cent. in their stride, and nothing that the Government are doing will affect activities of undertakings of that kind. So I take the view that, from the point of view of monetary control, the proposals of the Government are not necessarily going to be effective or advantageous.
Then we take the other method by which the Government propose to control expenditure—that is by taxation, by imposing the purchase tax. Here I cannot improve upon the case that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in his excellent maiden speech. This purchase tax is imposing some hardship. I do not want to overstate the case; I do not think it can be calculated in terms of percentages of the cost of living, but it is imposing some hardships on individuals. I think it is fallacious to say that it represents one point in the cost of living, because when you have to incur this expense—when you need certain kitchen equipment or clothing or things of that sort—it represents a very considerable outlay on the part of the individual who is living on a very fine margin and to whom every shilling counts. This kind of expenditure is going to operate very harshly, particularly on people with very low incomes who have no money to spare. A woman who has to spend 10s. extra on a winter coat where the expenditure of that 10s. might make all the difference between buying a coat and not buying a coat, is not going to be impressed by the statement that the increase represents only one point in the cost of living. To her it is a real, tangible additional expenditure of so much money which she can ill afford.
That is why I take the view that, whether or not it is logical, this extra purchase tax is bound to have an effect on wage claims, particularly on those which have already been made, which are under consideration or which are on the point of being made. I think they will just turn the scale. I will mention one in particular—namely, the wage claim of the agricultural workers. The agricultural
188
workers are living on the bare borderline of subsistence, particularly those who are on the minimum wage—of whom there are a great many, though admittedly a large number are getting more than the minimum. But those who are on the minimum wage can ill afford even an extra shilling or two a week; and this will just turn the scale. If they had not a strong case before, the increased taxation will certainly have the effect of making their case very much stronger. I feel that it is going to be exceedingly difficult to resist the claims of the agricultural workers for more wages and of other workers in a similar position.
I would submit that the imposition of the purchase tax is both inequitable and ineffective in achieving the result that was anticipated. It is inequitable because it hits certain classes of people far more than others. I understand that one of the extraordinary effects of the new purchase tax is that if you buy a suit of clothes for £40 you are going to save money, compared with what it cost before the imposition of the new purchase tax whereas if you buy a suit for £10 or £20 you will have to pay more. It is going to be difficult to "explain that one away" I should welcome it if the noble Marquess would have a try at it and explain to the House why it is equitable to reduce taxation on higher priced goods and to increase it on lower priced goods, and in what way that helps the economy. How does it affect the problem of inflation? How is the problem of inflation relieved by putting the purchase tax on things that are made of material which is not imported? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the case that we import metal, that metal can be used for the manufacture of motor cars, and that it was better to make motor cars out of the imported metal than to make pots and pans and kettles and articles of that kind —a piece of reasoning which I do not quite understand, because people do not buy kettles as luxuries; they buy kettles only as they need them. But the Chancellor wants to discourage people from buying kettles and to induce manufacturers to make more motor cars for export. Well, it is an extraordinary piece of reasoning, and it is to the credit of this House that not a single speaker, apart from the noble Earl, has sought to justify it.

189
The noble Lord, Lord Brand, and one or two other speakers, asked what the Labour Party's alternative was in this connection, particularly on monetary control. I am very glad to be able to say that nobody in this House has dealt with this matter in any recriminatory spirit. The question was put quite fairly and we were asked what we would do. I myself take the view that we ought to use our powers of control not to control the child's bar of chocolate but to control imports. A large part of our difficulty at the moment arises because we are importing luxuries from hard currency countries—tobacco, films, silks, wines and a variety of things of that kind. Surely, if that is the difficulty, it is possible to exercise an additional measure of control over imports. We are already controlling the import of motor cars, of certain types of medical appliances, and so on. It only needs an extension to ensure that we are controlling the import of things which at the moment are not desirable, so that at this critical time we import only things that we really need as raw materials for exports or as the necessities of life. That would seem to me to be the sensible thing to do. If, in our own economy, we are finding that it is difficult to exist on our income, if we are wise we first discriminate by reducing on luxuries, and we do not make it more difficult to get the necessities of life. We cut out the luxuries—we smoke fewer cigarettes a day, we drink a little less alcohol, and so on. Surely the national economy is not so very different in principle from that.
Fundamentally, of course, all these things are, as a number of noble Lords said, solutions of symptoms; we are dealing not with the radical disease but with the symptoms. Here I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and others who have taken the same line, that the only solution of our problem is increased production. If we have increased production we can afford to consume what we are consuming and possibly more. The question is, what can we do to secure increased production? The noble Earl said that we must get a new outlook and, of course, I agree with him. But how do you bring about a new outlook? I think it is necessary for both sides of industry to get this new outlook. I think that mere exhortations to workers to work harder are not
190
going to get us anywhere. I think an example has to be ser; and workers are not encouraged to work harder when they find that employers or executives take two-and-a-half hours for lunch, knock off at half-past four and generally set a had example to them. This must apply all round, and whether we can find a solution by setting an example of that kind, or whether we shall proceed by way of incentive to the workers—a greater incentive, of course, based upon increased production—I do not know. What is necessary I am not able to say at this moment. I agree, however, that that is the fundamental long-term problem: how can we get increased production and how can we get it at a cost which will enable us to compete with other countries? That is the fundamental question we must deal with in the future.
I have little confidence that the measures which have been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be really effective. I do not for a moment suggest that he is not doing his best, but one must remember what he thought last April. He thought that by reducing taxation he was going to create an incentive, an inducement to people to work better and produce more. It did not have that result. Now he seems to be going to the opposite extreme: having found that reducing taxation is not effective, he is increasing taxation. I do not think either of these solutions is the real answer. The situation requires much more of that clear, courageous, and non-ideological thinking that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, referred to some months ago in the impressive speech he made in this House. We must forget all the ideologies of the past and see what we can do by getting together, by discussing things, possibly by novel methods to secure that increased production without which our economic situation will deteriorate. I welcome, therefore, as a first move, the meeting which is taking place with the trade union leaders, and I hope that there will be similar meetings with employers, because the suggestion fiat it is the trade union leaders who hold the key to the situation is, I think, not altogether accurate. I hope, at a ay rate, that the Government will he as energetic in finding the long-term solution as they have been in dealing with the short-term solution.
7.39 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in rising to reply to this debate on behalf of the Government, I must confess that I feel that trepidation which always afflicts me when I have the hardihood to intervene in an economic debate in this House, for I know very well that there are a great many of your Lordships who speak with far more authority on these questions than I can hope to do. Moreover, in the present case I am uneasily conscious that little remains to be said, after the speech of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place yesterday. That is clearly also the view of noble Lords who sit on the other side of the House, judging by the extremely mild and subdued attitude they have adopted this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said we were subdued, but that is nothing compared with what we saw on the other side of the House. But, in any case, my right honourable friend's speech was made in another place, and I think it is right that I should try to give some reply here, not only to comments of noble Lords in this House but also, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with a view to reviewing the debate, as we see it from these Benches.
We shall all agree that we have had a valuable debate and, what is more, a moderate one, a debate which, of course, has revolved entirely around the proposals which were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week for dealing with the financial situation. As might be expected, there have been fairly wide differences of opinion on both sides of the House about what ought to be done, but there have been no bitter attacks, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the atmosphere in the House has been admirable. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, hardly criticised Her Majesty's Government at all. He gave us an admirable exposition of what may be called orthodox economics. The only thing he appeared strongly to criticise was the purchase tax, and about that I propose to say a word or two later. Other measures have been criticised by noble Lords on both sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, painted a bleak picture of the catastrophic effects of these proposals on the standard of living of the ordinary man. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who
192
made a most admirable maiden speech, criticised fairly severely both the purchase tax and the profits tax. The noble Lords, Lord Cromer and Lord Coleraine, were critical about public expenditure and failure to reduce it further. But otherwise there has been no really serious criticism, and the debate, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree, has been adorned and greatly improved by a number of thoughtful and constructive speeches by some of the younger Peers. This I am sure everyone most warmly welcomes.
I am also happy that, in this House at any rate, there have been no personal recriminations. In a situation of this kind, as indeed in practically any situation, mud-slinging does not tend to elevate Parliament in the eyes of the thinking public. I certainly do not want to import heat into our discussions, and after that one extremely mild comment I should like to turn to less controversial ground and say that merely to indulge in mutual recrimination or to try to cast the whole blame for this situation on one Party or another seems to me totally to misread the very real problem with which we are all faced. In the past all Parties —the Party of noble Lords opposite and the Party to which I have the honour to belong—have put in the forefront of their aims the attainment of full employment. Now at last we have full employment. We have, indeed, "overflowing employment," for there are to-day more jobs than there are men to fill those jobs. We should all agree that in many ways that is an extremely happy situation. It means that everybody who wants it is in good work. It means, too, that the great mass of our working people are free from those anxieties which so heavily oppressed them in the past.
But in practice full employment has undoubtedly brought its own particular problems. The workers—the sellers of labour—like others engaged in selling their commodities, are at pains to get the best price they can, and that price is being paid. I am not, of course, complaining of that, but merely stating it as a fact. As a result, there is more money going into their pockets than ever before; and they are spending that money. The standard of living throughout the country is rising. They want things they were never able to afford before. And as what

193
are known nowadays as "the lower income brackets"—although as individuals they may be still less well-off than other sections of the community—in hulk represent a vast and growing proportion of the national income, the new influx of purchasing power they represent turns out to be something which our economy finds extreme difficulty in digesting. It could be, and has been, argued (the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said it this afternoon) that it is not personal consumption which is immediately responsible for the position which has made this autumn Budget necessary. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in his speech, the increase in personal consumption, though it is still increasing, has slowed up this year as compared with last. This particular situation is immediately due to an increase in investment by industry, both in fixed equipment and in rebuilding its depleted stocks. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but surely I am right in saying that the ultimate cause is the same in both these cases. The necessity for speeding up new equipment and replenishing stocks is due, to a considerable extent, to the increase in internal demand for consumption of goods, and this arises directly from those causes which I have just tried to describe.
No doubt this is, in one sense, what has been called a "crisis of prosperity"; but over-consumption can do almost as much harm as under-consumption. I remember I was told at school that King Henry I died from over-consumption of lampreys, and that King John died from over-consumption of peaches and new beer; and what is true of individuals is equally true of a country. Over-consumption leads (this is very elementary, I am afraid) to steadily increasing demands for higher wages to pay for the things which a higher standard of living entails; and those higher wages, unless accompanied by higher productivity, put up prices yet further, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, must stimulate a further demand for higher wages: and all this process is what we have come to call the vicious spiral. Eventually costs of production reach the height when they impair our power to compete in the markets of the world, on which our whole existence depends.
That is, in brief, the problem with which we are now faced. It is not mainly a problem of how much money a man
194
should receive for his work; it is the problem of what he should do with that money when he has gat it. It is a problem not so much of earning as of spending. If the dangerous pressure on labour and prices is to be avoided or brought to an end, he simply must not spend it all at once. That is, the cold hard fact. If he is tempted to do so, either he or someone else, sooner Dr later, must apply the brake, or encourage him to put on the brake himself. How that is to be done has been widely discussed in speeches this afternoon. In my view, which has not been altered by anything I have heard, there ale only two main ways. The first is to sop up spending power by taking away, by taxation, the surplus money a man has earned as soon as he gets it. The result there is that if it is spent by those who take it away (I mean the State) it is at any rate then spent on objects approved by people who are in a position to know. That is the policy which I have always understood noble Lords opposite to pursue. It is the policy which used to be epitomised by that graphic phrase, "The gentleman in Whitehall knows best." It is practically applied by such methods as budgeting for great surpluses, and imposing fairly rigid controls over what can be bought—how it can be bought, how much it is to cost and so on.
I am not going to say that there is nothing to be said for that policy; there are, no doubt, extremely strong arguments that can be adduced in favour of it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has adduced some to-night, and we have often heard them from the Labour Benches in the years I have been in this House. But the British people have never liked that policy. They have strongly and increasingly disapproved of a system under which they could not spend their money as they liked. That, as I understand it, is one of the main reasons why they have always disliked controls. That is a main reason why they returned the Conservative Party to power in 1951, and why they continued to return it at the last Election, for our Party, rightly or wrongly—I am trying to be as objective as I can—has always favoured the alternative policy of leaving to a much greater degree the final decisions D n such matters to the people themselves. We are by no means certain that "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best," even though for

195
the moment we may happen to be "the gentleman in Whitehall."
Moreover, we have always held strongly to the view that, unless democracy learns by practical experience what it wisely can do and what it cannot do, it will never be a really stable state of society. Our policy, therefore, has always aimed at a greater degree of individual liberty in this as in other matters. Personally, I have no regrets that this policy should have been put into operation by my Party during the last few years. No doubt all freedom, whatever kind of freedom it may be, involves certain risks, but if we are not prepared to take those risks it is better to have no freedom at all. I believe that we have been right to release the country from the straitjacket in which it has been for so long confined, first by the war and later, if I may say so, by the policy of the Government of noble Lords opposite. But perhaps it is not very surprising that, after such a long confinement, and under the additional impulse of full employment, the air of freedom has proved almost unduly exhilarating, so that wide sections of the working population have not exercised that measure of self-restraint which ordered freedom requires if it is to succeed.
It was for that reason that this spring—as has already been said this afternoon—my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took two main steps designed to curtail excessive ebullience and optimism on the part both of the producers and of the consumers. First of all, as we know, he put up the bank rate—a step which, as I understand from Lord Brand this afternoon, has already had an appreciable effect—and stiffened the terms governing hire purchase transactions. These were, as we know, responsible for a considerable proportion of the over-consumption. It is easy to say now that he ought to have done more then, but I have always understood that it is desirable to proceed with special caution in matters where the national credit is involved. It certainly appeared at that time that there was good reason to hope that these measures would be adequate to slow down the pace of capital investment and consumption. That was the view at that time. Noble Lords may criticise it now, but there is no doubt that it has become clear since
196
that the steps then taken were not enough to stem the strong current of spending.
A great deal has happened since then. Some of it could have been forecast, and some of it could not. There have been those great strikes, which have been referred to to-day and which cost millions of money, on issues often entirely unconnected with the economic conditions of the workers. Those strikes, as we know, did an appreciable amount of damage to our export trade. There have been increasing demands for higher wages designed further to raise the standard of life, but unaccompanied sometimes, I am afraid, by any necessary steps to raise production. With the rise in wages, what may be called the "spending spree" continued. The situation, as compared with what it had been in April, deteriorated again. The trade gap widened, and Her Majesty's Government—unlike, if I may say so, the Government of the noble Lords opposite—decided to act early to prevent a serious crisis arising.
That, simply, is, as we all know, the purpose of this Autumn Budget. It is not a case of our old friend "the gentleman in Whitehall" knowing best. It is not a case of taking away people's money and spending it for them. The purpose of this Budget, whether noble Lords approve it or not, is to make people think twice before spending their own money, while the situation readjusts itself. It is designed to relieve pressure; it is designed to promote restraint without undue pain. It is in that light, I suggest, that we have to examine the detailed provisions of the Budget. I am not going—if noble Lords will forgive me—at any great length into these things, because they have already been explained—or at any rate a good many of them have—by my noble friend, Lord Selkirk. Some increases have hardly been mentioned at all in the debate.
Housing, of course, is not strictly relevant to our main discussion to-day, but it was mentioned by Lord Balfour of Inchrye and also by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who pointed out—I thought very pertinently—that the Government's proposals represented a real reduction of Government spending. All I would wish to say about that matter this evening is that there seems to me to be an impression about that the result of these measures which the Government are taking will be to

197
close down altogether all building of houses by local authorities. That, certainly, is the impression which a certain number of the general public have got. But it is, of course, a complete illusion. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained, over 300,000 houses will be built this year, and upwards of that number next year. I should like to take this opportunity of relieving any anxieties which may exist on that score. I think that even noble Lords opposite would be quite happy with the figures which are going to be produced in the forthcoming year. I do not think I need say anything at this time about the proposals regarding borrowing by local authorities. That matter has already been dealt with in several speeches, and I think the House is quite clear about the position.
I should like now to say something about purchase tax. Purchase tax has occupied, I think, the major part of most of the speeches that have been made on both sides of the House. It has been criticised by a number of noble Lords in different parts of the House on very different grounds. There was the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who by his brilliant and extremely independent-minded maiden speech has shown us what a very valuable member of the House he is going to be. As I understood him, he did not think there ought to be any purchase tax at all. He was a "whole-hogger" in that respect.
LORD CONESFORD: I suggested that there should not have been an increase in taxation, and that eventually, as a substitute for the whole present scheme of purchase tax, there should be a general sales tax.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is against this particular purchase tax as now proposed. I understand that he would have liked it removed in its present form.
LORD CONESFORD: I did not mean that that particular alteration would have been possible in this Budget. It was a suggestion rather for the future.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So far as this Budget is concerned the noble Lord is happy about the purchase tax as it is?
LORD CONESFORD: Not this increase.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are getting very much nearer together than I thought we were when I got up. The impression I had was that if it were not for this tax, of which the noble Lord disapproves, the consumer would not spend the surplus money he had but would rather put it by; that he would buy now what he wanted to buy before, whether there was purchase tax or not. I do not know whether that was what the noble Lord meant, but that was the impression I gained from him.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I realise that I was brief, but the impression I meant to give—whether I gave it or not, I do not know—was that the other Government measures of which I wholly approve, namely, in regard to housing and local government finance, could have done the whole trick.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a perfectly defensible point of view hut, rightly or wrongly, I am afraid that it was not the point of view taken after very careful consideration by my right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer: he felt that some additional step must be taken. Though I do not know that my noble friend Lord Brand would entirely agree with that, he did say that he did not rule out the necessity for some such measure.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, I was not prepared to say straight out that it was unnecessary, because I did not know the circumstances sufficiently and I felt that the Chancellor might have good reason for putting on this tax.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, all these are matters of opinion—and very difficult matters indeed. But the Government thought it was necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, said he would prefer to cut down capital investment. That sounds very simple and attractive, as if it were a mere question of moving a lever to switch investment from one side to the other; but anybody who has been connected with industry will know that to try to cut down capital investment suddenly is not easy. Cutting capital investment is a slow job. It is very expensive, and can often be horribly cruel to the worl.e3rs involved. I

199
commend that thought to noble Lords. The Government view about purchase tax is that they must stop current consumption so far as they can, and to them purchase tax is the most convenient and simple way of doing that. My noble friend Lord Conesford does not accept that, and I am the last person who would wish to pontificate on the subject. The noble Lord speaks with great authority, but it is a view which has been accepted by Governments of various kinds over a number of years; and in the position in which we are now, where it is necessary to take immediate measures, even if they are only temporary measures, it seems to be the proper thing to do.
One criticism which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made was that the tax on household equipment was an unfair tax, an inequitable tax that weighed heavily on the working class budget. That was the argument he put forward. I can only remind him of what was said yesterday by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that the cost would work out at between 4d. and 5d. per household per week. He went on to add that the House should be aware that the weekly wages earned by adult male workers in industry have been increasing at the rate of 14s. every year since 1951; and that between April, 1954, and April, 1955, the increase was about £1 a week. I sympathise with the motives which led the noble Lords, Lord Pethick-Lawrence and Lord Silkin, to make this particular point. I realise what is in their minds, but if they will study these figures, I think they will realise that 4d. or 5d. a week is a very small sum compared to the large wage increases which have taken place. Fourteen shillings a year between 1951 and 1955 means an average increase of 56s. It will be seen that to the average family, even taking into account the increases which might have taken place in the cost of living, the 4d. or 5d. is not an excessive sum to ask them to pay.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, the weakness lies in concentrating on the average. The spending of 4d. or 5d. a week on the average is admittedly very little, but to a person who has to furnish a house, for example, it does not mean 4d. or 5d. more, it means pounds more. That is the hardship.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the other hand, it is difficult to differentiate in matters of this kind. Once you say that we must make exceptions for this, that and the other, it becomes almost impossible to do anything. What we must try to do, in trying to mop up this purchasing power, is to do it by overall increases and not by considering every individual case so that it will fall less heavily at any particular point. At any rate, that is the object with which it has been done.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess should understand the case that is being made from this side of the House. It is our case that this is a bad tax and a bad method of achieving the purpose which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, very properly, had in mind. My own point of view is that if there had to be a tax, a tax on luxuries would have been the proper thing, instead of a tax on necessities, which bears very hardly on people who must have them at particular moments in their lives.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know exactly what the noble Lord has in view when he says he wants a tax on luxuries. A great deal of the surplus spending at the present time is being done by people who cannot, by the nature of things, afford very great luxuries. I do not think that by his method the noble Lord would do any better than the Government—indeed, he would do very much worse than we are doing, though I realise the purpose for which he puts forward his proposal.
I should like now to say something about profits tax. It will only be a word, because this matter has already been covered by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I am not going to pretend to your Lordships that I regard dividends as a main cause of inflation: I do not think they are. Indeed, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade gave figures in another place which I think are conclusive in that respect. He said that since 1946 dividends have risen by only £280 million, while wages and salaries have risen by £2,900 million. Even so, dividends do make some contribution to the spending which has caused the present inflation, and Her Majesty's Government thought it unfair to exempt this source of income alone from measures taken in the Budget to curb that inflation. That was

201
the main reason for which the profits tax was included. On the general grounds that it is desirable to do not only what is fair but also that which appears to be fair, I believe that it was right to include an increase in profits tax in this particular Budget.
My noble friend Lord Conesford, who has had a wealth of experience in this matter which he gained at the Board of Trade, came out strongly against a tax on distributed profits. He said that it was unsound. He gave a number of reasons in support of his view, and he quoted in his aid a distinguished Royal Commission. I am certainly not going TO put my opinion against that of the noble Lord and the Royal Commission to-night. Indeed, the arguments that he put forward are most powerful and would probably command the general support of all of us at the right time. But I would ask him: Is this the right time? The most urgent need at the present moment is, as we all know, to check excessive dividends which contribute to inflation. If we were now to put a flat tax on distributed and undistributed profits, would that not be giving a comparative advantage to those businesses which have already been declaring large dividends, as against those businesses which have hitherto shown restraint? I think it would have that effect. and that is exactly the one thing that we are anxious to avoid. Therefore, though I would not, in principle, try to refute the arguments which noble Lords have put forward, I suggest to them that at the moment when this Budget is being introduced, this is probably the right way to do it.
The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, who made, I thought, a most interesting and constructive speech, said he had noticed that the proportion of Government expenditure to the gross national product had been reduced from 29 per cent. to 26 per cent., and he asked whether this arose from the fact (I do not want to misrepresent him) that Government expenditure was clown, or that the gross national product was up. I think that is the point he put.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My point was that it was not: right for the Government to claim credit for the decrease in the figure if it mainly arose out of the increase in the gross national product.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So far as I can understand it, the Govern-
202
ment expenditure is certainly not up—that is to say, real Government expenditure—but whether it is actually down I should not like to sty. I was interested to note that, having advanced to the attack on the question of Government expenditure, both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, who followed him, shied off when it came to making any suggestions of their own of how it should be done. The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, was quite frank about it and said it was a matter for the Government and not for him, and there may be some truth in that. But, at the same time, I suggest that it is not a matter on which critics of the Government can take a purely negative position. As I understand it, there are three main spheres, or sectors if you like, of Government expenditure: there is the service of debt—which I dc not imagine the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, would like to see touched—there is defence, and there are the social services. Those absorb by far the greater part of our Budgets nowadays. Unless he is willing to make drastic cuts in one or all of these, in my view there is no possibility of arty vast reduction in Government expenditure such as he seemed to have in mind. He did not say what he had in mind, and I am not going to ask him. What I have said does not, of course, mean that there should not be unremitting efforts on the part of the Government to keep down Government expenditure and wherever possible reduce it, and I hope the House will agree that the steps which are being taken in this Budget, both about housing subsidies and also the expenditure of local authorities, are steps in the right direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that, in his view, one of the difficulties of these proposals was that the financial controls which were envisaged by the Budget would act more harshly on nationalised industries than on private industry. All I can say is that I hardly think that past experience has shown that nationalised industries are severely penalised in comparison with private industry, and I do not believe that will be the case now.
There is one other point on which I should like to say a word or two—namely agriculture, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord De, La Warr, and by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. They both made a powerful plea for

203
consideration by the Government of the needs of the agricultural industry. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, asked what exactly the Chancellor of the Exchequer had meant by some remarks he had made on this subject in his Budget speech. I am afraid I cannot amplify the words of my right honourable friend this evening, but I realise fully the force of what the noble Lord, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said as to the desirability of clarification of the position. I will see that what they have said this afternoon is conveyed to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the meantime, they and the House well know that prices have already been fixed which will cover the whole of next year, and there is no question of any re-examination even for the following year until next February. In conclusion on this subject, I would say that, so far as I know, there is no question, in any case, of altering the policy which the Government have consistently followed of encouraging production and reducing imports. I hope that will give some comfort to the noble Lord. Lord Archibald. But, in any case, I will pass on what he has said.
Now I have done. In conclusion I would say only this. There have been, I think, some fairly wild things said about this Budget. Mr. Bevan, in a speech which he made, warned his audience that it heralded a deliberate attack on the Welfare State, though in fact, the great social services are not touched at all by these measures. Then the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, always hitherto moderate, to-day used words from which anyone who listened to him would get the impression that the whole working class was to be seriously penalised by what was being done, whereas, in fact, even after all these measures, the standard which they will enjoy, judged in terms of their incomes and what their incomes will buy, will compare favourably—and I say this in no controversial spirit—with what it was when the noble Lord and his colleagues were sitting on these Benches.
Here are some figures of consumers' expenditure during the last three years which come from the Statistical Abstract —I might say that they are all revalued at 1948 prices, so that they are all comparable with each other. The noble Lord,
204
Lord Grantchester, in his speech said that consumption was only up by 10 per cent. By 10 per cent. of what? That is an important point. I will just give the figures. In 1951 consumers' expenditure was £8,827 million; in 1952, when we were still suffering, if I may say so, from a hangover from the late Government, it went down to £8,738 million. In 1954 it had gone up to £9,467 million—that is, an increase of £640 million—and there is no reason to suppose that that will not continue. In the last twelve months wages have gone up 6 per cent. and the cost of living has risen by only 3 per cent.; and the total result of these Budget proposals, as has been mentioned, will be to raise the cost of living by only close on one point. I appreciate what was said about bewaring of averages: but there are always some people above the average and some people below the average, and that is a factor that every Government has to take into account. But that is not the picture which has been given of the situation which will exist after this Budget is brought into operation, and it really does not justify, I suggest, the fearful prophecies which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston.
Take another example. I read in Reynolds Newspaper—a paper with which noble Lords are no doubt familiar —an account of how a doctor who belongs to the Party of noble Lords opposite, and has the very appropriate name of Leff, said at a meeting of the Socialist Medical Association that the Budget would fill the hospitals; that the raising of rents would mean people could spend less on food. Well, my Lords, what is the use—I ask with all deference—or benefit to the country, of such exaggerated statements as that? The very responsible leaders of the Labour Party, of course, do not go nearly so far as that, and one would not expect them to. Their main charge seems to be that the April Budget, if it had been honest, should have done the things which the present Budget does, and that the April Budget was designed for one purpose and one purpose alone—to win the General Election. With all deference, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, I think, in any case quite incapable of the motives attributed to him, and it was not his Budget which won the Election. The reason we won, if noble Lords opposite will forgive my saying so,

205
was that the Labour Party, largely owing to their own internal squabbles, had made themselves so mistrusted that the country would not have them at any price.
LORD GREENHILL: That is inappropriate here.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think it is, because these things have been said.
LORD GREENHILL: Not here.
THE MARQUESS CF SALISBURY: In any case if we are now blamed—I think the noble Lord will agree with this—for not doing in April what we are doing now, the clear implication is that what we are doing now is right. I believe that, what. ever criticism anybody may have as to the details of the Budget, that is fundamentally true. I believe, too, that the country will come increasingly to think so and, what is more, will prefer a Government that is prepared to grasp the nettle, however painful it is, while there is yet time.
This is my last word, and here I would commend to your Lordships some wise words, I thought, which were spoken by my noble friend Lord De La Warr this evening. In a situation of this kind nothing that any Government can do will be effective without the co-operation of their fellow citizens. It is on their willingness to show their capacity for self-restraint—which is, as I have said, the very essence of ordered liberty—and on their capacity to increase our production that our ability to turn this awkward corner will depend. Here I should like to agree most strongly both with what was said by my noble friend Lord De La Warr and, in his closing passages, by the noble Lord, Lord Slain. It is therefore, I submit, the responsibility of every one of us in this House, to whatever Party he may belong, to continue to drum into the electorate the harsh economic facts with which we are all faced; and though we may differ as to the remedies—and that is natural in any free country—I hope that at any rate we shall all do that in the crucial years that lie ahead
8.24 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just sat down made some very deprecating remarks at the outset of his speech about his own capacity for taking part in this debate. I am quite sure that only a novice in this House could have been
206
misled by that modesty on the part of the noble Marquess, because those who have listened to him before, and those who have listened to him to-night, will bear me out in saying that he is in fact the most skilled debater we have in this House; and his knowledge of economics and finance is on a bigger scale than for one moment he ventures to suggest.
The noble Marquess has made a most attractive speech, and if the time, instead of being twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock, were twenty-five minutes past six o'clock, I should be tempted to enter into some answers to the Party points that he was pleased to make; but I have no intention of inflicting another speech in answer to him at this late hour. There is just one thing, however, that I should like to explain. When he said that I made only one small criticism of the Government, I think he went a little beyond the mark, because the whole purport of my speech 'has to show two things: first, that the remedies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was taking to stop inflation were utterly failing in their purpose; and, secondly, that the financial proposals of the two Budgets of the Chancellor were utterly unfair, and that because they would be regarded as unfair by the people they would have no effect in curing the inflation. If the noble Marquess is satisfied that that is not a very strong attack on the Government I am prepared to leave it at that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The last thing I wish to do is to misrepresent the noble Lord, and I can only say that I am sorry. It was the charm and endearingness of his manner which misled me.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There is one other thing I want to say, and that is in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, who has just gone. He said that he could not understand, whether it was a Labour or Conservative Government which was in power, why we were having these great difficulties in making our finances balance. He said that, in his opinion, the real fact was that the national industries were overspending, being reckless and wasteful, and that they ought to suffer the greatest curtailment. I want to deal briefly with those two points. Let me take the second point first. What are the national industries? They are the cull industry, the

207
gas industry, the transport industry and the electricity industry. The reason why they are being given a free rein to expand is because they are the basic industries of the country. We cannot get on unless we produce more and more of the services which those industries run. Any attempt to check the growth of those basic industries, to cut them down—I am not talking of the small point the Chancellor of the Exchequer made about the raw materials of the gas industry—would hamstring the whole structure of production in this country. So far as Lord Coleraine's proposal is concerned it seems to be entirely unwise, and any Government that adopted it would land the country in ruin.
The real reason—and we have to face up to it—is this. The situation which existed in this country before the two world wars has been totally altered by those two wars. The main fact is that we have spent our substance in defending the peace of the world. We had £4,000 million of securities in foreign countries, and that has practically all vanished. That is equivalent to an income of £200 million a year. Another major factor is that we had, once upon a time, raw materials which we sold abroad, and when you sell a raw material abroad the whole of the proceeds are profits and come to your advantage. The days are long gone since we had the wool industry; and in the coal industry in the old days we were selling 40 million or
208
50 million tons of coal. The whole of hat has gone, and last year and this year we are even having to import a net quantity of coal. That is a tremendous handicap to this country. The third factor is that, whereas in the early days of the Industrial Revolution we had almost a monopoly of making good machinery and machine-made goods, and our cotton trade was of immense importance, all those have gone and we have to depend upon the margin that we can make between the imported raw materials and the finished products to earn the whole balance of our living, to feed ourselves and to feed the mills of our industry. It is because those things have changed that we are confronted with this tremendous problem which so far—I agree, to this extent, with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine—neither the Government of which I was a member nor the Government of which the noble Marquess is so leading and luminant a figure has yet solved. There is the reason why we live so near the margin, and our reserves of gold and dollars are constantly giving us trouble. I do not want to deal with any other arguments that have been put forward. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at half-past eight o'clock.